Matt Whiting wrote:
> Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
>
>> 'Dave, you've said you are a Christian. So am I' Glad to hear that
>> Matt. So, if you were to die very unexpectedly tonight and stand
>> before God immediatly, how would you
>> answer the question of him asking you :" Matt, why should i let you into
>> Heaven for eternity ?" .
>> That is a topic for a different newsgroup.
>>
>> REPLY: Then feel free to email me with the answer you would give.
>
>
> It isn't relevant to engine flushing.
>
>
>> 'And you have the manufacturer's manual for your Hyundai also. It is
>> called the owner's manual. Does it specify engine flushing using the
>> Bilstein machine? If not, then why do you think it is necessary?'
>>
>> REPLY: I dont believe i ever said 'it is necessary' (??) However i do
>> think it is advantageous . Does the Hyundai Manual recommend using
>> synthetic fluids in the drivetrain ... even though synthetic fluids have
>> a distinct advantage over the non types ?
>
>
> No, and I would never say that anyone should use them unless they want
> the very well documented benefits. I use synthetics purely for the cold
> starting advantage. They are overkill in pretty much every other way as
> I don't run extended drain intervals and I don't race, etc. However,
> for me the cold start benefit alone is worth the incremental cost. The
> "data" at the Bilstein site was feeble even if true, with claimed
> performance that isn't even above the measurement noise floor. This
> isn't true with synthetic lubricants. There is tons of data from many
> sources as to the benefit, so much so that some car makers (Chevrolet
> with the Vette and Porsche) actually specify it.
>
> Comparing engine flushing with synthetic oil is as specious as your
> comparision to electronic ignition.
>
>
>> 'I have investigated what I saw published about the Bilstein machine. It
>> is simply an unnecessary gimmick, just like so many others designed to
>> separate people from their money. Things such as transmission flushing
>> machines, oil additives, etc. Matt '
>>
>> REPLY: Good...then youve taken the first step. If you have a Pep Boys
>> or other place that uses the exact machine, then stop by and ask them if
>> you can watch it being used as you have the desire to fully evaluate it.
>
>
> I wouldn't let a Pep Boys employee within 10 feet of my car. I stopped
> at an Autozone once to get the free scan tool read on my Plymouth van as
> the MIL was lit. They gave me a code that made no sense at all as it
> was a part that had been just recently replaced. I went to a Chrysler
> dealer and they gave me the correct problem code. Places like that
> can't even use a scan tool correctly. You think I'd let them access the
> internals of my engine? Not going to happen.
>
> Well, it is obvious that you are one of the folks that P.T. Barnum
> talked about. Reason won't work with you so I'm done with this thread.

It appears that his religious fervor extends to the Bilstein machine.
Remember, in his world science and facts don't matter, all that counts
is faith and belief. ;-)

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
>
>> 'CDI provided demonstrable advantages. That is why car makers switched
>> to using them. Engine flushes don't have demonstrable advantages, that
>> is why no car make recommends them. Matt '
>>
>> REPLY: Synthetic fluids have demonstrable advantages, yet not all Car
>> Mfg's recommend them in their owners manual. Same with K and N intake
>> air filters and a host of other things.
>
>
> Because the advantages aren't needed in most cases. Chevrolet and
> Porsche do specify synthetics. My K1500 requires a specific Castrol
> synthetic gear lube in the manual transmission.
>
> K&N filters are a great way to ruin your engine as they pass a lot more
> dirt than do conventional paper filters. Sure, you get a little more
> performance, but you give up engine life. If you are a racer, this is a
> worthwhile trade. It is a fool's choice for a street vehicle.

Let's see, so far we've discovered that he believes in the Bilstein
machine and K&N filters. Wanna bet whether he has one of those
"Turbonators" in his intake and Slick 50 or Duralube in his crankcase?
Perhaps he believes in E3 spark plugs, too?

Yeah, there's one born every minute.

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
>
>> 'CDI provided demonstrable advantages. That is why car makers switched
>> to using them. Engine flushes don't have demonstrable advantages, that
>> is why no car make recommends them. Matt '
>>
>> REPLY: Synthetic fluids have demonstrable advantages, yet not all Car
>> Mfg's recommend them in their owners manual. Same with K and N intake
>> air filters and a host of other things.
>
>
> Because the advantages aren't needed in most cases. Chevrolet and
> Porsche do specify synthetics. My K1500 requires a specific Castrol
> synthetic gear lube in the manual transmission.
>
> K&N filters are a great way to ruin your engine as they pass a lot more
> dirt than do conventional paper filters. Sure, you get a little more
> performance, but you give up engine life. If you are a racer, this is a
> worthwhile trade. It is a fool's choice for a street vehicle.

Let's see, so far we've discovered that he believes in the Bilstein
machine and K&N filters. Wanna bet whether he has one of those
"Turbonators" in his intake and Slick 50 or Duralube in his crankcase?
Perhaps he believes in E3 spark plugs, too?

Yeah, there's one born every minute.

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
>
>> 'CDI provided demonstrable advantages. That is why car makers switched
>> to using them. Engine flushes don't have demonstrable advantages, that
>> is why no car make recommends them. Matt '
>>
>> REPLY: Synthetic fluids have demonstrable advantages, yet not all Car
>> Mfg's recommend them in their owners manual. Same with K and N intake
>> air filters and a host of other things.
>
>
> Because the advantages aren't needed in most cases. Chevrolet and
> Porsche do specify synthetics. My K1500 requires a specific Castrol
> synthetic gear lube in the manual transmission.
>
> K&N filters are a great way to ruin your engine as they pass a lot more
> dirt than do conventional paper filters. Sure, you get a little more
> performance, but you give up engine life. If you are a racer, this is a
> worthwhile trade. It is a fool's choice for a street vehicle.

Let's see, so far we've discovered that he believes in the Bilstein
machine and K&N filters. Wanna bet whether he has one of those
"Turbonators" in his intake and Slick 50 or Duralube in his crankcase?
Perhaps he believes in E3 spark plugs, too?

Yeah, there's one born every minute.

 

"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4ZLrg.82$5T1.42@trndny09...

> >
> > K&N filters are a great way to ruin your engine as they pass a lot more
> > dirt than do conventional paper filters. Sure, you get a little more
> > performance, but you give up engine life. If you are a racer, this is a
> > worthwhile trade. It is a fool's choice for a street vehicle.
>
> Let's see, so far we've discovered that he believes in the Bilstein
> machine and K&N filters. Wanna bet whether he has one of those
> "Turbonators" in his intake and Slick 50 or Duralube in his crankcase?
> Perhaps he believes in E3 spark plugs, too?
>

I've seen some comment here about K&N, and in fact I've watched these
comments since they began here, but I've never seen anything that documents
K&N problems. I don't use K&N, but they are one of the better reputed
aftermarket items outside of this forum. I'm curious how K&N has achieved
such a notable reputation as to now be deemed to ruin engines.

I'm aware of one (reported) case where K&N caused a problem with a MAF
sensor, but to my understanding (admittedly not well researched), this is
either not the norm or it has been resolved by the manner in which the
filters are oiled. There are a ton of these filters out there and if MAF
sensor problems were such a real threat, one would expect to see a lot of
press about it - but one does not.

I've never seen any documentation of engines being ruined by K&N filters
either. Is this an urban legend that has developed in this group or does
someone actually have some empirical evidence of K&N problems?

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4ZLrg.82$5T1.42@trndny09...

> >
> > K&N filters are a great way to ruin your engine as they pass a lot more
> > dirt than do conventional paper filters. Sure, you get a little more
> > performance, but you give up engine life. If you are a racer, this is a
> > worthwhile trade. It is a fool's choice for a street vehicle.
>
> Let's see, so far we've discovered that he believes in the Bilstein
> machine and K&N filters. Wanna bet whether he has one of those
> "Turbonators" in his intake and Slick 50 or Duralube in his crankcase?
> Perhaps he believes in E3 spark plugs, too?
>

I've seen some comment here about K&N, and in fact I've watched these
comments since they began here, but I've never seen anything that documents
K&N problems. I don't use K&N, but they are one of the better reputed
aftermarket items outside of this forum. I'm curious how K&N has achieved
such a notable reputation as to now be deemed to ruin engines.

I'm aware of one (reported) case where K&N caused a problem with a MAF
sensor, but to my understanding (admittedly not well researched), this is
either not the norm or it has been resolved by the manner in which the
filters are oiled. There are a ton of these filters out there and if MAF
sensor problems were such a real threat, one would expect to see a lot of
press about it - but one does not.

