UOA with K&N

Status
Not open for further replies.
smirk2.gif
Yeah, let's see this "Stage 2" "tuned" "K&N" equipped car make it to 300K.
36.gif
Then come back and post those stellar UOAs.

Not arguing you don't have proof, just saying your proof is only worth so much...
 
The insanity on this site by many members against K&N is legendary. You now get people moving the goalposts out to 300k mile (show me) proof when presented with current, factual UOA. It comes across as pretty petty.

crackmeup2.gif
 
Originally Posted by TiGeo
Originally Posted by tony1679
Originally Posted by tony1679
K&N isn't bad. See? The car's second oil change ever proves it!
smirk2.gif

Guess my original comment is on the wrong side of the opinion street. It's okay, thankfully it's common sense that K&Ns are trash. Besides, VWs are excellent at lying about numbers.
crackmeup2.gif



The data in my case say otherwise and I'd say I'm on the wrong side of the opinion street w/r to K&N on BITOG!


crackmeup2.gif
lol.gif
10.gif
 
Originally Posted by tony1679
smirk2.gif
Yeah, let's see this "Stage 2" "tuned" "K&N" equipped car make it to 300K.
36.gif
Then come back and post those stellar UOAs.

Not arguing you don't have proof, just saying your proof is only worth so much...


300k? The fact is I have no filtration issues running a K&N which is counter to what the group think here is. Show me how many people keep cars to 300k if they even last that long (and air filtration will be the least of their problems is much guess). I suppose I could drop the factory filter back in this UOA to see what if any UOA differences there will be but I like the extra noise and my new turbo likes the flowage....ahhaha
 
Last edited:
I don't see 300k being an un-achievable figure for engines produced from mid/late 90's to 2010, I haven't seen enough high mileage numbers on "newer" gasoline engines to prove they can squeeze out higher MPG figures & still maintain longevity. Forced induction, wonky valve timing components, 8-speed & dual-clutch transmissions, direct injection, decreased intelligence of new drivers, along with slashed R&D budgets are some of the items working against longevity of newer automobiles. Only reason I chimed in, I don't have much of an opinion on K&N filters at this point. I've seen vacuum/dirt tests completed maybe 5-15 years ago, I have zero knowledge if the company has managed to increased filtration ability or reduced airflow to compensate for poor filtration, maybe they're great now maybe they're not, I'm not informed enough to form an opinion one way or another. It would be interesting to see inside your intercooler after a few years of running a K&N compared to a stock-filtered car, perhaps dirt particles are clinging to any ripples or bends outside the centerline of the tubing inside. The slight thin oily film that eventually coats charge-pipes seems like it would be quite competent at capturing and holding dirt particles too so that would be good as well.
 
Originally Posted by wewsnu
I don't see 300k being an un-achievable figure for engines produced from mid/late 90's to 2010, I haven't seen enough high mileage numbers on "newer" gasoline engines to prove they can squeeze out higher MPG figures & still maintain longevity. Forced induction, wonky valve timing components, 8-speed & dual-clutch transmissions, direct injection, decreased intelligence of new drivers, along with slashed R&D budgets are some of the items working against longevity of newer automobiles. Only reason I chimed in, I don't have much of an opinion on K&N filters at this point. I've seen vacuum/dirt tests completed maybe 5-15 years ago, I have zero knowledge if the company has managed to increased filtration ability or reduced airflow to compensate for poor filtration, maybe they're great now maybe they're not, I'm not informed enough to form an opinion one way or another. It would be interesting to see inside your intercooler after a few years of running a K&N compared to a stock-filtered car, perhaps dirt particles are clinging to any ripples or bends outside the centerline of the tubing inside. The slight thin oily film that eventually coats charge-pipes seems like it would be quite competent at capturing and holding dirt particles too so that would be good as well.


All good comments - I will say I just had my turbo replaced and have done some work on the charge piping and other turbo-related bits and all the piping, turbos inlets/outlets, etc. are clean as whistle. Again, the consensus that a K&N (or any other high-flow/performance filter in the stock location) is letting a bunch of dirt in is just false based on myh UOAs, direct observations, and my driving conditions.
 
Here are my comments on the concept of the K&N filters, and these UOAs in particular ...

K&N products are not inherently bad. But they present a challenge to get them set up properly. Too much oil on the media and they will often weep the oil downstream to the MAF sensor, which then in turn causes CEL faults, etc; this has been seen a bazillion times. Or, you don't get enough oil on it, and it does not filter nearly as well as it should; often the cause of higher Si counts we sometimes see. The K&N filters do a very good job WHEN THEY ARE PROPERLY CLEANED AND CONDITIONED AND INSTALLED IN A MANNER THAT WILL NOT AFFECT THE ELECTRONIC CONTROL SYSTEM(S). However, that's much harder to achieve for some folks, especially given the American way of thinking that if some oil is good, then more must always be better! As a generalization, it's much easier for Joe Average to install a common dry cellulose filter, because there's far less for him to screw up. K&N filters get a bad rap not because they are bad, but because they are finicky to set up properly and people blame their errors on the filters; unfair or not, that's the reality.

