At 12:38 PM 2/10/97 -0800, Karl Kromer wrote:
[...]
>
>Has anyone heard any other bad stories, or is this guy just posting spam?
>
I saw that post myself couple of years ago. I'd like to get a K&N, I've
heard good things about them, but I have this sense of uncertainty after
reading that guy's post. I too would like to get a definitive answer about
this.
I just dug around at www.dejanews.com for a few minutes and came up
with the following, which may or may not help:
---------------8<--------------------------------
I beleive this is the text of the message that Karl was referring to which
paints K&N in an unfavorable light:
>Subj: K & N filters
>To: John M. Saturday, January 21, 1995 5:14:10 PM From: George Morrison
>John: If I wrote "subjective" I meant "objective".. I was responsible for
>evaluating re-usable air filters for a major construction/mining company
>that had hundreds of vehicles ranging from large earthmovers to pick-up
>trucks and salesmen's cars. This study was embarked upon due to the fact
>that we were spending upwards of $30,000 a MONTH on paper air filters.
>Using them one time then throwing them away.. I inititated the study in
>that I was convinced that a K&N type filter or oiled foam would save us
>many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour savings, and of course
>engines as these would filter dirt better than paper. (yes, I had read the
>K&N ads and was a believer)
>Representative test units were chosen to give us a broad spectrum from
>cars right through large front end loaders. With each unit we had a long
>history of oil analysis records so that changes would be trackable.
>Unfortunately, for me, every single unit having alternative re-usable air
>cleaners showed an immediate large jump in silicon (dirt) levels with
>corresponding major increases in wear metals. In one extreme case, a unit
>with a primary and secondary air cleaner, the secondary (small paper
>element) clogged before even one day's test run could be completed. This
>particular unit had a Cummins V-12 engine that had paper/paper one one
>bank and K&N/paper on the other bank; two completely independent induction
>systems. The conditions were EXACTLY duplicated for each bank yet the K&N
>allowed so much dirt to pass through that the small filter became clogged
>before lunch. The same outcome occured with oiled foams on this unit.
>We discontinued the tests on the large pieces almost immediately but
>continued with service trucks, formen's vehicles, and my own company car.
>Analysis results continued showing markedly increased wear rates for all
>the vehicles, mine included. Test concluded, switched back to paper/glass
>and all vehicles showed reduction back to near original levels of both
>wear metals and dirt. I continued with the K&N on my company car out of
>stubborness and at 85,000 miles the Chevy 305 V-8 wheezed its last breath.
>The top end was sanded badly; bottom end was just fine. End of test.
>I must stress that EVERYONE involved in this test was hoping that
>alternative filters would work as everyone was sick about pulling out a
>perfectly good $85 air cleaner and throwing 4 of them away each week per
>machine...
>So, I strongly suggest that depending upon an individual's long term plan
>for their vehicles they simply run an oil analysis at least once to see
>that the K&N or whatever alternative air filter is indeed working IN THAT
>APPLICATION... It depends on a person's priorities. If you want
>performance then indeed the K&N is the way to go but at what cost???
>And no, I do not work for a paper or glass air filter manufacturing
>company nor do I have any affiliation with anything directly or indirectly
>that could benefit George Morrison as a result..
---------------8<--------------------------------
Here's K&N's response to that posting:
Subject: Re: K&N Air "Filters"??? K&N Reply to Mining Story
From: Norm Dang <norm.dang@hydro.on.ca>
Date: 1996/11/25
Message-Id: <3299E693.5B5B@hydro.on.ca>
References: <19961121154900.KAA10102@ladder01.news.aol.com>
<32952F21.5D50@cris.com> <01bbd9d6$51a028a0$4d0ec1d0@jsmiga.viptx.net>
<3298203E.1E09@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii
Organization: Ontario Hydro Clarkson SCC
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.autos.camaro.firebird
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
Hi,
The mining story has been around at least once before. Here is the reply
that somebody (I have xxx'd the name) says that K&N sent. Please refer
to Dejanews for the full original posting.
Norm
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 6 of 85
Subject: K&N Filter test data
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: 1995/08/23
Message-Id: <41e5t5$fh2@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
To: ---------------------
The following memo is from K&N. It was sent to a friend by
K&N's internal sales director along with a polite informative
cover letter that I have not included.
I have no connections with K&N and present this information
without comment or permission from K&N, but since it is
addressed to "To Whom It May Concern", why not?
-------------------------------------------------------
To Whom It May Concern, especially Mr. George Morrison who has
taken K&N to task with some very undocumented accusations.
GM Comment: We were spending upwards of $30,000.00 a month on
paper air filters using them one time and then tossing them
away.
Question: What was the total number of paper air filters used
each month and how long was the service life for each paper
element?
GM Comment: "... reusable air cleaners showed an immediate
large jump in silicon (dirt) levels... etc.
Question: What is a large jump: What was the PPM count before
the "reusable air filter" and what was the PPM after
installation and use? What was the PPM with the foam and what
was the PPM with the K&N?
There are allowable limits and without the facts it is
impossible to comment.
