SoCalDesertRider wrote: I used to run K&N filters on my 3-wheelers and dirt bikes... I was very religious about properly cleaning and re-oiling the filters and doing it very often, ...
I will NEVER EVER run a K&N filter on ANYTHING ever again, especially on a vehicle used off road or in a dusty environment. They flow plenty of air, but they really suck at filtering the air they flow .
There are better filters out there than K&N that still flow plenty of air.
I had a similar experience with K&N filters on my Land Cruiser. About once a year I clean out my intake, and I was shocked at how much buildup was there after running a K&N for several thousand miles.
Like SoCal, I switched back to paper IMMEDIATELY and stay with paper religiously these days.
Same here on a 2003 Honda VT1100 cruiser. I put the K&N on at about 3K miles. I noticed some grime in the airbox when cleaning the filter but didn't think much of it. I had to have both carbs rebuit at 22K miles. The mechanic told me of other similar stories. Went back to paper and after another 40K miles (64K total) I have had no problems and the airbox stays clean. I wouldn't buy another one.
2112, did you notice any decrease in performance of the engine after going back to stock paper filters?
That was part of my whole point about the K&N's. Most folks put them on because they want to increase the performance. However, I can honestly say, that I did not notice one iota of performance difference between running my bikes with K&N's, versus running them with similar-to-stock UNI filters. And this is on bikes that spend most of their time at wide open throttle at high rpm, which is a condition that a better flowing air filter should help performance the most. The K&N didn't help performance at all.
I really don't see where a K&N would do anything for the performance of a car or truck driven on the street, since common street driven vehicles spend hardly any time at wide open throttle at high rpm. A stock paper ail filter flows plenty of air for a stock motor used in a street driven vehicle, in my opinion.
The amount of air coming into the engine isn't the problem with towing at high altitudes. The problem is that there is less oxygen in that air. I don't think the computers in these things can detect the lack of oxygen to adjust the air intake.
Having said that... Living in Washington State I can go from sea level to 5000 Ft in the course of a couple of hours and never have noticed this proposed (x)% loss in power per 1000 feet that was mentioned earlier. And I tow a pretty big trailer with a gas motor.
Jeff
2002 GMC Sierra 2500HD 8.1/Allison/4:10/Prodigy brake controler/Dual Cam HP
I didn't notice any increase going to the K&N. I put it on because I wanted to squeeze out every hp I could but didn't notice any difference. I didn't notice any mileage difference either but the bike was new.
I did notice a gradual loss in performance starting at about 18K miles. It finally got to the point to where it ran hot, idled very rough and lost her pep. I was thinking timing or I needed sinc-ed. I took it to the shop and they said my carbs we all fouled up. I took a look and sure enough, major contamination.
I went back to stock right after the rebuild so at that point, yea, I noticed a big difference, it ran again.
Fabguy wrote: The amount of air coming into the engine isn't the problem with towing at high altitudes. The problem is that there is less oxygen in that air. I don't think the computers in these things can detect the lack of oxygen to adjust the air intake.
Having said that... Living in Washington State I can go from sea level to 5000 Ft in the course of a couple of hours and never have noticed this proposed (x)% loss in power per 1000 feet that was mentioned earlier. And I tow a pretty big trailer with a gas motor.
Physics fail and perception fail.
Oxygen makes up the same 22% of the atmosphere at 6000 feet as it does at sea level. The air is less dense at higher elevation, so there's less nitrogen as well as less oxygen, but the nitrogen is still 78% whether at sea level or at 6000 feet.
As for noticing the difference, your perception really lacks. I had no problem noticing the difference in my stock-5.0 Mustang, but I wasn't towing anything.
Go fit your ride with an in-vehicle accelerometer, such as a G-Tech Pro, then do a full-throttle acceleration run at elevation, then repeat at sea level at the same ambient temperature. You'll run a quicker time at sea level.
Stop posting such blatantly wrong posts, noone appreciates being misled.
'06 GMC C2500HD RCLB gasser 4.10:1, 4L80E, custom camshaft
'84 Trans Am 6.2 diesel, 700R-4, custom Class-3 receiver
'69 F350 dually. GM 6.2 diesel, turbo, 700R-4, NP208 all pending.
dfranky wrote: I got news for you though, a Fram air filter is what came out of my 2012 cummins, with a Fleetgaurd oil filter.
