K & N filters

[culicine]

Well, I finally installed and tested the K&N filter. I had removed the Racechip earlier this week prior to a dealer service check up. To my amazement, my SUV seems to be riding just as peppy as it was with the chip connected - (uh-oh! )!! Anyway, I have been riding with the K&N in my stock engine.

Though everything is peppy, (the inherent nature of the stock beast?), I can't distinguish the same difference as I did when I first installed a K&N filter (though admittedly CAI) into a higher revving (performance) petrol engined car - Trans was right (once again) about this, in his earlier post!

Without the Racechip, I do think the passing gear isn't quite as spunky, though.

I will re-connect the Racechip and report my observations with it and the K&N filter.

The main benefit is that you won't have to replace the air filter element every 20K kms. If your ride has a fuel consumption meter (or measure manually), you could determine if the 'increased' air flow is increasing fuel consumption, as the air-fuel ratio needs to keep within a certain range. I never understood claims that the K&N filters would improve economy. Certainly on my honda civic I never found any difference in economy or performance. I modified the airbox to make it flow better and perhaps that helped a bit. I've recorded fuel consumption on my swift for a few thousand kms, and I will now put back the original paper filter to see if fuel economy changes.

I don't know about trucks but in regular cars they would use cold air intakes that would show a measurable increase in power, though in this country, with flooding it could be dangerous as the filter element is normally put close to the ground. The short intakes could actually lose power due to heat soak from the engine bay - especially when idling at the lights a long time then pulling away. So I don't think the air filter would do much without other modifications.

[transam]

Perhaps fuel saving relates to carb fitted rides.

[WarpSpeed]

Well, I finally installed and tested the K&N filter. I had removed the Racechip earlier this week prior to a dealer service check up. To my amazement, my SUV seems to be riding just as peppy as it was with the chip connected - (uh-oh! )!! Anyway, I have been riding with the K&N in my stock engine.

Though everything is peppy, (the inherent nature of the stock beast?), I can't distinguish the same difference as I did when I first installed a K&N filter (though admittedly CAI) into a higher revving (performance) petrol engined car - Trans was right (once again) about this, in his earlier post!

Without the Racechip, I do think the passing gear isn't quite as spunky, though.

I will re-connect the Racechip and report my observations with it and the K&N filter.

The main benefit is that you won't have to replace the air filter element every 20K kms. If your ride has a fuel consumption meter (or measure manually), you could determine if the 'increased' air flow is increasing fuel consumption, as the air-fuel ratio needs to keep within a certain range. I never understood claims that the K&N filters would improve economy. Certainly on my honda civic I never found any difference in economy or performance. I modified the airbox to make it flow better and perhaps that helped a bit. I've recorded fuel consumption on my swift for a few thousand kms, and I will now put back the original paper filter to see if fuel economy changes.

I don't know about trucks but in regular cars they would use cold air intakes that would show a measurable increase in power, though in this country, with flooding it could be dangerous as the filter element is normally put close to the ground. The short intakes could actually lose power due to heat soak from the engine bay - especially when idling at the lights a long time then pulling away. So I don't think the air filter would do much without other modifications.

Adding air flow will DECREASE efficiency but INCREASE power not increase efficiency, the reasoning is that more air requires more fuel to balance the mixture again to stoichiometric = better power output but not better mileage, in fact less.

The cold air intakes that lengthen the intake distance and go down low also do not produce more power and may even reduce it as besides collecting dirtier hotter air at street level they reduce air flow through added bends and length with consistent pipe diameter. There is only so much air that can enter the intake unless it is compressed by something like a turbo or a supercharger and/or cooled beyond atmospheric temps to compress it before entering the intake. Those intakes also reduce flow through added bends (usually 90 degrees) and added length with a consistent diameter of pipe. I dyno'd cars years ago when these first came out and approached one of the manufacturers to produce me a proper one that had fewer bends and began wider and then reduced in diameter to FORCE more into the intake by compressing it before it entered the intake, before that point there wasn't any options, they did and now it is part of their product line as it showed REAL gains (as much as 12 HP)..

With filters on the end of the tube, these intakes require the engine to SUCK the air in instead of it being forced like a box or over-sized intake does thus again reducing inflow, not increasing, a reason why K&N has only boxes offered, not tubes.

