k & N allows more dirt in
10-19-2005, 07:54 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 197
k & N allows more dirt in
i was talking to my freind about getting like a ghetto intake. what i wana do is purchase a maf adaptor and get a cone filter and just take teh old stock box off and put this one. what you guys think, will this set up be the same as having a stock filter on. my biggest thing is the filter will sit very close to the engine, at least in a box the filter was like sheilded, with my ghetto set up its exposed to hot air. any thoughts on this............also my friend told me that he read somewhere that a k & n filter allow 20% more dirt into your engine due to allowing more air to flow in there as well. is this true. i hope he is mistaking i really want to put on a k & n filter but i'm a little scared. 
10-19-2005, 07:55 PM
#2
read up on this subject on http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm
there are some extensive tests on this subject on that site.
there are some extensive tests on this subject on that site.
10-19-2005, 08:15 PM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 197
wow, mad good. now the only problem is i see that a k & n filter poorly filters the air. how great of an effect will this have on my enigine. i def don't want to sacrafice my engine over some cool sound. you guys had any problems with your k & n. and how bout the stock filters, how much do those differ from perfomance ones. the article talks about stock as being the worst in air flow, but the best in filtering. what are your oppinions.
10-19-2005, 09:13 PM
#5
Originally Posted by n3985
There was another site with another set of cone filter tests, including the HKS foam filter, Apex'i, K&N, and Blitz. HKS was worst for filtration, and Apex'i won both filtration and flow.
http://www.mkiv.com/techarticles/fil...t/2/index.html
10-19-2005, 09:30 PM
#6
Originally Posted by Stardust
10-19-2005, 10:54 PM
#8
What ever you get just don’t get that foam filter, besides low filtration, little pieces of foam might get inside the engine. Everything else if fine, with very low quality filters, getting high quality oil filter and changing oil more often should solve the problem.
10-20-2005, 07:48 PM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 963
Don't underestimate the importance of using a good air filter. If air filters didn't play a crucial role in helping maintain an engine in good operating order for a long time manufacturers wouldn't use them. The fact is that you should use the best filter you can find, always, if you want your engine to last as long as possible. If a few extra HP (and I mean just a few) is your priority then go for it and don't worry what you put in there - just focus on HP gains. On the other hand if you care about your engine being reliable over the long term you should use nothing but the best filters at filtering and those air typically paper element filters.
Good luck whatever you choose to do.
Andrew
Good luck whatever you choose to do.
Andrew
10-21-2005, 06:39 AM
#18
The test is somewhat incomplete and biased as it does not address the highest seller - paper filter and its properties. I think it is important to put that in perspective as well to see how it ranks compared to the "performance" filters...
10-21-2005, 03:31 PM
#20
I have the apex filter...I also see alot of people owning on themselves...I really don't know why they bought one over the k&N....maybe its for better filtration, better peace of mind....i really don't know....as for myself, I got a pretty good deal and said fu*k it and bought the apex over the k&n....
10-23-2005, 06:47 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 963
Originally Posted by jeff4725
Roger that.
10-24-2005, 02:38 PM
#22
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 21
K&Ns are so prevelent because they have a great marketing dept.
Typical oiled guaze filters (K&N etc.) are about 90% efficient. Typical paper filters are about 99% efficient. This means that oiled guaze filters let about 10 times more dirt through. 10x more dirt to get 10% more air is not a good trade off for a daily driver IMO. For a race car it makes sense,
Typical oiled guaze filters (K&N etc.) are about 90% efficient. Typical paper filters are about 99% efficient. This means that oiled guaze filters let about 10 times more dirt through. 10x more dirt to get 10% more air is not a good trade off for a daily driver IMO. For a race car it makes sense,
10-24-2005, 06:03 PM
#23
Originally Posted by tedsmax
K&Ns are so prevelent because they have a great marketing dept.
Typical oiled guaze filters (K&N etc.) are about 90% efficient. Typical paper filters are about 99% efficient. This means that oiled guaze filters let about 10 times more dirt through. 10x more dirt to get 10% more air is not a good trade off for a daily driver IMO. For a race car it makes sense,
Typical oiled guaze filters (K&N etc.) are about 90% efficient. Typical paper filters are about 99% efficient. This means that oiled guaze filters let about 10 times more dirt through. 10x more dirt to get 10% more air is not a good trade off for a daily driver IMO. For a race car it makes sense,
10-24-2005, 06:20 PM
#24
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 76
Originally Posted by foodmanry
Bad math...more like 1.1 times more dirt through. 10 times is roughly one log reduction meaning....the K&N filter would only be 9.9% efficient while the paper is 99% to be allow 10 times more dirt to go through.
10-25-2005, 06:38 AM
#25
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by ABS
As I stated - you can do whatever you like but just because a part is "popular" doesn't mean it is necesarily "better". Also keep in mind that my definition of "better" can be different than yours. I want longevity out of my engine more than I want a couple of extra horsepower. For me a paper filter is better.
10-25-2005, 09:07 AM
#26
Yes, we all know that filtration is important, but how important is it really in case of K&N vs. paper? Yes, K&N will let some small amount more of dirt in but does it really matter? Not to me. I like the extra 6-7 HP it gives, $ savings, hassle of keeping track of and changing it... I used K&N on all cars I owned and all outlasted the cars... Only one car I rebuilt the engine on and it was after 200K that a head gasket blew. Cylinder walls were super clean when I opened it. Also, if you read the follow up discussion on the filter test at BITOG, like me, one guy reported 225K and 12 years using K&N and the engine did not fail because of poor filtration...
