K&N Air Filters.

[wsar10]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
wsar10: The only time a K&N would produce a wickedly bad UOA is if the vehicle was run in a very dusty environment, or had been badly mauled during cleaning. As I have said, they are "adequate" but not "superior" at the air cleaning game.

That said, we have seen some not-so-hot UOAs with K&Ns and some ok to good ones but they all are essentially useless for comparative purposes unless the vehicle was run first for a long period in it's normal environment with a "regular" filter and then over the same period and generally same operational cycle with the K&N. You might be able to glean something by comparing the K&Ns to the universal averages for the vehicle type and brand but that would still be a yardstick when a micrometer is needed.

The fact that the K&N, and most other oiled cotton gauze filters, are at the low end of the efficiency scale cannot be disputed. Whether it matters alot in all cases is another debate.. and largely a moot one. When operated in a relatively clean environment, with "normal" oil change intervals, there is little harm done, because filration is "adequate." Some of us need/want more than "adequate" so we avoid two ply K&Ns due the lower efficiency.

Hey, you have the same access to the UOAs as any here... you could be the guy to collect the UOAs into one place.


Yeah,
just not as much time as some others here !

If I had the time I would throw together a few different threads containing UOA's that have info about some FAQ's or frequent discussions.

 

[stchman]

I emailed Blackstone Labs about K&N air filters and higher contaminants in oil, here is what I got back from them:

Quote:

Bob: Thanks for the e-mail. We see a lot of samples from engines
with K&N filters and it's rare to see any problems with them. That's
not to say it can't happen, but I can say we don't always see high
silicon or poor wear when those filters are in use, so we don't have
any problem with them.

Let me know if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,
Ryan Stark
Blackstone Labs

 

[boxcartommie22]

k&n has an great r&d dept. next to none they test and test and test to get it right.

 

[Jim Allen]

Well, that's a start but there are too many variables to get definitive answers, one way or the other, on just two UOAs. For example.. the seasons: The summer is usually more dusty than the winter in most places, so if you ran one oil fill mostly in summer, that oil might show dirtier than one run mostly in winter just for that reason alone. Also, you need to know the efficiencies of both filters. You could manipulate the test by deliberately putting on a really bad paper filter so it makes the oiled cotton gauze look good. You need to know the paper efficiency , at least generally, to know if it truly represents the baseline norm. K&N is upfront with efficiency but it varies a little from application to application so you should research that exact part number.

In the end it may not show much of a difference anyway, depending on where you live and the quality of the air. If the air in your areas doesn't have a lot of fines, the advantage of the more efficient filter is somewhat blunted.

Tell you a story on how my mind began to change on this: Prior to the late '90s, I had used K&N filters for decades. I had one on all my vehicles, including my 'wheeling rig, the Bum-V, which was used often and hard in the high desert of Wester Colorado and eastern Utah. Lot of fines in the air there. Lot of dusty air on the trail. My filters got dirty fast, usually requiring a seasonal cleaning. On one service session, I noticed the area on the back side of the filter was coated with very fine dust. I double checked that the filter was properly sealed but checked again later that year and it was dusty again. Pretty sure I had carefully cleaned it and not damaged it but I won't discount the possibility that is was damaged. In any case, I installed a very large farm tractor fitler housing and element, about twice as big as my turbo diesel needed for max power and the problem was solved. I then started looking into oiled cotton gauze filters and found them on the low side of the efficiency spectrum generally. Since I was into performance, I still had to balance the airflow needs of modified engines against the long term detriment of low efficiency. I came to the conclusion that it was worth the cost of a few HP to let less dust thru but I also know that you if you have the room, you can just install more of a higher efficiency filter media to counter the loss of airflow.

PS- If you install the foam sock that's optional on most K&N, it pretty much equalizes the efficiency to the better filters out there. Cost a few CFM of airflow but is worth it IMO

 

[650NutKase]

Hmmm this is interesting. I run a kn drop in for my 12 accent and got an 11 for silicon. I wonder if this would be much different if I had kept the paper

 

[Jim Allen]

That 11 silicon number is only useful if, a) we know the OCI and b) what was the number in the same general conditions with the OE filter. Though I don't have any efficiency numbers for it, the OE Honda air fitler is a good one... synthetic depth type media, which generally flows very well but has high capacity and good efficiency. I consider that type of filter to be in the "premium" class.