Initially before the larger diameter was offered and for testing, I used the end of a leaf blower to accomplish this inside my intake tube and also used it to cover the inside of the flexible connection most OE air intake hoses have, to smooth the flow over the bumps for testing. This modification actually produced a 5 hp increase just by itself which is a rather significant gain for such a seemingly small change and when the competition is, in many cases, equal in initial HP or closely equalized in HP to weight ratios by class rules. Bottom line, they look good though and change the sound, but unless certain dynamics are applied they don't add much HP and even less efficiency in most cases.

Your point about the rain is valid though, I found that out the hard way when I ran through a deep puddle at high speed in a rain race and hydro-stalled the engine. I modified the intake tube and made it so we could shorten it quickly, if required, for wet races, reasoning that in that case the air temp in the engine bay would drop anyway with the rains cooling effects so little or no power loss, not too mention the wet conditions preventing using all the power the engine could produce anyways through traction lost.

Edited August 3, 2013 by WarpSpeed

[transam]

Well, I finally installed and tested the K&N filter. I had removed the Racechip earlier this week prior to a dealer service check up. To my amazement, my SUV seems to be riding just as peppy as it was with the chip connected - (uh-oh! )!! Anyway, I have been riding with the K&N in my stock engine.

Though everything is peppy, (the inherent nature of the stock beast?), I can't distinguish the same difference as I did when I first installed a K&N filter (though admittedly CAI) into a higher revving (performance) petrol engined car - Trans was right (once again) about this, in his earlier post!

Without the Racechip, I do think the passing gear isn't quite as spunky, though.

I will re-connect the Racechip and report my observations with it and the K&N filter.

The main benefit is that you won't have to replace the air filter element every 20K kms. If your ride has a fuel consumption meter (or measure manually), you could determine if the 'increased' air flow is increasing fuel consumption, as the air-fuel ratio needs to keep within a certain range. I never understood claims that the K&N filters would improve economy. Certainly on my honda civic I never found any difference in economy or performance. I modified the airbox to make it flow better and perhaps that helped a bit. I've recorded fuel consumption on my swift for a few thousand kms, and I will now put back the original paper filter to see if fuel economy changes.

I don't know about trucks but in regular cars they would use cold air intakes that would show a measurable increase in power, though in this country, with flooding it could be dangerous as the filter element is normally put close to the ground. The short intakes could actually lose power due to heat soak from the engine bay - especially when idling at the lights a long time then pulling away. So I don't think the air filter would do much without other modifications.

Adding air flow will DECREASE efficiency but INCREASE power not increase efficiency, the reasoning is that more air requires more fuel to balance the mixture again = better power output but not better mileage, in fact less.

The cold air intakes that lengthen the intake distance and go down low also do not produce more power and may even reduce it as besides collecting dirtier hotter air at street level they reduce air flow. There is only so much air that can enter the intake unless it is compressed by something like a turbo or a supercharger and/or cooled beyond atmospheric temps to compress it before entering the intake. Those intakes also reduce flow through added bends (usually 90 degrees) and added length with a consistent diameter of pipe. I dyno'd cars years ago when these first came out and approached one of the manufacturers to produce me a proper one that had fewer bends and began wider and then reduced in diameter to FORCE more into the intake by compressing it before it entered the intake, before that point there wasn't any options, they did and now it is part of their product line as it showed REAL gains (as much as 12 HP)..

With filters on the end of the tube, these intakes require the engine to SUCK the air in instead of it being forced like a box or over-sized intake does thus reducing inflow not increasing a reason why K&N has only boxes offered, not tubes.

Initially before the larger diameter was offered and for testing, I used the end of a leaf blower to accomplish this inside my intake tube and also used it to cover the inside of the flexible connection most OE air intake hoses have, to smooth the flow over the bumps for testing. This modification actually produced a 5 hp increase just by itself which is a rather significant gain for such a seemingly small change and when the competition is, in many cases, equal in initial HP or closely equalized in HP to weight ratios by class rules. Bottom line, they look good though and change the sound, but unless certain dynamics are applied they don't add much HP and even less efficiency in most cases.

