[PorscheDude]

All one has to do is clean and oil regularly.

But buy your paper filters, you'll be just as happy as "us".

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Fox944]

<!--quoteo(post=76774:date=Aug 3 2009, 09:46 PM:name=S_Cal968)-->QUOTE (S_Cal968 @ Aug 3 2009, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I'm glad you 44 is still going, but until the engine is characterized/inspected, your point is kind of invalid. It'll still run seemingly fine with ~15% less compression, it'll just have less power.

When [or how long until] the damage occurs depends on the environment that the car is driven in. I drive though an agricultural/farm area just about everyday, it's very common to drive through clouds of dust. And, for this reason I often check my air & hepa filters and tap out the dirt. Sometimes I don't bother to wash my car, it gets dirty within a day or 2.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


CR was right where it should be before i did the airbox mod. At that point the car spent its last 30K miles being driven with a K&N in New Jersey. Since then, it has logged 12k (mostly NYC) miles with a K&N and airbox mod on a high compression head (which hasnt lost any compression in the last 12K miles).

I think Flash said it best.

<!--quoteo(post=76776:date=Aug 3 2009, 10:04 PM:name=flash)-->QUOTE (flash @ Aug 3 2009, 10:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->seems like a moot point to me - sounds to me like somebody was trying to blame something on somebody, rather than take responsibility for lack of proper maintenance - i always hear complaints about performance products from people who can't afford to buy the car in the first place, or try to mickey mouse things and cut corners - i never hear the guy with the ferrari whining about his air filter causing his engine to fail<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[S_Cal968]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->seems like a moot point to me - sounds to me like somebody was trying to blame something on somebody, rather than take responsibility for lack of proper maintenance - i always hear complaints about performance products from people who can't afford to buy the car in the first place, or try to mickey mouse things and cut corners - i never hear the guy with the ferrari whining about his air filter causing his engine to fail<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Huh..?? Somebody is blaming somebody... Sorry I don't follow. And who's complaining; this is a debate on the merits [or lack there of] of the K&N filter? Of course you won't hear from someone with a Ferrari, they don't work on their own cars - they'll follow whatever their mechanic suggests.
When I worked as a Validation Engineer we had to qualify what we claimed in the report. And, we've seen a number of claims on how this product is doesn't cause any damage, but no one has provided anything to validate their claims. Talk about moot...
BTW, 1m miles / 40 cars is ~25K / car - not a lot of miles by most standards. If I recall your cab isn't a daily driver and still has low miles.

Also the K&N site would be the last place I'd look for unbiased information. This is why I provided information from independent sources, one of which was a controlled environment.

The bottom-line [for me at least]:
- If you want better filtering and all-out performance is less important - use a paper filter.
- If your goal is all out performance [e.g. racing] and filtering is not as critical - use a K&N

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[PorscheDude]

Ok

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

wow - this is making me tired

first, i trust K&N data - i have dealt with the guys there, and they are above reproach - their facility is top flight - other companies use their facility for testing - i almost did the chip testing there, but we couldn't make the schedules work - they are more than happy to provide you with any data on their filters that you would like - they know their filters do a better job, and have no issues proving it

if you had been reading, my car is NOT a low mileage car - it now has 48k on it, almost all of which with the K&N - as a result of doing what i do with these cars, i have had the opportunity to see the intakes and MAFs on cars with that mileage with paper filters, and mine has been cleaner - that tells me that the paper is letting something through that the K&N is stopping

as for the 40+ cars, obviously i did not do the same mileage on all the cars - some saw very little, some saw a lot (as much as 100k) - many were high mileage and came to me with the filters already on them, but i chose not to count that in, since i had no real information on how long it had been there (frankly i didn't really think this conversation would pop up - everybody knows the things work)

there is NO indication anywhere that a paper filter does a better job of filtering, and in fact, there is plenty of data that shows that not to be the case - i challenge you to find data to show that paper is better - we have nothing but your opinion on that, whereas we do have data to show the K&N is better, that you merely choose not to accept

