k&N filter vs. paper filter
10-13-2009, 10:37 AM
#22
10-13-2009, 01:10 PM
#24
Ive done a comparison on k+n v.s. paper filter v.s. no filter. on a dyno and the numbers were very different. i gained 17 hp with a k+n filter compared to a paper filter. and it was about the same with no filter on it but obviously you all kow not to do that. i run one in my car and have since i got it, making my own pulls on our dyno showed me all the difference i needed to see. id go with a k+n all the way.
that is very impressive!!! you might have to post the dyno sheet. if the K & N does make that much more power, im gonna have to go back and get another one. LOL.. i just recently switched to a fram air filter. but i have driven the car to even notice a difference, and i doubt i will.
10-13-2009, 01:40 PM
#26
12 Second Club
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Walton, Indiana
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it was on an 04 GTO and stock air box. which suck! i just left the filters hang out while we were making the pulls they were just setting on the top of the box. it was in the evening and we obviously had a fan on it but still between the two filters i was amazed. if i can track down the pulls on our dyno computer ill try and post them up.
10-13-2009, 01:53 PM
#28
12 Second Club
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Walton, Indiana
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i stand corrected though, i forgot to mention that it was with the stock air box so that did restict flow a bit more with the paper filterbut it was still a big gain even with the old *** dyno you could tell. Yes the were back to back pulls and yes to the wheels. it was all very close to the same temp and conditions, so i am fairly sure that the gains were from the filter. it was just a basic cheap auto zone paper filter. i cant think of anything else that would have changed it after installing the k+n. we didnt forget the spray or anything that run. lol but thats just what ive found
10-13-2009, 02:08 PM
#29
10-13-2009, 07:14 PM
#31
Ive done a comparison on k+n v.s. paper filter v.s. no filter. on a dyno and the numbers were very different. i gained 17 hp with a k+n filter compared to a paper filter. and it was about the same with no filter on it but obviously you all kow not to do that. i run one in my car and have since i got it, making my own pulls on our dyno showed me all the difference i needed to see. id go with a k+n all the way.
I gotta run the flag up on this one ... 
... please share the dyno sheets with us we are all very interested in picking up 17 HP by swapping air filters.
10-13-2009, 07:51 PM
#32
Without getting into a dumb conversation about which is more/less money over an 8-10 year period......because who cares, we want our engines to be protected as much as possible, period. A $20 difference each year is meaningless.
Facts....
K&N filters cause more wear damage over time (rings mainly) to an engine because it simply allows MORE particles to pass the filter. But you may get that .10 hp increase......wow.
Paper filter provides MUCH...yes, MUCH better engine protection.
So......do you want that possible ~1 hp and more engine wear.....or do you want MUCH better engine protection and have ~1 hp less.
And as far as the ALLEGED hp increase by K&N and/or whoever else.....if you dyno run a given car 5 times...the dyno numbers will be different EVERY time. Maybe tiny amounts, but different. K&N is full of **** when they say their filters ONLY gain power....all they do is write down the dyno runs that turn out to be an increase and thats what they claim. They will NEVER claim the decreases. Its an impossibility to get an increase every time you dyno without changing other perameters and elements.
Moral of the story....K&N is NOT as good when it comes to protection.......IMO anyway. Just another automotive industry fancy marketing product.
.......And one last thing that nobody seems to realize about K&N filters.......you can clean it, spray it with new oil, let it dry perfectly and reinstall it.
As soon as it rains just a little bit.....that rain/moisture goes right into the lid and re-activates it. Guess where it goes...right onto the MAF. Then you drive around for a few thousand miles with a dirty MAF. LESS THAN PERFECT PERFORMANCE that whole time. PLUS....horrible amounts of small particles and debris getting by the filter the whole time too...great.
Good luck with the decision.......
.
10-13-2009, 07:55 PM
#33
Ive done a comparison on k+n v.s. paper filter v.s. no filter. on a dyno and the numbers were very different. i gained 17 hp with a k+n filter compared to a paper filter. and it was about the same with no filter on it but obviously you all kow not to do that. i run one in my car and have since i got it, making my own pulls on our dyno showed me all the difference i needed to see. id go with a k+n all the way.
There is no way on EARTH...that a filter change can provide 17 hp. That would be a better mod then buying a FAST 90/90 set-up.
Actually.....it is bullshit
.
10-13-2009, 08:32 PM
#34
First...I bought a K&N long ago for my T/A before I realized what the deal was with them.
