Jump to content

K&N Air Filters, Good or Bad?


Recommended Posts

I am using one backwards (vacuum on the outside instead of the inside) inside of the 450 oil bath housing . I like the oil bath but when the starter doesn't wheel it over good enough it rotates backwards a little bit. This pukes a little oil in the glass precleaner jar all over the 1/64 JD 720 inside of the jar. This is going to run maybe long enough to burn 20 gallon of fuel per year. Hoping this will filtrate well enough. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will be fine 

Get some of this filter foam and wrap the filter that will prevent the spit back 

UNI is the other dirt bike filter from the 70s as with a K&N they have to be oiled when used as a primary filter 

I just use this foam as a pre filter I put it over the opening in the air box dry with a piece of screen to keep the mice out

And it keeps all trash out of the dirty side of the air box

I put some of this on the heater intake on the tractor cab to to keep the dust down some

It comes in squares  

 

 IMG_0847.thumb.jpg.35e4c4c2e3056ad58eec4270d5cc7b36.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, jass1660 said:

OEM vehicles aren’t sold by the engineers they’re sold by the accountants. All they want to sell them with is the bare minimum required. They won’t upgrade filters or anything else, planned obselence.

Maybe, but K&N is no upgrade. As referenced above the MAF sensor needs to be spotless to work and no way will a K&N keep the dirt off it. I've noticed my PUs and wife's Yukons have a clog indicator and running on the street they never show needing service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this anti K&N is news to me, my last pickup F-250 ran 225,000 miles before I traded it in Never had an issue  always got the same millage and it ran fine and 70% farm miles

I must just be lucky

Would think K&N would be out of business if it was that bad

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, m.c.farmerboy said:

All this anti K&N is news to me, my last pickup F-250 ran 225,000 miles before I traded it in Never had an issue  always got the same millage and it ran fine and 70% farm miles

I must just be lucky

Would think K&N would be out of business if it was that bad

Every tractor at the pulls has one within 12" of the carburetor

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ye olde 2nd gen Cummins had the kn filter for around 200,000 and 400,000 total and when the head gasket blew guts still looked new for what's it's worth.  And I live on a fine dust road

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone remember the name of the aftermarket oil filtration system for large diesel engines it was a large canister I think it was a spin filter with a moisture cook off chamber?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jeeper61 said:

Anyone remember the name of the aftermarket oil filtration system for large diesel engines it was a large canister I think it was a spin filter with a moisture cook off chamber?

There are several bypass oil filtration systems on the market. OPS, Harvard are a couple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Franz filters, metal cover had a locking buckle with a roll of select your own toilet paper.  Every weekend near the automotive area at Kamart there would be a guy with some old car  (or F250 Ford) demonstrating how great it worked.  Came with a life time warrantee. Appears to have worked so well that they went out of business. Probably Wix bought them out just to get rid of the competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 8/3/2021 at 9:48 AM, bitty said:

Every tractor at the pulls has one within 12" of the carburetor

They make power , thats why  you see them at the pulls.  They flow very good, but a clean K&N doesn't filter well.  A dirty one filters much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 8:47 AM, m.c.farmerboy said:

Would think K&N would be out of business if it was that bad

I will go out on a limb here. I think they are made for one purpose, sold for another, if you are tractor pulling, truck pulling, maybe even some kind of hopped up street racing you want flow, filtration and longevity maybe are less important for myriad reasons, probably is a big improvement. if you are looking for longevity and excellent filtration I don't see how they are an improvement, when I look at the junk my air box filters out just from gravity, before it ever reaches the filter and then the difference between the inside of the intake and the dirty side of the air box, I don't believe a K&N open style filter is going to pass my white glove test of the inside of my intake tube. I also don't think it is going to make a difference in a vehicle that isn't set up to accept increased air flow. personally if I get better filtration and a minuscule less amount of power or poorer economy it is still a win. those factory paper filters do a tremendous job of doing what they are supposed to do, which is to filter air. If I don't have to fight with a dealer about warranty in the first 100K and don't have to make unnecessary expensive repairs in the next 100K  of my miserable dirt road driving the truck is pretty well spanked by then.. and I haven't had to spend my time washing filters, and I have never dusted an engine. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, vtfireman85 said:

