K&N filter debate

Dusted engine..... more prevalent in diesels but applies to gas as well....

I've been doing this **** (auto mechanics) for near 40 years.... you will
never see an open weave filter on any of my vehicles... not even my toys.

Fitting one of these filters wont kill your engine.... but it opens the
door.

YMMV

"Ron & Maggie" > wrote in message
...
> Rick:
>
> I take issue with people who have no idea of
> what they are talking about and try to pawn it off as gospel. If someone
> wants to spend $40.00 for a K&N filter to pick up 4 HP let them, why bash
> K&N as bad or whatever? I have built engines from Flathead Fords to 427
> SOHC FE's, I am sure there is someone who has more knowledge than I do.
> But to bash K&N who I do not like but know they have a product that works
> is wrong. As you well know you can not get something for nothing so what
> is so wrong if Joe Smith wants to spend $40 bucks for a filter? I have for
> years seen replies to questions about filters and it took this last one to
> set me off. Want to talk about inches that that may be a problem in sex,
> with filters we talk about CFM. Want to make 500 HP in a 350 Chevy then
> you will need 660 CFM. 5.4 inches is only revelent if you want to impress
> your girlfriend but will do nothing for your motor. Square inches of
> filter media means nothing, how many CFM will it flow is the answer.
>
> I am sorry if I have offended any one but I can take only so much of this
> BS, like I am a Certified OEM, ISAM, CST, XYZ or back yard gear head, and
> my second cousin on my aunts side says this is junk and will not work.
> Ops, this excludes Jim Warman as I do respect his post. Any thing you can
> do to improve performance and put a smile on your face has to be good. Why
> do we have to argue about things others like? Want to vent than vent on
> the nuts we put in Congress. We need to respect each other and offer true
> help not the other way around.
>
> I closing all I can say is I love the sound of my 32 valve motor at 7000
> RPM and hope all of you find what you are looking for. I did.
>
>
> Ron
>
> Rick W. wrote:
>> Greetings Ron
>> We are not talking about race cars here.
>> My whole argument is for those who think they can take an oem car, add a
>> K&N filter and see a difference. Beyond that they are deviating away from
>> OEM such as modifying, exhaust, throttle bodies, mass air and ignition
>> upgrades. With that my statement doesn't apply.
>>
>> Your statement - Cut the BS people, unless you are a race engine builder
>> or automotive engineer you have no clue of how a filter or air box works.
>> Is a little harsh and a little arrogant, you wouldn't have made that
>> statement unless you had information that you think is unknown to us
>> shade tree mechanics.
>>
>> Personally I believe that the figures don't lie. Please share with me the
>> study that shows that I can take my stock Explorer, add a K&N, and
>> immediately get more ponies! Better yet what if I added a larger exhaust
>> with that K&N, nothing more?
>>
>> Rick

