I'm not using a K&N air filter ever again...

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Now, I wonder if I just got a defective K&N filter after all. If it
was
> just a defective one, I may just return it for my money back and go
> elsewhere to get one, a place that gets them from reputable
> distributors. This is assuming if I still want to try one out again.
>
> There's no excuse for a K&N manufacturer to make a filter undersized,
> use too much filter oil, and make the porous holes too large. I'm not
> sure how many other consumers have been hit with defective filters
with
> manufacturing flaws.
>

Not likely. K&N are a lot of hype and have been known to cause the exact
problems you have seen. GM, Ford have both issued service bulitons about
them. Both basically say that if a vehicle comes in with a K&N on it and
is showing problems related to the MAS setting codes they are not
covered under warrantee, nore is internal engine wear.

Info - Automatic Transmission Shift, Engine Driveability Concerns or
Service
Engine Soon (SES) Light On as a Result of the Installation of an
Aftermarket
Reusable, Excessively Oiled Air Filter #04-07-30-013 - (03/05/2004)
Automatic Transmission Shift, Engine Driveability Concerns or Service
Engine
Soon (SES) Light On as a Result of the Installation of an Aftermarket
Reusable, Excessively Oiled Air Filter
2004 and Prior Cars and Light Duty Trucks

2003-2004 HUMMER H2

DO THIS
DON'T DO THIS

First, Inspect the vehicle for a reusable aftermarket excessively
oiled air filter
DO NOT repair under warranty if concerns result from the use of a
reusable aftermarket oiled air filter.


The installation of an aftermarket reusable, oiled air filter may result
in:
a.. Service Engine Soon (SES) Light On
b.. Transmission shift concerns, slipping and damaged clutch(es) or
band(s)
c.. Engine driveability concerns, poor acceleration from a stop,
limited
engine RPM range
The oil that is used on these air filter elements may be transferred
onto
the Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor causing contamination of the sensor. As a
result, the Grams per Second (GPS) signal from the MAF may be low and
any or
all of the concerns listed above may occur.

When servicing a vehicle with any of these concerns, be sure to check
for
the presence of an aftermarket reusable, excessively oiled air filter.
The
MAF, GPS reading should be compared to a like vehicle with a OEM air box
and
filter under the same driving conditions to verify the concern.

Transmission or engine driveability concerns that are the result of the
installation of an aftermarket reusable, excessively oiled air filter
are
not considered to be warrantable repair items.


This part is from a gentleman who actually TESTED K&N in real world
applications.

Subj: K & N filters
I was responsible for evaluating re-usable air filters for a major
construction/mining
company that had hundreds of vehicles ranging from large earthmovers
to pick-up trucks and salesmen's cars. This study was embarked upon
due to the fact that we were spending upwards of $30,000 a MONTH on
paper air filters. Using them one time then throwing them away.. I
initiated
the study in that I was convinced that a K&N type filter or oiled foam
would save us many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour
savings, and of course engines as these would filter dirt better than
paper. (yes, I had read the K&N ads and was a believer)

Representative test units were chosen to give us a broad spectrum from
cars right through large front end loaders. With each unit we had a
long history of oil analysis records so that changes would be
traceable. Unfortunately, for me, every single unit having alternative
re-usable air cleaners showed an immediate large jump in silicon (dirt)
levels with corresponding major increases in wear metals. In one extreme
case, a unit with a primary and secondary air cleaner, the secondary
(small paper element) clogged before even one day's test run could be
completed. This particular unit had a Cummins V-12 engine that had
paper / paper on one bank and K&N / paper on the other bank; two
completely independent induction systems. The conditions were EXACTLY
duplicated for each bank yet the K&N allowed so much dirt to pass
through that the small filter became clogged before lunch. The same
outcome
occurred with oiled foams on this unit.

We discontinued the tests on the large pieces almost immediately but
continued with service trucks, foremen's vehicles, and my own company
car. Analysis results continued showing markedly increased wear rates
for all the vehicles, mine included. Test concluded, switched back to
paper/glass and all vehicles showed reduction back to near original
levels of both wear metals and dirt. I continued with the K&N on my
company car out of stubbornness and at 85,000 miles the Chevy 305 V-8
wheezed its last breath. The top end was sanded badly; bottom end was
just fine. End of test.

I must stress that EVERYONE involved in this test was hoping that
alternative filters would work as everyone was sick about pulling out
a perfectly good $85 air cleaner and throwing 4 of them away each week
per machine...

So, I strongly suggest that depending upon an individual's long term
plan for their vehicles they simply run an oil analysis at least once
to see that the K&N or whatever alternative air filter is indeed
working IN THAT APPLICATION... It depends on a person's priorities. If
you want performance then indeed the K&N is the way to go but at what
cost???

And no, I do not work for a paper or glass air filter manufacturing
company nor do I have any affiliation with anything directly or
indirectly that could benefit George Morrison as a result..



