K&N air filters, do they really work?

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...

> Napa sells napa filters, not motorcraft. I've never seen a napa
> carry
> motorcraft anything. Well there was the exception when the napa part
> was
> the ford part with the Ford oval and part number ground off, but
> that was
> an idle air control valve which isn't motorcraft's realm anyway.

My mistake. I didn't realize that you wanted me to compare Motorcraft
to K&N. I was doing decent conventional filter to K&N. I was using
NAPA because they sell a decent conventional air filter comparable to
the Motorcraft filter (Wix manufactured) and also sell K&N filters.
Sorry for the mistake. Advance Auto Parts does sell both the
Motorcraft air filter ($14.94) and a K&N drop in filter ($59.88) for a
2001 Mustang GT. The Advance prices are pretty close to the NAPA
prices, so I won't redo the comparison. To verify prices go to
http://www.partsamerica.com/ProductL...r=Air+ Filter
(or http://tinyurl.com/2upeys ).

> Then again, I've never seen K&N at a napa either.... maybe you have
> some
> odd napa stores in your neck of the woods.

Go to www.napaonline.com and search (or try
http://tinyurl.com/3cj59k )

Ed

Steve B. > writes:

>>Now that the guy has been bashed enough... the design of the K&N
>>vs. the paper makes it such that the K&N doesn't look as dirty.
>>The dirt is trapped inside the filter while with the paper it is
>>trapped right on the surface. The K&N filter is darker in color
>>while the paper filter is white. The K&N will look cleaner without
>>a closer examination even if it is trapping the same amount of
>>dirt. This isn't a defense of the K&N, just that the difference in
>>filtering method and construction will cause it to appear
>>different.

>If we were doing a 10k to 10k comparison I could accept this
>explanation and move on. I know what my paper filters look like new
>and I know what they look like at 10k miles. I can't imagine what one
>would look like at 50k miles nor can I understand how a K&N can hold
>all that dirt and not even appear dirty. I'm not bashing you or the
>OP. I hear this pitch often from the people with K&N filters and I
>just don't follow the logic.

The only way to tell how dirty the K&N really is, is by washing it.
Something that K&N recommend only be done every 50,000 miles (80 Mm).
The reason for the "infrequent" washing is supposedly because the
buildup of crud makes the filter more effective. So the worst K&N is
a _clean_ K&N.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us,
X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living."
/ \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD.

On Mar 28, 6:53 pm, "C. E. White" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > If you haven't used a K&N then don't judge them I Have on in my
> >MustangGT, one in my Mazda 3 and the cold air on on my Grand
> > Cherokee, and I'll tell you at 50000 miles the filters are very clean
> > not nasty like a paper filter is at 10000.
>
> So unless you are driving the cars in different environments when you are
> using the two types of filters, why isn't the K&N filter nasty also? And if
> the K&N is not "nasty" where is all the stuff that makes the paper filter
> "nasty" going when you use the K&N? Maybe into the engine?
>
> Ed

By the time a K&N needs cleaning you have to replace a Fram 3 times,
The filter cost me For the Mustang at Pep Boys was 39.99 and I'm not
filling up the land fill with paper filters, how about that one, The
company is not far from where I live and I like to support local
businesses, I also have Gibson cat back on my Jeep and my Mustang, I
have not switched to Lucas oil they are in my city also maybe some
day. I guarantee you I live in a very dust dirty place and would not
switch to a stock filter.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Mar 28, 6:53 pm, "C. E. White" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > If you haven't used a K&N then don't judge them I Have on in my
>> >MustangGT, one in my Mazda 3 and the cold air on on my Grand
>> > Cherokee, and I'll tell you at 50000 miles the filters are very
>> > clean
>> > not nasty like a paper filter is at 10000.
>>
>> So unless you are driving the cars in different environments when
>> you are
>> using the two types of filters, why isn't the K&N filter nasty
>> also? And if
>> the K&N is not "nasty" where is all the stuff that makes the paper
>> filter
>> "nasty" going when you use the K&N? Maybe into the engine?
>>
>> Ed
>
> By the time a K&N needs cleaning you have to replace a Fram 3 times,
> The filter cost me For the Mustang at Pep Boys was 39.99 and I'm not
> filling up the land fill with paper filters, how about that one, The
> company is not far from where I live and I like to support local
> businesses, I also have Gibson cat back on my Jeep and my Mustang, I
> have not switched to Lucas oil they are in my city also maybe some
> day. I guarantee you I live in a very dust dirty place and would not
> switch to a stock filter.

Ford claims you need to replace the air filter every 30,000 miles. K&N
claims you have to clean their every 50,000 miles. Of course K&N also
admits that their filter works much better as a filter when it is
dirty, but then when it is dirty it is just as restrictive as a paper
filter.

If the K&N was $39.99 then your Mustang must be a'93 or older model.
Rock Auto sells Motorcraft Air Filters for a '93 Mustang GT for $7.80.
A Wix is only $6.55 and a Fram only $5.37. A Pro-Tec Air Filter is
only $2.73. I'll bet if you did a valid test, the $2.73 Pro-Tec Filter
would filter out more dirt than the newly oiled K&N. However, if you
just stick with Motorcraft filters, In 150,000 miles you would need to
buy 5 Motorcaraft filters. 5 Motorcraft filters would cost you less
than the cost of the K&N alone, much less the cost of the K&N plus one
recharge kit.

Ed