Your point about the rain is valid though, I found that out the hard way when I ran through a deep puddle at high speed in a rain race and hydro-stalled the engine. I modified the intake tube and made it so we could shorten it quickly, if required, for wet races, reasoning that in that case the air temp in the engine bay would drop anyway with the rains cooling effects so little or no power loss, not too mention the wet conditions preventing using all the power the engine could produce anyways through traction lost.

Rain (H2O) provides extra oxygen in the air intake providing perhaps more go, combustion uses the oxygen in the air. The Saab Turbo S had water injection to provide that wee bit of extra oxygen. I tried it on the Pontiac, Holley carbs did a kit, waist of time for me. ...........

[WarpSpeed]

Well, I finally installed and tested the K&N filter. I had removed the Racechip earlier this week prior to a dealer service check up. To my amazement, my SUV seems to be riding just as peppy as it was with the chip connected - (uh-oh! )!! Anyway, I have been riding with the K&N in my stock engine.

Though everything is peppy, (the inherent nature of the stock beast?), I can't distinguish the same difference as I did when I first installed a K&N filter (though admittedly CAI) into a higher revving (performance) petrol engined car - Trans was right (once again) about this, in his earlier post!

Without the Racechip, I do think the passing gear isn't quite as spunky, though.

I will re-connect the Racechip and report my observations with it and the K&N filter.

The main benefit is that you won't have to replace the air filter element every 20K kms. If your ride has a fuel consumption meter (or measure manually), you could determine if the 'increased' air flow is increasing fuel consumption, as the air-fuel ratio needs to keep within a certain range. I never understood claims that the K&N filters would improve economy. Certainly on my honda civic I never found any difference in economy or performance. I modified the airbox to make it flow better and perhaps that helped a bit. I've recorded fuel consumption on my swift for a few thousand kms, and I will now put back the original paper filter to see if fuel economy changes.

I don't know about trucks but in regular cars they would use cold air intakes that would show a measurable increase in power, though in this country, with flooding it could be dangerous as the filter element is normally put close to the ground. The short intakes could actually lose power due to heat soak from the engine bay - especially when idling at the lights a long time then pulling away. So I don't think the air filter would do much without other modifications.

Adding air flow will DECREASE efficiency but INCREASE power not increase efficiency, the reasoning is that more air requires more fuel to balance the mixture again = better power output but not better mileage, in fact less.

The cold air intakes that lengthen the intake distance and go down low also do not produce more power and may even reduce it as besides collecting dirtier hotter air at street level they reduce air flow. There is only so much air that can enter the intake unless it is compressed by something like a turbo or a supercharger and/or cooled beyond atmospheric temps to compress it before entering the intake. Those intakes also reduce flow through added bends (usually 90 degrees) and added length with a consistent diameter of pipe. I dyno'd cars years ago when these first came out and approached one of the manufacturers to produce me a proper one that had fewer bends and began wider and then reduced in diameter to FORCE more into the intake by compressing it before it entered the intake, before that point there wasn't any options, they did and now it is part of their product line as it showed REAL gains (as much as 12 HP)..

With filters on the end of the tube, these intakes require the engine to SUCK the air in instead of it being forced like a box or over-sized intake does thus reducing inflow not increasing a reason why K&N has only boxes offered, not tubes.

Initially before the larger diameter was offered and for testing, I used the end of a leaf blower to accomplish this inside my intake tube and also used it to cover the inside of the flexible connection most OE air intake hoses have, to smooth the flow over the bumps for testing. This modification actually produced a 5 hp increase just by itself which is a rather significant gain for such a seemingly small change and when the competition is, in many cases, equal in initial HP or closely equalized in HP to weight ratios by class rules. Bottom line, they look good though and change the sound, but unless certain dynamics are applied they don't add much HP and even less efficiency in most cases.

Your point about the rain is valid though, I found that out the hard way when I ran through a deep puddle at high speed in a rain race and hydro-stalled the engine. I modified the intake tube and made it so we could shorten it quickly, if required, for wet races, reasoning that in that case the air temp in the engine bay would drop anyway with the rains cooling effects so little or no power loss, not too mention the wet conditions preventing using all the power the engine could produce anyways through traction lost.

Rain (H2O) provides extra oxygen in the air intake providing perhaps more go, combustion uses the oxygen in the air. The Saab Turbo S had water injection to provide that wee bit of extra oxygen. I tried it on the Pontiac, Holley carbs did a kit, waist of time for me. ...........

