Pavlov

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

Michael

"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 !

Jason

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.

Steve W.

"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! =-----