DODGE RAM FORUM banner

K&N drop-in AIR FILTER?

18K views 32 replies 19 participants last post by  LostAtSea85 
#1 ·
what do you guy's think and is it true from some test that k&n let's alot of dust into the motor? Recommendations? Thank's.:smileup:
 
#2 ·
As long as she's oiled up you'll be fine, never had any issues ever with dealer warranty work with k&n drop in on all my Chrysler vehicles

2000 tj 240k miles
2006 gr caravan 100k miles and still running like new
2007 jk 100k miles traded in for ram
Never an issue and all three had engine repairs and not a single boo about the k&n drop in ever.
 
#3 ·
You'll always have nay sayers for any product and they can come up with fabricated data and tests. Just like some folks that bash Royal Purple, one of the best, if not the best synthetics on the market, IMHO. I've been running a K&N drop in for over 2 years now and love it. CAI doesn't get me excited, well, neither does the K&N, but I figure I'd spend the CAI buck on a better bang. Can't go wrong the the K&N drop in. Just remember to clean it at least twice a year.
 
#4 ·
I have read some of those test results and they do make you wonder if the k&n is worth putting in,I had one in my Avalanche.If you drive in dusty conditions like dirt roads a lot you might want to think twice about it.The stock filters do a better job of filtering out the dust because the pores are smaller and oem's have improved their air box design to protect against potential warranty claims and allow more efficiency.
 
#11 ·
Please be specific, interesting remarks



Please tell me what "pores" you refer to and the size of each.

Then explain how (exact quote) oem's have improved their air box design to protect against potential warranty claims and allow more efficiency

Fill me in, and everyone reading this, what warranty claim data you refer to. Please be really specific.
 
#6 ·
I read a pretty extensive test on air filters. I wish I had bookmarked it, but it was a diesel related forum I saw the test on, but I think it was a link to a VW forum or something like that. It was a pretty well done test where the can actually measure the amount of restriction and the amount of dust that was let through the filter. The truth is the K&N didn't perform well. Also the statement they make the dirtier it gets, the better it filters wasn't true. I switched the filter out on my K&N CAI on my Challenger to an AFE. The AFE performed better but it still wasn't as good as a factory setup.

There are also a lot of tests on the performance gain. Depending on what you read, the gain is small to nil.

Goggle this stuff and you will find a lot of reading.
 
#7 ·
If you stay with a paper filter there is no guesswork and that is why the factory's install paper filters. Not cost and they work very well keeping the dirt out.

If you go to a K&N filter you have to get the oil just right to have it perform correctly. You will lose performance (to much oil) or you get to much dirt getting past the filter (to little oil). Paper filters just work.

I have found that there is very little gain, if any, over paper filters unless you live in a dusty area and need to clean your filter often. JMO.

Your butt dino or bragging rights my be different.

Greg
 
#9 ·
I thought about a CAI or a K&N when I first bought my truck since my dad has the K&N drop in in his '09. Then I looked at the stock air box and told myself "if I keep the stock filter and also don't get the seat covers I had planned on, I can use the money I save for a new Sig!" So I decided to get the handgun instead.
 
#10 ·
Where do you come up with this stuff????



You do understand MILLIONS of people (me included) have KN filters on cars, trucks, motorcycles, RV's, boats, drag cars etc etc. Do you think those people are all idiots? Clueless, bamboozled?

KN have been around 30 years with a continuous profile of development, new products, upgrades, fitment, applications etc

Show me a "paper filter" outfit that comes close to that.

Where did you find (exact quote) ""Let's a lof of dust into the motor"

Utterly amazing.
 
#15 ·
You do understand MILLIONS of people (me included) have KN filters on cars, trucks, motorcycles, RV's, boats, drag cars etc etc. Do you think those people are all idiots? Clueless, bamboozled?

KN have been around 30 years with a continuous profile of development, new products, upgrades, fitment, applications etc

Show me a "paper filter" outfit that comes close to that.

Where did you find (exact quote) ""Let's a lof of dust into the motor"

Utterly amazing.
I agree, all my trucks have had K&N filter's with NO issues but you get bored on the computer and start reading chit about air filter's on other websites and most of them BASH the heck out of K&N;I don't know why.
 
#12 ·
I have run K&N's in everything I have ever owned since 1994 and never hand an engine problem.

I ran a 5.0L Foxbody Mustang to 280k miles, drag raced and autocrossed it on weekends, and punished the crap out of it. K&N installed the whole time, no motor rebuilds.

That being said, on one vehicle, a 2009 Camary 4cyl, the K&N caused a unstable idle on occasion with the AC on. That is the only issue I have ever had.