Yes, rain cools the air making it more dense just like an intercooler or similar cooling technique, I raced a VW years ago that was a California produced model engine, that's significant because Ca, has tougher emissions requirements especially at that time. The people I bought the car from (back before I built my own & one reason I began to) had disconnected and blocked off a cooling system to the intake which cooled the air flow to the engine making it leaner (carb'd car) and also prevented it from percolating in high heat once shut down especially since the intake mounted between and just above the exhaust manifold (headers in the case of the race car, even worse) and in the back of the engine bay ..

I unblocked and reconnected the cooling ports and added a cooler on the floor, in the drivers compartment, that pumped cold water through the intake with a boat sump pump and then, in times before being able to afford dyno testing, I tested it by running a few hot laps on a track with a significant straight and then half way down the straight, turning on the cooler pump and the increase was immediate and significantly noticeable not unlike using nitrous only not quite as dramatic.

As expected, it leaned out my mixture though at top end so I changed the jets and wa la! Serious increase in power. My competitors (that knew about it) didn't understand that the water was flowing and constantly being cooled even after the ice melted and by virtue of that would never be as hot as without it regardless of race length so it was STILL cooler then an un-cooled intake but even if I only had a few laps advantage, in mostly equal cars that would be a significant edge over them. This was legal on 2 levels as the part was OE (required by rule) and it was being used as it's intended purpose only with another cooling source. The climate was hotter and more humid then Thailand in the summer, mostly when we raced..

[thailoht]

Well, I finally installed and tested the K&N filter. I had removed the Racechip earlier this week prior to a dealer service check up. To my amazement, my SUV seems to be riding just as peppy as it was with the chip connected - (uh-oh! )!! Anyway, I have been riding with the K&N in my stock engine.

Though everything is peppy, (the inherent nature of the stock beast?), I can't distinguish the same difference as I did when I first installed a K&N filter (though admittedly CAI) into a higher revving (performance) petrol engined car - Trans was right (once again) about this, in his earlier post!

Without the Racechip, I do think the passing gear isn't quite as spunky, though.

I will re-connect the Racechip and report my observations with it and the K&N filter.

The main benefit is that you won't have to replace the air filter element every 20K kms. If your ride has a fuel consumption meter (or measure manually), you could determine if the 'increased' air flow is increasing fuel consumption, as the air-fuel ratio needs to keep within a certain range. I never understood claims that the K&N filters would improve economy. Certainly on my honda civic I never found any difference in economy or performance. I modified the airbox to make it flow better and perhaps that helped a bit. I've recorded fuel consumption on my swift for a few thousand kms, and I will now put back the original paper filter to see if fuel economy changes.

I don't know about trucks but in regular cars they would use cold air intakes that would show a measurable increase in power, though in this country, with flooding it could be dangerous as the filter element is normally put close to the ground. The short intakes could actually lose power due to heat soak from the engine bay - especially when idling at the lights a long time then pulling away. So I don't think the air filter would do much without other modifications.

I re-connected the Racechip and with the K&N filter installed, I took it out for a road test. To sum up my observations after this drive, there is definitely a performance boost every time the engine is accelerated - I only have to apply the least pressure to the accelerator pedal before it kicks in! The acceleration is not only 'more powerful' than it is w/o the chip (and K&N filter), but the acceleration is also more 'crisp' and 'responsive'.

Two things I need to 'clarify' from my prior post:

1) "I can't distinguish the same difference as I did when I first installed a K&N filter (though admittedly CAI) into a higher revving (performance) petrol engined car."

I made this statement based on having been seated inside the car with engine running ad AC blower fan on '3'. Today, after re-connecting the Racechip (with the K&N air filter installed), I remained outside of the car and definitely noticed the subtle yet 'more throaty' (like 'Exhaust Headers') sound from the exhaust. So I can conclude that the K&N air filter is noticeably making some definite difference.

2) "I had removed the Racechip earlier this week prior to a dealer service check up. To my amazement, my SUV seems to be riding just as peppy as it was with the chip connected - (uh-oh!"

I had went from Racechip performance to stock performance when I made this observation. Now, after having just gone back to Racechip performance from stock performance - and keeping in mind I'm not a scientist who does performance test comparisons for a living - I know realize it was the inherent built-in power of the Isuzu 3.0L engine that threw me off. It is quick and has a nice passing gear. But immediately driving after reconnecting the Racechip (and with the K&N filter installed), made me appreciate the performance boost that comes from the Racechip as described above.

