 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / September 2005k&n air filter
i have a stock 99 gt. i have read where this air filter alone does add some HP. they cost around $50. anyone here use 1 and do they really make a diffrence? mp > i have a stock 99 gt. i have read where this air filter alone does add > some HP. they cost around $50. anyone here use 1 and do they really make > a diffrence? mp OMG!!! You've started it now! Let the games begin. :) >> i have a stock 99 gt. i have read where this air filter alone does add >> some HP. they cost around $50. anyone here use 1 and do they really make >> a diffrence? mp > > OMG!!! You've started it now! Let the games begin. :) I didn't really think he would do it!!! Ha haa  SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 michaelvprice@webtv.net (Michael price) wrote in news:10206-432E270E-786 @storefull-3234.bay.webtv.net: > i have a stock 99 gt. i have read where this air filter alone does add > some HP. they cost around $50. anyone here use 1 and do they really make > a diffrence? mp Maybe a couple... but only noticable in the same way as a good wash/wax/detail job. IOW, all in yer head. > i have a stock 99 gt. i have read where this air filter alone does add > some HP. they cost around $50. anyone here use 1 and do they really make > a diffrence? mp The difference isn't really noticible. And that "extra" HP is at the expense of letting more dirt into your engine and possibly contaminating your MAF with the filter oil. If you'll google a bit, you can find a study comparing amount of particulates allowed to pass in a test of various filters. If I recall correctly, the K&N filter allowed 3-4 times the amount of particulates through when compared to a stock paper filter. Cheers, >> i have a stock 99 gt. i have read where this air filter alone does add >> some HP. they cost around $50. anyone here use 1 and do they really make [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >correctly, the K&N filter allowed 3-4 times the amount of particulates >through when compared to a stock paper filter. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm There it is... SignatureScott W. '66 HCS Mustang 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 http://home.comcast.net/~vanguard92/ >>> i have a stock 99 gt. i have read where this air filter alone does add >>> some HP. they cost around $50. anyone here use 1 and do they really make [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > There it is... I have visited this site before and find the test interesting but there are many flaws in it. He doesn't weigh the 2nd filters before or after use or analyze the particulates that are on the medium. All he uses to determine filtering ability is the color of the patch. Since the K&N filter is oiled it is quite possible the particles pick up some oil and have a darker color. Also, the oil might make the sample weigh more if he would have bothered to weigh them. This test doesn't prove anything regarding engine longevity either. It is possible that the particulate matter is not of sufficient size or quantity to cause cylinder wall scoring or excessive bearing wear. I suspect if K&N filters were too porous, and therefore caused premature engine wear, then they would have been sued into bankruptcy by now. A giant rip-off. The only way it can add power is if your present air cleaner system is restricting air flow. On most later model cars, this is not the case. Also, no matter what they tell you, it doesn't filter as well as a stock element. I don't have the site handy, but someone did an comprehensive study and found the K&N did not filter as efficiently as a paper element air cleaner. I have never seen any kind of an improvement, and I have used these in two different cars. >i have a stock 99 gt. i have read where this air filter alone does add > some HP. they cost around $50. anyone here use 1 and do they really make > a diffrence? mp To add a little balance to the K&N bashing I'll give my own personal, real world experience with K&N filters. I have had one installed in my '89 LX since it had 30,000 miles on the odometer. I now have 156,000 hard driven miles on the car with the last 20,000 using a Kenne Bell supercharger. I still use the same K&N filter I installed at 30,000 miles. There are multitudes of K&N users with my experience. BTW, the car uses no more oil than it did when new. All this "K&N is crap" stuff is just that, crap. EVERY FILTER lets dirt into the engine. IMO, a K&N filter will do no more harm to an engine than an OEM filter. While a K&N might only make 5 more hp on a basically stock engine, the real dividends come when the car is progressively modified. A car with a blower, head work, cam etc. will see an appreciable gain between an OEM and a K&N filter. Before anyone starts linking web sites with tests, keep in mind who may have done the tests and their motives. Also, there are many tests that are just plain unscientific and should be ignored. As for me, I have 100,000+ miles of personal experience to base my opinion on. Fact is that many of those that bash K&N products have ABSOLUTELY ZERO EXPERIENCE with them and have no idea whether their claims against K&N filter's performance is accurate or not. My personal experience makes me believe a K&N filter WILL NOT shorten the life of your engine if you change your oil as recommended for your driving conditions