| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
 K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Wed, 11 June 2003 22:10
|
 |
Went to Premier Auto Centre in mt druitt. Where the next dyno day will be held. and was speaking to someone there who said that K&N filters shouldn't be used with my new 2002 Corolla.
Reason: It has an air mass sensor and being an oil based filter. there will be oily residue on the sensor and when the car is turned off, there is a 15 second burn off period. Since there is oil on the sensor, it will just get hotter and hotter.  Thus, in the end, will destroy my air mass sensor and if it happens whilst driving, absolutely screw my engine.......Is this correct? 
had the car dynoed, and it only put out 69.8wk. Is that piss poor for a stocker with 100kw at the fly????
I haven't really noticed a difference from the stock to the k&n. Has anyone used it, and did they notice a difference??? 
|
|
|
Location:
Castle Hill, Sydney
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
|
Location:
Montrose, VIC
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Thu, 12 June 2003 00:13
|
|
|
Oiled foam/cotton filters (uni, k+n, or any other variety of lampshade filter for that matter) do indeed like putting oil all over the AFM wire - whether this is really a problem or not is debatable, but the thing is, WHY do you want a lampshade anyway? It's not going to give you any more grunt than a carefully placed cold air feed into the stock airbox - and no prizes for guessing which one causes much more excitement amongst the Local Force...
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
melbourne.victoria.austra...
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Thu, 12 June 2003 00:19
|
|
begs the question tho on the replacement panel filters though eh.
you'd think - that the mass air flow meter would cop a bit of dirt and shite anyways from its job anyways! whether the filter be oil or paper type!
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney, Australia
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Thu, 12 June 2003 01:52
|
|
| xtigerx wrote on Thu, 12 June 2003 08:10 |
had the car dynoed, and it only put out 69.8wk. Is that piss poor for a stocker with 100kw at the fly????
|
To me that sounds about right....
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Thu, 12 June 2003 02:39
|
|
|
Yeah, from memory, most 100kW 4A-GEs get 65-67kW on our dyno days. Their comparative age would account for the couple of kW lost.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Thu, 12 June 2003 03:00
|
|
| Grega wrote on Thu, 12 June 2003 10:19 |
you'd think - that the mass air flow meter would cop a bit of dirt and shite anyways from its job anyways! whether the filter be oil or paper type!
|
Eh? What do you think the filter is there for??
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Thu, 12 June 2003 07:19
|
|
|
Does that also go for panel filters?
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Fri, 13 June 2003 00:40
|
|
Yep! Same goes for panel.
So, no-one knows the answer?????
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Fri, 13 June 2003 01:58
|
|
Oil-type filters are bad in theory when you have a MAF sensor, but everyone does it so I guess it's not that bad in practice. Personally I wouldn't bother with a K&N, or any brand-name filter, because they don't acheive anything much apart from looks (ie rice factor). The factory filter works just fine!
|
|
|
Location:
Madrid - Spain
Registered:
August 2002
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Fri, 13 June 2003 03:26
|
|
Budget on about 25-30% loss in power between flywheel and wheels. a little more for AWD.
Your figure sounds about right.
My celica with a Gen2 1G-GTE put out about 110kw at the wheels. This engine is supposed to put aout about 200hp (150kw) at the flywheel. This is a 27% loss. My car however has a little better exhaust and intake than standard and about 150,000km on the clock, so the power won't be exactly factory but probably close.
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Fri, 13 June 2003 04:50
|
|
| Norbie wrote on Fri, 13 June 2003 11:58 |
Oil-type filters are bad in theory when you have a MAF sensor, but everyone does it so I guess it's not that bad in practice. Personally I wouldn't bother with a K&N, or any brand-name filter, because they don't acheive anything much apart from looks (ie rice factor). The factory filter works just fine!
|
Well said...
I still run stock factory paper filters on both my cars. Why? Because they do something the after-market ones don't do particularly well...Filter! Think not? I can point you in the direction of empirical data which would suggest that I (and Norbie) am right.
The setup pictured above would, in my opinion, be little (if any) better than a stock arrangement as it would pick up a LOT of ambient heat from the engine bay, whereas the factory setup at least has some "shielding" via the air-box. Additionally, the pictured setup would filter less effectively resulting in premature engine-wear. Of course, the best compromise with the factory setups is to duct air from OUTSIDE the engine bay...
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane, QLD
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Fri, 13 June 2003 05:23
|
|
| Norbie wrote on Fri, 13 June 2003 09:58 |
Oil-type filters are bad in theory when you have a MAF sensor, but everyone does it so I guess it's not that bad in practice. Personally I wouldn't bother with a K&N, or any brand-name filter, because they don't acheive anything much apart from looks (ie rice factor). The factory filter works just fine!
|
But its the rice factor we need more of...not enough rice in the world, and all those starving people...
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Fri, 13 June 2003 05:39
|
|
Sorry, this is slightly aside, but lets say for an example that the pod had the same filtration levels.
I understand that in a hot engine bay, its more about the rice factor than anything, but in an isolated location with a cold-air feed, wouldn't the pod filter have the advantage?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Fri, 13 June 2003 05:48
|
|
How bout one of these: http://www.cypherindustries.com.au/catalogue/catpa ges/induction/induction.php?item=airxtreme
They purposely made them non-oiled for cars with AFM and MAF. They make a big point about their air filters actually being designed to filter, and actually are proud of the fact that the filter takes a big hit in performance because of it...mind you, the flow levels regardless look awesome.
|
|
|
Location:
cambo
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Fri, 13 June 2003 09:34
|
|
oil based filters are bad for exactly the reason you said, you answered your own question. its only relevant for cars running the hotwire type AFM, not Vane or Carmen Vortex type AFM's. the hotwire type works buy heating up a wire inside the airduct and running a current thru it. as air passes over it it cools the wire changing the resistance of the wire letting the ecu know whats going on. when the car is switched off, the hotwire is heated up to something like 200-500 degrees? not too sure but anyway, it does this for a few seconds to burn off any crap that has got thru the filter and onto the wire. if OIL were to get on the wire, when the wire heats up, the oil would make the wire get way hotter than its supposed to and possibly melt the wire meaning youll need a new AFM.
so in short, just stick with the factory air filter! if i could be bothered relocating my washer/coolant bottle in the sprinter i would ditch the K&N and run a box anyday but im lazy (and rice).
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Sat, 14 June 2003 01:07
|
|
Is it me? or have people started to assume the K&N filter i'm talking about is a POD filter?
All i've done is replaced the stock paper panel filter with a K&N panel filter.
So you guys would suggest i take the K&N out and put the stock paper filter back in. that correct?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Sat, 14 June 2003 02:06
|
|
|
main reason I'm going for a new filter is new turbos, and cool air intake (naws fogger system, and a t4 turbo Dominic.. I see an AIC controller, it has direct port nitrous injection.... never mind)
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Berowra-Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: K&N Filter - Not Recommended?
|
Sun, 15 June 2003 09:40
|
|
yes using a oil filter can stuff your MAF sensor, see WRX's come in at work wih ramp pods and whats there problem? keep going into limp mode because the MAF sensor is giving out wrong reading due to oil on the sensor.
if you have a MAF sensor then an oiled filer is not a good idea at all unless you can fork out a few hundred bucks for a new sensor.
but if you must have an oiled type filter then get the K&N oil spray can and when you reoil the filter just slightly spray a little oil on there, doesn't need much oil anyway and that way if you don't put much on then you wont find oil finding its way onto the MAF sensor.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth WA
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
