Should I switch back to paper from K&N?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: slybunda
more air in with ecu not giving more fuel would that be classed as lean?


Most factory tunes are "rich" anyway, for safety. That said, if a little more air did lean things out, it wouldn't usually hurt with factory tunes. BUT, I highly doubt the filter alone would cause this.
 
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
Originally Posted By: slybunda
more air in with ecu not giving more fuel would that be classed as lean?


Most factory tunes are "rich" anyway, for safety. That said, if a little more air did lean things out, it wouldn't usually hurt with factory tunes. BUT, I highly doubt the filter alone would cause this.

I does on carbureted motorcycles. And most cars(FI), when you go WOT the MAF does not richen the fuel. The ECU does that(pre set from the factory) that is why most cars have to get a tune(on the ECU) when they change the intake/exhaust to let more air get to the engine.

ROD
 
kns letsin to much dirt! is there a study on a thread on here somewhere? I remember there was one in the past
 
Last edited:
does anyone know the pore size generally for paper filter, cotton gauze filter and wire mesh filter (stainless steel filter)?
 
Originally Posted By: slybunda
Why only on wot and not when normal driving


Why does it richen the mixture under full throttle? Mostly to avoid detonation. Stoich for gasoline is 14.7:1. Under light load most cars are in that neighborhood. Under full throttle naturally aspirated cars will be anywhere from 14.7-13.0. Turbo cars sometimes go as rich as 11:1.

The simple explanation of how a fuel injected engine controls the mixture is this: The MAF measures the mass of air entering the engine. The ECU has a target air fuel ratio (AFR) for any and every operating parameter. It sees the mass of air entering and it calculates how much fuel to add to hit the desired AFR. It checks its calculation with the 02 sensors and applies correction as necessary. This correction (+- some percent in fuel) is displayed in the block learn and integrator for the older people or short and long term fuel trims for the newer people and cars. It's really easy, checks and balances. A calculation of how much fuel to add based on the air entering the engine and checks itself post combustion with the 02 sensors.

You can look at your fuel trims and see if the ECU is always having to add or subtract fuel as compared to the original calculation. If it's adding fuel it means the original calculation produced a lean condition and it's compensating by adding xx% fuel to the base calculation. The opposite is true if the number is negative.

The TPS, among other things, acts like the accelerator pump of a carburetor. When you first open the throttle, it signals the ECU and the ECU sends a squirt of fuel just for a second to avoid tip in stumble. This is usually done independent of the other AFR calculations going on.

Injectors are pulsed to deliver fuel. We usually try to keep them at or below 80% DC. There's usually a lot of headroom but once you have enough additional air over stock, you need to go with bigger injectors. Tne ECU must be scaled back (lower pulse width) for the bigger injectors or it will have massive drivability problems. Some do this by tricking the MAF to deliver a lower signal and trick the ECU into scaling back the pulse width. Some reprogram the ECU to work with the bigger injectors.

There are also the Speed Density setups which I hate. My Acura uses this setup. Go figure, the "advanced" Japanese use an inferior fuel injection setup, are the only ones I know of that still require valve adjustments, and have the oldest and most out of date variable valve timing and lift on the market. I love the car and it all works well but I'm glad its stock.

Anyway, Speed Demsity does not use a MAF meter. It doesn't measure the mass of air entering the engine. It calculates (vs measuring) how much air it's using using with RPM, load (throttle position and manifold vacuum MAP), and charge air temperature being the big ones for the calculation. Then it's business as usual. It now knows how much air is entering the engine (assuming everything is stock) and calculates the amount of fuel needed to hit target AFR and checks itself using the 02 sensors.

Stock to stock there's no huge advantage to either. When you begin modding the engine, the MAF setup is much more friendly. The MAF meter sees the additional airflow and it's business as usual. They can usually but not always read a good bit higher than the stock engine needs. There are no problems until you peg the MAF meter out. Then you're basically Speed Density after that point. The Speed Density setup on the other hand has no idea you've modified anything since it's not measuring the air and you end up running lean because you're flowing more than expected air. The good part is the 02s check what's going on so up to a certain point, they will ask the ECU to add the necessary fuel to get rid of the lean condition. Once you run out of the 02 sensors' range of compensation you're SOL.

Most MAF equipped cars have the capability of running in SD mode. All of the sensors are already there so if the MAF sensor fails it can run in SD mode as a backup.

When it comes to air filters and mpg, there's no correlation. The throttle body's purpose in life is to restrict airflow before the engine. This is how the power output is throttled. If a restrictive filter just upstream of the throttle body hurts mpg, then the car would get its worst mileage when its idling and best at WOT where restriction is at its lowest. The air filter does not affect mpg on a fuel injected car. Only power is affected and power is only affected at or near full throttle.
 
Originally Posted By: BikeWhisperer
Originally Posted By: horse123


No, actually. On any normal car I guarantee you if you look in the manual it says to replace the intake air filter every 10 or 15k. Any manufacturer who lists above 20k is listening to their marketing team more than their engineers. Good luck running 30k on a car that lives on a dirt road sweety.


Most manuals show up to 50k for normal driving, obviously driving in dusty and unpaved roads would shorten that interval...now the aftermarket air filter companies may say 10k-15k but then they're in the business of selling more filters.

Paper air filters have a much greater capacity while keeping a consistent flow. Products like K&N may have greater flow at first (though not enough for any stock engine to see appreciable gains in power or efficiency) but fall off rather quickly so they do need cleaning every 10k-15k minimum even under normal driving conditions.


Basically my 14 VW JSW TDI doesn't call for a mileage.


EDIT: I bought the car used with 8700 (87 hundred not thousand) miles and replaced the K&N immediately.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: stchman
I have been using a K&N in my engine since almost day 1. I had a UOA performed back at about 20K(I currently have 41K) and it came back good.

I have been hearing that K&N filters kill engines, let in massive amounts of dirt, blah, blah, blah.

My question is, have there been ANY documented cases of K&N air filters actually destroying engines? Are the claims just people saying they "feel" that K&N does not do the job?

I have heard arguments from both sides.

Thanks.



So, let me get this straight. You'd been running K&N air filter and UOAs were good, yet you are looking for an opinion from someone who had no experience with your engine, nor had probably ever used a K&N filter. How would anyone else know better? What's wrong with you?

I mean I understand if UOAs showed higher silicon levels, but, seriously, why don't you believe your own results?
 
Originally Posted By: stchman
I have been using a K&N in my engine since almost day 1. I had a UOA performed back at about 20K(I currently have 41K) and it came back good.

I have been hearing that K&N filters kill engines, let in massive amounts of dirt, blah, blah, blah.

My question is, have there been ANY documented cases of K&N air filters actually destroying engines? Are the claims just people saying they "feel" that K&N does not do the job?

I have heard arguments from both sides.

Thanks.


They don't kill engines but in most cases will increase the wear rates slightly as they are nearly always less efficient than the OEM filter. Obviously it depends on how dusty the environment is and I would not use one if off roading.
Another big disadvantage of filters that need oiling is that the oil can easily contaminate the mass air flow sensor causing it to fail and that results in the ECU defaulting to limp home mode.

The only reasons for fitting a K&N on a non race engine is that they look cool and make a different sound.

Trying to figure out how efficient an air filter is from a UOA is very difficult as the amount of ultra fine dust in the air varies a lot from one month or even year to another. My own Si figures vary between 8 and 16 ppm for a 10K km OCI just because of differences in how wet or dry it was.
 
Last edited:
All I know, is that when I ran a K&N I had dirt in the intake pipe past the filter. Went back to a paper filter, no dirt past the filter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top