K&N Air filter into ML430, should I, shouldn't I?

[DETANE]

Originally Posted by sstomcat

So r u saying that Mercedes Engineers did not do their homework of putting in the right filter? LOL

Yes that is what I am saying.lol

What I am saying is that these are all upgrades to increase performance. Why didnt all ML's come with BRABUS or AMG exuahst? Why did they build most of our cars in mexico? lol

nd the biggest one of all is why did they put the cup holders in the worst place where people hit them with there knees.

[RUEY220]

Riz,

if you haven't put it in yet, do it already! You will love the sound and the improved throttle response for that split second extra wiff of air it can enjoy from lettting the air in the engine.

For the naysayers that think it's in the mind this improves airflow why not go ahead and stick a paper towel or napkin in the air filter box to improve protection of the car. It can only help right?

Originally Posted by rizwansattar

Hey guys,

Ok so a lot of people are saying that installing a K&N air filter is bad and it's going to ruin the MAF and not give any performance/efficiency upgrade. I know it's not goign to give a crazy performance upgrade or anything.

I ordered my K&N filter before reading all the negative posts on it, and now it's sitting on my table.

Has anyone installed it and regretted the decision?

Are there some good experiences you guys have had with a K&N filter installed?

Thanks,
Riz

[AC_ML]

On my former 2001 ML 320, I used the K&N filter until my ML had 108,000 miles..

The funny thing is that from all the problems I had with my former ML 320, it never had a MAF problem in all it's 108,000 miles. I drove on dirt roads, on the beach, rain, flood, and pollen rich and hot Houston, Texas..

Another thing I found is that Mercedes does not change the air filter until the ML gets 50,000 miles. I had to pay to had it changed before the 50,000 mile maintainance. Knowing from Mercedes that many of the MAF sensors fail because of sand or dirt particles hitting the sensor(because of incorrectloy installed air filters or air leaks), I would either change frequently the air filters or get a K&N air filter and keep the K&N filter oiled and cleaned.

Concerning power, I had used K&N filters forever in various vehicles. On my ML's and when using the K&N filter, I get a noticeable increased engine growl when I accelerate. I feel a better response too. More on my V8 than on my former V6.

The K&N filters have a much better air flow than the crappy filters they put on the ML's. Just small increases on the air flow will have an effect on the mass air and flow sensors, which will make the ECU modify the air/gas mixture and therefore affect the overall response in a marginal way.

Though the power feeling is marginal, I still can feel the difference and most likely will install my K&N filter again on my 2005 ML 500 again.. Most of the K&N benefits come from being able to clean it and reuse it as frequently as one feels like and without having to pay for overpriced cheap crappy paper filters..

But everybody has their own strong/indifferent/mild opinions and each person will feel happy either installing and using one or feel happy by never installing one.. Either way everybody wins..

My humble $0.01...

AC

[Darkmann]

Originally Posted by RUEY220

did ford engineers also know what they were doing when they put gas tanks behind the rear bumper of the ford pinto? did they not do their homework when they put those tires that were popping on the Ford expeditions? yes, that is ford, but that's the first thing that comes to mind when i hear the engineers knew this and knew that... Even mercedes engineers made mistakes, why is it then ML's have many known common issues like the D pillars painting, heated seats burning pants, steering pump hoses popping, the list can go on too...

That's a lame argument. I'm and engineer and we design to the best we can with factors of safety we believe will cover a lot of conditions. Many times consumers don't even bother to read the instructions that come with the products, and when they screw up they blame the design or the manufacturer - why sue McDonalds for scaring yourself with a hot coffee cup! From experience with three of their products, I will be the first to say MB definitely made some massive mistakes with the ML (164 included) but I can bet you those were mostly due to management and the bean counters countering the engineers' decisions. That's just the way it is if companies have to make money. Even NASA screwed up with the shuttle, and we're not even in the business of making money!

Originally Posted by RUEY220

... engineers are all the same being human and make mistakes, or carry a general motto of doing the better good at the sacrifice of the lesser bad.

Again, I disagree (not with the human part). There are checks placed in the design cycle to make sure that mistakes are kept to the minimum. It's not that engineers don't make mistakes individually, but if the engineer were to take the process purely from an engineering point of view, systems would rarely fail, but could be boring and not money making. Here again, management intervenes to make sure engineering and profit making sing the same song.

