Ford Forums banner

k&n air filter

3K views 26 replies 0 participants last post by  Me 
G
#1 ·
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 make
a diffrence? mp
 
G
#2 ·
Michael price wrote:
> 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 make
> a diffrence? mp


OMG!!! You've started it now! Let the games begin. :)
 
G
#3 ·
michaelvprice@webtv.net (Michael price) wrote in news:10206-432E270E-786
@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net:

> 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 make
> a diffrence? mp
>


Maybe a couple... but only noticable in the same way as a good
wash/wax/detail job.

IOW, all in yer head.
 
G
#4 ·
Michael price wrote:
> 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 make
> a diffrence? mp
>


The difference isn't really noticible. And that "extra" HP is at the
expense of letting more dirt into your engine and possibly contaminating
your MAF with the filter oil. If you'll google a bit, you can find a
study comparing amount of particulates allowed to pass in a test of
various filters. If I recall correctly, the K&N filter allowed 3-4
times the amount of particulates through when compared to a stock paper
filter.

Cheers,
 
G
#5 ·
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 is
not the case. Also, no matter what they tell you, it doesn't filter as well
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 a
paper element air cleaner. I have never seen any kind of an improvement, and
I have used these in two different cars.


"Michael price" <michaelvprice@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10206-432E270E-786@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
>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 make
> a diffrence? mp
>
 
G
#6 ·
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 is
> not the case. Also, no matter what they tell you, it doesn't filter as well
> 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 a
> paper element air cleaner. I have never seen any kind of an improvement, and
> I have used these in two different cars.
>
>
> "Michael price" <michaelvprice@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:10206-432E270E-786@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
>> 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 make
>> a diffrence? mp
 
G
#7 ·
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, and
pretty much all the cars I race have them on their cars. I'm majorally moded
up, and have gained aprox 10hps with the filter, and have put some miles on
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 conditions
all the time.
"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
news:EoOdnbs9udAlbbPeRVn-gw@giganews.com...
> 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

is
> > not the case. Also, no matter what they tell you, it doesn't filter as

well
> > 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 a
> > paper element air cleaner. I have never seen any kind of an improvement,

and
> > I have used these in two different cars.
> >
> >
> > "Michael price" <michaelvprice@webtv.net> wrote in message
> > news:10206-432E270E-786@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
> >> 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

make
> >> a diffrence? mp

>
 
G
#8 ·
"razz" <razz@mts.net> wrote in message
news:9OCXe.4449$qP3.46858@news1.mts.net...
>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,
> and
> pretty much all the cars I race have them on their cars. I'm majorally
> moded
> up, and have gained aprox 10hps with the filter, and have put some miles
> on
> 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
> conditions
> all the time.
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:EoOdnbs9udAlbbPeRVn-gw@giganews.com...
>> 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

> is
>> > not the case. Also, no matter what they tell you, it doesn't filter as

> well
>> > 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
>> > a
>> > paper element air cleaner. I have never seen any kind of an
>> > improvement,

> and
>> > I have used these in two different cars.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Michael price" <michaelvprice@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> > news:10206-432E270E-786@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
>> >> 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

> make
>> >> 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
 
G
#9 ·
I did not say that this filter would shorten the life of an engine or do any
harm. If taking issue with their increase horsepower claims is "K&N
bashing", guilty as charged. In there zeal to sell product, they make claims
that can not be proven outside of their own "testing." It seems to me the
term "Filtercharger" implies that the filter will increase air flow.
Also, I wasn't talking about a racing application. Having been in the
industry for 20 plus years, attended multiple SEMA shows as a Performance
Warehouse Industry buyer, I know all about the product. I bought the line
direct when they first started selling filters for automotive applications.
My SHO, 1965 GT-350 Shelby and my GS430 Lexus all have them. I stand by my
original statement. If your present air filter is restrictive, you may gain
power with a K&N, but the filter does not magically add power.
Thanks
Bill
Former NHRA Super Stock Eliminator National Record Holder.

