K&N's statement on their filters' ineffectiveness at filtering

[Zargon]

I see no reason to allow it when an OEM paper filter does the job better and costs far less, and requires no additional maintenance.

how do you figure?

so my wifes car has a k&n drop it

it was 32 bucks, vs ~16 for the OEM

10 bucks for the cleaning supplies that will clean god knows how many filters

changing the filter out, is maintenance

I clean/oil the filter annually, so 4 cleanings so far, at 42 bucks total, or 4 additional filters at 16 ea.....I'm already ahead

yes throck, everyone knows they let in more dirt, which you keep repeating over and over and over

is it enough to cause actual problems that will shorten the life of the car? you certainly have never proven that.

your one source you quoted was a a guy with pickup, was he offroading? driving on gravel alot?

was it a street only truck?

 

[JCH13]

Cleaning/replacing filters that often is just making work for yourself.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Bose should sue them for entering their area of expertise.

Apple as well

 

[LTC8K6]

how do you figure?

so my wifes car has a k&n drop it

it was 32 bucks, vs ~16 for the OEM

10 bucks for the cleaning supplies that will clean god knows how many filters

changing the filter out, is maintenance

I clean/oil the filter annually, so 4 cleanings so far, at 42 bucks total, or 4 additional filters at 16 ea.....I'm already ahead

yes throck, everyone knows they let in more dirt, which you keep repeating over and over and over

is it enough to cause actual problems that will shorten the life of the car? you certainly have never proven that.

your one source you quoted was a a guy with pickup, was he offroading? driving on gravel alot?

was it a street only truck?

14 bucks for the paper filter for my Jeep, changed at 2 year intervals, no other maintenance, and my MAF sensor is clean. I'm way ahead of you. And I'm using a better filter.

 

[Gillbot]

Yes actually I did.. the car is much more responsive. Why is that so hard to understand.

Looks like everyone else covered it for me. You are not going to feel the minimal difference, it's all in your head.

 

[7window]

how do you figure?

so my wifes car has a k&n drop it

it was 32 bucks, vs ~16 for the OEM

10 bucks for the cleaning supplies that will clean god knows how many filters

changing the filter out, is maintenance

I clean/oil the filter annually, so 4 cleanings so far, at 42 bucks total, or 4 additional filters at 16 ea.....I'm already ahead

yes throck, everyone knows they let in more dirt, which you keep repeating over and over and over

is it enough to cause actual problems that will shorten the life of the car? you certainly have never proven that.

your one source you quoted was a a guy with pickup, was he offroading? driving on gravel alot?

was it a street only truck?

I agree with this but I got tired of it too. Buy air filter (oem) on sale for life of car the cost comes out the same or sometimes less. Pop the clip and your done.

With or without k&n is all good.

 

[Elganja]

I've always used k&n style filters.. but not to replace a stock filter... more often then not, it's in conjunction with changing my intake which requires a cone style filter

i don't bother oiling them though... i just throw them out and buy a new one every year, since they are generally inexpensive to start with

 

[natto fire]

Yes actually I did.. the car is much more responsive. Why is that so hard to understand.

Presenting the placebo effect and a miscalibrated butt dyno is not hard to understand, it is just not something to present as a fact. Of course the car felt more responsive to you, but we are using logic to tell you there was either something really wrong with your original air filter, or more likely, it is all in your head.

This is a very common phenomenon in the car modding community so it is nothing to be ashamed of, just try to join the rest of us back in reality.

Previous owner had a K&N filter on my Jeep, which I promptly removed when I moved out to Nevada, which is a bit dustier than Ohio.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't understand how anyone can agree that the filters let in more dirt, but still use the filters anyway...when the paper filters don't let in that dirt, flow plenty of air, are cheaper, and require no maintenance, and won't coat your sensors in dirty oil...

But, they aren't my cars, and it's not my money...

 

[Gillbot]

I don't understand how anyone can agree that the filters let in more dirt, but still use the filters anyway...when the paper filters don't let in that dirt, flow plenty of air, are cheaper, and require no maintenance, and won't coat your sensors in dirty oil...

But, they aren't my cars, and it's not my money...

I don't use em. :thumbsup:

I've seen the ill effects of them on many friends' cars and ran a bunch of testing myself. Swore them all off long ago.

Presenting the placebo effect and a miscalibrated butt dyno is not hard to understand, it is just not something to present as a fact. Of course the car felt more responsive to you, but we are using logic to tell you there was either something really wrong with your original air filter, or more likely, it is all in your head.

