What's the over all consensus with K&N Engine Air Filter's for our Taco's?

You won't find conclusive evidence of engine failure when using a K&N filter because that isn't the damage caused.

What are are likely to find is lower compression. More oil consumption. Increased bearing clearance. Lower power output.

And this is iregardless of cleaning, it is proven that even when cleaned properly they still let more dirt by

All of those things happen with every engine. In an engine with a K&N they will happen sooner ON AVERAGE. If it takes 200,000 miles for compression to drop ten points then on engines that use a K&N that may happen at 180,000; or 130,000 miles. And you can always point to an engine that "it" didn't have that happen until 200,000 miles, except if that engine had run a regular filter it wouldn't have happened until say 250,000 miles in that particular situation.

It's far more nuanced than "blowed up" or "not blowed up"

 

I would love to read that study.....If you have a link, please add it. I think this thread needs some real testing with results.

"All of those things happen with every engine. In an engine with a K&N they will happen sooner ON AVERAGE."

 

Another "opinion" with NO basis in fact or documented evidence! I don't think anyone disputes that K&N filters are not (probably not even K&N) as efficient as the some of the paper filters used for the cited online filtration studies. There is no dispute that running without a filter will have the effects on an engine you cite. What is in question is, the effect of 99.93% filtering efficiency vs 96.8% on engine performance and longevity ( the results of the ISO 5011 filter efficiency test cited online). What does a 3.1% efficiency variance equate to? My guess is the effect is negligible.......(but then, I've never driven a ANY vehicle I've owned 200K, and I doubt anyone on TW, or anywhere else that has, can quantify, let alone validate your assumptions)
Here is what K&N has to say about their filters - "K&N® filters are designed to strike a desirable balance between efficiency, capacity, durability, and airflow."
Apparently millions of satisfied customers agree.

 

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/500199/

 

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/500199/

For you as well.

Conclusion of the paper stated that increasing filter effectiveness from 98% to 99% decreased wear by one HALF.

You cannot dismiss what you don't like by simply claiming everything you disagree with is "opinion"

 

Since YOU, apparently can access the source you cite, an SAE publication requiring a fee (for us mere mortals) to access, perhaps you would care to copy and paste the section of that paper that you claim supports your premise. For example - "decreased wear by one HALF", one half of WHAT? Your decreased mileage assertions, bearing wear assertions?

 

They have more flow and more air means more dirt. But is it enough to make any difference? Those papers are 33 bucks so nobody is going to buy them as you well know. At this point your cherry-picking what you want with nothing to support it. What engines where tested? What where the conditions of the testing? How many miles did the test consist of? What parts had twice the wear? What was the amount of wear? .000000000002 would be twice as much as .000000000001 but neither would make any difference. Your post has no context whatsoever.

 

Exactly.

 

Sci-hub.

I have the same tools you do

 

So your response to him would be no then? You will not be posting up data and test results?

 

Sorry Bud, Below, from the Sci-Hub website:
Unfortunately, Sci-Hub doesn't have the requested document:
https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/500199
or:
Unfortunately, Sci-Hub doesn't have the requested document:
https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/500199

 

You can access the data in the same way I did. I will not be drawn into spoon feeding it to you

 

You have to use the DOI url not the sae webpage url, this is why the sci-hub webpage asks for the doi

 

The crux of the argument is that with the K&N, there are too many variables. Can they operate safely and effectively? Most likely, yes. Can the AVERAGE person perform the necessary cleaning and re-oiling perfectly every time? Likely not. Many can and many can not.
It's hard to argue against good old paper filter media when it's been used and perfected over many generations.
If you want to go with K&N, rock and roll.
I prefer the ease of a disposable filter.

 

And I will not be drawn into jumping through hoops to gain access to something I couldn’t care less about. I never said K&N didn’t cause extra wear I said that I’ve used them and never seen any issues. You claim otherwise but without posting up accessible data your opinion means as much as mine. Exactly dogshit. I’m not arguing for or against it. It’s an filter for my needs. Nothing at all wrong with a good old paper filter. Use whatever you want. Debating with people like you is pointless anyway. If my engine blows up at 275k you will say a wix or fram or whatever you use would have gotten me to 300k if it blows at 300k you’ll say your filter would have gotten me to 325.

 

Thanks, everyone, just like I said before, you either love them or you hate them. I decided on one of their cabin air filters and stuck a new OEM in the intake box.

 

Good choice my guy. Oem is tried and true.

 

Neither your inability to access the easily accessible study provided or your lack of desire to do so refutes my point. If you chose to ignore it then that is on you and I cannot help that. My point stands and unless you can provide a source that is as good or greater than the one I provided, K&N filters increase engine wear.

 

Got It!! What a great read.....( big smile on my face) Paper was written in 1950. Actually cited "oil bath" air cleaners - LOL. Any way, My apologies. Your accurately cited one of the papers conclusions (#6). You seem like bright guy, so, let me suggest; do you really think the test parameters, measurements, and the engine metallurgy component of the internal combustion engine in 1950, has any relevance or is applicable to the internal combustion engine today and modern testing methodology, 70+ years later? (other than they are still internal combustion engines...) Apples and Oranges
"(6) The increase in the efficiency of a carburetor air cleaner from 98% to 99% reduces wear by about one half."
I read the paper and could not find any context for the premise. I'm guessing that all the parameters measured, rings, bearings, piston bores etc are generalized in the statement, as most internal engine components were affected in some fashion.

 

See your not reading and comprehending. I never said it didn’t cause engine wear. I said I’ve never seen a problem with it and it works for my needs. You said they do in fact cause wear. I’m willing agree to the possibility and read the data you provide but I don’t care enough to pay for it or spend a half hour trying to get it. So you are welcome to post it or not I really couldn’t care less. At this point all I have is you opinion and as previously stated that means exactly dogshit.