If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
K&N filter debate
For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The
computer determines the air to fuel ratio. Installing a filter with better flow, such as the K&N could potentially increase the air available to the engine. The computer sets the fuel air usage, so just because more air is made available to the engine, why would this increase HP or MPG? It's as though the makers of these type of filters think the OEM design is flawed. I think it's ludicrous to believe the OEM designers would fail to correctly size the air intake system. And yes I've heard of the display at the parts house showing air flow superiorty of the K&N over paper, making it look as though the paper is "choking" the auto. However they are using air flow (cfm) way in excess of what the engine requires. Dial down the air flow to realtime engine demand and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine. Rick |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
K&N filter debate
I agree with you. And in addition, an increased airflow alone is pretty
much ineffective unless there is a corresponding decrease in back pressure. You need to go with a low pressure low restriction exhaust system to get the benefit from increased airflow. There's nothing new about this. Ken Rick W. wrote: > For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The > computer determines the air to fuel ratio. > Installing a filter with better flow, such as the K&N could potentially > increase the air available to the engine. > The computer sets the fuel air usage, so just because more air is made > available to the engine, why would this increase HP or MPG? > It's as though the makers of these type of filters think the OEM design is > flawed. I think it's ludicrous to believe the OEM designers would fail to > correctly size the air intake system. > And yes I've heard of the display at the parts house showing air flow > superiorty of the K&N over paper, making it look as though the paper is > "choking" the auto. However they are using air flow (cfm) way in excess of > what the engine requires. Dial down the air flow to realtime engine demand > and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine. > Rick > > |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
K&N filter debate
Rick W. wrote:
> For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The > computer determines the air to fuel ratio. > Installing a filter with better flow, such as the K&N could potentially > increase the air available to the engine. > The computer sets the fuel air usage, so just because more air is made > available to the engine, why would this increase HP or MPG? > It's as though the makers of these type of filters think the OEM design is > flawed. I think it's ludicrous to believe the OEM designers would fail to > correctly size the air intake system. > And yes I've heard of the display at the parts house showing air flow > superiorty of the K&N over paper, making it look as though the paper is > "choking" the auto. However they are using air flow (cfm) way in excess of > what the engine requires. Dial down the air flow to realtime engine demand > and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine. > Rick > > Here we go it's gonna be a long thread I bet. K&N filters let more air flow because they filter less. Worse than snake oil, they'll actually harm your engine due to poor filtration. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
K&N filter debate
The key is "inlet restriction". Plumb a vacuum gauge in to the space between
the MAF and the throttle body. Make several WOT passes using each filter medium - both new, and read the gauge... "There's one born every minute..." - PT Barnum "Build it and they will come..." - unknown. After doing this **** for nearly 40 years.... after seeing what happens when we stray from the straight and narrow (though my take doesn't come in "glossy" with a magazine - that values my advertising dollar )... I am immensely surprised that there are those that steadfastly tell me my experience is bogus and the one car they have seen is great. I base all of my assumptions on "would I want my wife to drive this car and expect it to be dependable". Buy what you want... but don't base the decision on pretty pictures.... Word to the wise... K&N spends a lot of time sidestepping the "micron" issue. "Rick W." > wrote in message . .. > For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The > computer determines the air to fuel ratio. > Installing a filter with better flow, such as the K&N could potentially > increase the air available to the engine. > The computer sets the fuel air usage, so just because more air is made > available to the engine, why would this increase HP or MPG? > It's as though the makers of these type of filters think the OEM design is > flawed. I think it's ludicrous to believe the OEM designers would fail to > correctly size the air intake system. > And yes I've heard of the display at the parts house showing air flow > superiorty of the K&N over paper, making it look as though the paper is > "choking" the auto. However they are using air flow (cfm) way in excess of > what the engine requires. Dial down the air flow to realtime engine demand > and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine. > Rick > |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
K&N filter debate
Jim Warman wrote:
