Tech / General Engine Is your car making a strange sound or won't start? Thinking of adding power with a new combination? Need other technical information or engine specific advice? Don't see another board for your problem? Post it here!
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: CARiD

Has anyone else seen this letter on K&N filters?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 7, 2004 | 01:05 PM
  #1  
Nate86's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,104
Likes: 1
From: Pensacola, FL
Car: 1999 Saturn SL2
Engine: 4 cylinder
Transmission: 4-speed automatic
Has anyone else seen this letter on K&N filters?

I was researching different oil filters and their flow rates and filtrations when I stumbled upon a letter dealing with K&N air filters.

In a brief summary, the guy basically said his company spent thousands of dollars on air filters and he decided to have the company switch to K&N air filters to save money. However, he discovered that the expensive K&N filters actually clogged up faster and allow much more dirt through than the cheap paper filters. Here's the entire letter if you want to read it:

John: I was responsible for evaluating re-usable air filters for a major construction/mining company that had hundreds of vehicles ranging from large earthmovers to pick-up trucks and salesmen's cars. This study was embarked upon due to the fact that we were spending upwards of $30,000 a MONTH on paper air filters. Using them one time then throwing them away.. I initiated the study in that I was convinced that a K&N type filter or oiled foam would save us many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour savings, and of course engines as these would filter dirt better than paper. (yes, I had read the K&N ads and was a believer)

Representative test units were chosen to give us a broad spectrum from cars right through large front end loaders. With each unit we had a long history of oil analysis records so that changes would be trackable.

Unfortunately, for me, every single unit having alternative re-usable air cleaners showed an immediate large jump in silicon (dirt) levels with corresponding major increases in wear metals. In one extreme case, a unit with a primary and secondary air cleaner, the secondary (small paper element) clogged before even one day's test run could be completed. This particular unit had a Cummins V-12 engine that had paper/paper one bank and K&N/paper on the other bank; two completely independent induction systems. The conditions were EXACTLY duplicated for each bank yet the K&N allowed so much dirt to pass through that the small filter became clogged before lunch. The same outcome occurred with oiled foams on this unit.

We discontinued the tests on the large pieces almost immediately but continued with service trucks, foremen's vehicles, and my own company car. Analysis results continued showing markedly increased wear rates for all the vehicles, mine included. Test concluded, switched back to paper/glass and all vehicles showed reduction back to near original levels of both wear metals and dirt. I continued with the K&N on my company car out of stubbornness and at 85,000 miles the Chevy 305 V-8 wheezed its last breath. The top end was sanded badly; bottom end was just fine. End of test.

I must stress that EVERYONE involved in this test was hoping that alternative filters would work as everyone was sick about pulling out a perfectly good $85 air cleaner and throwing 4 of them away each week per machine...

So, I strongly suggest that depending upon an individual's long term plan for their vehicles they simply run an oil analysis at least once to see that the K&N or whatever alternative air filter is indeed working IN THAT APPLICATION... It depends on a person's priorities. If you want performance then indeed the K&N is the way to go but at what cost???

And no, I do not work for a paper or glass air filter manufacturing company nor do I have any affiliation with anything directly or indirectly that could benefit George Morrison as a result..
Source: http://motorcycleinfo.calsci.com/Filters.html

Even though the webmaster doesn't specify where he got the information from, the information provide sounds very plausible to me and I, for one, will be switching back to a regular paper filter over the "better" K&N.
Reply
Old Nov 7, 2004 | 01:42 PM
  #2  
ljnowell's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,935
Likes: 0
I never switched to the "better" K&N. It was never worth the money, IMO.
Reply
Old Nov 7, 2004 | 02:02 PM
  #3  
chevymad's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 564
Likes: 2
From: Cathlamet, Washington
Car: 87 Formula
Engine: 327
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 3.23
I beleive K&N used to say that in their own literature. They dont filter as well as paper until the filter becomes dirty. Beleive they used to say that the filter even filtered better when dirty or something like that. Like the guy says in the letter, you have to watch what your application is. No way would I use one on an earth mover. Now I use K&N style filters on my own rigs, but I live in rainy southwest Washington. There isnt much dust around here anyway. If Mt. St. Helens actually blew ash our way though you can bet the stock paper filters are going back on!
Reply
Old Nov 7, 2004 | 02:45 PM
  #4  
Nate86's Avatar
Thread Starter
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,104
Likes: 1
From: Pensacola, FL
Car: 1999 Saturn SL2
Engine: 4 cylinder
Transmission: 4-speed automatic
Makes sense. I live in a relatively dirty area of the US (Florida; no emissions laws either), and I was under the impression that the K&N were superior in both flow AND filtration, and that is why they cost so much more than an average paper filter.

After reading this and re-analyzing the information, it only makes sense that the K&N would flow more by having less filtration ability.

I can't imagine that the K&N would flow any more than a good paper filter if they are both clean. Besides, I think I would rather have peice of mind about a cleaner engine than a little extra performance.
Reply
Old Nov 7, 2004 | 04:00 PM
  #5  
kretos's Avatar
Supreme Member
 
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,383
Likes: 0
From: surrey b.c. canada
Car: 89 Iroc
Engine: lb9
Transmission: wc t-5
Axle/Gears: 10 bolt 3.08 posi
bascially k&n's work better when dirty

not worth the money imho
Reply
Old Nov 7, 2004 | 05:55 PM
  #6  
SSC's Avatar
SSC
Supreme Member
20 Year Member
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,974
Likes: 0
From: Pueblo Co
Car: 1989 C4
Engine: L98
Transmission: 700r4
Axle/Gears: 307
Well if you think about it, more air more dirt. No real way around it. I know the accel filters I use dont trap as much dirt as a paper filter but I dont really care.
Reply
Old Nov 7, 2004 | 08:50 PM
  #7  
Abubaca's Avatar
Moderator
25 Year Member
Liked
Loved
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 8,494
Likes: 412
From: Sophia, NC
Car: 2016 Camaro SS + 1986 Z28
Let me say that I am by NO means a huge fan of K&N. I don't presently have them, and I still use paper. I also beleive all the fingings about extra dirt with the K&N's.

....that being said, thousands and thousand of people run K&N's. My guess is that the extra debris is "acceptable" in most cases.
Reply
Old Nov 7, 2004 | 10:05 PM
  #8  
Tibo's Avatar
Supreme Member
20 Year Member
iTrader: (15)
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,028
Likes: 78
From: Desert
Car: 1991 Z28 Vert
Engine: 383 single plane efi
Transmission: T-56
Axle/Gears: 8.8 with 3.73s
Originally posted by SSC
Well if you think about it, more air more dirt. No real way around it. I know the accel filters I use dont trap as much dirt as a paper filter but I dont really care.
I was just going to ask if that would apply to Kool Blues and other re-useable filters.
Reply
Old Nov 8, 2004 | 02:29 PM
  #9  
cthuluwaits's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Car: 68 camaro
Engine: 327
Transmission: powerglide
does anyone know about these?
http://www.knfilters.com/wraps.htm
have any experiance with them?
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FormulasOnly
TPI
4
Oct 2, 2015 05:52 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:11 PM.