X2, good for 1,000,000 miles

 

Thats why I have a paper filter, is for the fine dust here. I had a fram air hog in my ranger (very comparable to the K&N). Never caught any of the fine dust in it. The factory mopar filter catches a TON of dust and I feel it filters very well. The $7 filter every 10,000miles or whatever doesn't bother me. Plus all the flow vs filtering tests I've seen in magazines and such doesn't tell me that I want a K&N anyway.

I've had one K&N in my old Mustang and one Fram Airhog in my Ranger. Zero "performance" gain, and the lack of filtering fine dust is not worth the trade off here in the desert.

 

You might want to check out this link:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm

 

Just installed an STP air filter No. SA10348. Looks very similar to the stock filter.

No Fram available at the local store and didn't want to go to the dealer.

STP claims 10% more air flow.

 

I replaced my paper filter with an aFe ProDry. Only cost about the price as 2 paper filters, so I figured why not. Worth a look if you're shopping around IMO.

 

I'm not trying to knock K&N, but most people seem to feel that if an air filter flows more air then it is obviously a great product. They don't think to ask the question as to how it flows more air. In the ase of K&N thye claim their filter traps 99+% of recommended factory levels of contaminants. What about the other 1%?? In offroad conditions that can be a lot of dirt going through the filter. Check this out from the above link.

"Well there is a clear pattern on filtration ability compared to both flow and the type of filtration media used. The "high performance" cotton gauze and foam filters do not filter as well as some have claimed. I actually received an e-mail from K&N stating their filters filter within 99% of the OEM filters. This may be true, and 1% may not sound like much. I contend that 1% over many miles, may be important. Really, it is up to each individual to decide. The poorer flowing filters, remove more particles, and the better flowing filters remove less particles. If you think about it, that conclusion passes any and all common sense tests, so it is not surprising. There are many that will be shocked by the results, that should not be though. I've used high performance filters in the past, and I might again in the future. At the same time, I know that the stock OEM type filters perform very well in filtration and don't inhibit flow nearly as much as some think.

I know it will be asked.... The K&N was properly cleaned and serviced using a K&N filter recharging kit which I personally own (owned quite a few K&Ns). The Amsoil filter was serviced with Amsoil filter oil. The others will be serviced with the appropriate oil as well. The paper air filter will be installed.... I did have a question regarding the deposit on the filter possibly being oil. It is dirt. I took a piece of my 2nd filter test stock and put a few drops of K&N filter oil on it. The oil stays bright red on the filter as well. One person even mentioned the dirt in their area isn't that black. Well this is Western WA state where everything grows lush green. I live 90 minutes from full fledged rain forest and the soil here is black like topsoil. I guess I could take a picture of my white powder coated wheels turned black from road dirt if I had to. If you have a HEPA filtration air purifier in your home and have ever changed the HEPA filter, you will notice that it too is black. The Napa paper filter tested showed the same black deposits. Paper filters have no oil on them, so the oil hypothesis is a dead issue. In the e-mail I received from K&N, I actually got contradictory information on this point. They claimed that the deposit on my test filter was oil (it isn't), and then they said oil does not leave the filter and damage mass air sensors. Honestly, you can't have it both ways. Either oil leaves the filter or it doesn't. Oil will damage a mass air sensor if it gets on the sensor wiring. This is highly documented by TSBs easily available online.

Some have asked that additional filters such as Wix, Fram, and ITG foam be tested. Only the filters listed above will be tested. I do not have the funds, time or desire to test every possible filter. A clear pattern already exists. Foam is foam no matter who makes it. Fiberous filters are still fiberous filters, and paper is still paper. Sure there are minor differences, but in this test a clear pattern emerged based on basic filtration media rather quickly. I personally do not like the difficulties associated with servicing foam filters. I do enjoy the simple drop in of an OEM style filter. Imagine servicing and changing 5+ filters in one day for pressure drop testing. You begin to dislike serviceable filters quickly."
Again,I have no axe to grind but I have used many re-usable air cleaners in the past including K&N and I encourage everyone to run a clean dry cloth up their air intake and see just what is getting past their air cleaners. You may be very surprised.

 

I don't like K&N type filters - simple test take a brand new K&N filter and weight it on a good scale. Use the filter and clean it as designed. Weight it in one year and you'll find it weights more and more and more...... Also like fastcarguy says you'll be unhappy with what gets past your K&N and I personally think oil filters like K&N will shorten the life of any MAF sensor.

 

oil filters Waist of money go paper

 

I think that the analysis discussed above misses half of the equation: Aside from better filtration which translates to longer engine life, many of us use the filters with at least some small expectation of getting a tad more power or MPG; as misguided as our expectations may be.

 

True, but we dont have MAF sensors on our JKs..