Re: k&n air filter
walt peifer wrote:
> "razz" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>> I have to agree with Michael here on this one. If you are using it on a
>> stock engine, not really worth it. But I drag race, and use nothing but,
>> pretty much all the cars I race have them on their cars. I'm majorally
>> up, and have gained aprox 10hps with the filter, and have put some miles
>> the car with absolutely no affects to the motor. Have done a tear down to
>> freshen up the bottom end from time to time, and have found no dirt
>> particles or scoring on the cylinder walls, or the crank, or the journals
>> and bearings. So believe what you want to believe, I know they do no harm
>> when properly maintained. provided you are not using it in dusty
>> all the time.
>> "Michael Johnson, PE" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>>> To add a little balance to the K&N bashing I'll give my own personal,
>>> real world experience with K&N filters. I have had one installed in my
>>> '89 LX since it had 30,000 miles on the odometer. I now have 156,000
>>> hard driven miles on the car with the last 20,000 using a Kenne Bell
>>> supercharger. I still use the same K&N filter I installed at 30,000
>>> miles. There are multitudes of K&N users with my experience. BTW, the
>>> car uses no more oil than it did when new.
>>> All this "K&N is crap" stuff is just that, crap. EVERY FILTER lets dirt
>>> into the engine. IMO, a K&N filter will do no more harm to an engine
>>> than an OEM filter. While a K&N might only make 5 more hp on a
>>> basically stock engine, the real dividends come when the car is
>>> progressively modified. A car with a blower, head work, cam etc. will
>>> see an appreciable gain between an OEM and a K&N filter.
>>> Before anyone starts linking web sites with tests, keep in mind who may
>>> have done the tests and their motives. Also, there are many tests that
>>> are just plain unscientific and should be ignored. As for me, I have
>>> 100,000+ miles of personal experience to base my opinion on. Fact is
>>> that many of those that bash K&N products have ABSOLUTELY ZERO
>>> EXPERIENCE with them and have no idea whether their claims against K&N
>>> filter's performance is accurate or not.
>>> My personal experience makes me believe a K&N filter WILL NOT shorten
>>> the life of your engine if you change your oil as recommended for your
>>> driving conditions and generally keep your vehicle in a good state of
>>> maintenance and repair.
>>> Me wrote:
>>>> A giant rip-off. The only way it can add power is if your present air
>>>> cleaner system is restricting air flow. On most later model cars, this
>>>> not the case. Also, no matter what they tell you, it doesn't filter as
>>>> as a stock element. I don't have the site handy, but someone did an
>>>> comprehensive study and found the K&N did not filter as efficiently as
>>>> paper element air cleaner. I have never seen any kind of an
>>>> I have used these in two different cars.
>>>> "Michael price" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>>>>> i have a stock 99 gt. i have read where this air filter alone does add
>>>>> some HP. they cost around $50. anyone here use 1 and do they really
>>>>> a diffrence? mp
> on my bone stock 97 XR7 i took the damn thing off after about 3 months,
> could not stand the dam whistle. no noticable difference is the feel of the
> car stock to KN but gas milage did increase from 16 mpg average to 17.5 when
> i put the stock breather box back in place
Taking the stock air box out of newer cars isn't always the best choice.
Many times the air box, filter and intake tubing is designed to work
together for best performance. I still use the stock air filter box on
my '89 LX even with all the mods. It works fine with the K&N. My
advice it to either just swap the filter or replace the box, filter and
tubing with a quality engineered system. The fact you didn't use the
stock air box was likely the reason for the mileage drop not the K&N
filter. Had you used a K&N filter that fit the stock box the results
could have been different.