Posted by Alfred on April 19, 2001 at 10:58:14:
Hi everyone,
just received an e-mail from a friend of mine who thought about putting in a K&N air filter in his car.
I intended to do the same. Not only in my car, in the Savage as well. But after reading this aricle I
became very doubtful about using a K&N.
Does anyone of you have experience yet using a K&N? Does anyone of you technical guys, WD, Hogryder approve
to what is said in this article?
wrote:
>The K&N filter is by far a better filter than the stock paper element.>
The Offroad-mailing list's project comparing K&N filters to paper
units showed a correlation between higher arnmounts of silicon
(ie, dirt) in the oil when K&N filters were used. Other tests are even less flattering for K&N.
Forward from George Morrison:
I was responsible for evaluating re-usable air filters for a major construction/mining company that had
hundreds of vehicles ranging from large earthmovers to pick-up trucks and salesmen's cars. This study
was embarked upon due to the fact that we were spending upwards of $30,000 a MONTH on paper air
filters. Using them one time then throwing them away.. I inititated the study in that I was convinced
that a K&N type filter or oiled foam would save us many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour savings,
and of course engines as these would filter dirt better than paper. (yes, I had read the K&N ads and was
a believer)
Representative test units were chosen to give us a broad spectrum from cars right through large front
end loaders. With each unit we had a long history of oil analysis records so that changes would be
trackable.
Unfortunately, for me, every single unit having alternative re-usable air cleaners showed an immediate
large jump in silicon (dirt) levels with corresponding major increases in wear metals. In one extreme
case, a unit with a primary and secondary air cleaner, the secondary (small paper element) clogged
before even one day's test run could be completed. This particular unit had a CLU=ns V-12 engine
that had paper/paper one one bank and K&N/paper on the other bank; two completely independent
induction systems. The conditions were EXACTLY duplicated for each bank yet the K&N allowed so
much dirt to pass through that the small filter became clogged before lunch. The same outcome occured
with oiled foams on this unit.
We discontinued the tests on the large pieces almost immediately but continued with service trucks,
formen's vehicles, and my own company car. Analysis results continued showing markedly increased
wear rates for all the vehicles, mine included. Test concluded, switched back to paper/glass and all
vehicles showed reduction back to near original levels of both wear metals and dirt.
I continued with the K&N on my company car out of stubborness and at 85,000 miles the Chevy 305 V-8
wheezed its last breath. The top end was sanded badly; bottom end was just fine. End of test.
I must stress that EVERYONE involved in this test was hoping that alternative filters would work as
everyone was sick about pulling out a perfectly good $85 air cleaner and throwing 4 of them away
each week per machine ...
So, I stronglv suggest that depending upon an individual's iong term plan for their vehicles they simply
run an oil analysis at least once to see that the K&N or whatever alternative air filter is indeed working
IN THAT APPLICATION... It depends on a person's priorities.
> If you want performance then indeed the K&N is the way to go but at what cost???
>
And no, I do not work for a paper or glass air filter manufacturing company nor do I have any affiliation
with anything directly or indirectly that could benefit George Morrison as a result..
Thought I'd let you all know about this.
KTRSD,
Alfred