Originally Posted by RUEY220

The paper filter helps the majority of the consumers, while it does sacrifice flow, period.

That's a perfect example of engineering compromising with management to come up with a profitable product, under clearly stated guidelines which usually show up as owner's manual. Now if the consumer for some reason decides to deviate from these guidelines they better educate themselves pretty well to have the product perform as the engineers intended, even with the compromise!

Originally Posted by RUEY220

If we're talking performance, how can you argue that having more flow is bad for the engine when the engine's performance is based on how much air it can access and pump to produce higher RPM's.

I assume by performance you mean measurable HP gains. If that's true, then this is the case of a consumer (you) not getting the complete information. I'm not an auto engineer, but from what I've read and experienced, on a normally aspirated motor like the ML's, simply intaking more air via the filter without making associated exhaust mods will only give a feeling of power with no measurable HP gains. That may be OK, I don't know, but I want real power!!!

Originally Posted by RUEY220

The longevity of the engine with a microscopic bacteria and molecules entering the engine k&N vs paper as I said earlier is all in the mind. This debate is no different than comparing changing oil every 3000 miles vs every 3500 miles. How much longer will your car last if you did it at 3000?

I agree some here. In my view, the problem is not the filter itself - it will perform well. My problem is with the usually overzealous user who doesn't or partially reads the cleaning instructions and ends up fouling the MAF, for example. I look at the intake of my Z and yes, some of that red cleaning stuff gets sucked through the MAF. It could get costly if one doesn't RTFM. That's where I worry!

Originally Posted by RUEY220

If it makes your car last if you do fewer miles per interval, why not change then every 2k miles, or even 1k miles? Back to point at hand, why argue about something so minor as to engine wear when it cannot even be proven. But it can be proven K&N filters flow better than paper, hence racers use them. Tell Jeff Gordon to put a paper filter in his race car and see what he says to you.

C'mon man, even you know that comparing racing motors to daily drivers is extremely unfair. Racing engines don't last more than a few races, at best. Daily drivers have to go way over 100K for a lot of people, and even as much as 500K+ for some people. Don't even compare them.

[ml3addict]

i had the K & N cone filter in my 350 and never had a problem with it. had it for about 9,000 miles. i did a custom set-up though and fabricated a heatshield with a hose feeding to the side of the radiator where the hose was to the stock airbox. i noticed minor torque gains, but i dont know it just the cone filter will contribute that. i had all the basic boltons ( exhaust, chip and intake) and together they helped. i will say that my car didnt save much on gas with the 3 of those combined
if ur doing it for the sound..with my 350 i had the cone filter before i got my exhaust and my car sounded like a v8- it had a deeper tone to it which was cool

[RUEY220]

I didn't mean to strike a chord and appear i have anything against engineers. With all due respect, I know engineers are much needed as well as doctors and biochemists, but they do make mistakes to. My reason in bringing up the examples I did was because there was the unpreventable and the unforseens in life.

I look at Biochemists like engineers but they focus on drugs and medicine. If you are to compare in parrallel controlled lab tests and experiments between car manufacturers, and drug manufacturers, who do you think has more budget and more research? I would say it is the drug companies, but yet why do drugs with side effects still make it to the market? Because the lab test are not 100%, and they overlook things or they make mistakes.

Again I'm not out to put down engineers and blame it on them 100% but my response was only to a sarcastic remark that MB engineers didn't think of this or that? You can't always assume they covered everything or as you mention there are other reasons for why things happen. I happened to point out the possible reasons on the engineering side which I see your point is not fair.

In response to your comments pointing toward management calling the final shots, it's also not fair for you to do so because I'm from that side of exec management and I know how it is when workers blame the upper management for mistakes and failures. It is up to us to correct what happens below, but again not everything is in our control. If a lead engineer tells CTO his team covered everything, how can everyone be so sure? By the time everyone finds out a mistake was made it is too late. If you're simply blaming the bean counting at MB, do you think they would suddenly recall vehicles, spend even more money on changing design, when it could have been fixed from the get go? You are right, they are in the business to make money, but how sure are you that the managers at Firestone said ok, lets produce tires that have sidewalls that pop. Hopefully a few people gets killed in a car accident and we can settle those lawsuits. Business leaders fear lawsuits the most because they are never ending and as you said people are sue happy like in the case of Mcdonalds. A lawsuit is something you cannot calculate its risks because they're never ending. Why do you think compliance such as workplace sensitivity, safety audits are necessary?