"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
news:EoOdnbs9udAlbbPeRVn-gw@giganews.com...
> 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 is
>> not the case. Also, no matter what they tell you, it doesn't filter as
>> well 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 a
>> paper element air cleaner. I have never seen any kind of an improvement,
>> and I have used these in two different cars.
>>
>>
>> "Michael price" <michaelvprice@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:10206-432E270E-786@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
>>> 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 make
>>> a diffrence? mp

>
 
G
#10 ·
walt peifer wrote:
> "razz" <razz@mts.net> wrote in message
> news:9OCXe.4449$qP3.46858@news1.mts.net...
>> 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,
>> and
>> pretty much all the cars I race have them on their cars. I'm majorally
>> moded
>> up, and have gained aprox 10hps with the filter, and have put some miles
>> on
>> 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
>> conditions
>> all the time.
>> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
>> news:EoOdnbs9udAlbbPeRVn-gw@giganews.com...
>>> 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

>> is
>>>> not the case. Also, no matter what they tell you, it doesn't filter as

>> well
>>>> 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
>>>> a
>>>> paper element air cleaner. I have never seen any kind of an
>>>> improvement,

>> and
>>>> I have used these in two different cars.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Michael price" <michaelvprice@webtv.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:10206-432E270E-786@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
>>>>> 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

>> make
>>>>> 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.
 
G
#11 ·
First off, K&N air filters aren't "a giant ripoff" as you state. They
do flow more air than most OEM filters they replace and they can be
cleaned and reused thus saving money on purchasing new filters. I
haven't bought a new air filter for my Mustang in 14 years. The K&N has
more than paid for itself.

EVERY after market performance company exaggerates the hp/torque gains
for their products. Most times these figures are based on a heavily
modified engine that needs good air flow to maximize hp. On stock
Mustangs there are typically modest gains (3-5 hp) from using a K&N
filter. Whether it is enough to feel the difference or lower ET's, I
doubt it.

BTW, I wasn't picking on you in particular. Periodically these threads
start and people make claims that using K&N filters harm your engine by
letting too much dirt pass. I know of too many high mileage engines
(mine being one) using K&Ns for 100,000+ miles for this to be true. I'm
just trying to provide some balance to the thread.

Me wrote:
> I did not say that this filter would shorten the life of an engine or do any
> harm. If taking issue with their increase horsepower claims is "K&N
> bashing", guilty as charged. In there zeal to sell product, they make claims
> that can not be proven outside of their own "testing." It seems to me the
> term "Filtercharger" implies that the filter will increase air flow.
> Also, I wasn't talking about a racing application. Having been in the
> industry for 20 plus years, attended multiple SEMA shows as a Performance
> Warehouse Industry buyer, I know all about the product. I bought the line
> direct when they first started selling filters for automotive applications.
> My SHO, 1965 GT-350 Shelby and my GS430 Lexus all have them. I stand by my
> original statement. If your present air filter is restrictive, you may gain
> power with a K&N, but the filter does not magically add power.
> Thanks
> Bill
> Former NHRA Super Stock Eliminator National Record Holder.
>
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:EoOdnbs9udAlbbPeRVn-gw@giganews.com...
>> 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 is
>>> not the case. Also, no matter what they tell you, it doesn't filter as
>>> well 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 a
>>> paper element air cleaner. I have never seen any kind of an improvement,
>>> and I have used these in two different cars.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Michael price" <michaelvprice@webtv.net> wrote in message
>>> news:10206-432E270E-786@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
>>>> 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 make
>>>> a diffrence? mp

>
>
 
G
#12 ·
"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in
news:lY6dnXhcUaRR2LLeRVn-pg@giganews.com:

> First off, K&N air filters aren't "a giant ripoff" as you state.
> They do flow more air than most OEM filters they replace and they can
> be cleaned and reused thus saving money on purchasing new filters. I
> haven't bought a new air filter for my Mustang in 14 years. The K&N
> has more than paid for itself.
>
> EVERY after market performance company exaggerates the hp/torque
> gains for their products. Most times these figures are based on a
> heavily modified engine that needs good air flow to maximize hp. On
> stock Mustangs there are typically modest gains (3-5 hp) from using a
> K&N filter. Whether it is enough to feel the difference or lower
> ET's, I doubt it.
>
> BTW, I wasn't picking on you in particular. Periodically these
> threads start and people make claims that using K&N filters harm your
> engine by letting too much dirt pass. I know of too many high
> mileage engines (mine being one) using K&Ns for 100,000+ miles for
> this to be true. I'm just trying to provide some balance to the
> thread.


Mine's another one. Been using it for I don't know how many years and
I've got about 145k on the clock. Oiled it once about 4 years ago.
 
