I've had it for my old GrandPrix and yeah i felt the improvement over the stock FRAM air filters.

but on the other hand, some are saying that it's letting in more dust while letting in more air, which results in greater wear and a sooner death for my engine.

to me, the concept is pretty simple: a tighter weave in the filter will trap more dirt, but will also restrict the air flow. A looser weave will allow more airflow (and therefore more power) but will allow more dirt.

one of my friend who works in a autoshop told me that they often found cars with K&N filter have dirtier engine than those don't have K&N.

so....what do u think ?

 

Don't spray a bunch of oil in it....

 

I think your friend has an opinion, and he shared it. It doesn't make what he said correct or incorrect, it's just an opinion. I could probably find you someone who thinks a racing stripe makes their car go faster. Again, it's an opinion. But neither of these are facts until someone does some controlled scientific experiments to prove their theory one way or the other.

What determines the "dirtiness" of an engine? How is this determined? What were the driving conditions under which these "dirty" engines operated? What was the maintenance schedule on them? What kind of engine? Make? Model? Mileage? Was the filter properly maintained?

 

Very well put. By the way, someone did do a study on different types of air filters similar to what you've described above...I believe I came across it on this forum...very informative. (sorry I can't point you in the direction of it) I personally am still using my Stillen intake w/ K&N oil filter, as IMO, as long as you keep your oil changed regularly, I think you should be OK. Just my $0.02.

 

A K&N filter if oiled and maintained properly can net a couple of horse and better gas mileage.

The only way for your friend to determine if the K&N is making the engine dirtier would be for him to tear it apart. Other than that he can only make an assumption on the condition of the filter. The problem with K&N filters is that they do cake up with dirt because of the oil that is used on them. It traps the dirt better and allows only the air to get in to the engine. This is why they need to be cleaned and re-oiled.

I once had a K&N filter and they're great. However, I see it as more of an economic investment than a performance investment since you can clean and reuse them. I don't really mind spending $10 bucks on a paper filter every other oil change.

 

To the OP. You do know there is a big world out there outside of the sedan section right?

 

Moved to "Intake" section so it can be with all the other threads that talk about the same thing...

 

i thought this had been proven scientifically.....





/sarc

 

to me, its simple logic, more air getting through = more other things getting through

 

that's exactly what i was thinking....hmm..

 

i ran an oiled airaid filter (similiar to kandn) on my truck for a good 50-60k miles, from 150k to about 210k miles. the inside of the engine was far from clean. mostly from the high miles im sure, and probably had a lot to do with the egr and me not having a catch can in the pcv system, but i still think to this day that the oiled filter wasnt doing as good of a job as a paper filter would have. can i prove this? not even close, but its how i feel about it. and for the .5218925 hp you will gain, why take the chance?

 

You don't know if the oiled filter was doing a better or worse job than a paper filter, you only think it was doing worse. I could just as easily say I think the K&N is doing a better job, so why take a chance on a cheap paper filter. It's just like the OP's friend, you're stating an opinion only. Nobody's asking you to prove it, but until someone does prove it one way or the other, they're just stating their opinion on the matter and nothing else.

Saying more airflow = more other things is ridiculous. If I have a screen door on my house, a lot of air will get through but very few bugs will. If I take a window and cut a 3" hole in it, I'll have far less air coming through than the screen, but a whole lot more bugs will be in my living room.

 

it is my opinion, but how can logic say k&n is doing a better filtering job when more air is getting through? you are saying that price is a more relevant factor in this than physics! you are paying for a name and some sticky oil.

im not going to get in a pissing match with you over this, but your logic is flawed in the screen door analogy because you are talking about 2 completely different amounts of surface area. for your comparison to be valid, you would have to compare a screen door with just a plain open door, OF THE SAME SIZE, or the SAME SIZED holes, one with a screen and one without. you cant compare a 3" hole with a big screen door. so do that, and either way, it backs up my logic, more air, more bugs.

 

i once saw documented tests on this a few years ago, i will do my best to track those down

 

I didn't say the K&N was doing a better job, I just don't think you can say it's doing a worse job because more air is flowing through it.

I didn't say price was more relevant. In the long run, the K&N will actually be cheaper than multiple paper filters. And all that sticky oil is capturing particles that would slide right off the dry paper filter into the intake.

My point wasn't about surface area but about the size of the openings. I don't know if I'm right or wrong, but I wasn't the one making the claim that the oiled filter was inferior. Until you can show that a K&N is allowing more particles in, then you're just stating an opinion.

But you're right, this is pointless. Somehow we veered off into a politics/religion-type discussion, and we both lose that argument.

Peace my G brother.