Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jaxonalden
...You don’t have to be a stinking engineer or a rocket scientist to look at something and then let common sense tell you the answer...
...As far as the OEM using a K&N or any other type reusable air filter. It’s all about getting money out of the consumer. You think Porsche or any other manufacture wants to sell something that can be used over and over than something that’s disposable that the public will have to come back for and buy? Please...
|
Not really.... sometimes 'common sense' is just plain wrong. It was common sense that led people for millenia to believe the earth was flat and not round.
Porsche could add a K&N as an option and markup the hell out of it, in fact, they'd not have to make a single change to the car to do it. Heck, you'd think K&N would just give them to Porsche so they could advertise that it was standard on Porsches.
Of course, I doubt that K&Ns have TUV approval, and that's a MUST for any car part being used in assembly in DE. Perhaps K&N never submitted it to TUV for approval, or perhaps it was not granted approval...for any one of a number of reasons.
Mann or Mahle make the replacement filters and at best, Porsche only gets a licensing fee for their logo on the box. But many people get them generically, not from a dealer - even NAPA sells them. Then, Porshe doesn't see a dime.
Agreed, K&N have a loyal, and dare I say, near-fanatical following. But, I've never seen convincing evidence of significant power increases, especially when weighed against the cost.
I have seen studies conducted under repeatable protocols comparing retail 'oiled gauze filters' to several name brand paper filters using a wind flow bench and injecting equal amounts of dirt/grit typical in size and makeup of dirt extracted from used filters. The 'oiled gauze filters' did initially flow more air (CFMs) than the paper filters, because the holes are bigger. But, the paper filters themselves flowed more CFMs than the engine would demand.
The interesting result was that the 'oiled gauze filters' passed more debris/CFM and larger sized debris/CFM than the paper filters. And, at only 25% of the simulated mileage, the 'oiled gauze filters' saw a greater reduction in CFMs than the paper filters and were passing fewer CFMs than the paper filters in service (testing) the same length of time, meaning that they were now underperforming the paper filters.
So it seems that in order to maintain any performance 'edge' you'd have to clean and refresh the oiled gauze filter' 4 times as often as replacing the paper filters. I was going to post the link for this test, but I see now it is dead. The test was performed using the SAE J726 protocol. Here is a link to a copy of the tests results:
Debunking the K&N Myth - Why OEM is Better
Except for one post here praising the accoustic benefit of the K&N, which may be justification in it's own right for some, I haven't seen any benefit over the paper filter.
Initial cost is greater, maintenance is greater, performance gains are unsubstantiated, protection is less, and they are linked to issues with the MAF sensors on the Boxster (of course that could be mishandling, but not an issue at all with the paper filter).
I do think people like to showcase their K&N as noted by how many members list one as a mod on their signatures (it's only an air filter afterall, not at all noteworthy IMHO).
As I said, I'm not advocating any choice for anyone, nor am I condemning them for the choice they do make.
But facts, not hype, help people make informed decisions, then it's up to each individual to decide which to choose.
