Joined
·
0 Posts
[No message]
Air Filters
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Joined
·
0 Posts
Just drop-in filters. No one makes the cone-type filters yet.
Joined
·
0 Posts
What the hell for???
So that you can hear the intake noise??? Sheesh! Go buy an Audi 1.8t and mod it like all the punks!
So that you can hear the intake noise??? Sheesh! Go buy an Audi 1.8t and mod it like all the punks!
Joined
·
0 Posts
RELAX Bob!
: So that you can hear the intake noise??? Sheesh! Go buy an Audi 1.8t and mod it like all the punks!<p>Bob you got to RELAX!!! I actually think a K&N filter is good idea to get a better running engine. In addition, I don't believe the C240 has enough horsepower, ~170hp and this would give it that extra boost. So stop going around and putting people down and just drive your damn car. OK!!!!!<p><br>
: So that you can hear the intake noise??? Sheesh! Go buy an Audi 1.8t and mod it like all the punks!<p>Bob you got to RELAX!!! I actually think a K&N filter is good idea to get a better running engine. In addition, I don't believe the C240 has enough horsepower, ~170hp and this would give it that extra boost. So stop going around and putting people down and just drive your damn car. OK!!!!!<p><br>
Joined
·
0 Posts
WRONG
K&N filters have been shown to allow larger particles through than stock filters and offer a 0.0% increase in hp. Do your research! The only thing it offers is intake noise. The cone filters are even worst since they suck down hot air from the engine bay.<p>Only asshole punks use aftermarket filters on stock engines.<br>
K&N filters have been shown to allow larger particles through than stock filters and offer a 0.0% increase in hp. Do your research! The only thing it offers is intake noise. The cone filters are even worst since they suck down hot air from the engine bay.<p>Only asshole punks use aftermarket filters on stock engines.<br>
Joined
·
0 Posts
Re: RIGHT
According to your insightful analysis, I guess I'm an asshole punk, Bob.<p>My old Peugeot 405 has had a K&N filter in it for 250,000 trouble-free km of motoring. Not to mention 200,000 plus miles on a 1963 Peugeot which also has a K&N in it. And K&N actually does flow more air than paper filters. I could show you lots of supporting data, specifically from the British magazine Cars and Car Conversions, dating back to 1980.<p>If K&Ns are maintained properly, they are BETTER for long-term reliability than paper filters, as the oil traps particulates that the paper filters pass. Oh, and I've saved a couple hundred dollars in air filter costs by using K&N all this time.<p>Take some stresstabs, Bob - maybe you'll feel better in the morning ;->
According to your insightful analysis, I guess I'm an asshole punk, Bob.<p>My old Peugeot 405 has had a K&N filter in it for 250,000 trouble-free km of motoring. Not to mention 200,000 plus miles on a 1963 Peugeot which also has a K&N in it. And K&N actually does flow more air than paper filters. I could show you lots of supporting data, specifically from the British magazine Cars and Car Conversions, dating back to 1980.<p>If K&Ns are maintained properly, they are BETTER for long-term reliability than paper filters, as the oil traps particulates that the paper filters pass. Oh, and I've saved a couple hundred dollars in air filter costs by using K&N all this time.<p>Take some stresstabs, Bob - maybe you'll feel better in the morning ;->
Joined
·
0 Posts
Just ignore Bob
I posted a simple question about the Chrome headlight rings that have just come out for the C, you know the ones so many people put on their CLs, CLKs, and Es, and Bob makes some lame post about me being the true definition of a Ricer, I don't even know what he's talking about. Sounds like a racist put down of orientals, and I'm not oriental. We just need to ignore him, hopefully he'll go away.
I posted a simple question about the Chrome headlight rings that have just come out for the C, you know the ones so many people put on their CLs, CLKs, and Es, and Bob makes some lame post about me being the true definition of a Ricer, I don't even know what he's talking about. Sounds like a racist put down of orientals, and I'm not oriental. We just need to ignore him, hopefully he'll go away.
Joined
·
0 Posts
WRONG
Joined
·
0 Posts
Re:
Oriental describes a rug not a person idiot. I'm Asian.
Oriental describes a rug not a person idiot. I'm Asian.
Joined
·
0 Posts
You'd better check your dictionary Bob
You really are good at calling anybody who doesn't agree with you names aren't you? Good bye, time for me to ignore you like most obviously do. <p>
You really are good at calling anybody who doesn't agree with you names aren't you? Good bye, time for me to ignore you like most obviously do. <p>
Joined
·
0 Posts
K&;N does flow more air than a stock paper filter, but . . .
