Originally Posted by chuck65
I've followed the posts on K&N and have concluded that if there is a difference in performance with K&N it comes at a cost of less filtration. This is a test that someone did that shows that K&N doesn't filter as well but does have a greater air flow.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm
Also if there is a vast difference in performance that you can actually feel, the original filters that were removed must have been really clogged.
Here's an older thread where the posters didn't notice an increase in performance.
https://www.crossfireforum.org/forum...ht=air+filters
In this thread the K&N filters showed a .4678 better time in the quarter mile.
https://www.crossfireforum.org/forum...ht=air+filters
The conclusion that I came to is that the K&N filter has greater air flow capacity but doesn't filter as well as the stock filter. This makes perfect sense to me. I would also conclude that the performance would be slightly better but could not be noticed, just perceived. I don't think that the lack of greater filtration in the K&N filters would affect an engine too much over the lifetime of the engine.
For me, I would run the K&N filters when racing and switch back to the stock for everyday. But hey, I don't race, so I guess I'm all set. Good Luck with your conclusions.
I've followed Bob the Oil Guy's other studies involving synthetic oils and concluded he must have some kind of tie to Amzoil. I think he either he sells it or works in some capacity for them. I must admit that I do find his comments interesting though. I've used K & N filters on all my cars for years and never experianced any problems. I've put 100,000 miles on my DeLorean over 26 years with a K & N filter and zero problems related to the filter. I've put over 80,000 miles on my Expedition with no problems and my Crossfire has K & N's with no problems. With that said, I can't say I've noticed any noticable increase in power but I have seen as much as a 1 mpg decrease in fuel consumption.
Bruce