How many miles with your K&N Filter?


firelikeiya
11-20-2005, 11:29 PM
Hi, I am looking to take a poll on the number of miles other drivers out there are putting on their vehicles using a K & N air filter. I have been researching K & N filters to try to get an idea if they are any better than stock. I have used K & N on several of my cars including '93 SE-R (for 70K mi. before sold), '02 Explorer sport trac (for 20K mi. before sold), '02 Camry 4-cyl (30K mi so far), and '02 Ford Ranger (30K mi so far). From a seat of the pants perspective, the cars all seemed to be more responsive to throttle inputs (mostly the SE-r, though, but I also owned that car when I lived in Virginia Beach, Va where it can get humid, now I live in dry Arizona) than before the switch. My concern with the filters is that, according to individual tests. they seem to pass more particles than most filters. The greatest mileage that I have put on a vehicle was on my '93 sentra SE-r. When I sold the vehicle I had 136,000 mi with 70,000 of those miles running on a K&N cone filter. I am using the 50K mi cleaning interval as stated by K & N. I would like to hear from those of you out there with K&N drop in filters how many miles you have put on your vehicles total and with the filter. I would also like it if you could post what mileage interval between cleanings you are going by. Basically, the purpose of this is to see if the filters really do hurt reliability. Thank you for your replies!

kahjdh
11-22-2005, 02:39 PM
i think they filter more b/c they are cloth and not paper.

MagicRat
11-26-2005, 08:28 AM
Excellent post.
K&N filters are a bit of a scam because they do not filter as well as paper, and do increase engine wear.
Dirty air acts like sandpaper on the pistons, rings and cylinder walls. It only takes a little puff of dirty air each day to increase wear.

I have a 1984 Jeep with a 2.8 V6, bought new. A K&N filter went in at about 40,000 km (25 k miles) in 1989. The engine cylinder walls were badly worn after just 60,000 km (40,000 miles)

I rebuilt the engine and had to bore the cylinders out .080 inches to remove all the wear.
Note that usually a bore of .030 is required for rebuild typical engine wear.

The funny thing is that all the other parts on the engine that were NOT exposed to dirty air, like the valve components, engine bearings etc were like new and showed no wear. The engine shop that rebuilt it had never seen anything like it and say that dirty air was responsible.

IMO K&N filters help for power but suck at filtering even when you do follow their instructions.

LeSabre97mint
12-06-2005, 11:03 PM
Excellent post.
K&N filters are a bit of a scam because they do not filter as well as paper, and do increase engine wear.
Dirty air acts like sandpaper on the pistons, rings and cylinder walls. It only takes a little puff of dirty air each day to increase wear.

I have a 1984 Jeep with a 2.8 V6, bought new. A K&N filter went in at about 40,000 km (25 k miles) in 1989. The engine cylinder walls were badly worn after just 60,000 km (40,000 miles)

I rebuilt the engine and had to bore the cylinders out .080 inches to remove all the wear.
Note that usually a bore of .030 is required for rebuild typical engine wear.

The funny thing is that all the other parts on the engine that were NOT exposed to dirty air, like the valve components, engine bearings etc were like new and showed no wear. The engine shop that rebuilt it had never seen anything like it and say that dirty air was responsible.

IMO K&N filters help for power but suck at filtering even when you do follow their instructions.

Hello

I've been thinking about using a K&N drop in filter, but was worried about the amount of dirt entering the engine. It looks like my hunch of pourly filtered air is correct.

Regards

Dan

Add your comment to this topic!