K&N vs OEM Paper Airfilters - Page 4 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


General Technical & Electrical General technical and electrical discussion for the Ford Ranger that does not fit in any other sub-forum.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #76  
Old 03-12-2009
BlutoBodine's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by IN2 FX4 View Post
You take pictures and state your hypothetical, theoretical reasons why K&N doesn't filter well. I have real world experience that indicates whatever level K&N filters, it does it well enough that engines are not harmed by them. Why do you have it out for K&N? Did they step on your toes sometime?

Take a break, you are not saving anybody from anything with this theoretical stuff. If you really want to inform someone about K&N, tell them not to over oil the filters. Also, tell them to make sure the filter seals around the edges well. That will help them much more than what you are doing here.

He probably just got tired of crying buckets of tears about Amsoil. Wonder who's next on his hissy fit list? - ShamWOW...look out!

Not really wanting to get into another debate with Bob, so if he hates K&N that's fine with me.

Last edited by BlutoBodine; 03-12-2009 at 08:12 AM.
  #77  
Old 03-12-2009
IN2 FX4's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Posts: 855
For most of my working career, I have been in the Aerospace industry. I started out with Ford Aerospace and one of my duties there was a Test Engineer. I still do a lot of testing for development of products at the company I am currently working for. One thing I have learned is testing is primarily a screening tool and does not replace real world data from an actual used application.

I am amazed at some mil spec tests that must be met for use in many applications. Many times you can design a product to meet the test requirements but will fail in a real world application. Testing is very helpful but is only a part of product selection. Why do you think car companies spend so much time driving the vehicles through all kinds of extreme environments to see if the individual component testing holds up in the real world. Even then, they end up with recalls.

I have seen all those filter tests and I know they have some value. I also have real world data that is much more meaningful. I hear that paper filters have so much more holding capacity but I run my K&N filters up to 50,000 miles between cleaning and experience no loss in performance. Try that with a paper filter. I hear that K&N passes so much more dirt but I have experience with one 4WD Ranger with almost 200,000 miles with a K&N filter that had zero signs of wear on the cylinder walls and rings as well as the valves. I am currently driving another 4WD Ranger with over 95,000 miles with a K&N filter and it also show no signs of wear do to contaminate ingestion through the intake.

I have a BMW that I have been driving since 1980 with K&N filters. It also runs as good as new. I had an 86 Topaz with over 100,000 miles on its K&N filter and showed no signs of damage due to the filter. I have a 99 Cougar with over 110,000 miles on its K&N filter, still no signs of damage due to the filter. I have never had a vehicle with K&N filters that showed any signs of damage due to particulate ingestion from the intake. I do make sure when I install a K&N filter that it is installed properly and has no leaks around it.

I have a challenge. Find information on actual vehicles that have been damaged by K&N filters that have been installed properly and were properly maintained. This is information that has real meaning.
  #78  
Old 03-12-2009
Level I Supporter
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by IN2 FX4 View Post
I have a challenge. Find information on actual vehicles that have been damaged by K&N filters that have been installed properly and were properly maintained. This is information that has real meaning.
Previously posted, how many more examples of "dusted turbos" do you want to see?

Quote:
Originally Posted by monsterbaby View Post
I seriously recommend you NEVER run a K&N on a 7.3. mine had one on it for awhile and I could see the dust on the inside of the tubes (and have seen a couple turbo's dusted by them) I did the switch to the 6637 air filter and its spotless in there and did make a huge difference in not only spool up time, but actual boost levels (gained 2-4psi boost)

But if anyone wants one I have a airraid air system with the conical K&N filter sitting here I will sell ya.
  #79  
Old 03-12-2009
turbo's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by IN2 FX4
I have a challenge. Find information on actual vehicles that have been damaged by K&N filters that have been installed properly and were properly maintained. This is information that has real meaning.
oh, see.. there ya go -- confusing them with facts and reason.
  #80  
Old 03-12-2009
Level I Supporter
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by IN2 FX4 View Post
I have a challenge. Find information on actual vehicles that have been damaged by K&N filters that have been installed properly and were properly maintained. This is information that has real meaning.

From Alland at TRS:

"Yes, but the factory air filter setup IS a cold air setup.

Hell even the original 2.9 setup had the air intake behind the grille.

Yes there's a preheater tube but that tube is CLOSED OFF most of the time.
Eliminating it can get you into legal hot water in terms of emmissions laws.

My brother LOVES K&N filters.
He will NOT use them on his own vehicle.

You see he is a Ford Dealer mechanic.

K&N filters make him more hours and thus more money.

Especially on the turbo diesels

Ever seen a turbo diesel that's bee run behind a K&N?

It's fugly.

