K&N on 2002 Sonata. Anyone tried this yet?
So what are the caveats on replacing the air intake with a K&N? I was
under the impression that you're not pulling as clean of air for the sake of a couple of horses and "slightly" better gas mileage. Anyone? Cheers. - Pavlov Check out my pics! http://www.neiu.edu/~akkoziol |
Re: K&N on 2002 Sonata. Anyone tried this yet?
"Pavlov" <no@spam.xx> wrote in message news:bgaqa0dg0i97f9jg14rqrsgs2sbi2hqt65@4ax.com... > So what are the caveats on replacing the air intake with a K&N? I was > under the impression that you're not pulling as clean of air for the > sake of a couple of horses and "slightly" better gas mileage. Anyone? > Cheers. > > - Pavlov Yeah, just run with no filter.....even more horseys..................but there is NO free lunch ! |
Re: K&N on 2002 Sonata. Anyone tried this yet?
On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:00:15 -0500, Pavlov <no@spam.xx> wrote:
>So what are the caveats on replacing the air intake with a K&N? I was >under the impression that you're not pulling as clean of air for the >sake of a couple of horses and "slightly" better gas mileage. Anyone? >Cheers. > >- Pavlov > >Check out my pics! >http://www.neiu.edu/~akkoziol K&N Air Filters do just as good of a job as the stock factory filters that most manufacturers use (and a better job than most aftermarket filters). There is no downside as long as you follow the directions when cleaning it. I have been using K&N Filters in my last 3 vehicles and have never had any problems. |
Re: K&N on 2002 Sonata. Anyone tried this yet?
"Jason" <none.of.your.business@see.left.of.at.com> wrote in message
news:vvsra09ggm7j7tp8davhsfglb0jqrsavah@4ax.com... > On Thu, 20 May 2004 17:00:15 -0500, Pavlov <no@spam.xx> wrote: > > >So what are the caveats on replacing the air intake with a K&N? I was > >under the impression that you're not pulling as clean of air for the > >sake of a couple of horses and "slightly" better gas mileage. Anyone? > >Cheers. > > > >- Pavlov > > > >Check out my pics! > DO NOT USE A K&N, Ford and GM are voiding warranties on vehicles that > are using them. > Both have issued notices about them. Also a few studies have shown that > the K&N let much more dirt and dust through than ANY paper element. > > Info - Automatic Transmission Shift, Engine Driveability Concerns or > Service > Engine Soon (SES) Light On as a Result of the Installation of an > Aftermarket > Reusable, Excessively Oiled Air Filter #04-07-30-013 - (03/05/2004) > Automatic Transmission Shift, Engine Driveability Concerns or Service > Engine > Soon (SES) Light On as a Result of the Installation of an Aftermarket > Reusable, Excessively Oiled Air Filter > 2004 and Prior Cars and Light Duty Trucks > > 2003-2004 HUMMER H2 > > First, Inspect the vehicle for a reusable aftermarket oiled air > filter > DO NOT repair under warranty if concerns result from the use of a > reusable aftermarket oiled air filter. > > > The installation of an aftermarket reusable, oiled air filter may result > in: > a.. Service Engine Soon (SES) Light On > b.. Transmission shift concerns, slipping and damaged clutch(es) or > band(s) > c.. Engine driveability concerns, poor acceleration from a stop, > limited > engine RPM range > The oil that is used on these air filter elements may be transferred > onto > the Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor causing contamination of the sensor. As a > result, the Grams per Second (GPS) signal from the MAF may be low and > any or > all of the concerns listed above may occur. > > When servicing a vehicle with any of these concerns, be sure to check > for > the presence of an aftermarket reusable, excessively oiled air filter. > The > MAF, GPS reading should be compared to a like vehicle with a OEM air box > and > filter under the same driving conditions to verify the concern. > > Transmission or engine driveability concerns that are the result of the > installation of an aftermarket reusable, excessively oiled air filter > are > not considered to be warrantable repair items. > > > Subj: K & N filters > John: If I wrote "subjective" I meant "objective".. I was responsible > for evaluating re-usable air filters for a major construction/mining > company that had hundreds of vehicles ranging from large earthmovers > to pick-up trucks and salesmen's cars. This study was embarked upon due > to the fact that we were spending upwards of $30,000 a MONTH on paper > air > filters. Using them one time then throwing them away.. I inititated > the study in that I was convinced that a K&N type filter or oiled foam > would save us many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour > savings, and of course engines as these would filter dirt better than > paper. > (yes, I had read the K&N ads and was a believer) > > Representative test units were chosen to give us a broad spectrum from > cars right through large front end loaders. With each unit we had a > long history of oil analysis records so that changes would be > trackable. Unfortunately, for me, every single unit having alternative > re-usable > air cleaners showed an immediate large jump in silicon (dirt) levels > with corresponding major increases in wear metals. In one extreme > case, a unit with a primary and secondary air cleaner, the secondary > (small > paper element) clogged before even one day's test run could be > completed. This particular unit had a Cummins V-12 engine that had > paper/paper one one bank and K&N/paper on the other bank; two > completely independent induction systems. The conditions were EXACTLY > duplicated > for each bank yet the K&N allowed so much dirt to pass through that > the small filter became clogged before lunch. The same outcome occured > with oiled foams on this unit. > > We discontinued the tests on the large pieces almost immediately but > continued with service trucks, formen's vehicles, and my own company > car. Analysis results continued showing markedly increased wear rates > for all the vehicles, mine included. Test concluded, switched back to > paper/glass and all vehicles showed reduction back to near original > levels of both wear metals and dirt. I continued with the K&N on my > company car out of stubborness and at 85,000 miles the Chevy 305 V-8 > wheezed its last breath. The top end was sanded badly; bottom end was > just fine. End of test. > > I must stress that EVERYONE involved in this test was hoping that > alternative filters would work as everyone was sick about pulling out > a perfectly good $85 air cleaner and throwing 4 of them away each week > per machine... > > So, I strongly suggest that depending upon an individual's long term > plan for their vehicles they simply run an oil analysis at least once > to see that the K&N or whatever alternative air filter is indeed working > IN THAT APPLICATION... It depends on a person's priorities. If you want > performance then indeed the K&N is the way to go but at what cost??? > > And no, I do not work for a paper or glass air filter manufacturing > company nor do I have any affiliation with anything directly or > indirectly that could benefit George Morrison as a result.. > > >http://www.f150online.com/forums/arc.../149814-1.html >http://www.intellidog.com/dieselmann/perform.htm >http://www.f150online.com/forums/arc...ic/5787-1.html -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:54 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands