"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:kENrg.363$Pa.42497@news1.epix.net...

>
> 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

I didn't do a google search at all Matt - I was asking people here if they
had good reasons for their disklike of K&N.

I do appreciate the link though.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

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.

The K&N packaging explains, quite in simple english, that the unit
passes 50% more dirt than the average paper/fiber filter. This has been
well covered in alt.autos.dodge.trucks over the last few years.

The story goes something like this: Paper filters consistantly clean
98% of the average crap out of the average "outdoor" air, K&N's pass
97%. This does equate to a 50% increase in dirt flow.

> 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.

The bigger issue is the fact that K&N filters don't filter well until
they're actually dirty. The more dirt, the better it filters. Freshly
cleaned its no better than an oily cotton sock.

> 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?

"Ruined"... Nope, I doubt anyone's actually had their engine "ingest" a
K&N filter or some equivalent action that you could actually call
"ruining". Premature failure due to increased wear due to unusually
high foreign matter in the intake is more like it.

K&N's do make sense in many situations. The biggest advantage of the
K&N is it takes a lot more foreign matter to "clog". If you're
operating tractors/trucks/dirtbikes/jeeps/4-wheelers/etc in conditions
where paper filters start restricting airflow nearly instantly, the K&N
filter is your best answer.

JS

 

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.

The K&N packaging explains, quite in simple english, that the unit
passes 50% more dirt than the average paper/fiber filter. This has been
well covered in alt.autos.dodge.trucks over the last few years.

The story goes something like this: Paper filters consistantly clean
98% of the average crap out of the average "outdoor" air, K&N's pass
97%. This does equate to a 50% increase in dirt flow.

> 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.

The bigger issue is the fact that K&N filters don't filter well until
they're actually dirty. The more dirt, the better it filters. Freshly
cleaned its no better than an oily cotton sock.

> 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?

"Ruined"... Nope, I doubt anyone's actually had their engine "ingest" a
K&N filter or some equivalent action that you could actually call
"ruining". Premature failure due to increased wear due to unusually
high foreign matter in the intake is more like it.

K&N's do make sense in many situations. The biggest advantage of the
K&N is it takes a lot more foreign matter to "clog". If you're
operating tractors/trucks/dirtbikes/jeeps/4-wheelers/etc in conditions
where paper filters start restricting airflow nearly instantly, the K&N
filter is your best answer.

JS

 

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.

The K&N packaging explains, quite in simple english, that the unit
passes 50% more dirt than the average paper/fiber filter. This has been
well covered in alt.autos.dodge.trucks over the last few years.

The story goes something like this: Paper filters consistantly clean
98% of the average crap out of the average "outdoor" air, K&N's pass
97%. This does equate to a 50% increase in dirt flow.

> 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.

The bigger issue is the fact that K&N filters don't filter well until
they're actually dirty. The more dirt, the better it filters. Freshly
cleaned its no better than an oily cotton sock.

> 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?

"Ruined"... Nope, I doubt anyone's actually had their engine "ingest" a
K&N filter or some equivalent action that you could actually call
"ruining". Premature failure due to increased wear due to unusually
high foreign matter in the intake is more like it.

K&N's do make sense in many situations. The biggest advantage of the
K&N is it takes a lot more foreign matter to "clog". If you're
operating tractors/trucks/dirtbikes/jeeps/4-wheelers/etc in conditions
where paper filters start restricting airflow nearly instantly, the K&N
filter is your best answer.

JS

 

JS wrote:
> The more dirt, the better it filters.

That's true of any type of filter.

> K&N's do make sense in many situations. The biggest advantage of the
> K&N is it takes a lot more foreign matter to "clog". If you're
> operating tractors/trucks/dirtbikes/jeeps/4-wheelers/etc in conditions
> where paper filters start restricting airflow nearly instantly, the K&N
> filter is your best answer.

Actually, your best answer is a large, high-flowing pre-filter to catch
the bulk of the crud before it gets to the finer, standard filter.
That's pretty much "filtration 101". It can be difficult to do in the
confines of an engine bay, however.

 

JS wrote:
> The more dirt, the better it filters.

That's true of any type of filter.

> K&N's do make sense in many situations. The biggest advantage of the
> K&N is it takes a lot more foreign matter to "clog". If you're
> operating tractors/trucks/dirtbikes/jeeps/4-wheelers/etc in conditions
> where paper filters start restricting airflow nearly instantly, the K&N
> filter is your best answer.

Actually, your best answer is a large, high-flowing pre-filter to catch
the bulk of the crud before it gets to the finer, standard filter.
That's pretty much "filtration 101". It can be difficult to do in the
confines of an engine bay, however.

 

JS wrote:
> The more dirt, the better it filters.

That's true of any type of filter.

> K&N's do make sense in many situations. The biggest advantage of the
> K&N is it takes a lot more foreign matter to "clog". If you're
> operating tractors/trucks/dirtbikes/jeeps/4-wheelers/etc in conditions
> where paper filters start restricting airflow nearly instantly, the K&N
> filter is your best answer.

Actually, your best answer is a large, high-flowing pre-filter to catch
the bulk of the crud before it gets to the finer, standard filter.
That's pretty much "filtration 101". It can be difficult to do in the
confines of an engine bay, however.