k&n or paper filter?
- Thread starter Jdm5630
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Mangina
Full Access Members
It depends on whether you prefer to take out your filter, clean it, dry it, oil it, then put it back in or if you'd rather take it out, throw it away, and put in a new one.
You won't see any difference in performance.
You won't see any difference in performance.
K&Ns claim to flow more air too. I like them. You dont have to clean them a lot unless you live in a dusty area. I never oiled mine, oops. That was many years ago. Also dont try and wash it in the washer. Bent it, lesson learned.
Last edited:
Harry12
Active Member
The only gains that K&N shows is in the upper RPM range where the Expy rarely goes.
My opinion is that the filter itself makes little difference in performance. The cfm demand is not great enough to exceed the paper filter capacity as long as you replace them as needed.
3rd party test I have seen show oil/cotton capable of higher cfm but at demands much greater than most stock engines require. But the same test shown the paper filter to "filter" more particles out. Makes sense if you think about it. There is a lot of debate on the subject with no real clear answer not to mention a lot of contradictory info.
When I used to race my stang weekly I found insignificant difference between the two types in the 1/4 mile. (stock) But then I of course kept the K&N once I had it.
Up until I swapped in my modded motor in the expy I used paper filter. Still have paper filter in my Sho as well. If I really felt there was performance to be gained I would have installed one by now so you may say I am a skeptic. Unless I am changing the intake that typically come with oil/cotton filter setup I generally stay with the paper filters.
So it comes down to what you prefer and/or whom you believe.
If you do use K&N style make sure you do not "over oil" them or it can get oil in the maf sensor which would then require cleaning. Not really a big deal just a little bit of time to remove and clean with appropriate maf cleaner.
3rd party test I have seen show oil/cotton capable of higher cfm but at demands much greater than most stock engines require. But the same test shown the paper filter to "filter" more particles out. Makes sense if you think about it. There is a lot of debate on the subject with no real clear answer not to mention a lot of contradictory info.
When I used to race my stang weekly I found insignificant difference between the two types in the 1/4 mile. (stock) But then I of course kept the K&N once I had it.
Up until I swapped in my modded motor in the expy I used paper filter. Still have paper filter in my Sho as well. If I really felt there was performance to be gained I would have installed one by now so you may say I am a skeptic. Unless I am changing the intake that typically come with oil/cotton filter setup I generally stay with the paper filters.
So it comes down to what you prefer and/or whom you believe.
If you do use K&N style make sure you do not "over oil" them or it can get oil in the maf sensor which would then require cleaning. Not really a big deal just a little bit of time to remove and clean with appropriate maf cleaner.
Last edited:
DRS1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Posts
- 45
- Reaction score
- 2
K&N are noticeable for me in the Super Duty diesels, the Crown Vic's...
However, the Expedition I have gone both ways several times. Testing between stock and K&N. No difference in mileage or performance. I seem to get better mileage with stock. Especially when under hood temps are high. Suggest stick with stock for Expedition. As I experience it.
Genesis 2012 TAU 5.0
Sent from my iPhone using Tap..
However, the Expedition I have gone both ways several times. Testing between stock and K&N. No difference in mileage or performance. I seem to get better mileage with stock. Especially when under hood temps are high. Suggest stick with stock for Expedition. As I experience it.
Genesis 2012 TAU 5.0
Sent from my iPhone using Tap..
Mangina
Full Access Members
I don't buy it at all.
If manufacturers will spend the time and money to redesign and remove the old school metal radio antennas and integrating them into the windshield to save 0.1 mpg on their CAFE ratings, why would they leave in an undersized airbox with a restrictive air filter that costs 10-30 hp and 1-3 mpg like K&N claims?
If manufacturers will spend the time and money to redesign and remove the old school metal radio antennas and integrating them into the windshield to save 0.1 mpg on their CAFE ratings, why would they leave in an undersized airbox with a restrictive air filter that costs 10-30 hp and 1-3 mpg like K&N claims?
I had a K&N on my 99 GT...
I really didn't see much of a difference--if any. Plus, I really hated washing & oiling the thing and cleaning the MAF.
If there were an oil-less performance filter, I'd consider it. But for me, I've used just regular filters--even in my performance cars.
I really didn't see much of a difference--if any. Plus, I really hated washing & oiling the thing and cleaning the MAF.
If there were an oil-less performance filter, I'd consider it. But for me, I've used just regular filters--even in my performance cars.
Paul2003
Well-Known Member
Truck Trend got 10 HP by installing a K&N kit on their old 97 F150 with a 5.4.