G
#13 ·
"Ritz" <ritz@mordor.net> wrote in message
news:%EwXe.11769$zN6.9215@fe10.lga...
> Michael price wrote:
>> 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 make
>> a diffrence? mp
>>

>
>If you'll google a bit, you can find a study comparing amount of
>particulates allowed to pass in a test of various filters. If I recall
>correctly, the K&N filter allowed 3-4 times the amount of particulates
>through when compared to a stock paper filter.


http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm

There it is...
--
Scott W.
'66 HCS Mustang 289
'68 Ranchero 500 302
'69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W
ThunderSnake #57
http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/
 
G
#15 ·
Your experience is just that... your experience. It is NOT "everyman"
experience. Where I live, the red clay dust will kill a K&N equipped motor
in extremely short order. This stuff breaks down as fine as confectioners
sugar and can hang in still air for nearly an hour. The conditions where you
live may vary greatly from what I see out my back door. And this is one
thing that we MUST remember.

Let's turn our discussion to service intervals.... it is well known that the
more dust a K&N collects, the "better" they filter. And they filter better
because air flow is becoming restricted compared to freshly serviced. The
only safe way to increase air flow safely is to retain the small micron
capability of a paper filter but increase the effective surface area.

There are many instances of those using K&N filters that haven't seen any
identifiable concerns..... My experience shows diesel engines (at $20,000 a
pop) totally wasted due to the use of inappropriate filtering media.

You're "extensive testing" involves one vehicle and a limited operating
demographic.... tunnel vision at it's best.... If I am to err in my
recommendations, I will err on the side of sound judgement. I, on the other
habd, haven't done one lick of testing..... all I have to do is look into
the intact duct and see the trail of death leading to the engine inlet to
know that these types of things are overhyped and for some strange reason
have escaped the fate of the Tornado and fuel line magnets....

This NG is a global kind of a thing and includes areas that, quite
obviously, haven't been considered. To imagine that those things that apply
to one area apply to all, is shortsighted in the least.
 
G
#16 ·
66 6F HCS wrote:
> "Ritz" <ritz@mordor.net> wrote in message
> news:%EwXe.11769$zN6.9215@fe10.lga...
>> Michael price wrote:
>>> 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 make
>>> a diffrence? mp
>>>

>> If you'll google a bit, you can find a study comparing amount of
>> particulates allowed to pass in a test of various filters. If I recall
>> correctly, the K&N filter allowed 3-4 times the amount of particulates
>> through when compared to a stock paper filter.

>
> http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm
>
> There it is...


I have visited this site before and find the test interesting but there
are many flaws in it. He doesn't weigh the 2nd filters before or after
use or analyze the particulates that are on the medium. All he uses to
determine filtering ability is the color of the patch. Since the K&N
filter is oiled it is quite possible the particles pick up some oil and
have a darker color. Also, the oil might make the sample weigh more if
he would have bothered to weigh them.

This test doesn't prove anything regarding engine longevity either. It
is possible that the particulate matter is not of sufficient size or
quantity to cause cylinder wall scoring or excessive bearing wear. I
suspect if K&N filters were too porous, and therefore caused premature
engine wear, then they would have been sued into bankruptcy by now.
 
G
#17 ·
Joe wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in
> news:lY6dnXhcUaRR2LLeRVn-pg@giganews.com:
>
>> First off, K&N air filters aren't "a giant ripoff" as you state.
>> They do flow more air than most OEM filters they replace and they can
>> be cleaned and reused thus saving money on purchasing new filters. I
>> haven't bought a new air filter for my Mustang in 14 years. The K&N
>> has more than paid for itself.
>>
>> EVERY after market performance company exaggerates the hp/torque
>> gains for their products. Most times these figures are based on a
>> heavily modified engine that needs good air flow to maximize hp. On
>> stock Mustangs there are typically modest gains (3-5 hp) from using a
>> K&N filter. Whether it is enough to feel the difference or lower
>> ET's, I doubt it.
>>
>> BTW, I wasn't picking on you in particular. Periodically these
>> threads start and people make claims that using K&N filters harm your
>> engine by letting too much dirt pass. I know of too many high
>> mileage engines (mine being one) using K&Ns for 100,000+ miles for
>> this to be true. I'm just trying to provide some balance to the
>> thread.

>
> Mine's another one. Been using it for I don't know how many years and
> I've got about 145k on the clock. Oiled it once about 4 years ago.


