Regular air filter VS. K&N or similar

[8879ford]

So, here is my qquestian...do you guys perfer using a regular paper air filter or a k&n filter? We all know that a regular paper filter is supposed to be more restrictive, but does its job. On another site, i heard someone say that the reason a k&n fillter is less restrictive is a give and take situation, being: k&n is less restrictive, less filtering and a regular paper filter more restrictive but better filtering. What are your thoughts on this? I currently use a k&n filter on both of my trucks, as well as both of my girlfreinds jeeps. But, I have noticed some dried mud on the inside of my intake pipe after using the k&n off-road, and yes i keep it cleaned and oiled.

 

[The83RangerMan]

good ol cheap paper filters are the way to go they don't let nothin by mine is brown on the outside but inside is nice and clean

 

[LearjetMinako]

I foresee this & this in the near future.

I prefer a paper filter. Use it, and then get a new one. Besides, mine tend to last about 25k miles. Right now, I'm using a PureOne oiled paper air filter. Just for that little extra proctection. I use to have a K&N FIPK system on my Ranger. But after an oil anylsis showed high silicon (90 ppm), I removed it. Second oil anylsis showed a silicon drop to 45 ppm, third time, even lower. If I were to choose of the best, find a dual-layer foam filter.

 

[heptofite]

the k&ns are oil charge filters, the debris is supposed to stick to the oil.

if it's not oiled, it won't work, and if it's over oiled you'll **** up your MAF

 

[sloue]

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42634 \ this is a good one

 

[greenpus]

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42634 \

that was the funniest and most waste of time thread I have ever read.
what a waste of bandwidth...

 

[greenpus]

yes i keep it cleaned and oiled.

most people make that mistake. You're not suppose to clean the filter. Most times you reoil only and clean every 100,000 miles. People that clean their k&n every year or every oil change are

 

[adsm08]

K&N's are dicey things. They are great on old school carbed engines. Loved having one on my 78 with the carb 3.8. They frequently cause issues from either dirt or oil contamination on MAF systems.

I also put one in my Ranger when I was a kid, just replaced it with a good old Motorcraft paper unit a month ago. Didn't notice a difference.



The thing here is, we are looking at the same argument (performance wise) as punching out cats. Are you removing or lessening a restriction? Yes. But it's a restriction that has been engineered around. The engineer knew it was there, and so does the system, and it is designed to run optimally with that restriction there.

Also, by the time you buy the $45 or $55 air filter, oil it properly at the proper intervals, and clean it every 100,000 miles,you aren't saving any money.

 

[chrwilkins30]

You are saving money but over a pretty big amount of time. The filters 45 and the cleaner is 10. So considering a paper filter is $6 and if you change it every 25,xxx then it you would have to go around 225,xxx miles just to break even. I only bought one because i only paid $3 buck using autozone credit, otherwise I would have stayed with paper.

 

[shane96ranger]

I use an Accel Kool Blue filter on my Ranger (30 bucks on Ebay) which is very similar to a K&N. I also use a K&N on my Mustang which has been on it for 15 years. I saw no performance difference in my Ranger whatsoever, but I didn't buy it for more HP, I bought it for a cost savings (over time). I did however notice a performance difference on my Mustang.

When it comes right down to it, this topic is really a matter of what you feel is best for your particular vehicle. Ain't nobody gonna convince me to go back to paper on either of them. I've never heard of a properly maintained K&N unit sucking "so much dirt and leaves" in that it ruins a motor. If properly maintained, there can be a significant cost savings over time. I also think if properly maintained, you aren't going to get a dirty MAF, because at that point you're using too much friggin' oil IMHO.

The thing here is, we are looking at the same argument (performance wise) as punching out cats. Are you removing or lessening a restriction? Yes. But it's a restriction that has been engineered around. The engineer knew it was there, and so does the system, and it is designed to run optimally with that restriction there.

I like where you're going with the cat comparison. I think in air flow terms it's more of a comparison of going from a stock two cat system to a high flow converter. I don't think I would feel much difference with a Ranger, but I sure felt a difference going from four stock to two high flow cats on my car.

Also, by the time you buy the $45 or $55 air filter, oil it properly at the proper intervals, and clean it every 100,000 miles,you aren't saving any money.

I feel I've saved money with mine. A can of oil lasts me years.

But hey, it's all an opinion thing really.

 

[TheTopher]

I actually have a K&N sitting around not doing anything because I prefer paper filters.

On a side note, if anybody wants a free drop-in K&N Filter for their Ranger PM me. I won't ship it but you're welcome to come pick it up whenever you want.

 

[RatDog8o8]

I've got a K&N fenderwell kit on my Mustang, and the Jeep & Ranger are both stock setups. I know the CJ will stay as is, and most likely the Ranger as well....from what I can gather on here, the majority consensus trends toward keeping the stock filter arrangement. Thought about doing the clean/re-oil thing with the Ranger with the stock airbox, but the price just didn't work out. But all I have is a 2.9, so it's probably going to be OK as is.

 

[daniel3507]

I found these when I was thinking about getting a K&N. Wont ever be getting one now. Its a lot of money to spend on a minuscule amount of air flow and worse filtration.

Air flow test
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=61&Itemid=70
In this test they guy that did it found that the K&N DID flow better, but only flowed 0.14% better than a paper filter.

Filtration Test
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=66&Itemid=76
This is the test that convinced me to not get a K&N. Ever. To me, filtering the air is way more important than more air flow.

 

[igiveup]

Hello

My 06 F150 came with a K+N on it and for daily driving and no off roading I will leave it on. My Stang and B2 came with them and I think the B2 will be going back to paper and the Stang I will leave it on for now. My 86 T-Bird I put a K+N on years ago and never noticed a difference and I sold it with the car.

I think its a waist of money myself.

igiveup

 

[8879ford]

Wow...it's been a while. Sense this post started, I have ran K&N filters and paper filters on my 1988 Bronco II, 2000 Land Rover Discovery II and a 1979 F-100. I have to admit, I had never noticed a real difference in power OR mpg.

However, I did notice that the K&N filters almost always look much cleaner than the paper filters. It could be said that this is due to the K&N being dark red vs. a white paper filter.

Whatever the case may be, I do not drive racecars. If there was ANY true improvement in MPG or power, it was not noticed, even after keeping track of and calculating the MPG, fuel cost and miles on the fill-ups.

Also, keep in mind the cost difference. On average, a paper filter is around $10 for most vehicles. A K&N filter is around $50 for most vehicles, PLUS a $25 "K&N refill kit." BUT...the K&N filter does come with a cool sticker.

Now that I have experimented with this and gained experience and further knowledge, I am no longer going to use K&N filters. Spending $80 vs. $10 for no improvements that a NORMAL driver can notice is not worth it for me.