> Bill Putney wrote:
> > Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> > > writes:
> >
> > >> ...Air filter oil sure doesn't make for a good fuel additive!!!
;-(
> > >
> > >
> > > ...All the
> > > same, I feel I have to point out that the amount of oil the filter
> > > would have let into the engine would have been so small as to be
> > > insignificant...
> >
> > That's what I was thinking. Compared to the amount of oil that gets
> > sucked into the plenum thru the PCV system under WOT, the
contribution
> > of oil by the air filter is, literally, a drop in the bucket. Can't
> > imagine that its composition is anything that would harm an engine
(and
> > it would be a safe bet that the filter mfgr. has satisfied
themselves of
> > that).
> >
> > >>I couldn't say, though, exactly much dust was getting through. I
was
> > >>only going by what I saw in the rift at the base of the filter
housing.
> > >>As far as I could tell, I at least didn't see any dirt/particles
in the
> > >>throttle body itself. But who knows.
> > >
> > >
> > > Indeed.
> >
> > I specifically remember seeing a warning on the K&N package insert
> > something to the effect that the filter is not effective against or
> > should not be used in "agricultural dust" (their words)
environments.
> > That makes sense with the filter construction and with the test
results
> > about fine and coarse particles.
> >
> > Bill Putney
> > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> > address with the letter 'x')
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:38:18 -0400, "metroman"
> wrote:

>From my history of being a tech, people need to know that aftermarket
>filters such as k&n, etc. can improve performance, but are not a "drop in"
>& leave alone filter. They`re (in my opinion) a very high maintenance item
>& are designed to be used in a "perfect world" situation. Unfortunately,
>most people don`t find out `til their eng is past the point of no return,
>hopefully this wasn`t your case.


I would NEVER recommend using a K&N in an excessively "dusty"
environment like a quarry or pit, or on a farm vehicle running in the
fine dust day in and day out. For those applications you need a
cyclonic pre-cleaner (like a donaldson) and a high quality cleanable
filter element (like cleer air).Or count on replacing the element
often.
However, in my old Aerostar a standard air filter lasted close to 2
years untill I was tired of shaking the flies out of it - didn't
appear to be much in the way of fine dust trapped in the filter. So I
put in a K&N direct fit and drove it another 200,000km. Engine still
didn't use any oil.
One of the secrets is to NOT OVER OIL the filter. I've never seen even
a trace of oil in the top of the airbox on the Aerostar - or in my
daughter's neon (the filter was installed by the dealer).

My wife's Mystique does not have a K&N and the check engine lite comes
on constantly showing lean run at idle (which I'm being told is a MAF
problem) - no oil or dirt on the MAF.

Anyway - to each his own. Know the limitations and judge accordingly.

Steve W. wrote:
> This part is from a gentleman who actually TESTED K&N in real world
> applications.
>
> Subj: K & N filters
> I was responsible for evaluating re-usable air filters for a major
> construction/mining
> company that had hundreds of vehicles ranging from large earthmovers
> to pick-up trucks and salesmen's cars. This study was embarked upon
> due to the fact that we were spending upwards of $30,000 a MONTH on
> paper air filters. Using them one time then throwing them away.. I
> initiated
> the study in that I was convinced that a K&N type filter or oiled foam
> would save us many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour
> savings, and of course engines as these would filter dirt better than
> paper. (yes, I had read the K&N ads and was a believer)

I gather this is what happens when a bean counter is put in charge of
an operation where a little technical engineering background might not
have been a bad idea... This account sounds too pat or just silly.

Other things I forgot to mention that I noticed wrong with the filter:

On the exterior "ribbed" side of the air filter, I noticed on there
that the ribs themselves were bent sideways diagonally. I also saw a
piece of hair in the interior part inside between two ribs when I
pulled the filter out for inspection. Not sure if it was in there
before I installed the filter or not, but most likely it was there when
it came out of box.

So, the flaws summarized go:
-excessively oiled
-hair in filter
-undersized
-bent ribs
-oversized filtration pores

Wonder what kind of manufacturing standards this K&N distributor had?

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > >>http://home.usadatanet.net/%7Ejbploc...011/SPICER.htm
>
> > > Now that's a site worth saving. Thanks. Haven't seen "you pays yer
> > > money and takes yer choices/chances" air filter data presented in such
> > > clear and objective detail in awhile. Of course, there are going to be
> > > those who look at the last plot, don't read the text, and say "See!
> > > K&N is better! See!"
>
> > Wow!
>
> Yeah, wow.
>
> > The "No Brand" filter was the third best in efficiency, and the second
> > best in intial flow restriction. The only place it comes even close to
> > the bottom of the stack is in accumulative dirt capacity - *BUT* even
> > then, its numbers are up in the top of the data cluster, and then next
> > worse one is way worse. Wonder why they don't identify that filter.
>
> Good question. It might have been a true white-box item with no
> possibility of source ID.
>
> > They hint at how they calculate "efficiency" without really defining it.
> > Reading between the lines, it appears that it is the amount of dirt
> > retained by the filter over total dirt released into the filter (i.e.,
> > sum of dirt accumulated and dirt passed) up to the point of a defined
> > measured restriction.
>
> It would be interesting to read SAE 5011 (or even SAE J726, which is
> probably more readily available via www.sae.org). The answer is probably
> given therein.
>
> DS

