K&N Filter tests
#22
You're way more likely to destroy your engine due to manufacturing flaws(#4 cyl problem), overrev, hydrolock, or low oil than due to wear via intake debris. Most of these S2000's will be rusted out with broken diffs and transmissions before anyone here sees a failure due to a K&N filter. This is just fearmongering for cars that spend their time on paved roads.
#23
^what about people who have K&N's on CAIs? the ones that pick up significantly higher amounts of dust because they're so low to the ground? My friends Prelude has a CAI that picks up air from right behind the bumper.....It gets dirty..like BLACK every oil change (3K miles).
#24
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I think the concern about dirt passing through a K&N is much ado about nothing. I own a '94 Grand Cherokee that has had an FIPK on since '97.....had 60K miles at install, now has 175K miles. It runs perfectly. I have seen dozens of opinions that a car using a K&N filter will pass thru more dirt which will subsequently damage/shorten the life of the engine. Not once have I ever seen a scientific study that shows this. The initial quote mentioned refers to heavy construction/mining vehicles, and even then offers no data.
My challenge to the anti K&N crowd: provide any evidence that the use of a K&N filter has ever damaged or reduced the life of an auto engine.
My challenge to the anti K&N crowd: provide any evidence that the use of a K&N filter has ever damaged or reduced the life of an auto engine.
#25
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dparm' date='Jan 6 2009, 11:39 AM
They're popular due to good marketing...it's like Bose.
however, I doubt most people are going to see a significant increase in wear using a properly used/maintained K&N, unless they're driving on dirt roads or something
#26
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike in Atlanta' date='Jan 6 2009, 07:07 PM
Not once have I ever seen a scientific study that shows this.
#27
i had a k&n fipk and then went back to stock and then added a k&n drop in filter shortly after for about 33K miles and still runs fine. but during spring when there is a lot of pollen i switch back to the oem filter and also during wither when the put that salt and gravel on the road. i also have the snorkel fwiw.
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, I made no mention of silicon. My statement is that I have never seen any scientific evidence that even if the K&N passes a little more dust than paper that this has led to premature wear or breakdown of the engine.
I don't even know if a higher silicon reading means anything, but there are users on this board who say that with the use of K&N, their silicon reading in UOA has not changed. So even on that point, "consistently" is suspect, not to mention it is at best a guesstimate with no scientific study behind it.
I don't even know if a higher silicon reading means anything, but there are users on this board who say that with the use of K&N, their silicon reading in UOA has not changed. So even on that point, "consistently" is suspect, not to mention it is at best a guesstimate with no scientific study behind it.
#30
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mike in Atlanta' date='Jan 8 2009, 05:54 PM
I don't even know if a higher silicon reading means anything, but there are users on this board who say that with the use of K&N, their silicon reading in UOA has not changed. So even on that point, "consistently" is suspect, not to mention it is at best a guesstimate with no scientific study behind it.