K&N Filters evil???
08-08-2001, 05:41 PM
#1
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sunny FL
Age: 50
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
K&N Filters evil???
I've got a moron in my office (Porsche Boxter S driver... 'nuff said) that told me K&N filters are crap and they can harm the engine, oil coats the MAP sensor, etc.
Is this baulderdash or is there some basis to his claims? It seems to me that if you wash the filter, then REALLY HEAVILY coat it with oil, then yeah - you could coat the MAP sensor... but as to the engine damage? It seems to me that lots of other K&N filter owners can't be wrong...
Oh - I saw on AEM's site where their "new" CAIs don't have a K&N filter - they have an AEM filter... any info?
Is this baulderdash or is there some basis to his claims? It seems to me that if you wash the filter, then REALLY HEAVILY coat it with oil, then yeah - you could coat the MAP sensor... but as to the engine damage? It seems to me that lots of other K&N filter owners can't be wrong...
Oh - I saw on AEM's site where their "new" CAIs don't have a K&N filter - they have an AEM filter... any info?
08-08-2001, 06:10 PM
#2
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moron? I've always thought Boxster S's were quite nice. I'll withhold the cutting commentary, not knowing the precise reason why you're maligning the car or this guy behind his back.
There is definitely a percentage of validity to what he's saying, and I posted something to that effect a long time ago when somebody was asking about K&N's. Here's the thread with my comments and others.
http://www.acura-cl.com/cgi-bin/ulti...c&f=1&t=002736
There is no controversy that K&N panel filters reduce intake restriction over stock panel filters. The point of controversy between K&N and independent (and some not-so-independent) testers is whether that reduction in restriction comes at the price of allowing contaminants, most notably silicates (really fine sand) to pass into the engine, where they can enter the motor oil by way of adhering to the valve stems and/or cylinder walls. It's an understatement to say that silicates in the lubricant are a bad thing.
I heard that a Japanese magazine once did a shootout between aftermarket filters, including K&N. Apex'i and Blitz were the designs that came out on top in terms of both reduction of restriction and filtering effectiveness. Don't quote me on this, though.
There is definitely a percentage of validity to what he's saying, and I posted something to that effect a long time ago when somebody was asking about K&N's. Here's the thread with my comments and others.
http://www.acura-cl.com/cgi-bin/ulti...c&f=1&t=002736
There is no controversy that K&N panel filters reduce intake restriction over stock panel filters. The point of controversy between K&N and independent (and some not-so-independent) testers is whether that reduction in restriction comes at the price of allowing contaminants, most notably silicates (really fine sand) to pass into the engine, where they can enter the motor oil by way of adhering to the valve stems and/or cylinder walls. It's an understatement to say that silicates in the lubricant are a bad thing.
I heard that a Japanese magazine once did a shootout between aftermarket filters, including K&N. Apex'i and Blitz were the designs that came out on top in terms of both reduction of restriction and filtering effectiveness. Don't quote me on this, though.
08-08-2001, 06:18 PM
#3
Coming to a city near you
hmmm I've never really thought about it but he could be right. I use to use an AEM on my hybrid and after it rained you could see a stream of red oil/water that would travel up inside the pipe and inside the T/B. So he might be right but I never heard of anybody having any problems, if there was I would think K&N would change the kind of oil they used.
08-08-2001, 06:52 PM
#4
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sunny FL
Age: 50
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't get me wrong - I'd take a Boxter S any day of the week, but I couldn't afford it, which is why I have a CLS. 
This particular individual has, shall I say, a silver spoon.
Anyway - thanks for the info!
This particular individual has, shall I say, a silver spoon.Anyway - thanks for the info!
Originally posted by DtEW:
<STRONG>Moron? I've always thought Boxster S's were quite nice. I'll withhold the cutting commentary, not knowing the precise reason why you're maligning the car or this guy behind his back.
There is definitely a percentage of validity to what he's saying, and I posted something to that effect a long time ago when somebody was asking about K&N's. Here's the thread with my comments and others.
http://www.acura-cl.com/cgi-bin/ulti...c&f=1&t=002736
There is no controversy that K&N panel filters reduce intake restriction over stock panel filters. The point of controversy between K&N and independent (and some not-so-independent) testers is whether that reduction in restriction comes at the price of allowing contaminants, most notably silicates (really fine sand) to pass into the engine, where they can enter the motor oil by way of adhering to the valve stems and/or cylinder walls. It's an understatement to say that silicates in the lubricant are a bad thing.
I heard that a Japanese magazine once did a shootout between aftermarket filters, including K&N. Apex'i and Blitz were the designs that came out on top in terms of both reduction of restriction and filtering effectiveness. Don't quote me on this, though.</STRONG>
<STRONG>Moron? I've always thought Boxster S's were quite nice. I'll withhold the cutting commentary, not knowing the precise reason why you're maligning the car or this guy behind his back.
