Hi Dave,
I thought you were a troll, thanks for confirming it.
The paper filter has many times the area for filtration, just no
giant holes like the K&N.
Would you like to show me where K&N states they conform to Society
of Automotive Engineers, quality? If you look they don't even warranty
their own product if you take it off-road:
http://knfilter.com/warrantyletter.htm
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Dave Dixon wrote:
>
> They work because the are less restrictive through the throttle transition. The
> larger surface area of the filter allows airflow on demand building the cylinder
> pressures through this transistion. The engine will only flow as much air as it
> needs, no more.
>
> Have you ever seen a the hood scoop on a pro-stock drag car? Large, LARGE with a
> nominal opening. The purpose isn't to ram the air into the engine but to have
> more air available than the engine needs throughout the RPM range.
>
> Add to the mix that the air intake charge is cooler than the underhood temp for
> a more dense air flow.
>
> As for the filtering efficiencies of the filter media the K&N meets exceeds SAE
> testing standards. If you feel that you need better filtration you might try and
> AFE (ProGaurd 7), AIRAID, or AEM filter, all of which feature synthetic media
> that will filter consistently to 2 microns (as opposed to 6 or 7 for a gauze
> only filter).
>
> As for the sound... If you plan on running an aftermarket exhaust system you
> will never hear the intake. If you don't it is the sound of Horsepower.
>
> Happy Holidays All!

 

All the K&N style intakes I have seen include metal (heat conductive) piping
and the air intake is located on a top side wall of the engine compartment
usually quite near an (really hot) exhaust manifold.

What is the purpose of he metal baffle that surrounds the filter element
other than to radiate heat into the incoming air?

My stock air box and tubing is manufactured of a plastic compound that
always remains a touchable temperature and there is a "ram air" snorkel that
takes the intake air from the OUTSIDE of the engine compartment.

What ever happened to the foam "pre-filters" that you used to be able to get
back-in-the-day when all air filters were round?

>
> Add to the mix that the air intake charge is cooler than the underhood
> temp for
> a more dense air flow.
>
>

 

All the K&N style intakes I have seen include metal (heat conductive) piping
and the air intake is located on a top side wall of the engine compartment
usually quite near an (really hot) exhaust manifold.

What is the purpose of he metal baffle that surrounds the filter element
other than to radiate heat into the incoming air?

My stock air box and tubing is manufactured of a plastic compound that
always remains a touchable temperature and there is a "ram air" snorkel that
takes the intake air from the OUTSIDE of the engine compartment.

What ever happened to the foam "pre-filters" that you used to be able to get
back-in-the-day when all air filters were round?

>
> Add to the mix that the air intake charge is cooler than the underhood
> temp for
> a more dense air flow.
>
>

 

All the K&N style intakes I have seen include metal (heat conductive) piping
and the air intake is located on a top side wall of the engine compartment
usually quite near an (really hot) exhaust manifold.

What is the purpose of he metal baffle that surrounds the filter element
other than to radiate heat into the incoming air?

My stock air box and tubing is manufactured of a plastic compound that
always remains a touchable temperature and there is a "ram air" snorkel that
takes the intake air from the OUTSIDE of the engine compartment.

What ever happened to the foam "pre-filters" that you used to be able to get
back-in-the-day when all air filters were round?

>
> Add to the mix that the air intake charge is cooler than the underhood
> temp for
> a more dense air flow.
>
>

 

But it is also not what I was talking about. Dave was trying to argue,
based on theoretical principles, that the K&N would not increase his fuel
economy. Your engine isn't going to last forever, either. I already have
gotten a lot of miles out of my engine. I imagine I will be trading it in,
or rebuilding it for other reasons, long before the alleged dust in the
intake tube ever becomes an issue.

Earle

"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:T7OdnbNFucc43QLeRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> I had a K&N stock-sized replacement filter for a few thousand miles,
oiled,
> etc.. Tossed it when I noticed a thin film of dust on the inside of the
> intake tube between the filter box and throttle body. What wasn't sticking
> to the tube was getting into the engine. Replaced with an OEM filter and
> voila, no dust on the intake tube inside surface. That's not theoretical,
> that's real-world.
>
> "Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:439f1a95$0$15348$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> >I measure a consistent 25 mpg with my four cylinder Wrangler, after
having
> > installed a K&N and a cat back from Borla. I don't drive it like a
little
> > old lady either. As anyone who owns a Wrangler can tell you, this is
> > pretty
> > good mileage, even for the four cylinder model. I think what you're
maybe
> > overlooking is that the stock intake and exhaust restriction is not
within
> > reason. Why that would be, I don't know, but lots of these types of
> > add-ons
> > are sold every year, and not everyone who buys them is an idiot.
> >
> > The problem with a theoretical analysis, which you seem to be
attempting,
> > is
> > you don't have all the numbers, nor do you know all the factors which
are
> > likely to be important.
> >
> > I think that the best intake upgrade, would be a paper filter with
simply
> > more surface area, to satisfy the people who are whining about
> > contamination
> > of the engine. Unfortunately, it would take up too much space, and I
> > couldn't find one, so I used a K&N instead. If you don't want to
install
> > one, that is fine, but it is a waste of time trying to come up with
> > theories, that it is of no benefit at all.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Dave in Colorado" <DontSpam@me.in> wrote in message
> > news:2asnf.78$935.1225@news.uswest.net...
> >> >There are likely to be economy gains with this device too.
> >>
> >> The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced there would be any
> > economy
> >> gains. Can someone come up with a theory why this might be true?
> >>
> >> It seems to me that the Fuel/Air mixture is determined by the sensors
and
> >> the computer, regardless of how much or little restriction (within
> > reason?)
> >> is on the intake or how much Oxygen is in the air, and is one of the
> > reasons
> >> why EFI is fantastic in Colorado, where you can be driving at 4000 or
> > 12,000
> >> feet within a few hours--the sensors tell the computer what's going on,
> > and
> >> it makes the adjustments X number of times per second.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

 

But it is also not what I was talking about. Dave was trying to argue,
based on theoretical principles, that the K&N would not increase his fuel
economy. Your engine isn't going to last forever, either. I already have
gotten a lot of miles out of my engine. I imagine I will be trading it in,
or rebuilding it for other reasons, long before the alleged dust in the
intake tube ever becomes an issue.