Ron & Maggie wrote:
> Rick:
>
> I take issue with people who have no idea of
> what they are talking about and try to pawn it off as gospel. If someone
> wants to spend $40.00 for a K&N filter to pick up 4 HP let them, why
> bash K&N as bad or whatever? I have built engines from Flathead Fords to
> 427 SOHC FE's, I am sure there is someone who has more knowledge than I
> do. But to bash K&N who I do not like but know they have a product that
> works is wrong. As you well know you can not get something for nothing
> so what is so wrong if Joe Smith wants to spend $40 bucks for a filter?
> I have for years seen replies to questions about filters and it took
> this last one to set me off. Want to talk about inches that that may be
> a problem in sex, with filters we talk about CFM. Want to make 500 HP in
> a 350 Chevy then you will need 660 CFM. 5.4 inches is only revelent if
> you want to impress your girlfriend but will do nothing for your motor.
> Square inches of filter media means nothing, how many CFM will it flow
> is the answer.
>
> I am sorry if I have offended any one but I can take only so much of
> this BS, like I am a Certified OEM, ISAM, CST, XYZ or back yard gear
> head, and my second cousin on my aunts side says this is junk and will
> not work. Ops, this excludes Jim Warman as I do respect his post. Any
> thing you can do to improve performance and put a smile on your face has
> to be good. Why do we have to argue about things others like? Want to
> vent than vent on the nuts we put in Congress. We need to respect each
> other and offer true help not the other way around.
>
> I closing all I can say is I love the sound of my 32 valve motor at 7000
> RPM and hope all of you find what you are looking for. I did.
>
>
> Ron
>
> Rick W. wrote:
>> Greetings Ron
>> We are not talking about race cars here.
>> My whole argument is for those who think they can take an oem car, add
>> a K&N filter and see a difference. Beyond that they are deviating away
>> from OEM such as modifying, exhaust, throttle bodies, mass air and
>> ignition upgrades. With that my statement doesn't apply.
>>
>> Your statement - Cut the BS people, unless you are a race engine
>> builder or automotive engineer you have no clue of how a filter or air
>> box works.
>> Is a little harsh and a little arrogant, you wouldn't have made that
>> statement unless you had information that you think is unknown to us
>> shade tree mechanics.
>>
>> Personally I believe that the figures don't lie. Please share with me
>> the study that shows that I can take my stock Explorer, add a K&N, and
>> immediately get more ponies! Better yet what if I added a larger
>> exhaust with that K&N, nothing more?
>>
>> Rick
>>
My first car was a '51 Ford flathead V8. Paid $110 for it in 1965. First
thing I did to it as a dumbass 16 year old was take the air filter off
and punch holes in the muffler. Don't remember if it was any faster but
it sure sounded good. Totaled it one night (Way before Mad Mothers, the
cops gave me a ride home joking about how drunk I was) so I don't know
how long the engine would've lasted with no filter.

Ron:

>> I take issue with people who have no idea of what they are talking about
>> and try to pawn it off as gospel. If someone wants to spend $40.00 for a
>> K&N filter to pick up 4 HP let them, why bash K&N as bad or whatever?

Here in lies the problem, I've been thinking about buying a KN filter. But
I'm not going to spend $49 if it doesn't really work.

I apologies if you thought that is what I'm doing. For the record, I'm not
an auto mechanic. I grew up with it, but am actually a practicing master
electrician. I'm trying to teach my 18 year old son not to "fall down" for
every arm chair expert, or "seductive marking gimmick", that comes along. A
lot of money and time is wasted on well marketed garbage. This filter thing
is a great example. For every person that likes KN, there is someone who
doesn't. Why? It doesn't matter what we think. What matters is the
engineering data. I started this thread in hopes of finding someone who HAS
THE DATA, you cannot argue with the data, and some have indeed shown links
reviewing comparisons, or present a compelling ANALYTICAL argument. I formed
an opinion based on almost no data, and was hoping to hear that I'm either
right or wrong, but proven so not by someone who "just knows", but by the
results of engineering studies. It seems that most would rather just argue
opinions with no hard evidence to back them up.

