k&N filter vs. paper filter
10-14-2009, 07:36 PM
#62
On The Tree
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sunshine State
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After you put it in, report back here if you felt a difference in performance.
10-14-2009, 10:45 PM
#64
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (70)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles, California (818)
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.......
.
i wont defend the results, but when you say that the kn gets the lid moistured in rain is bull. when it rains out here i drive my car with a ssra and i have never never never never never never never never had any water in the filter or the maf. i do agree that u can clean it with anything, but to say that this happens, then this happens, then guess what this happens to because of the filter is complete BULL. I dont know if the kn is better then a paper filter, but it does no do what you just said IMO and in IMpersonal experiences. ive also done a test where i wouldnt clean my filter for almost 8 months and i checked my lid below maf and tb opening way, there was no dirt what so ever. I tried my finger across the parts and no dirt, i also tried a white paper towel and no dirt. And for the people that have issues with the maf, ITS BECAUSE YOU OVER OIL THE FILTER, ITS THAT SIMPLE AND OBVIOUS.
10-17-2009, 05:47 PM
#67
Teching In
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
10-17-2009, 09:25 PM
#68
On The Tree
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I run a K&n filter - I clean and oil it every 3 thousand miles. It works for me. I wouldn't let a K&n run 15k miles like some paper filters but I think if you clean it often it's effective and protective enough.
