[ahnerrj]

imported post

If you have installed a K&N air filter in your bike, you may want to read this article.

http://forums.nicoclub.com/debunking-the-k-n-myth-why-oem-is-better-t180100.html

 

[mechtech1]

imported post

It makes a lot of sense to me. I went with OEM to make sure I captured all the dirt possible. But there are many that just won't understand that.

 

[AZgl1800]

imported post

That is the same exact ISO test that I have been referring to for years.

K&N is wasted money and dangerous to your engine.

 

[peterbilt]

imported post

ok i got the hot sauce, and popcorn, someone bring me a 12pack i want to see this fight gettin started

 

[ceasefire49]

imported post

I use Uni filters on mine and it appears that that filter is the choice of most bike racers.

I have used the stock and the Uni and I can't see where anything as far as dirt is getting into the ports. I clean the filter and relube it about once a month. The K&N does create more turbulence from what I understand. I guess it is all a personal choice like Oil or tires. That test was 2002 and I believe there are other tests out there. The stock Filter is okay and it has suited lots of people for a long time.:waving:
I did a Google search of this topic and discovered a zillion posts. It appears most of the problems of the Uni and K&N are because of bad fit and seal. I have not found that problem with my particular application. When I put the Uni on and when I removed the old one there was clear evidence of a fitment problem. So its pick your poison.

 

[CaptainMidnight85]

imported post

I don't see how the link above "debunks" anything. Actually, if it serves any purpose, it is to show the relationship between paper filters and oiled filters with subjective hard data to compare one against another with straight-line testing, as K&N is the only oiled-element filter I see in the testing of all filters listed. Did I miss another oiled filter?

Are the common-to-another test practices used for the results even relevant for a "debunking" to even be considered?

Granted, I understand that some median plane needs to happen for any comparison to happen, but does K&N base their claims/advertising/warranty on testsdone at350 CFM flow with "test dust" particulate matter of 2.5-80 microns injected at a rate of 9.8 grams per minute? Do any of the other filter manufactures do the same?And is that comparable to 50K miles of average street driving conditions? Is it a above average accumulation of "dust" or a below average amount?

Oiled filters require maintenance above and beyond paper media filters. As I see it, looking at the results in the link above with this in mind says that the K&N filter performs exceptionally well should the maintenance required been performed when needed to maintain the across-the-board performance levels.

Without argument I think the test is biased in scope, flawedand irrelevant to all but the K&N haters.

 

[moonhead]

imported post

Very well stated.I ran a K&N filter on a ford diesel pickup that had 90,000 on it when I bought it and 185,000 when I sold it.The engine never used oil and the air intake was always clean enough to eat off of.Yes you have to maintain the filter but it performed as advertised.

 

[Geezerglider]

imported post

moonhead wrote:

Very well stated.I ran a K&N filter on a ford diesel pickup that had 90,000 on it when I bought it and 185,000 when I sold it.The engine never used oil and the air intake was always clean enough to eat off of.Yes you have to maintain the filter but it performed as advertised.

Maintaining the filter on an 1800 makes it way more trouble than it's worth. I bought and installed the FIPK on my '03 RAM shortly after I bought it primarily looking for an increase in economy. I got neither better fuel mileage or increase in performance, and went back to stock filter.

 

[SETHAN12]

imported post

peterbilt wrote:

ok i got the hot sauce, and popcorn, someone bring me a 12pack i want to see this fight gettin started

I'm with you!!!!

If it's not oil, then it's MT versus CT, or deer alerts, or mana, or whatever else people can argue about.

What's the point?

opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:opcorn:

 

[AZgl1800]

imported post

A good fight! :ROFL:

 

[SETHAN12]

imported post

AZgl1500 wrote:

A good fight! :ROFL:

+1:thumbsup:

 

[Geezerglider]

imported post

AZgl1500 wrote:

A good fight! :ROFL:

Where's the "like" button.

 

[peterbilt]

imported post

its gettin good i'll be the referee in the octogon.... LETS GET IT ONNNNNNNNNNNN

 

[SETHAN12]

imported post

peterbilt wrote:

its gettin good i'll be the referee in the octogon.... LETS GET IT ONNNNNNNNNNNN

Is this a cage match?

If not I'm not interested.:cheeky1:

 

[CaptainMidnight85]

imported post

Ha Ha... Hey, I'm just saying... you know... I use both; K&N and whatever else. I think paper is paper. There is probably less than a handful of filter-paper media manufactures that the air filter manufacturers use for their air filters. You know, like anti-freeze.

I've bikes that have foam-only air filters. I buy the foam at Jo-Anne's Fabrics.

I don't see that on the list... :ROFL:

I've had some bikes jetted so strange that I've had to make my own and roll with it.

 

[exavid]

imported post

I don't think it makes much difference but use OEM filters because that's the way Mother Honda built the bike. If a filter manufacturer advertises free-er breathing than an OEM air filter it seems to me that means it has larger pores in the media. Since the area of a paper filter is larger due to pleats than the flatter surface of the oiled filters I can't see how there could be less resistance to air flow with less surface area. Not to mention the effort required to get at the filters on the 1500 and 1800.

 

[peterbilt]

imported post

cage match, cat fight..... pick your poision

 

[CaptainMidnight85]

imported post

exavid wrote:

...it seems to me that means it has larger pores in the media. Oiled filters work on a different principle. As dirt/dust collect, the pore size within the media reduces. They start at a maximum micron rating when properly oiled and get more restrictive as time moves forward and dirt/dust collect, yet still retaining efficiency to a point, which paper media cannot do. Because of the media design, airflow is disproportionate during this time compared to a paper filters media design and rated airflow. Paper filter media are of a fixed micron rating that is the same throughout the layers and its use. Comparing oiled fabric media to dry paper media in a lab is fruitless. Comparing a Thoroughbred Stallion to a Mule for work is just as pointless as each perform work much more specifically than a single, straightline test of comparison is capable of proving without unintentionally being biased toward one or the other.

Since the area of a paper filter is larger due to pleats than the flatter surface of the oiled filters... The test K&N filter is pleated. If there are less pleats than a paper filter I would assume it to be not by much.

...just some observations exavid...

 

[exavid]

imported post

The K&N filter that was on my 1500 had considerably less media area than the stock one. I don't know for sure about my 1800, it has a K&N sticker on the airbox but I haven't gotten into it yet.

 

[pcfix_3]

imported post

It's personal choice. Either one will do the job just fine with little to no problems. If the fitment is a problem, then either one that doesn't fit correctly will not be as effective. K&N and the like are designed to be reused for a long time while OEM and other paper filters are designed to be used once. Again, personal choice. Does anyone know if the OEM ones are recyclable (put it in a recycle bin when you throw it away kind)? I would like to believe that they are, but I don't know for sure.