K and N drop in filter

IMO just the cost savings over time is worth it and it does flow air easier than any paper filters. I'm getting one eventually, just not a high priority right now.
 
Definitely makes a little more noise when you get on it. As mentioned above, the savings in paper filters pays for the k&n over a short period.
 
To me, that study/test shows that the, what I believe to be stock filter, performed better in regards to doing its job of filtering dirt. No claims to HP performance or mentioned anything about HP performance.

One can assume that the K&N will net you a gain in HP compared to a stock filter since it allows more air flow but you will also gain more dirt in the engine. Which I'm sure everyone already knows this.
 
From the article

Does it flow better? At very high airflow volumes, probably. BUT, our engines CAN’T flow that much air unless super-modified, so what is the point? The stock filter will flow MORE THAN ENOUGH AIR to give you ALL THE HORSEPOWER the engine has to give.
 
squiggy said:
This is the first I have heard of this in relation to performance. Are there any other studies to back up this one?
Click to expand...
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm

This article also illustrates how, by swapping filtration material, the airflow difference isn't enough to make a difference in performance but the filtration difference is significant. The last line sums it up nicely

"I do know that on a relatively stock car with a properly sized air filter, you indeed have very little if any performance to gain by swapping filtration material".

And although K&N has said that nobody has come to them with any proof of oiled filters damaging maf sensors, plenty of people have indeed had this happen. Not worth it IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top