I had a 2 ppm number after a 10K run on my F150 after installing an AEM panel filter (a very good synthetic depth media). Turned out to be anomalous because the next one under very similar circumstances (I do 18month to 2 year intervals) was 8 or 9 ppm.

Like iron, silicon is often cumulative. No matter the filter, SOME always gets thru and you may find that your vehicle has an average silicon ppm /1000 mile number. Once you have a trend of a few UOAs with the OE fitler and get an average, they you can change over and do the same with the K&N.

Look, I may be coming across like a harpy over this. My goal is to inject some realism here, not diss K&N. I am a realist. I can like something and still be able to discuss its faults. It's a fact that K&N and other oiled cotton gauze filters have lower efficiency than many paper or other aftermarket filters. It's also a fact that this efficiency is still within the realm of "normal" though perhaps near the bottom of it. Another fact is that the low efficiency may not be an issue for YOUR car in YOUR operating environment... but it might be for others in other environments.

I know the K&N people very well and have a number of contacts there gained from doing various projects with them. Their engineering staff is top-notch. I often wish they were not so invested in the oiled cotton gauze, but as I hinted before, there are new things on the horizon. And they also own AEM, which sells a highly efficient dry filter.

The big things: DON'T CLEAN IT TOO OFTEN AND WHEN YOU DO TREAT IT LIKE YOU WERE DISARMING A NUCLEAR BOMB!

 

[wsar10]

Originally Posted By: 2012AccentSE
Hmmm this is interesting. I run a kn drop in for my 12 accent and got an 11 for silicon. I wonder if this would be much different if I had kept the paper


with all other equations equal, now do a UOA with a paper filter......
(If you want)
I would be interested to see that experiment.I would even pay-pal ya a portion of the cost of the UOA.

 

[650NutKase]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
That 11 silicon number is only useful if, a) we know the OCI and b) what was the number in the same general conditions with the OE filter. Though I don't have any efficiency numbers for it, the OE Honda air fitler is a good one... synthetic depth type media, which generally flows very well but has high capacity and good efficiency. I consider that type of filter to be in the "premium" class.

I had a 2 ppm number after a 10K run on my F150 after installing an AEM panel filter (a very good synthetic depth media). Turned out to be anomalous because the next one under very similar circumstances (I do 18month to 2 year intervals) was 8 or 9 ppm.

Like iron, silicon is often cumulative. No matter the filter, SOME always gets thru and you may find that your vehicle has an average silicon ppm /1000 mile number. Once you have a trend of a few UOAs with the OE fitler and get an average, they you can change over and do the same with the K&N.

Look, I may be coming across like a harpy over this. My goal is to inject some realism here, not diss K&N. I am a realist. I can like something and still be able to discuss its faults. It's a fact that K&N and other oiled cotton gauze filters have lower efficiency than many paper or other aftermarket filters. It's also a fact that this efficiency is still within the realm of "normal" though perhaps near the bottom of it. Another fact is that the low efficiency may not be an issue for YOUR car in YOUR operating environment... but it might be for others in other environments.

I know the K&N people very well and have a number of contacts there gained from doing various projects with them. Their engineering staff is top-notch. I often wish they were not so invested in the oiled cotton gauze, but as I hinted before, there are new things on the horizon. And they also own AEM, which sells a highly efficient dry filter.

The big things: DON'T CLEAN IT TOO OFTEN AND WHEN YOU DO TREAT IT LIKE YOU WERE DISARMING A NUCLEAR BOMB!


Thanks for the detail! I was looking at other UOA's and saw that the numbers were all over the place. Like you said, each instance may be different depending on driving conditions. I have only done one UOA so I will need to do a few more to get a baseline, then I will have to prolly try the Hyundai filter and re test. I love K&N, but I am glad that there are people that experiment with them to give us a good dose of reality.