on any modern, well engineered engine, the paper filter already flows more air than the engine can use. In other words, almost all car mfrs. including MB have figured out to just make the airbox large enough to flow more air than the engine can process. There is a lot of R&D that goes into a modern car, to get every tenth of a MPG and hp out of the engine. They are not going to overlook having a large enough air filter.<p>So, while a K&N theoretically CAN flow more air, in use on a modern car, it doesn't flow any more air than the stock filter.<p>K&N also will tell you (because I've asked them directly) that a stock filter stops 98% of particulates in the standardized govt test, while the K&N stops 97%. That sounds ok, until you look at the numbers closely. That means the stock filter allows 2 out of every 100 particles in. The K&N allows 3 out of every 100. That means the K&N allows in 33% more particles than a stock filter. All for ZERO hp gain on a stock, modern car.<p>Not a good deal, to me.<p><br>: According to your insightful analysis, I guess I'm an asshole punk, Bob.<p>My old Peugeot 405 has had a K&N filter in it for 250,000 trouble-free km of motoring. Not to mention 200,000 plus miles on a 1963 Peugeot which also has a K&N in it. And K&N actually does flow more air than paper filters. I could show you lots of supporting data, specifically from the British magazine Cars and Car Conversions, dating back to 1980.<p>If K&Ns are maintained properly, they are BETTER for long-term reliability than paper filters, as the oil traps particulates that the paper filters pass. Oh, and I've saved a couple hundred dollars in air filter costs by using K&N all this time.<p>Take some stresstabs, Bob - maybe you'll feel better in the morning ;-><p>
on any modern, well engineered engine, the paper filter already flows more air than the engine can use. In other words, almost all car mfrs. including MB have figured out to just make the airbox large enough to flow more air than the engine can process. There is a lot of R&D that goes into a modern car, to get every tenth of a MPG and hp out of the engine. They are not going to overlook having a large enough air filter.<p>So, while a K&N theoretically CAN flow more air, in use on a modern car, it doesn't flow any more air than the stock filter.<p>K&N also will tell you (because I've asked them directly) that a stock filter stops 98% of particulates in the standardized govt test, while the K&N stops 97%. That sounds ok, until you look at the numbers closely. That means the stock filter allows 2 out of every 100 particles in. The K&N allows 3 out of every 100. That means the K&N allows in 33% more particles than a stock filter. All for ZERO hp gain on a stock, modern car.<p>Not a good deal, to me.<p><br>: According to your insightful analysis, I guess I'm an asshole punk, Bob.<p>My old Peugeot 405 has had a K&N filter in it for 250,000 trouble-free km of motoring. Not to mention 200,000 plus miles on a 1963 Peugeot which also has a K&N in it. And K&N actually does flow more air than paper filters. I could show you lots of supporting data, specifically from the British magazine Cars and Car Conversions, dating back to 1980.<p>If K&Ns are maintained properly, they are BETTER for long-term reliability than paper filters, as the oil traps particulates that the paper filters pass. Oh, and I've saved a couple hundred dollars in air filter costs by using K&N all this time.<p>Take some stresstabs, Bob - maybe you'll feel better in the morning ;-><p>
Joined
·
0 Posts
Re: Just ignore Bob
: I posted a simple question about the Chrome headlight rings that have just come out for the C, you know the ones so many people put on their CLs, CLKs, and Es, and Bob makes some lame post about me being the true definition of a Ricer, I don't even know what he's talking about. Sounds like a racist put down of orientals, and I'm not oriental. We just need to ignore him, hopefully he'll go away.<p>I tried to hold myself everytime that BOB mention something. He's got BAD mouth,,and I think he is a racist.I am Japanese and I own own five diffirent brand of car I don't care what people drive as long as they are happy with it. I own a volvo, honda, toyota,nissan and ML320 2K before that I've own a GMC. Just ignore BOB.
: I posted a simple question about the Chrome headlight rings that have just come out for the C, you know the ones so many people put on their CLs, CLKs, and Es, and Bob makes some lame post about me being the true definition of a Ricer, I don't even know what he's talking about. Sounds like a racist put down of orientals, and I'm not oriental. We just need to ignore him, hopefully he'll go away.<p>I tried to hold myself everytime that BOB mention something. He's got BAD mouth,,and I think he is a racist.I am Japanese and I own own five diffirent brand of car I don't care what people drive as long as they are happy with it. I own a volvo, honda, toyota,nissan and ML320 2K before that I've own a GMC. Just ignore BOB.
Joined
·
0 Posts
Galt has it correct. Please read his post (more)...
I will clarify that the K&N allows 50% more dirt particles into your engine than a stock paper filter. In addition, those figures are for dirt particles larger than 1 micron. For particles smaller than that, the K&N allows 3 to 5 times more dirt into the engine.<p>I just can't believe that people think adding a K&N is going to increase horsepower by even 1%. Manufactures are under extreme pressure by government regulations to increase fuel economy and by customers and other manufactures to make better products. If adding a K&N filter would improve power by just 1% or add just 1mpg without any side effects, then every single manufacturer would be installing K&N filters from the factory. Not only that, but K&N would jump at the chance to prove to auto manufactures that their filters can make such improvements so K&N could be an OEM for hundreds of millions of filters every year instead of just a few million (if it's even that high) through the aftermarket. You are naive if you don't believe this is true.
I will clarify that the K&N allows 50% more dirt particles into your engine than a stock paper filter. In addition, those figures are for dirt particles larger than 1 micron. For particles smaller than that, the K&N allows 3 to 5 times more dirt into the engine.<p>I just can't believe that people think adding a K&N is going to increase horsepower by even 1%. Manufactures are under extreme pressure by government regulations to increase fuel economy and by customers and other manufactures to make better products. If adding a K&N filter would improve power by just 1% or add just 1mpg without any side effects, then every single manufacturer would be installing K&N filters from the factory. Not only that, but K&N would jump at the chance to prove to auto manufactures that their filters can make such improvements so K&N could be an OEM for hundreds of millions of filters every year instead of just a few million (if it's even that high) through the aftermarket. You are naive if you don't believe this is true.
