k&n airfilters
John Folkers
thinking of changing the airfilter to a K&n filter. Will this give me more
power or is it just a waste of $$$$.
thanks John
My Name's Nobody
Allot of people will debate the filtering abilities of the K&N versus the
factory paper filter. I do not have any way to scientifically test or prove
this one way or the other. As for the highly debated power improvement, I
have never dynoed (sp?) before and after installing one, and again I can't
speak to that aspect of the K&N filters benefit. I did put one in my wife's
1994 SHO (220 HP 3.0 liter) and saw a real 2 mile per gallon fuel mileage
increase. She drives over 350 miles ever week. Every fill-up is recorded
in a small log book in the console. Before the filter change the car got a
consistent 24.5 miles per gallon. After the K&N filter was installed this
same car with no other changes has gotten 26.5 miles per gallon!
Many of the fuel injected Fords seem to suffer from very restricted air
intake designs. That is why I think there is such a noticeable difference
with the K&N filters on them.
MNN
"John Folkers" <DELETETHI...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Vxk89.598$bv5.1...@news0.telusplanet.net...
Dan S
He only had a few thousand miles on it and it was all stock. He made a
dyno run stock then put in a K&N. He made 4 more hp at the rear wheels
with the K&N. They did a 3rd run and it was the same result. I don't
remember the difference in torque.
In his case, the K&N was worth it. He was happy and in the end, that is
what counts.
Dan S
winze
filter gets dirty,the k&n keeps working even when it's dirty(within
reason)plus you save money because the k&n can be cleaned and you
should never have to buy another paper filter.
C. E. White
Dan S wrote:
> I was at a dyno day session this spring. I saw a Lightening truck there.
> He only had a few thousand miles on it and it was all stock. He made a
> dyno run stock then put in a K&N. He made 4 more hp at the rear wheels
> with the K&N. They did a 3rd run and it was the same result. I don't
> remember the difference in torque.
> In his case, the K&N was worth it. He was happy and in the end, that is
> what counts.
> Dan S
Only 4 hp??? I wouldn't consider that a significant difference. The accuracy of
the setup and the variability do to changing conditions could make a much bigger
difference than 4 Hp. However, if the owner of the truck was happy, then that is
what really matters. Personally I wouldn't take a chance on reducing the life of
my engine for what is essentially no change in power output.
Ed
C. E. White
"restrictive" air filter should have a negligible effect on the fuel economy. As
far as the PCM is concerned the air restriction imposed by the air filter is not
significantly different than the much larger restriction imposed by the throttle
plate. I will concede that a severely plugged filter can cause performance
problems. However, if you change your filter at the specified intervals I can't
imagine that the air filter would have any significant effect on mileage (on a
fuel injected vehicle - carburetors are a different story).
As for cost - if you keep you vehicle for a very long time, K&N filters might
save you a few dollars. However, if you follow the manufacturer's recommend
replacement schedule for paper filters and buy your filters at WalMart, I doubt
you can show a savings until you have over 100,000 miles. And this isn't
including the extra time required to clean and reoil the K&N, or any
consideration for what happens if you don't do it right.
One interesting exercise is to go to the K&N's home page. They have a link to a
page that discusses how to properly size a K&N filter. On that page they give
"filter factors" that are used in the filter size calculation for both K&N
filters and paper filters. If you follow K&N's methods, but use the paper filter
"filter factor" I'll bet you will find that the "restrictive" paper filter
installed on your car is at least twice as big as K&N's own calculation indicate
it needs to be. I did this for my 5.4L Expedition and found that the filter was
almost 3 times as big as needed. This same filter is used on many Fords with
smaller engines, so in those applications, it is even more "over-sized."
Regards,
Ed White
winze
those little things that make a great running car.
C. E. White
2%. Plus unless you have complete information about the test conditions,
trying to draw conclusions from a 2% difference is meaningless.
Personally I just would not take the chance for a 2% difference,
particularly for a vehicle like the Lightening. I think you could
achieve a much greater increase by just changing the supercharger
pulleys.
Ed
Fao, Sean
> truck was happy, then that is what really matters. Personally I wouldn't
> take a chance on reducing the life of my engine for what is essentially no
> change in power output.
What do you mean by reducing the life of your vehicle?
John Folkers
stock set up or just replace the filter?? Thanks John
"AZGuy" <jimnaz...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fj16mu8qohn5hlvhd...@4ax.com...
