Don Wrote:

Everything in a production car is a tradeoff of performance vs
materials cost, EPA noise levels, interior sound levels, fuel economy,
etc...

Most stock engines are able to make more power if given the chance,
provided you are willing to trade sound levels and idle stability, and
more often than not fuel economy...

You cannot tell me that my Lumina's stock airbox intake snorkel that is
about 60% of the size of the throttle body bore is anything other than a
compromise and an obvious bottleneck. Of course the average driver than
has probably never pushed a gas pedal all the way down wouldn't notice
that. I do.

I can see where turbo apps could suffer form less than ideal filtering.
I do question the need for it in standard engines, however. I can't
explain how I'm getting 200,000+ miles outta my cars with little or no
oil usage and great compression if it was really an issue...I'm sure
the worst K+N filters better than the best paper filter of 20 years
ago....and they worked fine...

Don, on some cars (98-01 Camaro/Firebirds) you can get 10 easy hp just
by ditching the stock airbox.  They have noise baffling in there that
kills hp.  I'm not just going by the magazines - but if you do, I
believe it was GM High Tech Perf that tested about a dozen of them,
found they all made about 10hp, and the best one to buy was the cheapest
because they were all about the same.  For me, I use my timeslips - a
full tenth at the quarter just with the lid.  It also means that I
didn't have to cut up the original lid for the nitrous install.

My car has a K&N filter, but I consider it to be worth 0 hp.  I
installed it because of the silly prices they want for a paper filter -
on this car it's CHEAPER to run a K&N and clean it yearly.  All my other
cars just get stock filters.  I do need to get the air cleaner "sock"
for my dirt track car tho.

FWIW, my best time with my TA with drag radials and a stock airbox was a
13.232, with the aftermarket lid was a 13.116.  Too bad the stock clutch
is wasted and I haven't had time to swap it yet.

Oh, and more on the intake thing on why it works on some cars... 01
F-Bodies were rated at 310hp or 325hp@5200, and the 01 Vette was
350hp@5600.  The difference between the two engines:  throttle body,
intake ducting, exhaust manifolds and piping, oil pan, and probably
calibrations.  The intake is the same.  The cam is the same.  Block and
heads - same.  Valvetrain - same.  The F-Body engines were "choked" off
at higher rpm by the intake and exhaust.  Why?  Cost, packaging, and
making sure the F-bod was slower than the Vette by a tick.

Ray

Stating that a K&N intake will not gain HP and is "patently fraudulent"
is like saying man never landed on the moon.  That is such a ridiculous
statement that I wonder if you really believe it.  It doesn't matter if
you like K&N or not but it seems that there are those that make up
"facts" or what they heard to provide "evidence" for justification of
their unsubstantiated belief system about K&N.  It's kind of
entertaining to read.

"--Increased intake noise produces an illusion of increased power but
no actual power increase is achieved."
My truck was dyno'ed before and after and it gained over 10HP after a
K&N air intake was installed.  I also know the difference between power
and noise.  K&N Provides many dyno charts for before and after power
levels to show that their air intakes gain HP.  In fact they guarantee
that their intakes will provide a power gain.  What is your evidence to
support your statement?

"--Problems with mass air flow sensor due to dirt passing through K&N
filter.  Also contamination  of mass air flow sensor from the oil the
filter is treated with."
What evidence can you provide?  K&N provides lots of testing.  In fact
they have stated that they have covered MAF sensors with their filter
oil and couldn't make one fail due to it.  Dealerships can only make
basic checks of a MAF sensor to see if it is good or bad.  They have no
way of knowing what the problem is without sending it to a laboratory.
Please provide 1 example of a sensor that was sent to a lab that
concluded K&N filter oil caused the failure.  I'll save you some time;
you can't.  It's all about people's opinion not scientific fact.  Want
to read about testing?  Go to http://www.knfilters.com/MAF/massair.htm

"--Reduced engine life due to passage of dirt through K&N."
Any evidence of a K&N filter passing dirt that damaged a vehicle?  By
evidence I mean more than an opinion with a guess.  Lot's of things can
cause problems but people who dislike a product can alway point it out
to make themselves feel they are right.

Here's a story about a K&N user & his dealership service manager that
K&N must have paid off to say he used a K&N air filter in his truck.
The truck has over 1,000,000 miles on it without any engine work.
http://www.knfilters.com/million/  Check out the video!  This guy is a
good actor.

I don't know who the Spicer guy is but he must have also been paid off
by K&N if he is now saying that they aren't so bad!

Hey everyone has a favorite oil, polish, or filter and that's fine.
It's just funny how strong claims are made when there are hundreds of
possible causes for a problem.  It's easier to blame what you don't
like than to actually determine the cause by testing.  The only thing I
know for sure is that K&N stole their air filter designs from peaceful
space aliens that were passing by in the '60s and it's a shame K&N got
away with it.

Sounds suspiciously like it, unfortunately. It's disappointing.

Spicer notes that K&N's test is slightly different from his, then
appears to assume K&N's was more accurate.

I can understand if they said a "few" sensors went bad, but NONE? There
are a number of Toyota MTDs I follow in some other groups, and all of
them independently have seen MAF failures from filter oil.

Maybe it's very difficult to "properly" oil the filter so it doesn't
damage the MAF. If so, that is a problem in itself.

Personally, I'm not at all confident with a K&N in a car I want to last
300,000 miles.