View Poll Results: A poll
Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll
K&N v OEM Paper
#11
01-11-2006 | 10:00 PM
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 156
From:
RE: K&N v OEM Paper
You could be right, with stock paper you can hear the air being drawn in through the ducting.
If there is a torque increse then it would be beneficial, the city I live is all hills, a little like San Francisco.
I'll keep you posted (no pun intended).
[IMG]local://upfiles/8150/028CC89208AA4FC89DE3EAECA641FFD2.jpg[/IMG]
If there is a torque increse then it would be beneficial, the city I live is all hills, a little like San Francisco.
I'll keep you posted (no pun intended).
[IMG]local://upfiles/8150/028CC89208AA4FC89DE3EAECA641FFD2.jpg[/IMG]
#12
01-12-2006 | 05:42 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 555
From: California, SF Bay Area
RE: K&N v OEM Paper
ORIGINAL: Lugnut
Okay, let's "get real." That argument is both ignorant and lame. MB engineers have to design the intake system to withstand the rigors of everyday driving (varying weather conditions) by everyday people. They don't design high-volume, mass-market cars for performance junkies.
Internal combustion engines are essentially air pumps. When you restrict air input (or output) as the MB engineers do, you restrict efficiency. When you eliminate restrictions, you increase hp. Yes, it's that simple.
If you understand what's behind the K&N design (it's not rocket science) then you should be able to figure out whether you should use one or not. For example, I wouldn't get one if you live three miles down a dusty dirt road. Neither would I cruise at 90 mph on a rainy day with one.
Another consideration is cost. It takes awhile, but the K&N will eventually cost less than replacing paper filters.
Whether or not you get one should be based on personal preference, not scare tactics by people who obviously don't know what they're talking about and are simply echoing something "determined" in an Internet forum. To get the max effect, however, you need to remove other restrictions in the airflow stream.
Be real. Use your head. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Let's be real..... If the engineers at Mercedes Benz could have gained extra HP just by changing an Air Filter, don't you think they would have already done it?
Internal combustion engines are essentially air pumps. When you restrict air input (or output) as the MB engineers do, you restrict efficiency. When you eliminate restrictions, you increase hp. Yes, it's that simple.
If you understand what's behind the K&N design (it's not rocket science) then you should be able to figure out whether you should use one or not. For example, I wouldn't get one if you live three miles down a dusty dirt road. Neither would I cruise at 90 mph on a rainy day with one.
Another consideration is cost. It takes awhile, but the K&N will eventually cost less than replacing paper filters.
Whether or not you get one should be based on personal preference, not scare tactics by people who obviously don't know what they're talking about and are simply echoing something "determined" in an Internet forum. To get the max effect, however, you need to remove other restrictions in the airflow stream.
Be real. Use your head. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Obviously your a fan of the K&N. I'm NOT! I've used them in the past and have always had equal performance as paper with a lot less hassle.
After being in the industry as long as I have, you won't catch one anywhere near "ANY" of my vehicles. More problems than their worth. (Specifically if you don't "know what you're doing with them)
You say they save money in the long run.... how do you figure ? Is it because you don't have to change it as often ? What happens if by chance you accidently over oil it ? ... whoops... now you've just cost yourself a MASS Airflow Sensor at around $300.00 --- there goes any hint of savings.
Put it in perspective, if the K&N is such a good air filter then why doesn't every car manufacturer install one from the factory? To Date... NONE provide one that I know of!
Plain and simple, it's called marketing, and Damn good marketing at that!
Peace!
#13
01-12-2006 | 12:02 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,766
From: Georgia, USA
RE: K&N v OEM Paper
Well, if you follow directions and oil properly, your oiling argument turns to poop.
The reason manufacturers don't use filters like the K&N is because it's not as good as a restrictive paper filter at stopping large amounts of water or dust. I already addressed this point. They also need to be cleaned occasionally and that's too much of a burden for the regular folks.
Sorry, but you have nothing but hearsay to support your argument. The only evidence you have is a story of some dumb *** who put too much oil on his filter. Don't be a dumb *** and there won't be a problem. Also, you need to realize the real reason MB doesn't use high-flow air filters. Hence, your argument is both ignorant and lame.
BTW, I don't have a K&N on my car. It's not a matter of whether or not I'm a K&N fan. It's looking at this whole thing objectively. I'll hop over to your side if you can show me some evidence to support your argument.
The reason manufacturers don't use filters like the K&N is because it's not as good as a restrictive paper filter at stopping large amounts of water or dust. I already addressed this point. They also need to be cleaned occasionally and that's too much of a burden for the regular folks.
Sorry, but you have nothing but hearsay to support your argument. The only evidence you have is a story of some dumb *** who put too much oil on his filter. Don't be a dumb *** and there won't be a problem. Also, you need to realize the real reason MB doesn't use high-flow air filters. Hence, your argument is both ignorant and lame.
BTW, I don't have a K&N on my car. It's not a matter of whether or not I'm a K&N fan. It's looking at this whole thing objectively. I'll hop over to your side if you can show me some evidence to support your argument.
#14
01-12-2006 | 01:23 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 523
From:
RE: K&N v OEM Paper
After being in the industry as long as I have, you won't catch one anywhere near "ANY" of my vehicles. More problems than their worth. (Specifically if you don't "know what you're doing with them)
Here is a link to an interesting air filter test.
#15
01-12-2006 | 04:14 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,766
From: Georgia, USA
RE: K&N v OEM Paper
Some guy in a Z28 club I was in did some bench testing comparing the K&N to a Fram paper filter. Apparently, the Fram flowed better. The Fram also showed consistently better results in dyno testing by other members, though I always suspect dyno testing results when only 5 or 10 hp are involved. I guess that means the K&N filters more particles than a paper Fram? Whatever. But, there you go.
#16
01-13-2006 | 05:35 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 555
From: California, SF Bay Area
RE: K&N v OEM Paper
ORIGINAL: Lugnut
Well, if you follow directions and oil properly, your oiling argument turns to poop.
The reason manufacturers don't use filters like the K&N is because it's not as good as a restrictive paper filter at stopping large amounts of water or dust. I already addressed this point. They also need to be cleaned occasionally and that's too much of a burden for the regular folks.
Sorry, but you have nothing but hearsay to support your argument. The only evidence you have is a story of some dumb *** who put too much oil on his filter. Don't be a dumb *** and there won't be a problem. Also, you need to realize the real reason MB doesn't use high-flow air filters. Hence, your argument is both ignorant and lame.
BTW, I don't have a K&N on my car. It's not a matter of whether or not I'm a K&N fan. It's looking at this whole thing objectively. I'll hop over to your side if you can show me some evidence to support your argument.
Well, if you follow directions and oil properly, your oiling argument turns to poop.
The reason manufacturers don't use filters like the K&N is because it's not as good as a restrictive paper filter at stopping large amounts of water or dust. I already addressed this point. They also need to be cleaned occasionally and that's too much of a burden for the regular folks.
Sorry, but you have nothing but hearsay to support your argument. The only evidence you have is a story of some dumb *** who put too much oil on his filter. Don't be a dumb *** and there won't be a problem. Also, you need to realize the real reason MB doesn't use high-flow air filters. Hence, your argument is both ignorant and lame.
BTW, I don't have a K&N on my car. It's not a matter of whether or not I'm a K&N fan. It's looking at this whole thing objectively. I'll hop over to your side if you can show me some evidence to support your argument.
I'm giving an opinion based on "EXPERIENCE", That's IT! Take it for what it's worth.
When it comes down to it, I really don't care who uses K&N's or who doesn't.
My Opinion is ... Stick with stock!
But hey, what do I know....
I've only been doing this for a living on and off for the past 20+ years.
By the way.... here's some more opinions on the subject. ---> http://www.carcounsel.com/K&N.htm
#17
01-13-2006 | 05:52 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,766
From: Georgia, USA
RE: K&N v OEM Paper
Like they say, opinions are like ********. You and everyone else has one. Rest assured. Yours has been duly noted.
I didn't realize you were in the business of scientifically debunking K&N air filters for over 20 years. Golly, I'm impressed. Let's see your data. Wha? You don't have any data? That's what I thought.
BTW, that link leads to garbage data. I recommend not using it in the future to spare yourself from further embarassment. There's not enough info to make an informed decision. How the tests were conducted for example, which is important to know in dyno testing. As soon as I noticed the claim of a ".1hp" loss I quit reading. One-tenth of a hp? Come on! Are you serious? That was one of the first "tests." But being a scientist for over 20 years, you should already know all of this.
I didn't realize you were in the business of scientifically debunking K&N air filters for over 20 years. Golly, I'm impressed. Let's see your data. Wha? You don't have any data? That's what I thought.
BTW, that link leads to garbage data. I recommend not using it in the future to spare yourself from further embarassment. There's not enough info to make an informed decision. How the tests were conducted for example, which is important to know in dyno testing. As soon as I noticed the claim of a ".1hp" loss I quit reading. One-tenth of a hp? Come on! Are you serious? That was one of the first "tests." But being a scientist for over 20 years, you should already know all of this.
#18
01-13-2006 | 06:20 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 555
From: California, SF Bay Area
RE: K&N v OEM Paper
You really need to get that wad out of your panties.... it's effecting your better judgement. I really had more repect for you than that.
You are beginning to remind of someone else around here ( Kajtek1 ) who offered up no "REAL" advice on ANY Subject, but tried to argue with anyone and everyone.
Give it a rest already..... No mater what EITHER of us say about anything here, people will contiue to do whatever they want.
Take a chill pill dude!
#19
01-13-2006 | 08:15 PM
Super Moderator
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,073
RE: K&N v OEM Paper
Lugnut is correct in his first post analysis. The intake is a little louder, but sounds nice, not like some big vacuum cleaner. If there is any performance gain, it is the response right off idle which is crisp as it should be with good fuel. My fuel economy WENT DOWN 5% or so with the new filters (same thing happened to my Ford Explorer). Probably do to more power being produced. I have never seen actual dyno testing on a 320 engine, so who really knows.
I changed to K & N because I think disposible filters are a waste of money and if you drive alot, as I do, you change them often. For me, they pay for themselves in less than 1 1/2 years or so. I don't mind cleaning them and when I do , I remove all the intake cover parts and clean them in simple green (not the elements though). Takes about an hour to clean the filters properly, clean the parts and reassemble the works. You need a torques screwdriver to do the work. I think they are worth the money unless you are a fuel economy nut.
I changed to K & N because I think disposible filters are a waste of money and if you drive alot, as I do, you change them often. For me, they pay for themselves in less than 1 1/2 years or so. I don't mind cleaning them and when I do , I remove all the intake cover parts and clean them in simple green (not the elements though). Takes about an hour to clean the filters properly, clean the parts and reassemble the works. You need a torques screwdriver to do the work. I think they are worth the money unless you are a fuel economy nut.
#20
01-13-2006 | 08:45 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,766
From: Georgia, USA
RE: K&N v OEM Paper
You don't have to tell me about Kajtek1. I'm the one he always argued with.
You came across wrong. You pretended to be some high and mighty all-seeing guru of air filters whose word is the last we ever need to hear. Actually, you don't know squat and you proved it with my help. It doesn't matter how long you've been turning wrenches. These are different skills, kumquat.
Now you're pretending to be an expert in panty wads. You're any kind of expert you want to be, arent' you... dooood?
You came across wrong. You pretended to be some high and mighty all-seeing guru of air filters whose word is the last we ever need to hear. Actually, you don't know squat and you proved it with my help. It doesn't matter how long you've been turning wrenches. These are different skills, kumquat.
Now you're pretending to be an expert in panty wads. You're any kind of expert you want to be, arent' you... dooood?