[thailoht]

The main benefit is that you won't have to replace the air filter element every 20K kms. If your ride has a fuel consumption meter (or measure manually), you could determine if the 'increased' air flow is increasing fuel consumption, as the air-fuel ratio needs to keep within a certain range. I never understood claims that the K&N filters would improve economy. Certainly on my Honda civic I never found any difference in economy or performance. I modified the airbox to make it flow better and perhaps that helped a bit. I've recorded fuel consumption on my swift for a few thousand kms, and I will now put back the original paper filter to see if fuel economy changes.....

As a last update, I must note that the K&N air filter with the Racechip installed, does noticeably help produce what I term as smoooooth engine rpms at highway speeds and upon acceleration with my engine. It runs smoother and sweeter than it did before. I have no way to measure actual performance gain but my 'km/L' indicator shows definite minor increases from several tenths/km to over 1km/L.

A person more attuned to mechanical motor operations could better describe the difference I experience here.

Edited August 6, 2013 by thailoht

[transam]

The main benefit is that you won't have to replace the air filter element every 20K kms. If your ride has a fuel consumption meter (or measure manually), you could determine if the 'increased' air flow is increasing fuel consumption, as the air-fuel ratio needs to keep within a certain range. I never understood claims that the K&N filters would improve economy. Certainly on my Honda civic I never found any difference in economy or performance. I modified the airbox to make it flow better and perhaps that helped a bit. I've recorded fuel consumption on my swift for a few thousand kms, and I will now put back the original paper filter to see if fuel economy changes.....

As a last update, I must note that the K&N air filter with the Racechip installed, does noticeably help produce what I term as smoooooth engine rpms at highway speeds and upon acceleration with my engine. It runs smoother and sweeter than it did before. I have no way to measure actual performance gain but my 'km/L' indicator shows definite minor increases from several tenths/km to over 1km/L.

A person more attuned to mechanical motor operations could better describe the difference I experience here.

If YOU feel it, then it is there. ................

[thailoht]

The main benefit is that you won't have to replace the air filter element every 20K kms. If your ride has a fuel consumption meter (or measure manually), you could determine if the 'increased' air flow is increasing fuel consumption, as the air-fuel ratio needs to keep within a certain range. I never understood claims that the K&N filters would improve economy. Certainly on my Honda civic I never found any difference in economy or performance. I modified the airbox to make it flow better and perhaps that helped a bit. I've recorded fuel consumption on my swift for a few thousand kms, and I will now put back the original paper filter to see if fuel economy changes.....

As a last update, I must note that the K&N air filter with the Racechip installed, does noticeably help produce what I term as smoooooth engine rpms at highway speeds and upon acceleration with my engine. It runs smoother and sweeter than it did before. I have no way to measure actual performance gain but my 'km/L' indicator shows definite minor increases from several tenths/km to over 1km/L.

A person more attuned to mechanical motor operations could better describe the difference I experience here.

If YOU feel it, then it is there. ................

If only it were that simple! Though I can't verify my observations, hopefully my experience will be duplicated by more qualified Isuzu 3.0L owners who can better quantify the findings.

I think the sweet, smooth ride and performance I have now enjoy is a result of this engine's ability coupled with all the upgrades and mods I have done - thanks to the advice, suggestions and recommendations of the guys in-the-know on this forum! Thanx guys!

[mogandave]

Pre-sixties didn’t most all cars & truck have oil-bath filters?

Edited August 7, 2013 by mogandave

[transam]

Pre-sixties didn’t most all cars & truck have oil-bath filters?

Yes. BUT, very crude.

[mogandave]

Pre-sixties didn’t most all cars & truck have oil-bath filters?

Yes. BUT, very crude.

The oil wasn't sticky back then?

They worked as good then as they do now.

[transam]

Pre-sixties didn’t most all cars & truck have oil-bath filters?

Yes. BUT, very crude.

The oil wasn't sticky back then?

They worked as good then as they do now.

But back then Big CC did not equate to Big horse power. Then Big CC and little horse power.

[DILLIGAD]

Pre-sixties didn’t most all cars & truck have oil-bath filters?