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steve W. wrote:
> > This part is from a gentleman who actually TESTED K&N in real world
> > applications.
> >
> > Subj: K & N filters
> > I was responsible for evaluating re-usable air filters for a major
> > construction/mining
> > company that had hundreds of vehicles ranging from large
earthmovers
> > to pick-up trucks and salesmen's cars. This study was embarked upon
> > due to the fact that we were spending upwards of $30,000 a MONTH on
> > paper air filters. Using them one time then throwing them away.. I
> > initiated
> > the study in that I was convinced that a K&N type filter or oiled
foam
> > would save us many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour
> > savings, and of course engines as these would filter dirt better
than
> > paper. (yes, I had read the K&N ads and was a believer)
>
> I gather this is what happens when a bean counter is put in charge of
> an operation where a little technical engineering background might not
> have been a bad idea... This account sounds too pat or just silly.
>
>

No this is what happens when you believe the K&N hype and try to save
some money by believing how great the K&N is. Then you test them and
find out that it is a big load of crap.
You may think it sounds silly but it is a true story of someone doing a
real field test instead of listening to the "engineers" that are at K&N.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005, Steve W. wrote:

> this is what happens when you believe the K&N hype and try to save some
> money by believing how great the K&N is. Then you test them and find out
> that it is a big load of crap. You may think it sounds silly but it is a
> true story of someone doing a real field test instead of listening to
> the "engineers" that are at K&N.

I think the "engineers" at K&N should get together with the "engineers" at
Scamsoil, Splitfire and whoever owns Slick-50 this month. The lot of them
could have a big ol' time. I bet the fish stories would be terrific. They
could form a social group for pretend-engineers whose best talents lie in
lying. They could call it SEMA, perhaps.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steve W. wrote:
> > This part is from a gentleman who actually TESTED K&N in real world
> > applications.
> >
> > Subj: K & N filters
> > I was responsible for evaluating re-usable air filters for a major
> > construction/mining
> > company that had hundreds of vehicles ranging from large earthmovers
> > to pick-up trucks and salesmen's cars. This study was embarked upon
> > due to the fact that we were spending upwards of $30,000 a MONTH on
> > paper air filters. Using them one time then throwing them away.. I
> > initiated
> > the study in that I was convinced that a K&N type filter or oiled foam
> > would save us many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour
> > savings, and of course engines as these would filter dirt better than
> > paper. (yes, I had read the K&N ads and was a believer)
>
> I gather this is what happens when a bean counter is put in charge of
> an operation where a little technical engineering background might not
> have been a bad idea... This account sounds too pat or just silly.
>

Actually there are two answers for those kinds of environments. The
first are washable electrostatic filters, these are getting popular in
furnace
applications and they really do work. However they clog up lightening
fast and have to be constantly washed. There are also electronic
electrostatic filters which also work but like the passive ones, they also
clog up lightning fast and have to be washed out constantly.

The second answer is obvious - use a custom designed prefilter that is
physically much larger. Use the same filter for all the vehicles (except
the
cars of course) Since your buying these in bulk you can probably get
them dirt cheap, and you also really don't care if they have great filtering
efficiency since the goal is to simply cut down a good percentage of
the dust before it reaches the main filter.

Operation of motor vehicles in extremely dusty environments has been
done before and a lot has been learned about doing it - this guy just needs
to do some research.

Ted

I think the "engineers" at K&N should get together with the "engineers"
at Scamsoil, Splitfire and whoever owns Slick-50 this month. The lot of
them could have a big ol' time. I bet the fish stories would be
terrific. They could form a social group for pretend-engineers whose
best talents lie in lying. They could call it SEMA, perhaps.

Don't forget the "Tornado" ha ha. Just watch "Mythbusters" to find
out about that one .

MB

>From the looks of that test AC Delco is the way to go.
Unless you're running a Dragster I don't see why
anyone would think that some high perf filter is going
to make a difference, especially at the expense of
filtering ability.

But then agin, people are still buying that "Tornado" off
television promising a ridiculous 20% more HP.
Did anyone see the "Mythbusters" test on that device?

MB

My wife's Mystique does not have a K&N and the check engine lite comes on
constantly showing lean run at idle (which I'm being told is a MAF
problem) - no oil or dirt on the MAF.

GM just announced that the oil from an over-oiled, after market, air filter
is causing computer sensor problems and that they will no longer cover such
problems under their warranty.

Richard.