Now as to these UOAs, you cannot actually attribute the Si control to the K&N until you know the presence of upstream intake Si. The low Si count may be because the K&N is doing a good job, or it might just be because there's very little airborne Si in your general area. Example from a different perspective: We used to have outside cats around our house in the rural area I live in. There are no black or brown bears where I live. Is it because the cats keep the bears away, or is it simply because no bears are typical in my area? So, until you did several back-to-back tests, using only the air filtration as the controlled variable, you really cannot claim any proof that the K&N is actually the cause of the low Si count in the UOA.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by dnewton3
Here are my comments on the concept of the K&N filters, and these UOAs in particular ...

K&N products are not inherently bad. But they present a challenge to get them set up properly. Too much oil on the media and they will often weep the oil downstream to the MAF sensor, which then in turn causes CEL faults, etc; this has been seen a bazillion times. Or, you don't get enough oil on it, and it does not filter nearly as well as it should; often the cause of higher Si counts we sometimes see. The K&N filters do a very good job WHEN THEY ARE PROPERLY CLEANED AND CONDITIONED AND INSTALLED IN A MANNER THAT WILL NOT AFFECT THE ELECTRONIC CONTROL SYSTEM(S). However, that's much harder to achieve for some folks, especially given the American way of thinking that if some oil is good, then more must always be better! As a generalization, it's much easier for Joe Average to install a common dry cellulose filter, because there's far less for him to screw up. K&N filters get a bad rap not because they are bad, but because they are finicky to set up properly and people blame their errors on the filters; unfair or not, that's the reality.

Now as to these UOAs, you cannot actually attribute the Si control to the K&N until you know the presence of upstream intake Si. The low Si count may be because the K&N is doing a good job, or it might just be because there's very little airborne Si in your general area. Example from a different perspective: We used to have outside cats around our house in the rural area I live in. There are no black or brown bears where I live. Is it because the cats keep the bears away, or is it simply because no bears are typical in my area? So, until you did several back-to-back tests, using only the air filtration as the controlled variable, you really cannot claim any proof that the K&N is actually the cause of the low Si count in the UOA.



Good comments - appreciate the discussion! A few more thoughts on some of your points:

I agree 100% with you on the "present a challenge to get them set up properly" - this is why the OEMs don't use filters like this first and foremost - they use paper b/c it's set and forget. The cleaning/oiling is the key. K&N says 50K miles; I've read where people are doing this annually and each time you do it you run the risk of f'ing it up. I will say this w/r to the overoiling/MAF sensor issues, I'm not so sure I believe it. I don't have a MAF in my MK7 Golf so not an issue anyway but do run one in my Atlas which has a MAF and as expected, no issues. This is a great video on their testing of this (over oiling etc.), worth a watch @ 17 min long. Yes, I know, it was put out by K&N but regardless, the testing methods look solid and conclusions make sense to me. I had 2 MAFs go on my MK4 Jetta with standard air filters. They guarantee if you have a MAF issue they will cover it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE6moItrZNg

Much like I can't attribute the Si control to the K&N without upstream SiO2 numbers, you can't also say that high-Si in your oil is a result of the K&N without having a back-to-back test with a standard paper filter where you may get lower SiO2 numbers. This goes both ways and my point of the whole post is to debunk the blanket statement that "you get high SiO2 when you use K&Ns" that is almost BITOG lore at this point. I always say in my posts "under my operating conditions" to point out that I drive in "clean" "normal" conditions and these results may look different is say you are in a desert or other dusty area. I live on the East Coast and DD my car mostly on the highway, hardly the kind of conditions that will cause excessive dirt/dust into your intake that would overwhelm the filter's capacity to clean the air adequately.

Using a K&N (correctly) doesn't automatically equate to dirty oil/poor filtration as many on BITOG preach - my UOA results continue to show it. Will be interesting to see how they change over the next year as I approach the 50K mile cleaning interval, clean it, then get data post-cleaning. I suspect I will see zero difference.
 
Originally Posted by wewsnu
I don't see 300k being an un-achievable figure for engines produced from mid/late 90's to 2010, I haven't seen enough high mileage numbers on "newer" gasoline engines to prove they can squeeze out higher MPG figures & still maintain longevity. Forced induction, wonky valve timing components, 8-speed & dual-clutch transmissions, direct injection, decreased intelligence of new drivers, along with slashed R&D budgets are some of the items working against longevity of newer automobiles. Only reason I chimed in, I don't have much of an opinion on K&N filters at this point. I've seen vacuum/dirt tests completed maybe 5-15 years ago, I have zero knowledge if the company has managed to increased filtration ability or reduced airflow to compensate for poor filtration, maybe they're great now maybe they're not, I'm not informed enough to form an opinion one way or another. It would be interesting to see inside your intercooler after a few years of running a K&N compared to a stock-filtered car, perhaps dirt particles are clinging to any ripples or bends outside the centerline of the tubing inside. The slight thin oily film that eventually coats charge-pipes seems like it would be quite competent at capturing and holding dirt particles too so that would be good as well.


