K&N or TRD air filters. Worth it?

i run the oem filter now since prior ive notice some particles in the airbox past the filter element. I've had the k&N and AFE pro dry prior.

 

I run an AEM dry filter. No oil to mess with. I only got it for it's resuability.....not for any performance gain. $40 is not a bad price for a filter that will last the life of the truck.

 

So I came across this thread and I also got caught up in the particulates craziness. I have had a K and N filter in my 1988 jeep Comanche since I bought new and sold it when I had 160K on it in 2002 when I bought my Tacoma. My friend still used the same K and N filter in it to 300K until the motor stopped and hadn't replaced a maf sensor or throttle body. I also put a K and N in my Tacoma the first week when I bought it. I have worked in a auto parts store for ten years and sold hundreds of K and Ns without any issues. Believe or not most of the MAFS that were ordered at the store by customers had paper filters when they replaced the sensor at the store. That being said one day a guy comes in and says you know the K and N filters are not good for Toyotas. I had never heard that before. He owned a landcruiser and said paper is the way to go. I went home got on Tacoma world and saw the mixed reviews and decided maybe I should get rid of the KN so I did in 2014. I had the original paper one in. So here is where it gets interesting. I noticed a not so snappy throttle probably from the decreased air flow and I can live with that. Rpms slightly move up and down at idle like the K and N. In Colorado we have strict emissions tests so it was my year to get one and I am one of those guys that actually looks at the readings and saves all the years of the tests. ( and all receipts.) I noticed my Hydro carbons and NOx was up a bit. Not much but still up. I didn't know what changed except the filter. I ran the paper filter for a year then switched to a DRY S AFE. They got good reviews. First thing I noticed a better throttle response and my idle was dead on all the time which it never was. In fact it ran so quiet and smooth I had to look at the rpm gauge to make sure it was running. Never had that before. So here are my results of my emissions tests with all 3 filters over 6 Years. limits are the same for all 6 years. I really like the smooth idle of the AFE and my state emissions likes it also. I like K and N filters as well just watch how much oil you put on them. If a few particulates get through so be it but my engine is breathing better and mpg is always a constant 19 in the city with the 3.4 V6. I have 132k on my truck now and will let you know at 200k how its running. Side note I have a big K and N round filter on my 69 Plymouth. K and N doesn't have to worry about going out of business. LOL.

Limits
HC GPM 1.2000

CO GPM 15.0000

NOx GPM 2.0000

8/2012 K and N filter

Readings

HC GPM 0.0571

CO GPM 2.3393

NOx GPM 0.2239


8/2014 Paper filter

HC 0.2439

CO 2.2972

NOx 0.7877


8/2014 Pro Dry S AFE

HC 0.0648

CO 2.4469

NOx 0.3682

 

I know this is an old post but I just saw it so here we go.

Not sure if I agree with your negative concerning K&N or TRD filters, let me explain a personal observation. Some years back I owned a 86 Ford Bronco II, I lived in the Mojave desert area of California, one day I went through a sand storm and when I got home I thought I better check the stock paper air filter, I took the filter out and saw a lot of sand laying on the plastic intake after the filter, that freaked me out, so I took my other car and went and got a K&N filter and installed it after cleaning the sand out of the intake. A year goes by and another sand storm happened, I opened the air filter box removed the filter and there wasn't even one grain of sand in the intake. The sand in the Mojave Desert is extremely fine, it would blow through modern and new sealed windows, every day I would have to wipe sand off the window sills, that's how fine it was. So my experience with the KN worked for me.

I also know that the US military was having trouble with their engine filters on the M1-A1 Abrams tank, they approached K&N to design a new filter and K&N did, those filters have been a huge success for that tank.

I don't about all of this Blackstone stuff, but I do live in Fort Wayne and they are located in this city, so I may pay them a visit and asked them about it, I want to hear it from the horse's mouth before I accept what someone on the internet says, because I find that difficult to believe after what I've witnessed with my own vehicle.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3L-E-ufYo

 

I don't know how scientific those tests were because it doesn't even remotely agree with what I saw happen to my Bronco II in several sandstorms I had to drive through over the years living in the Mojave Desert of California. Like said before, the first sand storm I went though I found a lot of sand particles laying in the plastic area that was under the air filter which the air filter should have caught, and the filter was clogged with sand, but when I switched to the K&N I never had sand again seen past the filter, yes the filter was clogged afterward with sand just like the original paper filter, but no sand went past it, unlike the original paper filter. That's all I can go by is real-life actual event si&tuation, I don't have some test room for this only observation.

Needless to say I'm a bit confused by all of this controversy over the K&N. This sand situation was the same situation that the US Army was running into with their Abrams M1 tank turbine engine filter in desert locations, they actually contracted with K&N to design a new filter that would stop the sand, and last longer between cleanings. The original filter system would get so clogged up so fast they had to stop frequently to clean the filter, which in a combat situation would make the tank a sitting duck for a target, the K&N resolved those issues.

So there is my personal observations and there is the Abram tank experience.

So what is going on in those tests to show K&N not to be so great when it's been great for me and the Army? The other think is that once I had that experience with my Bronco I told friends, who like me did their own auto stuff, about it, they too had issues with sand making past whatever filter they used, when they tried the K&N their result was the same as mine...no more sand made it past the filter.

I just don't know, I have to make time to get over to Blackstone and talk to them about this and see what they think, I'll probably due it this Friday unless something comes up.

