Are you saying that K&Ns must filter smaller particles than paper
filters or they are no good? How did this become the issue? The standard
I use for products to replace my current ones are do the benefits from
switching outweigh the costs of switching. I have found this to be the
case with K&N filters on several vehicles over the last 25 years. Others
may decide differently. I first tried them back then at the
recommendation of a place that provided servicing for CHP and LAPD motor
fleets. They said that vehicles using K&Ns cost less over the long haul
in filters, fuel, and oil usage. I switched and the air flow was
unquestionably greater, necessitating a carb adjustment to restore the
proper fuel/air mixture. Modern fuel injection compensates for air flow
changes automatically so fuel use should not rise as much when the paper
filter gets dirty. I use a K&N in my 5 cylinder Syncro Camper as I was
going through a lot of paper filters on my Baja trips. I found that the
paper filter would clog readily and the increased vacuum would cause
leaks that bypassed the paper filter altogether. I wish fleet data was
available on the web to show long term engine wear experiences but even
this would not apply to each and every other vehicle and use.

Mark

Bill Davidson wrote:

>... BUT I'll be skeptical until I see results from an
> independent testing lab that shows K&N to filter out smaller particles than
> a paper filter. The fact that this kind of data is not available at the K&N
> web site makes me suspect that either the data is not available or it is
> available and the results were not supportive of K&N's claims.
>
> Bill