Joined
·
0 Posts
The thing about ";enthusiasts";
are that they are generally some of the most gullible people around, and most suseptible to advertising hype and "junk science." That's why aftermarket "performance" products is a huge, huge industry. Its a tough road to get people to throw away high quality BMW, Porsche, MB factory parts to spend money on usually INFERIOR aftermarket products (I'd say that 90% of aftermarket stuff is inferior to the factory MB, BMW or Porsche part it replaces), but they manage to do it through "image" and advertising hype, along with junk science.<br>The junk science of K&N is of course this: "K&N flows 3 times more air than a stock filter." Yes, this statement may be true. "Therefore, it MUST improve hp in my car, after all, it is freer flowing, and flow=power." Ahh, that's the leap that K&N wants you to make, even though it does not necessarily follow, as I described in my first post. Other junk science: "But race cars use them." Answer: So what? Race cars use a lot of things you would not use in a regular car (like low or no detergent race oil). Race cars have open exhausts and can perhaps actually use a freer flowing filter. Race cars are also rebuilt at the end of each season (or at the end of each race!), and they don't really care about particulate intake much.<br>Every reputable, third party that has dyno tested K&N in the last 10 years has shown ZERO hp gain. (Bruce Anderson, Jim Conforti, Jerry Woods, etc.) In fact, they show that if you run the car with *no air filter at all* you will not see any gain.<br>The air filter simply is not the bottleneck on a modern car (its usually the exhaust, or the cylinder head itself).<br>But, a K&N may make the car a little louder, and to many, "louder=more powerful." You also get a lot of "butt dyno" testimonials from people who convince themselves their car is faster with the K&N, even though in reality, it simply can't be, (and even if it did increase hp by 5 hp, there's no way you could tell such a small difference by just driving the car.) That would be like saying you could tell the handling effects of a 1 psi change in your tire pressure.<p><br>: I will clarify that the K&N allows 50% more dirt particles into your engine than a stock paper filter. In addition, those figures are for dirt particles larger than 1 micron. For particles smaller than that, the K&N allows 3 to 5 times more dirt into the engine.<p>I just can't believe that people think adding a K&N is going to increase horsepower by even 1%. Manufactures are under extreme pressure by government regulations to increase fuel economy and by customers and other manufactures to make better products. If adding a K&N filter would improve power by just 1% or add just 1mpg without any side effects, then every single manufacturer would be installing K&N filters from the factory. Not only that, but K&N would jump at the chance to prove to auto manufactures that their filters can make such improvements so K&N could be an OEM for hundreds of millions of filters every year instead of just a few million (if it's even that high) through the aftermarket. You are naive if you don't believe this is true.<p>
are that they are generally some of the most gullible people around, and most suseptible to advertising hype and "junk science." That's why aftermarket "performance" products is a huge, huge industry. Its a tough road to get people to throw away high quality BMW, Porsche, MB factory parts to spend money on usually INFERIOR aftermarket products (I'd say that 90% of aftermarket stuff is inferior to the factory MB, BMW or Porsche part it replaces), but they manage to do it through "image" and advertising hype, along with junk science.<br>The junk science of K&N is of course this: "K&N flows 3 times more air than a stock filter." Yes, this statement may be true. "Therefore, it MUST improve hp in my car, after all, it is freer flowing, and flow=power." Ahh, that's the leap that K&N wants you to make, even though it does not necessarily follow, as I described in my first post. Other junk science: "But race cars use them." Answer: So what? Race cars use a lot of things you would not use in a regular car (like low or no detergent race oil). Race cars have open exhausts and can perhaps actually use a freer flowing filter. Race cars are also rebuilt at the end of each season (or at the end of each race!), and they don't really care about particulate intake much.<br>Every reputable, third party that has dyno tested K&N in the last 10 years has shown ZERO hp gain. (Bruce Anderson, Jim Conforti, Jerry Woods, etc.) In fact, they show that if you run the car with *no air filter at all* you will not see any gain.<br>The air filter simply is not the bottleneck on a modern car (its usually the exhaust, or the cylinder head itself).<br>But, a K&N may make the car a little louder, and to many, "louder=more powerful." You also get a lot of "butt dyno" testimonials from people who convince themselves their car is faster with the K&N, even though in reality, it simply can't be, (and even if it did increase hp by 5 hp, there's no way you could tell such a small difference by just driving the car.) That would be like saying you could tell the handling effects of a 1 psi change in your tire pressure.<p><br>: I will clarify that the K&N allows 50% more dirt particles into your engine than a stock paper filter. In addition, those figures are for dirt particles larger than 1 micron. For particles smaller than that, the K&N allows 3 to 5 times more dirt into the engine.<p>I just can't believe that people think adding a K&N is going to increase horsepower by even 1%. Manufactures are under extreme pressure by government regulations to increase fuel economy and by customers and other manufactures to make better products. If adding a K&N filter would improve power by just 1% or add just 1mpg without any side effects, then every single manufacturer would be installing K&N filters from the factory. Not only that, but K&N would jump at the chance to prove to auto manufactures that their filters can make such improvements so K&N could be an OEM for hundreds of millions of filters every year instead of just a few million (if it's even that high) through the aftermarket. You are naive if you don't believe this is true.<p>
Joined
·
0 Posts
Thanks for all the info that most of you submitted. After reading all your comments I don't think I will pursue a filter change. As for Bob you really do need to settle down. Not everyone knows everything like you.<p>Thanks CM
Joined
·
0 Posts
Junk Science, Part 2
Your analysis is fundimentally flawed.<p>While it may be true that a CLEAN paper filter will flow adequate air and not be a bottleneck for any OEM induction system, the same may not be said of a DIRTY paper filter.<p>Show me a driver whose paper air filter is operating at its theoretical maximum efficiency and I'll show you a new car being driven off the factory floor. A random survey of cars on the road, even well-maintained ones, would show that probably 50% of their air filters are restricting airflow. This is a FACT.<p>On the other hand, an oil-impregnated filter like K&N works better when it's DIRTY than a paper filter does when it's CLEAN. This is also a FACT.<p>Ergo, for real world conditions, a K&N is a better filter, period.<p>K&N and the other oiled filters act in much the same way as an oil bath air filter, as fitted to many heavy-duty industrial engines. That is to say that the oil actually enables a high quality of filtration to occur, without the cumulative airflow restriction suffered by paper elements.<p>I would never claim that a K&N provides a power advantage in my cars. What it DOES do is save me $50 CDN per year in paper air filter costs, all the while filtering and flowing air, in real-world conditions, much more efficiently than the OEM filter would. So I've saved $500 so far on one of my cars, by spending $75 on the K&N instead.<p>Oh, and there is absolutely no difference in noise from a K&N OEM-type replacement filter than there was with a paper filter. If there was I would not have bought one.<p>I would hate to be labelled a "ricer", by some self-important paragon of wisdom, in error.
