SouthernBoy

A few weeks ago, I PM'd I hate cars asking for his opinion regarding a filter I bought recently when compared to other after market OEM replacements and the factory OEM unit. Here is the post I did this morning on another thread. Since this could lead to more discussion, it does not belong on the thread I posted but rather a new one specific to the subject matter at hand.


----------------------------------

Regarding my PM of several weeks ago, I wanted your opinion about something. I'll go ahead and ask it here since others may also wish to hear your response. I know you are very strongly supportive of using the OEM Honda engine air filter for our TL's and I know why you take this stance. It is a quality product and does an excellent job. However, I wanted to get your take on a few others I have used with a new selection recently I found to my liking.

For most of the years I have owned both of my 3G TL's, I have been using the Purolator A25585 filter and when I do, I make sure it is from Israel and not Mexico (yes, the difference is visible). I have also STP and DriveWorks, and the one I found recently (and the basis of my PM to you) a WIX filter. I like the WIX so far the best of the after market OEM replacement lot. It seems to have the highest quality and it has better pleating with more surface area.

The one thing I don't like about the Honda OEM filter is the fact that it is a multi-element filter with an oil wetted element on the windward side (that's the side facing the outside intake stream for you non-nautical folks). As you know, oil wetted filters attract dirt and debris much more quickly than do dry element filters and this begins to reduce flow to the engine (not likely to be felt unless very dirty and under full throttle). The dry element types remain more free of this debris during their service life. I have been impressed so far with the WIX unit and expect to continue using this filter, but would like your take on it if you have any experience or information. Strangely, the box label I saved show part number 46832 for this filter but their website references part number 49063. Can't explain this one.

NOTE: A little further research indicates that one filter is for the Honda 3.0 engines (46832)while the other is for Acura 3.2 to 3.5 engines (49063).

------------------------------------------


When going on the WIX website, I noticed that the 46832 filter is longer in length than the 49063 filter which is the one specific to the 3G TL for my year. This is not good since it could easily allow debris to pass by the filter seal and into the throttle body and engine. So I went by the parts store where I purchased the 46832 filter and compared one of those to the 49063 filter and there is a difference, but not in the length or width. The 49063 filter (Acura) is deeper and has fewer and slightly larger pleats. When I got home, I compared the 49063 filter to an Acura factory OEM filter and they are the same in their dimensions and pleat arrangement.

You can use either one of the WIX filters mentioned in this post and both will work fine. However, I would suggest getting the one specifically designed for our 3G TL's (2004 - 2006) which I mentioned here. Hope this helps.

vietxquangstah

iTrader: (7)

how does the K&N drop in filter compare against the wix, stp, or the oem honda engine filter?

ez12a

K&N drop ins are oiled filters iirc. Have one in my old integra.

SouthernBoy

Personally, I don't care for oil wetted engine air filters for a few reasons and I'll use the K&N as an example.

When first installed, they work the best that they are going to work in their lifetime, in terms of air flow, because they have no dirt or foreign debris clinging to their cloth fibers and they have the factory "oil wash". The downside to the first item in the last sentence is this is when they are going to be more prone to allow the passage of micro-sized debris into the engine. As these filters get dirtier, and they will rather quickly since the oil will both attract and hold dirt, their ability to flow air at high rates decreases. Then at some time in their service life, the owner will most likely clean them instead of replacing them. It will be nearly impossible for him to replicate the factory level and evenness of the oil. This will allow more debris to get captured and also more oil to make its way into the throttle body. If you have a MAF, it could get contaminated.

Another concern when using an oil wetted filter such as the K&N is increased dirt in the throttle body. I used one on my '88 Mustang LX 302 CID and had to clean the throttle plate and its seat perhaps twice a year because a sticky oily residue would collect there and cause the throttle to stick a little.

The factory filter is oil wetted only on the side facing the inlet. The side facing the throttle body is a dry element piece. Still, the fact that the factory unit does use an oil wetted filter component which faces the intake stream means it will get dirty more quickly and therefore, clogged more quickly; and it does both of these things. Barring that, it is an excellent filter.

Since just like everything else in life, filter types and choices are a trade off. There are going to be pros and cons regardless of the type of filter you select; except for one which I use to use in my 2002 Altima SE when I had a Frankencar intake on it. That intake was available with an Apexi Dual Funnel Power Intake filter (I still have two of these filter in my basement). Without a doubt, this was the best filter I think I have ever used in both quality and air flow characteristics. The tests I saw out flow and out filter (considerably) any K&N tested along with several other high performance and high quality filters. They now offer a "panel" style filter, which is what our filters are called, but unfortunately not for the 3G TL's. Here's their link if you are interested. They are not cheap either.

http://www.apexi-usa.com/products/?id=5362


Finally, "how does the K&N drop in filter compare against the wix, stp, or the oem honda engine filter?"...

