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.

So the Cosworth's should perform as well but let less debris through?

You'd need to directly compare flow data, I don't have flow numbers for either.

Interesting....

So for engine longevity, would people say its better to just stick to more restrictive (no power gains)

the K&N's dont either

Pretty sure K&N doesn't make a dry filter?

I thought they are oil based

If you ran a K&N filter without oil it'd let everything in just about. :icon17:

edit: m4a1 beat me to it. ^^

if i'm not mistaken, K&N's are oiled out of the box. they may not "require" oiling, however, that's how the filter traps dirt and dust. no oil on the K&N = no filtration, from my understanding.

you wash them and reoil every 30-50k miles depending on where you live/driving habits etc.

Exactly. After it gets dirtied the filter must be cleaned, dried, and re-oiled.

Yes yes thats what i meant... sorry for the confusion.:tup:

i have the AFE dry flow-s filters...im pretty sure is what they are called.

i dunno how great or terrible they are,but i like them

Cosworth is disposale (you have to buy new one's at regular service intervals).

I think K&N flows more than 10% over OEM.

The K&N and Cosworth both claim around 98% (K&N states 96-99% is what their filters normally test, obviously variance exists).

K&N Air Filter Efficiency Testing

Where did you get this? Is this a table created from the diesel-forums test a while back?

i read somewhere that Cosworth said you can vacuum the filter and it'll be good-to-go.

Cosworth's are not disposable, they can be washed and re-used.

I understand the literal difference between the two filters. I was wondering more along the lines about those dyno's people have posted with the K&N's.. Could it be assumed that the Cosworth's are going to net the same results?

There's no way to tell without actual flow data.

Damn flow data

I just got off the phone with Cosworth. Their filters seem to be stepchildren. Noone there knew a lot about them, and readily admitted that they made them "because some people can't afford Cosworth engines, and want a Cosworth part in their car, so we created a filter--everyone needs filters--to help start these people out with our products."

No flow-data aside the 10%+ was given. No dyno data was given. Filtration was stated as better than OEM paper. Service life was described to me as equal to or shorter than OEM, so stick to the OEM replacement schedule. Technically they claim it can be washed with soap and water as it is synthetic, but I don't really think it's the BEST course of action (personal opinion). Of course, I also would rather buy a new K&N than clean it, because of the over-oiling/risk of damaging the media.

Does anyone have any heads-up tests vs. K&N in an environment that shows either superior filtration or flow? (dyno, etc.)

K&N claims that they enhance flow by 20% or so, based on their panel-filter flow data. Cosworth claims 50% of that. Beyond that...I'm in the dark.

I always buy a new filter anyways. F*ck if I am going to waste my time cleaning and re-oiling or washing or whatever. :icon17:

Prior to this thread I was set on K&N, then I said oh cool, Cosworth, and now it's like...:confused:no clue

i don't have the time to find the dynos, but check over on the Evo X forums. testing on and off the dyno show this filter to be superior to the K&N. Jon Drenas at COBB socal puts his stamp of approval on it. i wouldn't have chosen it for either car if it was an inferior product.

I actually looked at the Evo stuff and it makes me feel good about Cosworth, it's just difficult since all the info we have here is K&N users