K&N Intake Performance [Archive] - MX-5 Miata Forum (2024)

MBergman

29th July 2018, 14:35

stealthjackson

29th July 2018, 16:15

Rich Velardo

29th July 2018, 17:02

CAI adds sound, but without further mods does little for performance. I found when I added my AEM CAI that the intake temps did stay more stable...for whatever good that does.

If you want any gains you'll have to back up the intake with an exhaust system & a tune. Even then the stock intake apparently does a very good job so any performance gains will be...:dunno:

El Fez

31st July 2018, 10:17

I know everyone WANTS a cone intake to add something to a vehicles performance (I've done my own share of intake manipulation over the years) but real-world numbers don't back it up to any significance and can lower your RWHP in some cases.

As mentioned if you want a measurable improvement on the NC, begin with a header and a tune. If you want some bling and some noise then get an intake, its not hurting anything.

Deltona

31st July 2018, 10:26

If you want some bling and some noise then get an intake, its not hurting anything.

It'll hurt your engine, no aftermarket waste of money filters as well as paper or whatever fibre they use now and that's a fact.
They're for noise only.

El Fez

31st July 2018, 10:31

It'll hurt your engine, no aftermarket waste of money filters as well as paper or whatever fibre they use now and that's a fact.
They're for noise only.

How will it HURT your engine though? I daily/autocross/limited track drove my supercharged NA for many thousands of miles over 15 years and despite my best efforts, the motors held up just fine far outlasting the rest of the vehicle.

Deltona

31st July 2018, 10:47

How will it HURT your engine though? I daily/autocross/limited track drove my supercharged NA for many thousands of miles over 15 years and despite my best efforts, the motors held up just fine far outlasting the rest of the vehicle.

By letting fine particles of dirt in. There's a clue in the name of what it does; 'Air filter'. K&N aren't as efficient at doing it that's all.

El Fez

31st July 2018, 12:12

stealthjackson

31st July 2018, 13:34

Fine particles of dirt do not hurt your engine though. Otherwise K&N and all other aftermarket intakes would be out of business. Off-road vehicles would throw rods. Tractors would break cranks, jet aircraft would explode on take-off . . .

Well said, Fez.

CTt3MX5

31st July 2018, 13:58

Deltona

31st July 2018, 14:28

Fine particles of dirt do not hurt your engine though. Otherwise K&N and all other aftermarket intakes would be out of business. Off-road vehicles would throw rods. Tractors would break cranks, jet aircraft would explode on take-off . . .

What a ridiculous argument :rofl:
They'll wear out quicker.
An engine worn by inhaling dust won't throw a rod or break a crank lol and jet aircraft don't run air filters, they don't even have pistons :rofl:

warmmilk

31st July 2018, 15:01

It'll hurt your engine, no aftermarket waste of money filters as well as paper or whatever fibre they use now and that's a fact.
They're for noise only.

you say that like it'll cause your engine to blow up 17 miles after putting on an intake... in reality its more like your engine will last 249,750 miles instead of 250,000. its really not that big of a deal :dunno:

in fact there was actually an F150 that made it to a million miles using a K&N filter for its full life... so that 249,750 number is still too low

Deltona

31st July 2018, 15:23

you say that like it'll cause your engine to blow up 17 miles after putting on an intake... in reality its more like your engine will last 249,750 miles instead of 250,000. its really not that big of a deal :dunno:

in fact there was actually an F150 that made it to a million miles using a K&N filter for its full life... so that 249,750 number is still too low

Do you have a link to that and was it independent or possibly done by K&N?
I never implied it would cause an engine blow up, I'm just saying they pass a lot more dirt that's all and that is what an air filter is supposed to prevent.

In an independent lab test a paper AC Delco filter passed .4g of dirt whilst in the same time frame a K&N let 6g through.
Personally I wouldn't want that in my engine, dirt and engine internals don't go well together. If you do that's ok, i'm just stating fact.

warmmilk

31st July 2018, 15:38

Do you have a link to that and was it independent or possibly done by K&N?
I never implied it would cause an engine blow up, I'm just saying they pass a lot more dirt that's all and that is what an air filter is supposed to prevent.

