 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Trucks / October 2005K&N 63 Series Aircharger Kits- Any good?
Has anyone had any experience with the K&N Filtercharger kits on a 2005 Tundra? Here is a link to the wesite: http://www.knfilters.com/search/product.aspx?Prod=63-9027 K&N Product Information for 63-9027 63 Series Aircharger Kits > Has anyone had any experience with the K&N Filtercharger kits on a > 2005 Tundra? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > K&N Product Information for 63-9027 > 63 Series Aircharger Kits How much do they charge for this 4% gain at peak and no help at everyday driving rpms? Likely not much benefit for the cost. Ken It lets more air and dirt into the engine. Not really an issue for a race angine that only has to last 500 miles between rebuilds, but for street use and 200k+ miles, not good. >> Has anyone had any experience with the K&N Filtercharger kits on a 2005 >> Tundra? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ken The ONLY reason to get a K&N is to reduce costs relative to replacing a paper filter. I won't even begin to suggest that a K&N is good or bad, the only thing it is is cheaper over a long period of time. How much cheaper depends on how often you would otherwise replace the air filter (if paper), how much the paper filters cost, how much the K&N costs, and how long you keep the car. If a paper filter costs $8, and the K&N costs $40, then it will take however long 6 paper filters last to recover the cost of the K&N, then you save from that point to the end of your ownership. This is the Simple Math, and it ignores completely the cost of the K&N maintenance kit, and the potential damage done to the motor by any dirt that might get past the filter. > Has anyone had any experience with the K&N Filtercharger kits on a > 2005 Tundra? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > K&N Product Information for 63-9027 > 63 Series Aircharger Kits >The ONLY reason to get a K&N is to reduce costs relative to replacing a >paper filter. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> K&N Product Information for 63-9027 >> 63 Series Aircharger Kits Jeff, thank you for your fresh logic. I never really though it further than the whizz bang factor. I am wondering whether or not the filter does pass a greater volume of air and while doing so, removing the same or less dirt and debris than the paper counterparts. I think these are about $260.00. I don't even know if they are available here in California, as they are not smog legal. josh >>The ONLY reason to get a K&N is to reduce costs relative to replacing a >>paper filter. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > available here in California, as they are not smog legal. > josh The stuff that I've read says that a clean paper filter is about as good as you can get. If you replaced the paper filter one more time a year than the schedule calls for, you could see about the same air flow as with the K&N. Here's another angle to consider. An engine can only take in as much air as it can spit out. If the exhaust is the choke point, then you can do whatever you want to the intake and still have an engine that gasps for air. I'm not sure how efficient the stock exhaust is, but if you plan on keeping it then your intake won't improve very much. If you wanted to maximize the exhaust so all of the air could get out, then you could look to maximizing the intake to get more air in. One more thing to consider with the K&N is that it works by replacing a few million really tiny holes with a few hundred thousand larger holes. The filter traps dirt because the gauze material that it is filled with has to be kept well oiled. You have to take the filter element off and wash it, let it dry out very well, then oil it again before you can use it. If you let the oil dry out, then more dirt gets past, and this can be a problem for the internals of your motor. If your travels take you exclusively on the street, where there really isn't much dirt, then you should be okay, but if you take your truck offroading, then I'd give serious consideration of of what you are about to do. If you could get an airtube to replace the airbox, then use a paper filter and replace it regularly, then you could reasonably improve the intake track and retain the filtration that the engineers want. >>>The ONLY reason to get a K&N is to reduce costs relative to replacing a >>>paper filter. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > regularly, then you could reasonably improve the intake track and retain > the filtration that the engineers want. In fact, I found the filtration of the stock filter to be not that good. My intake was getting dirty and filter did not look like it was catching much even after 20k. So I have been oiling down the stock filter with this. http://www.moto-man.com/cgi-bin/motoman/1761.html It takes about 1/2-3/4 a can so soak the stock filter, but it does a bang up job. My intake is very clean and the plugs last longer. After around 5k miles, the filter looks toast. It's heavy with dirt and bugs. At this point the unoiled filter would look like new. I toss the old oiled filter and oil up a new one. The aftermarket filters look just like the OEM ones so I get whatever is cheaper. It's the most expensive air filter setup at around $16 for new filter + oil every 5k, but I live down a dirt road and I want my engine to last 400k. For street use, the filter would not have to be changed so often. >>>>The ONLY reason to get a K&N is to reduce costs relative to replacing a >>>>paper filter. [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > For street use, the filter would not have to be changed so often. What about a foam wrap on your stock filter? http://www.knfilters.com/airforcewraps.htm http://www.unifilter.com/automotive.htm  SignatureTom - Vista, CA >>>>>The ONLY reason to get a K&N is to reduce costs relative to replacing a >>>>>paper filter. [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > >http://www.unifilter.com/automotive.htm That settles it... Thank you for allowing me to save my money. So glad I posed the question... Pays to chime in to the group once in a while. FYI. My use is strictly on road. Plenty of horsepower as it is, even with cheap gas. All and all, I am very happy with the Tundra. The only complaint I have, and I knew about it going in, is the crappy turning radius. Thank you all, josh >>>>>The ONLY reason to get a K&N is to reduce costs relative to replacing >>>>>a paper filter. [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > http://www.unifilter.com/automotive.htm Not too sure on the K&N: "They are made from large, open cell foam." Why would you want large open cell foam? Maybe small bugs are getting sucked past the normal K&N filter. :) I would love a foam filter for my truck. UNI filters work great on my quad.The problem is that nobody makes one for my truck. >>>>>>The ONLY reason to get a K&N is to reduce costs relative to replacing >>>>>>a paper filter. [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > I would love a foam filter for my truck. UNI filters work great on my > quad.The problem is that nobody makes one for my truck. About 2/3 of the way down the page (link below) they list foam filter wraps for automotive filters. Would something like that work? http://www.unifilter.com/automotive.htm SignatureTom - Vista, CA >>>>>>>The ONLY reason to get a K&N is to reduce costs relative to >>>>>>>replacing a paper filter. [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > > http://www.unifilter.com/automotive.htm Maybe, but they don't show any photos of them, so I don't know. And the wraps only look like a large hole single stage filter. I want the two stage setup if I am going to go through the mess of cleaning and oiling a filter every 5k. Least with the stock one, it's spray on the oil, run the filter, then toss when dirty. IF the K&N lasts long enough to pay off .... I have one and with all the oils and cleaners it doesnt look so cheap anymore :( K&N may be good for some top and HP and a little responsivness .. other than that its a waste of money IMO. I do run one though ... The best for filtration is a foam Matt > IF the K&N lasts long enough to pay off .... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Matt My humble opinion on K&N filters is that the vast majority of us do not operate the engine in the part of the power curve where the K&N really provides its best stuff. Especially those of us that actually drive a truck. The MR2 guys might live in the high RPM range where the K&N really shines, but my casual observation is that truck motors seldom go there. If one chooses to go with a K&N, they should only do it because in the very long term, they might save a few bucks on filter replacements. I agree ... however good HP gains may be seen with older , large displacement domestic motors ... I got mine because back then i thought an oiled filter would be best in dust ... Also my filter has a "special" rubber gasket design that lasts only 1 year , then needing replacements .. so far KN has sent them for free but I thnk that will cease in which case the whole filter will instantly garbag .... savings over 10 yars will be aout the window.. Matt > Has anyone had any experience with the K&N Filtercharger kits on a > 2005 Tundra? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > K&N Product Information for 63-9027 > 63 Series Aircharger Kits The thinking that some air filters can allow more air flow (except at wide open throttle) is bogus. The air flow is limited by the throttle doing its job...limiting the air to the engine to give just the amount of power you desire at that moment. At wide open throttle, yes, more air flow will help...if the aftermarket filter really does allow more air flow, which is an open question. In any case, if you aren't floorboarded, the filter is not the limiting factor to air flow...your right foot on the throttle pedal is the limiting factor. Ken thats correct but take in mind it will help with responsiveness even if not at WOT Matt |
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.