AD"
  #81  
Old 03-12-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
I ran twin K&N filters on my 1993 RX7 twin turbo running 14 psi and never had a problem. A guy here at SCSS has a 600hp twin turbo GTO running K&Ns with no problems. There are plenty of people out there that didn't have problems running a K&N filter.
  #82  
Old 03-12-2009
Level I Supporter
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Ford statement on aftermarket air filters:

"Ford released this questionaire about aftermarket and stock filters. this is information is rather important if you ask me.


6.0L & 6.4L Power Stroke Diesel
Super Duty and Excursion Air Filtration
Q&A
Q: Don't all filters stop the same amount of contaminants from getting into the engine and turbo?

A: Absolutely not! The 6.0L and 6.4L OE filters, produced by Donaldson Company, Inc., stop 99.99% of contaminants the size of one micron or larger. Some aftermarket filters trap only 95%. What does this mean to an owner? Driven in the same conditions, a 95% filter would pass

50 grams of contaminant through to the engine that would be trapped by the OE filters! Even a 99.00% filter would pass 10 grams of contaminant. This could mean an early end to your engine or turbo.

Q: Won't aftermarket airbox modifications, which use a lower priced filter, save me money?

A: Don't be fooled by aftermarket tactics of comparing the cost of one filter because you also need to know how often you'll need to change filters. The 6.0L and 6.4L OE filters



hold more than three pounds of dust, dirt and soot. The aftermarket kits tested by Donaldson Company, Inc. held about half this amount. And don't forget, if these aftermarket replacement filters are less than 99.99% efficient, they pass some contaminant through to the engine that the OE filter would have stopped!

Q: How frequently do the 6.0L and 6.4L OE air filters need to be changed?

A: Everybody's driving habits and environments are different. Owners/Dealers should check the air filter restriction gauge (located on the upper housing of the air cleaner assembly) at each oil change interval to determine when the filter needs to be changed. Some vehicles also have a dash light that will illuminate when the filter needs to be changed. No replacement is necessary until the filter minder (or dash light) gives indication.
Q: My filter minder doesn't seem to move, so shouldn't I check or change the filter to be safe?
A: The filter minder is a gauge that starts registering only after the filter reaches a certain point of being filled. This is why owners do not see it consistently move (like a gas gauge). Rest assured, the filter minder works and there is no reason to check on the filter by removing the airbox cover, thereby increasing the risk of contaminants entering the air intake system. Remember, the 6.0L and 6.4L OE air filters hold more than three pounds of contaminant so it will take some time to fill!
Q: I want maximum airflow through the system to provide more power. Don't some aftermarket filters provide more airflow than the 6.0L or 6.4L OE air filters?
A: Airflow should not be the determining factor in buying a filter. Think about it: would you ever operate without a filter in place even though you'd get maximum air flow? High airflow generally means the filter is less efficient at stopping contaminants, too. Owners should instead look for the combination of three factors: airflow, how small of contaminant the filter will stop, and how much contaminant the filter will hold. The 6.0L and 6.4L OE filtration systems provide a great combination and it comes standard on all Super Duty and Excursion trucks!
Q: If the 6.0L and 6.4L OE filtration systems are so effective and efficient, why would anybody pay to modify them?
A: Excellent question. It makes no sense to pay hard earned money to go backwards in technology especially considering that such modifications may even put future warranty repairs in jeopardy. You invested in your 6.0L or 6.4L Power Stroke Diesel truck to provide years of dependable service. Ford engineered it with a great filtration. So just why would anyone pay to modify it?"
  #83  
Old 03-12-2009
BlutoBodine's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by fddriver02 View Post
I ran twin K&N filters on my 1993 RX7 twin turbo running 14 psi and never had a problem. A guy here at SCSS has a 600hp twin turbo GTO running K&Ns with no problems. There are plenty of people out there that didn't have problems running a K&N filter.

I had a 2002 Kenne Bell Mustang with over 430 WHP running 11 psi using a K&N filter and never had a problem. I had a 2005 Stage IV SRT-4 with over 420 WHP on pump gas running 21 psi and made over 450 WHP when using c16 gas and running 26 psi using a K&N filter...never had a problem.
  #84  
Old 03-12-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda View Post
For dirt and oil, YUP!!!!!!!!
And in comparison to the amount of hard carbon particles from the EGR system.. it's extremely small.

Sorry bob.. facts rule. Stalkers drool.




Rich
  #85  
Old 03-12-2009
Level I Supporter
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl View Post
And in comparison to the amount of hard carbon particles from the EGR system.. it's extremely small.

Sorry bob.. facts rule. Stalkers drool.




