K&N Air Filters - Ford Mustang Forum
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 21 (permalink) Old 09-22-2013 Thread Starter
PONY Member
 
mustangholt33's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: plymouth
Posts: 253
 
Garage
K&N Air Filters

Hey guys I need a little info from someone who knows more about these thing then myself. I have a set of Roush axle backs that were on my last Mustang and I would like to put them on my new one but when they were on my 2011 I was losing torque I'm told it was because I didn't have a CAI on the car. I don't really want to pick up a CAI and a tune as I'm not interested to losing the warranty on my car. So my question is can I go with a K&N filter instead I've heard they let more air in. Is there anyone that's done this instead that can confirm this for me. Thanks

mustangholt33 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 21 (permalink) Old 09-22-2013
Seadog
Guest
 
Seadog's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
I prefer the AEM dry filter myself. I doubt just a filter upgrade will make much improvement. To be honest, I am not that big a fan of the CAIs, but many are. The problem with any upgrades, is there are always tradeoffs. Sometimes it is cost, other times it is losses at the bottom end to improve top end.

post #3 of 21 (permalink) Old 09-22-2013
GT Member
V6 Member
5.0L Member
S197 Member
 
Conejo172's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Location: Glenmont
Posts: 2,279
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustangholt33 View Post
Hey guys I need a little info from someone who knows more about these thing then myself. I have a set of Roush axle backs that were on my last Mustang and I would like to put them on my new one but when they were on my 2011 I was losing torque I'm told it was because I didn't have a CAI on the car. I don't really want to pick up a CAI and a tune as I'm not interested to losing the warranty on my car. So my question is can I go with a K&N filter instead I've heard they let more air in. Is there anyone that's done this instead that can confirm this for me. Thanks
I can't speak for the 3.7, but I have had 3 sets of axleback mufflers on my 5.0 apart from the stock mufflers. I haven't noticed any loss of torque or hp with any of them. Among them were the GT500's, Flowmaster Hushpowers, and the Roush.

In regards to the k&n air filter, I also have one on my car, that has been there since 15,000 miles. I decided to special order one, as it was just as difficult to get a oem filter at the time. I didn't purchase it because I was expecting miracles, I bought it because the oem was around $35 and I would blow through 15,000 mile change intervals like nobody's business, as I currently have 58,000 miles on my 2011. Being able to clean it and reuse it was the reason for the purchase.

Whether or not it flows better is debatable. I would say if anything it isn't noticeable, and if you are looking for a performance increase get a tune.

2011 Performance White 5.0 Premium 6spd MT, 3.73's, 401A
Mods: Staggered 18" FR500 wheels with 255 45 18, & 295 45 18 tires, Air Lift Drag Bags, Roush axle backs, Eibach Pro springs, BMR Adjustable Panhard bar, Center Fog grille, MMD Hood Struts,BAMA Tuned, JPC Line Lock, Blowfish Racing Bracket
Conejo172 is offline  
 
post #4 of 21 (permalink) Old 09-23-2013
SHELBY GT 350 Member
 
Ltngdrvr's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Southeast
Posts: 7,791
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustangholt33 View Post
Hey guys I need a little info from someone who knows more about these thing then myself. I have a set of Roush axle backs that were on my last Mustang and I would like to put them on my new one but when they were on my 2011 I was losing torque I'm told it was because I didn't have a CAI on the car. I don't really want to pick up a CAI and a tune as I'm not interested to losing the warranty on my car. So my question is can I go with a K&N filter instead I've heard they let more air in. Is there anyone that's done this instead that can confirm this for me. Thanks
If you really lost torque on the '11 then it wasn't because of the axle back, if there is any change from them then it is on the positive side but it's negligible.

A drop in K&N filter also won't change power any, best you get out of it is that it is basically a lifetime filter, just clean it every 30-50K.