I've never seen any documentation of engines being ruined by K&N filters
either. Is this an urban legend that has developed in this group or does
someone actually have some empirical evidence of K&N problems?

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

"Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4ZLrg.82$5T1.42@trndny09...

> >
> > K&N filters are a great way to ruin your engine as they pass a lot more
> > dirt than do conventional paper filters. Sure, you get a little more
> > performance, but you give up engine life. If you are a racer, this is a
> > worthwhile trade. It is a fool's choice for a street vehicle.
>
> Let's see, so far we've discovered that he believes in the Bilstein
> machine and K&N filters. Wanna bet whether he has one of those
> "Turbonators" in his intake and Slick 50 or Duralube in his crankcase?
> Perhaps he believes in E3 spark plugs, too?
>

I've seen some comment here about K&N, and in fact I've watched these
comments since they began here, but I've never seen anything that documents
K&N problems. I don't use K&N, but they are one of the better reputed
aftermarket items outside of this forum. I'm curious how K&N has achieved
such a notable reputation as to now be deemed to ruin engines.

I'm aware of one (reported) case where K&N caused a problem with a MAF
sensor, but to my understanding (admittedly not well researched), this is
either not the norm or it has been resolved by the manner in which the
filters are oiled. There are a ton of these filters out there and if MAF
sensor problems were such a real threat, one would expect to see a lot of
press about it - but one does not.

I've never seen any documentation of engines being ruined by K&N filters
either. Is this an urban legend that has developed in this group or does
someone actually have some empirical evidence of K&N problems?

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
>>
>>> 'Dave, you've said you are a Christian. So am I' Glad to hear that
>>> Matt. So, if you were to die very unexpectedly tonight and stand
>>> before God immediatly, how would you
>>> answer the question of him asking you :" Matt, why should i let you into
>>> Heaven for eternity ?" .
>>> That is a topic for a different newsgroup.
>>>
>>> REPLY: Then feel free to email me with the answer you would give.
>>
>>
>>
>> It isn't relevant to engine flushing.
>>
>>
>>> 'And you have the manufacturer's manual for your Hyundai also. It is
>>> called the owner's manual. Does it specify engine flushing using the
>>> Bilstein machine? If not, then why do you think it is necessary?'
>>>
>>> REPLY: I dont believe i ever said 'it is necessary' (??) However i do
>>> think it is advantageous . Does the Hyundai Manual recommend using
>>> synthetic fluids in the drivetrain ... even though synthetic fluids have
>>> a distinct advantage over the non types ?
>>
>>
>>
>> No, and I would never say that anyone should use them unless they want
>> the very well documented benefits. I use synthetics purely for the
>> cold starting advantage. They are overkill in pretty much every other
>> way as I don't run extended drain intervals and I don't race, etc.
>> However, for me the cold start benefit alone is worth the incremental
>> cost. The "data" at the Bilstein site was feeble even if true, with
>> claimed performance that isn't even above the measurement noise
>> floor. This isn't true with synthetic lubricants. There is tons of
>> data from many sources as to the benefit, so much so that some car
>> makers (Chevrolet with the Vette and Porsche) actually specify it.
>>
>> Comparing engine flushing with synthetic oil is as specious as your
>> comparision to electronic ignition.
>>
>>
>>> 'I have investigated what I saw published about the Bilstein machine. It
>>> is simply an unnecessary gimmick, just like so many others designed to
>>> separate people from their money. Things such as transmission flushing
>>> machines, oil additives, etc. Matt '
>>>
>>> REPLY: Good...then youve taken the first step. If you have a Pep Boys
>>> or other place that uses the exact machine, then stop by and ask them if
>>> you can watch it being used as you have the desire to fully evaluate
>>> it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't let a Pep Boys employee within 10 feet of my car. I
>> stopped at an Autozone once to get the free scan tool read on my
>> Plymouth van as the MIL was lit. They gave me a code that made no
>> sense at all as it was a part that had been just recently replaced. I
>> went to a Chrysler dealer and they gave me the correct problem code.
>> Places like that can't even use a scan tool correctly. You think I'd
>> let them access the internals of my engine? Not going to happen.
>>
>> Well, it is obvious that you are one of the folks that P.T. Barnum
>> talked about. Reason won't work with you so I'm done with this thread.
>
>
> It appears that his religious fervor extends to the Bilstein machine.
> Remember, in his world science and facts don't matter, all that counts
> is faith and belief. ;-)

As both a Christian and an engineer, I think there is a place for both.

Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
>>
>>> 'Dave, you've said you are a Christian. So am I' Glad to hear that
>>> Matt. So, if you were to die very unexpectedly tonight and stand
>>> before God immediatly, how would you
>>> answer the question of him asking you :" Matt, why should i let you into
>>> Heaven for eternity ?" .
>>> That is a topic for a different newsgroup.
>>>
>>> REPLY: Then feel free to email me with the answer you would give.
>>
>>
>>
>> It isn't relevant to engine flushing.
>>
>>
>>> 'And you have the manufacturer's manual for your Hyundai also. It is
>>> called the owner's manual. Does it specify engine flushing using the
>>> Bilstein machine? If not, then why do you think it is necessary?'
>>>
>>> REPLY: I dont believe i ever said 'it is necessary' (??) However i do
>>> think it is advantageous . Does the Hyundai Manual recommend using
>>> synthetic fluids in the drivetrain ... even though synthetic fluids have
>>> a distinct advantage over the non types ?
>>
>>
>>
>> No, and I would never say that anyone should use them unless they want
>> the very well documented benefits. I use synthetics purely for the
>> cold starting advantage. They are overkill in pretty much every other
>> way as I don't run extended drain intervals and I don't race, etc.
>> However, for me the cold start benefit alone is worth the incremental
>> cost. The "data" at the Bilstein site was feeble even if true, with
>> claimed performance that isn't even above the measurement noise
>> floor. This isn't true with synthetic lubricants. There is tons of
>> data from many sources as to the benefit, so much so that some car
>> makers (Chevrolet with the Vette and Porsche) actually specify it.
>>
>> Comparing engine flushing with synthetic oil is as specious as your
>> comparision to electronic ignition.
>>
>>
>>> 'I have investigated what I saw published about the Bilstein machine. It
>>> is simply an unnecessary gimmick, just like so many others designed to
>>> separate people from their money. Things such as transmission flushing
>>> machines, oil additives, etc. Matt '
>>>
>>> REPLY: Good...then youve taken the first step. If you have a Pep Boys
>>> or other place that uses the exact machine, then stop by and ask them if
>>> you can watch it being used as you have the desire to fully evaluate
>>> it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't let a Pep Boys employee within 10 feet of my car. I
>> stopped at an Autozone once to get the free scan tool read on my
>> Plymouth van as the MIL was lit. They gave me a code that made no
>> sense at all as it was a part that had been just recently replaced. I
>> went to a Chrysler dealer and they gave me the correct problem code.
>> Places like that can't even use a scan tool correctly. You think I'd
>> let them access the internals of my engine? Not going to happen.
>>
>> Well, it is obvious that you are one of the folks that P.T. Barnum
>> talked about. Reason won't work with you so I'm done with this thread.
>
>
> It appears that his religious fervor extends to the Bilstein machine.
> Remember, in his world science and facts don't matter, all that counts
> is faith and belief. ;-)

As both a Christian and an engineer, I think there is a place for both.

