K&N FILTER--Settle this once and for all.

[ML Precision]

Originally Posted by Darkmann

Well, your poll doesn't completely tell the story. For longevity, I have no issues with the K&N filter. If you're looking for performance gains, forget it! I also assume that you're talking the direct rectangular replacement and not the cone type. I vote YES, just because I have used them a lot and while they offer longevity, they do not offer any measurable performance or MPG advantage without exhaust mods!

I'll agree with Darkmann, that they are good for longevity, but, after my post "Any advantage to a K&N air filter?", I have decided to stick to the OEM filter. It's a good filter and for the small gain in perfomance with the K&N, I don't want to reduce filtration. (more air = less filtration)

[DelJ]

It is called the placebo effect:

placebo effect (ple-sê´bÖ î-fèkt´) noun
A beneficial effect in a patient following a particular treatment that arises from the patient's expectations concerning the treatment rather than from the treatment itself.

In other words, you imagined an improvement because you were expecting an improvement.

DelJ

Originally Posted by MJ50

...on my 203 and 163, i do notice k&n filters sucking in lil' more air...
at least u 'feel' like u r gaining....
even if it's 0.5% gain, gain is gain... and i'm happy...

[RUEY220]

Originally Posted by Darkmann

There's probably only one person on this board who fully understands what you're trying to say here. I HAVE DRIVEN K&N FILTRES A LOT ON A AT LEAST 3 VEHICLES AND THEY DO LAST A LONG TIME. IS 150K+ LONG ENOUGH FO JUST ONE CAR? There was no measurable performance due to the filter on any of these vehicles.



Ruey, we're talking about a vehicle air filter, not the tire, fuel system, tranny or motor; just a darn air filter. How many times has there been a air filter sabotage by anyone, including vehicle owners? None that I know of. You really think that a valet would cause your air filter to ...well, whatever, you're scrambling here man. Like I said earlier, I have driven on these and they last a very long time and I don't argue the 1million miles claim.


Where in the world do you drive? Indy 500? So you spend $50+ just for a 0.001 off the line response. I wonder how much fuel you burn in the process. For starters, for a SUV, the HP vs RPM curve for the K&N is useless until far up in the RPM range. You'll still get miserably slammed by a stock ML55 while your'e messing up your MAF. It really just isn't not worth the pain for a ML if your goal is performance.

as i stated in the previous post i never said that the filter adds hp's. my previous post was touching on two points.

1) Throttle response is not always benchmarked by hp gains. You can have more hp's but poor throttle response as you know it is useful since you seem to be into performance cars for over 200k miles driving experience and doing some creative driving techniques like heel and toe a good throttle response helps alot more than hp's etc.

2) In my effort to keep thing short and not spend much time writing my post, I didn't make myself clear and was thinking about another subject. I was referring to longevity of the engine is all relative to the engine itself, and unless you put the exactly same cars side by side that went through the same elements, you can't blame the filter for shorter engine life as others have suggested.

So my closing remarks is that it depends on what you're trying to achieve in whether the K&N is or is not for you.