1997 Ford F-150 Lariat Restoration - Tune-up and Fluid Change
I'm sure it has some advantage but I'm not sure you'll really notice it day to day.
1997 Ford F-150 Lariat Restoration - Tune-up and Fluid Change
I'm sure it has some advantage but I'm not sure you'll really notice it day to day.
That's for the complete kit included removing the smallish snorkle to the fender (gotts mod) with unknown miles on the paper filter... I would like to see a comparison to gotts mod and stock filter setup. I feel the stock snorkle is your greatest bottle neck.
You got to realize the dyno test are also performed with the hood wide open so the "cold air intake" can receive cooler air vs heated under hood air since it is no longer pulling from the fender. And of course dyno test are done at w.o.t. so don't expect the gains at part throttle when airflow demand is much lower.
Last edited:
Swamp Fever
New Member
I didn't gain any mpg with gotts mod and lost 1 mpg when i removed k&n and put an stp paper filter in. Of course i do have to mention that at the same time i went from 5-30 oil to 5-20. Not sure that has anything to do with it though..
I have never seen any mpg difference with various filters period. Hell... porting heads, intake, installing long tubes, etc... hardly netted any gains in mpg I hear claimed with an air filter.
I would not expect removing the snorkle to improve mpg... nor hurt it. Just does not add up when you understand more airflow equals more fuel. But then the throttle plate is the determining factor there. It or your right controls the airflow. The pcm runs stoich regardless in closed loop. Changing filters does not alter the air/fuel ratio.
Removing the snorkle potentially increase hp at w.o.t. yes. And that at high rpms when demand is highest. Now I don't know if all year expys use the same snorkle but it was the smallest point in my 2000 expy.
K&N has done very well convincing the general public that their engines need more air flow and the filter is the source for that improvement. Its an easy sell for those looking to improve performance understandably. They make a fortune selling these setups and much of that is invested in marketing. I have seen reports in many forums and on the web where users have lost power on the dyno with a K&N. But they are not nearly as easy to find as reports publicized by K&N or companies they advertise through.
I don't think most understand the motor is generally under vacuum at part throttle which is determined by the throttle plate. Get a vacuum gauge and it is easy to monitor. You also get the best mileage when you can keep it under greater vacuum!!! Less airflow thus less fuel. It's interesting that they do not make any claims for mpg improvement but that "many owners have reported X improvement" in mpg.
I would not expect removing the snorkle to improve mpg... nor hurt it. Just does not add up when you understand more airflow equals more fuel. But then the throttle plate is the determining factor there. It or your right controls the airflow. The pcm runs stoich regardless in closed loop. Changing filters does not alter the air/fuel ratio.
Removing the snorkle potentially increase hp at w.o.t. yes. And that at high rpms when demand is highest. Now I don't know if all year expys use the same snorkle but it was the smallest point in my 2000 expy.
K&N has done very well convincing the general public that their engines need more air flow and the filter is the source for that improvement. Its an easy sell for those looking to improve performance understandably. They make a fortune selling these setups and much of that is invested in marketing. I have seen reports in many forums and on the web where users have lost power on the dyno with a K&N. But they are not nearly as easy to find as reports publicized by K&N or companies they advertise through.
I don't think most understand the motor is generally under vacuum at part throttle which is determined by the throttle plate. Get a vacuum gauge and it is easy to monitor. You also get the best mileage when you can keep it under greater vacuum!!! Less airflow thus less fuel. It's interesting that they do not make any claims for mpg improvement but that "many owners have reported X improvement" in mpg.
Last edited:
The K$N debate has been going on for years. At one time they advertised 13HP increase at the rear wheels. That ad went away quickly. When I was really into Corvettes years ago, K$N was invited to Carlisle to do a before and after dyno comparison. That went on for a number of years. They never showed up to my knowledge.
I rarely find anybody who spends a bunch of money on a supposed performance add on and have them say I wasted my money. I'm of the belief that the 1 or 2 mpg gain some see is due to a change in driving habits or more likely their wallet is lighter after the purchase.
One must credit K$N for one hell of a marketing operation if nothing else.
I rarely find anybody who spends a bunch of money on a supposed performance add on and have them say I wasted my money. I'm of the belief that the 1 or 2 mpg gain some see is due to a change in driving habits or more likely their wallet is lighter after the purchase.
One must credit K$N for one hell of a marketing operation if nothing else.
Last edited:
Harry12
Active Member
I have a 12 EL and tried both the K&N drop in filter and their whole cold air kit. Neither one impressed me much so I did the Gotts mod and run the paper filter. I have certainly not seen my mileage drop with the paper filter.
Similar threads
