 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chevrolet / Chevrolet Trucks / September 2006warranty question
2006 Silverado 5.3L I put on a K&N Aircharger p/n 63-3050. I think it's the best enhancement I could have made, and intend to make. Now I'm concerned about taking it in for service and having the dealer tell me that the warranty is void. I've went to www.chevrolet.com where you can ask questions, and they have not responded. Granted it's only been four days, but I think thats long enough. maybe not. Any comments welcome. bullie Just put the old stuff back on if you need to have service done.  Signature-------------------------------------------------------------- When Religion ruled the world , they called it the dark ages... Don Farr Roswell NM 88203 D-farr AT cableone DOT net http://forums.s-series.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------- 2006 Silverado 5.3L I put on a K&N Aircharger p/n 63-3050. I think it's the best enhancement I could have made, and intend to make. Now I'm concerned about taking it in for service and having the dealer tell me that the warranty is void. I've went to www.chevrolet.com where you can ask questions, and they have not responded. Granted it's only been four days, but I think thats long enough. maybe not. Any comments welcome. bullie >Just put the old stuff back on if you need to have service done. This may not be good enough if the oil from K&N fouls the MAF sensor which they tend to do.If so they will figure out that you had on on it. Honestly they are not the wisest mod and they do filter the air less too which has been well proven in several ISO tests. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >> Just put the old stuff back on if you need to have service done. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Hello Snoman, Can you tell me where to locate the documentation which supports these ISO tests please? If there is any, it should be readily available. Via a google search wouldn't you say? I presume you are implying that Chevrolet does then, void warranties if these are used? If you know of any documentation of that or those occurance/s, I would also be grateful to know about their existence as well. What is the scenario, (as in any contingent damage), that is purported to be caused to any part, from a K & N oil fouled MAF sensor and downwind from that K & N oil foulded MAF sensor? If in fact it has been proven that a K & N filter does not filter air as well as the stock paper filter, then there should also be scientific data documenting that as well. I don't believe it is enough to make the statement as fact without the evidence to back it up. Do you? I know you may say, "well, I've seen the evidence myself many times," and I can't argue with this if so, but if this is what your statements are based on, please say so. Thank you. bullie >Hello Snoman, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >fouled MAF sensor and downwind from that K & N oil foulded >MAF sensor? You are not searching hard enough because they have a marginal airflow increase with reduced filtering. There was a good test of one on a Dmax and it sucked big time compared to even a stock GM filter. These ISO test is currently off line but there are other. I have a copy of it but I will not post it without authors approval. Also, you just get some oil and than MAF sensor and watch them not replace it under warranty becuase the only way it can get there is from a K&N filter and if you search various forums you will find a lot of comments on them fouling out MAF's and I just saw a new one last we. You must not get around or read much because it can be a real issue. WHy anyone would put a air filter on a 4x4 that filters less is beyond me and if it was that easy to get extra power and MPG magically, they would come that way from factory. As they ship GM engine are well tuned from intake to exhaust but there are still those that have to cut and hack and think they know better but your money could surely be better spent. 20 or 30 years ago air filters and intakes for them were not very high flow but that is not the case today but the myth persists. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >> Hello Snoman, >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Snoman, I find no such negative articles in a google search of the web, entering K&N or K and N, or K & N air filter, or any combination or derivatives of these that I can come up with. I also did an advanced google groups search, which I understand includes all of the former dejanews archives, and while you can find negative comments about K & N, none that I find are supported with any actual corroborative evidence or scientific data. That makes it all hearsay. There is even some indication some auto manufactures brand their own version of K&N filters and Toyota is one of them, and they warrant them as well. They most likely use MAF sensors, wouldn't you say? Still, like all of what is said on usenet, it's hearsay without evidence to support claims. To say something like, "I have a friend who has a friend who...," well, you get the idea. I see where K & N itself has apparently responded to some of the above mentioned posts, claiming all their filters are subjected to ISO 5011 Standards. So far, detractors show no actual data to suggest any of their claims, though they say they have it, or can get it. So where is it? Your point about marginal air flow increase isn't valid, simply because there is no data to support the claim. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to criticize you, there isn't any point in that. I can understand not posting copywrited material, unless it is posted in it's entirety and the author is given credit. But who is the author, and why wouldn't it be freely distributed in such case? Is he a scientist? Or someone else who might be qualified by any means? It would appear to me that the amount of oil in my factory oiled K & N filter is perhaps so miniscule in terms of volume, that even if the entire amount used on it were sprayed directly from a can, bypassing any filter, and directly through the MAF sensor with the engine running in one blast it might be neglibable if even the MAF sensor were damaged. OTOH road film, and yes, oil on the roads..there is plenty of it, might also, over time pass through any available filter on the market today, over time. Draw your own conclusions as to the possibilities, but unless you can support claims with something definitave, what is the point or motivation? Other than that, and since you appear at some time at least to have worked at a Chevrolet dealership, do you personally know of any warranty denials in any form based on the use of a K & N filter? bullie > It would appear to me that the amount of oil in my factory > oiled K & N filter is perhaps so miniscule in terms of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > warranty denials in any form based on the use of a K & N > filter? While I rarely agree with anything that Snoman says....I will give credit where credit is due. He's right, and you are wrong....and you are wasting your money on those types of filters, and if any damage is done to the MAF sensor because of "overoiling" the filter, there is no warranty for "driveability" concerns that occur because of an oil fouled MAF sensor. In case you need more proof, I work in a GM dealership and I will quote below from the relevent bulletin: The use of an excessively/over-oiled aftermarket, reusable air filter may result in: . Service Engine Soon (SES) Light On . Transmission shift concerns, slipping and damaged clutch(es) or band(s) . 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/over- oiled air filter. The MAF, GPS reading should be compared to a like vehicle with an OEM air box and filter under the same driving conditions to verify the concern. The use of an aftermarket reusable air filter DOES NOT void the vehicle's warranty. If an aftermarket reusable air filter is used, technicians should inspect the MAF sensor element and the air induction hose for contamination of oil prior to making warranty repairs. Transmission or engine driveability concerns (related to the MAF sensor being contaminated with oil) that are the result of the use of an aftermarket reusable, excessively/over-oiled air filter are not considered to be warrantable repair items. GM bulletins are intended for use by professional technicians, NOT a "do-it-yourselfer". They are written to inform these technicians of conditions that may occur on some vehicles, or to provide information that could assist in the proper service of a vehicle. Properly trained technicians have the equipment, tools, safety instructions, and know-how to do a job properly and safely. If a condition is described, DO NOT assume that the bulletin applies to your vehicle, or that your vehicle will have that condition. See your GM dealer for information on whether your vehicle may benefit from the information. WE SUPPORT VOLUNTARY TECHNICIAN CERTIFICATION © Copyright General Motors Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Ian >> It would appear to me that the amount of oil in my factory >> oiled K & N filter is perhaps so miniscule in terms of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > give credit where credit is due. He's right, and you are > wrong.... What is it exactly that I am wrong about? and you are wasting your money on those types > of filters, and if any damage is done to the MAF sensor because > of "overoiling" the filter, there is no warranty for "driveability" > concerns that occur because of an oil fouled MAF sensor. I appreciate your input, though I don't know specifially which part of snoman's post is right, either. I don't recall him specifying over oiling, but I would venture a guess that common sense would suggest that that condition could be a problem. You seem to narrow the issue down to over oiling. Thats fine, and I agree that it could cause problems. I do not agree that the K&N has less or immeasurable air flow differences, or that it doesn't filter as good. Except in the the possible condition of over oiling. > In case you need more proof, I work in a GM dealership and > I will quote below from the relevent bulletin: > > The use of an excessively/over-oiled aftermarket, reusable air filter may > result in: > . Service Engine Soon (SES) Light On It may do this if I restrict air flow over it with my hand too right? > . Transmission shift concerns, slipping and damaged clutch(es) or > band(s) > > . Engine driveability