In an independent lab test a paper AC Delco filter passed .4g of dirt whilst in the same time frame a K&N let 6g through.
Personally I wouldn't want that in my engine, dirt and engine internals don't go well together. If you do that's ok, i'm just stating fact.

it was done by K&N but I don't see why they'd make up the story

https://www.knfilters.com/video/carlskntrucklow2.htm

link to the test?

albuquerquefx

31st July 2018, 16:28

If we're going to talk about wear related items from bad filtration, let's at least get some basic facts straight.

The fine particulate which might pass through a compromised filter would be on the order of tens of microns in size. The surfaces impacted by these particles would primarily be the oil rings, where the particulate adheres to the cylinder wall (and the slight moistening via oil and/or poorly atomized fuel) and is then scraped back into the pan by way of the piston movement.

In theory, those particles might make their way into the rotating assembly by pure chance of gravity and the oil raining down, but that's unlikely. Instead, those fine particles will get sucked up by the oil pump and then cleaned out by the oil filter.

You might also be able to make a statement about an eventual buildup of those contributing to some carbon deposits in and around the combustion chamber, but that too is a little far fetched thanks to our solvent fuel.

Short story, dirty air is pretty strictly limited to piston ring wear and not much else... Eventually this will mean more blowby and compression loss, to a point where a ring job is required. But we're talking on the order of years, probably decades of wear before this really gets out of hand.

High flow filters aren't about letting larger particles through, it's about more surface area to allow more air to pass with less pressure loss. It's not like we just strapped a thin layer of first-aid gauze over some chicken wire and called it good.

All that said, CAI's for normally aspirated NC's are meant for cool intake noises, not for horsepower gains. At the same time, you aren't going to find any of the high-power forced induction folks using the stock airbox. I'm far more worried about regular oil changes in my turbo NC for viscosity and film strength reasons versus contamination from any itty bitty dust particles.

speeps

31st July 2018, 16:47

Do you have a link to that and was it independent or possibly done by K&N?

I never implied it would cause an engine blow up, I'm just saying they pass a lot more dirt that's all and that is what an air filter is supposed to prevent.

In an independent lab test a paper AC Delco filter passed .4g of dirt whilst in the same time frame a K&N let 6g through.

Personally I wouldn't want that in my engine, dirt and engine internals don't go well together. If you do that's ok, i'm just stating fact.

Yes, OEM paper filters will filter better... but unless you routinely drive the dunes of the sahara, you are debating something pretty insignificant. As a mater of fact, let’s just throw out most FI kits for nearly every make since they typically use aftermarket non-paper filters.

I had a k&n on my old NB. 184k, and not an issue with the engine.. and I didn’t even clean that thing regularly.

that said, OP there is no real gain... tho there are a few options that will neatly clean up the engine bay.

El Fez

31st July 2018, 17:14

Deltona

31st July 2018, 17:16

it was done by K&N but I don't see why they'd make up the story

https://www.knfilters.com/video/carlskntrucklow2.htm

link to the test?

It might be something to do with multi-million dollar profits. It may not be made up, it just isn't a creditable test. A good test would be to take two trucks, one with OE filter and one with K&N, run them in the same conditions and miles then do an engine inspection.
An engine still runs when it's worn, it still gets you to the shops, it's just sub optimal.

Here is what happens when you let people do their own testing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal

Indie air filter test:

http://nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html

If any of these aftermarket filter materials were any good the OEMs would be using them, anything which cuts down on servicing cost is a big advantage and marketed as such.

Deltona

31st July 2018, 17:28

By this logic, the dirtier an air filter becomes, the better it filters particulates?

Yes in both cases, but a K&N will still flow well when it's dirty, paper won't.
Paper trades cleanliness for air flow, you won't notice (say) a loss of 2bhp, but you'll have a healthier engine.

albuquerquefx

31st July 2018, 17:31

If any of these aftermarket filter materials were any good the OEMs would be using them, anything which cuts down on servicing cost is a big advantage and marketed as such.
This is the "Appeal to authority" logical fallacy. Other examples:

"IF RE71R's were any good, OEMs would be putting them on their cars."

"If 93 octane was really needed, OEMs would mandate nothing less."

"If AMSOIL was so good, OEMs would be using it for all their cars."

OEMs want product they can source quickly, readily, and cheaply for the application they have decided upon. Your point is invalid.

speeps

31st July 2018, 17:35

albuquerquefx

31st July 2018, 17:36

Deltona

31st July 2018, 17:40

Yes, OEM paper filters will filter better... but unless you routinely drive the dunes of the sahara, you are debating something pretty insignificant. As a mater of fact, let’s just throw out most FI kits for nearly every make since they typically use aftermarket non-paper filters.