and generally keep your vehicle in a good state of maintenance and repair. > A giant rip-off. The only way it can add power is if your present air > cleaner system is restricting air flow. On most later model cars, this is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> some HP. they cost around $50. anyone here use 1 and do they really make >> a diffrence? mp I have to agree with Michael here on this one. If you are using it on a stock engine, not really worth it. But I drag race, and use nothing but, and pretty much all the cars I race have them on their cars. I'm majorally moded up, and have gained aprox 10hps with the filter, and have put some miles on the car with absolutely no affects to the motor. Have done a tear down to freshen up the bottom end from time to time, and have found no dirt particles or scoring on the cylinder walls, or the crank, or the journals and bearings. So believe what you want to believe, I know they do no harm when properly maintained. provided you are not using it in dusty conditions all the time. > To add a little balance to the K&N bashing I'll give my own personal, > real world experience with K&N filters. I have had one installed in my [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >> some HP. they cost around $50. anyone here use 1 and do they really make > >> a diffrence? mp >I have to agree with Michael here on this one. If you are using it on a > stock engine, not really worth it. But I drag race, and use nothing but, [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > make >> >> a diffrence? mp on my bone stock 97 XR7 i took the damn thing off after about 3 months, could not stand the dam whistle. no noticable difference is the feel of the car stock to KN but gas milage did increase from 16 mpg average to 17.5 when i put the stock breather box back in place >> I have to agree with Michael here on this one. If you are using it on a >> stock engine, not really worth it. But I drag race, and use nothing but, [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > car stock to KN but gas milage did increase from 16 mpg average to 17.5 when > i put the stock breather box back in place Taking the stock air box out of newer cars isn't always the best choice. Many times the air box, filter and intake tubing is designed to work together for best performance. I still use the stock air filter box on my '89 LX even with all the mods. It works fine with the K&N. My advice it to either just swap the filter or replace the box, filter and tubing with a quality engineered system. The fact you didn't use the stock air box was likely the reason for the mileage drop not the K&N filter. Had you used a K&N filter that fit the stock box the results could have been different. I did not say that this filter would shorten the life of an engine or do any harm. If taking issue with their increase horsepower claims is "K&N bashing", guilty as charged. In there zeal to sell product, they make claims that can not be proven outside of their own "testing." It seems to me the term "Filtercharger" implies that the filter will increase air flow. Also, I wasn't talking about a racing application. Having been in the industry for 20 plus years, attended multiple SEMA shows as a Performance Warehouse Industry buyer, I know all about the product. I bought the line direct when they first started selling filters for automotive applications. My SHO, 1965 GT-350 Shelby and my GS430 Lexus all have them. I stand by my original statement. If your present air filter is restrictive, you may gain power with a K&N, but the filter does not magically add power. Thanks Bill Former NHRA Super Stock Eliminator National Record Holder. > To add a little balance to the K&N bashing I'll give my own personal, real > world experience with K&N filters. I have had one installed in my '89 LX [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >>> some HP. they cost around $50. anyone here use 1 and do they really make >>> a diffrence? mp First off, K&N air filters aren't "a giant ripoff" as you state. They do flow more air than most OEM filters they replace and they can be cleaned and reused thus saving money on purchasing new filters. I haven't bought a new air filter for my Mustang in 14 years. The K&N has more than paid for itself. EVERY after market performance company exaggerates the hp/torque gains for their products. Most times these figures are based on a heavily modified engine that needs good air flow to maximize hp. On stock Mustangs there are typically modest gains (3-5 hp) from using a K&N filter. Whether it is enough to feel the difference or lower ET's, I doubt it. BTW, I wasn't picking on you in particular. Periodically these threads start and people make claims that using K&N filters harm your engine by letting too much dirt pass. I know of too many high mileage engines (mine being one) using K&Ns for 100,000+ miles for this to be true. I'm just trying to provide some balance to the thread. > I did not say that this filter would shorten the life of an engine or do any > harm. If taking issue with their increase horsepower claims is "K&N [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >>>> some HP. they cost around $50. anyone here use 1 and do they really make >>>> a diffrence? mp > First off, K&N air filters aren't "a giant ripoff" as you state. > They do flow more air than most OEM filters they replace and they can [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > this to be true. I'm just trying to provide some balance to the > thread. Mine's another one. Been using it for I don't know how many years and I've got about 145k on the clock. Oiled it once about 4 years ago. >> First off, K&N air filters aren't "a giant ripoff" as you state. >> They do flow more air than most OEM filters they replace and they can [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Mine's another one. Been using it for I don't know how many years and > I've got about 145k on the clock. Oiled it once about 4 years ago. Same here regarding cleaning and oiling. I bet I've cleaned it less than half a dozen times in 14 years. Mike I didn't think you were, and I'm not as thin skinned as my post implied. Like I said, I have used them at one time or another on all of my performance cars. If they were passing dirt to any measurable degree, it would be noticeable in the inside of the carb or MAF. I have never seen any evidence of that. At one time, they were talking 25 HP gains, which we all know is BS. K&N makes a good product that will actually pay for itself in air filters that you don't have to purchase. For that reason alone they are a good investment, as long as the claims, whether real or implied, to substantial horsepower gains are taken with a grain of salt. As for extremely dirty conditions, I would probably pay closer attention. Luckily, we have clean air here. (With the exception of a memorable experience with Mt. St Helens) Later Bill > First off, K&N air filters aren't "a giant ripoff" as you state. They do > flow more air than most OEM filters they replace and they can be cleaned [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >>>>> make >>>>> a diffrence? mp Your experience is just that... your experience. It is NOT "everyman" experience. Where I live, the red clay dust will kill a K&N equipped motor in extremely short order. This stuff breaks down as fine as confectioners sugar and can hang in still air for nearly an hour. The conditions where you live may vary greatly from what I see out my back door. And this is one thing that we MUST remember. Let's turn our discussion to service intervals.... it is well known that the more dust a K&N collects, the "better" they filter. And they filter better because air flow is becoming restricted compared to freshly serviced. The only safe way to increase air flow safely is to retain the small micron capability of a paper filter but increase the effective surface area. There are many instances of those using K&N filters that haven't seen any identifiable concerns..... My experience shows diesel engines (at $20,000 a pop) totally wasted due to the use of inappropriate filtering media. You're "extensive testing" involves one vehicle and a limited operating demographic.... tunnel vision at it's best.... If I am to err in my recommendations, I will err on the side of sound judgement. I, on the other habd, haven't done one lick of testing..... all I have to do is look into the intact duct and see the trail of death leading to the engine inlet to know that these types of things are overhyped and for some strange reason have escaped the fate of the Tornado and fuel line magnets.... This NG is a global kind of a thing and includes areas that, quite obviously, haven't been considered. To imagine that those things that apply to one area apply to all, is shortsighted in the least. > Your experience is just that... your experience. It is NOT "everyman" > experience. Where I live, the red clay dust will kill a K&N equipped motor > in extremely short order. This stuff breaks down as fine as confectioners > sugar and can hang in still air for nearly an hour. The conditions where you > live may vary greatly from what I see out my back door. And this is one > thing that we MUST remember. I would say my experience is typical for most users here in the USA with the exception of some dry dusty areas. If I drove miles of dirt roads every day then I would probably put more thought into the filters I use for both oil and air. > Let's turn our discussion to service intervals.... it is well known that the > more dust a K&N collects, the "better" they filter. And they filter better [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > identifiable concerns..... My experience shows diesel engines (at $20,000 a > pop) totally wasted due to the use of inappropriate filtering media. I'm only speaking on the use of K&N filters in passenger cars and light trucks that mostly travel paved roads. When you talk about diesel engines in long haul trucks or mining vehicles etc. I'm sure there are other things to consider for a variety of maintenance concerns. > You're "extensive testing" involves one vehicle and a limited operating > demographic.... tunnel vision at it's best.... If I am to err in my My "extensive testing" has been repeated by multitudes of others with the same results. IMO, I am far from a limited operating demographic and I'm definitely not suffering from "tunnel vision" as there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, that have used K&N filters with absolutely no negative effects on their engines. > recommendations, I will err on the side of sound judgement. I, on the other > habd, haven't done one lick of testing..... all I have to do is look into > the intact duct and see the trail of death leading to the engine