K&N Air Filter.... yes / no? - Page 2 - Chevy Colorado & GMC Canyon
 6Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 32 (permalink) Old 03-25-2017, 01:29 PM
Senior Member
 
JScottM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by 442_mike View Post
I worry about the maintenance on K&N-style filters, and the risk of over-oiling them (have heard too much oil, you'll mess up the MAF sensor, etc.). Call me lazy, but even if I put on a "fancy" intake, such as the Air Doc or Volant or something else, I'd probably still run a regular filter, and just swap it out as it gets dirty. Easy & cheap. :)
Yes! Agreed, no fancy intake for me though.

Sent from the butt crack of California.
2016 Colorado 4x4 CC SB V6
AS level/lift 2.5" w/1" rear block, diff drop
275/70-17 Cooper AT3 on MotoMetal 970s
Scary, evil, black, warranty voiding catch can from the devil
JScottM is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 32 (permalink) Old 03-25-2017, 01:46 PM
Senior Member
 
JScottM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,057
Lightbulb

Here's a little something to ponder.....

All the talk about small tubing, restriction, bla bla bla.....The thing that is called a throttle plate gives much more restriction than any tube, hose, filter, pipe, in the whole intake system, AND it does it on purpose! Remove it and the engine runs wild. So, my point is, unless you drive around at WOT (wide open throttle) that fancy intake isnt doing anything but making noise. .....Think about it and share your thoughts if you like. :)

Now if you are drag racing or something I say just take the whole thing off. Might help a tad bit.....
Randall Conway likes this.

Sent from the butt crack of California.
2016 Colorado 4x4 CC SB V6
AS level/lift 2.5" w/1" rear block, diff drop
275/70-17 Cooper AT3 on MotoMetal 970s
Scary, evil, black, warranty voiding catch can from the devil
JScottM is offline  
post #23 of 32 (permalink) Old 03-25-2017, 08:43 PM
Senior Member
 
JScottM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brigadier View Post
NAPA Gold filter for me. ditched my K&N

GM Truck Central Air Filter Testing Study
wow, and oiled ones filtered the worst. Go figure huh? I'm not surprised you ditched the K&N after seeing that study.
Never heard of Trueflow, but looks like they 'suck' too. pardon the pun...lol

Sent from the butt crack of California.
2016 Colorado 4x4 CC SB V6
AS level/lift 2.5" w/1" rear block, diff drop
275/70-17 Cooper AT3 on MotoMetal 970s
Scary, evil, black, warranty voiding catch can from the devil
JScottM is offline  
post #24 of 32 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 02:00 PM
Member
 
Jadewombat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 68
Garage
Who said anything about a cold air intake??

I paid ~$60 for the K&N. If the mileage went from 20 to 21 mpg average (highway) that's 20/21 = ~5% better. I fill up when the tank is fairly low each week and it takes 15 gallons. 15 * 0.05 = 0.75 gallon less per week. I drive about 15,000 miles a year and the K&N has a lifetime warranty. 0.75 * 52 weeks = 39 gallons less per year at ~$2 gallon is $78 less per year.

What does a stock filter cost? $20? A difference of $40 between the two means I've got my money back in a little less than six months, and again, I don't need to change the stock filter 2-3 years from now. Just clean and re-oil the K&N.

I don't understand what you're trying to prove that stock filters are somehow better. But yes, if you put a dripping wet K&N oiled on the interior side, then you're going to have a problem with the MAF.
Janster likes this.

'66 VW 11-window Bus (Disks, injected, bags)
'12 Chevy Colorado 2WD (Truetrac) 3.7 Crew Cab

Last edited by Jadewombat; 03-27-2017 at 02:03 PM.
Jadewombat is offline  
post #25 of 32 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 02:49 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 232
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jadewombat View Post
Who said anything about a cold air intake??

I paid ~$60 for the K&N. If the mileage went from 20 to 21 mpg average (highway) that's 20/21 = ~5% better. I fill up when the tank is fairly low each week and it takes 15 gallons. 15 * 0.05 = 0.75 gallon less per week. I drive about 15,000 miles a year and the K&N has a lifetime warranty. 0.75 * 52 weeks = 39 gallons less per year at ~$2 gallon is $78 less per year.

What does a stock filter cost? $20? A difference of $40 between the two means I've got my money back in a little less than six months, and again, I don't need to change the stock filter 2-3 years from now. Just clean and re-oil the K&N.

I don't understand what you're trying to prove that stock filters are somehow better. But yes, if you put a dripping wet K&N oiled on the interior side, then you're going to have a problem with the MAF.

Whether it's a full CAI system or just a replacement filter, the fact is that these synthetic media filters from K&N and other brands do not filter as well as the paper ones. Period. There's no debating it and it's been proven time and time again. https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest3.htm

If a $78 savings a year is worth it to you to have to overhaul your engine prematurely, then I don't know what to tell you.