Fuel economy is tricky though. On some rides, I saw a 1-2 mpg gain and on others, no gain at all.

Some vehicles ran better with them and some did not. I think it has to do with the quality of design of the air box more than the filter because if the engine is getting the air it wants, and of good quality, then you don't gain much by an aftermarket filter.

I will be ording my drop in filter for the Ram in a few months.
 
#13 ·
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm

Here is a test from Bob The Oil Guy. Its not the test I was thinking of but it does show some results. Its not like K&N does a bad job, just not as good as stock filters. The test I had seen also showed the results of a dirty filter, and this is where the K&N didn't seem to perform as well.

You have to remember just because you have run a K&N for years and didn't have problems doesn't mean they are the best. I'll just say K&N has gotten a bad rep in the diesel truck forums, but I can't say if its fair or not.
 
#14 ·
I have a drop in and it seems better than the paper it came with.
 
#16 ·
I think the biggest advantage to the K & N drop in filter is the fact that you buy a single filter for the life of the truck, and depending upon how long you keep the truck you also purchase one or two cleaning kits..

I don't think I've ever since any sort of increase in performance or mpg on any of the vehicles that I've had one installed in. They all performed about the same as the factory filter, they were just more cost effective in the long run


just my opinion

Exco
 
#23 ·
One of the most cogent reasons!!

I think the biggest advantage to the K & N drop in filter is the fact that you buy a single filter for the life of the truck, and depending upon how long you keep the truck you also purchase one or two cleaning kits..

I don't think I've ever since any sort of increase in performance or mpg on any of the vehicles that I've had one installed in. They all performed about the same as the factory filter, they were just more cost effective in the long run


just my opinion

Exco
Coast guard - you hit the nail on the head. One filter, life of the truck. You go down a DUSTY road, clean it sunday night when the part stores are closed. Never have a "not in stock" condition. The MPG thing, is a little tricky.
K&N's also work really well at high altitudes. If you ever tow with your truck, you'll LOVE the extra air flow.
 
#17 ·
This sounds far fetched but in the era of my 2005 someone said the drop in filter made the truck louder, just the drop in. I don't know if the filters the same size (it looks like it might be) but I might try the one from my old truck and see if I notice any differences in anything. I saw the gas mileage in my 2005 actually go down with it so I yanked it.
 
#20 ·
I was running a stock Ram with a regular Mopar Air filter, got 17.4 highway on flat land, no cross wind

I put in a K&N pre oiled air filter, got 17.4 mpg under same conditions

i left on this current vacation, same as every July/August
took out the K&N, saw it had caught a goodly amount of some blackish substance & didn't have time to clean it & let it dry out, respray some more oil, etc.

I vacuumed out the air box & wiped it down, lots of hay, bugs, etc
pulled my own version of a bug screen out from in front of the radiator, etc. hosed it off, re-installed it

I just went to Carquest, got a paper filter, dropped it in

took off on my vacation & i saw 20+ mpg, surely not because of the air filter
my Ram has 92,000 miles on it,
maybe the engine just needed time to break in
:LOL:

when i get back home, i will clean the K&N & it will go back into the Ram another time or two
 
#26 ·
I posted this information i found on another site in another thread a few months ago.

This should give you all something to digest for awhile, lol.


I couldn't get the link to work here, so I took the information to post on here.

SCOPE:

This report presents the results of an ISO 5011 test of several air filters designed for the GM Duramax Diesel. The test was independently performed under controlled conditions using a $285,000 machine at Testand Corp of Rhode Island (manufacturer of the machine). Arlen Spicer, a GM Duramax Diesel owner/enthusiast organized the test. Ken an employee of Testand offered to perform the tests at no charge. (These tests typically cost approx $1700.00 per filter). Ken, also a Diesel enthusiast and owner of a Ford Power Stroke Diesel, shared Arlen’s interest in performing an accurate unbiased test of different types and brands of diesel engine air filters. The filters used in the test were purchased retail and donated by Arlen and other individual Duramax Diesel owners. The detailed reports from the test have been compiled and are presented in the following pages. The final pages of this report present the interesting story how and why Arlen organized the test.

ISO 5011 Test:

The ISO 5011 Standard (formerly SAE J726) defines a precise filter test using precision measurements under controlled conditions. Temperature & humidity of the test dust and air used in the test are strictly monitored and controlled. As Arlen learned in attempting his own tests, there are many variables that can adversely affect filter test results. A small temperature change or a small change in humidity can cause the mass of a paper filter to change by several grams. To obtain an accurate measure of filter efficiency, it’s critical to know the EXACT amount of test dust being fed into the filter during the test. By following the ISO 5011 standard, a filter tested in Germany can be compared directly compared to another filter tested 5 years later in Rhode Island. The ISO 5011 filter test data for each filter is contained in two test reports; Capacity-Efficiency and Flow Restriction.

Capacity and Efficiency:

The Capacity and Efficiency test report presents the test results of feeding an initially clean filter with PTI Course Test Dust (dirt) at a constant rate and airflow. The course test dust has a specific distribution of particle sizes ranging from less than 2.5 microns to greater than 80 microns (see table below). Every filter is initially tested at 350 CFM and the Initial Restriction or differential pressure across the filter is recorded in IN-H20 (Inches of Water). The filter is then tested by feeding test dust at a nominal rate of 9.8 grams per minute with a constant airflow of 350 CFM. The test is continued until the flow restriction exceeds the Initial Restriction + 10 IN-H20. At this point the test is terminated and the amount dust passed through the filter - Accumulative Gain - is measured. Dirt passing through the filter is captured in the Test Station’s Post Filter. The exact amount of dirt passed is determined by measuring the before and after weight of the Post Filter. Similarly, the amount of dirt retained by the Filter under test - Accumulative Capacity – is measured by taking the difference between the before and after weights of the Filter. From these results the overall % Efficiency of the filter is calculated. This test also indicates how long a Filter will last before replacement is required (or cleaning for reusable filters).

Flow Restriction:

This report presents flow restriction of a clean filter resulting from an increasing airflow. The differential pressure restriction across the filter is reported in inches of water (IN H2O) versus Air Flow in cubic feet per minute CFM.

Data from these reports has been compiled and presented in the following bar graphs, Plots and data tables.

Filter Efficiency:

Filter efficiency is a measure of the filters overall ability to capture dirt.




Accumulative Capacity:

“Accumulative Capacity” is a measure of dirt holding/loading capacity before reaching the maximum restriction limit - Initial Restriction + 10 IN-H20.




Accumulative Gain:

"Accumulative Gain" is the total amount of dirt that passed through the filter during the test.



(Note: The Purolator was reported to have a seal malfunction during the test and passed more dirt than it would have with a good seal.)

Initial Restriction:

Initial Restriction is the Filter under test’s resistance to flow at 350 CFM.



Dirt Passed Versus Total Test Time
This graph shows each the duration of each filter’s test versus dirt passed (Accumulative Gain).

(Note: The Purolator was reported to have a seal malfunction during the test and passed more dirt than it would have with a good seal.)



In the chart above it’s important to note the different test durations for each filter. The AC Delco filter test ran for 60 minutes before exceeding the restriction limit while the AMSOIL and K&N tests each ran for 20 and 24 minutes respectively before reaching max restriction. In 60 minutes the AC Filter accumulated 574gms of dirt and passed only 0.4gms. After only 24 minutes the K&N had accumulated 221gms of dirt but passed 7.0gms. Compared to the AC, the K&N “plugged up” nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt. See the data tables for a complete summary of these comparisons.

Dust Loading:

The dust loading curves show graphically how each filter responded to a constant 9.8 gms/min dust flow before reaching the maximum restriction limit.



It’s interesting to note the shape of these Dust Loading Curves. The AC and Baldwin filters each had near linear responses until reaching maximum restriction. Restriction for these filters increased at a constant rate versus the 9.8 gms/min dust feed rate. The other filters, most notably the oiled reusable types, had an exponential loading response before reaching maximum restriction. These filters had a lower initial restriction, but they became exponentially more restrictive under a constant flow of dirt. Also notice the length of the curves as it shows the relative test time for each filter (time to max restriction).

Restriction to Flow:

The Restriction to Flow curves graphically show how each “clean” filter responded to a steadily increasing flow of air up to 350 CFM.




The Flow Restriction response curves for each filter have the same basic shape. However, note how the AC Filter, which passed the smallest amount of dirt and had the highest dirt capacity and efficiency, also had the highest relative restriction to flow. The less efficient filters correspondingly had less restriction to flow. This illustrates the apparent trade-offs between optimizing a filter for dirt capturing ability and maximum airflow.


Test Data Tables:













To be consistent with common industry practice all filters were tested using PTI Course Test Dust. Course dust is more commonly used since it will produce higher % efficiency numbers.



