Keep K&N or NOT ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by circuitsmith
My eyes are stinging from that solid block of text.
Who can read that?

I agree 100% Unreadable.


It takes what, a few minutes at most to read that post? I thought the whole point of a forum like this was info...if I wanted athe TLDR crap, I'll just go on FB where the info is generally 100% worthless.
 
Last edited:
Here in South Florida, we simply don't have an airborne dirt/dust problem. This is due to daily rains and high humidity. I use K+N filters on my cars and trucks with good results. Despite the claims of doom and gloom, my vehicles make it well into the 250,000 and 350,000 mile range with the cylinder crosshatch intact.

After reading the various K+N tests I decided to use some sticky grease downstream of the filter (a common dirt bike trick) to catch any particulates that make it through. It's no surprise that the filter remains clean and there was no dirt discoloration of the grease after 60,000 miles.

Bottom line, a K+N is a valid choice in non dusty/sandy locations.
 
The march against K&N on this board is plain silly especially when those against use UOAs to buttress their argument, but when a good one surfaces, they say it means nothing and move the goal posts, using another measure of engine longevity.

K&N never caused an oily MAS, dusty intake tract, or CEL with any of my various vehicles in the past.
 
Originally Posted by Cujet
Here in South Florida, we simply don't have an airborne dirt/dust problem. This is due to daily rains and high humidity. I use K+N filters on my cars and trucks with good results. Despite the claims of doom and gloom, my vehicles make it well into the 250,000 and 350,000 mile range with the cylinder crosshatch intact.

After reading the various K+N tests I decided to use some sticky grease downstream of the filter (a common dirt bike trick) to catch any particulates that make it through. It's no surprise that the filter remains clean and there was no dirt discoloration of the grease after 60,000 miles.

Bottom line, a K+N is a valid choice in non dusty/sandy locations.



100% correct
 
Originally Posted by wemay
The march against K&N on this board is plain silly especially when those against use UOAs to buttress their argument, but when a good one surfaces, they say it means nothing and move the goal posts, using another measure of engine longevity.

K&N never caused an oily MAS, dusty intake tract, or CEL with any of my various vehicles in the past.


You're on it - it's like a no-no to say they work just fine and many of us understand that the filtering efficiently is lower than a paper filter. The report everyone who is anti-K&N references the report (Spicer?) that shows that K&N was at like 96% vs. AC Delco (99%) (all from memory so I may be off here). 3% drop doesn't = engine destruction for most of us that operate in low-dust/low drama conditions. I have them in all 3 of my vehicles and have no issues and I'm a "keep it forever" owner. The UOAs I've presented for both my Atlas and Golf show no filtration issues (that you would see in the analysis). It's just more of a propagating urban legend that these kill MAFs and destroy you engine. K&N stands by their product and will even go to bat for you with dealers that either try to deny warranty coverage for MAF issues. On the Golf, there are repeated dyno data that show that a high-flow filter (could be a dry one like AFe) in conjunction with other air box modifications (so not just on it's own) can improve power, it's just science. My air tubes on all my cars are clean...no dirt. The flow argument should be easy to grasp and here is some great data (for my car) for a high-flow filter:

http://mygolfmk7.com/2018/09/afe-magnum-flow-dry-air-filter/
 
Last edited:
Now the trick question.. How does it filter in the winter? I guess it uses oil to create a tact on the gauze but if it gets too cold would it just clump up or harden to the point of not being an effective filter. I'm no expert just wondering the thoughts and theories. I'm sticking to dry flow so I don't have to buy oil. I think they are probably okay for street use in regular environments
 
Not just keeping it. Got one...

20191220_162130.jpg
 
Well, after an hour of driving with it installed, i did't like the sound so removed it. Not that it sounds bad, just not my taste. The natural of the Ea888 budack 2.0T sounds just fine.
 
I've used a K&N filter on three vehicles. Never had a problem with any of them. After about 60K not having to buy another OEM filter the K&N has paid for itself. I clean mine about every 30K miles. I don't understand the BITOG opprobrium.

And yeah, the K&N stickers makes the car faster!
 
Originally Posted by ARB1977
I prefer dry reusable air filters. If your not careful with oil it can mess things up.


Understood and agree, the dry AFe etc. are great. But watch the videos...the oil just doesn't mess anything up even if you go completely overboard on it - they couldn't get the oil to come off even in extreme flow conditions.. I just don't understand how folks goof it - clean it, dry it, spray it, dry it, done.
 
Originally Posted by wemay
Well, after an hour of driving with it installed, i did't like the sound so removed it. Not that it sounds bad, just not my taste. The natural of the Ea888 budack 2.0T sounds just fine.


BTW, this was meant as sarcasm/joke. I haven't removed it.
 
Originally Posted by TiGeo
Originally Posted by ARB1977
I prefer dry reusable air filters. If your not careful with oil it can mess things up.


Understood and agree, the dry AFe etc. are great. But watch the videos...the oil just doesn't mess anything up even if you go completely overboard on it - they couldn't get the oil to come off even in extreme flow conditions.. I just don't understand how folks goof it - clean it, dry it, spray it, dry it, done.


Agreed, plus, I prefer the extra filtering ability the oil contributes...

https://www.knfilters.com/blog/how-k-n-high-flow-air-filters-capture-microscopic-particles/
 
I'm going to ask a question I've never seen anyone ask before...is there such a thing as paper element filters that flow better than stock elements?
 
Generally, more flow equals less filtration. And most paper filter vendors don't bother trying to increase flow on their filter for an application.
 
Originally Posted by wemay
Originally Posted by TiGeo
Originally Posted by ARB1977
I prefer dry reusable air filters. If your not careful with oil it can mess things up.


Understood and agree, the dry AFe etc. are great. But watch the videos...the oil just doesn't mess anything up even if you go completely overboard on it - they couldn't get the oil to come off even in extreme flow conditions.. I just don't understand how folks goof it - clean it, dry it, spray it, dry it, done.


Agreed, plus, I prefer the extra filtering ability the oil contributes...

https://www.knfilters.com/blog/how-k-n-high-flow-air-filters-capture-microscopic-particles/



Except their filtration still sucks. Look at actual independent testing.
 
Originally Posted by Spktyr
Originally Posted by wemay
Originally Posted by TiGeo
Originally Posted by ARB1977
I prefer dry reusable air filters. If your not careful with oil it can mess things up.


Understood and agree, the dry AFe etc. are great. But watch the videos...the oil just doesn't mess anything up even if you go completely overboard on it - they couldn't get the oil to come off even in extreme flow conditions.. I just don't understand how folks goof it - clean it, dry it, spray it, dry it, done.


Agreed, plus, I prefer the extra filtering ability the oil contributes...

https://www.knfilters.com/blog/how-k-n-high-flow-air-filters-capture-microscopic-particles/



Except their filtration still sucks. Look at actual independent testing.

You mean by ~3% less than a paper filter?

Screenshot_20200102-234428_Google.jpg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top