Rich

Gee Rich, are you lying now, or in this post you made about K&N's:



Check out this thread:

https://www.ranger-forums.com/forum2...t=K%26N+intake



Here is post # 17 from Rich, who claims to be a big fan of aftermarket intake kits:





I'm a big fan of aftermarket intake kits. (have one on my Ranger) But only because of high rpm power increases. If your not interested in 5000+ rpms.. don't waste your money.

You won't see a MPG increase as compaired to a properly working OEM setup.
You will *likely* increase the amount of grit entering the intake.
You very well might have the warrenty denied.
And your pretty much waisting money for a daily driver.
  #86  
Old 03-12-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Only for the sake of those reading.. and not my beloved stalker...

Bob has a bias against anything that's not OEM. K&N offers a stock replacement filter that decreases delta P across it. (change in pressure)

The K&N simply flows more at less pressure differential. That means that more power **is possible**. Now whether or not a particular car/truck will see gains from a drop in panel? That really has to be tested by us.. the consumer.

It's true that a K&N will filter less debris than a paper one. But.. my whole point on the matter is that this increased amount of debris is soooo small that it doesn't matter.

Anyone who's rebuilt an automotive engine can tell you there is a ton of carbon build up in the intake tract. Many people never question how it gets there. Mr stalker here **NEVER** mentions this little fact. Instead he raises fear and doubt by making partitial points. And good grief is he a master at telling only part of the truth.

You know mr stalker.. the serpent in the garden told partitial truths too. Something to consider as you try to paint doom and gloom pictures for the guys on ranger forum.

Rich
  #87  
Old 03-12-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda View Post
Gee Rich, are you lying now, or in this post you made about K&N's:

My internet access times have changed.

And.. I don't contradict myself. I still feel the same way. You quote me correctly.

You see mr stalker, when one stands on factual truth. You don't have to worry about what you said previously. Try telling the *whole truth* sometime. You might like it.

Rich
  #88  
Old 03-12-2009
whippersnapper02's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Earth, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 7,415
I see crap in my intake even when I'm now that I'm not running a K&N. Its the setup of the PVC system. The valve is on the back of the valve over and it points toward the driver. I'm sure oil mist is sneaking by easily and making everything dirty.
  #89  
Old 03-12-2009
zabeard's Avatar
who?
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: IN
Posts: 26,045
I can only LOL at threads like these.
  #90  
Old 03-12-2009
Level III Supporter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: usa
Posts: 24,936
I dont like K&N or Purolator purple eater monster....



Both are not MotorCraft... LOL .... I just put a new motorcraft in yesterday my truck feels faster like a lama and more numble like cat...


  #91  
Old 03-12-2009
04blackedge's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (13)
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 23,426
Where did some posts go? This thread was on page 5 a few minutes ago
  #92  
Old 03-12-2009
Mykhael's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: .
Posts: 4,197
What area does that UPS chick deliver in?
  #93  
Old 03-12-2009
Level I Supporter
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
K&N offers a stock replacement filter that decreases delta P across it. (change in pressure)

Sorry Rich, bad post again!!! The OEM paper filter is designed not to be restrictive to the MAX volume of air the engine is pulling, so you won't get a delta P across it.........DUH!!!

Last edited by Takeda; 03-12-2009 at 02:25 PM.
  #94  
Old 03-12-2009
Mykhael's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: .
Posts: 4,197
Who cares

If you like the K&N run with it
If you like the OEM run with it

End of discussion this is a topic you have to agree to disagree on.
  #95  
Old 03-12-2009
Riceman's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: GA
Posts: 576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda View Post
Sorry Rich, bad post again!!! The OEM paper filter is designed not to be restrictive to the MAX volume of air the engine is pulling, so you won't get a delta P across it.........DUH!!!
How can the K&N NOT flow easier? It WILL flow easier, thereby decreasing delta P. Your own argument here is that the K&N has less material and therefore allows more dirt through. If it allows more dirt, it will allow more air as well. In this post, you even say yourself the K&N could flow more. You are contradicting yourself.

Last edited by Riceman; 03-12-2009 at 04:55 PM.
  #96  
Old 03-12-2009
Level I Supporter
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibowl9 View Post
How can the K&N NOT flow easier? It WILL flow easier, thereby decreasing delta P. Your own argument here is that the K&N has less material and therefore allows more dirt through. If it allows more dirt, it will allow more air as well. In this post, you even say yourself the K&N could flow more. You are contradicting yourself.
What I have continuously said is the OEM filter is not the limiting factor for the amount of airflow an engine will pull. Since it will flow all the air an engine pulls (ie. no restriction) there will be no more airflow with a K&N, even if it is capable of flowing more air! Therefore, no delta P across the OEM paper filter!
  #97  
Old 03-12-2009
wydopnthrtl's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE, Mi
Posts: 2,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda View Post
What I have continuously said is the OEM filter is not the limiting factor for the amount of airflow an engine will pull. Since it will flow all the air an engine pulls (ie. no restriction) there will be no more airflow with a K&N, even if it is capable of flowing more air! Therefore, no delta P across the OEM paper filter!
Thats just wrong. You say things as is they were true. But.. they aren't.


