Peter Pick-Up said:

This is not the case.
Independent tests show that a clean, new paper filter will breath better than any K&N or whatever so called "sport" filter.
Only after several thousand miles, they will be equal in capacity.
Another benefit of a paper filter,besides low costs, with every change, you can clean and inspect the inside of the airbox.
So if you want the most air for your car, use paperfilters, and maybe change them a bit more often.
Remember, K&N filters are designed for big V-8 engines with large carburetors, racing in dusty desserts...


http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/air-filtration-test/

Click to expand...

Do you have personal experience on a 1.4 GP? If so then I apologise ro your experience. However I have seen the difference on a RR dyno on engines from 1 litre minis to 3.5 Rovers. I haven't dyno'd my 1.2 GP but it does more MPG than before I sorted it as per my thoughts above and gets to 70 faster than my friend's 1.4 unless he's really as bad a driver as I've suggested!!

K&N versus same sized paper filter
[ame]http://youtu.be/mJW29eDZXzg[/ame]

Would love to know the sources of those independent tests that prove the opposite

AndyRKett said:

K&N versus same sized paper filter
http://youtu.be/mJW29eDZXzg

Would love to know the sources of those independent tests that prove the opposite

Click to expand...

Lovely, a test clearly sponsored by......K&N


I have used K&N replacement filters in several cars over the years, to often, fitting is poor, performance is no better in any way, and the oil residue even destroyed the heat wire in one of my fuel injected V-8 cars...
At this moment I only use K&N cone filters on my Ducati bevel twin with 40mm carbs...

AndyRKett said:

Would love to know the sources of those independent tests that prove the opposite

Click to expand...

Here you go:




http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html






Want more..??

Peter Pick-Up said:

Here you go:




http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html






Want more..??

Click to expand...

Yes because all that shows is that the K&N filter was less restrictive to air flow than any of the other filters (I assume you read the whole article) and the best filter, perceived to be the one that lets the least amount of dust through, was the quickest to clog and restricted airflow the most. Reading thought the K&N was by no means the worst in areas such as time taken to clog, and amount of dust passed when saturated.

There is also a bit at the beginning where the author makes a claim about "paper filters providing all the horsepower the engine needs" with no backup just opinion, and the author is clearly bias in his need to prove that the K&N is no better than a paper filter.
Finally the filters tested are huge filters from 6+litre Diesel engines, not exactly comparable to a little 1.4 litre petrol engine with a tiny narrow filter

All this test shows is the K&N filter let more air though and in doing so let a bit more dust through which is a known trade off it wasn't the worst, but by comparison the one they perceived to be the best took over twice as long to fully saturate with dust and passed less dust, The graph that mentions flow rates compared to level of saturation does not reflect all the data for a fair comparison between filters

Essentially the whole test is about dust and not airflow so the graphs detailing this are clipped to not show the full data range, only that the K&N passed more dust, the best filter was 99.93% efficient at preventing the passing of dust and the K&N was 96.8% efficient.

So yeah I would say more proof here is needed because all that shows is K&Ns aren't so good at trapping dust

If the K&N proves to be a better filter than a standard factory fitted paper filter then thats what Im after. It's in need of a new one and why not spend a bit of money and go for after market, with one that can be washed and reused as well. Hey if im lucky, might even had .5 bhp

It is not.
It's just an overpriced, different approach in filtering air.

Fitted it yesterday. Although I was not expecting much (not like ive fitted a turbo lol) but I can say there is a crisper throttle response and it gives the engine that little bit more "oomf". Personally I think for £30 its money well spent, reusable... recommended washing every 50k miles. **** easy to fit and hassle free.

Peter Pick-Up said:

It is not.
It's just an overpriced, different approach in filtering air.

Click to expand...

If thats so then why do Fiat fit BMC filters as part of the Abarth esseesse upgrade?

If theres no point do you not think that would have been discovered by a major car maker with much bigger R & D budgets than some bloke on the internet who is clearly biased?

At the end of the day it's a 1.4 8v. Any air filter under the sun isn't going to make a blind bit of difference. You'd be better off with one of the cheap ass eBay "chips" and one of those PC fans in a tube.. instantz turb0z init bruv?

middo85 said:

If thats so then why do Fiat fit BMC filters as part of the Abarth esseesse upgrade?

If theres no point do you not think that would have been discovered by a major car maker with much bigger R & D budgets than some bloke on the internet who is clearly biased?

Click to expand...

There's a difference putting one on a fairly highly tuned 1.4 Turbo engine and a 1.4 8v which is designed ONLY with fuel economy and emissions in mind . you'd be better off saving the money and getting the engine Terracleaned!

ChrisUK said:

There's a difference putting one on a fairly highly tuned 1.4 Turbo engine and a 1.4 8v which is designed ONLY with fuel economy and emissions in mind . you'd be better off saving the money and getting the engine Terracleaned!

Click to expand...

My post was in response to the claims that they are no better than standard paper filters.

Completely agree about putting one in an 1.4 8v.