> Did you simply change the stock filter to a K&N that fit in the stock
> housing or did you replace the entire stock setup with a complete
> "filtercharger" or whatever K&N calls their full replacement?
> Jim
> '88 LX 5.0 (now in car heaven)
> '89 LX 5.0 vert
> '99 GT 35th Anniversery Edition - Silver
> Mods to date - Relocated trunk release to drivers side, shortened throttle
cable.
JeffC
filter before I learned about the K&N, and got about 27 mpg on the highway.
After putting in the K&N, 30-31 mpg is the norm. Around town it doesn't
seem to make any difference in mileage, but the power is increased when the
VTEC kicks in, compared to the paper filter. Sure, it's a seat-of-the-pants
estimate, but it's dramatic.
You should see also the article in 5.0 about replacing the intake on a 2003
Cobra with a K&N setup for a Ford Lightning Pickup.
J
"C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3D62649F...@mindspring.com...
JeffC
same dyno is used, it should cancel out across the equation.
And if you consider a 17% drop (average) through the driveline on a chassis
dyno vs. engine dyno, 2% is negligible error anyway, if indeed it was error.
Also, oiled gauze has always proven to filter smaller particles than paper,
so there is a benefit there, in possible small-particle wear reduction from
the intake air.
J
"C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3D62CCE3...@mindspring.com...
Larry Hepinstall
If you drive on paved roads, you need way less filtering than in you drive
on dirt/gravel roads. Where I drive my Mustang, I wouldn't worry about
running it with no filter at all much less a K&N. However, a filter is
needed to help produce a laminar air flow.
LJH
95GT
"AZGuy" <jimnaz...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6l16mus7v0ubpq8dc...@4ax.com...
> Except for very rare instances, the most you can hope for is a 3 - 5
> hp increase at wide open throttle. The trade-off is poorer filtering.
> Not even K&N claims their filters do as well as a good paper filter.
> The closest thing I've seen to meaningful numbers is that the K&N is
> about 97% as good as paper. Keep in mind, that's for a new K&N, after
> you've washed it several times can you be sure you havven't messed up
> the thing and created 'thin' areas? Personally, I wouldn't put one on
> if someone gave it to me free.
C. E. White
JeffC wrote:
>
> As far as error is concerned, as long as baseline HP is established, and the
> same dyno is used, it should cancel out across the equation.
> And if you consider a 17% drop (average) through the driveline on a chassis
> dyno vs. engine dyno, 2% is negligible error anyway, if indeed it was error.
I think we are in agreement. The original post claimed the K&N resulted
in something like a 4 hp increase when installed in a Lightening
pick-up. I contend that this small increase is not statically
significant. The dyno just isn't that accurate.
> Also, oiled gauze has always proven to filter smaller particles than paper,
> so there is a benefit there, in possible small-particle wear reduction from
> the intake air.
Exactly who has "proven" this? There is absolutely no way I'd ever
installed an oiled gaze filter on any of my farm tractors. I've already
lived through the horror of oil bath type air cleaners. Those were
pathetic compared to a modern paper filter. I can't see anything in the
design of a K&N that leads me to believe it is a better filter. I am
especially offended by K&N's claim that their filter works better when
it is dirty. Isn't this a great idea - it is a better filter when it is
dirty, but it also has worse performance than a clean paper filter when
it is dirty. The whole K&N advertising BS is silly. They compare air
flow efficiency when the filters are clean, and filtering efficiency
when the are dirty. So you can have a filter that flow good, but lets
dirt into your engine, or a dirty filter that stops the dirt, but
performs poorly. What a great idea.
Stephan Rose
Lets specify what we are talking about here for just about everybody's
average conditions (disregarding any extreme or very special conditions)
Your're getting your air from inside the fenderwell..that fact alone
eliminates anything that you could visually see from entering that area. And
even if it did, and did get sucked in(which it more than likely would be too
heavy to do), if it's that size, the filter will physically block it anyway.
Even a K&N.
So what does it mainly suck in and filter? Dust. How big are dust particles?
Somewhere in the microns size. Don't know the exact size, but somewhere in
that scale. Anyone believe that any particles that size could possibly harm
anything METAL? Or any other material for that...I mean seriously...Your
carbon deposits in your engine are as big or bigger than the particles you
are filtering out! And those aren't destroying your engine now are they?