Sorry to ask a dumb question but is there another type of oil that can be safely used on K&N filters? I cannot find the 'ownbrand' recommended stuff locally.

[mogandave]

Pre-sixties didn’t most all cars & truck have oil-bath filters?

Yes. BUT, very crude.

The oil wasn't sticky back then?

They worked as good then as they do now.

But back then Big CC did not equate to Big horse power. Then Big CC and little horse power.

There is no replacement for displacement…

[mogandave]

Pre-sixties didn’t most all cars & truck have oil-bath filters?

Sorry to ask a dumb question but is there another type of oil that can be safely used on K&N filters? I cannot find the 'ownbrand' recommended stuff locally.

Most anything would be better than nothing.

[John 1]

Pre-sixties didn’t most all cars & truck have oil-bath filters?

Sorry to ask a dumb question but is there another type of oil that can be safely used on K&N filters? I cannot find the 'ownbrand' recommended stuff locally.

Most anything would be better than nothing.

The K&N oil is available locally from same guy selling the filter's and cleaning gear. I just can't find his contact for now someone on here will have.

[thailoht]

Pre-sixties didn’t most all cars & truck have oil-bath filters?

Sorry to ask a dumb question but is there another type of oil that can be safely used on K&N filters? I cannot find the 'ownbrand' recommended stuff locally.

Most anything would be better than nothing.

The K&N oil is available locally from same guy selling the filter's and cleaning gear. I just can't find his contact for now someone on here will have.

I used the web link that is posted in post #3 of this thread. Unlike poster #3, I ordered my K&N filter kits via email from that posted link and received good and prompt service.

[WarpSpeed]

BTW if you can get a hold of Marvel Mystery oil it's basically the same thing, that was used decades ago for similar filters of the time produced out of cotton.. I'm pretty sure I recall seeing some there somewhere it just doesn't come to me at the time of this post.

[transam]

You must cover some serious mileage to actually need to clean a K&N.

[John 1]

You must cover some serious mileage to actually need to clean a K&N.

Why haven't you heard of dusty road's.

[transam]

You must cover some serious mileage to actually need to clean a K&N.

Why haven't you heard of dusty road's.

If you read K&N's site tech it states that on the dyno it flowed even better when dirty , that was the last time l read it about 20 years ago .

They do sell a foam cover for extreme conditions such as for a rally across a desert.

[Markaew]

I know you guys are talking about the larger engines but even with my 1.5L with a 5 speed auto, I can notice a big difference with a K&N. The problem I have with the factory paper filter is just after a week or two I can notice a decline. Most noticeably in the down shifting, take off, and acceleration at higher speeds. Slow at all of those.

Anytime I change vehicles, the first thing I look for is the air filter change.

[culicine]

I know you guys are talking about the larger engines but even with my 1.5L with a 5 speed auto, I can notice a big difference with a K&N. The problem I have with the factory paper filter is just after a week or two I can notice a decline. Most noticeably in the down shifting, take off, and acceleration at higher speeds. Slow at all of those.

Anytime I change vehicles, the first thing I look for is the air filter change.

I've put the paper filter back in my swift as I want to compare performance and fuel consumption with the K&N. So far it seems the engine has a little bit less zing compared to the K&N - it seems to need more throttle input for the same acceleration. I have an app so might do some 0-100 runs and compare the filters. While its very early, the fuel consumption seems to be marginally better with the OEM filter...I'll keep monitoring it and hope to report back here:) I'm a maths teacher so like to diddle with the numbers..

[Markaew]

I know you guys are talking about the larger engines but even with my 1.5L with a 5 speed auto, I can notice a big difference with a K&N. The problem I have with the factory paper filter is just after a week or two I can notice a decline. Most noticeably in the down shifting, take off, and acceleration at higher speeds. Slow at all of those.

Anytime I change vehicles, the first thing I look for is the air filter change.

I've put the paper filter back in my swift as I want to compare performance and fuel consumption with the K&N. So far it seems the engine has a little bit less zing compared to the K&N - it seems to need more throttle input for the same acceleration. I have an app so might do some 0-100 runs and compare the filters. While its very early, the fuel consumption seems to be marginally better with the OEM filter...I'll keep monitoring it and hope to report back here:) I'm a maths teacher so like to diddle with the numbers..