To the 300K discussion, sure, folks keep cars that long but it is not the norm. My old 2000 MK4 Jetta is still going at ~280K; I sold it to a neighbor at ~220K. It's completely falling apart but still runs. As usual, the engine will typically outlive the rest of the car which back to my point - 300K is a "who cares" number to me. 200K is more reasonable and if you can keep one that long, you have "won".
 
Originally Posted by Smokescreen
Filtration aside, I'll bet the Stage 2 mods allow this sled to scoot pretty good.


It's mind blowing really (to me). I'd say it sits nicely in the low 4 sec 0-60 time...that's faster than most of the stock tuner cars....and it's a wagon!
 
The bad K&N thread is doing really well, 7 pages now and they are foaming at the mouth. This thread has only got to 2 pages and is almost off the front page.
 
My 2002 VW Jetta has had a majority of its 420,000 mile life with a K&N filter. I stopped using it a few years ago when my MAF went bad. In the filter's defense I probably over oiled it or something similar. Or the MAF just went bad. Or something... K&N filters air just fine. My 2010 Hardley Ableson FLHTK has had nothing but a big fat K&N ventilator it's entire life. Granted it's just over 10% of what the VW has done but still. I can't poo on K&N filters. I've seen the horror stories. Heard that they cause world famine, uncontrolled fires, and angry little girls talking about climate change. How dare they?
 
Originally Posted by Clayslayer
My 2002 VW Jetta has had a majority of its 420,000 mile life with a K&N filter. I stopped using it a few years ago when my MAF went bad. In the filter's defense I probably over oiled it or something similar. Or the MAF just went bad. Or something... K&N filters air just fine. My 2010 Hardley Ableson FLHTK has had nothing but a big fat K&N ventilator it's entire life. Granted it's just over 10% of what the VW has done but still. I can't poo on K&N filters. I've seen the horror stories. Heard that they cause world famine, uncontrolled fires, and angry little girls talking about climate change. How dare they?


I had a 2000 Jetta and I too had 2 MAFs....without K&N. It was a known problem. This is just it...folks running K&Ns were saying their MAFs were going back and it was automatically being blamed on the filter often by crappy service departments to get out of warranty repairs...this IMHO is how the whole legend got started. The oil can't come off...it's been shown. The videos also explain that they have analyzed the MAFs that were sent back to them by customers stating the filter caused it and there was no oil found on the sensors. The MAFs are really just going bad as parts do. Yes, K&N is responsible for the attack on Iran last I heard.aahahaha
 
Here's my latest UOA and this is after 9K miles on the Liquimoly Leichtlauf High Tech 5W40 oil (longest yet) AND beating the snot out of the new Stage 2 tune and larger GTI turbo. Still appears the K&N is doing a fine job at 30K miles in. I removed it at the last change (21K) and knock-out out the large stuff - I have my front air duct modified to let more air in/easier flow to the air box so I do get larger debris/bugs in there. I'll take it to 50K per K&N's directions and clean/re-oil then.

Inked18 GOLF SW-200210_UOA_30K_clean.jpg
 
I don't understand now, uoa is supposed to test oil filters and air filters?
 
The UAO should show more silicon and more wear metals if the air filter isn't doing a good job at filtering dirt out of the air.
 
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
I don't understand now, uoa is supposed to test oil filters and air filters?



Clarify. Is it the "silicon" the oil filter misses, or the air filter? It is both isn't it? So which are we talking about here?" How can it be known? Silicon would be from minerals. Actually silicon oxides. Insoluble silicon isn't going to be found in oil at all.
 
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Clarify. Is it the "silicon" the oil filter misses, or the air filter? It is both isn't it? So which are we talking about here?" How can it be known? Silicon would be from minerals. Actually silicon oxides. Insoluble silicon isn't going to be found in oil at all.

Any silicon that appears in a UOA is from a compound far too small to be captured by an oil filter. So yes it is both, but unless it is coming from inside the engine (such as a sealant) then the primary fault is with the air filter. It wouldn't matter if it is soluble in a hydrocarbon or not as both would show up in the UOA (but I wouldn't know of any soluble silicon compounds).

Of course a UOA cannot distinguish the origin of the silicon since any compounds are decomposed in the ICP plasma. But at the same time there aren't a lot of sources.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top