So you think your K&N is better than OEM?

If you really believe that your K&N or other type of oil impregnated air filter is better than OEM, read this:

http://www.shipkiller.com/AirFilters.html

I really thought that the "Accumulative Gain" graphs were telling.
 
Interesting article, I used to use K&N panel filters in my previous cars but I stopped as i was not 100% confident on how effective they were at filtration. Sounds abit silly but i often felt that the car ran rougher with the K&N filter, with the OEM it ran silky smooth with nice low tone.
 
I was instantly going to get a panel filter for my 3.0SE..but after hearing alot of this kinda thing,I've opted against it.

Even if it passed jsut 10% more dirt i still wouldn't purchase one,Is it worth that extra 0.5bhp? (if that)
 
Interesting... I have an induction kit on the way to give me a little more of a growl from the engine. While it's not K&N, I'm sure the principal applies. So, this is slightly worrying - I've heard the debate about the power claims, hot air induction being a possibly detrimental, but this is something I'd either not heard or taken in. Will have to keep a close eye on things!

Good find, thanks... I think :cry:
 
Saw something very similar years ago... paper filters (good ones) are best in almost all ways on modern road cars.
 
Good to know... :thumbsup: I was thinking about a K&N but may have changed my mind now. I have one in my pickup (Chev) and had one in my 98 Ford Pickup as well. It gave me better mileage in the Ford but no real noticeable benefit in the Chev. I think I'll reinstall an OEM in the Chev for a while as a test.
 
Well to be fair to K&N, its not that they claim anything different.........I'm curious though that the tests on a diesel engine were conducted using Course (sic) Dust as opposed to Fine Dust....

http://www.knfilters.com/efficiency_testing.htm

http://www.knfilters.com/efficiency_testing_procedure.htm

My last diesel engine in a 4x4 had a K&N induction kit fitted on it and is currently close to 200,000 miles with its new owner and running like a sewing machine. What can I say?
 
K&N were good when cars had pancake filter housings and they increased filtration area by about 10x while still sucking from the warm engine bay...

Fast forward 15-20 years to today, and forced air intakes are common place, and filter areas are optimum for the CFM the engine needs to make power.

No longer is power 'given up' when the race for every last gram of power and efficiency is scavenged for where possible. If making a filter housing bigger could add the power K&N often claim, the OEM's would!


They are still great though, where they were always great, on thinks like Dakar racers where they can clean the filters on the fly quickly and easily, where paper ones just clog quickly in such conditions, and may not clean easily either!

Imo, K&N and the like still flogging their filters is a hang over from the day when road cars DID benefit from having them. It's just not the case today so we are sold snake oil instead for most road stuff!


For K&N to do a better job considering what their unit prices are on even the £200-£500 stuff (so possibly £20-£50 to make), vs what the OEM's can do for a similar cost, it just doesn't add up that K&N can do something better for less money than the OEM's do.


Dave
 
I agree with all this research. I have a K&N on mine simply as I picked it up for near nothing and have several full sevice kits already. After a year with no benefit in performance, noise, etc. then it will in due course be replaced by a quality OEM filter.

Where they are good is on my off road vehicles where the filter can be washed and cleaned in a moment and refitted after a dusty event. Can be re-oiled 'on the fly' and in the event of a dunking, where a paper filter will fall to pieces and even get ingested the K&N will retain shape and performance.
 
lacroupade said:
Well to be fair to K&N, its not that they claim anything different.........I'm curious though that the tests on a diesel engine were conducted using Course (sic) Dust as opposed to Fine Dust....

You are correct, K&N does not claim anything different, IF you bother to really read the very small and long fine print. BUT the exaggerated claims are IMPLIED in their advertising.
I did not realize the 'course dust' as opposed to 'fine dust'. If anything, the test that is performed with the 'course dust' really does show how much better the OEM filter is vs. K&N (or any oil impregnated filter) with respect to efficiency and filter loading.

I have said this before (on this forum too.. ) when talking about filters, any type, you must talk about efficiency. Efficiency is the key.
A screen door will filter 5 micron particles the same as a HEPA filter. But is the efficiency the same? No way.....

Like any good company, they rely on the consumer to be "stupid and lazy' and not do any research on there own.

I was not surprised at all a the initial flow of the K&N filter when it was clean. I was surprised on how much more dust it let through (not filtered) when loaded....

I do not have an issue with anyone using this type of filter if they know all the facts. That is their choice... and I am not telling anyone NOT to use this type of filter. Just be informed....
 
You only need to look at what OEM's do on models with bigger engines, or the higher spec stuff, to get an idea what works.

K&N's are not common... nor are Gruppe M's actually ;)
 
But what, in real terms, is the effect of these particles finding their way into the combustion chamber and out of the exhaust? And please don't treat that as a dumb question.
 
Good read :thumbsup:

i used to use K&N filters all the time - not for performance but for cost efficiency - When the OEM filter is £20+ and the K&N can be bought for £50 which will last you the life of the car (plus a you can sell it on when you sell the car) + £10 recharger which will last 2+ years.

However in my last car my maf and throttle boddy got so mucky which i put down to the oil on the filter - so have since stopped using them.
 
Back
Top Bottom