 

I love these analogies. Sort of like: "It snowed in Minnesota last winter therefore climate change is bullshit." Air filters work by limiting the size of opening that allows air to flow through the filter and trapping smaller bits when the media can. If you have tighter media, smaller holes to catch smaller bits, you have to increase the surface area of the media to maintain the same volume of air flowing through it. That means more pleats. Just like with an oil filter, a rough measure of quality is to just count the pleats. K&N filters are meant for performance. They have fewer pleats and relatively large openings in the media. They use oil to expand the fibers to narrow the openings and to help trap particles. K&N does say that filtration improves when they catch little bit of dirt. That should be obvious. Over oiling a K&N, or similar, can really choke one up and you will be wondering why your motor won't run when it's not getting any air. I've seen folks run them dry thinking that they are getting the same level of filtration without oil. K&N filters are good for what they are intended for. I've used them on some really expensive engines, but we were completely aware of their shortcomings in terms of filtration and could accept that for the extra air flow as performance was the point and we really just wanted to keep the big chunks out of the intake. Cylinders definitely suffered and we pulled the motors down on schedule or when leak downs were excessive. Comparing an Abrams tank need to a Taco is kind of funny too. Although I'm not a tank expert, I do know that an Abrams uses a continuous flow (turbine) engine and it's need for filtration is probably completely different than what is needed for an Otto cycle engine. My guess is that an Abrams doesn't need to filter down to the level required of a Taco and there are other issues to be taken into account such as field maintenance, expected engine service life, as well as a need for an unrestricted air flow. Apples and oranges.

 

That's great, so you love analogies; but you haven't answered why fine sand made it past paper filters in various cars but not past the K&N, just rattle on about the Abrams, which by the way sand getting into a turbine engine will cut the engine life. https://www.army.mil/article/177698/army_researchers_tackle_a_tiny_enemy_sand And it's this sand problem mentioned in this article is why KN was contracted to make a better filter, which they did, sand is the same problem I had with vehicles as well as friends vehicles where I lived in the Mojave Desert, and the KN filter solved the problem...do you see a pattern here between a tank and car at reducing sand or is that still beyond your understanding?

 

Having run a few things through sand and killed a few motors in sand, the only time sand ever got behind a filter of any type was if the filter was either installed incorrectly, or got knocked off. I apologize about my lack of understanding. I was absolutely unaware that living in the Mojave desert provided all the engineering knowledge and empirical evidence that anyone ever needed. I will now seek to get a refund on my engineering degrees and use the funds to move to Kingman so I can sit under a cactus and seek enlightenment.

 

Stick with OEM oil and air filters... lots of dealers sell them on Amazon, cheaper than your local dealer.
Not an expert but.. have read some folks over oil the KN and that can mess with your MAF, throttle body.

 

My real world experiences - I've used K&N filters in all my vehicles for more than 30 years. All vehicles logged boatloads of miles - 175K, 300+K, 248K. I keep vehicles a long time and I maintain them very well. I never had a problem caused by questionable air filtration. I have no reason to believe that they could cause any issues.....

 

WOW! you were smart arse earlier and you still are, I was trying to be nice but not now; so it's either your right and I'm a liar is the only way you're going to view this? Go fuk yourself you conceited little batch. We're done, you and I. And I seriously doubt you're an engineer with that attitude you have, not to mention the grammar errors you've made.

 

I missed any mention of K&N in the linked article?

I didn't find any links when I googled Abrams tank K&N, do you have a link that discusses this contract with K&N? Is this secret information that K&N can't disclose?

This article doesn't mention K&N either? Donaldson is mentioned, I use their filters in the brewing industry.


This link works if you click on it and then scroll down and hit the pdf button.

https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/GT/proceedings/GT1988/79191/Amsterdam, The Netherlands/236886

More on Donaldson.

https://www.donaldsonaerospace-defe...F112255-Military-Ground-Vehicle-Equipment.pdf


Anyone finding sand that passed through a stock filter had it installed improperly.

 

Donaldson is commonly used in commercial aerospace as well. I wouldn't be surprised if they had many products in the defense industry too.

 

I have had several K&N's for several different vehicles. I have since changed them all out for other options.

My reason for switching was finding many gaps (visible to the naked eye) in the filter media while inspecting the filters closely. It didn't look like a QA issue, but a design issue. In my opinion, the filter media isn't dense or homogeneous enough to filter as effectively as other filter media, like the stock filter. I think they mitigate that somewhat with the use of the oil to fill gaps (and physically "catch" particles), but the oil can only do this effectively up to a certain gap size.

I've seen the damage that abrasives can do to moving components, even in well lubricated systems. For me, it's an easy choice between negligible gains, but having a washable filter vs. long term reliability.

 

Here's my 95 cents worth

Any performance filter lets more air pass this helps improve MPG and may increase HP (HP increase question a different topic). When you increase air flow filtration can be effected. None of these filters claim more filtration only performance increase. I believe under normal driving these filters are not harmful if maintained correctly. But when we increase our driving under abnormal or extreme conditions (like desert, gravel roads, off road 4X4 trips) we should rethink the importance of filtration.

I ran K&N in my 2012 (it did improve my MPG) and drive under normal conditions. If that changed to abnormal I'd look closer at filtration and increase how often I'd clean that filter.

 

My 2006 has had a K&N drop in since 33K, now at just under 200K. Cleaned and oiled every other oil change (5K)

No muss, no fuss.

 

FWIW - My company supplied Mil-Spec lighting to the the military and we were prohibited, by contract, from publishing or marketing our applications, or other details of our supplier relationship. Not finding a google reference is not a surprise. From time to time we would receive phone inquiries from technicians working on military equipment. All we would confirm is that we were the supplier. Period.

 

Since I posted that in '13, I have pulled the K&N filter and went back to using stock filters. I got tired of having to service the K&N. I still take a look at it and knock the big stuff out and replace as necessary.

 

That doesn't explain how the Donaldson flier I posted exists, they obviously can proudly list their products supplied to the military without secrecy.