Ltngdrvr is offline  
post #5 of 21 (permalink) Old 09-23-2013
Apprentice
 
winkosmosis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 111
 
They don't filter nearly as well as paper filters. I don't mean slightly worse, I mean 40x as much dirty gets through. That's because the pores are much bigger to allow less restriction even with a smaller surface area (due to fewer pleats). Googling will turn up some experiments that show just how bad they are.

Either stick with a quality paper filter in the stock airbox or buy the Ford Racing CAI which uses a disposable filter.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
winkosmosis is offline  
post #6 of 21 (permalink) Old 09-23-2013
SHELBY GT 350 Member
 
Ltngdrvr's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Location: Southeast
Posts: 7,791
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis View Post
They don't filter nearly as well as paper filters. I don't mean slightly worse, I mean 40x as much dirty gets through. That's because the pores are much bigger to allow less restriction even with a smaller surface area (due to fewer pleats). Googling will turn up some experiments that show just how bad they are.

Either stick with a quality paper filter in the stock airbox or buy the Ford Racing CAI which uses a disposable filter.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
That's just not true, just because it was on the internet doesn't make it true.

K&N filters filter just fine and filter better as they get dirty.

Whatever you read was probably planted by someone backed by a paper filter maker.

Ltngdrvr is offline  
post #7 of 21 (permalink) Old 09-23-2013
Apprentice
 
D BERRY's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2010
Location: Carrollton
Posts: 198
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ltngdrvr View Post
That's just not true, just because it was on the internet doesn't make it true.

K&N filters filter just fine and filter better as they get dirty.

Whatever you read was probably planted by someone backed by a paper filter maker.
Your probably right there, but you can't take what KN says as gospel either. After all they are trying to sell a product here.

My only expirence is with my 72 Buick Skylark, a 455 with a carb. I read the KN advertising which told me my car would be just as fast with their filter and air cleaner than running without one at all. So I bought the 14X4 filter and air cleaner. All said and done it cost me a hundred and thirty dollars and .4 ET in a quarter mile. I'd vote for a good brand paper filter if I was buying.

_____________________
2015 3.7 liter Black
D BERRY is offline  
post #8 of 21 (permalink) Old 09-23-2013
GT Member
 
pmr2000's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: RTP area
Posts: 1,420
 
A K&N is a quality filter and on a modern ECU controlled air fuel mixture car will not lose any torque or HP. The ECU will easily adjust for +/- 10% or so as needed just as a new or better airflow filter or a dirty filter will cause the need for change.

D BERRY- do you think you would have needed to adjust timing, carb on the 455 after the K&N to see any gains or at least no loss?

Now: 2016 Mustang GT Fastback-Magnetic Metallic, Ford Racing Touring axle-backs, Ford Racing front strut and k-brace, K&N CAI, sound tube delete, 1975 Corvette Coupe-L48, 4-speed

Past Lives: 2001 Corvette Z51 Coupe, 2012 Mustang Grabber Blue Coupe, 2008 Mustang Torch Red Vert, 1988 Mazda RX-7 Vert, 1985 Nissan 300ZX, 1979 Mazda RX-7, 1971 Datsun 240Z, 1972 Fiat 124 Vert, 1971 Chevelle, 1970 Challenger
pmr2000 is offline  
post #9 of 21 (permalink) Old 09-23-2013
Apprentice
 
winkosmosis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 111
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ltngdrvr View Post
That's just not true, just because it was on the internet doesn't make it true.

K&N filters filter just fine and filter better as they get dirty.

Whatever you read was probably planted by someone backed by a paper filter maker.
It's absolutely true. I'll find the links later. At least two people have done completely independent testing.