This is a very common phenomenon in the car modding community so it is nothing to be ashamed of, just try to join the rest of us back in reality.

Previous owner had a K&N filter on my Jeep, which I promptly removed when I moved out to Nevada, which is a bit dustier than Ohio.

I put a cam, headers, tune and a few other parts on my old car and gained ~100WHP per the dyno and THAT I could feel on the street/butt dyno. My wife's old car we did a tune first, it only gained around 20WHP and I couldn't tell the difference bu neither could she. Then we tossed a cam and headers into the mix with another tune and it picked up another 65WHP for around 85 total WHP gain which she gladly noticed.

If you start with 40WHP and go to 60, yeah you might notice but going from 100 to 105, i'm sorry, you ain't going to feel it. Total BS.

 

[slag]

Cleaning/replacing filters that often is just making work for yourself.

That's a really funny statement coming from someone who can't leave a car stock and has to try to increase performance. I get it, I do the same, its fun to work on cars. It's not a chore to wash and lightly reoil a filter either, in fact, its kind of fun seeing how clean I can get it.

 

[slag]

My K & N came with the CAI on my truck. It's there, it works well enough for me, I see no reason to go buy a cone paper filter to replace this cone shaped K & N. I have the oil and wash from a previous K & N I had on my GTP so there's no cost associated there for at least a few more yearly cleaning cycles.

 

[LTC8K6]

My K & N came with the CAI on my truck. It's there, it works well enough for me, I see no reason to go buy a cone paper filter to replace this cone shaped K & N. I have the oil and wash from a previous K & N I had on my GTP so there's no cost associated there for at least a few more yearly cleaning cycles.

The question should be, if your truck had a paper cone filter, would you have replaced it with a K & N? And if so, why?

There won't be a reason to replace it that makes any sense except, "I wanted to.", which is fine with me, or "I put in a larger throttle body and wanted more air flow.", which is also fine with me.

Just don't make up hokey claims from the butt dyno or the fuel pump mileage guesser about a stock vehicle...

If the K & N was already there, it reads as if you are just resigned to the fact...

"Oh well, it was there, might as well put up with it..."

 

[natto fire]

I don't use em. :thumbsup:

I've seen the ill effects of them on many friends' cars and ran a bunch of testing myself. Swore them all off long ago.


I put a cam, headers, tune and a few other parts on my old car and gained ~100WHP per the dyno and THAT I could feel on the street/butt dyno. My wife's old car we did a tune first, it only gained around 20WHP and I couldn't tell the difference bu neither could she. Then we tossed a cam and headers into the mix with another tune and it picked up another 65WHP for around 85 total WHP gain which she gladly noticed.

If you start with 40WHP and go to 60, yeah you might notice but going from 100 to 105, i'm sorry, you ain't going to feel it. Total BS.

Oil upstream + hot-wire MAF = very likely headache. There is a reason manufacturers always purge the PCV downstream from the airflow sensor, unless you count MAP sensing setups.

Cam counts as more than bolt-ons still, right? The dynamometer objectively backed up what you felt, and that is what matters when dispensing advice. Throttle response is more subjective, but the point I was trying to make is that people will do the most simple things to their cars and claim to feel power improvements. I used to be in the "Honda tuner" crowd back in '01-'05, and heard weird tales of people feeling the power when they removed their power steering belt, or putting on a cat back. I never rode with these people, but know I would never feel what they were describing when I had been in cars making 150+HP over stock, especially with the much needed low end torque forced induction brought to these low displacement 4 cylinders.

You were probably a gearhead before I could even spell "gear" so my intent is not to lecture, just that it is good to be critical of manufacturer claims as they are out to sell their product above all. There are plenty of aftermarket manufacturers that align their desire to make profit nicely with the desire of it's customers to make power. That does not always happen, and plenty of gimmick junk has come and gone. There are also plenty of people that will talk up or shy away from speaking bad of a purchase they made to preserve their ego.

 

[Gillbot]

Oil upstream + hot-wire MAF = very likely headache. There is a reason manufacturers always purge the PCV downstream from the airflow sensor, unless you count MAP sensing setups.