I had a k&n on my old NB. 184k, and not an issue with the engine.. and I didn’t even clean that thing regularly.

that said, OP there is no real gain... tho there are a few options that will neatly clean up the engine bay.

You won't have known if you had 10bhp less than what you should, the CR was down a bit or it used oil or dirtied its oil a bit more than it could have done.
When I was a kid we had a really old garden cultivator, it had almost no compression and an oiled gauze filter. Seriously, you get hold of the engine pulley and spin the engine over like spinning a jacked up car wheel.
Every Spring it was fired up and it dug the garden over.

BBR are the biggest and most professional outfit of aftermarket conversions in the UK, they use the original air filter.

albuquerquefx

31st July 2018, 17:43

BBR are the biggest and most professional outfit of aftermarket conversions in the UK, they use the original air filter.

Appeal to authority.

Again.

Your point is invalid.

Deltona

31st July 2018, 17:53

This is the "Appeal to authority" logical fallacy. Other examples:

"IF RE71R's were any good, OEMs would be putting them on their cars."

"If 93 octane was really needed, OEMs would mandate nothing less."

"If AMSOIL was so good, OEMs would be using it for all their cars."

OEMs want product they can source quickly, readily, and cheaply for the application they have decided upon. Your point is invalid.

No that's wrong, the vast majority of consumers want ease of use, less time off the road, reliability and cheap running costs. A very small percentage want the ultimate in performance from a Miata.

speeps

31st July 2018, 18:39

You won't have known if you had 10bhp less than what you should, the CR was down a bit or it used oil or dirtied its oil a bit more than it could have done.
When I was a kid we had a really old garden cultivator, it had almost no compression and an oiled gauze filter. Seriously, you get hold of the engine pulley and spin the engine over like spinning a jacked up car wheel.
Every Spring it was fired up and it dug the garden over.

BBR are the biggest and most professional outfit of aftermarket conversions in the UK, they use the original air filter.

ok... so a BBR turbo with stock filter is your argument? you do realize, the turbo itself puts more wear and tear on the components of an engine than an air filter. Which again, makes your point silly.

So let's reiterate... You are ok with a BBR turbo that uses the OEM filter but puts the engine and components under much more heat and general stress... but at the same time your saying the K&N for OP's NA motor will "hurt it".

You are absolute nonsense right about now.

OP
If looking for gains, it's probably better to look some where else. If you want to clean up the engine bay and potentially more sound, then it's something to consider. That said, there are better options than the K&N unit itself.

warmmilk

31st July 2018, 18:57

It might be something to do with multi-million dollar profits. It may not be made up, it just isn't a creditable test. A good test would be to take two trucks, one with OE filter and one with K&N, run them in the same conditions and miles then do an engine inspection.
An engine still runs when it's worn, it still gets you to the shops, it's just sub optimal.

Here is what happens when you let people do their own testing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal

Indie air filter test:

http://nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html

If any of these aftermarket filter materials were any good the OEMs would be using them, anything which cuts down on servicing cost is a big advantage and marketed as such.

that statement was only about an F150 lasting a million miles with a K&N air filter, nothing more nothing less... I don't doubt its possible and I doubt its something K&N would fake. As far as I can tell, K&N doesn't actively make false claims and deceives consumers like VW did with their "clean diesel" crap... I'm all for independent testing (just ask Joe), I just think you're blowing this out of proportion...

I didn't claim that K&N filtered as well or better than OEM / OEM style paper filters, just that it doesn't make any sort of appreciable difference from an engine longevity point of view. I mostly wanted to see the test out of curiosity and to see the dust testing procedure. I was surprised to see that the K&N collects dirt faster...

As far as OEM's using K&N, some performance models do... and production cost rules supreme as fast as OEM's are concerned, not service cost which is paid by the consumer. Hence the cheap paper filter...

my personal opinion:
if you're constantly using your car in a really dusty environment, such as a contractor always at construction sites for example, a better cleaning filter might be a worth while consideration. If you look at the typical use case of an NC Miata, nearly always on paved roads, its really not gonna make a difference... if you want an intake for cool intake noises, go for it! I'd have one on my car already if I wasn't a cheap bastard thats eventually planning on a 2.5 with an aftermarket intake mani thats gonna need a custom intake and don't wanna pay twice for the same part :D

StormyblueNC

31st July 2018, 21:51

By now, you have probably already made up your mind as to what you're going to do but here is my experience.