On the note of cleaning, I only clean it when the guys at Firestone tell me to. I rarely have to open the hood of my car now because this thing has been so reliable. It usually is pretty nasty when they tell me to clean it, and when I do, I am very careful with it. I make sure not to bend the pleats and make sure that it's super clean before oiling.

 

[650NutKase]

"with all other equations equal, now do a UOA with a paper filter......
(If you want)
I would be interested to see that experiment.I would even pay-pal ya a portion of the cost of the UOA."

I might have to take you up on that offer! haha

 

[stchman]

After all the banter, it appears that K&N filters are not the huge offenders of letting dirt in.

I wonder if all the dirt being let in is the result of improperly installed CAIs? What about dirt from panel filters in stock housings?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: stchman
After all the banter, it appears that K&N filters are not the huge offenders of letting dirt in.

I wonder if all the dirt being let in is the result of improperly installed CAIs? What about dirt from panel filters in stock housings?


Don't know how you can say that when the tests clearly show that the K&N is coming last in almost every performance test category.

Originally Posted By: bobbobtar
Here are some tests done a few years ago.

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/3-power...-they-work.html

 

[sprintman]

UOA's from Kr-p & Nasty equipped engines are usually so bad you can tell from the Si that the 'filter' is a
Kr-p & Nasty. Far better filters are available that flow more air, actually filter, better made, look better, no oil to kill your MAF, and are cheaper to boot. They have great marketing, and that's it!

 

[Jim Allen]

Sprintman is taking it a bit too far, especially the MAF thing which is totally busted, but, stchman, what I want you to hear is that it has efficiency at low end of "normal." If that's good enough for you, good enough. If you live in a clean area, it most likely won't impact your engine's longevity. If you live in an area like where I suspect sprintman lives, "adequate" isn't near good enough and I am with him in a general reluctance to use them in the outback.

Yes the anti-K&N hype gets pretty strident at times. It happens here, and on other brands (Fram, RP, etc.) and is usually magnified beyond the reality or fabircated altogether. I rail against that side too, instead trying to impose a realization of the true facts without an overage of hype, brand hysteria (in either direction, for or against) or emotion. It is what it is. There are pros and cons. For the most part, with the other choices available, IMO, the cons outweigh the pros for most ordinary folks.

 

[650NutKase]

Anyone have an op opinion on the "Million Mile Filter" ad that was put up by KN? Seems to me like if it's truly legit, then the filtration is probably decent?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0_4jByZmSM

 

[stchman]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: stchman
After all the banter, it appears that K&N filters are not the huge offenders of letting dirt in.

I wonder if all the dirt being let in is the result of improperly installed CAIs? What about dirt from panel filters in stock housings?


Don't know how you can say that when the tests clearly show that the K&N is coming last in almost every performance test category.

Originally Posted By: bobbobtar
Here are some tests done a few years ago.

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/3-power...-they-work.html


That's ONE test and one test is not definitive and

As I said before, if K&M air filters were so lousy, the other air filter makers would publish data on how bad they are to promote selling their air filters over K&N.

Maybe K&N air filters are not the best choice for a diesel (diesels suck in s LOT more air than a gas engine does so any weakness in an air filter is bound to be magnified).

When I do a UOA soon I will be posting actual figures.

 

[stchman]

Originally Posted By: 2012AccentSE
Anyone have an op opinion on the "Million Mile Filter" ad that was put up by KN? Seems to me like if it's truly legit, then the filtration is probably decent?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0_4jByZmSM


You would figure if K&N would be letting in so much dirt, the engine would have failed LONG ago. The guy that drives that truck is probably a stickler for maintenance (you'd have to be).

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: stchman
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: stchman
After all the banter, it appears that K&N filters are not the huge offenders of letting dirt in.

I wonder if all the dirt being let in is the result of improperly installed CAIs? What about dirt from panel filters in stock housings?


Don't know how you can say that when the tests clearly show that the K&N is coming last in almost every performance test category.

Originally Posted By: bobbobtar
Here are some tests done a few years ago.