There is definitely a percentage of validity to what he's saying, and I posted something to that effect a long time ago when somebody was asking about K&N's. Here's the thread with my comments and others.
http://www.acura-cl.com/cgi-bin/ulti...c&f=1&t=002736
There is no controversy that K&N panel filters reduce intake restriction over stock panel filters. The point of controversy between K&N and independent (and some not-so-independent) testers is whether that reduction in restriction comes at the price of allowing contaminants, most notably silicates (really fine sand) to pass into the engine, where they can enter the motor oil by way of adhering to the valve stems and/or cylinder walls. It's an understatement to say that silicates in the lubricant are a bad thing.
I heard that a Japanese magazine once did a shootout between aftermarket filters, including K&N. Apex'i and Blitz were the designs that came out on top in terms of both reduction of restriction and filtering effectiveness. Don't quote me on this, though.</STRONG>
08-08-2001, 08:36 PM
#5
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by DtEW:
<STRONG>Moron? I've always thought Boxster S's were quite nice. I'll withhold the cutting commentary, not knowing the precise reason why you're maligning the car or this guy behind his back.
There is definitely a percentage of validity to what he's saying, and I posted something to that effect a long time ago when somebody was asking about K&N's. Here's the thread with my comments and others.
http://www.acura-cl.com/cgi-bin/ulti...c&f=1&t=002736
There is no controversy that K&N panel filters reduce intake restriction over stock panel filters. The point of controversy between K&N and independent (and some not-so-independent) testers is whether that reduction in restriction comes at the price of allowing contaminants, most notably silicates (really fine sand) to pass into the engine, where they can enter the motor oil by way of adhering to the valve stems and/or cylinder walls. It's an understatement to say that silicates in the lubricant are a bad thing.
I heard that a Japanese magazine once did a shootout between aftermarket filters, including K&N. Apex'i and Blitz were the designs that came out on top in terms of both reduction of restriction and filtering effectiveness. Don't quote me on this, though.</STRONG>
<STRONG>Moron? I've always thought Boxster S's were quite nice. I'll withhold the cutting commentary, not knowing the precise reason why you're maligning the car or this guy behind his back.
There is definitely a percentage of validity to what he's saying, and I posted something to that effect a long time ago when somebody was asking about K&N's. Here's the thread with my comments and others.
http://www.acura-cl.com/cgi-bin/ulti...c&f=1&t=002736
There is no controversy that K&N panel filters reduce intake restriction over stock panel filters. The point of controversy between K&N and independent (and some not-so-independent) testers is whether that reduction in restriction comes at the price of allowing contaminants, most notably silicates (really fine sand) to pass into the engine, where they can enter the motor oil by way of adhering to the valve stems and/or cylinder walls. It's an understatement to say that silicates in the lubricant are a bad thing.
I heard that a Japanese magazine once did a shootout between aftermarket filters, including K&N. Apex'i and Blitz were the designs that came out on top in terms of both reduction of restriction and filtering effectiveness. Don't quote me on this, though.</STRONG>
I think that silica in the engine story is a bunch of bunk. If you're talking about people that never clean or oil their filters, then I could see a problem.
I did notice the oil survey that was posted a few days ago, and the car with 11K on the K&N had no Silica in the oil, but the car with stock filter did.
Hmmm... Looks like just about any filter if not properly maintained can let abrasives in.
BTW -- I used foam filters on my Weber side drafts, and they were constantly replaced and oiled. I noticed that I was getting dirt inside the oiled-foam filters. Hmmm -- interesting, since that very article says that they are some of the best at reducing silica ingestion...
So, I'm not saying your right, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm pointing out that there is a lot of "information" running around as "fact", that doesn't quite look right.
08-08-2001, 09:25 PM
#6
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by EricL:
<STRONG>So, I'm not saying your right, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm pointing out that there is a lot of "information" running around as "fact", that doesn't quite look right.</STRONG>
<STRONG>So, I'm not saying your right, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm pointing out that there is a lot of "information" running around as "fact", that doesn't quite look right.</STRONG>
The opinion that is espoused in all my posts is that there is real, unresolved controversy as to the effective dust filtration of K&N filters. The Boxster guy isn't speaking out of his ass, but that's as far as my "support" goes.
I'd personally avoid K&N's just the same, though. Rarely does a controversy exist without some vestige of truth on both sides.
08-10-2001, 02:53 PM
#7
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sunny FL
Age: 50
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BTW - looks like there is good truth to the K&N filtering issue - but the real issue is whether it is significant or not.
http://www.ibmwr.org/otech/airfilter.html
Any info on that?
http://www.ibmwr.org/otech/airfilter.html
Any info on that?
Trending Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
rcs86
Car Parts for Sale
3
08-02-2016 06:52 PM