The Story behind the test:

First of all, many thanks to Arlen Spicer and Ken at Testand for organizing and facilitating the test. Arlen is a professional Firefighter who also operates a small tree service on the side. The tree service is the reason he owns a diesel truck. This study was the result of nearly a year of work by Arlen to get accurate independent data on air filters for the GM Duramax Diesel. Arlen originally set out to build his own Filter Test Stand so that he could perform accurate, repeatable and independent measurements on the various filters available for the Duramax. Arlen questioned the claims made by aftermarket filter manufacturers that their filters were superior to the conventional OEM style paper filters. After spending many months, hours and a considerable amount of his own money, he learned first hand how difficult it was to perform an accurate air filter test. He found it was difficult to maintain all the necessary controls to insure an accurate measurement. It was at this juncture that Arlen received a call from Ken at Testand offering to perform the ISO 5011 test free of charge. Ken found Arlen’s idea for an independent comparison study very interesting and offered to do the ISO 5011 testing using one of Testand’s industrial Filter Test Machines. Arlen posted the news in an internet forum and immediately the offers by forum members to purchase and send filters for the test started rolling in. Some members purchased and donated filters and others made contributions to cover the expenses and the cost of shipping the filters to Teststand. It was truly a team effort. The end result is the top quality data presented in this report. The following is a quote from a post in the forum.

(Arlen) SPICER wrote,

“Now that I am not doing the tests and my objectivity is not necessary, let me explain my motivation. The reason I started this crusade was that I was seeing people spend a lot of money on aftermarket filters based on the word of a salesperson or based on the misleading, incomplete or outright deceiving information printed on boxes and in sales literature. Gentlemen and Ladies, Marketing and the lure of profit is VERY POWERFUL! It is amazing how many people believe that better airflow = more power! Unless you have modifications out the wazoo, a more porous filter will just dirty your oil! Some will say " I have used aftermarket brand X for XXX # years with no problems. The PROBLEM is you spent a chunk of ching on a product that not only DID NOT increase your horsepower, but also let in a lot of dirt while doing it! Now how much is a lot? ANY MORE THAN NECESSARY is TOO MUCH!

Others are persuaded by the claims of aftermarket manufacturers that their filters filter dirt "better than any other filter on the market." Sounds very enticing. To small timers like you and me, spending $1500 to test a filter sounds like a lot. But if you were a filter manufacturer and you believed your filter could filter dirt better than any other media on the market, wouldn't you want to prove it? Guess what. Test your filter vs. the OE paper. It will cost you $3000 and for that price you will have the data that you can use in your advertisements. Your investment will be returned a thousand fold! EASIER than shooting fish in a barrel! So why don't these manufacturers do this? Hmmm? Probably not because they would feel guilty about taking more market share.

Now I am not saying that ALL aftermarket filters are useless. A paper filter does not do well if directly wetted or muddy. It may collapse. This is why many off-road filters are foam. It is a compromise between filtering efficiency and protection from a collapsed filter. Now how many of our trucks collapse their filters from mud and water? However, if a filter is using "better airflow" as their marketing tool, remember this....Does it flow better? At very high airflow volumes, probably. BUT, Our trucks CAN'T flow that much air unless super-modified, so what is the point? The stock filter will flow MORE THAN ENOUGH AIR to give you ALL THE HORSEPOWER the engine has to give. And this remains true until the filter is dirty enough to trip the air filter life indicator. At that point performance will decline somewhat. Replace the filter and get on with it.

Hopefully the results of this test will do 2 things. Shed some light on the misleading marketing claims of some aftermarket manufacturers and/or give us new insight on products already on the market that are superior to our OE filter. I stand for truth and will eat my words publicly if my statements prove wrong. I appreciate all of the help and support that you members have offered in this project. It would simply be impossible without your help. A huge thanks to Ken at Testand for his willingness to take on this project. I would be spinning my wheels from here to eternity without his help… SPICER”
 
#28 ·
I think you will find the obvious:

Better air flow = better performance but less filtering of dirt

Less air flow = better filtering of dirt but less performance
 
#29 ·
This statement about sums it up, if your engine isn't heavily modified, then what's the point of running one as it can't handle the extra air flow anyways?

".Does it flow better? At very high airflow volumes, probably. BUT, Our trucks CAN'T flow that much air unless super-modified, so what is the point? The stock filter will flow MORE THAN ENOUGH AIR to give you ALL THE HORSEPOWER the engine has to give"
 
#32 ·
Well, there are a hundred 'tests' done by lots of people that bash the filter and their arguments may be valid and they may also insignificant. I am an engineer with some time under my belt and a lot of my job is to determine what is significant as it applies to the real world, rather than the academic one. Is it significant that the K&N may let in 2% more dust into the engine? Maybe and maybe not.
For me, in anything from carbureted to fuel injected, I have never hand a filter related failure in anything that I ran K&N's in. I have several engine builds under my belts and a host of modifications to many vehicles including self-installs. So, as far as a 'real world' test, I have been conducting one for 20 years with success.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top