I costs about $200, which you could spend on much better things for your car, like some stiffer bars from an RX-8 for example.

It does change the sound the engine makes, but to me, it's not a good sound like a Porsche 911, it's more like an annoying sound and it comes on right at 55mph and then goes away again at about 65mph (which is the speed I travel at on the way to work each day. You can get the same result by just getting a K&N drop-in filter instead but without the annoying noise from the intake.

The CAI makes a fantastic wet vac., no joke, I went through that nightmare and luckily lived to tell the tale. At the very least it would throw codes in the rain (even with the protective sock on the filter) and make the engine buck when I tried to hit the throttle, at it's worst it sucked a lot of water up into the engine and killed it in a few short seconds because the cone filter sits very low in the front fascia, with the stock box up high it never would have happened.

After that I switched back to the stock intake with a drop-in filter and honestly felt no difference what so ever, except the annoying noise was gone.:thumbs:

Deltona

1st August 2018, 05:00

that statement was only about an F150 lasting a million miles with a K&N air filter, nothing more nothing less... I don't doubt its possible and I doubt its something K&N would fake. As far as I can tell, K&N doesn't actively make false claims and deceives consumers like VW did with their "clean diesel" crap... I'm all for independent testing (just ask Joe), I just think you're blowing this out of proportion...

I didn't claim that K&N filtered as well or better than OEM / OEM style paper filters, just that it doesn't make any sort of appreciable difference from an engine longevity point of view. I mostly wanted to see the test out of curiosity and to see the dust testing procedure. I was surprised to see that the K&N collects dirt faster...

As far as OEM's using K&N, some performance models do... and production cost rules supreme as fast as OEM's are concerned, not service cost which is paid by the consumer. Hence the cheap paper filter...

Read back, i'm not the one who is 'blowing it all out of proportion'.

ok... so a BBR turbo with stock filter is your argument? you do realize, the turbo itself puts more wear and tear on the components of an engine than an air filter. Which again, makes your point silly.

So let's reiterate... You are ok with a BBR turbo that uses the OEM filter but puts the engine and components under much more heat and general stress... but at the same time your saying the K&N for OP's NA motor will "hurt it".

You are absolute nonsense right about now.

No I never stated that at all, you've just decided to twist what I wrote to suit your own agenda. It was an example made to show that not all aftermarket conversions use aftermarket filters as was stated.

All I've said from start to finish is aftermarket filters pass more dirt and dirt promotes engine wear. There is no getting away from that fact, there are white papers written on the subject which conclude the same, attached is part of one.
What you do with that is your own business, I have not once told anyone what they should be doing, I just stuck some facts on the table.

That's it, end of story.

speeps

1st August 2018, 10:28

It'll hurt your engine, no aftermarket waste of money filters as well as paper or whatever fibre they use now and that's a fact.

They're for noise only.

That’s what you said. We all know paper filters better, but over the lifetime of the engine it’s moot.

Yes, all FI kits don’t use aftermarket filters, please reread my post... never said that. The point is, the air filter of all things isn’t going to be the part that will compromise your motor (outside of an AEM potentially sucking up water). Besides I’m sure there are tons of FI and NA setups around here with those evil aftermarket filters that have been dyno’ed over time... and if setup properly and maintained, will likely show no ill effects.

So yes you are blowing the results of potentially sucking a hair more grit out of proportion... that’s the point you are being contested on.

albuquerquefx

1st August 2018, 11:35

I've had enough of the bull. Time to end this, like I ended the turbo surge BS that was also utterly wrong.

The NicoClub article talks about ISO 5011 test results for the K&N filter, summarizing a bunch of unseen data into a few badly scaled Y-axis charts GOod example of a badly scaled chart: the very first chart is of "efficiency" where the K&N is shown as scoring 96.something percent, but the relative position of the K&N bar is at the very bottom line of the c[hart... if the chart were Y-axis scaled zero to 100%, we would see the tiny incremental difference between all the filters. There's a few other bad examples in the article; the charts were scaled that way for a reason.

But let's ignore biased chart sizing. Instead, let's focus on the source of this data. Where is the actual test output for our analysis? We have a lot of pretty graphs that someone translated from (ostensibly) a real ISO 5011 test bed, so where's the raw output? There's no link, there's no reference doc, instead the source is some random internet person of unknown background or origin, who never seemingly posted his raw data for anyone else to review.

Let's link a standard ISO 5011 output sheet:
https://www.alligatorperformance.com/media/catalog/product/t/e/test_results_for_cr-5102.pdf

This test wasn't for K&N (albeit the filter in use is a K&N part) but instead for S&B who is a competitor to K&N and also wanted to test against some paper filters too. If you peruse pages one and two, you'll find some of the same verbiage the Nico article lifted for their own. The real, actual data output starts at page three. Even as a competitor to K&N, they still claim K&N is hitting more than a 98.5% filtration efficiency rate in a fully loaded state. This is substantially better than the 96% claimed by the Nico article, which doesn't actually provide the raw underlying data for us to look at.

Let's get to the REAL goods; scroll down to page 5. This page describes the particle size, and total volume per particle size, and total distribution of each particle size covering the gamut of the test "dust" being used to load up the filters.

IF you read the numbers carefully, you'll find that nearly 10% of the dust load is below five microns.

Pop quiz: What is the typical diameter of a red blood cell?

wait for it...

Did you guess five microns? Ding, YOU WIN ONE INTERNET POINT FOR THE DAY! Yes, ten percent of the total dust load being sent through these filters is equal to or less than the diameter of a red blood cell.

The K&N filter allowed 1.5% of the total dust load through in this particular test. Let's assume the Nico test can be taken at full face-value, and say it allowed 3.5% of the total dust load through.

Using reasonable estimation, which size-spectrum of dust motes in this load are more likely to pass through gauze but not paper?

Yeah, you can guess.

This is some psuedo-science bullsh*t when you actually sift through the REAL data.

wooo

1st August 2018, 11:45

... All I've said from start to finish is aftermarket filters pass more dirt and dirt promotes engine wear. ....Not very useful unless you quantify the engine wear in some way.

Will it destroy the engine in 10,000 miles, or will the wear not be measurable until about 300,000 miles?

Makes a difference to the message. Is it one of doom and gloom, or no worries mate.

Farther

1st August 2018, 13:33

El Fez

1st August 2018, 14:39

I didn' see it mentioned here or I missed it in all the detritus. But what about the effects on the MAF of an oiled air filter? I have used a K&N filter on all my vehicles until the MAF stuff started. I don't need the extra concern of over oiling a filter to prevent negative effects on the MAF.

And what is the percentage of K&N owners who actually clean and oil their filters as recommended? I still have 90% (I imagine most of that deficit had evaporated away over time) of my spray bottle of the K&N cleaning fluid that I bought in 2002.

albuquerquefx

1st August 2018, 14:40

I didn' see it mentioned here or I missed it in all the detritus. But what about the effects on the MAF of an oiled air filter? I have used a K&N filter on all my vehicles until the MAF stuff started. I don't need the extra concern of over oiling a filter to prevent negative effects on the MAF.

It's a fair enough question, only because the oiling concern is another of those things that seems to crop up around the conversation. There's combination of reasons why this topic originally came up, and a similar set of reasons why it isn't a problem :)

First, lets show the purported problem statement:
An oiled-element filter under high vacuum / high load may result in the oil itself being pulled out of the filter media into the air stream. This oil could then accumulate on all manner of interior plumbing of your intake tract. Among the list of things getting assaulted by oil would be the MAF sensor element. Given sufficient time, this oiling may result in mass flow readings which drift further away from actual. The visible indication would be long term fuel trims that drift into richening the fuel mixture.

Now, the oil part of the problem.
Most of the "real" part of this problem comes from people "over-oiling" their filters. The filter shouldn't be wet, it certainly shouldn't drip. For anyone who ever buys a brand new oiled filter and opens the wrapping, take a moment to rub your fingers on the surface. Your fingers will feel nearly dry, albeit slightly tacky, even if you maul the filter. If you ever elect to wash and re-oil the filter, the end result of the re-oiling should mirror that of the OE application.

When properly oiled, there will still be some absolutely tiny portion of oil that will scrub off and come through the intake tract. This goes back to the "dirt debacle" from above -- how much oil and dirt are we really talking about? The answer is: quantities and sizes which are infinitesimally small.

