Thread: K&N
View Single Post
Old 12-28-2008, 07:17 AM   #12
mikefocke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sanford NC
Posts: 2,533
Just because people buy something

and because it doesn't have lawsuits against the company that makes the product is no reason to assume the product is any good. The purchasing may be due to marketing (and K&N has done a lot of it over the years). And the lack of lawsuits may be due as much to the difficulty of proving the cause and damage as for any other reason. Damage from the increased abrasion would occur over many years. How would the lawyer prove how much of the wear was the portion caused by the dirty oil that was caused by the difference in filtration?

The comparison test I saw was in a magazine about 2-3 years ago. Amsol's tests came up with the same results.

Charles' oil samples testing only confirms what these other two tests have shown...the K&N when properly oiled lets in more particles of dirt and bigger particles of dirt.

If you want to install one because you think it sounds "cool" to have one...it is your car, your money and your choice. Or if you value a few HP over increased wear, then that is a valid argument for you. Or if you use the car on the track and your class allows the change, that too can be justified by the tests.

But don't kid yourself that it is the best air filtration device you can fit to the car to filter dirt from the air and keep it out of the engine.

If you have one, change your oil much more frequently (which will cancel out and advertised reuse savings in using the K&N).

There are some additional test results in this link

Last edited by mikefocke; 12-28-2008 at 07:23 AM.
mikefocke is offline   Reply With Quote