Earle

"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:T7OdnbNFucc43QLeRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> I had a K&N stock-sized replacement filter for a few thousand miles,
oiled,
> etc.. Tossed it when I noticed a thin film of dust on the inside of the
> intake tube between the filter box and throttle body. What wasn't sticking
> to the tube was getting into the engine. Replaced with an OEM filter and
> voila, no dust on the intake tube inside surface. That's not theoretical,
> that's real-world.
>
> "Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:439f1a95$0$15348$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> >I measure a consistent 25 mpg with my four cylinder Wrangler, after
having
> > installed a K&N and a cat back from Borla. I don't drive it like a
little
> > old lady either. As anyone who owns a Wrangler can tell you, this is
> > pretty
> > good mileage, even for the four cylinder model. I think what you're
maybe
> > overlooking is that the stock intake and exhaust restriction is not
within
> > reason. Why that would be, I don't know, but lots of these types of
> > add-ons
> > are sold every year, and not everyone who buys them is an idiot.
> >
> > The problem with a theoretical analysis, which you seem to be
attempting,
> > is
> > you don't have all the numbers, nor do you know all the factors which
are
> > likely to be important.
> >
> > I think that the best intake upgrade, would be a paper filter with
simply
> > more surface area, to satisfy the people who are whining about
> > contamination
> > of the engine. Unfortunately, it would take up too much space, and I
> > couldn't find one, so I used a K&N instead. If you don't want to
install
> > one, that is fine, but it is a waste of time trying to come up with
> > theories, that it is of no benefit at all.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Dave in Colorado" <DontSpam@me.in> wrote in message
> > news:2asnf.78$935.1225@news.uswest.net...
> >> >There are likely to be economy gains with this device too.
> >>
> >> The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced there would be any
> > economy
> >> gains. Can someone come up with a theory why this might be true?
> >>
> >> It seems to me that the Fuel/Air mixture is determined by the sensors
and
> >> the computer, regardless of how much or little restriction (within
> > reason?)
> >> is on the intake or how much Oxygen is in the air, and is one of the
> > reasons
> >> why EFI is fantastic in Colorado, where you can be driving at 4000 or
> > 12,000
> >> feet within a few hours--the sensors tell the computer what's going on,
> > and
> >> it makes the adjustments X number of times per second.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

 

But it is also not what I was talking about. Dave was trying to argue,
based on theoretical principles, that the K&N would not increase his fuel
economy. Your engine isn't going to last forever, either. I already have
gotten a lot of miles out of my engine. I imagine I will be trading it in,
or rebuilding it for other reasons, long before the alleged dust in the
intake tube ever becomes an issue.

Earle

"Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message
news:T7OdnbNFucc43QLeRVn-iw@comcast.com...
> I had a K&N stock-sized replacement filter for a few thousand miles,
oiled,
> etc.. Tossed it when I noticed a thin film of dust on the inside of the
> intake tube between the filter box and throttle body. What wasn't sticking
> to the tube was getting into the engine. Replaced with an OEM filter and
> voila, no dust on the intake tube inside surface. That's not theoretical,
> that's real-world.
>
> "Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:439f1a95$0$15348$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> >I measure a consistent 25 mpg with my four cylinder Wrangler, after
having
> > installed a K&N and a cat back from Borla. I don't drive it like a
little
> > old lady either. As anyone who owns a Wrangler can tell you, this is
> > pretty
> > good mileage, even for the four cylinder model. I think what you're
maybe
> > overlooking is that the stock intake and exhaust restriction is not
within
> > reason. Why that would be, I don't know, but lots of these types of
> > add-ons
> > are sold every year, and not everyone who buys them is an idiot.
> >
> > The problem with a theoretical analysis, which you seem to be
attempting,
> > is
> > you don't have all the numbers, nor do you know all the factors which
are
> > likely to be important.
> >
> > I think that the best intake upgrade, would be a paper filter with
simply
> > more surface area, to satisfy the people who are whining about
> > contamination
> > of the engine. Unfortunately, it would take up too much space, and I
> > couldn't find one, so I used a K&N instead. If you don't want to
install
> > one, that is fine, but it is a waste of time trying to come up with
> > theories, that it is of no benefit at all.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Dave in Colorado" <DontSpam@me.in> wrote in message
> > news:2asnf.78$935.1225@news.uswest.net...
> >> >There are likely to be economy gains with this device too.
> >>
> >> The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced there would be any
> > economy
> >> gains. Can someone come up with a theory why this might be true?
> >>
> >> It seems to me that the Fuel/Air mixture is determined by the sensors
and
> >> the computer, regardless of how much or little restriction (within
> > reason?)
> >> is on the intake or how much Oxygen is in the air, and is one of the
> > reasons
> >> why EFI is fantastic in Colorado, where you can be driving at 4000 or
> > 12,000
> >> feet within a few hours--the sensors tell the computer what's going on,
> > and
> >> it makes the adjustments X number of times per second.
> >>
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>