Matt

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Dave in Lake Villa wrote:
>>
>>> 'Dave, you've said you are a Christian. So am I' Glad to hear that
>>> Matt. So, if you were to die very unexpectedly tonight and stand
>>> before God immediatly, how would you
>>> answer the question of him asking you :" Matt, why should i let you into
>>> Heaven for eternity ?" .
>>> That is a topic for a different newsgroup.
>>>
>>> REPLY: Then feel free to email me with the answer you would give.
>>
>>
>>
>> It isn't relevant to engine flushing.
>>
>>
>>> 'And you have the manufacturer's manual for your Hyundai also. It is
>>> called the owner's manual. Does it specify engine flushing using the
>>> Bilstein machine? If not, then why do you think it is necessary?'
>>>
>>> REPLY: I dont believe i ever said 'it is necessary' (??) However i do
>>> think it is advantageous . Does the Hyundai Manual recommend using
>>> synthetic fluids in the drivetrain ... even though synthetic fluids have
>>> a distinct advantage over the non types ?
>>
>>
>>
>> No, and I would never say that anyone should use them unless they want
>> the very well documented benefits. I use synthetics purely for the
>> cold starting advantage. They are overkill in pretty much every other
>> way as I don't run extended drain intervals and I don't race, etc.
>> However, for me the cold start benefit alone is worth the incremental
>> cost. The "data" at the Bilstein site was feeble even if true, with
>> claimed performance that isn't even above the measurement noise
>> floor. This isn't true with synthetic lubricants. There is tons of
>> data from many sources as to the benefit, so much so that some car
>> makers (Chevrolet with the Vette and Porsche) actually specify it.
>>
>> Comparing engine flushing with synthetic oil is as specious as your
>> comparision to electronic ignition.
>>
>>
>>> 'I have investigated what I saw published about the Bilstein machine. It
>>> is simply an unnecessary gimmick, just like so many others designed to
>>> separate people from their money. Things such as transmission flushing
>>> machines, oil additives, etc. Matt '
>>>
>>> REPLY: Good...then youve taken the first step. If you have a Pep Boys
>>> or other place that uses the exact machine, then stop by and ask them if
>>> you can watch it being used as you have the desire to fully evaluate
>>> it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't let a Pep Boys employee within 10 feet of my car. I
>> stopped at an Autozone once to get the free scan tool read on my
>> Plymouth van as the MIL was lit. They gave me a code that made no
>> sense at all as it was a part that had been just recently replaced. I
>> went to a Chrysler dealer and they gave me the correct problem code.
>> Places like that can't even use a scan tool correctly. You think I'd
>> let them access the internals of my engine? Not going to happen.
>>
>> Well, it is obvious that you are one of the folks that P.T. Barnum
>> talked about. Reason won't work with you so I'm done with this thread.
>
>
> It appears that his religious fervor extends to the Bilstein machine.
> Remember, in his world science and facts don't matter, all that counts
> is faith and belief. ;-)

As both a Christian and an engineer, I think there is a place for both.

Matt

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4ZLrg.82$5T1.42@trndny09...
>
>
>>>K&N filters are a great way to ruin your engine as they pass a lot more
>>>dirt than do conventional paper filters. Sure, you get a little more
>>>performance, but you give up engine life. If you are a racer, this is a
>>>worthwhile trade. It is a fool's choice for a street vehicle.
>>
>>Let's see, so far we've discovered that he believes in the Bilstein
>>machine and K&N filters. Wanna bet whether he has one of those
>>"Turbonators" in his intake and Slick 50 or Duralube in his crankcase?
>>Perhaps he believes in E3 spark plugs, too?
>>
>
>
> I've seen some comment here about K&N, and in fact I've watched these
> comments since they began here, but I've never seen anything that documents
> K&N problems. I don't use K&N, but they are one of the better reputed
> aftermarket items outside of this forum. I'm curious how K&N has achieved
> such a notable reputation as to now be deemed to ruin engines.
>
> I'm aware of one (reported) case where K&N caused a problem with a MAF
> sensor, but to my understanding (admittedly not well researched), this is
> either not the norm or it has been resolved by the manner in which the
> filters are oiled. There are a ton of these filters out there and if MAF
> sensor problems were such a real threat, one would expect to see a lot of
> press about it - but one does not.
>
> I've never seen any documentation of engines being ruined by K&N filters
> either. Is this an urban legend that has developed in this group or does
> someone actually have some empirical evidence of K&N problems?

You haven't looked very hard. This was from the very first page of a
Google search using "K&N filter efficiency test" as search words.

http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm



Notice that the K&N supplied data provides no comparitive data. This is
typical of a product that doesn't compare well to its peers. They show
absolute numerical values and argue that they are good enough. Kind of
like buying a cheap Chinese TV vs. a Sony. Sure, you will still see a
picture, but never put a Sony beside it or you'll kick yourself.

http://www.knfilters.com/images/factstab2.gif


I'm not at all saying that using a K&N is instant death for an engine.
If you never drive on dirt roads or dusty areas, you may never see a
difference. Then again, the difference in airflow is so small that you
won't see a difference in performance that is measurable either. And
the trade is that you now have to at least annually pull the filter,
wash out the old oil and re-oil it. My paper filters last 50-100,000
miles (only replaced the filter twice on my minivan that went 178,000
miles) and I have a dirt driveway nearly 3/8 mile long and drive on dirt
roads fairly often. Modern paper filters with modern vehicles that have
the air intake being the grill, rather than in the engine compartment,
simply last a long time.