I cannot speak for such a comparison because I have never used a K&N on this car. As I mentioned, I did use one on my '88 Mustang LX 302 CID and didn't like the fact that it imparted an oil residue on my throttle plate. As for the WIX, STP, and Acura OEM filters, (don't forget the Purolator unit), I prefer the WIX now out of this batch. For the after market dry element filters, it's quality appears to be the best of the lot. One other thing with the dry element filters. Dirt and debris does not adhere to the intake stream side at all like oil wetted filters. This means that they are going to maintain their designed flow rates better over their service life.

Jesstzn

I just want to make a couple comments here ..... oiled filters hold the dirt, they just hold it differently than paper ones. Paper ones just let the dirt fall into the valleys of the filter pleets filling them and as with oiled filters loose thier porosity reducing flow. Take a dirty paper one and hold a light behind it and then tell me they don't hold" dirt.

As for MAF contamination this usually happens when the user reoils them improperly not new out of the box.

K&N is really populat in the VW group and no one in any of the forums , and there is a lot , experience MAF issues with a new K&N. VW MAF is very sensitive to this due to the design of the inlet. More than the TL is.

LaCostaRacer

I too use to use K&N filters but don't any more. Here's a link to a test that swayed my thinking about K&N: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/cms/in...d=58&Itemid=66

The other issue I had was cleaning the filter and waiting for it to dry before using the car. I found it much simpler to drop in a new Paper Purolator that appears to filter better.

Jesstzn

Don't get me wrong ..I'm not defending the oiled ones .... Also I read that test you posted a long time ago .. his metodology is badly flawed and not a controlled test. Also there wasn't particuate sizing done in the after filters nor was there the equal cubic feet of air measured and driving 500 miles on a road doesn't gaurantee the same amount of dust or type of dust or the density of the dust due to humidity.

To have a controlled test you need it to be isometeric in other words in the same air flow ar the same time drawing the same air flow under the same pressure/vacuum at the same barometric pressure / temperature / humidity etc etc . etc.

SouthernBoy

The design of our air filter housing is such that the filter is held in a horizontal position. This makes it much harder for dirt and debris to be held in the pleats. I have closely examined mine when I replace them and have seen this to be the case.

I did mention that user-oiling is more disastrous than factory oiling because it is nearly impossible to duplicate what the factory does. As for the popularity of K&N filters, yes they are very popular. But they are not the best in terms of performance. I have seen tests where after a relatively short period of service, any advantage of air flow was lost due to contamination of the filtering material. This is to be expected with an oil wetted filter.

As I mentioned filter choices like anything else, involve trade offs. Aside from the major marketing effort, the final arbiter is the one who purchases and uses the product. The purpose of this thread was and is not to argue the various benefits and drawbacks of any given filter (discussing, yes by all means), but rather to present options and experience from other members as an aid to those who want to have an option available to them when they need an air filter.

Finally, the 3G TL does not have a MAF.

SouthernBoy

Yes, excellent point. Several times our HVAC service for our home tried to sell us charcoal furnace filters which were also washable. This would mean we would have to have a set of backup filters of some kind to use while the charcoal ones were drying. Same thing with a washable oiled type engine air filter.

jpgayan

Oil soaked filters attract and hold dirt. This is EXACTLY what a filter is supposed to do. If you don't see any dirt on your filter it means that it's either buried deeper in the grooves of the filter element where you can't easily see it or has passed through the filter into your engine.

SouthernBoy

I hate cars pointed out something several months back that has not been addressed before on these forums that I am aware of regarding after market filters. Fitment. Does the after market filter fit securely and have a seal that is as good as the OEM factory unit? This is a real concern because if it doesn't, debris can get past the seal and into the intake stream and engine. Not a good thing.

So around a month ago, I compared a Purolator filter to the fitment of the factory OEM filter and I noticed that the factory unit does NOT fit perfectly in the lower housing. I will slide fore and aft perhaps 1/8 of an inch. So did the Purolator.

Another thing I noticed about the dry element filters I have mentioned on this thread is that the better ones have two different filtering media. The intake stream side is not as firm as the side which faces the throttle body (the top side). This makes sense since you don't want the engine to be drawing in filtering media under WOT or any throttle opening for that matter.