Only thing it could possibly do is make your oil dirtier a little bit
quicker..which btw, I still have clean oil after 3k miles using K&N air
filter, and mobil 1 oil filters with mobil 1 synthetic oil. Takes my oil
about 6k miles to start looking like most cars at 2k.
Now if you are surrounded by dust everywhere you go day and night..K&N might
not be a good choice due to it getting dirty too quick and having to clean
it too often, in that case, I'd prolly suggest a paper filter due to that
reason. And even a paper filter you should change more frequently in that
kind of an envrioment as well as your oil. But for most of us who just ride
regular roads, highways, cities, etc. There is no harm in a K&N. I enjoy the
fact that after 20k miles, my engine still isn't starving for air which it
was w/ its paper filter(poor baby could barely breathe!).
Stephan Rose
ker...@bestnetpc.com
"John Folkers" <DELETETHI...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Vxk89.598$bv5.1...@news0.telusplanet.net...
DFind89379
manufacturers are scrounging for mpg (even using 5W-20 oil) , they would kill
for a 2 mpg increase. All computer controlled engines have O2 sensors that
constantly feed-back the fuel ratio. If your filter is clogged, the computer
just feeds less fuel. You get less power, but your fuel mileage will be about
the same. You may see a little increase in power at elevated RPM's with a K&N,
but again, you'll never feel it. It's darn near impossible to feel anything
less than about 10 ft-lbs of torque. It kills me when people say things like,
It revs 'quicker' or 'easier'. And "I can really feel the difference". No you
can't. It's because you've been driving easy all week and just put in $50 worth
of go-fast part and you go out and floor it. Yep, it's faster. You just gave it
more throttle. Now, don't start on all those 'dyno-tests' in magazines and
other shills for advertisers. They're bogus. Having said all this, yes, I run
K&N filters. I like the idea of a cleanable filter. And they do flow better
than paper when they're clean. We're only talking about a couple of HP though.
so I don't really think of my filter as a 'speed mod'.
Stephan Rose
Because, generally they do it when replacing the clogged up paper filter
(like I did!) ;) But if anything, it only comes from teh fact that the air
intake is now unclogged and unrestricted. :) And while it might not increase
fuel mileage, it'll help maintain it because with a clogged paper filter you
need more throttle for equivalant speed, but at the increased throttle you
do use more fuel. So I do think it may have some side effects that may look
like that, but on the bottom line, I wouldn't say that it is a speed mod
either. The variances in atmosphere, air temperature, air density at
different times of the day make a far bigger difference than that filter
ever possibly could.
Stephan Rose
ker...@bestnetpc.com
"DFind89379" <dfind...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020821225237...@mb-bh.aol.com...
winze
My Name's Nobody
I have a log book with every gallon of gas ever run through this car and
every mile ever put on it recorded! (that is after the first full tank from
the dealer when it was new, I took possession at 7 miles on the odometer)
My wife drives this car to work every work day, 70 miles round trip. She is
an extremely conservative driver, believe it or not, makes no matter.
I have 25,000 miles of records showing an absolute consistent 24.5 miles per
gallon for each fill-up. Calculated by dividing the actual miles driven by
the actual gallons of fuel consumed.
I then installed the K&N filter element into the factory Ford air box. No
other changes were made! I now have 58,000 miles of records showing a very
consistent 26.5 miles per gallon for each fill-up. Calculated by dividing
the actual miles driven by the actual gallons of fuel consumed.
Your hypothetical bullshit about what the car manufactures would or would
not do is just you blowing smoke out your ass. I would be more than glad to
meet with you and let you look at my log book.
I made it perfectly clear that the only information I offered in regards to
this never-ending K&N air filter debate was my documented proof of a real 2
mile per gallon increase in fuel mileage with its use. You attempt to
discredit my document input with conjecture, misguided opinions and
Bullshit. "No way is a K&N going to increase fuel mileage by any
measurable amount" I measured it! What the hell did you do? That is
besides present your misguided opinion.
I stand by my statement! Prove it wrong or shut the hell up!
MNN
"DFind89379" <dfind...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020821225237...@mb-bh.aol.com...
DFind89379
just right. If you think you get an increase in mileage, then that's just
great. J.C.Whitney has whole catalogue full of stuff just for you. If you want
to see some real performance, slap a bronze distrubutor gear on that bitch and
hang on!
DFind89379
talkin' filter shit and stuff.
My Name's Nobody
I did not put the filter in with any assumption of a fuel mileage increase.
It was just a nice extra benefit!
