Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Ford / Ford Explorer / May 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

K&N filter debate

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Rick W. - 26 Apr 2007 21:03 GMT
For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The
computer determines the air to fuel ratio.
Installing a filter with better flow, such as the K&N could potentially
increase the air available to the engine.
The computer sets the fuel air usage, so just because more air is made
available to the engine, why would this increase HP or MPG?
It's as though the makers of these type of filters think the OEM design is
flawed. I think it's ludicrous to believe the OEM designers would fail to
correctly size the air intake system.
And yes I've heard of the display at the parts house showing air flow
superiorty of the K&N over paper, making it look as though the paper is
"choking" the auto. However they are using air flow (cfm) way in excess of
what the engine requires. Dial down the air flow to realtime engine demand
and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
Rick
Kenneth J. Harris - 26 Apr 2007 21:23 GMT
I agree with you.  And in addition, an increased airflow alone is pretty
much ineffective unless there is a corresponding decrease in back
pressure.  You need to go with a low pressure low restriction exhaust
system to get the benefit from increased airflow.  There's nothing new
about this.

Ken

> For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The
> computer determines the air to fuel ratio.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
> Rick
Bob - 27 Apr 2007 01:42 GMT
> For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The
> computer determines the air to fuel ratio.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
> Rick

Here we go it's gonna be a long thread I bet. K&N filters let more air
flow because they filter less. Worse than snake oil, they'll actually
harm your engine due to poor filtration.
Ashton Crusher - 27 Apr 2007 05:26 GMT
>For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The
>computer determines the air to fuel ratio.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
>Rick

KN filters less so it has less restriction.  That makes no difference
except at or near wide open throttle and dyno tests have shown only a
very small increase in hp with the KN, when they show any increase at
all.  They seem rather pointless to me.
Jim Warman - 27 Apr 2007 07:04 GMT
The key is "inlet restriction". Plumb a vacuum gauge in to the space between
the MAF and the throttle body. Make several WOT passes using each filter
medium - both new, and read the gauge...

"There's one born every minute..." - PT Barnum

"Build it and they will come..." - unknown.

After doing this sh.t for nearly 40 years.... after seeing what happens when
we stray from the straight and narrow (though my take doesn't come in
"glossy" with a magazine  - that values my advertising dollar )... I am
immensely surprised that there are those that steadfastly tell me my
experience is bogus and the one car they have seen is great.

I base all of my assumptions on "would I want my wife to drive this car and
expect it to be dependable". Buy what you want... but don't base the
decision on pretty pictures....

Word to the wise... K&N spends a lot of time sidestepping the  "micron"
issue.

> For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The
> computer determines the air to fuel ratio.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
> Rick
jrchilds - 27 Apr 2007 14:03 GMT
> The key is "inlet restriction". Plumb a vacuum gauge in to the space between
> the MAF and the throttle body. Make several WOT passes using each filter
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>> and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
>> Rick

Make several WOT passes using each filter
medium - both new, and read the gauge...

Heck Jim, don't think my Explorer has seen WOT more than 2 maybe 3
times. It ain't a race car, don't drive it like one!!!Give me a GOOD air
filter that does it's job of removing dirt and dust.

Jack
Jim Warman - 28 Apr 2007 23:32 GMT
>> The key is "inlet restriction". Plumb a vacuum gauge in to the space
>> between
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>
> Jack
C. E. White - 27 Apr 2007 15:06 GMT
> For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The
> computer determines the air to fuel ratio.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> realtime engine demand and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
> Rick

I see this discussion come up so often, I just created a web page with
my canned response - see:

http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id5.html

Ed
Ron & Maggie - 28 Apr 2007 00:39 GMT
WOW what a bunch of gear heads, have any of you seen TV on Sunday?
Sunday is Nascar day and can any of you find me a car in Nextel Cup that
has a stock air filter or yet a stock air cleaner. Want max air flow you
need a K&N or something similar. Have a cam of 300 or more degrees with
.500 or more lift you need a K&N. Also not true about K&N filtration, a
properly oiled K&N will filter just as good or better than a stock
filter. Cut the BS people, unless you are a race engine builder or
automotive engineer you have no clue of how a filter or air box works.
OEM filters and air boxes as used on EFI engines of the last 15 years
suck. How many of you have taken you ride to a speed shop and tested the
stock air box to a K&N cold air intake on the Dyno? If you want MPG
don't waste your money on a K&N, need a few extra horses for little
money than go for the K&N. Now the oil on the mass air meter, yes clean
the oil off my 91 Explorer Mass air with 385,000 miles and it will run
better than new, BS,  put three quarts of oil on the mass air and be
lucky if the engine runs at all.