Same here regarding cleaning and oiling. I bet I've cleaned it less
than half a dozen times in 14 years.
 
G
#18 ·
wabbitslayer wrote:
> I dunno about the filter itself, but the sticker that came with mine added
> 50hp...at the wheels!
> Wheeee!


As long as you think it added 50 horsepower does it really matter if it
didn't? ;)
 
G
#19 ·
Jim Warman wrote:
> Your experience is just that... your experience. It is NOT "everyman"
> experience. Where I live, the red clay dust will kill a K&N equipped motor
> in extremely short order. This stuff breaks down as fine as confectioners
> sugar and can hang in still air for nearly an hour. The conditions where you
> live may vary greatly from what I see out my back door. And this is one
> thing that we MUST remember.


I would say my experience is typical for most users here in the USA with
the exception of some dry dusty areas. If I drove miles of dirt roads
every day then I would probably put more thought into the filters I use
for both oil and air.

> Let's turn our discussion to service intervals.... it is well known that the
> more dust a K&N collects, the "better" they filter. And they filter better
> because air flow is becoming restricted compared to freshly serviced. The
> only safe way to increase air flow safely is to retain the small micron
> capability of a paper filter but increase the effective surface area.
>
> There are many instances of those using K&N filters that haven't seen any
> identifiable concerns..... My experience shows diesel engines (at $20,000 a
> pop) totally wasted due to the use of inappropriate filtering media.


I'm only speaking on the use of K&N filters in passenger cars and light
trucks that mostly travel paved roads. When you talk about diesel
engines in long haul trucks or mining vehicles etc. I'm sure there are
other things to consider for a variety of maintenance concerns.

> You're "extensive testing" involves one vehicle and a limited operating
> demographic.... tunnel vision at it's best.... If I am to err in my


My "extensive testing" has been repeated by multitudes of others with
the same results. IMO, I am far from a limited operating demographic
and I'm definitely not suffering from "tunnel vision" as there are
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that have used K&N filters with
absolutely no negative effects on their engines.

> recommendations, I will err on the side of sound judgement. I, on the other
> habd, haven't done one lick of testing..... all I have to do is look into
> the intact duct and see the trail of death leading to the engine inlet to
> know that these types of things are overhyped and for some strange reason
> have escaped the fate of the Tornado and fuel line magnets....


They have escaped the fate of the Tornado and fuel line magnets because
they perform as advertised. They flow better than OEM filters, they can
conceivably last a million miles , they result in more hp as compared to
OEM filters and using one will not put your engine at risk appreciably
more, if any more, than an OEM filter for the overwhelming majority of
passenger cars/light trucks on the road. The biggest problem I had with
using the K&N was a result of over oiling the filter. The excess oil
would coat the MAF sensor. I cleaned it and then used the recommended
amount of oil on the filter and the problem was solved. It was my fault
and not an inherent flaw in the filter design.

> This NG is a global kind of a thing and includes areas that, quite
> obviously, haven't been considered. To imagine that those things that apply
> to one area apply to all, is shortsighted in the least.


Well, I put some burden on the user to know that their driving
conditions might warrant them to consider alternative filters, oil, etc.
If someone thinks the advice they read here can apply to long haul
trucks, mining equipment, earth moving equipment etc. is just plain
stupid, IMHO. Fact is almost every passenger car/light truck that
drives predominately paved roads could use a K&N filter with no side
effects or any meaningful reduction of engine longevity. I laugh at
these air filter threads because people act like they are going to get
500,000 miles out of their vehicles and if they use a K&N they might
only get 480,000 miles. The reality is the overwhelming majority of
these cars will have a date with the car crusher before it sees 200,000
miles or less. For the large majority of us there are better things to
worry over than whether a K&N filter will trash your engine.
 
G
#20 ·
Your final statement pretty well sums it up, Michael but the "more
horsepower" myth will forever perpetuate.

I'm sure that you are aware that the gasoline engine produces far more
horsepower than is needed for *most* driving conditions. If, indeed, the K&N
offers more power (which would come at extreme high rpm only), adding
horsepower at cruise is an exercise in futility. I'm reminded of another
thread, a long, long time ago where a nitrous user wanted to add NOs at half
throttle for more power..... he thought my suggestion that he press down on
the pedal was "odd".