concerns, poor acceleration from a stop, > limited engine RPM range As with any air restriction, correct? > 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. That makes sense taken in conjunction with over oiling. Anti freeze in the engine compartment, or exhaust gas, or the smoking or burning of any oil or fluid on any part of the engine exterior might create the same condition. How do we determine the source if any of these were a possibility, or even obvious? I understand that the filter that came with my aircharger is good for 50,000 miles. I would replace it rather than re-oil it, even before this all came up, because I can feel the difference in my acceleration, a BIG difference, and I can see the added 1.5 to 2.0 mpg increase in *city* driving under the same repeated conditions, and the mileage gain over that time should well more than pay for another filter. Hell, the warranty ain't even good past 36K! > When servicing a vehicle with any of these concerns, be sure to check for > the presence of an aftermarket reusable, excessively/over- oiled air filter. Before or after checking the MAF sensor itself? > The MAF, GPS reading should be compared to a like vehicle with an OEM air > box and filter under the same driving conditions to verify the concern. Wouldn't it be simpler to connect a known good MAF sensor and see what the result was? Or at least, after doing the comparison the bulletin suggests, then swap the two and see if that solves the problem? How do they check for oil content in a suspect contaminated MAF sensor, by eyeballing it? By laboratory analysis? How much is too much? And why does a technician have to be reminded to check for the presense of contamination, oil or otherwise, on a part that would be suspect anyway? Is it better to suggest or imply there MAY HAVE been, (at one time?), an after market air cleaner installed? And that that could be the only source of oil contamination? And this, apparently seems to suggest the air filter is not obviously present? > The use of an aftermarket reusable air filter DOES NOT void the vehicle's > warranty. Thank you. I still hope to hear it from Chevrolet. > If an aftermarket reusable air filter is used, technicians should inspect > the MAF sensor element ok, now were getting to it, but not, (don't check it unless one is used), unless an aftermarket reusable air filter is used? and the air induction hose for contamination of oil > prior to making warranty repairs. Since it's a simple matter to check myself, I think I will do that regularly. A tissue swabbing inside should do it, but wait the "air induction hose," comes after the MAF sensor on mine. So guess we could be talking about damage to other parts as well? Or not? > Transmission or engine driveability concerns (related to the MAF sensor > being contaminated with oil) that are the result of the use of an > aftermarket reusable, excessively/over-oiled air filter are not considered > to be warrantable repair items. OK, can't argue with that. But is it possible it could be oil from something else? or some other "oily" contaminate? > GM bulletins are intended for use by professional technicians, NOT a > "do-it-yourselfer". They are written to inform these technicians of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ian >> The use of an aftermarket reusable air filter DOES NOT void the >> vehicle's warranty. > > Thank you. I still hope to hear it from Chevrolet. "That" was from Chevrolet. Are you stupid? And they are talking about the "overall" warranty, but I doubt that you caught that detail. > OK, can't argue with that. But is it possible it could be > oil from something else? or some other "oily" contaminate? My suggestion is that you simply run the K & N filter and don't bother asking whether it voids the warranty unless you are willing to listen. Do whatever you want....take the consequences that may or may not happen. I doubt that anyone here will care. I know that I don't. Ian >>> The use of an aftermarket reusable air filter DOES NOT void the >>> vehicle's warranty. >> Thank you. I still hope to hear it from Chevrolet. > > "That" was from Chevrolet. Are you stupid? No, I don't guess i am, are you an a.shole faggot? And they are > talking about the "overall" warranty, but I doubt that you > caught that detail. You mean like you didn't respond to ANY detail? >> OK, can't argue with that. But is it possible it could be >> oil from something else? or some other "oily" contaminate? > > My suggestion is that you simply run the K & N filter and > don't bother asking whether it voids the warranty unless you > are willing to listen. I don't listen to big mouth wannabes a.shole. Do whatever you want....take the > consequences that may or may not happen. I doubt that > anyone here will care. I know that I don't. > > Ian Go f.ck yourself moron. >> consequences that may or may not happen. I doubt that >> anyone here will care. I know that I don't. >> >> Ian > > Go f.ck yourself moron. Yeehaw.....we've got ourselves a live one! Go away, you dumb troll! Ian >>> consequences that may or may not happen. I doubt that >>> anyone here will care. I know that I don't. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ian Not worth any more time to convince a shill.. SignatureSteve W. >>> Hello Snoman, >>> [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > bullie Read the following and you will discover that it has happened. 