Your analysis is fundimentally flawed.<p>While it may be true that a CLEAN paper filter will flow adequate air and not be a bottleneck for any OEM induction system, the same may not be said of a DIRTY paper filter.<p>Show me a driver whose paper air filter is operating at its theoretical maximum efficiency and I'll show you a new car being driven off the factory floor. A random survey of cars on the road, even well-maintained ones, would show that probably 50% of their air filters are restricting airflow. This is a FACT.<p>On the other hand, an oil-impregnated filter like K&N works better when it's DIRTY than a paper filter does when it's CLEAN. This is also a FACT.<p>Ergo, for real world conditions, a K&N is a better filter, period.<p>K&N and the other oiled filters act in much the same way as an oil bath air filter, as fitted to many heavy-duty industrial engines. That is to say that the oil actually enables a high quality of filtration to occur, without the cumulative airflow restriction suffered by paper elements.<p>I would never claim that a K&N provides a power advantage in my cars. What it DOES do is save me $50 CDN per year in paper air filter costs, all the while filtering and flowing air, in real-world conditions, much more efficiently than the OEM filter would. So I've saved $500 so far on one of my cars, by spending $75 on the K&N instead.<p>Oh, and there is absolutely no difference in noise from a K&N OEM-type replacement filter than there was with a paper filter. If there was I would not have bought one.<p>I would hate to be labelled a "ricer", by some self-important paragon of wisdom, in error.
Joined
·
0 Posts
Re: Junk Science, Part 2
Umm, unless one is operating a car in unusual air conditions, I would think the stock air filter does not restrict air flow sufficient to decrease hp in any significant amount. I just don't think car makers are stupid enough to make their filters only flow enough air when perfectly clean. They do a lot of testing on their cars. I doubt they do dyno tests only on new engines with new filters. If after 20,000 miles of normal driving they find the engine is way down on hp, and it can be traced to clogged air filters, do you REALLY think BMW, MB, and Porsche would not be smart enough to figure that out?????<p>On the other hand, now we are both talking junk science, because when we focus your argument, the key factual issue becomes your statement: "A random survey of cars on the road, even well-maintained ones, would show that probably 50% of their air filters are restricting airflow. This is a FACT." I don't see where you have established that to be a fact. I would be interested in information establishing that to be a fact, if you can point me to it. As set forth above, that doesn't seem right to me at all, unless the major manufacturers are presumed to be idiots who do only limited testing and R&D on those vehicles. <p>You also suggest that a paper filter needs to be "operating at its peak theoretical efficiency" or the engine will not be outputting max hp. I also disagree with that. <p>But, in the end, you actually seem to agree with me. You agree with my ultimate conclusion when you state "I would never claim that a K&N provides a power advantage in my cars." We agree on that.<p>My other issue you don't address. You also don't provide anything about the fact that even using K&N numbers, their filters let in 33-50% more particulates.<p>So, using no facts, but only some apparently made up conclusions (on which I disagree), you have not shown my logic to be flawed, even though you apparently agree with me.<p>P.S. You must drive a lot of miles to save $500 on filters on one car. I doubt I've spent $500 on paper filters for the dozen or so cars I've owned in the last 20 years, changing the stock paper filters well before factory time intervals. $20 or so a pop, and still look nice and clean even after 20,000 miles.<p>BTW, I also agree that there is no noise difference. That is just another falsely perceived thing that a lot of "enthusiasts" rave about K&N (the "cool added intake sound").<p><br>: Your analysis is fundimentally flawed.<p>While it may be true that a CLEAN paper filter will flow adequate air and not be a bottleneck for any OEM induction system, the same may not be said of a DIRTY paper filter.<p>Show me a driver whose paper air filter is operating at its theoretical maximum efficiency and I'll show you a new car being driven off the factory floor. A random survey of cars on the road, even well-maintained ones, would show that probably 50% of their air filters are restricting airflow. This is a FACT.<p>On the other hand, an oil-impregnated filter like K&N works better when it's DIRTY than a paper filter does when it's CLEAN. This is also a FACT.<p>Ergo, for real world conditions, a K&N is a better filter, period.<p>K&N and the other oiled filters act in much the same way as an oil bath air filter, as fitted to many heavy-duty industrial engines. That is to say that the oil actually enables a high quality of filtration to occur, without the cumulative airflow restriction suffered by paper elements.<p>I would never claim that a K&N provides a power advantage in my cars. What it DOES do is save me $50 CDN per year in paper air filter costs, all the while filtering and flowing air, in real-world conditions, much more efficiently than the OEM filter would. So I've saved $500 so far on one of my cars, by spending $75 on the K&N instead.<p>Oh, and there is absolutely no difference in noise from a K&N OEM-type replacement filter than there was with a paper filter. If there was I would not have bought one.<p>I would hate to be labelled a "ricer", by some self-important paragon of wisdom, in error.<p>
