| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/13/2006 10:21:15 PM · #1 |
heheh...no other place for it... anyway...
I figure this site is probably full of the most intelligent and helpful people out there on the entire internet, that I've seen. So anyway, I've been thinking of sticking a K&N filter in my 05 Ranger 4.0 and I'm just curious what all you intelligent folks think about them.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 10:25:01 PM · #2 |
| DOH i'm such a girlie that it took me 3 minutes to figure out that you werent trying to put a camera filter on your truck... ::shakes head sadly:: |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 10:29:01 PM · #3 |
Probably won't give you more hp or anything but if you get the cleanable one you save money in the long run. I have one myself. Intake kit will definitely give you more noise when accelerating if you go that route.
Message edited by author 2006-03-13 22:31:10.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 10:29:17 PM · #4 |
I've used K&N filters (the washable kind) on my motorcycles for many years, and they seem to do a fantastic job. No sign of particulate matter getting through the filter.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 10:40:57 PM · #5 |
i have always used them on my car and never any problems they last much longer then any other ones do
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 10:43:00 PM · #6 |
hrmm just found a good read...
//www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm
Basically to sum it up, what he concluded was that the K&N does flow more air, but it's not as high as most people would think...and that small amount probably won't do much for normal every day cars/trucks...
In his second test (a filtration test), he actually set up each filter, then set up a secondary (very restrictive filter behind that one) -- on the K&N, there was much more dirt collected in the secondary filter than a paper filter...so anyway, I think I found my own answer...While I wouldn't mind having a filter that lasted 50k, it's just not worth it to me to sacrifice engine longevity.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 10:44:41 PM · #7 |
| use open pod type filters unless you actually use your Ranger off-road on dusty/dirty tracks. Open pod filters gives the thing a nicer sound :) |
|
|
|
03/13/2006 11:04:03 PM · #8 |
Hey, that guy did some good testing! Very well-considered test method, pretty likely an accurate reflection of initial filter performance. It would be interesting to know how those results would differ (both the pressure and filtration tests) near the end of filter life. Usually, air filters get more efficient as they load and the trapped particulate become a filter in themselves.
Pressure drop can also be radically affected by loading, much more for some designs than others. That level of testing for multiple filter types is well beyond the scope of the backyard mechanic, however, even if he is a mechanical engineer. Doing such a test in actual driving with one vehicle would take years and years.
I don't run the K&N for increased performance, but because the service interval exceeds 50,000 miles. My current bike, a 1995 Honda ST1100, has 120,000 miles on it, runs very much like new, and burns no more oil than when new. If the K&N were a problem, it would have shown up by now.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 11:18:31 PM · #9 |
I hear you...
I'm certainly not going to tell anyone they're wrong for running a K&N...ultimately, it's up to the person...I guess I just don't feel comfortable with using something that *may* lead to decreased engine life. I mean I'm putting in fully synthetic oil and staying up on maintenance...I can't see myself using something (just because it lasts a long time) that could (or could not) potentially cause harm to and negatively affect the longevity of my engine.
That being said, I'll just fork over the $8 every 15k miles and throw a new paper filter in...what's it take to change it, all of a minute, if that?
Edited for wording
Message edited by author 2006-03-13 23:19:45.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 11:20:59 PM · #10 |
Speaking from experience as someone who works on cars for a living, 2 things about these filters on the negative side:
1) Most often the filters are over-oiled, and an oil mist travels downstream and slowly coats the mass air flow sensor. The wire in the mass air flow sensor is a critical component in the on-board computer's inputs to determine the mass of the incoming air. If anything coats the wire, the computer will get skewed readings, as the wire is now insulated. (the computer maintains the temperature of the wire 100°F hotter than the air passing by it, thus the computer can interpret and calculate air mass). A myriad of driveablity problems ensue, from poor mileage, pinging/detonation and thus the computer backing down the timing to eliminate pinging, followed by poor mileage due to needing more driver input (gas pedal) to compensate, and also a check engine light for lean adaptive and lean conditions. Though "cleanable", the mass air flow sensors are most often replaced and are not cheap.
2) Often used without the air box, the K&N filters are attached to a cold air inlet tube. Now without the housings to cut down the noise of the engine sucking in air, the noise levels increase while driving and also can cause whistling noises.
