: K&N Bad Design ??



syrob@MSN.COM
03-04-07, 09:32 PM
Look at the surface area of stock and K&N. They took the easy way out and do not use all of the area, too much rubbber frame on K&N design, easier to make square instead of angled design... Could have had a BIGGER area.. Can't anyone get things right any more??

Ugh!

SYROB

jrose7004
03-05-07, 12:06 AM
Looks a little bit suspect doesn't it?

john d
03-05-07, 12:32 AM
Looks as if Is the surface area of the K&N is really less than the OEM, is it?

RunningOnEMT
03-05-07, 12:34 AM
it probably comes down to an industrial engineering standpoint

there is less waste from that existing shape, you can stamp more of those trapezoidish shape out of a sheet of filter material than the whoozeewhatsit shape of the outside


also the existing filter element may flow enough air plus some to feed the engine

robhersch
03-05-07, 02:50 AM
Suggest refererring to SRX N*Air Intake thread and those discussions ~ 10/xx/05 - 11/xx/05 and some filter sizes used on N*V8 CAD engines. I also just updated measured mpg with my OEM system vs my Volant CAI system; note these are my averages for just hiway driving and for average driving, they are NOT WO throttle experiences or situations where peak performance is desired.
I believe the K&N CONE CAI System and the Volant CONE CAI System probably offer a key to superior performance, but a replacement filter in the OEM system offers only scant, almost imperceptable mpg differences.

Oso
03-08-07, 02:37 PM
I just put in a K&N stock filter replacement and after 350 plus miles the milage is already 1-2 MPG better, so is throttle response and the idle is smoother too. This is in '05 RWD V6 base model. I have put K&N stock replacement filters in every vehicle I've owned for the last 10 years except for a '89 Chevy K1500 with 350 I put on the filter charger along with headers, high output ignition, dual exhaust, computer chip and some other misc goodies. HP at the rear wheels was 337 HP and if I cruised at 65 burning premium I got 22 MPG. They are definitely worth the money.

syrob@MSN.COM
03-08-07, 03:35 PM
I just put in a K&N stock filter replacement and after 350 plus miles the milage is already 1-2 MPG better, so is throttle response and the idle is smoother too. This is in '05 RWD V6 base model. I have put K&N stock replacement filters in every vehicle I've owned for the last 10 years except for a '89 Chevy K1500 with 350 I put on the filter charger along with headers, high output ignition, dual exhaust, computer chip and some other misc goodies. HP at the rear wheels was 337 HP and if I cruised at 65 burning premium I got 22 MPG. They are definitely worth the money.

2 mpg? only if your OEM was very very dirty. There is no way you will get such a major improvement. If it was true all the OEM would be using filters of this type etc.

SYROB

TSS
03-09-07, 09:51 AM
If it was true all the OEM would be using filters of this type etc.

SYROB

Hey, I love and endorse K&N filters, but SYROB is right. The big savings is not having to buy filters year after year.

KMO
03-12-07, 01:15 PM
What I have seen is that the throttle response change usually equates to me changing my driving style slightly... with less drastic pedal changes. that may be why they get better MPG. I did see that as the case with my Sebring (went from < 30 MPG to = 30 MPG.

Oso
03-13-07, 09:50 AM
SYROB,
The 2 mpg is on the interstate with cruise, the 1 is around town. I only had 13K on the beast when I changed the filter and it didn't look that dirty. I drive most times with a light foot except for passing and on the twisties but daily driving I use cruise alot and am gentle with the throttle.

05N*SRX
03-17-07, 02:25 PM
I have the K&N lid on my N* and it is a nice piece!