as for the ferrari guys, they are the worst complainers, and the first to point fingers - however, they don't complain about this filter - if there was a chance that it was going to foul their $60k engine, i think they would say something - yet, when i go to the vintage races, they all use them

the only ones i ever hear complain are the guys who cut corners and won't spend money - they try to find fault with it, and i think there is something else going on that they are trying to use the filter as a scapegoat for - i hear stupid stuff like "i put this new filter in for this season's track event, but now my 100k mile engine is soggy - it was fine last year when it only had 80k on it - it must be the filter" - the 928 guys who over-oiled their filters are a good example too - "the filter screwed up my MAF" - in reality, they screwed up their own MAF by not installing the filter correctly

but, use what you want - until i see data otherwise, that is my position - i think everybody else knows what the thing does too, and is more than willing to take them at their word, knowing that they can investigate on their own, and is confident that it will do the job - there is just way too much evidence out there that they work and do no harm, and not one iota of evidence that i can find to indicate that paper is better in any way

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[S_Cal968]

I'm sorry that you feel tired - you can always opt to stop following this thread - we all know where you stand on this topic.
If you're going to throw out numbers, you should expect to be challenged or at least questioned.

As for no data, I guess you missed posts 37 & 45, there were tests conducted by independent entities. The link for the quote in post 45 can be found by googling K&N Filter Test or something similar. I doubt you took a poll and yet you make it seem as if I'm the only one that questions the capabilities of the K&N[??]. From what I've seen from other sources there are many that have similar concerns.

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->there is just way too much evidence out there that they work and do no harm<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Really, why hasn't anyone posted a link from an independent test lab earlier in this thread?? I rarely go by what a manufacture claims, keep in mind there in business to make money - they know how to put a spin on a report or ad to convince the customer to buy their product.

Just for grins I checked the K&N site to see what they say about testing. And, not once do they mention anything about comparison to a paper filter, [hmmm wonder why that is?] at least I didn't see anything. They use an ISO 5011 which everyone uses, however what caught my eye is where they say: <!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->we use Coarse Test Dust for gasoline engine air filters and Fine Test Dust for diesel engine air filters.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->, so they don't test for fine particles in the first place!

Additionally they say, <!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->There is no published requirement for vehicle filtration. Car and truck owner's manuals are silent on the issue and you will find very few companies that even credibly discuss filtration efficiency. We believe this demonstrates that most air filters sold today provide adequate levels of filtration.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While this is true, they seem to be dance around the filtration question to seemingly justify the by-pass of smaller particles. However it was nice that in one paragraph they admit how there's a trade-off between flow and filtration.<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->We seek the best balance between airflow and filtration recognizing they are inversely related<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Anyway, I think we all know where we stand on this topic and can close the "can of worms" once again...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Fox944]

And i'm still wondering when i'm going to finally see some damage.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

lol - same time it gets chilly below

by the way - i didn't miss anything - there was 1 test mentioned - his also indicated gains, and said things like "probably" - no probably about it - the dyno doesn't lie - our results were different and dyno proven - his were not - while it is true that the measured resistance difference of the filters is relatively small (though we measured more than he did), the power result is not - he failed to test the difference in end result real world application - that is bad science

i never said that K&N said anything about paper on their site - why would they? so they can have discussions like this? yeah, that seems productive - all i said was that there was way too much evidence out there

i can find NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE that running a properly installed K&N allows anything damaging into your engine - not even one report from one car - in fact, all i can find is endless testimonials, millions of miles of success, on countless different cars, which says otherwise - speaking in hypotheticals with no evidence in fact is pointless

if there were any evidence in real world application to support the theory, i would feel differently - there is none that i can find

while a remote possibility that tomorrow the sun will come up in the west, based on its history, i'm going on the presumption that the sun comes up in the east

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[PorscheDude]

If it's good enough to finish the Baja 1000, I think it'll be fine
in my car for another 125k miles.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

lol - yup - it was funny to see that it would be ok to be used for the track (where we all know the air is a mess - have you ever see a car after a day at a the track?) but not on the street - i would think that if it was a concern that things would be reversed

i'm all for challenging ideas, and am fully prepared to be proven wrong, but in light of the overwhelming evidence, i chalk this one up to baseless paranoia

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[S_Cal968]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I can find NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE that running a properly installed K&N allows anything damaging into your engine<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And, vice/versa, no one has provided any credible research that says a K&N DOES NOT damage your engine. So I guess we have a stalemate.
I've seen a lot of numbers thrown around and no credible sources to back them up.