Great idea, but I am one to believe and know that if the manufacturers could gain fuel economy, lower emissions and more power, a same/similar filter would have been used at the point of building the vehicles. The manufacturers have a lot to gain by being able to promote better mileage and more power in their marketing campaigns, as well as an easier time passing the emissions with the EPA certification process.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 11:23:54 PM · #11 |
Brad,
You make an excellent point regarding the MAF sensor, and that's the main reason I don't use an oiled filter in my cars. The bike, on the other hand, still has carburetors ;-)
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 11:24:02 PM · #12 |
hehe...well the noise would be a good thing...I removed the air baffle/silencer in my air box ... the 4.0 really roars at WOT -- you can definately hear it sucking in air. I was a little concerned about water, but I drove through some puddles, and it was bone dry...plus, I hear that even if a little water is sucked in, it will actually just clean the engine...of course you could clog your filter and once it gets saturated with water, it basically wouldn't flow any air at all, but I figure I could keep a spare behind one of the rear jump seats in the cab of the truck.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 11:27:44 PM · #13 |
Well about the water issue...
I have replaced more engines that ingested water than I have fingers.
Water does not compress and will temporarily stop a piston, bending/breaking a connectiong rod.
Water injection, if done right, and very carefully metered will help de-carbon combustion chambers, but not a do-it-yourselfer kinda' thing. One "oops" and it's all over.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 11:41:03 PM · #14 |
hey brad...
do you think this is dangerous:
//www.ranger-forums.com/forum2/showthread.php?t=311&highlight=air+box+mod
What about cutting out with a hole-saw some of the front/side of the airbox?
|
|
|
|
03/13/2006 11:47:18 PM · #15 |
K&N are performance filters for racing applications. Thus, air-flow more than likely is considered over engine longevity. Even typical local race engines are rebuilt or replaced yearly if not more often.
It's a common dirt-track technique to use K&N filters saturated with oil to reduce dust intake into the engine, as the filters in themselves aren't very efficient at stopping dust.
But, dust isn't as detremental to an engine as you'd imagine. Smaller particals are passed through the exhaust quite efficiently without doing harm to the cyclinder walls. It would take quite larger particles to do damage to the engine.
But, let's just conclude, that if you are seeking performance, the K&N's might be a good choice. You may (very slight on the may) risk engine longevity.
I haven't done much research on them, but quite a few friends like the Fram Airhogs.
Message edited by author 2006-03-13 23:48:31.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2006 12:06:04 AM · #16 |
Other than a testosterone fix, the air boxes have been designed to pass more air through them than the engine will ever be able to use. The engineers are a lot smarter than the street modifiers that will make claims of added horsepower and such. It makes more noise for sure, but I really doubt there would be much (if any) measureable power increase.
Remember, the design of all the associated systems is not by chance anymore. What happens in one area, will affect everything downhill:
Some will modify their exhaust systems, but the factory design is actually a calibrated size and thus will generate a pre-determined back-pressure. The back-pressure is a key input to the EGR system, that in turn will determine how much EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) flow back into the combustion chambers,
which in turn affects combustion temperatures,
which in turn will affect detonation,
which in turn will affect the knock sensor output to the computer,
which in turn will affect the computer's timing curve to eliminate the detonation (pinging),
which in turn affects catalytic converter longevity,
which in turn will reduce power,
which in turn will make the driver need to use more gas pedal,
which in turn uses more gas,
which in turn will contaminate the oil faster,
which in turn will cause more engine wear,
which in turn gets really really expensive to fix.
(just remembered to breath)
In a word, leave it stock.
Trust me, it's my world and has been professionally for over 25 years.
You know the guys wearing the  patches?
Well I help write those tests, including the Advanced Level Engine Performance Test.
Message edited by author 2006-03-14 00:09:20. |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 12:09:44 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by deapee:
hehe...well the noise would be a good thing...I removed the air baffle/silencer in my air box ... the 4.0 really roars at WOT -- you can definately hear it sucking in air. I was a little concerned about water, but I drove through some puddles, and it was bone dry... |
Yes, the sound is REALLY cool :)
I even went as far as to make my own custom cold-air intake - right under my bumpers :) butt-dynamo tells me I gain about 5% performance in high revvs :p |
|
|
|
03/14/2006 12:11:13 AM · #18 |
BradP has VERY good advice. :-)
Today's engines are producing a LOT of horsepower per cubic inch. The smaller engines in the Mustang, for example, are producing more horsepower than thier yesteryear Big Block cousins.
If you are Jack Roush and his team of engineers, by all means, modify to your heart's content, but for your personal vehichle that takes you to and from work... leave her alone.
Message edited by author 2006-03-14 00:12:22.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/27/2025 02:04:16 AM EST.
patches?