You exemplify the old saying:
"It is better to remain quite and thought a fool then to speak up and remove
all doubt".
Oh ya, since my more civil attempts to help you educate yourself were so
poorly received, I'd be more than glad to meet with you and beat your
fuckin ass too...
Do us all a favor and stick your useless head up your ass and "hang on
Dude!"
MNN
"DFind89379" <dfind...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020822215235...@mb-bj.aol.com...
My Name's Nobody
When and from where can you ever quote me making any statements about
filtration as it relates to power, tracks or times?
If you are as adept at assessing filtration or any other automotive related
issues as you are at arguing about them you better throw your cars out and
get a bus pass.
BTW:
That's a standing offer for your ass whoopin. You may not learn anything
other than to keep your ignorant mouth shut.
MNN
"DFind89379" <dfind...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020822220522...@mb-bj.aol.com...
winze
filter? i guess your engines make so much hp that it would just suck
it right through the engine.LMFAO
winze
Buzz Haze
"winze" <to...@law.com> wrote in message
news:58a9a030.02082...@posting.google.com...
> WTF.Hey Gary don't you have an anal retentive opinion about the K&N
> filter? i guess your engines make so much hp that it would just suck
> it right through the engine.LMFAO
Why do you want to piss off Gary? What's your point?
I find him very knowledgeable when it comes to building
real race cars and the engines that drive them. Are you
really that angry about the bronze gear thing that you now
just antagonize him? Please refrain. It's a nicer place when
we can dispense with pointless insults. You also have valued
insight that can help the less fortunate here, like myself.
I would hate to skip over your posts because of a pointless
flame war with another valued member. Please re-consider.
Why can't you agree to disagree and move on to another subject?
Peace & thanks (hope I don't get flamed now too)
--
Buzz Haze-Ottawa ON
87 5.0 LX Coupe
http://members.rogers.com/buzzhaze
JeffC
Just read that they only claim 97% filter efficiency compared to new paper
filters. I think they changed their song-and-dance for some reason.
Still, I personally have noticed a difference in performance/mileage, so
I'll take it.
In addition, it's much more cost effective that continually replacing paper
filters, never mind the environmental bit.
J
"C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3D63AFE2...@mindspring.com...
Buzz Haze
see it so here it is again, also if he wants me to post track slips, no
problem but it seems a waste of time. I have no reason to lie.
============================================
I just took off the stock airbox on my 87 LX and replaced
it with a K&N performance kit. (cylinder filter & oil treatment for filter)
I did a number of track runs to see if there was any improvement. My ET
stayed the same and I achieved 1 MPH more through the traps. Big whoop!!!
Granted, the K&N is a good filter but requires maintenance in order to
perform at it's max.
This was confirmed in a recent Mustang publication, can't remember which
but they had changed out the stock air box after running a bunch of 1/4 mile
runs. Then they changed to the K&N, ran a bunch more....no difference.
...looks good though!!
BTW, I might add that I didn't measure gas mileage, this is strictly
performance.
--
Buzz Haze-Ottawa ON
87 5.0 LX Coupe
http://members.rogers.com/buzzhaze
"My Name's Nobody" <Nob...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:umb82ck...@corp.supernews.com...
DFind89379
the internet with out using all those goofey little "emoticons". This guy, My
Name's Nobody, is just too easy to rile. Him and his little "Log Book" just
chock full of 26.5 mpg numbers. And now he wants to whip my ass! He's the
dummy that falls for all the market hype and he wants to kick my ass? Oh well.
If he can tear himself away from WWF long enough. I've been involved with all
kinds of cars and motorcycles over the years. Foreign and domestic. The problem
is that I like my Mustang better than all the others, but the Mustang crowd is
some of the stupidest redneck types on earth. They talk about how much they
hate Chevies and Camaros, but they're really exactly the same kind of person.
All of them are not that way. Some people just like the cars. The ones that
like to profile the image and be a tough guy and do burnouts at Hooters and
talk about how cops are out to get them are the ones I'm talking about. And
that is precisely the kind of person "My Name's Nobody" seems to me. Ignorant,
stupid, chest-beating, insecure, immature and generally a Jerry Springer
candidate. Yeah, whip my ass, jackass. That'll make you a bunch smarter. I hope
that Slick 50 is working out for you. .
Backyard Mechanic
:)
Have you heard the one about the AOL'er....
"DFind89379" <dfind...@aol.com> wrote