While a properly amintained K&N (or similar) filter may save someone a few
bucks over the life of the vehicle, the opportunity for advanced engine wear
exists... the inconvenience of servicing the filter exists.... the
"mumbo-jumbo" in the K&N FAQ exists..... Why someone would choose this sort
of filter media for a daily driver is beyond me.... for a race car, a flame
arrestor and intake shaper (no, not a Tornado) with no air filter will do
the deed.

As ever, this is one subject that the only thing we can agree on is to
disagree.


"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
news:Y5udnfHGoaB7G7LeRVn-1w@giganews.com...
> Jim Warman wrote:
> > Your experience is just that... your experience. It is NOT "everyman"
> > experience. Where I live, the red clay dust will kill a K&N equipped

motor
> > in extremely short order. This stuff breaks down as fine as

confectioners
> > sugar and can hang in still air for nearly an hour. The conditions where

you
> > live may vary greatly from what I see out my back door. And this is one
> > thing that we MUST remember.

>
> I would say my experience is typical for most users here in the USA with
> the exception of some dry dusty areas. If I drove miles of dirt roads
> every day then I would probably put more thought into the filters I use
> for both oil and air.
>
> > Let's turn our discussion to service intervals.... it is well known that

the
> > more dust a K&N collects, the "better" they filter. And they filter

better
> > because air flow is becoming restricted compared to freshly serviced.

The
> > only safe way to increase air flow safely is to retain the small micron
> > capability of a paper filter but increase the effective surface area.
> >
> > There are many instances of those using K&N filters that haven't seen

any
> > identifiable concerns..... My experience shows diesel engines (at

$20,000 a
> > pop) totally wasted due to the use of inappropriate filtering media.

>
> I'm only speaking on the use of K&N filters in passenger cars and light
> trucks that mostly travel paved roads. When you talk about diesel
> engines in long haul trucks or mining vehicles etc. I'm sure there are
> other things to consider for a variety of maintenance concerns.
>
> > You're "extensive testing" involves one vehicle and a limited operating
> > demographic.... tunnel vision at it's best.... If I am to err in my

>
> My "extensive testing" has been repeated by multitudes of others with
> the same results. IMO, I am far from a limited operating demographic
> and I'm definitely not suffering from "tunnel vision" as there are
> hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that have used K&N filters with
> absolutely no negative effects on their engines.
>
> > recommendations, I will err on the side of sound judgement. I, on the

other
> > habd, haven't done one lick of testing..... all I have to do is look

into
> > the intact duct and see the trail of death leading to the engine inlet

to
> > know that these types of things are overhyped and for some strange

reason
> > have escaped the fate of the Tornado and fuel line magnets....

>
> They have escaped the fate of the Tornado and fuel line magnets because
> they perform as advertised. They flow better than OEM filters, they can
> conceivably last a million miles , they result in more hp as compared to
> OEM filters and using one will not put your engine at risk appreciably
> more, if any more, than an OEM filter for the overwhelming majority of
> passenger cars/light trucks on the road. The biggest problem I had with
> using the K&N was a result of over oiling the filter. The excess oil
> would coat the MAF sensor. I cleaned it and then used the recommended
> amount of oil on the filter and the problem was solved. It was my fault
> and not an inherent flaw in the filter design.
>
> > This NG is a global kind of a thing and includes areas that, quite
> > obviously, haven't been considered. To imagine that those things that

apply
> > to one area apply to all, is shortsighted in the least.

>
> Well, I put some burden on the user to know that their driving
> conditions might warrant them to consider alternative filters, oil, etc.
> If someone thinks the advice they read here can apply to long haul
> trucks, mining equipment, earth moving equipment etc. is just plain
> stupid, IMHO. Fact is almost every passenger car/light truck that
> drives predominately paved roads could use a K&N filter with no side
> effects or any meaningful reduction of engine longevity. I laugh at
> these air filter threads because people act like they are going to get
> 500,000 miles out of their vehicles and if they use a K&N they might
> only get 480,000 miles. The reality is the overwhelming majority of
> these cars will have a date with the car crusher before it sees 200,000
> miles or less. For the large majority of us there are better things to
> worry over than whether a K&N filter will trash your engine.
 
G
#21 ·
Jim Warman wrote:
>
> While a properly amintained K&N (or similar) filter may save someone a few
> bucks over the life of the vehicle, the opportunity for advanced engine wear
> exists... the inconvenience of servicing the filter exists.... the
> "mumbo-jumbo" in the K&N FAQ exists..... Why someone would choose this sort
> of filter media for a daily driver is beyond me.... for a race car, a flame
> arrestor and intake shaper (no, not a Tornado) with no air filter will do
> the deed.