Like I said, there's a reason why they're not offered stock.

2016 Canyon All-Terrain 4x4 3.6L v6 ECLB
Amsoil fluids bumper to bumper
Speedliner spray-on bedliner
Weathertech floor mats
AVS hood deflector and window visors
A.R.E MX bed cap w/ Yakima roof rack
Undercover Swingcases
Carhartt seat covers
Randall Conway is online now  
post #26 of 32 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 04:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 212
I'll just say, I like the AFE/Amsoil dry flow type filters, and if the engine has a MAF sensor, I favor that type. If the engine is MAP-based, then it is less an issue with the oiled-type filters.

The air test mentioned above has a point, however it is nowhere near scientific, it is more anecdotal than anything. Not bad info, but not enough info to decide what to do. Reason: They all look bad, going by that test. Every filter is dark in the test. The difference in darkness = a few % difference, so they all "failed" that test if we're looking for a clean filter on the other end. That said you'll find BITOG threads covering dry flow filter reviews and referencing a "what if" scenario on this guy's test on those new filters.

I really like the dry flow types like AFE and Amsoil. Donaldson is the OE for some of this nanofiber tech now available. Oh and AEM's dry flow gets top marks too.
AFE also has a 7 layer high-efficiency oiled filter if you're after that.

'17 Crew V6, sound system done, Build log of system.
LansonF is online now  
post #27 of 32 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 05:07 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 232
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by LansonF View Post
I'll just say, I like the AFE/Amsoil dry flow type filters, and if the engine has a MAF sensor, I favor that type. If the engine is MAP-based, then it is less an issue with the oiled-type filters.

The air test mentioned above has a point, however it is nowhere near scientific, it is more anecdotal than anything. Not bad info, but not enough info to decide what to do. Reason: They all look bad, going by that test. Every filter is dark in the test. The difference in darkness = a few % difference, so they all "failed" that test if we're looking for a clean filter on the other end. That said you'll find BITOG threads covering dry flow filter reviews and referencing a "what if" scenario on this guy's test on those new filters.

I really like the dry flow types like AFE and Amsoil. Donaldson is the OE for some of this nanofiber tech now available. Oh and AEM's dry flow gets top marks too.
AFE also has a 7 layer high-efficiency oiled filter if you're after that.

Not sure how it's not "scientific" or what constitutes it as so. I saw the scientific method being utilized quite well. The test was conducted the exact same for each filter.

The difference is actually quite substantial between the paper and K&N. Obviosuly no filter is going to be 100% effective, but the K&N definitely lets in more dirt, and over thousands of miles, that's a lot of extra dirt in the engine that doesn't need to be there. It's all marketing. The facts are facts, which is K&N filters are bad for your engine.

2016 Canyon All-Terrain 4x4 3.6L v6 ECLB
Amsoil fluids bumper to bumper
Speedliner spray-on bedliner
Weathertech floor mats
AVS hood deflector and window visors
A.R.E MX bed cap w/ Yakima roof rack
Undercover Swingcases
Carhartt seat covers
Randall Conway is online now  
post #28 of 32 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 06:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randall Conway View Post
Not sure how it's not "scientific" or what constitutes it as so. I saw the scientific method being utilized quite well. The test was conducted the exact same for each filter.

The difference is actually quite substantial between the paper and K&N. Obviosuly no filter is going to be 100% effective, but the K&N definitely lets in more dirt, and over thousands of miles, that's a lot of extra dirt in the engine that doesn't need to be there. It's all marketing. The facts are facts, which is K&N filters are bad for your engine.
Not debating anything said about the K&N not filtering as well, but we can't say it is bad for your engine. UOA's will say that, however so you can find out if you want to. In scientific tests, aftermarket AEM, AFE, and other dry-flow filters will out-filter an OEM cellulose filter, so aftermarket is still viable, though I'd either go with the dry-flow or the 7-layer oiled, MAP sensors won't care about the oil but a MAF would do better with dry type, in my experience. If only to prevent damage from an over-oiling condition, even by accident.

Many other BITOG threads mention the test you posted. Again, nothing I'm saying is new. Anecdotal info is still useful.

tl : dr point, if you want scientific, perform a UOA or review UOA's (on BITOG, excellent resource) for guys running different types of filters. The Silicon number is your big tell-tale.

'17 Crew V6, sound system done, Build log of system.
LansonF is online now  
post #29 of 32 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 07:22 PM
KMW
Senior Member
 
KMW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 527
This test was completely scientific, in a lab with specific equipment designed for exactly this purpose. It was done with stock and aftermarket filters for the full size Duramax. The AC Delco filter filtered better, held more dirt, maintained flow for longer, and let less dirt through than any other filter. Yes, the K&N flowed better, but let more dirt through and plugged sooner.

http://www.billswebspace.com/AirFilterTest.htm



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Randall Conway likes this.
KMW is online now  
post #30 of 32 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 08:54 PM
Senior Member
 
JScottM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,057
A few questions:

How do you K&N guys know how much oil to use? I'm guessing, guess?
Does it flow just as good with a lot of oil or just a little or just right? Again how do you know how much or do you just guess it doesn't matter?
How much does the oil cost? How much does the cleaner cost? Do you figure that into your massive savings on air filters?
Are you really sure it saved you that 1/2 mpg? I'm thinking thats a guess to.
Do you actually clean it when it needs it? I'm thinking most people would put it off.
Do you actually enjoy cleaning that thing? Really?

