k&n air filter
#1
#3
Originally Posted by jgibbs
its louder because you took your silencer out and the k&n has more air flow. they say you get a little better mileage maybe 1 mpg or something.
A full CAI/Intake will give you a noticeable amount of sound and flow increase, but still maybe 1mpg better
#6
#7
You won't get any performance or MPG increase with the K&N. Here is a
truly independent dyno test of the K&N:
http://www.jackphelps.com/ranger/knfilter.htm
The OEM paper filter will flow more air than a N/A 3.0L can pull. Matter of fact, the same sized filter is used on the 4.0L!!! If the OEM paper filter
wasn't capable of flowing more air than the 3.0L can pull, the K&N would flow more air. If you hold the K&N up to the sunlight, you will see holes in the filter media.So, the only thing the K&N will flow more than the OEM paper filter is dirt and oil. So you risk a contaminated MAF sensor, and a dirty sticky IAC valve, and throttle body.
One other point, louder doesn't mean more air flow, it means more air turbulence!!
I'm sorry to hear you have thrown your money away....
truly independent dyno test of the K&N:
http://www.jackphelps.com/ranger/knfilter.htm
The OEM paper filter will flow more air than a N/A 3.0L can pull. Matter of fact, the same sized filter is used on the 4.0L!!! If the OEM paper filter
wasn't capable of flowing more air than the 3.0L can pull, the K&N would flow more air. If you hold the K&N up to the sunlight, you will see holes in the filter media.So, the only thing the K&N will flow more than the OEM paper filter is dirt and oil. So you risk a contaminated MAF sensor, and a dirty sticky IAC valve, and throttle body.
One other point, louder doesn't mean more air flow, it means more air turbulence!!
I'm sorry to hear you have thrown your money away....
#8
#13
I didn't notice any gain or loss in MPG with the 4.0L. Look at the plastic intake tube...it is NOT ribbed either, but rather smooth. Ribbed externally, good flow internally. Mine also came with a stock conical paper filter. Not all Rangers are rectangular-shaped, TylerCrawford.
Sidenote: Have you actually calculated the surface area of a conical vs. rectangular filter? What engine and air requirements are necessary for the filter? Different sizes and engines vary, and a rectangular piece may already allow/supply more air than is required for the engine. Conical doesn't mean better. However, conical filters do have a larger surface area for the amount of material and dimensions than rectangular.
Don't expect a huge increase in hp or tq with a K&N.
Sidenote: Have you actually calculated the surface area of a conical vs. rectangular filter? What engine and air requirements are necessary for the filter? Different sizes and engines vary, and a rectangular piece may already allow/supply more air than is required for the engine. Conical doesn't mean better. However, conical filters do have a larger surface area for the amount of material and dimensions than rectangular.
Don't expect a huge increase in hp or tq with a K&N.
#14
#15
Originally Posted by tylercrawford
I am not worried about it Just by his posts, you can tell he is looking for an argument . . .
make sure young people don't throw away the little money they have on
useless performance mods!!
It is good to see there are a few honest people, that admit that these
performance mods have made no difference in performance, as expected!!
#17
Originally Posted by lone stock ranger
i actually didnt pay for it. my buddy was trading in his 4.0 4x4 and said hey wanna trade filters its like brand new i said ok.
dirt and oil they pass. Like contaminating the MAF sensor, gumming
up the IAC valve & throttle body, and causing excessive engine wear.
About the only thing I can say positive about them, there may be a very
slight performance advantage to WWR (Wallet Weight Reduction)
#18
Originally Posted by Takeda
Just one other point about K&N filters. Not only do they not offer any performance advantage, they have to potential to do damage from the
dirt and oil they pass. Like contaminating the MAF sensor, gumming
up the IAC valve & throttle body, and causing excessive engine wear.
About the only thing I can say positive about them, there may be a very
slight performance advantage to WWR (Wallet Weight Reduction)
dirt and oil they pass. Like contaminating the MAF sensor, gumming
up the IAC valve & throttle body, and causing excessive engine wear.
About the only thing I can say positive about them, there may be a very
slight performance advantage to WWR (Wallet Weight Reduction)
#20
What about the dyno charts that K&N has? I do care for my vehicle very well thank you.
http://www.kandn.com/dynocharts/57-2560.pdf
http://www.kandn.com/dynocharts/57-2560.pdf
#21
Unregistered User
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Takeda
Just one other point about K&N filters. Not only do they not offer any performance advantage, they have to potential to do damage from the
dirt and oil they pass. Like contaminating the MAF sensor, gumming
up the IAC valve & throttle body, and causing excessive engine wear.
About the only thing I can say positive about them, there may be a very
slight performance advantage to WWR (Wallet Weight Reduction)
dirt and oil they pass. Like contaminating the MAF sensor, gumming
up the IAC valve & throttle body, and causing excessive engine wear.
About the only thing I can say positive about them, there may be a very
slight performance advantage to WWR (Wallet Weight Reduction)
3 years, 45K = ZERO problems.
what a toad
#22
The few cars that I have personal experience with all have benefitted from a conical replacement filter and matching aluminum/plastic intake tube.
Specifically my 1988 CRX SI gained 2 MPG with a cheap EBAY one and a good friend of mine gained 3 MPG on his 1996 Dakota 3.9v6 with a K&N one.
Chassis dynos can be made to read whatever you want.
You can inflate tires, set the air meter in a different room etc. There are many variables and the big one I have with your dyno graph is the time between pulls. I have seen heat soak LOWER horsepower by 15rwhp on a 2005 Charger srt8 personally.
We made 10 pulls in an hour, got the air/fuel and timing where we wanted it and let it sit overnight. The next morning the guy came to pick up the car and we made one more pull and it made 15rwhp and 8ft-lbs more just by sitting for 12 hours.
Specifically my 1988 CRX SI gained 2 MPG with a cheap EBAY one and a good friend of mine gained 3 MPG on his 1996 Dakota 3.9v6 with a K&N one.
Chassis dynos can be made to read whatever you want.
You can inflate tires, set the air meter in a different room etc. There are many variables and the big one I have with your dyno graph is the time between pulls. I have seen heat soak LOWER horsepower by 15rwhp on a 2005 Charger srt8 personally.
We made 10 pulls in an hour, got the air/fuel and timing where we wanted it and let it sit overnight. The next morning the guy came to pick up the car and we made one more pull and it made 15rwhp and 8ft-lbs more just by sitting for 12 hours.
#23