Regular air filter VS. K&N or similar

[hank857]

well to add to this, I have a k&N on my 94 over 150000 miles and everything is fine. Clean when its really dirty looking and the costs of a $10 can of oil is miniscule. When I was towing with my F250 and went to a cat back exhaust, the techs at gibson recommended I install a K&N to complement the exhaust. I also fabricated a FIPC for it later. it also worked well. I am running a larger exhaust on my truck and it runs about 15 mpg in town up towards 20 on the highway. The issue of the maf has been shown to be a no factor but it remains an issue for some, BTW my MAF went bad with the paper filter! no issues with the K&N. This is something that the individual has to determine the worth of. Its really funny most say stay with stock sytem as ther are no gains but if you follow the diesel sites they show positive gains by getting away from the OEM types, particularly if they do any engine upgrades. The latest shows the 6.7 diesel having good gains just by a free flow intake addition. More were found with other changes such as chips. So make up your own mind on this particular issue is my advice for what it is worth.

 

[ridgerunner]

K&N debate has raged for yrs. I for one will not run one on any vehicle even if it is free. Look closely at the filter, see the little square holes, they have fine fibers that help catch dirt with the help of the oil. Those holes are huge compared to paper filters. When I can literally see objects clearly when I look through a K&N filter...not a good filter unless you want to strain out gravel.

 

[8879ford]

K&N debate has raged for yrs. I for one will not run one on any vehicle even if it is free. Look closely at the filter, see the little square holes, they have fine fibers that help catch dirt with the help of the oil. Those holes are huge compared to paper filters. When I can literally see objects clearly when I look through a K&N filter...not a good filter unless you want to strain out gravel.

I agree. Unless I am running a 1,000HP vehicle for racing or something where longevity is not a concern. Otherwise, I see no need for less filtration for a minuscular power/mpg gain.

 

[8879ford]

well to add to this, I have a k&N on my 94 over 150000 miles and everything is fine. Clean when its really dirty looking and the costs of a $10 can of oil is miniscule. When I was towing with my F250 and went to a cat back exhaust, the techs at gibson recommended I install a K&N to complement the exhaust. I also fabricated a FIPC for it later. it also worked well. I am running a larger exhaust on my truck and it runs about 15 mpg in town up towards 20 on the highway. The issue of the maf has been shown to be a no factor but it remains an issue for some, BTW my MAF went bad with the paper filter! no issues with the K&N. This is something that the individual has to determine the worth of. Its really funny most say stay with stock sytem as ther are no gains but if you follow the diesel sites they show positive gains by getting away from the OEM types, particularly if they do any engine upgrades. The latest shows the 6.7 diesel having good gains just by a free flow intake addition. More were found with other changes such as chips. So make up your own mind on this particular issue is my advice for what it is worth.

This is the only good reason I can see for using a K&N style filter-high power engines for towing, racing, spaceflight or whatever. I have also seen noticeable power gains when combining a K&N style filter with custom exhausts and computer chips.

If the K&N filter is going to be the ONLY "performance" thing done, it really isn't worth it (in my opinion).

 

[HAPPY+RANGER+GUY]

Now that I have experimented with this and gained experience and further knowledge...

Sometimes we learn it's just better to leave things alone and stop chasing/searching for the extra 5 HP. My truck is slow and nothing is going to change that....all part of the design and factors in to the cheap price of the truck.

That said...we do like to experiment once in a while and try new things, just have to be careful about how we spend our resources and can those resources be better allocated for more productive things.

To each his own...life is a journey.

 

[killj0y]

I played 15 bucks same price as a paper filter and have cleaned off ungodly amounts of crud off it since I live in a dusty area. Never had a problem with the maf and no grime behind the filter. I also don't overoil and I use the aerosol kit to reoil. Never noticed a power difference even after I replaced the intake muffler with a ceramic coated straight through steel replacement. It's paid for itself already so I can't complain.

 

[gw33gp]

What I see on the paper vs. K&N argument is; most people that are negative about K&N are going on what someone else told them, have some weird test they have seen or form an opinion based on what they think is right. People that use K&N correctly like them and have no problem with them. I am sure there are people that have a valid reason for not using them and they have the right to use whatever they want as do K&N users.

I just don't understand why anyone feels the need to slam K&N all the time. I have used K&N air filters on at least five different vehicle with a total mileage of around 600,000 miles with no problems. Two of those vehicles where and is used off-road in very dusty conditions. One of those vehicles had almost 200,000 miles on it when I sold it and it has about 250,000 miles on it now with a perfectl running engine. It uses no more oil than it did when new. Another one that I am currently driving has over 156,000 miles on it and the engine is still like new.

I always check the tube that goes to the intake when I clean the K&N filter. It is always clean. I also had oil analyzed many times and had normal silicon levels. I guess I am just lucky like other happy K&N users.

I don't use K&N for improved power or gas mileage. I don't believe it does much for most street vehicles. I use them because I am lazy and prefer to do the maintenance on the air filter at 50,000 miles. My off-road vehicles get it a little more frequently.

 

[doorgunner]

now where did I put that K&N filter?

 

[BRONCONUT]

I always use the K&N but I replace them instead of the maintenance.

 

[4x4junkie]

What I see on the paper vs. K&N argument is; most people that are negative about K&N are going on what someone else told them, have some weird test they have seen or form an opinion based on what they think is right. People that use K&N correctly like them and have no problem with them. I am sure there are people that have a valid reason for not using them and they have the right to use whatever they want as do K&N users.

Where do you put the people who have used a K&N correctly but HAD problems?