SouthernBoy

This is not necessarily true. As I mentioned, our filters are mounted horizontally. This allows a fair amount of loose debris to fall back into the lower housing, which it does. Yes, there certainly will be some debris within the folds of the filtering media on the intake stream side, but not anywhere as much as what you will see with an oil wetted product.

The reason the K&N filters are oil wetted is because their media is sparse. If this media were dry, a bunch of crap would get by and into the engine. The oiling stops most of this. But as it traps dirt, its flow rate decreases.

If someone is of a mind to use a K&N filter, their best bet would be to watch it closely (depends upon the environment in the area where you live), and perhaps replace it a bit more frequently than a dry element unit. Washing and re-oiling can be problematic so go that route carefully.

Jesstzn

Any of you guys ever remember the oil bath filters?

SouthernBoy

Yes, I do. Never owned a vehicle that had one, though. I would not be surprised if part of the reasoning behind their use was to supply to the combustion chamber. Sort of like a "top oil" thing.

LaCostaRacer

I'm not seeing any real advantage to a K&N over paper for our cars and there are many more disadvantages: sticky throttle bodies, suspect filtering capabilities (despite the flawed test procedures from BobIsTheOilGuy- that's the only independent test I have at the moment), potential MAF sensor failures, and downtime (it takes time to both clean and dry filter before using car). I would need to buy two filters to solve the drytime issue and that is about $80 cost for no tangible improvement over stock performance. I could buy 4-6 Purolators for that cost and have 100+K miles worth of protection.

People looking for a performance upgrade should go to a CAI instead of dropping in a K&N into stock air box IMHO.

Jesstzn

Nope ... just to supply the media with constant oil ... reasoning was .. paper ones weren't perfected yet. Even after they were diesel long haul trucks still used them .

I hate cars

I wrote a post yesterday and I must've forgotten to send it. I'll rewrite in a few.

I fully agree with SouthernBoy here. Just quickly, I've noticed the factory filters have a softer and more durable rubber than some of the aftermarket filters. I ran a Fram filter and around 20K I checked it and the rubber was cracked all the way through. Factory seems to hold up indefinitely. Glue seams seem to be of better quality. Pleats are pretty deep. It seems to have not only oil on one side but some type of fabric and paper behind the fabric. I doubt you're going to find a better filtering air filter out there. OEMs are cheap. If they decided to use such a great filter, I would stick with it.

As for restriction, Honda would not go to all the trouble of having these great heads, vtec, two stage intake manifold and then leave 20hp on the table with a restrictive air filter. I've done the restriction tests on the intake with a new factory filter and there's no measurable restriction at full throttle. A K&N might flow more but if the factory filter already flows more air than the engine can handle and does so without posing a restriction, there's no gain to be had. Of course, this relates to a stock TL with stock airflow requirements. One thing to think about, the TL-S with it's 30 extra hp actually uses a smaller filter. That should show that the airfilter especially on the base model flows more than enough air. So since it's not a restriction you might as well use the one that filters the best.

I'll type up something more detailed in a few but that's my experience.

I hate cars

That's exactly how I feel. CAIs are great and I think 100% of the benefit is from the cooler air, not from whatever high flow filter they come with. Cold air with factory filtration would be the best of all worlds.

I've driven an old 1950s Buick with a straight 8 that had an oil bath filter along with several Briggs and Strattons. Also, the Beetle came with one, right? From what I remember, they did not like extreme g-forces too much.

graffixx

Thanks for this informative thread. I'm a total newbie when it comes to car parts and DIY.

I own a '05 TL Auto and will be purchasing a WIX air filter (49063) to replace.

LoveMyTL-S

Glad this thread was of some help to you. Welcome to AZ

vietxquangstah

iTrader: (7)

if only this thread would have been on here one day earlier, i could have saved myself $30!

i pulled the trigger on a K&n drop in i found on eBay friday, after seeing how dirty my current one was.

than one day later this thread pops up. dam!

nfnsquared

You're fine with a K&N. Been using one for 100K now on my 04TL. Throttle body is spotless, as is the top of the filter box. Last oil analysis showed lower than average silicon (and I live on a dirt road).

Ran one on my 89 Turbo Supra for 17 years and 165K before I sold it. Never had a single problem.

You can PM Heeltoe as well if you need additional assurances. He runs K&N in his TSX as well.

