K&N vs. Factory Filters
 

If you all remember, about a year ago, I fought hard for K&N filters. Got a
lot of static and even a link to page that showed the use of a $250k machine
to disprove my beliefs. Well, I have to say, with humility, that I no longer
support the use of these and here's why. I posted the below on
alt.autos.ford and got some early feedback:

OP - Just an FYI. My dad and I have uncovered a long standing CEL with
"Sally". After doing the normal things, we finally uncovered the
issue- oil/residue from a K&N filter on the MAF sensor. He's been
without the filter for 2 years now and with a CEL light. After
cleaning the sensor with a cotton swab and alcohol, she runs like
there's no tomorrow and the light is gone. I once stood strong on
these filters, but have since changed my thoughts. I'm not downing
them, but after a lot of research, I think I'll sacrifice a bit of
airflow for dry filtration.

So, I got the following reply:

you think that is bad, try running a K&N on a diesel engine.

or better, yet, don't. the K&N lets very small particles pass, causing a
condition on a diesel
engine called "dusting".
basically what happens is the small particles the filter lets pass smoothes
the edges of the turbocharger vanes, wearing them down, which reducing it's
effectiveness. and if left on long enough will blow the engine up.

I stand corrected...and please accept my apologies....

Steve in AZ

Re: K&N vs. Factory Filters
 

Steve Richards wrote:
> If you all remember, about a year ago, I fought hard for K&N filters. Got a
> lot of static and even a link to page that showed the use of a $250k machine
> to disprove my beliefs. Well, I have to say, with humility, that I no longer
> support the use of these


Not to worry Steve. We knew you were an idiot back then.

Re: K&N vs. Factory Filters
 

Uh, thanks???!!!!


:-)


<CBX2@webtv.net> wrote in message news:gpbo7l$rih$1@news.albasani.net...
> Steve Richards wrote:
>> If you all remember, about a year ago, I fought hard for K&N filters. Got
>> a lot of static and even a link to page that showed the use of a $250k
>> machine to disprove my beliefs. Well, I have to say, with humility, that
>> I no longer support the use of these
>
>
> Not to worry Steve. We knew you were an idiot back then.
>

Re: K&N vs. Factory Filters
 

CBX2@webtv.net wrote:
> Steve Richards wrote:
>> If you all remember, about a year ago, I fought hard for K&N filters.
>> Got a lot of static and even a link to page that showed the use of a
>> $250k machine to disprove my beliefs. Well, I have to say, with
>> humility, that I no longer support the use of these
>
>
> Not to worry Steve. We knew you were an idiot back then.
>

But not nearly as dumb as a webtv user. :-)

Re: K&N vs. Factory Filters
 

But not nearly as dumb as a webtv user. :-)
LMAO Good One !
Striker



"Voyager" <m.whiting@computer.org> wrote in message
news:qVhul.68363$aZ3.20@newsfe01.iad...
> CBX2@webtv.net wrote:
>> Steve Richards wrote:
>>> If you all remember, about a year ago, I fought hard for K&N filters.
>>> Got a lot of static and even a link to page that showed the use of a
>>> $250k machine to disprove my beliefs. Well, I have to say, with
>>> humility, that I no longer support the use of these
>>
>>
>> Not to worry Steve. We knew you were an idiot back then.
>>
>
> But not nearly as dumb as a webtv user. :-)