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 drivability 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 drivability concerns that are the result of the installation of an aftermarket reusable, excessively oiled air filter are not considered to be warrantable repair items. This part is from a gentleman who actually TESTED K&N in real world applications. 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 initiated 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 traceable. 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 on 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 occurred with oiled foams on this unit. We discontinued the tests on the large pieces almost immediately but continued with service trucks, foremen'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 stubbornness 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.. SignatureSteve W. >>>> Hello Snoman, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > Read the following and you will discover that it has happened. Ok, this is essentially what's been posted before, plus or minus *details* one or the other of you has left out! (Because they are different in content, but essentially the same). Maybe it was the jackass who posted the other that edited it, or more likely failed to pay the detail attention he accuses someone else of doing. First of all, there was no discussion, or request for knowledge about over oiled air filters, period. So the jackass is just presuming someone needs to divert attention from the original post. > Info - Automatic Transmission Shift, Engine Driveability Concerns or > Service [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > First, Inspect the vehicle for a reusable aftermarket oiled air > filter Correct, don't look at the god damned MAF sensor first! > DO NOT REPAIR UNDER WARRANTY if concerns result from the use of a > reusable aftermarket oiled air filter. f.ck you Chevrolet, PROVE IT. Go to court over it! Post a public information bulletin over it. I f.cking dare you to do that, and take your dealership punk technicians and shove them up your a.s while you are at it! > The installation of an aftermarket reusable, oiled air filter may > result in: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > c.. Engine drivability concerns, poor acceleration from a stop, > limited engine RPM range Again, as any air restriction might, or WOULD, even a stock f.cking paper filter. > The oil that is used on these air filter elements may be transferred > onto the Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor causing contamination of the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > This part is from a gentleman who actually TESTED K&N in real world > applications. Site the source and documentation or it don't mean diddley squat. > Subj: K & N filters > > John: If I wrote "subjective" I meant "objective".. Yeah, like some bonehead who doesn't understand the difference between "subjective and objective," and ain't gonna even go back and look if thats what he actually said, cause he's just too f.cking arrogant to waste his time or admit he doesn't know! Jackass. 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. Yeah, and your *other* responsibility was making coffee for the bitches in the sales office no doubt! f.cking moron. 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.. One time for a million miles? Or one time as in one minute? Jackass! I initiated the > study in that I was convinced that a K&N type filter or oiled foam Foam? K & N uses foam? Really gee, you are as smart as any certified technician I know! 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) Halle-luja mutha fucka > 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 traceable. No joke? How many spiral notebooks did it take? > 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. And this was found out how? 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > small filter became clogged before lunch. The same outcome occurred with > oiled foams on this unit. Gee, you should send these results to K & N for possible duplication and independent observation! Think of it, if you were correct you'd bury them. But if it didn't pan out that way and all your Delco Chinese prison manufactured f.cking paper sales of air filters and oil filters would spiral down to nothing. Not willing to risk that are you jackass!? > We discontinued the tests on the large pieces almost immediately but > continued with service trucks, foremen's vehicles, and my own company > car. Oh no, not the gopher's car! My guess is they wanted to punish you for f.cking everything up! Analysis results continued showing markedly increased wear rates > for all the vehicles, mine included. Good. Bet they got you a new one right? Test concluded, switched back to > paper/glass and all vehicles showed reduction back to near original > levels of both wear metals and dirt. Post the data prick. I continued with the K&N on my > company car out of stubbornness 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. That is some really convincing documentation I must say. > 