If you are racing where you are running at full throttle much of the
time, then the difference in airflow may matter and if you suck in more
dust and shorten your engine life, you don't care. You will likely wear
the engine out from abuse before you see the affect of the less
efficient filter. However, if you are like me and plan to keep a
vehicle at least 200,000 miles and longer if possible, then I think this
is more of a concern. It's your money, but for me I see no reason to
pay premium dollars for a filter that requires maintenance, is messy,
passes more dirt and provides a performance advantage that isn't
measurable in the type of driving I do (I rarely run full throttle or
even close).


Matt

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4ZLrg.82$5T1.42@trndny09...
>
>
>>>K&N filters are a great way to ruin your engine as they pass a lot more
>>>dirt than do conventional paper filters. Sure, you get a little more
>>>performance, but you give up engine life. If you are a racer, this is a
>>>worthwhile trade. It is a fool's choice for a street vehicle.
>>
>>Let's see, so far we've discovered that he believes in the Bilstein
>>machine and K&N filters. Wanna bet whether he has one of those
>>"Turbonators" in his intake and Slick 50 or Duralube in his crankcase?
>>Perhaps he believes in E3 spark plugs, too?
>>
>
>
> I've seen some comment here about K&N, and in fact I've watched these
> comments since they began here, but I've never seen anything that documents
> K&N problems. I don't use K&N, but they are one of the better reputed
> aftermarket items outside of this forum. I'm curious how K&N has achieved
> such a notable reputation as to now be deemed to ruin engines.
>
> I'm aware of one (reported) case where K&N caused a problem with a MAF
> sensor, but to my understanding (admittedly not well researched), this is
> either not the norm or it has been resolved by the manner in which the
> filters are oiled. There are a ton of these filters out there and if MAF
> sensor problems were such a real threat, one would expect to see a lot of
> press about it - but one does not.
>
> I've never seen any documentation of engines being ruined by K&N filters
> either. Is this an urban legend that has developed in this group or does
> someone actually have some empirical evidence of K&N problems?

You haven't looked very hard. This was from the very first page of a
Google search using "K&N filter efficiency test" as search words.

http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm



Notice that the K&N supplied data provides no comparitive data. This is
typical of a product that doesn't compare well to its peers. They show
absolute numerical values and argue that they are good enough. Kind of
like buying a cheap Chinese TV vs. a Sony. Sure, you will still see a
picture, but never put a Sony beside it or you'll kick yourself.

http://www.knfilters.com/images/factstab2.gif


I'm not at all saying that using a K&N is instant death for an engine.
If you never drive on dirt roads or dusty areas, you may never see a
difference. Then again, the difference in airflow is so small that you
won't see a difference in performance that is measurable either. And
the trade is that you now have to at least annually pull the filter,
wash out the old oil and re-oil it. My paper filters last 50-100,000
miles (only replaced the filter twice on my minivan that went 178,000
miles) and I have a dirt driveway nearly 3/8 mile long and drive on dirt
roads fairly often. Modern paper filters with modern vehicles that have
the air intake being the grill, rather than in the engine compartment,
simply last a long time.

If you are racing where you are running at full throttle much of the
time, then the difference in airflow may matter and if you suck in more
dust and shorten your engine life, you don't care. You will likely wear
the engine out from abuse before you see the affect of the less
efficient filter. However, if you are like me and plan to keep a
vehicle at least 200,000 miles and longer if possible, then I think this
is more of a concern. It's your money, but for me I see no reason to
pay premium dollars for a filter that requires maintenance, is messy,
passes more dirt and provides a performance advantage that isn't
measurable in the type of driving I do (I rarely run full throttle or
even close).


