360 K+N FILTER

Should not have to change anything. Where did u get the filters as I have been looking for a set?
They are the best
Buzz

 

They might mess up your Caps Lock key.

 

While any performance increase will be little, you will get much better filtering from a K&N than the stock paper filter, i.e.,, less dirt in your engine. But, you do have to keep them cleaned and oiled to get the superior filtering!

 

I have seen oiled air filters kill Mass Air Sensors "expensive" oil vapor residue gets on the hotwire .

 

slewman, please explain in detail, tnx, Bill

 

The oil from the filter is drawn through the intake plumbing and deposits inside the Mass Air Sensor. Inside the MAS is the hotwire sensor ,when this becomes contaminated it will fail.

 

This happens ONLY when the filter is serviced and way too much oil is put on it. A filter out of the box or reasonably oiled when washed will not cause any problems. I'm in the performance intake business and see this stuff first hand every day. Another example of more (in this case oil) not being better.

 

Having read several articles on hot wire mass air sensors (no practical experience though), it is my understanding that when the car is shut-off the hot wire heats white hot for about 10 seconds to burn anything off of it?
The even have a picture of this happening on the cover of the Probst Bosch FI book.

Mark

 

That's absolutely correct. Beleive it or not, the platinum element actually hits 1000 DEG C.

From the Bosch Automotive Handbook:

"To ensure stable and reliable performance throughout an extended service life, the system must vaporize all accumulated deposits from the hot wire's surface after each phase of active operation (when the ignition is switched off)."

On most cars, including F. Cars, the burn-off only happens if the engine was run above 2000 RPM since the last burn.

I don't think light filter oil will do too much harm to the MAFS -- I'd be more concerned about the K&N filtration properties in general. There's a lot of conflicting views in the archives on the pro's & con's of K&N's.

 

Actually, untrue... A brand new paper filter should flow as well as a clean K&N filter. When the paper filter becomes dirty, it won't flow as well as the K&N.

In both cases, a paper filter should always "filter" much better than a K&N. it comes down to pore size, and in that area, the paper is superior.

 

Perfusion,

I don’t mean to be controversial here at all, but, since I’ve been a big supporter of K&N filters for a long time (I've used them on all of my cars for many years), please help me understand.

I’ve been to several car shows/events that have shown very impressive demonstrations with air flow exhibits with K&N as compared to other paper filters. The results are quite impressive in favor of the K&N. Yes, I know, results can be a “marketing” gimmick, but these demonstrations are really quite simple to interpret. But I have to tell you, it seems somewhat obvious. More air flow with better filtering, more power and cleaner air!

But I’m certainly willing to “learn”. Please supply your credentials for your statements, and then I’m with you, if you can support it.

Tnx, Bill

 

Bill... I appreciate your cander and willingness to "believe." I, too, have been (and still am) a K&N user. I have one in my Corvette, and my wife has one in her car. There is certainly no doubt that a K&N (when dirty) will outflow the hell out of a standard paper filter. You can hear it with your own ears - cotton filters "roar" at WOT.

The improved filtering capability of the paper filters, as I mentioned earlier, is a function of pore size. It's fairly self-evident that a paper filter will have smaller pores than an oiled cotton filter, and that translates to less particulate matter entering the engine. I think most people with normal road cars, even if they knew and believed a K&N won't "filter" as well, would give up the improved filtering in favor of the few extra ponies and maybe an increase in 1 or 2 MPG because most probably won't own their cars long enough for it to really become an issue.

Longer-lasting and more heavy-duty vehicles, on the other hand, should probably take at least some interest in the pros and cons of each into consideration. The statements I made in my original post (and this follow-up) are drawn from a study that was released last year. It was called the "ISO 5011 Duramax Air Filter Test." Last night, I did an extensive search online using varying combinations of the above search terms, and unfortunately, the link seems to now be dead.

Obviously, that doesn't do me much good in terms of supporting my claims with facts. However, I'm still working on tracking down a hardcopy (for this thread, as well as my own files for future reference), and hopefully that will pan out. If you're interested, though, you can search for the test report yourself. Although you may not find the *actual* data, you'll surely find gobs upon gobs of links to various auto forums' archives where active discussions of the data were once taking place.

Thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings... =)