Rick



"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Ron & Maggie wrote:
>> Rick:
>>
>> I take issue with people who have no idea of
>> what they are talking about and try to pawn it off as gospel. If someone
>> wants to spend $40.00 for a K&N filter to pick up 4 HP let them, why bash
>> K&N as bad or whatever? I have built engines from Flathead Fords to 427
>> SOHC FE's, I am sure there is someone who has more knowledge than I do.
>> But to bash K&N who I do not like but know they have a product that works
>> is wrong. As you well know you can not get something for nothing so what
>> is so wrong if Joe Smith wants to spend $40 bucks for a filter? I have
>> for years seen replies to questions about filters and it took this last
>> one to set me off. Want to talk about inches that that may be a problem
>> in sex, with filters we talk about CFM. Want to make 500 HP in a 350
>> Chevy then you will need 660 CFM. 5.4 inches is only revelent if you want
>> to impress your girlfriend but will do nothing for your motor. Square
>> inches of filter media means nothing, how many CFM will it flow is the
>> answer.
>>
>> I am sorry if I have offended any one but I can take only so much of this
>> BS, like I am a Certified OEM, ISAM, CST, XYZ or back yard gear head, and
>> my second cousin on my aunts side says this is junk and will not work.
>> Ops, this excludes Jim Warman as I do respect his post. Any thing you can
>> do to improve performance and put a smile on your face has to be good.
>> Why do we have to argue about things others like? Want to vent than vent
>> on the nuts we put in Congress. We need to respect each other and offer
>> true help not the other way around.
>>
>> I closing all I can say is I love the sound of my 32 valve motor at 7000
>> RPM and hope all of you find what you are looking for. I did.
>>
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> Rick W. wrote:
>>> Greetings Ron
>>> We are not talking about race cars here.
>>> My whole argument is for those who think they can take an oem car, add a
>>> K&N filter and see a difference. Beyond that they are deviating away
>>> from OEM such as modifying, exhaust, throttle bodies, mass air and
>>> ignition upgrades. With that my statement doesn't apply.
>>>
>>> Your statement - Cut the BS people, unless you are a race engine builder
>>> or automotive engineer you have no clue of how a filter or air box
>>> works.
>>> Is a little harsh and a little arrogant, you wouldn't have made that
>>> statement unless you had information that you think is unknown to us
>>> shade tree mechanics.
>>>
>>> Personally I believe that the figures don't lie. Please share with me
>>> the study that shows that I can take my stock Explorer, add a K&N, and
>>> immediately get more ponies! Better yet what if I added a larger exhaust
>>> with that K&N, nothing more?
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
> My first car was a '51 Ford flathead V8. Paid $110 for it in 1965. First
> thing I did to it as a dumbass 16 year old was take the air filter off and
> punch holes in the muffler. Don't remember if it was any faster but it
> sure sounded good. Totaled it one night (Way before Mad Mothers, the cops
> gave me a ride home joking about how drunk I was) so I don't know how long
> the engine would've lasted with no filter.

Rick W. wrote:

> Ron:
>
>
>>>I take issue with people who have no idea of what they are talking about
>>>and try to pawn it off as gospel. If someone wants to spend $40.00 for a
>>>K&N filter to pick up 4 HP let them, why bash K&N as bad or whatever?
>
>
> Here in lies the problem, I've been thinking about buying a KN filter. But
> I'm not going to spend $49 if it doesn't really work.
>
> I apologies if you thought that is what I'm doing. For the record, I'm not
> an auto mechanic. I grew up with it, but am actually a practicing master
> electrician. I'm trying to teach my 18 year old son not to "fall down" for
> every arm chair expert, or "seductive marking gimmick", that comes along. A
> lot of money and time is wasted on well marketed garbage. This filter thing
> is a great example. For every person that likes KN, there is someone who
> doesn't. Why? It doesn't matter what we think. What matters is the
> engineering data. I started this thread in hopes of finding someone who HAS
> THE DATA, you cannot argue with the data, and some have indeed shown links
> reviewing comparisons, or present a compelling ANALYTICAL argument. I formed
> an opinion based on almost no data, and was hoping to hear that I'm either
> right or wrong, but proven so not by someone who "just knows", but by the
> results of engineering studies. It seems that most would rather just argue
> opinions with no hard evidence to back them up.

No hard data tonight, sorry. I remember funny statistics somewhere that
showed K&N to be virtually as effective at removing dirt as a good paper
filter. K&N's website had some actual comparison numbers, I think, but I
don't find them there now.
Basically, the best paper filter would catch 98% of airborne dirt while
K&N caught 97%. That's only a tiny difference of 1% right?
No, it's really a 50% difference. Paper passed 2% into the engine, and
K&N passed 3%... which is 50% more.

Some of the K&N testimonials are pretty hokey.
http://www.knfilters.com/feedback.htm
"I could immediately hear a HUGE suction of air rushing into the engine
like crazy. The whole system sounds strong, and it really made a bigger
difference than I thought it would! Amazing what a little bit of extra
air can do for an engine."

