K&N filters...yay or nay? (from a filtration standpoint)
 

Just curious if anyone wants to weigh in here who has actual physical evidence for or against their use, regarding premature wear/lack of filtration, or not.

Red__Zed put up some good numbers on this topic in another thread.

these are the filters i run from Cosworth. check the specs:

Reduced restriction (10%+ compared to OE filters)
Over 98% efficiency (*ISO5011:200 Fine Dust Test)

http://www.cosworthusa.com/store/pc/...00_general.jpg

Performance Air Filter - Performance Air Filter - Cosworth USA

I just ordered one of the Cosworth filters for my S2k.

So what's the difference between the Cosworth's and K&N's?

I use Cosworth's as well; it requires no oiling.

:iagree: this.

So for what it's worth, would you say the Cosworth's + Post MAF Tubes are going to net the same as the K&N + Post MAF's?

That guy just makes stuff up. :shakes head:

Well could you repost your fake numbers here. I thought they were interesting.

i used Cosworth on my Evo X bc it outperformed the K&N's.

that should be a solid setup you have listed there. :tup:

I just adjusted the representation of the numbers to be easier to read....

So what is that telling me compared to the Cosworth's? lol

It's just showing you the number of defects per millions of opportunities given specific filtration rates. If Cosworth is at 98%+ you can see where it'd fit in.

For what it's worth I tested K&N Filters years ago in a Toyota Tacoma vs. stock and AEM dry filters.

The only way I could think to test filtration ability was silicone content in the resulting oil analysis.

After 5,000 miles the K&N filter oil analysis had more silicone than either stock or AEM dry filter.

Tests were in the stock air box in that truck.

Driving conditions were the same in all tests as well.

Having said that, the difference wasn't HUGE at all, but there was a slight difference.