De-nial is not only a river that flows through egypt thar mr stalker.


Point is that on a panel replacement K&N panel filter...

the K&N for a stock ranger really is a waste of money.
No it won't hurt the engine.
Yes it'll lessen delta P for any *possible* power gains.


IMO if your ranger sees higher rpms often and you don't mind spending the money? Then go ahead. IMO a conical filter would be a better option because you get better laminar flow along with less air velocity per open cell.

Later guys.. and you to mr stalker

Rich
  #98  
Old 03-12-2009
Level I Supporter
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by wydopnthrtl View Post
Thats just wrong. You say things as is they were true. But.. they aren't.


De-nial is not only a river that flows through egypt thar mr stalker.


Point is that on a panel replacement K&N panel filter...

the K&N for a stock ranger really is a waste of money.
No it won't hurt the engine.
Yes it'll lessen delta P for any *possible* power gains.


IMO if your ranger sees higher rpms often and you don't mind spending the money? Then go ahead. IMO a conical filter would be a better option because you get better laminar flow along with less air velocity per open cell.

Later guys.. and you to mr stalker

Rich

Have you decided the right answer on the dirt a K&N passes?

Obviously yours must be passing a LOT OF DIRT to have to clean your throttle body, and MAF several times in 35K miles!! I've got a 160K+ miles
on my 3.0L, and the last time I checked them (about 15K miles ago) they
were all spotless, and they have never been cleaned!!!

https://www.ranger-forums.com/forum2...+throttle+body

One time you say this:

But.. my whole point on the matter is that this increased amount of debris is soooo small that it doesn't matter.

Tell this one to the people that have had a dusted turbo from using a K&N!!!!


And another time you say this:

You will *likely* increase the amount of grit entering the intake.

Again, which one is a lie Rich????


Quote:
Thats just wrong. You say things as is they were true. But.. they aren't.
Sorry Rich, you are WRONG, just like you have been many times in the past! But what do you expect from somebody that doesn't understand
what "OPEN" and "CLOSED" loop means!!!

Last edited by Takeda; 03-12-2009 at 06:05 PM.
  #99  
Old 03-12-2009
BlutoBodine's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda View Post

One time you say this:

From K&N:

"ENGINE PROTECTION LIMITED WARRANTY

Unlike many companies, our warranty for O/E replacement air filters and intake systems does extend beyond the replacement of a defective K&N part. For the original purchaser of the product, our warranty covers any engine damage or related costs incurred as a direct result of the use of a properly installed and maintained K&N O/E replacement air filter or intake system on the specific vehicle for which the product was designed to be used by K&N. This includes reasonable vehicle repair costs, sensor replacements, car rental fees or other incidental expenses directly related to an engine problem caused by the failure of a K&N product. Furthermore, we warrant that using our product will not result in a vehicle warranty denial. K&N will not be responsible for any indirect, consequential, special, contingent, or other damages not listed above............We strive to exceed consumer expectations. Customer service can be reached at 1-800-858-3333."


Quote:
But.. my whole point on the matter is that this increased amount of debris is soooo small that it doesn't matter.

Tell this one to the people that have had a dusted turbo from using a K&N!!!!

Did I mention that I ran a SC'ed stang and a Stage IV turbo SRT4 for years and a combined mileage of over 75,000 miles using K&N filters with no problems? Or that the old school rule was that racers break things?
  #100  
Old 03-12-2009
Mykhael's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: .
Posts: 4,197
I dont understand though

I have had my K&N CAI on for like 25,000 miles I have never had a problem with the MAF or throttle body.

I clean the filter every time I change oil. I have cleaned it also after it's been really dry and dusty during the summer when I didn't change the oil.

I'm not experiencing any problems with it like Bob says I should. Where I live it gets pretty dry and dusty during the summer.

Should I expect a total collapse of my truck soon due to the amount of garbage passing through?
Closed Thread

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charging / Starting issues... (forget the morning paper) sawred General Technical & Electrical 21 08-04-2006 09:48 AM
Sand Paper Question 00RANGER00 Exterior Semi-Tech 5 09-02-2005 10:34 AM
Most expensive piece of paper I've bought yet... Gearhead61 General Ford Ranger Discussion 26 06-09-2005 04:11 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:31 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.