I recently developed a honing process that uses lapping media and even the smallest particles [.5 micron] have an affect on superalloys. So theoretically, if the K&N passes particles typically stopped by paper, there's the potential for a higher rate of engine wear. The question becomes, how much wear is acceptable[?].

While I'll agree real world testing is valuable, it lacks the credibility to validate any product because there are a plethora of variables that aren't easily repeated, [an uncontrolled environment]. Bob, I know you're particular and I'm surprized you put so much weight into uncontrollable/unrepeatable testing.
I'd rather see filters that are all subject to the exact same test procedure, [as theoilguy did]. A controlled environment provides very accurate clear-cut results.

re: K&N; that was my point, of course they won't compare paper it's bad for business. K&N basically says since there's no filtration spec from the OEM, it's o-k to run something that's close in filtration, but will provide more power. If they tried to match the filtration of paper, they wouldn't have a product.

re: theoilguy test; the focus of the testing was <b>filtration</b> not performance, you don't need dyno testing to verify filtration. No one is contesting the performance gain.

re: baja 1000; that's comparing oranges & apples. Sure that's an extreme condition, but those engines are torn down and rebuilt after a race or 2 - filtration is not a big concern, they just want to stop the big stuff.

BTW, I'd rather have more power on race day and have better filtration during 99% of the operational life of the engine.
Again, to each his own...

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

that's preposterous - no stalemate at all - you can easily acquire 1000 names of people in less than a week who have used the filters without damage - it isn't hard - you can go pretty much anywhere and run into them for yourself

a lot of numbers? what are you talking about?

i am not putting stock into any testing - i am saying that clearly with not one failure attributable to the K&N, and countelss thousands of customers and millions upon millions of miles logged, that sooner or later you have to bow to reality

live in your world of theory and conjecture if you like - fiction can be fun - the reality though is that there is no damage that anyone has been able to show over the decades of the filters being around

sorry - the sky is not falling here

if you have some real evidence to contradict the overwhelming evidence of real world use and experience, bring it on, otherwise howl at the moon on your own - the rest of us will continue to use what we know works just fine

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[RS Barn]

What oil filter do you run?
Oil filter medias ability to restrict particles varies as well.
Pete

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[S_Cal968]

Of the thousand, how many can actually provide real data - not many I'd bet.

I've at least provided a link to a site that performed independent testing and that was unacceptable to you, but it's more than anything you've provided...

LOL, whatever, live in your truth and I'll live in mine....

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

i don't think data is necessary - how many people does it take that successfully run the thing without issue before one believes that it is safe?

you provided a link to a site that did a flow test, that showed an improvement in flow, drew an inaccurate conclusion on power gain, and that SPECULATED on POTENTIAL damage - they did NOTHING to show any real evidence of any damage on any car, and merely commented in blind fear about something that had a remote possibility of occurrence, but not even one case example of it actually happening

i have thousands of success stories and millions and millions of logged miles over decades of use on my side - what do you have on yours?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[RS Barn]

After 10 years of Pro off road motorcycle racing I actually believe oiled foam to be the best filter option for flow and particle filtration
I've been looking for a potential option for our cars. Oiled foam does require even more care/treatment than K&N.
For those who want to replace vs maintain their filter, this would be the last option.
BTW-I've tested the air temp at Mass Air with various filters with interesting results.

