Debate continues: K&N filter vs. MPG
[ EDIT: from MetroMPG - I made a mess splitting this topic into a new thread. I had to "quote" some users' posts below to move their comments over here. But the quotes below are the original words made by the person quoted. ]
I've also noticed that I've gotten a slight but noticeable increase in fuel economy after replacing my OEM Air filter to a K&N Filter. |
Was the old filter plugged up dirty? :)
I personally don't buy the K&N = better fuel efficiency idea. If you look through their web site, you will not find ONE single corporate claim that their filters improve fuel economy over a clean, OEM filter. Why? Because if they did that, they'd have to prove it in court when they are sued by the EPA for misleading advertising. You better believe if they really thought their filters helped MPG, they'd be advertising the heck out of that. Instead K&N relies on customer testimonials about MPG. Unfortunately, that anectdotal testimony isn't worth the electrons it travels on. |
DifferentPointofView quote
DifferentPointofView said:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'ts just the MPG testimonials that make me bristle. One of my big pet peeves is claims made with no sound data to back them up. But you've also got a point on the warranty. There's something to be said for reusing a K&N filter for the life of a vehicle instead of throwing away another OEM style filter every NNN miles. |
thealterecho quote
thealterecho said:
Quote:
|
Quote:
But since we don't drive around at WOT, it's a moot point. I also stick by the marketing argument: if K&N believed their filters boosted fuel efficiency, they would be marketing the crap out of that angle. But they don't, because the know they can't prove there is any significant difference. So instead, they dance with customer testimonials, knowing full well that the majority of their customers don't have the inclination or ability to empirically determine the filters' effects on fuel efficiency. |
I'm gonna have to say that the vehicles that will see the most improvement if there is any would have to be the ones with the larger filters. If you have a lot of air to filter and your using a restrictive air filter, using a less restricting one on a lot of air will see the most results.
It's like someone who just ran 3 miles compared to someone who didn't, and they're both breathing through small straws. The person who just ran 3 miles will need a lot more air than the person just standing and recording time. So if the person who ran 3 miles moves to a much larger straw, they will see much more results than the person who was recording time. |
From there website.
Quote:
One thing about the hunt for FE is that all cars react differently to modifications even between 2 of the same model. It depends on a lot of uncontrollable factors. Even changing the oil when changing the air filter could show in increase in FE just do to the oil change. Tank to tank testing really is not an accurate way to test for a mileage increase. YMMV (Your mileage may very) |
I had my doubts about the K&N for my Impala, but after installation of the filter, I have noticed a difference and an overall increase in fuel economy when driving carefully. Now, having said that, my fuel economy is worse as well when I stomp on it. More airflow is perhaps allowing the ECM to work a little more fuel into the mix, at least this is the basic rational I have come up with.
Prior vehicles - 68 Plymouth Fury II - K&N filter allowed better low range takeoff and an overall improvement (no numbers to back this, just seat of the pants and over a year of having it in there) -- 90 Plymouth Acclaim (3.0L V-6) figure a rough average of 3 mpg improvement depending on driving conditions. -- 89 Chevy S-10 (2.5L 4 cyl) strangely not much mpg improvement noticed, but a definate improvement in getup and gooooooooo |
FWIW, I have seen people cite used oil analysis done on the same engine run with a K&N filter and a disposable paper filter, and the oil that was run when the K&N was in use showed higher amounts of silica. Which isn't hard to believe if you think about it, more airflow = less filtration.
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com