K&N Filters

[mayfair]

I have seen that report before, and like I said before, I STILL think that a paper filter is the way to go on turbo diesel engines. That report just backs up my thoughts.

 

[Karl]

Today I received a response from K&N. This was what I said to them:

Good morning,

First, a little background. My name is Karl Kolbus, and I have been
involved in motorsports for 30+ years and have used K&N filters on both
racecars and personal vehicles. I'm also a full-time RVer, and am on the

staff of the RV Forum at RVFORUM <http://www.rvforum.net>, with a
membership of over eleven thousand; some full-timers, some part-timers,
and some wannabees. Our purpose is, first and foremost, to assist other
RVers with questions of a technical nature. As such, you can well
imagine that there are many questions about engine performance and
maintenance related issues, and the effectiveness of K&N reusable filter
has come up more than once.

There is currently a K&N debate going on HERE
<http://www.rvforum.net/SMF_forum/index.php?topic=15347.0;topicseen>,
and one member posted a link to what appears to be a comprehensive test
of various filters and their efficacy. It can be found HERE
<http://home.stny.rr.com/jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm> . After reading it,quite frankly, K&N doesn't fare well in comparison to most others
tested. As you can see from my posts on this topic, I've been a staunch
supporter of K&N, but now find myself in the position of not being able
to refute these test results, and it's not a comfortable one.

If K&N would care to respond and/or refute these tests or provide test
data of your own, I would make sure your response is posted
appropriately. I sincerely hope you take this opportunity seriously. I
will post a message today that you have been contacted and that I'm
awaiting your reply.

Regards,

Karl Kolbus

Because of the following legalese, I am prevented from posting their response verbatim:

The statement above is intended solely for the person(s) to whom it is
addressed and is not to be publicized, republished, copied or repeated.
If you are not a named recipient, you are also on notice of its status.
Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete
this message from your system. You must not disclose it to any other
person, copy or distribute it or use it for any purpose.

What I received was a generic boilerplate response addressed to no-one in particular. To paraphrase, they said they had seen that report, and disagreed with the referenced test data because it did not conform (my words) to the ISO 5011 standard. No reason was given as to why they felt that way.  They further stated that do their own ISO 5011 testing, and the results are verified by independent testing. No test results are given, nor is a link provided to them or to the 'independent laboratory'. They go on to say that, on average, efficiency of their filters is between 97% and 98% (they don't mention whether that's air flow efficiency, dust removal efficiency, or something else), and that no filter they sell will be no less efficient than a corresponding OEM filter.

So there you have it, folks.  Draw you own conclusions.

Personally, having been given the opportunity to refute this report with any empirical data and not doing so, I would have to say "This myth is busted".

This post and its' contents are the personal opinions and comments of Karl Kolbus. The RV Forum, RV Forum staff, and RV Forum members are in no way connected to or responsible for its publication, except to provide the means and opportunity to express myself as provided for under the provisions of The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

 

[Ron]

Guess I should dig out the other report I have seen it pretty much follows the same findings as was posted.  Since K&N does not provide any test results, preferably results run by somebody other than K&N, I will continue to avoid K&N filters based on reports I have seen. JMHO

 

[mayfair]

So there you have it, folks.  Draw you own conclusions.

Personally, having been given the opportunity to refute this report with any empirical data and not doing so, I would have to say "This myth is busted".

I respectfully dissagree

Just because K&N says that they did their own testing and they claim that their tests prove otherwise ( which is what you'd expect them to say ) i don't see how that PROVES that this "myth" has been busted.

Keep in mind that I'm running a K&N in my Ram as well as 2 Harleys.

I don't believe K&N's statements any more than I'd believe some other snake oil salesman. What I DO believe is that a turbo charged diesel engine IS strong enough to pull the oil right on through a heavily oiled K&N filter.

 

[Lowell]

I have drawn my own conclusion and it is that I won't buy another K&N filter.  I had reached that conclusion several years ago after buying one for my Bronco.  The test data seen in the independent report supports that conclusion for me.  I respect others opinion and if one believes that K&N filters work for them, it's there money, so I don't care. 

 

[BronekR]

After reading all of this... I concluded that my K&N air filter is going in to the trash can at the next maintenance interval. Going back to stock filter!

 

[Karl]

Mayfair,
I suggest you re-read all my previous posts; in particular, my last one. To net it out, I have always been a staunch supporter of K&N products but, due to their lack of response to my inquiry, I no longer support their position.

