K & N filter change

Double post

No matter how easy you make it for air to get into the engine, it all has to get crammed through the DPF on the way out.

catfishmontana wrote:
But there is no performance gains by changing to a K&N. Maybe 1 horsepower? No way you could tell a difference. Even 5 horsepower you could not tell a difference. Bang for buck, it's a big loser.

The benefit will come when the exhaust is freed up as well. Agreed that the gains are of the order of 10+ hp/torque, and at revs out of normal driving range, and that the butt dyno is not sensitive enough to pick up on that. That said, the fact that it is reusable and the engine "seems" to run a little smoother / easier at launch is god enough for me. Other than that, hard to notice a difference. I would get a cat back exhaust but I am afraid that I will get exhaust drone and that is unacceptable for me at this time.

Well I just bought one for my truck, in my opinion there is no change in power. The idea that I like is the fact that I just clean and reuse. To me that's a good thing, I keep my vehicles for a long time so it's a benefit. I never had any issues with them and have used them since the 80s.

But there is no performance gains by changing to a K&N. Maybe 1 horsepower? No way you could tell a difference. Even 5 horsepower you could not tell a difference. Bang for buck, it's a big loser.

nevadanick wrote:
... I, yes I personally had dust go through a K&N and have not used one since. The conditions that i was in were not ordinary. I never had that problem with OEM filter.

And therein lies the rub. ;) I am not surprised at your experience, because if one uses the K&N in overly dusty conditions, dust will get through. I would not use the K&N either.

People have to be smart in how they use anything, and realize that there are design parameters that are involved. In my case I have always lived in the suburbs in a pretty benign (clean for engine breathing) environment, and when I go camping it is usually in parks with decent roads. Dust will go through any filter, just to varying degrees. In the case of the oiled filters, the intent is to try and increase performance while maintaining an acceptable level of filtration, and the user needs to be comfortable with the risks and limitations.

Chevor, i am a believer in wet filters but they are oil soaked foam and not cotton and i am very picky about the oil used on these filters.The K&N will work for 99% of the people. I, yes I personally had dust go through a K&N and have not used one since. The conditions that i was in were not ordinary. I never had that problem with OEM filter.

I ran K&N filters in the my diesel truck for over 460,000 miles now. They collect more dirt than paper and need to be cleaned regularly. They do wear out, can only be cleaned a few times, thats where I have experience the MAF fault. Replace the filter and faults stop. I have and do use an Edge CTS to monitor the sensor while driving. Whats happening is at idle less air is allowed to enter engine than what the Truck computer is programed to be acceptable. The truck doesn't surge, sputter or stall. This BS the dealer tells you that it soaks the MAF sensor in oil is a lie. They just want to sell you an over priced air filter. I haved do use an Edge CTS to monitor the sensor while driving. I have run oil samples too and see no prove that a dry filter stops more dirt.

I think its funny how others can comment on a product they have never used. A "wet" filter is going to stop more dirt than a dry one. They filter allows more air flow because it has an larger surface for air to enter. I would say over 3 times as much.

Have you ever seen a dry filter look this dirty?

45Ricochet wrote:
...
Apples and Oranges, you have a gasser from your profile. I believe this was for diesels which have a ton of more air going through them.

So how does my reply to the above post from "Me Again" about oil analysis lead to your comment about diesels vs gas? The guy was questioning whether I had an oil analysis, etc and you are bringing up diesel and gas. Apples and Oranges indeed, agreed!

Now as for gasser vs diesel and which sucks more air - no one disputes that. However most of the concerns raised in this and other threads on these filters raise issues that would possibly be common to both.

Some of us will like the K&N and some will not. That's our prerogatives. I just hope that the OP can get answers he finds useful to him and his diesel.

wmoses wrote:

Me Again wrote:
...So you did oil analysis before and after the use of the K&N filter. I think not, as if you would have done that they would have reported the problem to you! Chris

:h

What problem? I have NO problem with the subject filters. Why would I get an oil analysis? Did I not mention I have no problems with my K&N filters? :B

BTW I change my Mobil 1 regularly (used to be every 5000 miles) now I listen to the DIC or change at 7500 whichever comes first. And the filter? Fram Ultra Guard! I have no problems with those either (but I somehow bet there are some here that would ;) )

Truck is 3+ years old and drives better than new, and I am happy with it.

Apples and Oranges, you have a gasser from your profile. I believe this was for diesels which have a ton of more air going through them.