Without getting into a dumb conversation about which is more/less money over an 8-10 year period......because who cares, we want our engines to be protected as much as possible, period. A $20 difference each year is meaningless.
Facts....
K&N filters cause more wear damage over time (rings mainly) to an engine because it simply allows MORE particles to pass the filter. But you may get that .10 hp increase......wow.
Paper filter provides MUCH...yes, MUCH better engine protection.
So......do you want that possible ~1 hp and more engine wear.....or do you want MUCH better engine protection and have ~1 hp less.
And as far as the ALLEGED hp increase by K&N and/or whoever else.....if you dyno run a given car 5 times...the dyno numbers will be different EVERY time. Maybe tiny amounts, but different. K&N is full of **** when they say their filters ONLY gain power....all they do is write down the dyno runs that turn out to be an increase and thats what they claim. They will NEVER claim the decreases. Its an impossibility to get an increase every time you dyno without changing other perameters and elements.
Moral of the story....K&N is NOT as good when it comes to protection.......IMO anyway. Just another automotive industry fancy marketing product.
.......And one last thing that nobody seems to realize about K&N filters.......you can clean it, spray it with new oil, let it dry perfectly and reinstall it.
As soon as it rains just a little bit.....that rain/moisture goes right into the lid and re-activates it. Guess where it goes...right onto the MAF. Then you drive around for a few thousand miles with a dirty MAF. LESS THAN PERFECT PERFORMANCE that whole time. PLUS....horrible amounts of small particles and debris getting by the filter the whole time too...great.
Good luck with the decision.......
.
Without getting into a dumb conversation about which is more/less money over an 8-10 year period......because who cares, we want our engines to be protected as much as possible, period. A $20 difference each year is meaningless.
Facts....
K&N filters cause more wear damage over time (rings mainly) to an engine because it simply allows MORE particles to pass the filter. But you may get that .10 hp increase......wow.
Paper filter provides MUCH...yes, MUCH better engine protection.
So......do you want that possible ~1 hp and more engine wear.....or do you want MUCH better engine protection and have ~1 hp less.
And as far as the ALLEGED hp increase by K&N and/or whoever else.....if you dyno run a given car 5 times...the dyno numbers will be different EVERY time. Maybe tiny amounts, but different. K&N is full of **** when they say their filters ONLY gain power....all they do is write down the dyno runs that turn out to be an increase and thats what they claim. They will NEVER claim the decreases. Its an impossibility to get an increase every time you dyno without changing other perameters and elements.
Moral of the story....K&N is NOT as good when it comes to protection.......IMO anyway. Just another automotive industry fancy marketing product.
.......And one last thing that nobody seems to realize about K&N filters.......you can clean it, spray it with new oil, let it dry perfectly and reinstall it.
As soon as it rains just a little bit.....that rain/moisture goes right into the lid and re-activates it. Guess where it goes...right onto the MAF. Then you drive around for a few thousand miles with a dirty MAF. LESS THAN PERFECT PERFORMANCE that whole time. PLUS....horrible amounts of small particles and debris getting by the filter the whole time too...great.
Good luck with the decision.......
.
10-13-2009, 09:33 PM
#35
Teching In
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at a recent dyno day I had time for one extra run left and we were joking about filters, anyway we ended jerking a k&n out of another camaro and putting it in mine. It did make 2 hp more than my fram but nothing really on the tq. I do not think it is worth the extra money, I would go for the better protection.
10-14-2009, 11:01 AM
#37
On The Tree
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sunshine State
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bought my car with the K&N and i like it. I dont put any oil on it after I wash it because i dont want to miss up the maf, I also did the free ram air mod so I just wash it out with the hose more frequently lol
10-14-2009, 12:24 PM
#39
Well, my .02 here is this. I saw a dyno run a few years ago in person where a guy swapped out air filters on a bolt on LS1 camaro. 3 runs were made- first with no filter to get a max baseline for what would be optimum, then a K&N, then a holley blue. The K&N lost 10HP over no filter at all, and the holley lost 1-2HP over no filter at all. I know no paper filter was used in this comparison, but I thought those results were interesting and worth noting here. And the 10HP was no way an oddity or normal fluctuation. Maybe on a different day when weather is a factor, but on the same day on the same dyno, with adequate cool down time allowed between each run, 10 HP wouldnt be a normal fluctuation at all. Maybe 2-3HP. This was a tuned car BTW, so it was pretty consistent with all pulls with the same filter when it was being tuned initially.