Tuning 500 TA 0.9 air filter

Currently reading:
Tuning 500 TA 0.9 air filter

A clean paperfilter allows more air into an engine than any oiled so called "sports" filter.
An oiled, cotton filter, like K&N is a good sollution when driving under extreme dust conditions, all the rest is nonsense.
Do you have up-to-date figures for this?

In my car tuning days in the 80s and 90s - carburetta - the filter to use for performance was K&N. Recommended by all in sundry. Car and Conversions did a piece on them extolling their virtues for air-flow.

Your comment surprises me. Not saying it's wrong, but it goes against anything I read back then.

Regards,
Mick.
 
Do you have up-to-date figures for this?

In my car tuning days in the 80s and 90s - carburetta - the filter to use for performance was K&N. Recommended by all in sundry. Car and Conversions did a piece on them extolling their virtues for air-flow.

Your comment surprises me. Not saying it's wrong, but it goes against anything I read back then.

Regards,
Mick.

The only time airflow matters is when you're running with the throttle wide open.

The rest of the time, the air filter has no effect whatsoever on performance.
 
The only time airflow matters is when you're running with the throttle wide open.
The rest of the time, the air filter has no effect whatsoever on performance.
Yes, of course. So much is obvious.

It's the available power that matters. K&N filters have better air-flow.

............. at least that is what I have been told. It seems that Peter Pick-Up disagrees with my info (not that I have any figures).

Cheers,
Mick.
 
It seems that Peter Pick-Up disagrees with my info (not that I have any figures).

You could probably find an article somewhere on the internet to support either argument, but this one at least appears to have some testing behind it, and would seem to support Peter's argument.

To cut to the chase, I'll quote this from that piece of lab testing:

Compared to the AC, the K&N “plugged up” nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt

Personally I'd be much more concerned about the filter's ability to stop dirt entering the engine, and on that measure, the K&N panel filters appear to lose hands-down over a decent quality paper filter such as one made by MANN.

Another consideration for TA owners is that there have been a number of multiair failures reported here; and (regardless of whether it actually had anything to do with it or not), Fiat would likely refuse to replace one under warranty if there were any signs of tampering with the OEM air filter installation.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to chuck my own hat in the ring here, I've been using K&N replacement air filters since 2007 without any ill effects whatsoever. Ok, this is only my own experience, but only two weeks ago, I took the one I have in my Saab 9-3 out, washed it and re-oiled it using the correct K&N recharge kit and there's no issues.

It's like anything, there's so much out there for and against. I didn't ever use one in our previous TA or the POP, because both cars were in warranty and indeed, I won't put one in our i10 because that has a five year warranty and it's on a service plan.

As for using one on the TA, well I would feel somewhat cautious because of the engine technology. On our previous POP, for the standard 1.2 engine, I'd have used one, no problem. On something like the standard common rail Fiat diesel engine fitted in my Saab, not really an issue, nor was it an issue when I had one fitted in my Chrysler a few years back. Indeed, I actually still have that K&N cone filter for my old Chrysler, still in excellent condition in its original box, sat in the garage, must sell!

Personally, if you want to use one, go ahead as long as you understand what if any benefits using one might give. As I've highlighted before, I wouldn't use one in a car still in warranty, but that is me.
 
K&N and it's rivals are designed for big, caburated V-8 engines, racing in USA desserts, to keep sand out of those 4 barrel cabs....
They are a complete waste of money in small, European, fuel injected engines.

I use them because I service my own car and it saves me £12 a time replacing the paper filters, not because I've ever believed using one will give me more bhp. You're focusing on claims of extra 'power' and as we all know and which you've already stated, for that particular purpose, are most likely a complete waste of money.
 
K&N and it's rivals are designed for big, caburated V-8 engines, racing in USA desserts, to keep sand out of those 4 barrel cabs....
They are a complete waste of money in small, European, fuel injected engines.

Except all the tests show poor filtration. Here's another one:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest2.htm

I don't use one in my Jeep precisely because I don't trust their filtering.

They aren't a waste of money as people like frupi are doing it apparently to save money.

I think people living in the damp UK don't have a lot to worry about as far as dust filtration (when you stop the dust overtakes you and gets into the filter - this shot was taken in winter, hence the relatively low dust trail):
 

Attachments

  • DSCF0010_4.JPG
    DSCF0010_4.JPG
    359.4 KB · Views: 31
Last edited:
In some cases, the oil mist coming from a K&N, ruined the delicate heat wires, used in maf sensors.
I found the fitment and sealing of K&N replacement panelfilters to be very poor in some of my cars, so I use quality paper filters instead for peace of mind, although I use K&N cone filters on my Ducati Bevel Twin, with 42mm carburetors.....
 
I've never used K+N, or any washable filter in a car,

but do realise that washing them will save money ( if not time)

as in my 30 'odd years with 2-stroke dirtbikes,washable foam filters were the norm,

in sand tracks you would fit a "skin" over the filter - like a stocking - to keep the sand out, and to prevent it coating the oiled exterior of the filter and reducing flow.

pro's and cons to both,
my old preference was for foam, as once "drowned-out" fording rivers @ 3 feet deep, you can physically wring out the water..so the filter can pass air again,

Charlie
 
I use them because I service my own car and it saves me £12 a time replacing the paper filters.

I'm all in favour of saving money, but fitting something which passes 18 times more dirt into the engine to save £12 a service ... :confused:.

As I see it, there are two downsides to oiled panel filters, both of which are deal breakers for me:

- they don't work nearly as well at filtering (when compared to the best modern paper elements)

- oil mist coming off the panel could cause permanent sensor damage.

Performance doesn't even come into the equation.

And those test results I posted earlier would suggest that all paper filters are not created equal - this is one of those parts where I'd want to pay a little extra for a premium brand. Here in EU-land, MANN filters generally come out well in comparative testing, and are competitively priced.

What I don't get, however, is why just about every service part for the TA costs at least twice that of the equivalent part for the 1.2 :confused: :eek::mad:.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I'm a little bit annoyed at this knocking K&N filters resusable filters and I don't even work or have any association with the company! Just because one forum member comes along and effectively rubbishes them, doesn't mean to say the filters aren't effective at what they do.

At the end of the day, it's a personal choice whether or not to use them. I've read some absolute rubbish about what might happen to the MAF sensor using a K&N filter and from my experience, it's absolute rubbish. I've inspected the MAF sensor in my Saab on several occasions, and it is just fine. If there have been any issues with MAF sensor failures allegedly caused by the use of a K&N filter, then I suspect it would undoubtedly be down to someone 'over oiling' the filter after servicing it. There are crystal clear instructions on how to clean and service a K&N filter and if one follows those instructions, I've found there aren't any problems.

I've never had an issue using them and I'll continue to use them. It's a personal option that I choose to exercise. If my personal option doesn't fit in with other folks thoughts/actions, then so be it. I don't want to fall out with anyone over it. I've done enough research myself to convince me that they're fine to use plus 9 years experience of actually using them in an everyday vehicle.

Nuff said from me! (y)
 
I've read some absolute rubbish about what might happen to the MAF sensor using a K&N filter and from my experience, it's absolute rubbish.
I don't know if that's rubbish or not, but the TA doesn't have a MAF sensor. What's not there, can't break!
 
  • Like
Reactions: UFI
Back
Top