Umm, unless one is operating a car in unusual air conditions, I would think the stock air filter does not restrict air flow sufficient to decrease hp in any significant amount. I just don't think car makers are stupid enough to make their filters only flow enough air when perfectly clean. They do a lot of testing on their cars. I doubt they do dyno tests only on new engines with new filters. If after 20,000 miles of normal driving they find the engine is way down on hp, and it can be traced to clogged air filters, do you REALLY think BMW, MB, and Porsche would not be smart enough to figure that out?????<p>On the other hand, now we are both talking junk science, because when we focus your argument, the key factual issue becomes your statement: "A random survey of cars on the road, even well-maintained ones, would show that probably 50% of their air filters are restricting airflow. This is a FACT." I don't see where you have established that to be a fact. I would be interested in information establishing that to be a fact, if you can point me to it. As set forth above, that doesn't seem right to me at all, unless the major manufacturers are presumed to be idiots who do only limited testing and R&D on those vehicles. <p>You also suggest that a paper filter needs to be "operating at its peak theoretical efficiency" or the engine will not be outputting max hp. I also disagree with that. <p>But, in the end, you actually seem to agree with me. You agree with my ultimate conclusion when you state "I would never claim that a K&N provides a power advantage in my cars." We agree on that.<p>My other issue you don't address. You also don't provide anything about the fact that even using K&N numbers, their filters let in 33-50% more particulates.<p>So, using no facts, but only some apparently made up conclusions (on which I disagree), you have not shown my logic to be flawed, even though you apparently agree with me.<p>P.S. You must drive a lot of miles to save $500 on filters on one car. I doubt I've spent $500 on paper filters for the dozen or so cars I've owned in the last 20 years, changing the stock paper filters well before factory time intervals. $20 or so a pop, and still look nice and clean even after 20,000 miles.<p>BTW, I also agree that there is no noise difference. That is just another falsely perceived thing that a lot of "enthusiasts" rave about K&N (the "cool added intake sound").<p><br>: Your analysis is fundimentally flawed.<p>While it may be true that a CLEAN paper filter will flow adequate air and not be a bottleneck for any OEM induction system, the same may not be said of a DIRTY paper filter.<p>Show me a driver whose paper air filter is operating at its theoretical maximum efficiency and I'll show you a new car being driven off the factory floor. A random survey of cars on the road, even well-maintained ones, would show that probably 50% of their air filters are restricting airflow. This is a FACT.<p>On the other hand, an oil-impregnated filter like K&N works better when it's DIRTY than a paper filter does when it's CLEAN. This is also a FACT.<p>Ergo, for real world conditions, a K&N is a better filter, period.<p>K&N and the other oiled filters act in much the same way as an oil bath air filter, as fitted to many heavy-duty industrial engines. That is to say that the oil actually enables a high quality of filtration to occur, without the cumulative airflow restriction suffered by paper elements.<p>I would never claim that a K&N provides a power advantage in my cars. What it DOES do is save me $50 CDN per year in paper air filter costs, all the while filtering and flowing air, in real-world conditions, much more efficiently than the OEM filter would. So I've saved $500 so far on one of my cars, by spending $75 on the K&N instead.<p>Oh, and there is absolutely no difference in noise from a K&N OEM-type replacement filter than there was with a paper filter. If there was I would not have bought one.<p>I would hate to be labelled a "ricer", by some self-important paragon of wisdom, in error.<p>
Joined
·
0 Posts
Re: Junk Science, Part 3
Well, I could point you to a Transport Canada fuel economy study which involved a random survey done in the 1980s of vehicle maintenance. This study indicated that the two major problems were underinflated tires (over 60% of cars) and partially clogged air filters (around 50% if memory serves). Sorry, I don't have any links to this study, but I'm not inventing this.<p>So, you are correct about there being some redundancy built into the airflow of a paper filter element. But the Transport Canada study revealed that there were sufficient blockages in the air filter elements of the vehicle tested to impair engine operation. This simply cannot occur with a K&N.<p>Regarding economics: a Peugeot 405 OEM air filter costs $50 CDN, and I would normally change mine every year. I often drive in dusty conditions. The car is 13 years old, you do the math.<p>As for particulates in the engine, the difference between a paper element and a K&N maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations is nominal. Most particles in the 1 to 5 micron range are unlikely to cause any damage to the combustion chamber or moving parts. For example, the carbon particles that adhere to valves, piston crowns and head, and are occasionally stirred up and sent out the exhaust are much larger and do not cause any appreciable damage. The only type of particulate that I am aware of that would be a problem would be volcanic ash. Further, the damage that a restricted air filter can do to an engine is significant.<p>By the way, it is absolutely untrue that all OEM parts are better than all aftermarket parts. It is simply naive to believe that manufacturers, even M-B, only fit the best available parts to their vehicles. Even a cursory understanding of economics will allow anyone to realise that the outsourced parts contracts (such as air filter elements) are often awarded to low bidders, as long as they are capable of meeting some minimum performance standard as defined by the manufacturer.<p>In any event, you and I are clearly not going to agree with each other on this. As a parting note, I would ask what type of oil filters and motor oil you use (and how frequently you change them). Not to mention tires. Among other components. I would imagine that your concern about air filter efficiency extends to other parts of the car.<p>;->