> The key is "inlet restriction". Plumb a vacuum gauge in to the space between > the MAF and the throttle body. Make several WOT passes using each filter > medium - both new, and read the gauge... > > "There's one born every minute..." - PT Barnum > > "Build it and they will come..." - unknown. > > After doing this **** for nearly 40 years.... after seeing what happens when > we stray from the straight and narrow (though my take doesn't come in > "glossy" with a magazine - that values my advertising dollar )... I am > immensely surprised that there are those that steadfastly tell me my > experience is bogus and the one car they have seen is great. > > I base all of my assumptions on "would I want my wife to drive this car and > expect it to be dependable". Buy what you want... but don't base the > decision on pretty pictures.... > > Word to the wise... K&N spends a lot of time sidestepping the "micron" > issue. > > "Rick W." > wrote in message > . .. >> For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The >> computer determines the air to fuel ratio. >> Installing a filter with better flow, such as the K&N could potentially >> increase the air available to the engine. >> The computer sets the fuel air usage, so just because more air is made >> available to the engine, why would this increase HP or MPG? >> It's as though the makers of these type of filters think the OEM design is >> flawed. I think it's ludicrous to believe the OEM designers would fail to >> correctly size the air intake system. >> And yes I've heard of the display at the parts house showing air flow >> superiorty of the K&N over paper, making it look as though the paper is >> "choking" the auto. However they are using air flow (cfm) way in excess of >> what the engine requires. Dial down the air flow to realtime engine demand >> and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine. >> Rick >> > > Make several WOT passes using each filter medium - both new, and read the gauge... Heck Jim, don't think my Explorer has seen WOT more than 2 maybe 3 times. It ain't a race car, don't drive it like one!!!Give me a GOOD air filter that does it's job of removing dirt and dust. Jack |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
K&N filter debate
"Rick W." > wrote in message . .. > For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The > computer determines the air to fuel ratio. > Installing a filter with better flow, such as the K&N could > potentially increase the air available to the engine. > The computer sets the fuel air usage, so just because more air is > made available to the engine, why would this increase HP or MPG? > It's as though the makers of these type of filters think the OEM > design is flawed. I think it's ludicrous to believe the OEM > designers would fail to correctly size the air intake system. > And yes I've heard of the display at the parts house showing air > flow superiorty of the K&N over paper, making it look as though the > paper is "choking" the auto. However they are using air flow (cfm) > way in excess of what the engine requires. Dial down the air flow to > realtime engine demand and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine. > Rick I see this discussion come up so often, I just created a web page with my canned response - see: http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id5.html Ed |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
K&N filter debate
WOW what a bunch of gear heads, have any of you seen TV on Sunday? Sunday is Nascar day and can any of you find me a car in Nextel Cup that has a stock air filter or yet a stock air cleaner. Want max air flow you need a K&N or something similar. Have a cam of 300 or more degrees with ..500 or more lift you need a K&N. Also not true about K&N filtration, a properly oiled K&N will filter just as good or better than a stock filter. Cut the BS people, unless you are a race engine builder or automotive engineer you have no clue of how a filter or air box works. OEM filters and air boxes as used on EFI engines of the last 15 years suck. How many of you have taken you ride to a speed shop and tested the stock air box to a K&N cold air intake on the Dyno? If you want MPG don't waste your money on a K&N, need a few extra horses for little money than go for the K&N. Now the oil on the mass air meter, yes clean the oil off my 91 Explorer Mass air with 385,000 miles and it will run better than new, BS, put three quarts of oil on the mass air and be lucky if the engine runs at all. Nothing is better than good maintenance. Do it often and do it right and your Exploder will live a long life. Remember your Explorer is not a race car but feel confident that if you want a K&N filter it will not harm your engine and it just may give you a smile on your face when you hit the go pedal. Do what makes you feel good and pass on all this BS from shade tree race car shops. Ron And yes I have run K&N filters on all my Explorers, 93, 95,98,03 and 05 Lincoln. All had modified exhaust, throttle bodies, mass air and ignition upgrades. Rick W. wrote: > For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The > computer determines the air to fuel ratio. > Installing a filter with better flow, such as the K&N could potentially > increase the air available to the engine. > The computer sets the fuel air usage, so just because more air is made > available to the engine, why would this increase HP or MPG? > It's as though the makers of these type of filters think the OEM design is > flawed. I think it's ludicrous to believe the OEM designers would fail to > correctly size the air intake system. > And yes I've heard of the display at the parts house showing air flow > superiorty of the K&N over paper, making it look as though the paper is > "choking" the auto. However they are using air flow (cfm) way in excess of > what the engine requires. Dial down the air flow to realtime engine demand > and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine. > Rick > > |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
K&N filter debate
Greetings Ron
