wjbertrand
Ventura Highway
Might be coincidence, but both of the vehicles that I ran K&Ns in for many thousands of miles ended up being oil burners. First was my '84 Toyota Pick up and second was my '93 ST1100. Both were drop in designs to be used in the OEM air box. In the case of the Toyota I finally solved a poor gas mileage problem I was having by switching back to an OEM style paper filter. This doesn't prove cause and affect but it was enough to raise questions in my mind and so stopped using them
I had a Ford Racing Performance ProCal ECU tune installed in my 2013 Mustang GT. The package included a K&N drop-in filter replacement and I decided to try and compare the filtering surface area between it and a Purolator OEM style paper filter for my car.
First I measured the frame around the area of exposed filter media. This is the size of the opening if the filter media was removed. The K&N measured 6.6875" wide by 7.75" long for an opening area of 51.82 inches squared. For the Purolator paper filter, the frame was a bit more open measuring 7.25" x 8.25" for an opening area of 59.81 inches square.
Next I turned to the media itself which is mounted in a pleated arrangement in both cases. For the K&N the depth of each pleat was about 1.375" and the length was again 7.75" from above. There are twenty peaks. So 40 panels if you will, of the depth and length measured above. This results in a total surface are for air passage and filtering of 426.25 square inches.
For the Purolator the pleats were deeper, 2" in depth and longer at 8.25". The big difference is the number of panels, I counted 50 peaks or 100 panels of the above measured area for a total area of 1,650 square inches. That's almost 4 times the filtering surface of the K&N.
I have to conclude that either the K&N filter is actually more restrictive or it is 4 times more open than the paper one, to equal it's restriction, let alone best it. Now I understand depth filters but held up to a bright light I could see sparkles coming through the K&N, but not through the paper filter.
Some folks on the Mustang forums have dyno tested their cars before and after fitting the drop in K&N, most noticed no improvement in power in some cases a small loss. Now this may be in part due to the design of the OEM cold air intake fitted to the car, I don't know. But reading that report I cited and my own experiences have given me enough pause to not use them. There must be a reason that no cars or bikes (that I know of) come factory fitted with K&N or similar construction filters.
I put the Purolator one back in.
I had a Ford Racing Performance ProCal ECU tune installed in my 2013 Mustang GT. The package included a K&N drop-in filter replacement and I decided to try and compare the filtering surface area between it and a Purolator OEM style paper filter for my car.
First I measured the frame around the area of exposed filter media. This is the size of the opening if the filter media was removed. The K&N measured 6.6875" wide by 7.75" long for an opening area of 51.82 inches squared. For the Purolator paper filter, the frame was a bit more open measuring 7.25" x 8.25" for an opening area of 59.81 inches square.
Next I turned to the media itself which is mounted in a pleated arrangement in both cases. For the K&N the depth of each pleat was about 1.375" and the length was again 7.75" from above. There are twenty peaks. So 40 panels if you will, of the depth and length measured above. This results in a total surface are for air passage and filtering of 426.25 square inches.
For the Purolator the pleats were deeper, 2" in depth and longer at 8.25". The big difference is the number of panels, I counted 50 peaks or 100 panels of the above measured area for a total area of 1,650 square inches. That's almost 4 times the filtering surface of the K&N.
I have to conclude that either the K&N filter is actually more restrictive or it is 4 times more open than the paper one, to equal it's restriction, let alone best it. Now I understand depth filters but held up to a bright light I could see sparkles coming through the K&N, but not through the paper filter.
Some folks on the Mustang forums have dyno tested their cars before and after fitting the drop in K&N, most noticed no improvement in power in some cases a small loss. Now this may be in part due to the design of the OEM cold air intake fitted to the car, I don't know. But reading that report I cited and my own experiences have given me enough pause to not use them. There must be a reason that no cars or bikes (that I know of) come factory fitted with K&N or similar construction filters.
I put the Purolator one back in.