Oh my...I'm agreeing with Jim. The sky must be falling! :cool:

I'd forgotten about the PITA factor in cleaning/reoiling the filter
(which you're supposed to do on a regular basis...not once every few
years as someone else here posted). Unless your time is not worth
anything, this often gets left out of the "I'm saving so much money on
filters" schtick. There's also the well-documented issue of people
overoiling the filter and having the oil contaminate/ruin expensive
parts like the mass air sensor.

Cheers,
 
G
#22 ·
Jim Warman wrote:
> Your final statement pretty well sums it up, Michael but the "more
> horsepower" myth will forever perpetuate.


Getting more hp from a K&N verses an OEM filter is not a myth. Whether
it be an extra 1-2 hp on a stock engine or 10-20 on a modified on - it
is more hp. Therefore their claims are true. I guarantee that someone
with a modded and/or supercharged engine will see a decent horsepower
gain using a K&N over an OEM filter.

> I'm sure that you are aware that the gasoline engine produces far more
> horsepower than is needed for *most* driving conditions. If, indeed, the K&N
> offers more power (which would come at extreme high rpm only), adding
> horsepower at cruise is an exercise in futility. I'm reminded of another
> thread, a long, long time ago where a nitrous user wanted to add NOs at half
> throttle for more power..... he thought my suggestion that he press down on
> the pedal was "odd".


The key is to make your engine a more efficient air. If a K&N flows air
more easily than an OEM filter that alone will increase mpg and hp. It
is the same as comparing a clean filter to a dirty one. The clean one
will get you better mileage and more hp.

> While a properly amintained K&N (or similar) filter may save someone a few
> bucks over the life of the vehicle, the opportunity for advanced engine wear
> exists... the inconvenience of servicing the filter exists.... the
> "mumbo-jumbo" in the K&N FAQ exists..... Why someone would choose this sort
> of filter media for a daily driver is beyond me.... for a race car, a flame
> arrestor and intake shaper (no, not a Tornado) with no air filter will do
> the deed.


It has never been proven that the use of a K&N filter shortens engine
life. In fact, there are many, many people like me that have used one
for well over 100,000 miles with absolutely no problems. I don't know
one passenger car/light truck engine that has been destroyed from using
a K&N filter. All the posts in this thread from people trashing K&Ns
are based on nothing more than their belief they will cause accelerated
wear and not on one substantive fact.

As for inconvenience of cleaning the filter, it really isn't that
inconvenient. I've cleaned mine about half a dozen times over a twelve
year period. I fail to see how this has inconvenienced me. The
procedure for cleaning is simple and easy. I take the filter out, slosh
it around in a pan with cleaner for a few minutes, hose it off, let it
dry overnight and reinstall it in the morning. The cleaning procedure
take a whopping 5 minutes of my time. The total effort is maybe 10
minutes verses 5 minutes for replacing an OEM filter. Now if a person
isn't smart enough to change an air filter then they should stick with
OEM units.

> As ever, this is one subject that the only thing we can agree on is to
> disagree.


Agreed.

> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:Y5udnfHGoaB7G7LeRVn-1w@giganews.com...
>
>>Jim Warman wrote:
>>
>>>Your experience is just that... your experience. It is NOT "everyman"
>>>experience. Where I live, the red clay dust will kill a K&N equipped

>
> motor
>
>>>in extremely short order. This stuff breaks down as fine as

>
> confectioners
>
>>>sugar and can hang in still air for nearly an hour. The conditions where

>
> you
>
>>>live may vary greatly from what I see out my back door. And this is one
>>>thing that we MUST remember.

>>
>>I would say my experience is typical for most users here in the USA with
>>the exception of some dry dusty areas. If I drove miles of dirt roads
>>every day then I would probably put more thought into the filters I use
>>for both oil and air.
>>
>>
>>>Let's turn our discussion to service intervals.... it is well known that

>
> the
>
>>>more dust a K&N collects, the "better" they filter. And they filter

>
> better
>
>>>because air flow is becoming restricted compared to freshly serviced.

>
> The
>
>>>only safe way to increase air flow safely is to retain the small micron
>>>capability of a paper filter but increase the effective surface area.
>>>
>>>There are many instances of those using K&N filters that haven't seen

>
> any
>
>>>identifiable concerns..... My experience shows diesel engines (at

>
> $20,000 a
>
>>>pop) totally wasted due to the use of inappropriate filtering media.

>>
>>I'm only speaking on the use of K&N filters in passenger cars and light
>>trucks that mostly travel paved roads. When you talk about diesel
>>engines in long haul trucks or mining vehicles etc. I'm sure there are
>>other things to consider for a variety of maintenance concerns.
>>
>>
>>>You're "extensive testing" involves one vehicle and a limited operating
>>>demographic.... tunnel vision at it's best.... If I am to err in my

>>
>>My "extensive testing" has been repeated by multitudes of others with
>>the same results. IMO, I am far from a limited operating demographic
>>and I'm definitely not suffering from "tunnel vision" as there are
>>hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that have used K&N filters with
>>absolutely no negative effects on their engines.
>>
>>
>>>recommendations, I will err on the side of sound judgement. I, on the

>
> other
>
>>>habd, haven't done one lick of testing..... all I have to do is look

>
> into
>
>>>the intact duct and see the trail of death leading to the engine inlet

>
> to
>
>>>know that these types of things are overhyped and for some strange

>
> reason
>
>>>have escaped the fate of the Tornado and fuel line magnets....

>>
>>They have escaped the fate of the Tornado and fuel line magnets because
>>they perform as advertised. They flow better than OEM filters, they can
>>conceivably last a million miles , they result in more hp as compared to
>>OEM filters and using one will not put your engine at risk appreciably
>>more, if any more, than an OEM filter for the overwhelming majority of
>>passenger cars/light trucks on the road. The biggest problem I had with
>>using the K&N was a result of over oiling the filter. The excess oil
>>would coat the MAF sensor. I cleaned it and then used the recommended
>>amount of oil on the filter and the problem was solved. It was my fault
>>and not an inherent flaw in the filter design.
>>
>>
>>>This NG is a global kind of a thing and includes areas that, quite
>>>obviously, haven't been considered. To imagine that those things that

>
> apply
>
>>>to one area apply to all, is shortsighted in the least.

>>
>>Well, I put some burden on the user to know that their driving
>>conditions might warrant them to consider alternative filters, oil, etc.
>> If someone thinks the advice they read here can apply to long haul
>>trucks, mining equipment, earth moving equipment etc. is just plain
>>stupid, IMHO. Fact is almost every passenger car/light truck that
>>drives predominately paved roads could use a K&N filter with no side
>>effects or any meaningful reduction of engine longevity. I laugh at
>>these air filter threads because people act like they are going to get
>>500,000 miles out of their vehicles and if they use a K&N they might
>>only get 480,000 miles. The reality is the overwhelming majority of
>>these cars will have a date with the car crusher before it sees 200,000
>>miles or less. For the large majority of us there are better things to
>>worry over than whether a K&N filter will trash your engine.

>
>
>
 
G
#23 ·
Ritz wrote:
> Jim Warman wrote:
>
>>
>> While a properly amintained K&N (or similar) filter may save someone a
>> few
>> bucks over the life of the vehicle, the opportunity for advanced
>> engine wear
>> exists... the inconvenience of servicing the filter exists.... the
>> "mumbo-jumbo" in the K&N FAQ exists..... Why someone would choose this
>> sort
>> of filter media for a daily driver is beyond me.... for a race car, a
>> flame
>> arrestor and intake shaper (no, not a Tornado) with no air filter will do
>> the deed.

>
>
>
> Oh my...I'm agreeing with Jim. The sky must be falling! :cool:
>
> I'd forgotten about the PITA factor in cleaning/reoiling the filter
> (which you're supposed to do on a regular basis...not once every few
> years as someone else here posted). Unless your time is not worth
> anything, this often gets left out of the "I'm saving so much money on
> filters" schtick. There's also the well-documented issue of people
> overoiling the filter and having the oil contaminate/ruin expensive
> parts like the mass air sensor.