Agreed about the fuel mileage. The addition power came at a small price.

[WarpSpeed]

I know you guys are talking about the larger engines but even with my 1.5L with a 5 speed auto, I can notice a big difference with a K&N. The problem I have with the factory paper filter is just after a week or two I can notice a decline. Most noticeably in the down shifting, take off, and acceleration at higher speeds. Slow at all of those.

Anytime I change vehicles, the first thing I look for is the air filter change.

I've put the paper filter back in my swift as I want to compare performance and fuel consumption with the K&N. So far it seems the engine has a little bit less zing compared to the K&N - it seems to need more throttle input for the same acceleration. I have an app so might do some 0-100 runs and compare the filters. While its very early, the fuel consumption seems to be marginally better with the OEM filter...I'll keep monitoring it and hope to report back here:) I'm a maths teacher so like to diddle with the numbers..

Your engine is programmed & tuned for the airflow of the OE filter so if it gets more air (flow through a K&N) as I mentioned earlier it will need more fuel to compensate so better mileage on the OE filter, better performance on the K&N..

[Kwasaki]

I know you guys are talking about the larger engines but even with my 1.5L with a 5 speed auto, I can notice a big difference with a K&N. The problem I have with the factory paper filter is just after a week or two I can notice a decline. Most noticeably in the down shifting, take off, and acceleration at higher speeds. Slow at all of those.

Anytime I change vehicles, the first thing I look for is the air filter change.

I've put the paper filter back in my swift as I want to compare performance and fuel consumption with the K&N. So far it seems the engine has a little bit less zing compared to the K&N - it seems to need more throttle input for the same acceleration. I have an app so might do some 0-100 runs and compare the filters. While its very early, the fuel consumption seems to be marginally better with the OEM filter...I'll keep monitoring it and hope to report back here:) I'm a maths teacher so like to diddle with the numbers..

Your engine is programmed & tuned for the airflow of the OE filter so if it gets more air (flow through a K&N) as I mentioned earlier it will need more fuel to compensate so better mileage on the OE filter, better performance on the K&N..

I really wonder on how much the acceleration time is gained on family road cars to make it all worth while, or whether the sound difference is just playing with the mind.

[Ace of Pop]

Well, if you dipped it in Synthetic Oil you can go for years. So superior to Flora.

[transam]

I know you guys are talking about the larger engines but even with my 1.5L with a 5 speed auto, I can notice a big difference with a K&N. The problem I have with the factory paper filter is just after a week or two I can notice a decline. Most noticeably in the down shifting, take off, and acceleration at higher speeds. Slow at all of those.

Anytime I change vehicles, the first thing I look for is the air filter change.

I've put the paper filter back in my swift as I want to compare performance and fuel consumption with the K&N. So far it seems the engine has a little bit less zing compared to the K&N - it seems to need more throttle input for the same acceleration. I have an app so might do some 0-100 runs and compare the filters. While its very early, the fuel consumption seems to be marginally better with the OEM filter...I'll keep monitoring it and hope to report back here:) I'm a maths teacher so like to diddle with the numbers..

Your engine is programmed & tuned for the airflow of the OE filter so if it gets more air (flow through a K&N) as I mentioned earlier it will need more fuel to compensate so better mileage on the OE filter, better performance on the K&N..

I really wonder on how much the acceleration time is gained on family road cars to make it all worth while, or whether the sound difference is just playing with the mind.

Think no difference from a new stock filter UNTIL the stock one gets bunged up, K&N fit and forget. No sound difference, well I never heard it but then I was listening to V8 sounds. ............

[Bung]

I'm researching a filter for my subaru xv. I read that oiled filters like k&n can mess up the mass airflow sensors by getting oil on it. It may well be from people putting to much oil on them after servicing but a lot of guys are using dry filters like Apexi brand. They have bigger pleats and flow more air but are similar to stock, you can blow them out to clean but eventually need replacing.

A lot of talk about aftermarket vs stock. The old argument is if it flows more then it is letting more dirt through but with bigger pleats it has a larger surface area. Standard filters on a standard car are fine as it will always supply enough flow until you start big modifications and need more cfm than a stock filter can supply.

Also, there is a lot of dusty roads in Thailand!

For performance there are probably much more useful things to change than the air filter.