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... You mean because we couldn't deduce that for ourselves mr. objective? > 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??? Ok, well tell us the oil analysis method you used. All you had to do was look at the inside of the filter dipshit. > 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.. No, you probably work for AC Delco's Chinese division cover for Korean slave trade, and who the f.ck is George Morrison? go here and read > http://forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread/180100 second of all don't piss off Ian as he knows more than me and I may have to pick his brains in the future. Your childish name calling makes you sound like a fool with a poor vocabulary. >>>>> Hello Snoman, >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 152 lines] > > Site the source and documentation or it don't mean diddley squat. Maybe the Fact that the AUTHOR WAS THE TESTER MISSED YOUR BRAIN. >> Subj: K & N filters >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Yeah, and your *other* responsibility was making coffee for the bitches > in the sales office no doubt! f.cking moron. Better than your job of rimming the boss and licking out the urinals. > 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.. > > One time for a million miles? Or one time as in one minute? Jackass! Never worked in a real job have you. Miles means NOTHING. You use hours run as the measuring interval and flow restriction meters to show a filter nearing EOL. > I initiated the >> study in that I was convinced that a K&N type filter or oiled foam > > Foam? K & N uses foam? Really gee, you are as smart as any certified > technician I know! Learn how to READ dipshit, NOTICE THE WORD OR IN THERE. UNI filters are oiled foam. > would >> save us many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour savings, and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > And this was found out how? Never done an oil analysis have you. Done in the real world to determine wear. > In one extreme case, a >> unit with a primary and secondary air cleaner, the secondary (small [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > prison manufactured f.cking paper sales of air filters and oil filters > would spiral down to nothing. Not willing to risk that are you jackass!? K&N HAS been told about it and HAVE duplicated the tests and discovered the same thing. >> We discontinued the tests on the large pieces almost immediately but >> continued with service trucks, foremen's vehicles, and my own company [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > No, you probably work for AC Delco's Chinese division cover for Korean > slave trade, and who the f.ck is George Morrison? You might want to look at where K&N buys the material for there filters. It doesn't come from the US.... >>> First, Inspect the vehicle for a reusable aftermarket oiled air >>> filter [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> DO NOT REPAIR UNDER WARRANTY if concerns result from the use of a >>> reusable aftermarket oiled air filter. *If concerns result from the use of a reusable aftermarket oiled air filter* Thats an interesting statement in itself. If you have the capacity for thought, think about it. When do *concerns* override the obvious, or lack of the obvious, or data, or documentation derived from scientific testing and publishing? It doesn't say "if" the filter is present, it doesn't say "if a reusable oiled filter" might have been present at one time, "or may not not now present." (Becuase then they'd have to prove it was). I would wager it was written by a lawyer, who is retained to help Chevrolet save money. It does say "do not repair under warranty," but the only BASIS for that apparently is *concerns* Amazing stuff! >> f.ck you Chevrolet, PROVE IT. Go to court over it! Post a public >> information bulletin over it. I f.cking dare you to do that, and take [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Again, as any air restriction might, or WOULD, even a stock f.cking >> paper filter. Even a stock paper filter that sucked up enough road oil and/or water, or, water mixed with road oil, at 35,999 miles and contaminated the MAF sensor. >>> The oil that is used on these air filter elements may be transferred >>> onto the Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor causing contamination of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> for the presence of an aftermarket reusable, excessively oiled air >>> filter. "And if it's not over oiled, over oil it!" So your *concerns* are justified. >>> 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. OK, our *concern* is mentioned again, thats cool. The *concern* is presumed to be the presence, or past presense of an over oiled air filter. And if it's not there to solidify the *concern,* well, it must have been at one time right? Because, after all, the MAF sensor is presumed to be contaminated with oil. But NO *concern* about any number of possible sources. Interesting. >>> Transmission or engine drivability concerns that are the result of >>> the installation of an aftermarket reusable, excessively oiled air [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> This part is from a gentleman who actually TESTED K&N in real