Cam counts as more than bolt-ons still, right? The dynamometer objectively backed up what you felt, and that is what matters when dispensing advice. Throttle response is more subjective, but the point I was trying to make is that people will do the most simple things to their cars and claim to feel power improvements. I used to be in the "Honda tuner" crowd back in '01-'05, and heard weird tales of people feeling the power when they removed their power steering belt, or putting on a cat back. I never rode with these people, but know I would never feel what they were describing when I had been in cars making 150+HP over stock, especially with the much needed low end torque forced induction brought to these low displacement 4 cylinders.

You were probably a gearhead before I could even spell "gear" so my intent is not to lecture, just that it is good to be critical of manufacturer claims as they are out to sell their product above all. There are plenty of aftermarket manufacturers that align their desire to make profit nicely with the desire of it's customers to make power. That does not always happen, and plenty of gimmick junk has come and gone. There are also plenty of people that will talk up or shy away from speaking bad of a purchase they made to preserve their ego.

My point is simply that the minimal gains advertized by adding these filters cannot be "felt" the way people claim they can unless there is a major problem before the installation.

You can dyno a car back to back on a dyno without changing a single thing and get swings of more than the claimed gains on these filters. If the dyno can swing that much between runs, it's VERY unlikely one would feel that minimal difference in their ass while driving.

 

[Gillbot]

and i'm not that old....

NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!

 

[natto fire]

My point is simply that the minimal gains advertized by adding these filters cannot be "felt" the way people claim they can unless there is a major problem before the installation.

You can dyno a car back to back on a dyno without changing a single thing and get swings of more than the claimed gains on these filters. If the dyno can swing that much between runs, it's VERY unlikely one would feel that minimal difference in their ass while driving.

So we have the same point, in spirit?

I was born in '82, which I think the '80s had some interesting ideas in cars, although they were mostly poorly executed.

 

[phucheneh]

I should have taken pictures of the stock filter I just took out of my car at ~25k. It was not even bad enough to be at the typical 'hey, while you're in for an oil change, you could use a new air filter' level. I.e. someone honest would have hesitated to recommend it in their courtesy inspection. Most of the cars I see with notable crud accumulation on the filters probably have a solid 30-40k on them.

~94% (versus over 99) filtering efficiency and a possibly fouled MAF is worth it to save, at best, maybe $30 over 100k+ miles? And that's assuming you pay a shop the $20 or whatever to change the filter out. If you buy them yourself for 10, you 'save' nothing.

Will the lesser effiency actually harm your engine? Probably not. But I don't see K&N doing any testing to prove it. Why would anyone bother with those dumbass 'it wasn't broke so I fixed it' filters?

 

[JCH13]

That's a really funny statement coming from someone who can't leave a car stock and has to try to increase performance. I get it, I do the same, its fun to work on cars. It's not a chore to wash and lightly reoil a filter either, in fact, its kind of fun seeing how clean I can get it.

I do like working on cars to improve their performance, but:

1) K&N filters don't improve performance, they claim 1-4 hp, which is nothing
2) Cleaning a filter every 3 months simply increases the risk that something will get screwed up and eats up time that could be spent doing other things. K&N says to inspect every 25k miles and clean every 50k-100k. What you're doing is akin to changing oil every 500 miles.

If it makes you happy, so be it, go ahead and clean your K&N filters every 3 months. I do not consider basic maintenance on a car to be fun though, it's just a chore.

 

[slag]

The question should be, if your truck had a paper cone filter, would you have replaced it with a K & N? And if so, why?

There won't be a reason to replace it that makes any sense except, "I wanted to.", which is fine with me, or "I put in a larger throttle body and wanted more air flow.", which is also fine with me.

Just don't make up hokey claims from the butt dyno or the fuel pump mileage guesser about a stock vehicle...

If the K & N was already there, it reads as if you are just resigned to the fact...

"Oh well, it was there, might as well put up with it..."

Had it come with a stock airbox, that is what would still be on it. I wouldn't change to a K & N filter, no, but its there and I don't have the stock airbox, so I just live with it.

 

[Gillbot]

So we have the same point, in spirit?

I was born in '82, which I think the '80s had some interesting ideas in cars, although they were mostly poorly executed.

Pretty much, and i'm only 6 years older than you.

I should have taken pictures of the stock filter I just took out of my car at ~25k. It was not even bad enough to be at the typical 'hey, while you're in for an oil change, you could use a new air filter' level. I.e. someone honest would have hesitated to recommend it in their courtesy inspection. Most of the cars I see with notable crud accumulation on the filters probably have a solid 30-40k on them.