Well, I could point you to a Transport Canada fuel economy study which involved a random survey done in the 1980s of vehicle maintenance. This study indicated that the two major problems were underinflated tires (over 60% of cars) and partially clogged air filters (around 50% if memory serves). Sorry, I don't have any links to this study, but I'm not inventing this.<p>So, you are correct about there being some redundancy built into the airflow of a paper filter element. But the Transport Canada study revealed that there were sufficient blockages in the air filter elements of the vehicle tested to impair engine operation. This simply cannot occur with a K&N.<p>Regarding economics: a Peugeot 405 OEM air filter costs $50 CDN, and I would normally change mine every year. I often drive in dusty conditions. The car is 13 years old, you do the math.<p>As for particulates in the engine, the difference between a paper element and a K&N maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations is nominal. Most particles in the 1 to 5 micron range are unlikely to cause any damage to the combustion chamber or moving parts. For example, the carbon particles that adhere to valves, piston crowns and head, and are occasionally stirred up and sent out the exhaust are much larger and do not cause any appreciable damage. The only type of particulate that I am aware of that would be a problem would be volcanic ash. Further, the damage that a restricted air filter can do to an engine is significant.<p>By the way, it is absolutely untrue that all OEM parts are better than all aftermarket parts. It is simply naive to believe that manufacturers, even M-B, only fit the best available parts to their vehicles. Even a cursory understanding of economics will allow anyone to realise that the outsourced parts contracts (such as air filter elements) are often awarded to low bidders, as long as they are capable of meeting some minimum performance standard as defined by the manufacturer.<p>In any event, you and I are clearly not going to agree with each other on this. As a parting note, I would ask what type of oil filters and motor oil you use (and how frequently you change them). Not to mention tires. Among other components. I would imagine that your concern about air filter efficiency extends to other parts of the car.<p>;->
Joined
·
0 Posts
Re: Junk Science, Part 3
you're right, we are not going to agree 100% Just like others swear by Dura-Lube, Slick 50, etc. Its hard to agree because we really don't have all the data to have an objective argument, and subjectivity necessarily comes into play.<p>As far as OEM, I never said that *all* aftermarket parts are inferior to *all* OE parts. Of course that is not true. But probably 90% are inferior.<p>I guess it really depends on the starting point one uses. I start with the presumption that the OE part is the best part for the job, at least on a quality car like an MB. That is a rebuttable presumption, but I need convincing, non-advertising, scientific proof to overcome that presumption. If that proof is there, I will use the aftermarket. That is the opposite of the starting point for many "enthusiasts." For some reason, many start with the presumption that the aftermarket product (based on advertising) is better than the OE product. They start with the presumption that the car Mfr didn't do a good job. That's just not my approach.<p>I guess I might agree that 50% of people are running around with low tires and clogged air filters. But, then again, 50% (or more) of average drivers are idiots that don't do ANYTHING to their car unless it breaks down. I'd say that just about anyone who participates on a site like this, or who even knows what a K&N filter is, is not an average motorist who ignores their car. In making decisions on what to use on my car, I do NOT factor in "Gee, what's better in case I ignore maintenance!" Its just not a consideration, and I guess I don't really get your point on that issue.<p>As far as K&N letting in more particulates, I've already explained why that is, based on K&N's OWN tests and numbers, which I personally obtained from K&N directly. I've communicated with them many times. One thing they will NEVER say, in communications or in advertisements, is that they filter better than the stock paper filter. They just won't say it. Likely because they would get sued or busted by the FTC. The answer is pure math, and is hard to dispute. You say that particulates below a certain size are "unlikely" to cause damage. Gee, even if true, "unlikely" is not very comforting, esp. when we agree that the K&N will not increase power!<p>Again, we agree on my main point: K&N will not increase power. The most you will say is that its "unlikely" to cause damage. Well, if it doesn't increase power, why mess with it? If you are going strictly on a cost saving basis, then I guess that's my answer, and I am not really interested in arguing on that point (cars are expensive, the cost of stock air filters, at least to me, is insignificant). In the end, I think we actually agree more than disagree.<p>Finally, other things I use on my car: oil filters: OEM only. Aftermarket filters, including K&N, Fram, etc. are junk. There is a lot of info on the net about aftermarket filters, and how they often have different relief valve systems, different flow directions, different construction, etc. from stock. I know that using the factory filter, I will NEVER have a filter problem. I cannot guarantee that with any aftermarket filter. Again, aftermarket oil filters are the answer to a question that no one asked. Motor Oil: I use Mobil 1 in all of my cars, and would never even think of spoiling it with an additive. I used it before, but it also came as factory fill in my MB. Spark Plugs: OE only. Tires: I tend to just buy decent, well-priced, brand name tires. Most everything else, I stick with OE on my MB, BMW and Porsche, with some minor exceptions.<p><p>: Well, I could point you to a Transport Canada fuel economy study which involved a random survey done in the 1980s of vehicle maintenance. This study indicated that the two major problems were underinflated tires (over 60% of cars) and partially clogged air filters (around 50% if memory serves). Sorry, I don't have any links to this study, but I'm not inventing this.<p>So, you are correct about there being some redundancy built into the airflow of a paper filter element. But the Transport Canada study revealed that there were sufficient blockages in the air filter elements of the vehicle tested to impair engine operation. This simply cannot occur with a K&N.<p>Regarding economics: a Peugeot 405 OEM air filter costs $50 CDN, and I would normally change mine every year. I often drive in dusty conditions. The car is 13 years old, you do the math.