Nothing is better than good maintenance. Do it often and do it right and
your Exploder will live a long life. Remember your Explorer is not a
race car but feel confident that if you want a K&N filter it will not
harm your engine and it just may give you a smile on your face when you
hit the go pedal. Do what makes you feel good and pass on all this BS
from shade tree race car shops.

Ron

And yes I have run K&N filters on all my Explorers, 93, 95,98,03 and 05
Lincoln. All had modified exhaust, throttle bodies, mass air and
ignition upgrades.

> For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The
> computer determines the air to fuel ratio.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
> Rick
Rick W. - 28 Apr 2007 05:00 GMT
Greetings Ron
We are not talking about race cars here.
My whole argument is for those who think they can take an oem car, add a K&N
filter and see a difference. Beyond that they are deviating away from OEM
such as modifying, exhaust, throttle bodies, mass air and ignition upgrades.
With that my statement doesn't apply.

Your statement - Cut the BS people, unless you are a race engine builder or
automotive engineer you have no clue of how a filter or air box works.
Is a little harsh and a little arrogant, you wouldn't have made that
statement unless you had information that you think is unknown to us shade
tree mechanics.

Personally I believe that the figures don't lie. Please share with me the
study that shows that I can take my stock Explorer, add a K&N, and
immediately get more ponies! Better yet what if I added a larger exhaust
with that K&N, nothing more?

Rick
Ron & Maggie - 28 Apr 2007 22:05 GMT
Rick:

I take issue with people who have no idea of
what they are talking about and try to pawn it off as gospel. If someone
wants to spend $40.00 for a K&N filter to pick up 4 HP let them, why
bash K&N as bad or whatever? I have built engines from Flathead Fords to
427 SOHC FE's, I am sure there is someone who has more knowledge than I
do. But to bash K&N who I do not like but know they have a product that
works is wrong. As you well know you can not get something for nothing
so what is so wrong if Joe Smith wants to spend $40 bucks for a filter?
I have for years seen replies to questions about filters and it took
this last one to set me off. Want to talk about inches that that may be
a problem in sex, with filters we talk about CFM. Want to make 500 HP in
a 350 Chevy then you will need 660 CFM. 5.4 inches is only revelent if
you want to impress your girlfriend but will do nothing for your motor.
Square inches of filter media means nothing, how many CFM will it flow
is the answer.

I am sorry if I have offended any one but I can take only so much of
this BS, like I am a Certified OEM, ISAM, CST, XYZ or back yard gear
head, and my second cousin on my aunts side says this is junk and will
not work. Ops, this excludes Jim Warman as I do respect his post. Any
thing you can do to improve performance and put a smile on your face has
to be good. Why do we have to argue about things others like? Want to
vent than vent on the nuts we put in Congress. We need to respect each
other and offer true help not the other way around.

I closing all I can say is I love the sound of my 32 valve motor at 7000
RPM and hope all of you find what you are looking for. I did.

Ron

> Greetings Ron
> We are not talking about race cars here.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Rick
Jim Warman - 28 Apr 2007 23:43 GMT
Dusted engine..... more prevalent in diesels but applies to gas as well....

I've been doing this sh.t (auto mechanics) for near 40 years.... you will
never see an open weave filter on any of my vehicles... not even my toys.

Fitting one of these filters wont kill your engine.... but it opens the
door.

YMMV

> Rick:
>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>>
>> Rick
Bob - 29 Apr 2007 00:31 GMT
> Rick:
>
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
>>
>> Rick

My first car was a '51 Ford flathead V8. Paid $110 for it in 1965. First
thing I did to it as a dumbass 16 year old was take the air filter off
and punch holes in the muffler. Don't remember if it was any faster but
it sure sounded good. Totaled it one night (Way before Mad Mothers, the
cops gave me a ride home joking about how drunk I was) so I don't know
how long the engine would've lasted with no filter.
Rick W. - 29 Apr 2007 03:12 GMT
Ron:

>> I take issue with people who have no idea of what they are talking about
>> and try to pawn it off as gospel. If someone wants to spend $40.00 for a
>> K&N filter to pick up 4 HP let them, why bash K&N as bad or whatever?

