I'm still running the one I bought in 1981. I can't really tell it makes much of a difference but it is no worse than a stocker. In hind sight, buying a paper element filter every year would be a lot cheaper than the K&N.
I've found that the K&N X-Stream air filter top element does a nice job of picking up HP. It was good for .3 in the quarter mile when I switched to it on my convertible.
i have had good luck with them and put them in all my cars. my seat of the pants meter says they also deliver.] mike
I put one on my duramax. I couldn't feel a difference, other than the turbo is a bit louder. It was 48 bucks, a stock paper element was 25. I plan on having that truck forever, so I'll make my money on it either way.
My Regal ran a tenth of a second slower with a K&N filter and K&N top versus no filter at all. Never tried it with a paper filter. That was with a 1000 HP Holley carburator.
I put one on my wife's minivan and it really made a difference. I can't see the difference in my skylark. But I would guess it squeezes out a few hp. To me it's worth the extra money (or at least the minivan) b/c it was only a few more bucks than the stock filter.
I had one on a land rover that I use to have. You have to clean it as often as you would buy a new paper filter and you are suppose to use a special spray to clean it. The spray cost at least as much as my paper filter. I would say that on that car it didn't make any difference, and it cost more in the long run. I replaced the K&N with a paper filter and didn't see any change in power or mileage. I have seen some K & N filters that don't use the stock air box and they look like they would breath better. I suppose that my feelings are that it depends. If the only thing that you change is the element, I don't see a lot of advantage, if you use one of the setups that take air in differently, they look good, although I haven't used one. If you set up a cold air intake system I would think that would make a bigger difference. Like I said though, my only K & N was on a Range Rover classic with the stock air box. Maybe on a higher performance engine it would help more. "damn... how much did your K&N cost?" It's the spray that you use to refresh, or clean it that makes it cost.
Holy crap! You must run that Land Rover in some horrible dust 'n' dirt! I've got a K&N in my motorcycle that's NEVER been cleaned since I bought it in 1986. I've got a K&N in my Lumina that's NEVER been cleaned since I bought it--I kinda forget--maybe four or five years ago. I've got a K&N in my pickup that's NEVER been cleaned since I bought it--about five years ago. I've got a K&N in my El Camino that's NEVER been cleaned since...last summer, about 40 miles ago. The WORST thing you can do to a K&N filter is to clean it before it NEEDS to be cleaned. And they will have about 1/8 inch of crap on the outside before they need cleaning. The dirt will actually cover up the mesh reinforcement in places; it's that thick. DO NOT clean them because they don't look nice 'n' pink. They actually filter BETTER when they've got some crud on 'em. They need to be LOADED with dirt before you screw with 'em. This can be verified on the K&N web site; under the "FAQs" or the "FACTS" heading--but--I can't get it to load at the moment, so I can't provide a link.
First off, I do use my rovers for off road, a lot. I was living in North Idaho when I had the filter and mostly in dirt and dust. I have read what K&N says, and you are right but if it looks dirty I know that it has to have the air flow changed. Like I said, the big thing to me was that there was no change in the performance with the K&N and I still got the same 15 MPG, so not worth messing with. I could see if you used one of the filter setups that provides better air flow, more surface area, but in the stock setup with a fairly low performance engine it wasn't worth it. I may try them again on another application where there is a performance possibility some time.
Actually, it takes a LOT of dirt to affect the air flow enough to make a difference. That's one of the advantages of the oil-wetted-gauze filters: they don't "plug" up and become restrictive like paper filters.
About $5 when I did buy them. Less if on-sale. I gave $40 for the K&N when I bought it and that would be 8 years worth of filters. Add my time (I am worth every penny :TU: ) for half hour of futzing with the oil and cleaning up the mess I always have left over every other year. Then add $10 for the cleaning kit once in a while and the costs slowly mount up. I'm filter agnostic at this point. I keep the K&N because I already have it and I don't feel bad if I don't change it at regular intervals. I haven't bought a K&N for anything I've owned since but I have bought cold air kits.
I had one on my 99 Regal LS. We did a lot of traveling with the Regal it went from an average of 27 to 28 MPG to 29 to 30. It might have run a little stronger to.o No: Bob H.
I heard you need to be careful on cars with MAF sensors, as the oil will clog them. I would imagine that if you stay light on the oil coating when you clean it, you should be ok.
Pretty much everyone does! Yep, K&N filters are the most Buy-it-and-forget-it kind of filter I know of. Buy it. Install it. Come back in fifty thousand or more miles and INSPECT it. You may STILL not need to CLEAN it; but after 50K it should be looked at. I have a K&N filter cleaning kit on the shelf in my garage. Had it for years. Never need it. My family will probably sell it on eBay as an antique after I've shucked this mortal coil. Of course, all the johnny-come-lately competitors selling blue or green oiled-gauze filters have the same benefits and detriments as K&N. The only thing that has really surprised me on this thread is that nobody has linked to that famous "calibrated dirt" air filter test "proving" that oiled-gauze filters don't actually filter very well. The test is--SUPERFICIALLY--very scientific. Expensive machines, rigorous protocol, yada yada. Except for the point where they blow ten years worth of dirt onto an oiled-gauze filter in half-an-hour which is of course NOT how the filter gets dirty in real life--and the heavy and fast loading prevents the dirt from absorbing the oil from the gauze and becoming part of the filter mechanism. (which is WHY an oiled-gauze filter actually works BETTER when they have some dirt accumulated on them!!!) Wait around, SOMEONE will link to that "test"...
Most published tests like this are designed with a result in mind as a sales method. To tell the truth, I think most published science is that way weather it's for sales or funding. I will probably try a K&N again some day when I have a motor that has some performance, and I am changing the way that it draws the air with it like some of the applications that I've seen with K&N. For me though the cost of the filter vs. a cheap paper filter doesn't make a lot of sense. At best it's about like buying several years worth of paper filters all at the same time. As for clogging them up, you should see what the filter on my Dodge and my Chevy trial blazer look like if I let them go more than a couple oil changes. Logging county breeds dirty paved roads, and of course these two rigs are not restricted to paved roads either. The way the logging industry is shutting down around here, the roads should be getting cleaner any way.
My K&N is going to get its first bath this month. Put it on about ten years ago! Unfortunately, in my case anyway, the thing probably got more dirty from sitting than working. Devon