I hate cars

No, no, and no. You can get away with using one but you're ingesting more dirt period. If you don't care, fine, but don't mislead people that it's perfectly fine. You could run with no air filter and the car would still make it to that mileage, it doesn't mean you should. I've seen compressor wheel abrasion from K&Ns on my own car for over 13 years and I've seen it stop over the last 4 years with an EAO filter. I've seen what cylinder walls look like in dusty conditions after decent mileage with a K&N even though the car ran fine. So saying it still runs with a K&N means nothing. I've got multiple data points showing that excessive wear occurs.

ez12a

mang reading this thread makes me feel relieved the prev owner (or the owner before him) put in a AEM CAI with the dryflow filter (grey filter element).

nfnsquared

Hehe, IHC says no, no, and no and I say:

Yes, yes, and yes. You'll be fine. Here's my "data points":

About a month after I sold the Supra, the guy who bought my Supra called me and asked me to come over. He pulled the head at 170K to do some porting and wanted to show me something. I thought "what the heck happened". When I got there he had the biggest shit eating grin you ever saw. All 6 cylinder walls were spotless and still had the original factory etching in them.

So to sum up, 170K on the Supra: spotless cylinders, 100K+ on my TL which currently is getting 31 MPG highway on winter gas, below average silicon, runs as strong as day 1.

Again, the Azine vendor Mr. Heeltoe runs K&N on his shop's TSX. You can ask him as well. Here's his article where he discusses K&N (among other subjects):

http://www.heeltoeauto.com/pitboard/?p=849

And I challenge anyone to produce data or test results proving that K&N damages engines. I'll tell you right now it won't happen. READ MY LIPS: IT WON'T HAPPEN! Some folks will try to tell you it damages engines, but they will never offer any empirical data or concrete proof of damage.

Jesstzn

I ran one in my Passat for 3 years and during the first year I dessicated and weighed filter media and did swipe tests and like yourself I found no abnormal particulate on the intake side of the K&N.

Let the wives tales fly...

Turbonut

iTrader: (1)

I'll join the group as I've run and still run a K&N filter on the modified RX-7 Turbo for 15 years and no problems. Never a need to clean the AFM, original unit.

I hate cars

Awww, my two favorite girls in the same thread again.

I bet you somehow forgot to post that valuable bit of extra info the first time. Doesn't sound made up at all. Oops, I forgot, my GN threw all 6 rods because I was running a K&N, forgot to say that last time.... Sounds just as believable.

Then again, your Supra must have been a one off special engine to have cylinder wall "etching". Would you mind to explain the "etching" to me?

Good mpg is a testament to the tune, not wear. The engine would have to be extremely worn out for it to make any sort of difference in mpg with a good tune. How about you read some books or better yet, get some real world experience so I don't have to constantly keep teaching you simple things. Stop posting irrelevant information.

Irrelevant, he does no long term duarbility testing with teardowns. Nothing against the guy, he's a great mechanic but saying "I ran a K&N and my engine did not fail" is not proof that K&Ns are ok.
Here we go, the Google warrior is at it again. I don't need Google to back up my real life studies. I'm not in competition on acurazine as you are, I'm here to help people, not pretend to be the know it all as you are. I'll take my first hand experience over some 2nd or 3rd hand article on the internet. If I had no real life experience as you do, I would probably be doing the same thing, researching via Google. Thank God I don't have to do that. You give advice on here but all you're doing is rephrasing whatever article you got it from. Just post a link from now on and stop pretending that you know what you're talking about, it would save all of us a ton of trouble.

The #1 source is myself. Compressor wheel abrasion and cylinder wall wear that went away when I switched filters. This was over a total of 17 years and 5 teardowns. I think I know a little more about it than some kid in his mom's basement reading Google articles.

It's not like I've never used K&N, I used them for 13 years, I have no agenda to push, only results.

But since you want it, here's a bit of Google for you:

K&N acknowleges OEMs are voiding warranties for running their junk. http://www.knfilters.com/warrantyletter.htm

Here's cylinder bore wear due to a K&N: http://forums.lr4x4.com/index.php?showtopic=17362

Post #2 here: http://www.benzworld.org/forums/w211...ly-damage.html

I can play the Google game too. I've refrained so far but what the hell, I'll lower myself for a little bit. This was less than 1 minute worth of searching. Got to go but I can post as many links as you like.

To conclude, READ MY LIPS: You're wrong again.


How many street miles does this car see per year? You wouldn't leave out something that huge, right?

