I have Ford factory warranty replacement docs verifying the NEW K&N filter damaged the MAF on my at the time NEW 1997 Cougar Sport....twice in less than 60 days....on the 3rd replacement ford requested the K&N filter be removed......I still own the car and the MAF has yet to be replaced 15 years later.

K&N denied the warranty claim or refund- even though it was purchased directly from them- very unthical group IMHO....and this is coming from aguy who has used their products for at least 10 years prior. The 5.4 V8 for example if close to stock can only suck in a maximum of 480 cfm and a flat panel filter will flow 500 cfm, there is simply no way any CAI on a relatively stock engine can increase the air flow enough to increase any TQ/HP...the engine will only suck in soo much air- the laws of physics applies here. If you look at the dyno charts from many of these supposed HP/TQ increases, they are typically around 5%-7% at peak rpm ranges…….guess what, 5% is a standard deviation even amoungst mfg dynos

Testand Corporation conducted an ISO standards test on automotive air filters which can be viewed at this link: http://www.dieselbombers.com/chevrol...r-testing.html. All I can say is this explains in detail the reason for

(Arlen) SPICER wrote,

“Now that I am not doing the tests and my objectivity is not necessary, let me explain my motivation. The reason I started this crusade was that I was seeing people spend a lot of money on aftermarket filters based on the word of a salesperson or based on the misleading, incomplete or outright deceiving information printed on boxes and in sales literature. Gentlemen and Ladies, Marketing and the lure of profit is VERY POWERFUL! It is amazing how many people believe that better airflow = more power! Unless you have modifications out the wazoo, a more porous filter will just dirty your oil!

The warnings about oiled filters are not specific to K&N but all oiled filters....as can be seen on flatratetech.com - MSE warranty denial training vids.

What many view as an issue (is the plastic intake tube with its noise canceling design) actually increases air pressure. It is the same hydraulic concept used by fire fighters creating water supply where psi is low. By having the air cross the path at a 90 degree angle, the pressure is increased proportionally. Fire fighters use what is called a “4-way valve” or “Blake Valve” at the hydrant where the water is cycled through the fire engine (pump) and sent back into the valve crossing the water flow at a 90 degree angle. In this case it also acts as a sound canceling device! At low speeds, this can reduce the flow a tad (which is what most “feel”), but in terms of peak hp/tq, its doing what a CAI (conventional) cannot.

 

AEM design from ebay with a dry flow filter.

 

i understand what you're saying no doubt. my truck def isn't a hp/tq monster after these mods but i do feel like my 5.4l woke up a bit and runs well with the intake/headers/exhaust, and it definitely feels to have some noticeable power increases at different points in the RPM range. and the exhaust is even louder now too

 

Post them up. That would be a 1st.
- BTW why did Ford process a warranty claim twice for damaged caused by non Ford parts ? This is against the terms & conditions of the Ford warranty, and would set presidence for future claims....

Don't know what documentation you provided to them, so it is hard to say that K&N is unethical. Once you post it up, it will be easier to say.

Correct, the laws of physics do apply. The part that is in question are the specs you are providing as fact.
1st the data would be presented in lb/min not CFM.
- I get a chuckle out of every post I read with "facts" that cannot even get the PID values with the correct unit of measurement on them. If you are talking in CFM, you either just took another person's word for it, or you are starting out converting & massaging data.

A Gotts intake max MAFS rate I could get was 32.262 lb/min @ 76.5* TPA. This is real close to stock form ( gotts mod maxed out at + 6% lb/min over stock, and it was not linear ).

I still need 2 more sets of data logging on the S&B intake, as the numbers are far from the Gotts and I want to make sure of what I am seeing ( I double check facts before presenting them ).

I am sick of seeing 8 year old testing on a Chevy diesel air filer.

The extrapolation of a Chevy diesel engine to a F150 NA gas V-8 is a stretch.
I guess I should extrapolate what is seen on a Honda V-6 in a Ridgeline to a Ford then ??

If you pressured the intake on your 5.4L motor, you would get a CEL. There is nothing "air Ram" about removing the snorkel off the factory intake .

 

1. All documents were posted in 2000 and are available on OASIS

2. I in person presented K&N with my receipt & filter at their offices (SoCal) and at a motorsports event where they advised me by phone they would be and would be available to provide warranty assistance......I presented the following Ford docs....Service Request- Customer Complaint (for bad idle, etc), and the repair docs stating "Oil Contamination" as cause (times 2)- also printed in the docs was "recommend customer remove K&N filter"....also stated was repaired under warranty. All documentation was presented to K&N staff- mind you this was within 60 days of purchase on a new vehicle.......denied.

3. Basic math formula for calculating CFM 330 cid times max rpm divided by 3456 divided by VE (as shown in every carb mfg website= max CFM for the 5.4 is 480, CFM forfplat panel filter is published as well.....rated at 500 cfm

4. Unless K&N came out with a new design (which they haven't per US patient office), the date of the test is not at issue, their false claims are.

4. Whether it is on a chev, honda, etc, flow rate is flow rate, the filter doesn't care what engine it is on & K&N like others does not use different filter media for each mfg. If the test data was untrue, the site would have been shut down.

5. If I had a tube running through the grill, you are right, the ram air effect would be enhanced, but if you measure/track air flow where my intake tube is, it is substantially above normal ambient pressure....I don't recall the #'s off the top of my head..........built this in 2008

6. BTW, with regards to my experience with K&N.....I have consistantly made the same statement about my documented experience online including with K&N staff & their vendors for 10+ years......I have yet to be submitted with any notice of false claim and have stated & provided docs 9including my VIN # to specific K&N reps so they themselves could verify the OASIS docs.

End of you PR campaign for K&N.....................

 

You are correct, the correct unit for air flow is CFM (flow rate by volume), lb/min is used for flow rate by MASS.

Here are some measurements made from a bench flow meter setup:




SSCULLY got lb/min from a scanner, which is the unit a scanner converts from the MAF sensor measurement.

1lb/min = 14.472 CFM

 

Post them here, not on a system members might or might not have access to. You are the one that posted you have them.

Looks like someone does not know how to oil the filter. Member on here uses them on his fleet without this issue.

So you have not actual tests, only theory..... Another one that thinks they know better than a tuner that does it for a living.

The test itself ( Chevy ) is. Talking about a Ford here.

It is not a campaign for K&N, it is a campaign for FACTS ( actual facts, not opinions presented as a fact ).

 

The information is stored as lb/min.
- Might want to read a service manual ( think this has come up before... )

 

What else would you expect from a MAF sensor? You would get CFM from a VAF sensor.

 

I expected that unit of measurement.
I did not say autotap was converting it....

I am using actual data from the truck, not another thread on a forum as fact...

 

I painted my engine cover while it was off so I'll have to get a pic up once I get a chance. And I'll make a couple vids with the intake