~94% (versus over 99) filtering efficiency and a possibly fouled MAF is worth it to save, at best, maybe $30 over 100k+ miles? And that's assuming you pay a shop the $20 or whatever to change the filter out. If you buy them yourself for 10, you 'save' nothing.

Will the lesser effiency actually harm your engine? Probably not. But I don't see K&N doing any testing to prove it. Why would anyone bother with those dumbass 'it wasn't broke so I fixed it' filters?

I can't believe i'm going to agree with you, but here it is! :thumbsup:

Had it come with a stock airbox, that is what would still be on it. I wouldn't change to a K & N filter, no, but its there and I don't have the stock airbox, so I just live with it.

They make paper cone filters too. It's worth it to switch over. I've done testing and the amount of dirt the K&N can allow through is appalling. As said above, will it destroy your engine? Hard to call, but if the paper flows well enough and filters better, why risk it?

 

[Zenmervolt]

As I've said before, the issue isn't that K&N filters are somehow "junk" or that they'll grenade your engine. Hell, in most areas you could probably run without any air filter at all and be OK for the 100,000 miles or so that most people keep a car these days.

The problem is that you just plain don't get power gains from a K&N on a stock engine. Sure, if you're running a bunch of modifications to make the engine flow more air then you need a bigger filter, and a non-drop-in K&N may fit the bill there. But that's an entirely different situation. And, regardless, more flow/less resistance means less filtration. The amount you sacrifice may not be important but it's just plain shady business on K&N's part to claim otherwise.

My biggest beef with K&N isn't the product itself, it's the shady as all hell marketing tactics they use (including the time a K&N rep signed up here under a false name to bad-mouth anyone who didn't like their product).

ZV

 

[Meghan54]

As I've said before, the issue isn't that K&N filters are somehow "junk" or that they'll grenade your engine. Hell, in most areas you could probably run without any air filter at all and be OK for the 100,000 miles or so that most people keep a car these days.

The problem is that you just plain don't get power gains from a K&N on a stock engine. Sure, if you're running a bunch of modifications to make the engine flow more air then you need a bigger filter, and a non-drop-in K&N may fit the bill there. But that's an entirely different situation. And, regardless, more flow/less resistance means less filtration. The amount you sacrifice may not be important but it's just plain shady business on K&N's part to claim otherwise.

My biggest beef with K&N isn't the product itself, it's the shady as all hell marketing tactics they use (including the time a K&N rep signed up here under a false name to bad-mouth anyone who didn't like their product).

ZV

AMEN to all that!

And when you see K&N filters in racing, they're always covered with a foam prefilter, esp. the off road racing. Wonder why they bother with that if the filter does so well?

 

[Zargon]

As I've said before, the issue isn't that K&N filters are somehow "junk" or that they'll grenade your engine. Hell, in most areas you could probably run without any air filter at all and be OK for the 100,000 miles or so that most people keep a car these days.

The problem is that you just plain don't get power gains from a K&N on a stock engine. Sure, if you're running a bunch of modifications to make the engine flow more air then you need a bigger filter, and a non-drop-in K&N may fit the bill there. But that's an entirely different situation. And, regardless, more flow/less resistance means less filtration. The amount you sacrifice may not be important but it's just plain shady business on K&N's part to claim otherwise.

My biggest beef with K&N isn't the product itself, it's the shady as all hell marketing tactics they use (including the time a K&N rep signed up here under a false name to bad-mouth anyone who didn't like their product).

ZV

pre-kiddo I used to actually track MPG on the vehicles. I did see a ~7% increase in observed MPG in my wifes car. the K&N went on after the first few thousand miles, so some of that is likely due to the engine still breaking in.

but at this point I've saved a few dollars on the K&N and every year I save a few more.

no argument that the gains marketing is utter BS.

but everyone does it, do you not use borla magnaflow ETC who all claim 20% gains from their cat back exhaust systems?

 

[7window]

pre-kiddo I used to actually track MPG on the vehicles. I did see a ~7% increase in observed MPG in my wifes car. the K&N went on after the first few thousand miles, so some of that is likely due to the engine still breaking in.

but at this point I've saved a few dollars on the K&N and every year I save a few more.

no argument that the gains marketing is utter BS.

but everyone does it, do you not use borla magnaflow ETC who all claim 20% gains from their cat back exhaust systems?

yup k & n is very very little gain . Now the exhaust is another matter. You can get real gain, not significant but more measurable than k&N. People have been doing exhaust longer than K & N.