Anyway, to me it just seems like nothing but a pain in the butt to gain nothing. I don't think it will ruin your engine, your MAF sensor maybe but not your engine. Although it seems to have been proven to not filter very well. Kinda seems silly to pay top dollar for a product that sucks at what it was built to do in the first place.

p.s. a no name (pronto) air filter for my truck is 6 bucks at rock auto. how much is that K&N?

Sent from the butt crack of California.
2016 Colorado 4x4 CC SB V6
AS level/lift 2.5" w/1" rear block, diff drop
275/70-17 Cooper AT3 on MotoMetal 970s
Scary, evil, black, warranty voiding catch can from the devil

Last edited by JScottM; 03-27-2017 at 09:00 PM.
JScottM is offline  
post #31 of 32 (permalink) Old 03-27-2017, 09:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Watertown, NY
Posts: 232
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by LansonF View Post
Not debating anything said about the K&N not filtering as well, but we can't say it is bad for your engine. UOA's will say that, however so you can find out if you want to. In scientific tests, aftermarket AEM, AFE, and other dry-flow filters will out-filter an OEM cellulose filter, so aftermarket is still viable, though I'd either go with the dry-flow or the 7-layer oiled, MAP sensors won't care about the oil but a MAF would do better with dry type, in my experience. If only to prevent damage from an over-oiling condition, even by accident.

Many other BITOG threads mention the test you posted. Again, nothing I'm saying is new. Anecdotal info is still useful.

tl : dr point, if you want scientific, perform a UOA or review UOA's (on BITOG, excellent resource) for guys running different types of filters. The Silicon number is your big tell-tale.


There are tons of UOA's out there from K&N users that reveal high silicon numbers. I found 4 on the Subaru forum alone. And yes, I can say it is bad for the engine. Because it is. Engines weren't designed to run with dirt in them.

Where is the data that says the dry-flow filters out filter OEM? I'll buy one right now if I see a genuine study that says so.

2016 Canyon All-Terrain 4x4 3.6L v6 ECLB
Amsoil fluids bumper to bumper
Speedliner spray-on bedliner
Weathertech floor mats
AVS hood deflector and window visors
A.R.E MX bed cap w/ Yakima roof rack
Undercover Swingcases
Carhartt seat covers
Randall Conway is online now  
post #32 of 32 (permalink) Old 04-07-2017, 03:22 PM
Senior Member
 
NewColy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lafayette, La.
Posts: 673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randall Conway View Post
If a $78 savings a year is worth it to you to have to overhaul your engine prematurely, then I don't know what to tell you.
.


its very obvious from your other post that your against A/F which is fine, no biggie, but your statement above is a little much. For my application and from what I gather from Jade, is street driven, easy of service and in his case he got a mpg bonus, now if I did the occasional trail ride/gravel roads/etc, I’d wouldn’t (and haven’t) consider aftermarket A/F at all. I’ve run K&N in my S-10’s/Silverado’s since 1990 and now 3 Colorado’s. The 2.5I-4, 2.8/4.3 v-6, 5.7 v-8 and 3.5L Coly, I’ve run these engines to approx. 128k-160k miles before selling/trading them in with no internal engine problems or premature engine failures. I’ve tracked almost every oil change on my 05 and the silicone levels started at 6PPM and ended at 16PPM with 128k on the OD, with one spike (10k OCI) of 34PPM because my lid clamp had broke and shifted my filter a little. My 2012 3.7L started out with 11PPM (@23K miles) and ended at 14PPM with 63k on the OD…. My current 2012 2.9L is 16PPM (@26K) ... Yes dirt is bad, but at these levels I don’t think detrimental …

2012 Aqua-Blue|Z85CrewCab|2.9L/Auto 3:73|K&N filter|B&M TransCooler|GMTrans corvette servo|Aeroforce Scangauge|Tonno Pro

Traded 2012 Silver|Z85CrewCab|3.7L/Auto 3:73|K&N filter|B&M TransCooler|OPT corvette servo|AVT 89Tune|Dynomax 17749|Scangauge II|Truxedo Truxport cover

RIP 2005 White|Z85CrewCab|3.5L/Auto 3:42|K&N filter|B&M TransCooler|Jet-Servo|PCMforless 89 Tune|Dynomax 17749|Aeroforce Scangauge|Black Maxx cover
NewColy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Chevy Colorado & GMC Canyon forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome