GL1800Riders Forums banner

K&N Test

1K views 18 replies 12 participants last post by  Racer57 
#1 ·
#2 ·
I've been running K&N filters since the early 70's with no problems. Hundreds of thousands of miles. At one point I was driving over 160 miles per day round trip to work. Right now my F6B , my Grand Marquis and my Grand Cherokee all have K&N. My F150 runs a Banks cotton gauze filter. At the point I was driving 160+ miles a day I lived 2 miles down a gravel road. Paper filters were only lasting a month. I lived on that road for 17 years.The K&N would go six months between cleaning. My Grand Marquis has 162,000 miles on a K&N. Doesn't use a drop of oil between changes. I'm gonna keep running with the horse that got me to the race. Maybe its not the best but its most certainly good enough for me.
 
#4 ·
The pipe theory only depends on of rest of engine is tuned to meet pipe requirements for a proper running engine. If one just slaps pipes on they from what I seen and felt loose power.
Never been a fan of K&N but have a hard time believing the Uni foam filters preform so poorly in their tests if they are maintained properly . Most I believe either over spray or under spray oil on foam filters and do not let them sit prior to running them. If Uni Filter made a filter for wing , that's what I would be running. But that's just me . I buy 2 uni's at a time and have one clean on shelf oiled ready to roll . Assuring oil seeps all the way into foam . Both elements that is .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Racer57
#5 ·
I've always been a fan of Baldwin. I prefer dry type filters. I have no desire to wash filters in solvent and mess with oil treatment or sprays. I don't think K&N really makes a practical difference for a consumer product. They have some nice looking filters for show type applications that I think is neat.

I always figured I would give K&N a chance when Catipillar starts using them in their off-road equipment products. But I have never seen an owner of a big bulldozer ever put one in.
 
#7 ·
I would be surprised if a filter that flowed more air did not flow more dirt, the question then becomes if the additional dirt is enough to do serious damage to the engine. I don't know the answer to that, but for me the minimal gains you "may" get in power is not worth taking the chance. I tried one on a old pickup truck I have a few years back and did not see any benefit.
 
#12 ·
I had a '97 Chev pickup that came with a K&N installed in in .I bought it in "99. When I went to clean the filter after awhile of owning it, I noticed an oily/dirt film past the filter towards the carburetor. Cleaned it out, threw out the K&N and replaced it with a OEM filter. Never used one since......Ken
 
#8 ·
There OK I found no difference in performance or fuel mileage while using the K&N the trouble is servicing them there fiddly IMO so it takes a lot of time to properly clean and dry and re oil it so now I pop in a aftermarket OEM type filter while I take my time cleaning and re oiling the K&N for the next change AIR BOX O RING has to be taken on and off with my method :thumbup:
 
#9 ·
It would be interesting to see them do a dyno test on the same filters, on the same truck, same day etc. And then post all the charts versus giving us an "opinion" that it did not increase horsepower based on seat of the pants or what ever criteria the author seems to want to push. While I don't doubt that peak horsepower is not changed or has very little change, I am curious about power changes in the lower rpm's and mid range due to less restriction to air flow. I am thinking when a piston starts moving down its like a syringe having to suck the air into the chamber. When using real syringes less restriction means easier to pull with less effort, but still thinking it got the same amount of air. The air just moved slower and took more energy. So how does this translate to engines. Different people always give me different opinions and experts seem not to all agree. So for me I would like to see Dyno charts on the same truck, same day, etc to see what difference the reduced restriction makes in a controlled manner and not just an authors opinion.
 
#10 ·
I used K&N filters in almost everything. It's takes no time at all to clean and oil them. Buy them once per vehicle and your done with buying filters for the life of the vehicle. The K&N in my Harley has been on my two previous Harleys. To each his own. Now lets start a discussion on motor oil I haven't seen that one today!
Bill
 
#11 ·
Did any of you notice that the efficiency rating on those filters from best to worst was only 2%. I mean really. The K&N was only 2% worse than the very best. Much ado over nothing. I bet there has never been an engine failure attributed to a K&N filter that was properly installed. You guys are paranoid. I put over 200,000 miles on a vehicle in a 5 year period while driving 4 miles a day on a dirt road. I know that K&N did its job on my vehicles. Living on that road for 17 years I probably saved hundreds of dollars in air filters.
 
#14 ·
Go full out on the dyno. Run a test with no filter and no mufflers too.

I suspect that the either the throttle body, intake manifold and/or valves are the airflow-in limiting factor(s). And, the exhaust valves or headers limit the airflow-out. If so, freer flowing air filters and mufflers won't change much.

I also suspect that the airflow limits only come into play during WIde Open Throttle. Personally, I don't spend much time at WOT because my wife's nails start to leave marks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: WVGuy
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top