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

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
>
>

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.

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
>

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

"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

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
>
>

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

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
>
>

"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