world >>> applications. And as yet, who is unidentified, who has absolutely NO credentials or data, but is apparently, in the REAL world. >> Site the source and documentation or it don't mean diddley squat. > > Maybe the Fact that the AUTHOR WAS THE TESTER MISSED YOUR BRAIN. No, it didn't miss my brain. What missed my brain, and your's too, is who he is, who he works for, what his qualifications are, where the data is, when it was done, where it was done, who supervised it, who verified it, and where all that is published besides somewhere in the REAL world of usenet, or some REAL web page, where ANYBODY, can say ANYTHING they want to say. Among other things. >>> Subj: K & N filters >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> Yeah, and your *other* responsibility was making coffee for the >> bitches in the sales office no doubt! f.cking moron. And if you were so responsible, mr. unidentified source, and had so much money to spend, with such an overwhelming belief in the power of K & N, you surely would have invited them along for the testing. That is if you were f.cking bright enough. > Better than your job of rimming the boss and licking out the urinals. That's Steve W. talking, for those of you that may have gotten lost in all this smoke and mirror stuff. His credibility has been questioned, and he doesn't like that apparently. >> This study was embarked upon due to >>> the fact that we were spending upwards of $30,000 a MONTH on paper [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > run as the measuring interval and flow restriction meters to show a > filter nearing EOL. OK, well, I guess you are going to have to define what you mean by *REAL JOB* "Miles means nothing," did I say that they meant something? Then you say, "you use hours as the measuring interval," ok, well, did I say something about time? I think I did. I simply was trying to understand what the writer meant by saying "Using them one time and then throwing them away....," because, apparently this type of thing is used when compiling data to support claims. >> I initiated the >>> study in that I was convinced that a K&N type filter or oiled foam [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Learn how to READ dipshit, NOTICE THE WORD OR IN THERE. UNI filters are > oiled foam. OK, now someone else's foam filters are becoming part of the issue. This further clouds the entire issue. Or are we just supposed to accept the use of the word *or* is a sufficient delineator by which to gather and publish our DATA? >> would >>> save us many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour savings, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>> Unfortunately, for me, every single unit having alternative re-usable >>> air cleaners Re-usable K & N filters or re-usable oil/foam filters? showed an immediate large jump in silicon (dirt)levels >>> with corresponding major increases in wear metals. Again, As measured how? *Immediate large,* huh? >> And this was found out how? > > Never done an oil analysis have you. Done in the real world to determine > wear. That depends on what you consider an analysis to be, as to whether you would accept my telling you that yes, I have done oil analysis. >> In one extreme case, a >>> unit with a primary and secondary air cleaner, the secondary (small [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> through that the small filter became clogged before lunch. The same >>> outcome occurred with oiled foams on this unit. And this was evidenced by how much dirt and metal was in the oil, correct? Now think about this question before you answer, because I'm going to put you to further test. I just want to give you a head's up start on that. >> Gee, you should send these results to K & N for possible duplication >> and independent observation! Think of it, if you were correct you'd [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > K&N HAS been told about it and HAVE duplicated the tests and discovered > the same thing. Where is the evidence to support that claim? Or are you just going to lay down and kick your feet? >>> We discontinued the tests on the large pieces almost immediately but >>> continued with service trucks, foremen's vehicles, and my own company >>> car. You mean you didn't have quite enough money to destroy everything I take it? >> Oh no, not the gopher's car! My guess is they wanted to punish you for >> f.cking everything up! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> Post the data prick. >> I continued with the K&N on my >>> company car out of stubbornness 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 thought you didn't use *miles* as a measuring stick? >> That is some really convincing documentation I must say. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> You mean because we couldn't deduce that for ourselves mr. objective? Considering the price of the equipment you've mentioned using for your *testing* I'd say you got off real cheap. But, until you identify the exact equipment used, and theri number, along with any and all other data collected by this testing, we will not know. >>> 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??? Well, you certainly wouldn't want performance out of your caterpillars and other heavy equipment and such. Or would you? >> Ok, well tell us the oil analysis method you used. All you had to do >> was look at the inside of the filter dipshit. >> >>> 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.. Again, who is George Morrison? >> No, you probably work for AC Delco's Chinese division cover for Korean >> slave trade, and who the f.ck is George Morrison? > > You might want to look at where K&N buys the material for there filters. > It doesn't come from the US.... OK, well, you say so, but where do I look? You know I find it amazing how peeps come here, post all this hearsay, (and that's all that it is), after misinterpreting, (intentionally or not), what a person was asking asking about in the first place. Then put their own twist on it, actually have the time to do that, and put their pea sized brains through so much effort to post sh.t they can't or won't back up with anything at all but more, "well I heard this," crap! If they do attempt to back anything up, or are challenged in the slightest, they throw a little temper tantrum cause their feeble group status has been questioned somehow? Snoman says I don't search hard enough, instead of showing us his "hard" searches. Then has an excuse for not posting what evidence or data he does have! So, I guess all of us are just dumb a.ses for not taking his word for it. Then a sushi lovin' irish samurai head of the class creep comes along with an "official" Chevrolet document, gif and all, and shows us something the public is not supposed to be clued in on, and starts talking about over-oiled filters and how to look for them instead of Chevrolet's own MAF sensor. Thats rich stuff. But hey, when you are a technician instead of a mechanic, who'd think of it anyway? Then you come along, with the same thing, only different, raising concerns about which one of you might have altered it, and proceed to tell a long story about an unidentified-who-knows-what that questions his own sensibility throughout his entire schpeil, and ask me to accept it as fact instead of the fiction it is. Then you actually say K & N did, duplicated the testing, got the same results, without including them in the conversation! WHERE THE f.ck ARE ALL THESE CLAIMS BACKED UP? Do you people even read what you say? Or are you too busy pumping it out to even think about what you say? Not a single one of you has offered anything that can be verified. And I'd bet not one of you has the wherewithall to carry something like that through, but you can sit here and throw temper tantrums, show your frustration by name calling when somebody questions your post, and otherwise quit or divert to something you think you can handle. Which isn't much apparently. > Then a sushi lovin' irish samurai Uh....that's "scottish", not "irish", and drop the samurai, keep the sushi lovin'. Ian >> Then a sushi lovin' irish samurai > > Uh....that's "scottish", not "irish", and > drop the samurai, keep the sushi lovin'. > > Ian and i dare you to wear your plaid skirt to work all week > and i dare you to wear your plaid skirt to work > all week It wouldn't work.....the guys I work with only like shaved legs and I don't have the time for that. Plus a kilt won't fit into my coveralls. Ian There are several (like 2 I have seen so far) that do not use oil.Just clean them with water and there cleaning spray.And then reinstall,NO oil. AEM is one , Summit carries it. Signature-------------------------------------------------------------- When Religion ruled the world , they called it the dark ages... Don Farr Roswell NM 88203 D-farr AT cableone DOT net http://forums.s-series.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 22:17:52 -0600, "Dafey" <d-farr@cableone.net> wrote: >Just put the old stuff back on if you need to have service done. This may not be good enough if the oil from K&N fouls the MAF sensor which they tend to do.If so they will figure out that you had on on it. Honestly they are not the wisest mod and they do filter the air less too which has been well proven in several ISO tests. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > 2006 Silverado 5.3L > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > bullie From the SI service manual set: 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 DO THIS DON'T DO THIS First, Inspect the vehicle for a reusable aftermarket excessively 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: * Service Engine Soon (SES) Light On * Transmission shift concerns, slipping and damaged clutch(es) or band(s) * 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. GM bulletins are intended for use by professional technicians, NOT a "do-it-yourselfer". They are written to inform these technicians of conditions that may occur on some vehicles, or to provide information that could assist in the proper service of a vehicle. Properly trained technicians have the equipment, tools, safety instructions, and know-how to do a job properly and safely. If a condition is described, DO NOT assume that the bulletin applies to your vehicle, or that your vehicle will have that condition. See your GM dealer for information on whether your vehicle may benefit from the information. WE SUPPORT VOLUNTARY TECHNICIAN CERTIFICATION |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.