I do believe everyones opinion is valid-even if they don't test anything

Pete

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

Thinking about it, I guess my recent oil analysis does bring at least some data to the argument. Unfortunately, I didn't keep records of how many miles before the oil analysis I cleaned and oiled my filter (I've started to ever since the analysis), but my guess is that it was at least 5000 miles. During that interval, I was tracking my car very heavily (weekly, actually), including more off-track excursions than I'd care to admit to (all before I got the Sumitomo's [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img] ), so the filter was really under a lot of pressure during this interval. This is evidenced by the sizeable collection of dirt/sand I found in the bottom of the air box when I finally got around to cleaning the filter.

I'm on vacation at my Mom's house, so I don't have access to my oil analysis results, but the silica content in the oil (in the analyst's expert opinion, an indicator of dirt ingress) was, while not insignificant, extremely low. And I was always very cautious of applying only the lightest of mists of oil to the filter - probably overly cautious.

Based on the rather long air filter cleaning/oiling interval, the light oiling technique I used, and the very harsh conditions during the interval, my conclusion is that the K & N filter did an admirable job of keeping the dirt ingress into the engine to a minimum. I'm definitely going to stick with the K & N, but will be much more dligient about keeping it clean and oiled.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[S_Cal968]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one - this seems to be turning into an argument rather than a debate.

We differ by the fact I like to see data and/or logic rather than random experience in an uncontrolled environment.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the compromise in filtering provides the boost in performance. Just hold a K&N and a paper filter up to the light - which can you see light through[?]. I've seen first-hand how fine particles can polish even the hardest metals. With that in mind, it's not worth the gamble for me. However, If you've had good luck with the K&N, good for you. If you don't mind your engine consuming some fine grit, that's your choice.

re: foam filter; yep, I've read that too. Foam just by design would be a suitable compromise between the K&N and paper. In fact for Off-Roading I ran a foam layer over my K&N which seemed to work well. [oops sorry I'm speculating] [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[firefish]

From an amateurs point of view it would seem that the (if any) potentially hazardous side effects of running a K&N (or other filter of similar design) could be reduced substancially by doing frequent oil changes and using top notch oil filters (not taking into account initial damage to rings and bores) since grit ends up in the oil anyway, although most is probably ejected through the tail pipe.

And I'm probably gonna get a beating for this one but here goes: Since the flow through the K&N doesn't seem to be that much higher than the stock paper filter I cannot help wondering where the hp is gained. The chance of an electrical discharge, ie bolt, increases when the air is dirty (could be water, dust etc). Is it to far fetched to wonder if the hp gain with the K&N has something to do with this? What I am suggesting is that tiny particles, not grains of sand, that are unvisible to the eye and omnipresent save for in especially controlled and filtered environments (like industrial labs et.c), somewhat aid to the combustion? Said particles would be stopped with the paper filter but not with the K&N.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

a debate has facts to back up the position - you have provided none - since there is no data, all you have is logic upon which to base a decision or take a position - LOGICALLY since NOBODY has EVER had a problem, and THOUSANDS of people are using them with MILLIONS of miles logged, there must be no issue

occam's razor is a natural here

this is in no way random - it is universal - there has not been one story, case study, or shred of evidence of a failure - you cannot turn a blind eye to reality, just because nobody bothered to do a scientific study to prove the obvious

a failure would be random

the only reason you would ever even need to think about doing a study is if there were evidence of failure - since there is none, there is no need

paper filters are OVER RESTRICTIVE - the only reason they began use was economics - they were cheaper than the oil filters that used to be used - they were not better - they merely do not need to be that way to protect the engine from something harming it - i don't need to seal my leftovers in a perfect clean room and complete vacuum to know that i would be able to eat them safely the next day either - tupperware in the fridge is fine - i don't need a study to tell me that either

without some sort of evidence to support your position, this is a no brainer - we welcome the presentation of anything directly associated, but intangible applications are irrelevant and pure paranoia

as for why the hp increase, it's a volume thing - it takes little restriction relief to increase volume significantly - remember, it's only vacuum pulling the air in to begin with

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.