Turbonut

iTrader: (1)

Play nice with the comments as your temper is starting to rise.
The car has 197,000 miles, maybe 170,000 with the K&N. First engine broke a seal when it spiked to 15 lbs at 155,000 miles and the replacemnet has about 42,000 miles.

ggesq

iTrader: (1)

Knock off the name calling NOW

nfnsquared

IHC, I regret that you can't enter into a disagreement without resorting to name calling....

Really? Really? You apparently don't know much about Supras. All the 3G Supras had it (etching, cross hatch, whatever). It helps keep the walls lubed during break-in.

Please, everyone, go read this link^^^^. And you will find what IHC left out: Not a single manufacturer has proven that using a K&N filter damages engines. Not one. Zero, nada, zilch....

Again, no proof. Just some guy posting a photo showing wear and blaming it on K&N. Also, read post #7. That says it all.

Again, no proof, just some guys making claims. And some guys countering their claims.

Your first link is the best and it clearly illustrates that none of the auto manufacturers can prove anything, nor will they. Geeze, by now you'd think at least one of them could have come up with some proof, but they haven't....AND THEY WON'T.

vietxquangstah

iTrader: (7)

ez12a

I hate cars

My temper is doing just fine, don't worry about me, worry about your misinformation.

I guess I'm going to have to pull this out of you little by little since it's impossible for you to say what car this is. Is this your "9 second" rotary, is this a daily driver street car, and do you expect me to believe that ANY turbo rotary even bone stock made it to 170,000 miles on the original engine? You're purposely leaving out details.

Regardless, it's pointless as I never said the engine would blow up or whatever you guys are assuming. I've said it will allow additional dirt in vs a paper filter. Draw your own conclusions whether or not you think dirt is bad for an engine.
Normally this would not matter but no one that has been around engines would call the cross hatching or hone marks "etching". The hone marks are not there to "keep the walls lubed during break-in" WTF! They're there to hold oil and help lube and seal the rings. It's just another clue that you have not been around engines much yet you give advice like you're an expert.
Are you capable of putting anything together yourself? I'll spell it out for you: Several OEMs were voiding warranties because of the quantity of dirt the K&Ns let through. They're locked in a legal battle and of course, K&N will claim everything else but the filter caused failures but with any common sense you can see what's going on there. Let's not forget, this is K&N's own site, there's no way it could be bias.

Oh no you don't. Trying to purposely mislead members of this site to push your own agenda is sad. Let's see a couple quotes from the engine builders in that thread:

"It's the most common fault with free flowing air filters.........performance at a cost!
I can't understand why everyone wants to fit those things to engines. For racers...OK, you'd expect some attrician on a unit that has a limited life expectancy...but for everyday use or 'outback' work it's best leave the standard filters in or go for some type of pre-filter if possible."

My workshop in Dubai sends their performance engines back to JE on a regular basis..... the comments from JE are the same every time.... "you wouldn't believe the ammount of silt we found inside that engine!".

Still not convinced? How about this one:

"We see this kind of damage a lot on:

A/ Overland vehicles fitted with K&N or similair filters

B/ With tight fisted farmers that blow out there filters not replace them

C/ when people fit turbo diesel air filters to tdi's (Air filter is much shorter)


Makes you want to cry

Jim "


Sure, that's exactly what those quotes sound like.

I would think the engine builders and JE quoted above might, just might know a little more than you... or is one of the largest piston manufacturers and builders not a good enough source?

Back to the main point, I have proof, first hand proof beyond a doubt. You can argue all you want but it does not change the fact that the K&N caused compressor wheel abrasion and cylinder wall wear.

Do you even know why you're running a K&N on the TL? Again, I've tested the intake tract for restriction with the factory element and there's no measurable restriction. Performance would not improve if you removed the filter all together so why again are you running a K&N?


Oh, and since we're playing the link game....

Here's straight from Honda:
"With low-restriction air filters, you run the risk of
premature engine wear and contamination. Some
of these filters just don’t work as well as stock air
filters do. Microscopic debris can get past the
filter, causing premature wear of the pistons,
piston rings, cylinders, and valves. It can also foul
up the throttle body and the components of the
intake manifold runner control (IMRC), intake
manifold tuning (IMT), and idle air control (IAC)
systems.
So what’s the bottom line here? Tell your
customers they’re taking a really big risk if they
run the vehicle with a cold air intake system or a
low-restriction air filter. Engine damage caused by
these items isn’t covered by warranty, and that
could take a big bite out of their pocketbook."

Eh, what would Honda know... Some of the diesel guys doing filter testing. This is how much dirt gets past each filter in the test....