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/3-power...-they-work.html


That's ONE test and one test is not definitive ...


You're missing the whole reason for test standards and testing many air filters against each other in exactly the same way. It really doesn't get any better than that for true "apples-to-apples" comparisons.

What other credible "tests" do you think there are out there in the world that would tell you K&Ns are better than the others?

 

[stchman]

As I said before, if K&N air filters were so bad, then there would be hordes of tests from other manufacturers showing how bad they are.

All I hear is forum banter and one test done in 2004.

Also, where is this Chrysler TSB that states they will void engine warranty when a K&N is used on a Cummins engine?

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: stchman
After all the banter, it appears that K&N filters are not the huge offenders of letting dirt in.

I wonder if all the dirt being let in is the result of improperly installed CAIs? What about dirt from panel filters in stock housings?


When I hold an air filter up to a light I'm expecting that I'm not going to see through it.
An oiled gauze filter is made for flow,not filtration. It's the same principle as those racing steel mesh oil filters. They are made to maximize flow,period.
Now I will say if oiled properly and used in conditions that aren't too dusty they aren't bad,however they are no where near as efficient as paper.
If you want a high flow filter the only choice is the blue media Amsoil dry filters.
I've used the Amsoil branded ones,many k&n's and of course paper.
By the dust left in the intake tube post filter the Amsoil and paper are equal and had I not know which was which I wouldn't be able to pick. The k&n always either had a layer of dust I could swipe off with my fingertip or it ended up covered in oil and I might as well start MAF shopping.
Even the k&n replacement filters that fit in the stock air box was brutal. I just happened to have mine apart because I had to replace my alternator and I saw the accumulated dirt in the intake tract. I immediately ditched the k&n and I've never bought another since.
Some folks manage to get decent filtration out of them however I wasn't one of those folks. Every single experience ended being negative. Whether it was due to me over-oiling it or not enough oil I always ended up with a less that ideal result.
And to be honest on a naturally aspirated engine its tough to even notice a difference in driving between the 2 and the only real time paper might be restrictive is at wide open throttle.
On a track drag or dedicated race car with an engine that will get rebuilt yearly(or more) then a k&n or full flow filter is required. No one is trying to get 300000 miles from those applications,they are trying to squeeze out every last hp which oiled foam will certainly work.
They sacrifice filtration for flow,just like those steel mesh oil filters.
I see their value in race specific applications however on a daily driver that a person is trying to maintain for the long haul nothing beats paper.
And paper is fool-proof. No potential for improper oiling which leads to their own set of problems of which I experienced both.
If racing paper is restrictive so oiled gauze is a viable option but its a gravel trap,not a fine dust barrier.

Just my opinion based on my experience with k&n over my entire driving life.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: stchman
As I said before, if K&N air filters were so bad, then there would be hordes of tests from other manufacturers showing how bad they are.

All I hear is forum banter and one test done in 2004.

Also, where is this Chrysler TSB that states they will void engine warranty when a K&N is used on a Cummins engine?


You're getting to be like a parrot stchman. You've been given plenty of leads for more info yet you don't follow up on any and keep parroting the same lines. I suppose you want it all put on a platter for you so you don't have to lift a finger.

The 2004 Spicer test is an excellent representation of the differences in efficiency between a cellulose filter and an oiled cotton gauze. Beyond that, all you have to do is find efficiency data for air filters, determine whether it is a fine or a coarse test and compare the data. The oiled cotton gauze filter will always be at the lower end of the list, especially when it comes to the fine test. That is a simple fact.

The Cummins thing was many years ago and has been completely blown out of proportion. It's a situation where if the engine was found to be "dusted" due to an ineffective air filter the warranty CLAIM would be denied, not an entirely voided warranty. And yes, there have been some warranty situations involving K&N (and others) but in the ones I heard/saw/read about they came down to maintenance problems. Most were because the filter was allowed to get filthy, blocked and then high DP sucked the dirt thru the filter (and ruining the filter media in the process). With a properly maintained filter, it won't happen to any filter. With poor maintenance, it can happen to ANY filter.