<p>As for particulates in the engine, the difference between a paper element and a K&N maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations is nominal. Most particles in the 1 to 5 micron range are unlikely to cause any damage to the combustion chamber or moving parts. For example, the carbon particles that adhere to valves, piston crowns and head, and are occasionally stirred up and sent out the exhaust are much larger and do not cause any appreciable damage. The only type of particulate that I am aware of that would be a problem would be volcanic ash. Further, the damage that a restricted air filter can do to an engine is significant.<p>By the way, it is absolutely untrue that all OEM parts are better than all aftermarket parts. It is simply naive to believe that manufacturers, even M-B, only fit the best available parts to their vehicles. Even a cursory understanding of economics will allow anyone to realise that the outsourced parts contracts (such as air filter elements) are often awarded to low bidders, as long as they are capable of meeting some minimum performance standard as defined by the manufacturer.<p>In any event, you and I are clearly not going to agree with each other on this. As a parting note, I would ask what type of oil filters and motor oil you use (and how frequently you change them). Not to mention tires. Among other components. I would imagine that your concern about air filter efficiency extends to other parts of the car.<p>;-><p>
you're right, we are not going to agree 100% Just like others swear by Dura-Lube, Slick 50, etc. Its hard to agree because we really don't have all the data to have an objective argument, and subjectivity necessarily comes into play.<p>As far as OEM, I never said that *all* aftermarket parts are inferior to *all* OE parts. Of course that is not true. But probably 90% are inferior.<p>I guess it really depends on the starting point one uses. I start with the presumption that the OE part is the best part for the job, at least on a quality car like an MB. That is a rebuttable presumption, but I need convincing, non-advertising, scientific proof to overcome that presumption. If that proof is there, I will use the aftermarket. That is the opposite of the starting point for many "enthusiasts." For some reason, many start with the presumption that the aftermarket product (based on advertising) is better than the OE product. They start with the presumption that the car Mfr didn't do a good job. That's just not my approach.<p>I guess I might agree that 50% of people are running around with low tires and clogged air filters. But, then again, 50% (or more) of average drivers are idiots that don't do ANYTHING to their car unless it breaks down. I'd say that just about anyone who participates on a site like this, or who even knows what a K&N filter is, is not an average motorist who ignores their car. In making decisions on what to use on my car, I do NOT factor in "Gee, what's better in case I ignore maintenance!" Its just not a consideration, and I guess I don't really get your point on that issue.<p>As far as K&N letting in more particulates, I've already explained why that is, based on K&N's OWN tests and numbers, which I personally obtained from K&N directly. I've communicated with them many times. One thing they will NEVER say, in communications or in advertisements, is that they filter better than the stock paper filter. They just won't say it. Likely because they would get sued or busted by the FTC. The answer is pure math, and is hard to dispute. You say that particulates below a certain size are "unlikely" to cause damage. Gee, even if true, "unlikely" is not very comforting, esp. when we agree that the K&N will not increase power!<p>Again, we agree on my main point: K&N will not increase power. The most you will say is that its "unlikely" to cause damage. Well, if it doesn't increase power, why mess with it? If you are going strictly on a cost saving basis, then I guess that's my answer, and I am not really interested in arguing on that point (cars are expensive, the cost of stock air filters, at least to me, is insignificant). In the end, I think we actually agree more than disagree.<p>Finally, other things I use on my car: oil filters: OEM only. Aftermarket filters, including K&N, Fram, etc. are junk. There is a lot of info on the net about aftermarket filters, and how they often have different relief valve systems, different flow directions, different construction, etc. from stock. I know that using the factory filter, I will NEVER have a filter problem. I cannot guarantee that with any aftermarket filter. Again, aftermarket oil filters are the answer to a question that no one asked. Motor Oil: I use Mobil 1 in all of my cars, and would never even think of spoiling it with an additive. I used it before, but it also came as factory fill in my MB. Spark Plugs: OE only. Tires: I tend to just buy decent, well-priced, brand name tires. Most everything else, I stick with OE on my MB, BMW and Porsche, with some minor exceptions.<p><p>: Well, I could point you to a Transport Canada fuel economy study which involved a random survey done in the 1980s of vehicle maintenance. This study indicated that the two major problems were underinflated tires (over 60% of cars) and partially clogged air filters (around 50% if memory serves). Sorry, I don't have any links to this study, but I'm not inventing this.<p>So, you are correct about there being some redundancy built into the airflow of a paper filter element. But the Transport Canada study revealed that there were sufficient blockages in the air filter elements of the vehicle tested to impair engine operation. This simply cannot occur with a K&N.<p>Regarding economics: a Peugeot 405 OEM air filter costs $50 CDN, and I would normally change mine every year. I often drive in dusty conditions. The car is 13 years old, you do the math.<p>As for particulates in the engine, the difference between a paper element and a K&N maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations is nominal. Most particles in the 1 to 5 micron range are unlikely to cause any damage to the combustion chamber or moving parts. For example, the carbon particles that adhere to valves, piston crowns and head, and are occasionally stirred up and sent out the exhaust are much larger and do not cause any appreciable damage. The only type of particulate that I am aware of that would be a problem would be volcanic ash. Further, the damage that a restricted air filter can do to an engine is significant.<p>By the way, it is absolutely untrue that all OEM parts are better than all aftermarket parts. It is simply naive to believe that manufacturers, even M-B, only fit the best available parts to their vehicles. Even a cursory understanding of economics will allow anyone to realise that the outsourced parts contracts (such as air filter elements) are often awarded to low bidders, as long as they are capable of meeting some minimum performance standard as defined by the manufacturer.<p>In any event, you and I are clearly not going to agree with each other on this. As a parting note, I would ask what type of oil filters and motor oil you use (and how frequently you change them). Not to mention tires. Among other components. I would imagine that your concern about air filter efficiency extends to other parts of the car.<p>;-><p>