I'm still not sure if I would use purolater, Fleetgaurd yes, however they are still disposable ( and $40 each), so that won't work for me. If you noticed no damage in your engines good for you, however I guess ignorance is bliss..
If you say so chief. Even if your Cummins Ram came with a Fram air filter in it, which it didn't, what would be wrong with that? they do their job as well as any. My filter minders didn't differ by brand of filter. And now that you've gone on to personal attacks, exactly what damage was done to my Cummins Rams that my ignorance has allowed to go unnoticed?
If there was an advantage to owning a diesel today for my work truck and tow vehicle, I would own one still.
The topic is about air intake on a gas engine. Your blather is what's taking away from the thread. Go away.
And, I responded to the OP showing different options in washable Air filters. I didn't start the "purolater" dispute you did. I would be happy to forward pictures of my "Fram" factory installed filter if you would like. BTW Dodge does not use a filter Minder in their Cummins equipped vehicles. At least not in my 2012. They had a reputation for not being accurate.....
So far the only thing you have added to this thread is your ability to change my name/title... speaking of personal attacks....
I'm not goin anywhere, I was here first (replying to this thread).
Fabguy wrote: The amount of air coming into the engine isn't the problem with towing at high altitudes. The problem is that there is less oxygen in that air. I don't think the computers in these things can detect the lack of oxygen to adjust the air intake.
Having said that... Living in Washington State I can go from sea level to 5000 Ft in the course of a couple of hours and never have noticed this proposed (x)% loss in power per 1000 feet that was mentioned earlier. And I tow a pretty big trailer with a gas motor.
Physics fail and perception fail.
Oxygen makes up the same 22% of the atmosphere at 6000 feet as it does at sea level. The air is less dense at higher elevation, so there's less nitrogen as well as less oxygen, but the nitrogen is still 78% whether at sea level or at 6000 feet.
As for noticing the difference, your perception really lacks. I had no problem noticing the difference in my stock-5.0 Mustang, but I wasn't towing anything.
Go fit your ride with an in-vehicle accelerometer, such as a G-Tech Pro, then do a full-throttle acceleration run at elevation, then repeat at sea level at the same ambient temperature. You'll run a quicker time at sea level.
Stop posting such blatantly wrong posts, noone appreciates being misled.
Meh... Whatever dude....
All I can say for sure is that I have been pulling the SAME 8000 lb trailer... With the SAME gas powered truck for over 10 years now... In elevations ranging from sea level to 6000 feet and I have NEVER noticed a loss in performance....
I can pull the "coastal range" 6% grades that are 1000 feet at the top... Or in can pull the "inland range" passes up to 5000 feet and notice ZERO difference in speed or acceleration...
BTW.... This forum, and the internet in general is LOADED with mis information....
All I can say for sure is that I have been pulling the SAME 8000 lb trailer... With the SAME gas powered truck for over 10 years now... In elevations ranging from sea level to 6000 feet and I have NEVER noticed a loss in performance....
I can pull the "coastal range" 6% grades that are 1000 feet at the top... Or in can pull the "inland range" passes up to 5000 feet and notice ZERO difference in speed or acceleration...
BTW.... This forum, and the internet in general is LOADED with mis information....
All I can say for sure is that I have been pulling the SAME 8000 lb trailer... With the SAME gas powered truck for over 10 years now... In elevations ranging from sea level to 6000 feet and I have NEVER noticed a loss in performance....
I can pull the "coastal range" 6% grades that are 1000 feet at the top... Or in can pull the "inland range" passes up to 5000 feet and notice ZERO difference in speed or acceleration...
BTW.... This forum, and the internet in general is LOADED with mis information....
I could also bring up some drag racing info about loss of power but I don't want to bore you.
Yeah I have fast hard data from drag racing the Trans Am at different altitudes. It is very obvious when running the 1/4 mile. I think when towing going up a grade it more gradual so you may not feel the difference all at once but it is there.
Mike
2002 Silverado 2500 HD 6.0 Crew Cab long bed
2012 Passport 3220 BHWE
Me, the Wife, two little ones and two dogs.
. 
Offline
Online