And http://www.knfilters.com/faq.htm#9 is rather an interesting
admission. I think that auto manufacturers are smart enough to size
their filters so that restriction is negligible too. A few more square
inches can't be that hard to achieve.

I have read all of the messsages, just did a K&N on my V6 Mustang, 3 MPG and
quicker response out of the box! Regular paper filter at Oil Change = $38.00,
50,000 mile K&N saves about $400.00!

Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>WOW what a bunch of gear heads, have any of you seen TV on Sunday?
>>Sunday is Nascar day and can any of you find me a car in Nextel Cup that
>[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>suck. How many of you have taken you ride to a speed shop and tested the
>>stock air box to a K&N cold air intake on the Dyno?
>
>I've seen magazines do it and they get very little improvement. No
>one is saying that reducing the filtering ability to improve airflow
>won't give some slight benefit, but on a normal drive around town car
>the tiny little extra power you MIGHT get at WOT is silly to worry
>about and the trade off in filtering capability is IMHO a dumb
>tradeoff.
>
> If you want MPG
>>don't waste your money on a K&N, need a few extra horses for little
>>money than go for the K&N. Now the oil on the mass air meter, yes clean
>>the oil off my 91 Explorer Mass air with 385,000 miles and it will run
>>better than new, BS, put three quarts of oil on the mass air and be
>>lucky if the engine runs at all.
>
>Many people have reported problems with oil on their MAF and not just
>on older vehicles.
>
>>Nothing is better than good maintenance. Do it often and do it right and
>>your Exploder will live a long life. Remember your Explorer is not a
>>race car but feel confident that if you want a K&N filter it will not
>>harm your engine and it just may give you a smile on your face when you
>>hit the go pedal. Do what makes you feel good and pass on all this BS
>>from shade tree race car shops.
>
>Nonsense. About the only thing you be able to notice a difference in
>is the amount of noise. The small increase in hp you might get at WOT
>is not going to be noticeable to the driver except in his imagination.
>
>>Ron
>>
>>And yes I have run K&N filters on all my Explorers, 93, 95,98,03 and 05
>>Lincoln. All had modified exhaust, throttle bodies, mass air and
>>ignition upgrades.
>
>Well gee, I'm sure that KN have oh so much to do with any
>improvements. The fact is, based on actual tests, the thing that DOES
>make a difference is opening up the exhaust, it's just about the only
>thing on your list that is likely to make enough difference to be
>worth the trouble and cost of doing in and of itself.
>
>>> For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The
>>> computer determines the air to fuel ratio.
>[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>> and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
>>> Rick

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 02:13:08 -0700, Beryl >
wrote:

