K N Air filter on Ford V-10--Good???

For the cost of one K&N ($51.68) and service kit ($12.10) I can buy four paper filters at ($13.15) all from Amazon that will fit my coach. Throw in an extra $1.97 and I have five. Considering a paper filter should last to at least 30K miles under normal usage. I've been averaging about 7K miles a year so one paper filter is going to last me four years or 20 years using five at the cost of one K&N. Although I enjoy my current coach I hope to be in a DP in about five years. I'll let the next owner spend the money.

I will state that my daily driver, 98 Honda Accord with 194,000 miles has had a K&N for about 70% of those miles and shows no signs of slowing down. If your driving habits include a lot of miles a year then a cleanable K&N is a good choice. For a coach that only sees a few thousand miles a year maybe not.

I've run them for years. I put 245,000 miles on a 7.3 Ford and they were hard miles on a farm and hauling all types of trailers all over the US including a bunch of FEMA sleds. Still run one and clean it at oil changes, check the vanes in the turbo and the intake and go on. I would buy another one.

427435 wrote:

Fiesta wrote:
Opinions, opinions... Now facts...
I've used K&N's on over 20 vehicles; motorcycles, cars, pick ups and RV's. Over 400,000 miles, and over 25 years. NEVER any problem, never a dirty intake tract, and never never a blown engine.
They are more expensive initially but are cheaper in the long run. I always get 1-3 more mpg, (.1-.3 on an RV) Even the wife can feel the extra power at all engine speeds(less restriction). They do not plug up if they wet. And I can go thousands of miles longer between cleanings.

Those aren't facts-------they are anecdotes.

The extra "power" is likely the extra noise coming from the engine compartment.

Again, its impossible for an air cleaner change (or removing the air cleaner altogether) to give a mpg improvement on a fuel injected engine.

Noise does NOT equate to a factual improvement....Like I said, what I found after using the K&N for just 90 days showed just how poor the filtering was and that I was not able to afford the possible consequences.

topflite51 wrote:
Not being an engineering guru by any means (and not a K & N supporter) how does a filter plug up 3 times faster, while capturing fewer particulates? To me the numbers in the test do not match the statement. It would appear to me, that if the filter plugs up 3 times faster that at least in theory it is either capturing more or smaller particulates than other filters. Could it be that for this test and similar tests that the filter was improperly prepared for use? I don't give much credence to these kinds of tests because no matter what they claim, they are never independent in their results. I take their results with a grain of salt, just as I take claims of up to X% in performance enhancements by others. What this report shows me is that GM has the ability to produce at least one thing that is superior, just wish they could do that in other things that they produce.If you have the ability and time to maintain this style of filter, then by all means use them if you want. Will it give you the performance enhancement you are seeking well that is another question for another time.

An air cleaner is considered plugged when the restriction across it raises a certain amount. Actually, the best filtering efficiency for a oil-wetted filter comes when it is well coated with dirt.

Fiesta wrote:
Opinions, opinions... Now facts...
I've used K&N's on over 20 vehicles; motorcycles, cars, pick ups and RV's. Over 400,000 miles, and over 25 years. NEVER any problem, never a dirty intake tract, and never never a blown engine.
They are more expensive initially but are cheaper in the long run. I always get 1-3 more mpg, (.1-.3 on an RV) Even the wife can feel the extra power at all engine speeds(less restriction). They do not plug up if they wet. And I can go thousands of miles longer between cleanings.

Those aren't facts-------they are anecdotes.

The extra "power" is likely the extra noise coming from the engine compartment.

Again, its impossible for an air cleaner change (or removing the air cleaner altogether) to give a mpg improvement on a fuel injected engine.

That was a pretty good test of air filters and I've read others like that. Typical K&N performance, loads of dirt transmission and again mirrors other tests.

The rapid restriction time with a constant dirt feed is probably due to K&N having a lot less surface area than a pleated filter....again noted in other reports.

Conclusion, K&N should not be on an engine that one cares about as it will ingest more dirt than conventional construction. This is not opinion, this is well documented fact by credible test agency vs. seat-of-the-pants opinions.

Opinions, opinions... Now facts...
I've used K&N's on over 20 vehicles; motorcycles, cars, pick ups and RV's. Over 400,000 miles, and over 25 years. NEVER any problem, never a dirty intake tract, and never never a blown engine.
They are more expensive initially but are cheaper in the long run. I always get 1-3 more mpg, (.1-.3 on an RV) Even the wife can feel the extra power at all engine speeds(less restriction). They do not plug up if they wet. And I can go thousands of miles longer between cleanings.

Not being an engineering guru by any means (and not a K & N supporter) how does a filter plug up 3 times faster, while capturing fewer particulates? To me the numbers in the test do not match the statement. It would appear to me, that if the filter plugs up 3 times faster that at least in theory it is either capturing more or smaller particulates than other filters. Could it be that for this test and similar tests that the filter was improperly prepared for use? I don't give much credence to these kinds of tests because no matter what they claim, they are never independent in their results. I take their results with a grain of salt, just as I take claims of up to X% in performance enhancements by others. What this report shows me is that GM has the ability to produce at least one thing that is superior, just wish they could do that in other things that they produce.If you have the ability and time to maintain this style of filter, then by all means use them if you want. Will it give you the performance enhancement you are seeking well that is another question for another time.

Oil wetted air filters are a bad idea. Besides letting more and larger particulars of dirt into your engine, you risk your MAF sensor getting fouled up.

No way they can give you improved mpg in a fuel injected engine. The MAF sensor tells the computer how much air is ACTUALLY flowing into the engine and the computer injects the correct amount of fuel for the air flow. If air flow increases, so does the fuel flow.

As for the dirt, read:


ISO air filter test


If you don't want to read the whole technical report, consider the following from the report:


In 60 minutes the AC Filter accumulated 574gms of dirt and passed only 0.4gms. After only 24 minutes the K&N had accumulated 221gms of dirt but passed 7.0gms. Compared to the AC, the K&N “plugged up” nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt. See the data tables for a complete summary of these comparisons.

I don't think they help.
I hate cleaning / oiling filters.
If you skip oiling they only filter things the size of a brick or bigger.
Have one on my jeep, it was there when I bought it.

I do believe replacing a convoluted restrictive intake plumbing system is worth is worth some WOT power, but as was pointed out above, nothing at cruise.

Gotta watch out with the v10's, particularly older ones had a habit of injesting water in the rain, sometimes trashing the filter to the point where the engine would not run. You would not want to do anything that would increase the chances of that.