inlet to > know that these types of things are overhyped and for some strange reason > have escaped the fate of the Tornado and fuel line magnets.... They have escaped the fate of the Tornado and fuel line magnets because they perform as advertised. They flow better than OEM filters, they can conceivably last a million miles , they result in more hp as compared to OEM filters and using one will not put your engine at risk appreciably more, if any more, than an OEM filter for the overwhelming majority of passenger cars/light trucks on the road. The biggest problem I had with using the K&N was a result of over oiling the filter. The excess oil would coat the MAF sensor. I cleaned it and then used the recommended amount of oil on the filter and the problem was solved. It was my fault and not an inherent flaw in the filter design. > This NG is a global kind of a thing and includes areas that, quite > obviously, haven't been considered. To imagine that those things that apply > to one area apply to all, is shortsighted in the least. Well, I put some burden on the user to know that their driving conditions might warrant them to consider alternative filters, oil, etc. If someone thinks the advice they read here can apply to long haul trucks, mining equipment, earth moving equipment etc. is just plain stupid, IMHO. Fact is almost every passenger car/light truck that drives predominately paved roads could use a K&N filter with no side effects or any meaningful reduction of engine longevity. I laugh at these air filter threads because people act like they are going to get 500,000 miles out of their vehicles and if they use a K&N they might only get 480,000 miles. The reality is the overwhelming majority of these cars will have a date with the car crusher before it sees 200,000 miles or less. For the large majority of us there are better things to worry over than whether a K&N filter will trash your engine. Your final statement pretty well sums it up, Michael but the "more horsepower" myth will forever perpetuate. I'm sure that you are aware that the gasoline engine produces far more horsepower than is needed for *most* driving conditions. If, indeed, the K&N offers more power (which would come at extreme high rpm only), adding horsepower at cruise is an exercise in futility. I'm reminded of another thread, a long, long time ago where a nitrous user wanted to add NOs at half throttle for more power..... he thought my suggestion that he press down on the pedal was "odd". While a properly amintained K&N (or similar) filter may save someone a few bucks over the life of the vehicle, the opportunity for advanced engine wear exists... the inconvenience of servicing the filter exists.... the "mumbo-jumbo" in the K&N FAQ exists..... Why someone would choose this sort of filter media for a daily driver is beyond me.... for a race car, a flame arrestor and intake shaper (no, not a Tornado) with no air filter will do the deed. As ever, this is one subject that the only thing we can agree on is to disagree. > > Your experience is just that... your experience. It is NOT "everyman" > > experience. Where I live, the red clay dust will kill a K&N equipped motor [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > miles or less. For the large majority of us there are better things to > worry over than whether a K&N filter will trash your engine. > While a properly amintained K&N (or similar) filter may save someone a few > bucks over the life of the vehicle, the opportunity for advanced engine wear [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > arrestor and intake shaper (no, not a Tornado) with no air filter will do > the deed. Oh my...I'm agreeing with Jim. The sky must be falling! 8-) I'd forgotten about the PITA factor in cleaning/reoiling the filter (which you're supposed to do on a regular basis...not once every few years as someone else here posted). Unless your time is not worth anything, this often gets left out of the "I'm saving so much money on filters" schtick. There's also the well-documented issue of people overoiling the filter and having the oil contaminate/ruin expensive parts like the mass air sensor. Cheers, >> While a properly amintained K&N (or similar) filter may save someone a >> few [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > overoiling the filter and having the oil contaminate/ruin expensive > parts like the mass air sensor. Unless you live on a dirt road the cleaning regime isn't that severe. Usually, once every 20k-30k miles will suffice. I've been one of those that over oiled the filter - just once though. Taught me to read and follow the directions. ;) > Your final statement pretty well sums it up, Michael but the "more > horsepower" myth will forever perpetuate. Getting more hp from a K&N verses an OEM filter is not a myth. Whether it be an extra 1-2 hp on a stock engine or 10-20 on a modified on - it is more hp. Therefore their claims are true. I guarantee that someone with a modded and/or supercharged engine will see a decent horsepower gain using a K&N over an OEM filter. > I'm sure that you are aware that the gasoline engine produces far more > horsepower than is needed for *most* driving conditions. If, indeed, the K&N [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > throttle for more power..... he thought my suggestion that he press down on > the pedal was "odd". The key is to make your engine a