Joined
·
0 Posts
Re: Junk Science, post script
Yeah, I'd say there's some common ground here.<p>I would not say categorically, however, that K&N filters are junk, but that's your opinion, so fine. I could say the same about many OEM air filters but then we'd just be pissing in each other's Corn Flakes. Not much point in that.<p>I think you understand my reasons for buying a K&N: cost savings and efficiency, because I often drove in very dusty areas and K&Ns flow air better than a paper element when dirty. I happen to think that that is a reasonable thing to have done and I certainly do not regret my decision in the slightest. I know that I'm saving money and likely doing my engine a favour by not driving around with a clogged filter half the time.<p>If you drive in areas that are not particularly dusty, a paper element would be perfectly fine provided you change it about once a year. Of course, that would cost you more...<p>I also use Mobil 1 and used to change it every 5000-6000 km. Now that the car is older, I'm being mean to it by keeping the oil in the sump longer (9000 km). Actually the driving conditions where I've lived for the past 2 years are a lot better than they were where I first bought the K&N. I used to have a commute of 10 km up and down a constant 10% hill in the mountains, which was hell on the car. Also the dust in the spring was fearsome, from the road grit deposited during winter.<p>I also use OEM oil filters, Purflux in this case. Some people will swear up and down that AmsOil filters are God's gift (I am not joking here) to the motoring world, but I remain to be convinced on that one. Any oil company that has a hotlink to Jesus raises some red flags in my mind (check out their website to see what I mean).<p>I also buy the best tires available for my cars.<p>Your fundimental point about modifying something such as a suspension system being risky I totally agree with. There are just too many synergies between suspension geometry and factory components to make most conversions successful. Think of the money the manufacturers spend on suspension integration, design and development, then compare that with the resources available to Hamann, Carlsson, Dinan et. al. It's no contest. Let's not even talk about "chipping"...<p>On the other hand, certain stand-alone components, especially ones which were outsourced by the car's manufacturer in the first place, are fair game in my mind. That is, provided the car owner is satisfied with the specifications of the substitute component. That is where I was at when I bought my K&N. I guess you can see that I'm no ricer.<p>PS: if you ever get bored with your Porsche, you could give it to me ;->
Yeah, I'd say there's some common ground here.<p>I would not say categorically, however, that K&N filters are junk, but that's your opinion, so fine. I could say the same about many OEM air filters but then we'd just be pissing in each other's Corn Flakes. Not much point in that.<p>I think you understand my reasons for buying a K&N: cost savings and efficiency, because I often drove in very dusty areas and K&Ns flow air better than a paper element when dirty. I happen to think that that is a reasonable thing to have done and I certainly do not regret my decision in the slightest. I know that I'm saving money and likely doing my engine a favour by not driving around with a clogged filter half the time.<p>If you drive in areas that are not particularly dusty, a paper element would be perfectly fine provided you change it about once a year. Of course, that would cost you more...<p>I also use Mobil 1 and used to change it every 5000-6000 km. Now that the car is older, I'm being mean to it by keeping the oil in the sump longer (9000 km). Actually the driving conditions where I've lived for the past 2 years are a lot better than they were where I first bought the K&N. I used to have a commute of 10 km up and down a constant 10% hill in the mountains, which was hell on the car. Also the dust in the spring was fearsome, from the road grit deposited during winter.<p>I also use OEM oil filters, Purflux in this case. Some people will swear up and down that AmsOil filters are God's gift (I am not joking here) to the motoring world, but I remain to be convinced on that one. Any oil company that has a hotlink to Jesus raises some red flags in my mind (check out their website to see what I mean).<p>I also buy the best tires available for my cars.<p>Your fundimental point about modifying something such as a suspension system being risky I totally agree with. There are just too many synergies between suspension geometry and factory components to make most conversions successful. Think of the money the manufacturers spend on suspension integration, design and development, then compare that with the resources available to Hamann, Carlsson, Dinan et. al. It's no contest. Let's not even talk about "chipping"...<p>On the other hand, certain stand-alone components, especially ones which were outsourced by the car's manufacturer in the first place, are fair game in my mind. That is, provided the car owner is satisfied with the specifications of the substitute component. That is where I was at when I bought my K&N. I guess you can see that I'm no ricer.<p>PS: if you ever get bored with your Porsche, you could give it to me ;->
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Join the discussion
Mercedes-Benz Forum
BenzWorld.org forum is one of the largest Mercedes-Benz owner websites offering the most comprehensive collection of Mercedes-Benz information anywhere in the world. The site includes MB Forums, News, Galleries, Publications, Classifieds, Events and much more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
Join now to ask and comment!