However Regarding the silicone levels K&N has recorded over six
years running, oil analysis from two Southern California
transit authorities. This includes some 800 large diesel buses
and 200 "Dial A Ride" gasoline vans. Oil samples were taken
every 60 days and did not exactly match the changing or service
of the air filter element! All air filters were serviced at
25" of water restriction. When running with paper air filters
we did notice an increase of silicone as the element grew dirty
some as high as 25 PPM. When the K&N elements were
installed we noticed a drop to more acceptable levels (6 12
PPM) at the next oil sample test. Not once have we recorded
any abnormally high silicone counts with the K&N elements.
Average mileage per vehicle is 50,000 miles per year, 50,000
miles times 1,000 vehicles equals 50 million miles a year. Not
one engine has suffered damage during this time while using K&N
air filters. K&N did save the two transit authorities a lot of
fuel, reduced their labor to change out the paper air filters
(one K&N would last the same life as 3 paper elements) plus
hundreds of thousands of dollars purchasing new paper elements.
For the record, K&N does not manufacture or specify any of it's
air filters for the mining or construction industry. We do on
occasion rebuild some very large and strange air filters for a
lot of our customers. Rebuild, means that we take a dirty
paper air filter, disassemble it and by using the old end caps
and wire baskets we will rebuild the filter using the K&N
filter media. Upon delivering the "rebuild" to the customer,
he is advised that we will not vouch for the application or
proper sealing of the element into his air filter canister. We
have no way of testing the seals of the gaskets. We suspect
this is the type of K&N air filters which Mr. Johnson used in
his test
Evidently, Mr. Johnson was conducting his own evaluation, which
is good, as we do it on some things we source out. However,
had K&N been on site or directly involved with the test, I'm
certain the test would have been more favorable for Mr. Johnson
and K&N. First off, you do not want to mix one of the oil
impingement air filters (K&N or Foam) in combination with
paper, especially paper safety filters. Try this simple test
yourself by spraying your paper air filter element with a very
thin oil or WD 40, WOW! That combination will lock up an air
filter very quick, plus you could damage the paper filter media
I'm not surprised that Mr. Johnson's safety filter clogged, but
I am pleased it went a full half day. I would have bet one
hour at most If you fit a new paper safety filter with a new
K&N or foam outer filter, just remember any excess oil and
there will be excess oil, will be pulled off almost immediately
into the safety filter and you have instant restriction.
Instead of using an inner paper safety filter, why not
incorporate a foam or polyester pre filter on the outside of
the K&N element? This combination has proven to be extremely
effective operating in very dusty desert conditions. Offroad
racers, operating in desert sand and fine silt beds, will use
an oiled foam wrap or pre filter on the outside of the K&N
element. Once the wrap is clogged it can be replaced in just
seconds. Baja racers will change foam wraps at each pit stop
and never touch the K&N set up during the entire 1,000 mile
race. For mud and heavy sand, we recommend the polyester
Precharger wrap. This is a fine denier mesh (similar to panty
hose) that will deflect the sand and mud. Being of a very
slick material, the Precharger will cause the dirt to slide off
and not pack into the K&N filter pleats. Also, the polyester
can be changed rather quickly.
What about efficiency of the filter or the filters ability
to stop dirt? There are two acceptable tests used by the filter
industry to verify the efficiency (actually just one test but
with two grades of dust) SAE J726 F or C (fine or course dust).
The exact mixture is detailed at the end of this report 100%
efficiency is perfect but rare for any air filter that also
allows enough air through for engine use. One major air filter
manufacturer of paper elements has consistently advertised a
97% dirt free media filter for all its elements. This is very
good, yet there are some others that claim 98 99%, but I have
never seen one of their test reports. K&N has certified
reports of 97.4% FINE for its four ply (four layers of cotton
gauze) and 98.2% COURSE for the commercial 6 ply filters.
Incidentally, the U. S. Army just completed a 30 cycle test of
. . the K&N air filter for possible use on helicopters
operating in dirty dusty desert conditions. The 30 cycle test
consisted of air being pulled through the K&N filter at speeds
required by the helicopter jet engine for full power. At the
same time, dirt is induced into the air stream per the SAE J726
C test procedures. When the restriction reached 25" of water,
the filter was removed from the test chamber and serviced per
K&N's instructions (washed re oiled). Again, the same element
was tested and serviced over and over for 30 complete cycles.
In the end the K&N was still operating with a 97% efficiency.
In conclusion, K&N has been manufacturing and selling the
washable reusable air filter for over 30 years. To date, we
have not lost one engine because of the filter media being
inferior.
---------------8<--------------------------------
And here's a snippet from the rec.autos.chrysler FAQ:
37. Are K&N filters worth it?
David Cooley reported on a magazine test of aftermarket air filters.
The paper filters were respectable, but the K&N and Accell filters
flowed almost 3 times as much air when dirty as clean paper filters
of the same size. The K&N passed less particulate matter than the
paper filter; as it got dirtier outside, they sprayed on a new coat
of oil (without cleaning) and found it filtered even better.
The maintainer notes that K&N filters change your engine sound,
reduce the quantity of paper in landfills (rarely need replacement),
and flow better when dirty. Other than that, you may not notice much
difference unless you have a high-efficiency exhaust and performance
engine. They pay for themselves, but don't expect a huge power boost.
---------------8<--------------------------------
-Jon-
Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information Technology
.- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ -.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ |
| '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
- Unless otherwise stated, these opinions and views are my own. -
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:31 EDT