10-25-2005, 12:52 PM
#27
Originally Posted by igzy
Yes, we all know that filtration is important, but how important is it really in case of K&N vs. paper? Yes, K&N will let some small amount more of dirt in but does it really matter? Not to me. I like the extra 6-7 HP it gives, $ savings, hassle of keeping track of and changing it... I used K&N on all cars I owned and all outlasted the cars... Only one car I rebuilt the engine on and it was after 200K that a head gasket blew. Cylinder walls were super clean when I opened it. Also, if you read the follow up discussion on the filter test at BITOG, like me, one guy reported 225K and 12 years using K&N and the engine did not fail because of poor filtration...
10-25-2005, 12:54 PM
#28
But what % of those particles are actually damaging to the engine. One of the oil's tasks is to keep small particles in suspension away from metal parts.
Originally Posted by MaxOctane
Actually, I think you are confused. If the K&N is indeed 90% efficient, and the paper filter is 99% efficient than it would be 10 times. Let's put it this way. Youve got 200 particles going into the intake. The K&N filter being 90% efficient will filter out 180 of the particles, and let 20 go through. The paper filter being 99% efficient will filter out 198 of the particles and let 2 go through. 20 is 10 times that of 2. Very simple to view it with examples.
10-25-2005, 01:00 PM
#29
Originally Posted by steven88
your talking about the pop charger filters right? cuz I was not aware that drop in K&N filters gave 7hp?
10-25-2005, 01:01 PM
#30
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
But what % of those particles are actually damaging to the engine. One of the oil's tasks is to keep small particles in suspension away from metal parts.
No one did the particle size analysis during the testing... Color test is highly biased in this case...
10-25-2005, 01:20 PM
#31
Originally Posted by igzy
Drop-in K&N shows 2-3% HP gain... Based on the upgrades I have, I think my assumption is pretty good...
10-25-2005, 05:01 PM
#32
Correct me if I am wrong, I think it may be safe to assume 2-3% gains, i.e. 4.5-6 HP gain using K&N filter... PuppetMaster, I know you did quite a lot of dyno runs, am I too far off? Thanks...
10-25-2005, 05:44 PM
#33
heres the rundown from my readings
a K&N popcharger such as the stillen/jwt work pretty damn well....whether its the 3.0 or 3.5...the stock midpipe system in the maxima doesn't really restrict too much flow and has been dyno proven....these popcharger systems give noticeable gains like in the 5-9whp range depending on engine
a K&N drop in filter works pretty damn well too....but I haven't heard of gains in the 6-7whp range like you mentioned....MAYBE if you coupled the K&N drop in with a GAB mod, you will see these gains....but as far as I am concerned, K&N drop in alone will not yield those #s
a K&N popcharger such as the stillen/jwt work pretty damn well....whether its the 3.0 or 3.5...the stock midpipe system in the maxima doesn't really restrict too much flow and has been dyno proven....these popcharger systems give noticeable gains like in the 5-9whp range depending on engine
a K&N drop in filter works pretty damn well too....but I haven't heard of gains in the 6-7whp range like you mentioned....MAYBE if you coupled the K&N drop in with a GAB mod, you will see these gains....but as far as I am concerned, K&N drop in alone will not yield those #s
10-25-2005, 08:20 PM
#35
Originally Posted by igzy
Correct me if I am wrong, I think it may be safe to assume 2-3% gains, i.e. 4.5-6 HP gain using K&N filter... PuppetMaster, I know you did quite a lot of dyno runs, am I too far off? Thanks...
10-26-2005, 01:18 PM
#36
Originally Posted by MaxOctane
Actually, I think you are confused. If the K&N is indeed 90% efficient, and the paper filter is 99% efficient than it would be 10 times. Let's put it this way. Youve got 200 particles going into the intake. The K&N filter being 90% efficient will filter out 180 of the particles, and let 20 go through. The paper filter being 99% efficient will filter out 198 of the particles and let 2 go through. 20 is 10 times that of 2. Very simple to view it with examples.
10-26-2005, 06:59 PM
#39
Originally Posted by foodmanry
We are talking about two different things...I am speaking on the "efficiency side" you are speaking on the "deficiency side." To look at your example from the efficiency side 198 / 180 is not 10 times, it is 1.1 times. From the deficient point of veiw, yes it is 10 times.
10-27-2005, 01:58 PM
#40
Common sense tells me pulling hot air from the engine bay (cone filters) is the worst way to go.
I used a K&N drop in filter once. It screwed up my MAF sensor. Since then I stick to the stock filters and replace it every 10000 miles or so.
The test I saw in Motortrend (or Car and Driver, one of them) showed that a clean paper filter was more efficient than the K&N. As they got dirty, the K&N retained more efficiency. That is why I change the filter often.
I used a K&N drop in filter once. It screwed up my MAF sensor. Since then I stick to the stock filters and replace it every 10000 miles or so.
The test I saw in Motortrend (or Car and Driver, one of them) showed that a clean paper filter was more efficient than the K&N. As they got dirty, the K&N retained more efficiency. That is why I change the filter often.