I will go out on a limb here. I think they are made for one purpose, sold for another, if you are tractor pulling, truck pulling, maybe even some kind of hopped up street racing you want flow, filtration and longevity maybe are less important for myriad reasons, probably is a big improvement. if you are looking for longevity and excellent filtration I don't see how they are an improvement, when I look at the junk my air box filters out just from gravity, before it ever reaches the filter and then the difference between the inside of the intake and the dirty side of the air box, I don't believe a K&N open style filter is going to pass my white glove test of the inside of my intake tube. I also don't think it is going to make a difference in a vehicle that isn't set up to accept increased air flow. personally if I get better filtration and a minuscule less amount of power or poorer economy it is still a win. those factory paper filters do a tremendous job of doing what they are supposed to do, which is to filter air. If I don't have to fight with a dealer about warranty in the first 100K and don't have to make unnecessary expensive repairs in the next 100K  of my miserable dirt road driving the truck is pretty well spanked by then.. and I haven't had to spend my time washing filters, and I have never dusted an engine. 

I understand your Point's 

I will say I have run them for years and up to 220,000 miles and clean them every 5000 miles and have not lost an engine on my last 5  trucks 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since modern engines have a mass airflow sensor and adjust the mixture according to that, a filter that may be less restrictive won't give any more nor less mpg. Might as well have the cleanest air.

K&N Filter BS.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, New Englander said:

Since modern engines have a mass airflow sensor and adjust the mixture according to that, a filter that may be less restrictive won't give any more nor less mpg. Might as well have the cleanest air.

K&N Filter BS.jpg

3.13% separates the the bottom from the top.

Ever notice they don't state their test uncertainty?

It might be larger than 3%  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jeeper61 said:

3.13% separates the the bottom from the top.

Ever notice they don't state their test uncertainty?

It might be larger than 3%  

Here's the protocol. The methodology is quite clear and unambiguous: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5011:ed-4:v1:en

Even if the paper filters aren't separated by much, not enough to make the brand choice significant,  it clearly shows the K&N the least effective.

The point being that K&N advocates tend to state their cars run more economically with the expensive filter they bought and of course if one spends money on something one wants it to meet its claims. In the case of a stock engine installation it just cannot.  I certainly can see using one on equipment that's not computer controlled, especially if the alternative is nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, New Englander said:

Here's the protocol. The methodology is quite clear and unambiguous: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:5011:ed-4:v1:en

Even if the paper filters aren't separated by much, not enough to make the brand choice significant,  it clearly shows the K&N the least effective.

The point being that K&N advocates tend to state their cars run more economically with the expensive filter they bought and of course if one spends money on something one wants it to meet its claims. In the case of a stock engine installation it just cannot.  I certainly can see using one on equipment that's not computer controlled, especially if the alternative is nothing.

That is the ISO standard they are testing to.

Where is their uncertainty calculation for all the test instruments they used and there impact on their tests? What is the sample size of their test?

 Anyway as I have and others have stated it is easier to use paper filters and they provide better filtration

In some applications i.e. all out horse power the slight flow increase is worth the the trade offs  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jeeper61 said:

Where is their uncertainty calculation for all the test instruments they used and there impact on their tests? What is the sample size of their test?

Item 4 prescribes the test instrument standards and accuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, New Englander said:

Item 4 prescribes the test instrument standards and accuracy.

As with everything ISO you need to "buy in" to get a copy 

These uncertainty calculations are instrument specific because they can vary from brand to brand 

I happen to work for a ISO 17025 accredited testing lab so I know all about it.

image.thumb.png.b5b2c440ddcc29260ca6ed4802930e1c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, jeeper61 said:

I happen to work for a ISO 17025 accredited testing lab so I know all about it.

Cool!

What are you testing?

Having owned an avionics shop keeping all of our test equipment calibrated and traceable as required was an expensive proposition. Aircraft navigation, communication and air-data systems (altimetry, speed, etc.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are  accredited for calibration of measuring robots our best uncertainty is sub micron 

So just about every part in a jet engine is dimensionally verified on one of our systems

Actually just about every manufactured item is dimensionally verified on one of our or Zeiss's systems

https://www.hexagonmi.com/en-US/about-us/about-hexagon-manufacturing-intelligence/what-we-do/metrology

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...