And you could just apply common sense. A K&N has fewer pleats and therefore less surface area than a normal paper filter. So how do you think it restricts flow less? By having bigger pores. K&N themselves say that the filters are 98% effective. But guess what.. a quality paper filter is well over 99%.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
winkosmosis is offline  
post #10 of 21 (permalink) Old 09-23-2013 Thread Starter
PONY Member
 
mustangholt33's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Location: plymouth
Posts: 253
 
Garage
Thanks for all the reply's everyone. Let me explain why I believe I was losing torque. When I put them on my 2011 I could feel a lose in my get up and go the first time I took it out, I convinced myself that the added nose from the axle backs was just tricking me and I live with them for a year. In June of this year I took them back off and put the factory muffler back on the car before I sold it. As soon as I took it on the road I could feel how mush faster the car felt off the line. So I talked to my Brother a licensed mechanic and a friend and they both told me the same thing. They told me I was losing torque because the axle backs were putting out more air then the factory muffler but the factory air box wasn't taking any more in then it did before and I need a cold air intake to avoid losing any torque.
mustangholt33 is offline  
JeffOden
Guest
 
JeffOden's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
On the 5.0, which uses the same filter as us, the K&N panel filter was worth negative 3 ft. lbs. of torque. I titled my thread wrong by saying "HP", should've said "Tq". So if you are looking for more torque get a CAI and a Tune. I have over 40K on my 2011 with extended warranty to 70K, no warranty problems here.

https://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...tive-3-hp.html

BTW, I've used many K&N filters and still have one on the old truck, and they used to help power a little, but not anymore.
Apprentice
 
kemo's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Midwest
Posts: 90
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by winkosmosis View Post
It's absolutely true. I'll find the links later. At least two people have done completely independent testing.

And you could just apply common sense. A K&N has fewer pleats and therefore less surface area than a normal paper filter. So how do you think it restricts flow less? By having bigger pores. K&N themselves say that the filters are 98% effective. But guess what.. a quality paper filter is well over 99%.

Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
It is true that k&n air filters let more dirt through than most paper filters. The ONLY way to get more flow out of a direct fit filter is to lower its filtration efficiency. I challenge you (not you as in winkosmosis) to get your oil analyzed after a full interval with the K&N filter. You WILL see higher amounts of silicons in your oil.

You have to really pay attention to the marketing. companies such as fram list their current efficiency numbers like "99% efficient at > 20 microns". that is not the same as or good as "99% efficient at 20 microns". K&N says their target is 98% efficiency... but at how many microns?

Food for thought
kemo is offline  
JeffOden
Guest
 
JeffOden's Avatar
 
Posts: n/a
Quite a bit more surface area than paper filters as well.
However I've had the K&N on my Honda Pilot for over 180,000 miles and it still runs perfectly. No TB, MAF or any other mechanical issues what so ever. My daughters '94 Civic has 320,000 miles all with a K&N, same story.
Apprentice
 
winkosmosis's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2013
Location: Houston
Posts: 111
 
Here's a thread with all the info on K&N's poor filtration in one place K&N's statement on their filters' ineffectiveness at filtering - AnandTech Forums

Here's a thread where a K&N rep posted some PR nonsense and got torn apart by members. Science is against K&N-- all they have is marketing and misinformed consumers. http://atforums.mobi/msg.php?threadi...65&STARTPAGE=1

Of course there will be many posts saying things like "I use K&N and I have no problems". Yes, well many people use 5W-20 non-synch oil from Jiffy Lube and have no problems. But enthusiasts like us typically like to use the best product we can. We don't use crappy oils, many of us use 5W-30 for more wear protection, we don't buy awful Chinese tires, we choose the better hoses and belts. So why would we use a filter that lets through 40x as much dirt as the best paper filter? Sorry but "My car works fine with crappy product X" isn't a good argument, especially since the typical driver wouldn't notice the additional wear from bad oil or bad filters.

Most important graph:
winkosmosis is offline  
Apprentice
 
kemo's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Midwest
Posts: 90
 
More...



This is older material. It dates back to when Amsoil had the two stage foam air filters... remember how they claimed nobody could beat their dirt holding capabilities AND flow? Those filters were terrible, horribly constructed, and they didn't really stand behind them! I fell for it and learned my lesson... they fell apart.

kemo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum 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, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

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


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1