TOTAL DIRT PASSING THE FILTER DURING THE TEST. This is how much dirt your engine will take in if you use the filter for the duration that would cause the filter to become "dirty" enough to need replacement or cleaning. The "Dirt Passing The Filter" is the dirt collected by the "Post Filter" during the test.
FILTER DIRT IN GRAMS PASSED
AC Delco 0.4 g
Baldwin 1.1g
AFE Pro Guard 7 1.8g
Mystery Bargain 2.4g
Amsoil 2.7g
WIX/Napa 4.4g
Purolator 5.0g
K&N 6.0g
UNI 7.9g
Note: The Purolator was reported to have a seal malfunction during the test and passed more dirt than it would have with a good seal.
Interesting. SPICER

Hopefully you can realize the harm in 6g of dirt vs 0.4 for the paper. Heck, the K&N only lets 12 times the amount of dirt through. It must be good for the engine. Look at the Amsoil filter, the one where I noticed much less cylinder wall wear in my GN, it filters over twice as good as a K&N. Hmmmm, maybe my real life results were valid..... Imagine that.


A master tech's quote:

Ford_Doctor
Senior User
Garage is empty, add now Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 214



From what I have been seeing in the service bay is that the K&N filters don't do a good job at all. I don't know if it's the filter or the installation but most that I have had to remove to make repairs have shown signs of leaks (i.e. dirt in the intake) Many of the installation jobs were poorly done with inlet tubes and hoses hard to align. From what I have read, the stock Donaldson is pretty much superior to all others and was designed specifically for the truck and engine. If I owned one, I would leave the stock filter in without a doubt and use the $200 for a more useful mod or way cooler accessory!

Dirtbikes but still applicable:


danny86
03-15-2010, 04:42 PM

Its still at the shop now, the mechanic told me he doesnt know why K&N sells these types of air filters for a dirtbike. Sucked in too much dirt and now its looking at major repairs.

heykenny
03-15-2010, 04:49 PM

yep.. K&N filters are worthless..... they have a good marketing dept......... one good weekend in the sand and you can kiss your engine goodbye

souphmars
03-15-2010, 08:34 PM

I heard about this happening to a friend of mine with his quad. It was on a 250r. He has never used k&n since, and has criticized them ever since. After reading this I believe him. That really sucks. How did it happen? Is it because of a poorly made filter? Not sealing good?

mxn4life
03-15-2010, 09:14 PM

Its still at the shop now, the mechanic told me he doesnt know why K&N sells these types of air filters for a dirtbike. Sucked in too much dirt and now its looking at major repairs.


Uh oh, here's an actual ISO test showing just how poorly K&Ns perform....

http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html

Nfn- Would you like me to continue, this was only 5 minutes worth of google. This is only for your benefit, I've known this all along without googling it. Glad I could help you, you're welcome!

nfnsquared

^^^Wow, sorry you wasted your time posting all of that he said/she said information. Because that's all it is....

And again, you couldn't do it without making insults. So sad...

I'm still looking for proof that use of K&N damages engines....

I hate cars

Speechless, huh...

denny crane

Information overload!!!!!

So should I return the Purolator air filter I bought last week and purchase something else?

I hate cars

You'll be fine no matter what you buy. Me and that dude just don't like each other but I don't HATE K&Ns, I just think they're pointless and any paper filter is going to filter better. Any paper filter is going to be fine. The biggest thing is to make sure it seals up in the airbox good. That's one of the biggest flaws of some aftermaket filters is the fit in the airbox. I still think the factory three stage filter is the best filtering but you'll be fine for many miles with the Purolator.

I hate cars

Back on track.... I've noticed that aftermarket companies whether it's an air filter or oil filter will consolidate as many items as they can. If a 3.0 and 3.2 use the same gasket and the only difference is the depth of the pleats, they will use the shallower pleats to cut down on the number of products and save money. Obviously deeper pleats will hold more dirt and flow more air but they know they can get away with it 99% of the time so they do.

Same with some oil filters, one model might call for a larger filter. So the can is physically bigger but inside they use the exact same small filter media. It's actually very common not that I agree with the practice. I think we should have the choice to decide if a smaller filter is "good enough", not be tricked into it.


I ran into trouble with the one and only Fram I used on the TL. The gasket was cracked all the way though when I checked on it. The fit and reliability of the gasket seems to vary greatly from manufacturer to manufacturer. The OEM filter has never hardened, cracked, or leaked. That's why I stick with it.

nfnsquared

Hmmmm, we agree....imagine that.....how about we leave it alone?