more efficient air. If a K&N flows air more easily than an OEM filter that alone will increase mpg and hp. It is the same as comparing a clean filter to a dirty one. The clean one will get you better mileage and more hp. > While a properly amintained K&N (or similar) filter may save someone a few > bucks over the life of the vehicle, the opportunity for advanced engine wear [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > arrestor and intake shaper (no, not a Tornado) with no air filter will do > the deed. It has never been proven that the use of a K&N filter shortens engine life. In fact, there are many, many people like me that have used one for well over 100,000 miles with absolutely no problems. I don't know one passenger car/light truck engine that has been destroyed from using a K&N filter. All the posts in this thread from people trashing K&Ns are based on nothing more than their belief they will cause accelerated wear and not on one substantive fact. As for inconvenience of cleaning the filter, it really isn't that inconvenient. I've cleaned mine about half a dozen times over a twelve year period. I fail to see how this has inconvenienced me. The procedure for cleaning is simple and easy. I take the filter out, slosh it around in a pan with cleaner for a few minutes, hose it off, let it dry overnight and reinstall it in the morning. The cleaning procedure take a whopping 5 minutes of my time. The total effort is maybe 10 minutes verses 5 minutes for replacing an OEM filter. Now if a person isn't smart enough to change an air filter then they should stick with OEM units. > As ever, this is one subject that the only thing we can agree on is to > disagree. Agreed. >>>Your experience is just that... your experience. It is NOT "everyman" >>>experience. Where I live, the red clay dust will kill a K&N equipped [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] >>miles or less. For the large majority of us there are better things to >>worry over than whether a K&N filter will trash your engine. > To add a little balance to the K&N bashing I'll give my own personal, > real world experience with K&N filters. I have had one installed in my [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > have done the tests and their motives. Also, there are many tests that > are just plain unscientific and should be ignored. Holy crap, it's an educated and thoughtful opinion!!!! How rare a thing in Usenet today... As for me, I have > 100,000+ miles of personal experience to base my opinion on. Fact is > that many of those that bash K&N products have ABSOLUTELY ZERO > EXPERIENCE with them and have no idea whether their claims against K&N > filter's performance is accurate or not. I hve a collective 60,000 miles with two different vehicles, one a carbed 302 and one an injected DOHC I4. NO problems. Change your oil regularly enough, and you're fine. I get a couple extra mpg on the 302, and, I believe, a small boost in power. I was skeptical but I do believe it idles more smoothly, has a bit more torque, and a bit more WOT on the top end. Not having to change the things is reason enough. Clean 'em, oil 'em, that's it. The paper filter for the I4 was $15. The K&N was $33. No question in my mind. > My personal experience makes me believe a K&N filter WILL NOT shorten > the life of your engine if you change your oil as recommended for your > driving conditions and generally keep your vehicle in a good state of > maintenance and repair. Listen to the man. >> A giant rip-off. Not this man. The only way it can add power is if your present air >> cleaner system is restricting air flow. On most later model cars, this >> is not the case. Also, no matter what they tell you, it doesn't filter [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> some HP. they cost around $50. anyone here use 1 and do they really make >>> a diffrence? mp SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 >> To add a little balance to the K&N bashing I'll give my own personal, >> real world experience with K&N filters. I have had one installed in my [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Holy crap, it's an educated and thoughtful opinion!!!! How rare a thing > in Usenet today... > As for me, I have >> 100,000+ miles of personal experience to base my opinion on. Fact is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > believe, a small boost in power. I was skeptical but I do believe it > idles more smoothly, has a bit more torque, and a bit more Idles smoother? Extra MPG? So your saying you get all of that from an air filter? Something that has no effect on the way the engine runs, and the engine really does not even know it's there at anything below wide open throttle? Laughable. The guys who market Tornado's and cow magnets must really love you. > WOT on the top end. Not having to change the things is reason enough. > Clean 'em, oil 'em, that's it. The paper filter for the I4 was $15. The [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>>> make >>>> a diffrence? mp I dunno about the filter itself, but the sticker that came with mine added 50hp...at the wheels! Wheeee! wabbitslayer 01 GT vert > I dunno about the filter itself, but the sticker that came with mine added > 50hp...at the wheels! > Wheeee! As long as you think it added 50 horsepower does it really matter if it didn't? ;) |
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.