Here in lies the problem, I've been thinking about buying a KN filter. But
I'm not going to spend $49 if it doesn't really work.

I apologies if you thought that is what I'm doing. For the record, I'm not
an auto mechanic. I grew up with it, but am actually a practicing master
electrician. I'm trying to teach my 18 year old son not to "fall down" for
every arm chair expert, or "seductive marking gimmick", that comes along. A
lot of money and time is wasted on well marketed garbage. This filter thing
is a great example. For every person that likes KN, there is someone who
doesn't. Why?  It doesn't matter what we think. What matters is the
engineering data. I started this thread in hopes of finding someone who HAS
THE DATA, you cannot argue with the data, and some have indeed shown links
reviewing comparisons, or present a compelling ANALYTICAL argument. I formed
an opinion based on almost no data, and was hoping to hear that I'm either
right or wrong, but proven so not by someone who "just knows", but by the
results of engineering studies. It seems that most would rather just argue
opinions with no hard evidence to back them up.

Rick

>> Rick:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 55 lines]
> gave me a ride home joking about how drunk I was) so I don't know how long
> the engine would've lasted with no filter.
Beryl - 29 Apr 2007 10:13 GMT
> Ron:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> results of engineering studies. It seems that most would rather just argue
> opinions with no hard evidence to back them up.

No hard data tonight, sorry. I remember funny statistics somewhere that
showed K&N to be virtually as effective at removing dirt as a good paper
filter. K&N's website had some actual comparison numbers, I think, but I
don't find them there now.
Basically, the best paper filter would catch 98% of airborne dirt while
K&N caught 97%. That's only a tiny difference of 1% right?
No, it's really a 50% difference. Paper passed 2% into the engine, and
K&N passed 3%...  which is 50% more.

Some of the K&N testimonials are pretty hokey.
http://www.knfilters.com/feedback.htm
"I could immediately hear a HUGE suction of air rushing into the engine
like crazy.  The whole system sounds strong, and it really made a bigger
difference than I thought it would! Amazing what a little bit of extra
air can do for an engine."

And http://www.knfilters.com/faq.htm#9 is rather an interesting
admission. I think that auto manufacturers are smart enough to size
their filters so that restriction is negligible too. A few more square
inches can't be that hard to achieve.
Big Shoe - 29 Apr 2007 13:00 GMT
>> Ron:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>their filters so that restriction is negligible too. A few more square
>inches can't be that hard to achieve.

Anybody remember the old oil bath filters car makers used before they
used paper filters?  How is the K&N different from them?
Jim Warman - 29 Apr 2007 18:27 GMT
What needs to be remembered is how long those old motors lasted before it
was time for a rering or rebuild....

Look at it this way..... the folks that want to sell you an open weave
filter will tell you the micron rating of the filter medium doesn't
matter....

However, the folks that designed and built the engine say that it does....

Who am I going to believe?

FWIW, we just finished replacing an engine in a 2006 F350. This 6.0 PSD had
been fitted with an open weave filter. With 120,000 kms on the engine (less
than 75,000 miles), this engine drank a litre of oil every 200 km.
Turbocharger fins were severely dusted as were the cylinder walls.... A
complete 6.0, installed, runs about $20,000 CA...

I refuse to try to change anyones mind.... however, choosing the filter
media we use requires that we have our eyes wide open...
Ashton Crusher - 28 Apr 2007 07:51 GMT
>WOW what a bunch of gear heads, have any of you seen TV on Sunday?
>Sunday is Nascar day and can any of you find me a car in Nextel Cup that
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>suck. How many of you have taken you ride to a speed shop and tested the
>stock air box to a K&N cold air intake on the Dyno?

I've seen magazines do it and they get very little improvement.  No
one is saying that reducing the filtering ability to improve airflow
won't give some slight benefit, but on a normal drive around town car
the tiny little extra power you MIGHT get at WOT is silly to worry
about and the trade off in filtering capability is IMHO a dumb
tradeoff.

If you want MPG
>don't waste your money on a K&N, need a few extra horses for little
>money than go for the K&N. Now the oil on the mass air meter, yes clean
>the oil off my 91 Explorer Mass air with 385,000 miles and it will run
>better than new, BS,  put three quarts of oil on the mass air and be
>lucky if the engine runs at all.

Many people have reported problems with oil on their MAF and not just
on older vehicles.  

>Nothing is better than good maintenance. Do it often and do it right and
>your Exploder will live a long life. Remember your Explorer is not a
>race car but feel confident that if you want a K&N filter it will not
>harm your engine and it just may give you a smile on your face when you
>hit the go pedal. Do what makes you feel good and pass on all this BS
>from shade tree race car shops.

Nonsense.  About the only thing you be able to notice a difference in
is the amount of noise.  The small increase in hp you might get at WOT
is not going to be noticeable to the driver except in his imagination.

>Ron
>
>And yes I have run K&N filters on all my Explorers, 93, 95,98,03 and 05
>Lincoln. All had modified exhaust, throttle bodies, mass air and
>ignition upgrades.

Well gee, I'm sure that KN have oh so much to do with any
improvements.  The fact is, based on actual tests, the thing that DOES
make a difference is opening up the exhaust, it's just about the only
thing on your list that is likely to make enough difference to be
worth the trouble and cost of doing in and of itself.

>> For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The
>> computer determines the air to fuel ratio.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
>> Rick
petes_06_Mustang_Convt - 29 Apr 2007 12:58 GMT
I have read all of the messsages, just did a K&N on my V6 Mustang, 3 MPG and
quicker response out of the box!  Regular paper filter at Oil Change = $38.00,
50,000 mile K&N saves about $400.00!

>>WOW what a bunch of gear heads, have any of you seen TV on Sunday?
>>Sunday is Nascar day and can any of you find me a car in Nextel Cup that
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>>> and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
>>> Rick
Ashton Crusher - 29 Apr 2007 19:19 GMT
>I have read all of the messsages, just did a K&N on my V6 Mustang, 3 MPG and
>quicker response out of the box!  Regular paper filter at Oil Change = $38.00,
>50,000 mile K&N saves about $400.00!

Not that I doubt your sincerity, but that kind of result often happens
when people make changes because they drive differently or because
they changed something else at the same time.  Do you really think
that if it was that easy to REALLY make every v 6 mustang get better
gas mileage and more power with no significant downside that ford
would not put them on every one they sell??  They spent millions
developing the 5w20 oil for a 0.1mpg increase in overall fuel mileage.
and as another data point, it's not that ford won't use such a filter,
they do use it I have been told on some of the specialty vehicles.  So
they know what it's value is and whether it would make sense system
wide.

>>>WOW what a bunch of gear heads, have any of you seen TV on Sunday?
>>>Sunday is Nascar day and can any of you find me a car in Nextel Cup that
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>>>> and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
>>>> Rick
C. E. White - 30 Apr 2007 13:07 GMT
> WOW what a bunch of gear heads, have any of you seen TV on Sunday?
> Sunday is Nascar day and can any of you find me a car in Nextel Cup
> that has a stock air filter or yet a stock air cleaner.

Show me a NASCAR car with a K&N.

Ed
gordo - 30 Apr 2007 23:05 GMT
>> WOW what a bunch of gear heads, have any of you seen TV on Sunday? Sunday
>> is Nascar day and can any of you find me a car in Nextel Cup that has a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Ed
The NASCAR filters are gauze type material , like the K&N. They aren't oiled
though.
They are not listed as street filters but I would trust them over a K&N for
filtering ability.
http://www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/racing.asp
C. E. White - 01 May 2007 14:54 GMT
> The NASCAR filters are gauze type material , like the K&N. They
> aren't oiled though.
> They are not listed as street filters but I would trust them over a
> K&N for filtering ability.
> http://www.wixfilters.com/filterlookup/racing.asp

Here is a better description of the media used inthe Wix type racing
fitlers -

http://www.fiberwebfiltration.com/QualiFlo.html

Definitely not K&N. Not even close.

Ed
gordo - 02 May 2007 04:03 GMT
>> The NASCAR filters are gauze type material , like the K&N. They aren't
>> oiled though.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Definitely not K&N. Not even close.

True, not a K&N but it IS a gauze design LIKE the K&N.
I have installed many of them in race cars.
Bob - 30 Apr 2007 00:36 GMT
> For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The
> computer determines the air to fuel ratio.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine.
> Rick

Looks like common sense is winning this argument. So...any Amsoil fans
out there?
Jim Warman - 30 Apr 2007 01:47 GMT
Spelling nazi! Spelling nazi!

I'm sure you meant "spamsoil"????

As in "our oil would meet this API spec if we submitted it"?
 
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.