I ran a K&N in my Ranger for about 10 years I think it was... Was great for the first 6 years or so, but eventually I started having some issues with the engine intermittently losing about 50% power and guzzling fuel (together with an intermittent Check Engine light) that progressed worse with time (codes were for MAF out of range, and separate sets of codes for both "Rich" and "Lean" conditions on both cylinder banks, yeah explain that one lol).
After awhile I finally traced the problem to fouled O2 sensors that were clogged with dirt that had gone through the filter and therefore the combustion chambers too (not to mention the countless times I had to clean the MAF and even the throttle body).
Yes, the filter was oiled just the right amount. No it was not over or under-oiled (it was allowed to sit for several hours for a nice uniform red-pink color after spray-oiling).
I cleaned it only when the dust started looking like mud on it (which obviously was clogging it's pores, so a good reason to clean it).

I think that's a pretty valid reason for not using one anymore.


And FWIW, I thought maybe I felt a slight power increase when I first installed it, but I can't swear that it was due to the type of filter it is, rather than simply going to a clean filter from a dirty one.

 

[ridgerunner]

Yeah, like I said...K&N gravel strainer.

 

[gw33gp]

Where do you put the people who have used a K&N correctly but HAD problems?

I don't try to put people anywhere or classify them. I did say "I am sure there are people that have a valid reason for not using them and they have the right to use whatever they want as do K&N users." You seem to have a valid reason for not using them.

I don't understand why you had the problems you did but I have never had these kind of problems. I do find it unusual that the O2 sensor would get clogged with dirt. They usually get fouled with some kind of combustion by-product or just burn up. Did you have the O2 sensors analyzed to determine they were clogged with dirt? They typically have a limited life, although, I have not had to change the ones in my current Ranger with over 156K miles. I think I changed a couple in my 89 2.9L Ranger at around 170K miles. It was still running good but I thought it would be good to change them with that many miles on them.

Some people have MAF and O2 sensor problems while using paper filters too. I am sure they didn't find a way to blame the paper filter. It is easy to blame a K&N filter for problems but I am not so sure it is always justified.

 

[killj0y]

I don't try to put people anywhere or classify them. I did say "I am sure there are people that have a valid reason for not using them and they have the right to use whatever they want as do K&N users." You seem to have a valid reason for not using them.

I don't understand why you had the problems you did but I have never had these kind of problems. I do find it unusual that the O2 sensor would get clogged with dirt. They usually get fouled with some kind of combustion by-product or just burn up. Did you have the O2 sensors analyzed to determine they were clogged with dirt? They typically have a limited life, although, I have not had to change the ones in my current Ranger with over 156K miles. I think I changed a couple in my 89 2.9L Ranger at around 170K miles. It was still running good but I thought it would be good to change them with that many miles on them.

Some people have MAF and O2 sensor problems while using paper filters too. I am sure they didn't find a way to blame the paper filter. It is easy to blame a K&N filter for problems but I am not so sure it is always justified.

Yea I'm with you on this one. Clogging the o2 sensors? Seems a little far fetched to blame the first thing in the intake system when you have a problem with the exhaust system....it's a big jump that's all.

 

[4x4junkie]

I don't understand why you had the problems you did but I have never had these kind of problems. I do find it unusual that the O2 sensor would get clogged with dirt. They usually get fouled with some kind of combustion by-product or just burn up. Did you have the O2 sensors analyzed to determine they were clogged with dirt? They typically have a limited life, although, I have not had to change the ones in my current Ranger with over 156K miles. I think I changed a couple in my 89 2.9L Ranger at around 170K miles. It was still running good but I thought it would be good to change them with that many miles on them.

Some people have MAF and O2 sensor problems while using paper filters too. I am sure they didn't find a way to blame the paper filter. It is easy to blame a K&N filter for problems but I am not so sure it is always justified.

I analyzed them with my two eyes (it's pretty obvious when the slits on them are ¾ the way blocked with gritty matter).
My issues (symptoms) began at around 60K miles (most of those miles were with the K&N), but it wasn't until about 75K I made the discovery when the truck would run like crap almost every time I tried to hit the freeway.

Now I will admit I did not actually have a lab test them for presence of silica (what dust is primarily composed of), however when the MAF (as well as the entire intake & TB) is all coated with a layer of the same stuff (just black rather than light-gray), it seems fairly obvious where it came from.

My theory is when a speck of dust manages to make it's way through the filter, it's left with a tiny spot of the filter's oil on it. That spot of oil is what causes the dust specks to stick to things inside the intake (and that's just the particles that do stick, probably 99.9% of particles successfully pass through the engine and out the tailpipe). Obviously the oil spot won't be on the dust speck after it's gone through the combustion process, however the O2's little orifices are still able to trap them until they build up enough to inhibit their function as well.

Since cleaning everything up on mine, putting new O2s and a paper filter in, I haven't had to clean the MAF once since (before I was finding dirt crusted on it every 10K miles). 110K now and still seems clean.

 

[hank857]

300000+ miles about 150-200000 with the K&N system, replaced MAF with paper not since, have NEVER changed 02 sensors! plus the maf currently is a reman from autozone.

Not saying you didnt find what you think, but my experience is very much different from yours and others and yes I live in a dusty dirty area drove a lot on dirt roads due to job I had. There has been testing by a group forget who disproved the trouble with the maf due to oil, was done maybe 10-12 years ago when chebby tried to decline warranty work due to K&N system install. As I said to the OP, its his choice to make, there are just tooo many naysayers for many items to ask a question like this in reality. Think its bad here just go over to an RV site and ask questions about fords, K&N, etc