What I DO believe is that a turbo charged diesel engine IS strong enough to pull the oil right on through a heavily oiled K&N filter.

That statement is both misleading and, well, misleading. Any engine has enough sucker-power to pull in whatever is in its' path, save for whatever protection against large rocks and 2 X 4's the filter may provide. Turbocharging has absolutely nothing to do with it, nor does it make a difference. 

Keep in mind that I'm running a K&N in my Ram as well as 2 Harleys.

And that means... what?

 

[Ron]

After reading all of this... I concluded that my K&N air filter is going in to the trash can at the next maintenance interval. Going back to stock filter!

Good choice IMHO. ;D

 

[mayfair]

Any engine has enough sucker-power to pull in whatever is in its' path, save for whatever protection against large rocks and 2 X 4's the filter may provide. Turbocharging has absolutely nothing to do with it, nor does it make a difference. 

Karl, first of all PLEASE understand that I have ZERO desire to argue with anyone, however I'm happy to have a conversion amongst friends. Honestly, that's all I'm trying to do here. 

Here is how a turbo charger and the boost it creates can best be explained.

Boost  is the amount of compressed air that is created by the turbo, on the compressor side.  If your turbo was not present, your diesel motor would have almost no power. You would have a hard time starting off from a dead stop, and probably could not achieve highway speeds.  And forget about towing anything....lol.


Here's a diagram.  It's pretty simple.  The blue arrow is the boost.  The boosted or compressed air goes into the compressor intake, out the discharge, through your intercooler (which is in front of your radiator), and then up into the intake manifold.  Compressed air is now sitting on top of your intake valves.  When the intake valve opens, pressurized, cooled air enters the combustion chamber.  The more air you can cram into the cylinder, the cleaner the burn, and the more fuel you can add. 

The turbine section of the turbo is driven by hot exhaust gases exiting the engine.  But before the exhaust is allowed to travel  out the tailpipe, it is forced to do work.  That work is to spin the turbine.  And as you can see in the pic, the turbine and the compressor both reside on the same drive shaft.  The turbine drives the compressor wheel.  The only other major part of the turbo is the wastegate.  The wastegate opens when the predetermined amount of boost pressure is exceeded.  The wastegate opens, and gives the exhaust gases a direct path into the downpipe.  The rerouted exhaust gases bypass the turbine, so the turbo loses some of it's "drive".  It slows down and reduces the amount of boost.  When the boost pressure falls below the wastegate setting, the gate closes and now all the exhaust gases are once again driving the turbine.

I hope that helps. 

 

[Karl]

Mayfair,

No argument - just a discussion. I am quite familiar with all forms of induction systems, including turbocharging and supercharging, and find your explanation quite well done. May I suggest you review it, make any additions or modifications you feel appropriate, and we'll add it to our Glossary section.
Thanks.

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

If your turbo was not present, your diesel motor would have almost no power. You would have a hard time starting off from a dead stop, and probably could not achieve highway speeds.  And forget about towing anything....lol.

Surely a bit of an exaggeration, Mayfair.  Diesels without turbo chargers or superchargers have been around for ages, powering large trucks and buses and some cars as well. Turbo chargers in diesels did not become common until the late 1990's.  I'll readily grant that acceleration was poor from a dead stop, but they did reach highway speeds quite easily, assisted by multi-speed transmissions to keep the RPMs up in the power band.  The advent of the turbo charger improved performance dramatically and reduced emissions considerably - essentially eliminating the "stinkpot" label from  diesels.

 

[Tom]

.... we'll add it to our Glossary section.

Agreed Karl; It would be a great addition to our Glossary of RV Terms.

 

[mayfair]

Surely a bit of an exaggeration, Mayfair.  Diesels without turbo chargers or superchargers have been around for ages, powering large trucks and buses and some cars as well. Turbo chargers in diesels did not become common until the late 1990's. 

You are absolutely positively 100% correct. I was referring to todays more modern turbo diesel engine. If you have a leaky boot on one of those suckers, you're pretty much dead in the water.  ;D

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

Yes, you will surely know if the turbo fails or leaks. Feels like the thing can't get out of its own way!

 

[Karl]

Incidentally, on some high-performance cars and race cars in particular, there is no waste gate. Instead they use an intake manifold pop-off to relieve excess pressure, especially during shifting. This allows the turbo to remain spooled up for almost instantaneous throttle response. An Audi Turbo, for example, will make a series of 'chirping' sounds similar to a very large chipmunk.