Unless you live on a dirt road the cleaning regime isn't that severe.
Usually, once every 20k-30k miles will suffice. I've been one of those
that over oiled the filter - just once though. Taught me to read and
follow the directions. ;)
 
G
#24 ·
Mike
I didn't think you were, and I'm not as thin skinned as my post implied.
Like I said, I have used them at one time or another on all of my
performance cars. If they were passing dirt to any measurable degree, it
would be noticeable in the inside of the carb or MAF. I have never seen any
evidence of that. At one time, they were talking 25 HP gains, which we all
know is BS. K&N makes a good product that will actually pay for itself in
air filters that you don't have to purchase. For that reason alone they are
a good investment, as long as the claims, whether real or implied, to
substantial horsepower gains are taken with a grain of salt. As for
extremely dirty conditions, I would probably pay closer attention. Luckily,
we have clean air here. (With the exception of a memorable experience with
Mt. St Helens)
Later
Bill



"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
news:lY6dnXhcUaRR2LLeRVn-pg@giganews.com...
> First off, K&N air filters aren't "a giant ripoff" as you state. They do
> flow more air than most OEM filters they replace and they can be cleaned
> and reused thus saving money on purchasing new filters. I haven't bought
> a new air filter for my Mustang in 14 years. The K&N has more than paid
> for itself.
>
> EVERY after market performance company exaggerates the hp/torque gains for
> their products. Most times these figures are based on a heavily modified
> engine that needs good air flow to maximize hp. On stock Mustangs there
> are typically modest gains (3-5 hp) from using a K&N filter. Whether it
> is enough to feel the difference or lower ET's, I doubt it.
>
> BTW, I wasn't picking on you in particular. Periodically these threads
> start and people make claims that using K&N filters harm your engine by
> letting too much dirt pass. I know of too many high mileage engines (mine
> being one) using K&Ns for 100,000+ miles for this to be true. I'm just
> trying to provide some balance to the thread.
>
> Me wrote:
>> I did not say that this filter would shorten the life of an engine or do
>> any harm. If taking issue with their increase horsepower claims is "K&N
>> bashing", guilty as charged. In there zeal to sell product, they make
>> claims that can not be proven outside of their own "testing." It seems to
>> me the term "Filtercharger" implies that the filter will increase air
>> flow.
>> Also, I wasn't talking about a racing application. Having been in the
>> industry for 20 plus years, attended multiple SEMA shows as a Performance
>> Warehouse Industry buyer, I know all about the product. I bought the line
>> direct when they first started selling filters for automotive
>> applications. My SHO, 1965 GT-350 Shelby and my GS430 Lexus all have
>> them. I stand by my original statement. If your present air filter is
>> restrictive, you may gain power with a K&N, but the filter does not
>> magically add power.
>> Thanks
>> Bill
>> Former NHRA Super Stock Eliminator National Record Holder.
>>
>> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
>> news:EoOdnbs9udAlbbPeRVn-gw@giganews.com...
>>> 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
>>>> is not the case. Also, no matter what they tell you, it doesn't filter
>>>> as well 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 a paper element air cleaner. I have never seen any kind
>>>> of an improvement, and I have used these in two different cars.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Michael price" <michaelvprice@webtv.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:10206-432E270E-786@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
>>>>> 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
>>>>> make
>>>>> a diffrence? mp

>>
 
G
#25 ·
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Michael price wrote:
>
>> 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 make
>> a diffrence? mp

>
>
> OMG!!! You've started it now! Let the games begin. :)


I didn't really think he would do it!!! Ha haa

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65
 
G
#26 ·
Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> 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.


Holy crap, it's an educated and thoughtful opinion!!!! How rare a thing
in Usenet today...

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.
>


I hve a collective 60,000 miles with two different vehicles, one a
carbed 302 and one an injected DOHC I4. NO problems. Change your oil
regularly enough, and you're fine. I get a couple extra mpg on the 302,
and, I believe, a small boost in power. I was skeptical but I do
believe it idles more smoothly, has a bit more torque, and a bit more
WOT on the top end. Not having to change the things is reason enough.
Clean 'em, oil 'em, that's it. The paper filter for the I4 was $15.
The K&N was $33. No question in my mind.

> 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.
>


Listen to the man.

> Me wrote:
>
>> A giant rip-off.


Not this man.

The only way it can add power is if your present air
>> cleaner system is restricting air flow. On most later model cars, this
>> is not the case. Also, no matter what they tell you, it doesn't filter
>> as well 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 a paper element air cleaner. I have never seen any kind
>> of an improvement, and I have used these in two different cars.
>>
>>
>> "Michael price" <michaelvprice@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:10206-432E270E-786@storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net...
>>
>>> 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 make
>>> a diffrence? mp

>>

>



--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top