Matt

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Brian Nystrom" <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4ZLrg.82$5T1.42@trndny09...
>
>
>>>K&N filters are a great way to ruin your engine as they pass a lot more
>>>dirt than do conventional paper filters. Sure, you get a little more
>>>performance, but you give up engine life. If you are a racer, this is a
>>>worthwhile trade. It is a fool's choice for a street vehicle.
>>
>>Let's see, so far we've discovered that he believes in the Bilstein
>>machine and K&N filters. Wanna bet whether he has one of those
>>"Turbonators" in his intake and Slick 50 or Duralube in his crankcase?
>>Perhaps he believes in E3 spark plugs, too?
>>
>
>
> I've seen some comment here about K&N, and in fact I've watched these
> comments since they began here, but I've never seen anything that documents
> K&N problems. I don't use K&N, but they are one of the better reputed
> aftermarket items outside of this forum. I'm curious how K&N has achieved
> such a notable reputation as to now be deemed to ruin engines.
>
> I'm aware of one (reported) case where K&N caused a problem with a MAF
> sensor, but to my understanding (admittedly not well researched), this is
> either not the norm or it has been resolved by the manner in which the
> filters are oiled. There are a ton of these filters out there and if MAF
> sensor problems were such a real threat, one would expect to see a lot of
> press about it - but one does not.
>
> I've never seen any documentation of engines being ruined by K&N filters
> either. Is this an urban legend that has developed in this group or does
> someone actually have some empirical evidence of K&N problems?

You haven't looked very hard. This was from the very first page of a
Google search using "K&N filter efficiency test" as search words.

http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm



Notice that the K&N supplied data provides no comparitive data. This is
typical of a product that doesn't compare well to its peers. They show
absolute numerical values and argue that they are good enough. Kind of
like buying a cheap Chinese TV vs. a Sony. Sure, you will still see a
picture, but never put a Sony beside it or you'll kick yourself.

http://www.knfilters.com/images/factstab2.gif


I'm not at all saying that using a K&N is instant death for an engine.
If you never drive on dirt roads or dusty areas, you may never see a
difference. Then again, the difference in airflow is so small that you
won't see a difference in performance that is measurable either. And
the trade is that you now have to at least annually pull the filter,
wash out the old oil and re-oil it. My paper filters last 50-100,000
miles (only replaced the filter twice on my minivan that went 178,000
miles) and I have a dirt driveway nearly 3/8 mile long and drive on dirt
roads fairly often. Modern paper filters with modern vehicles that have
the air intake being the grill, rather than in the engine compartment,
simply last a long time.

If you are racing where you are running at full throttle much of the
time, then the difference in airflow may matter and if you suck in more
dust and shorten your engine life, you don't care. You will likely wear
the engine out from abuse before you see the affect of the less
efficient filter. However, if you are like me and plan to keep a
vehicle at least 200,000 miles and longer if possible, then I think this
is more of a concern. It's your money, but for me I see no reason to
pay premium dollars for a filter that requires maintenance, is messy,
passes more dirt and provides a performance advantage that isn't
measurable in the type of driving I do (I rarely run full throttle or
even close).


Matt

 

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:45:21 -0500, DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake
Villa) wrote:

>'I hope this isn't an attempt to prove me wrong, Dave. While I support
>Christian morals, I also support tolerance of others up to the point
>where they begin to tread on my individual rights.'
>
>REPLY: H.T. , Yes...I can agree with this too. However, I support
>taking a stand against the very things which are sending this country
>down the moral sewer also ; I think its encumbant upon all of us who
>know right from wrong and who care about this Country to do so. I trust
>you feel the same way as its ok to be intolerant toward things which
>ruin an entire nation. Regards.

Dave, I gotta tell you there's almost nothing I dislike more than Christian
proselytizing. One thing I dislike more would be Atheistic proselytizing.

Let's talk Hyundai's friend!
--
Bob

 

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 18:45:21 -0500, DaveInLakeVilla@webtv.net (Dave in Lake
Villa) wrote:

>'I hope this isn't an attempt to prove me wrong, Dave. While I support
>Christian morals, I also support tolerance of others up to the point
>where they begin to tread on my individual rights.'
>
>REPLY: H.T. , Yes...I can agree with this too. However, I support
>taking a stand against the very things which are sending this country
>down the moral sewer also ; I think its encumbant upon all of us who
>know right from wrong and who care about this Country to do so. I trust
>you feel the same way as its ok to be intolerant toward things which
>ruin an entire nation. Regards.

Dave, I gotta tell you there's almost nothing I dislike more than Christian
proselytizing. One thing I dislike more would be Atheistic proselytizing.

Let's talk Hyundai's friend!
--
Bob