We are not talking about race cars here. My whole argument is for those who think they can take an oem car, add a K&N filter and see a difference. Beyond that they are deviating away from OEM such as modifying, exhaust, throttle bodies, mass air and ignition upgrades. With that my statement doesn't apply. Your statement - Cut the BS people, unless you are a race engine builder or automotive engineer you have no clue of how a filter or air box works. Is a little harsh and a little arrogant, you wouldn't have made that statement unless you had information that you think is unknown to us shade tree mechanics. Personally I believe that the figures don't lie. Please share with me the study that shows that I can take my stock Explorer, add a K&N, and immediately get more ponies! Better yet what if I added a larger exhaust with that K&N, nothing more? Rick |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
K&N filter debate
Rick:
I take issue with people who have no idea of what they are talking about and try to pawn it off as gospel. If someone wants to spend $40.00 for a K&N filter to pick up 4 HP let them, why bash K&N as bad or whatever? I have built engines from Flathead Fords to 427 SOHC FE's, I am sure there is someone who has more knowledge than I do. But to bash K&N who I do not like but know they have a product that works is wrong. As you well know you can not get something for nothing so what is so wrong if Joe Smith wants to spend $40 bucks for a filter? I have for years seen replies to questions about filters and it took this last one to set me off. Want to talk about inches that that may be a problem in sex, with filters we talk about CFM. Want to make 500 HP in a 350 Chevy then you will need 660 CFM. 5.4 inches is only revelent if you want to impress your girlfriend but will do nothing for your motor. Square inches of filter media means nothing, how many CFM will it flow is the answer. I am sorry if I have offended any one but I can take only so much of this BS, like I am a Certified OEM, ISAM, CST, XYZ or back yard gear head, and my second cousin on my aunts side says this is junk and will not work. Ops, this excludes Jim Warman as I do respect his post. Any thing you can do to improve performance and put a smile on your face has to be good. Why do we have to argue about things others like? Want to vent than vent on the nuts we put in Congress. We need to respect each other and offer true help not the other way around. I closing all I can say is I love the sound of my 32 valve motor at 7000 RPM and hope all of you find what you are looking for. I did. Ron Rick W. wrote: > Greetings Ron > We are not talking about race cars here. > My whole argument is for those who think they can take an oem car, add a K&N > filter and see a difference. Beyond that they are deviating away from OEM > such as modifying, exhaust, throttle bodies, mass air and ignition upgrades. > With that my statement doesn't apply. > > Your statement - Cut the BS people, unless you are a race engine builder or > automotive engineer you have no clue of how a filter or air box works. > Is a little harsh and a little arrogant, you wouldn't have made that > statement unless you had information that you think is unknown to us shade > tree mechanics. > > Personally I believe that the figures don't lie. Please share with me the > study that shows that I can take my stock Explorer, add a K&N, and > immediately get more ponies! Better yet what if I added a larger exhaust > with that K&N, nothing more? > > Rick > > |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
K&N filter debate
"jrchilds" > wrote in message . .. > Jim Warman wrote: >> The key is "inlet restriction". Plumb a vacuum gauge in to the space >> between >> the MAF and the throttle body. Make several WOT passes using each filter >> medium - both new, and read the gauge... >> >> "There's one born every minute..." - PT Barnum >> >> "Build it and they will come..." - unknown. >> >> After doing this **** for nearly 40 years.... after seeing what happens >> when >> we stray from the straight and narrow (though my take doesn't come in >> "glossy" with a magazine - that values my advertising dollar )... I am >> immensely surprised that there are those that steadfastly tell me my >> experience is bogus and the one car they have seen is great. >> >> I base all of my assumptions on "would I want my wife to drive this car >> and >> expect it to be dependable". Buy what you want... but don't base the >> decision on pretty pictures.... >> >> Word to the wise... K&N spends a lot of time sidestepping the "micron" >> issue. >> >> "Rick W." > wrote in message >> . .. >>> For over ten years now the auto engines are computer controlled. The >>> computer determines the air to fuel ratio. >>> Installing a filter with better flow, such as the K&N could potentially >>> increase the air available to the engine. >>> The computer sets the fuel air usage, so just because more air is made >>> available to the engine, why would this increase HP or MPG? >>> It's as though the makers of these type of filters think the OEM design >>> is >>> flawed. I think it's ludicrous to believe the OEM designers would fail >>> to >>> correctly size the air intake system. >>> And yes I've heard of the display at the parts house showing air flow >>> superiorty of the K&N over paper, making it look as though the paper is >>> "choking" the auto. However they are using air flow (cfm) way in excess >>> of >>> what the engine requires. Dial down the air flow to realtime engine >>> demand >>> and I'd bet the paper filter does just fine. >>> Rick >>> >> >> > Make several WOT passes using each filter > medium - both new, and read the gauge... > > Heck Jim, don't think my Explorer has seen WOT more than 2 maybe 3 > times. It ain't a race car, don't drive it like one!!!Give me a GOOD air > filter that does it's job of removing dirt and dust. > > Jack |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
318 auto debate | [email protected] | BMW | 7 | July 12th 06 02:08 AM |
crank bolt tightening debate | jim beam | Honda | 43 | November 30th 05 02:12 AM |
The great shock debate | erthmun | Jeep | 11 | June 25th 05 04:30 AM |
Don't hate a car that you don't know...in the Corvette vs Porsche debate. | TRello | Corvette | 0 | April 24th 05 02:51 PM |
95 Saturn Overheating and the temp gage 3/4 vs 1/2 debate | A. Malik | Saturn | 0 | October 17th 04 04:54 AM |