If you've had a K&N filter strapped to a CAI for the last few years, pull the filter off and use a clean white terry car wash towel to rub along the sidewall of the pipe. Does anything come off? The answer is, if you've literally never washed the filter in your life, the walls will be clean even with the white-glove treatment. That pink oil is hard to hide on a pure white cloth ;)

Now the MAF part of the problem.
There are several flavors of Mass Air Flow sensors; the only ones which can be oil contaminated would be the heated wire or film types. Heated wire was how most MAF sensors worked in the 90's and early 2000's, and they had a few problems. The biggest problems with heated wire sensors was being fragile and also being quite susceptible to contamination. They also had some resolution issues due to the tiny surface area, which made it difficult for accurately measuring across a wide range of air flow values.

Modern MAF sensors, such as the one in our NC Miata, are heated film sensors. They aren't a single wire, they're a thin film with quite a bit more surface area. They are far less fragile, they're far less susceptible to contamination, and they're also able to more accurately meter very small and very large mass flow values. They're just a better sensor all around.

An anecdote to demonstrate the point...
A while back, a few of us turbo guys were noodling through a proper crankcase ventilation design. In a very early attempt, I mis-routed my valve cover vent into the charge pipes and pressurized the crankcase, resulting in my turbo seals blowing an immense pile of oil into the intake tract.

I actually drove the car for two days this way, without realizing what I had done wrong. I finally discovered my error while driving home one night and seeing the blue fog I'd left behind during a WOT acceleration run.

After two full days of driving like this, I took all the intake tract apart to determine how bad it was. My MAF sensor was literally dripping oil when I removed it from the tube :D It took me the whole weekend to clean up all the mess I'd caused.

And yet, that was two whole days (52 miles of round trip commute per day) with the MAF being blasted by oil. I logged nothing out of the ordinary on my Torque Pro app, and I was religiously (still do) tracking the statistics of my car to include aggregate fuel trim.

The result is...
... a non-issue. Your MAF isn't going to get poisoned by the oil in your K&N filter, any more than it will get choked by a 5-micron dust storm.

warmmilk

1st August 2018, 14:41

Read back, i'm not the one who is 'blowing it all out of proportion'.

yup, still you

Alan007

3rd August 2018, 02:21

I was thinking about a CAI, had one in my cart, n I wanted to clean up my Engine Bay, till I read the warning on one of the products, I don't want to create more problems...
As StormyBlueNC mentions...

WARNING: Please follow these installation instructions carefully. The AEM® prefilter included with this kit must
be installed on the AEM® air filter when used with a AEM® intake system. The AEM® intake system is a performance
product that can be used safely during mild weather conditions. During harsh and inclement weather
conditions, you must return your vehicle to stock OEM air box and intake tract configuration. Failure to follow
these instructions will void your warranty.

albuquerquefx

3rd August 2018, 10:03

The disclaimer is a remnant of the days when the "snorkus" intakes would poke the filter into the very bottom recesses of your engine compartment. People would plow through a 6" deep water puddle and would suck a cubic yard of water into two liters of engine displacement and hydrolock it.

For Fab9 owners, the intake element is functionally right behind the Mazda symbol on the nose. I'd have to dunk the entire front end of the car into a lake for the intake to become a problem -- and having the car nosedived into a lake would still be the larger issue anyway. :)

wooo

3rd August 2018, 10:31

Rich Velardo

3rd August 2018, 11:16

Alan007

3rd August 2018, 11:18

I've run my AEM intake for 10 years/75K miles with no issues. Been through some real frog-strangler rain storms & even a tornado too.
Just reading what it said...I have no personal claim or attachment to them.

Glad no problems Rich.

Rich Velardo

3rd August 2018, 11:58

Alan007

3rd August 2018, 12:13

Where did you find that warning, Alan? I just went out to read the installation instructions (yes I save all of the installation instructions) that came with my intake & that warning was not printed in there.
I just now closed the link, I save all my instructions to by the way...they sent me an e-mail, I followed the link, then in their website was the installation instructions, that is where that disclaimer is.
Do you think I made it up..>?:cry: :wave:

https://www.aemintakes.com/instructions/AEM-21-640_inst.pdf

number 2 page 3

Rich Velardo

3rd August 2018, 12:22

Alan007

3rd August 2018, 12:28

Yeah, found it on their site & then double checked my set of instructions, just to be sure that I hadn't missed the warning. It's not in my set of printed instructions, so that's a change made since I bought mine.
I found it odd that they put it in the instructions in #2 instead of at the bottom of the finished page, I mean its not part of the install, warning you that you need to stop in the middle of a storm and swap back the OE filter, caus there is rain...

I know it didn't say that but its what you would have to do...some say for track only I read someplace.

Rich Velardo

3rd August 2018, 12:42

greenvarmint

3rd August 2018, 14:19

Deltona

4th August 2018, 07:21

Red blood cells lol, you can practically read a book through a K&N :D

I held a well used one up to a window along with a 'paper' one for comparison:

albuquerquefx

4th August 2018, 10:19

Scientific documentation generated with a degree of precision that measures to single microns paid for by a shop competing against K&N, versus you and your obviously failed vendetta doing whatever.

Gee, who to trust?

Obvious answer is obvious.

stealthjackson

4th August 2018, 10:25

The NicoClub article talks about ISO 5011 test results for the K&N filter, summarizing a bunch of unseen data into a few badly scaled Y-axis charts GOod example of a badly scaled chart: the very first chart is of "efficiency" where the K&N is shown as scoring 96.something percent, but the relative position of the K&N bar is at the very bottom line of the c[hart... if the chart were Y-axis scaled zero to 100%, we would see the tiny incremental difference between all the filters. There's a few other bad examples in the article; the charts were scaled that way for a reason.

But let's ignore biased chart sizing. Instead, let's focus on the source of this data. Where is the actual test output for our analysis? We have a lot of pretty graphs that someone translated from (ostensibly) a real ISO 5011 test bed, so where's the raw output? There's no link, there's no reference doc, instead the source is some random internet person of unknown background or origin, who never seemingly posted his raw data for anyone else to review.

Let's link a standard ISO 5011 output sheet:
https://www.alligatorperformance.com/media/catalog/product/t/e/test_results_for_cr-5102.pdf

This test wasn't for K&N (albeit the filter in use is a K&N part) but instead for S&B who is a competitor to K&N and also wanted to test against some paper filters too. If you peruse pages one and two, you'll find some of the same verbiage the Nico article lifted for their own. The real, actual data output starts at page three. Even as a competitor to K&N, they still claim K&N is hitting more than a 98.5% filtration efficiency rate in a fully loaded state. This is substantially better than the 96% claimed by the Nico article, which doesn't actually provide the raw underlying data for us to look at.

Let's get to the REAL goods; scroll down to page 5. This page describes the particle size, and total volume per particle size, and total distribution of each particle size covering the gamut of the test "dust" being used to load up the filters.

IF you read the numbers carefully, you'll find that nearly 10% of the dust load is below five microns.

Pop quiz: What is the typical diameter of a red blood cell?

wait for it...

Did you guess five microns? Ding, YOU WIN ONE INTERNET POINT FOR THE DAY! Yes, ten percent of the total dust load being sent through these filters is equal to or less than the diameter of a red blood cell.

The K&N filter allowed 1.5% of the total dust load through in this particular test. Let's assume the Nico test can be taken at full face-value, and say it allowed 3.5% of the total dust load through.

Using reasonable estimation, which size-spectrum of dust motes in this load are more likely to pass through gauze but not paper?

Yeah, you can guess.

This is some psuedo-science bullsh*t when you actually sift through the REAL data.

Damn I love this dude.

LiquidSilverNC

4th August 2018, 20:23

This whole thread is fake news.

I just rubberband a Hanes V Neck over my intake tube. Wash cold and dry on low heat once a month and I'm good to go.

Alan007

4th August 2018, 22:11

This whole thread is fake news.

I just rubberband a Hanes V Neck over my intake tube. Wash cold and dry on low heat once a month and I'm good to go.

:eek: :rofl: :dunno: :confused: :eek:

stealthjackson

4th August 2018, 23:04

This whole thread is fake news.

What about anything on here could be described as "news?"

granfalloon

5th August 2018, 00:15

This whole thread is fake news.

I just rubberband a Hanes V Neck over my intake tube. Wash cold and dry on low heat once a month and I'm good to go.

OH YEAH!....You cannot be serious....:eek:
EVERYONE KNOWS....:rolleyes:
"Fruit of the loom" makes a far better filter!
And using a V Neck just shows that you did not consult a professional
before making this mod.

I wander if we push this hard enough....
we could get a few more pages on the OP's thread?:rofl::rofl:

Farther

5th August 2018, 00:26