The bottom line is that everyone works as a team and they're responsible as a team for whatever happens. People who don't realize this fail to run a solid operation and focus more on the blame game than anything else. I think the difference between my points and yours is that I'm describing things from a global perspective and not the engineering department's point of view.

This post was way off topic already, but I just had to rebutt with the other point of view. Back to the K&N filters, I still can't understand however, how you're so against K&N filters.

1) It last the lifetime of the car with cleaning
2) It has a better sound
3) It flows better (period)

Downside:
1) Your engine might last 200k miles with stock filter vs 198k miles with K&N.

Originally Posted by Darkmann

That's a lame argument. I'm and engineer and we design to the best we can with factors of safety we believe will cover a lot of conditions. Many times consumers don't even bother to read the instructions that come with the products, and when they screw up they blame the design or the manufacturer - why sue McDonalds for scaring yourself with a hot coffee cup! From experience with three of their products, I will be the first to say MB definitely made some massive mistakes with the ML (164 included) but I can bet you those were mostly due to management and the bean counters countering the engineers' decisions. That's just the way it is if companies have to make money. Even NASA screwed up with the shuttle, and we're not even in the business of making money!



Again, I disagree (not with the human part). There are checks placed in the design cycle to make sure that mistakes are kept to the minimum. It's not that engineers don't make mistakes individually, but if the engineer were to take the process purely from an engineering point of view, systems would rarely fail, but could be boring and not money making. Here again, management intervenes to make sure engineering and profit making sing the same song.



That's a perfect example of engineering compromising with management to come up with a profitable product, under clearly stated guidelines which usually show up as owner's manual. Now if the consumer for some reason decides to deviate from these guidelines they better educate themselves pretty well to have the product perform as the engineers intended, even with the compromise!



I assume by performance you mean measurable HP gains. If that's true, then this is the case of a consumer (you) not getting the complete information. I'm not an auto engineer, but from what I've read and experienced, on a normally aspirated motor like the ML's, simply intaking more air via the filter without making associated exhaust mods will only give a feeling of power with no measurable HP gains. That may be OK, I don't know, but I want real power!!!



I agree some here. In my view, the problem is not the filter itself - it will perform well. My problem is with the usually overzealous user who doesn't or partially reads the cleaning instructions and ends up fouling the MAF, for example. I look at the intake of my Z and yes, some of that red cleaning stuff gets sucked through the MAF. It could get costly if one doesn't RTFM. That's where I worry!



C'mon man, even you know that comparing racing motors to daily drivers is extremely unfair. Racing engines don't last more than a few races, at best. Daily drivers have to go way over 100K for a lot of people, and even as much as 500K+ for some people. Don't even compare them.

[RUEY220]

Originally Posted by ml3addict

i had the K & N cone filter in my 350 and never had a problem with it. had it for about 9,000 miles. i did a custom set-up though and fabricated a heatshield with a hose feeding to the side of the radiator where the hose was to the stock airbox. i noticed minor torque gains, but i dont know it just the cone filter will contribute that. i had all the basic boltons ( exhaust, chip and intake) and together they helped. i will say that my car didnt save much on gas with the 3 of those combined
if ur doing it for the sound..with my 350 i had the cone filter before i got my exhaust and my car sounded like a v8- it had a deeper tone to it which was cool

Do you think it didn't save much on gas because you kept flooring it to hear the sound?

[five0]

DETANE, how ofter do you clean the K&N? Also, I've read some posts where members have actually placed the filter on paper towels for day to absorb some oil before installing. what do you think and what did you do?

[S4toML]

Originally Posted by rizwansattar

...
so a lot of people are saying that installing a K&N air filter is bad and it's going to ruin the MAF and not give any performance/efficiency upgrade. I know it's not goign to give a crazy performance upgrade or anything
...

Seems you (1) already did your research; (2) knew there is little to no significant performance gains...yet...

I ordered my K&N filter before reading all the negative posts on it, and now it's sitting on my table.

YOU WENT AHEAD and ordered it anyway...so...

Has anyone installed it and regretted the decision?

Are there some good experiences you guys have had with a K&N filter installed?

The better question is: are you asking to convince yourself that you actually did the right thing or not?

[MB-SV]

The extra noise of the K&N simulates a power increase.