>Rick W. wrote:
>
>> Ron:
>>
>>
>>>>I take issue with people who have no idea of what they are talking about
>>>>and try to pawn it off as gospel. If someone wants to spend $40.00 for a
>>>>K&N filter to pick up 4 HP let them, why bash K&N as bad or whatever?
>>
>>
>> Here in lies the problem, I've been thinking about buying a KN filter. But
>> I'm not going to spend $49 if it doesn't really work.
>>
>> I apologies if you thought that is what I'm doing. For the record, I'm not
>> an auto mechanic. I grew up with it, but am actually a practicing master
>> electrician. I'm trying to teach my 18 year old son not to "fall down" for
>> every arm chair expert, or "seductive marking gimmick", that comes along. A
>> lot of money and time is wasted on well marketed garbage. This filter thing
>> is a great example. For every person that likes KN, there is someone who
>> doesn't. Why? It doesn't matter what we think. What matters is the
>> engineering data. I started this thread in hopes of finding someone who HAS
>> THE DATA, you cannot argue with the data, and some have indeed shown links
>> reviewing comparisons, or present a compelling ANALYTICAL argument. I formed
>> an opinion based on almost no data, and was hoping to hear that I'm either
>> right or wrong, but proven so not by someone who "just knows", but by the
>> results of engineering studies. It seems that most would rather just argue
>> opinions with no hard evidence to back them up.
>
>No hard data tonight, sorry. I remember funny statistics somewhere that
>showed K&N to be virtually as effective at removing dirt as a good paper
>filter. K&N's website had some actual comparison numbers, I think, but I
>don't find them there now.
>Basically, the best paper filter would catch 98% of airborne dirt while
>K&N caught 97%. That's only a tiny difference of 1% right?
>No, it's really a 50% difference. Paper passed 2% into the engine, and
>K&N passed 3%... which is 50% more.
>
>Some of the K&N testimonials are pretty hokey.
>http://www.knfilters.com/feedback.htm
>"I could immediately hear a HUGE suction of air rushing into the engine
>like crazy. The whole system sounds strong, and it really made a bigger
>difference than I thought it would! Amazing what a little bit of extra
>air can do for an engine."
>
>And http://www.knfilters.com/faq.htm#9 is rather an interesting
>admission. I think that auto manufacturers are smart enough to size
>their filters so that restriction is negligible too. A few more square
>inches can't be that hard to achieve.

Anybody remember the old oil bath filters car makers used before they
used paper filters? How is the K&N different from them?

What needs to be remembered is how long those old motors lasted before it
was time for a rering or rebuild....

Look at it this way..... the folks that want to sell you an open weave
filter will tell you the micron rating of the filter medium doesn't
matter....

However, the folks that designed and built the engine say that it does....

Who am I going to believe?

FWIW, we just finished replacing an engine in a 2006 F350. This 6.0 PSD had
been fitted with an open weave filter. With 120,000 kms on the engine (less
than 75,000 miles), this engine drank a litre of oil every 200 km.
Turbocharger fins were severely dusted as were the cylinder walls.... A
complete 6.0, installed, runs about $20,000 CA...

I refuse to try to change anyones mind.... however, choosing the filter
media we use requires that we have our eyes wide open...

Rick W. wrote:
> For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The
> computer determines the air to fuel ratio.
> Installing a filter with better flow, such as the K&N could potentially
> increase the air available to the engine.
> The computer sets the fuel air usage, so just because more air is made
> available to the engine, why would this increase HP or MPG?
> It's as though the makers of these type of filters think the OEM design is
> flawed. I think it's ludicrous to believe the OEM designers would fail to
> correctly size the air intake system.
> And yes I've heard of the display at the parts house showing air flow
> superiorty of the K&N over paper, making it look as though the paper is
> "choking" the auto. However they are using air flow (cfm) way in excess of
> what the engine requires. Dial down the air flow to realtime engine demand
> and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
> Rick
>
>
Rick W. wrote:
> For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The
> computer determines the air to fuel ratio.
> Installing a filter with better flow, such as the K&N could potentially
> increase the air available to the engine.
> The computer sets the fuel air usage, so just because more air is made
> available to the engine, why would this increase HP or MPG?
> It's as though the makers of these type of filters think the OEM design is
> flawed. I think it's ludicrous to believe the OEM designers would fail to
> correctly size the air intake system.
> And yes I've heard of the display at the parts house showing air flow
> superiorty of the K&N over paper, making it look as though the paper is
> "choking" the auto. However they are using air flow (cfm) way in excess of
> what the engine requires. Dial down the air flow to realtime engine demand
> and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
> Rick
>
>

Looks like common sense is winning this argument. So...any Amsoil fans
out there?

Spelling nazi! Spelling nazi!

I'm sure you meant "spamsoil"????

As in "our oil would meet this API spec if we submitted it"?

"Ron & Maggie" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> WOW what a bunch of gear heads, have any of you seen TV on Sunday?
> Sunday is Nascar day and can any of you find me a car in Nextel Cup
> that has a stock air filter or yet a stock air cleaner.

Show me a NASCAR car with a K&N.

Ed