K&N air filter?

[DaleInTN]

I was wondering if anybody had a K&N air filter. I would like to get one if they make it but I don't know if they make one or not.

[navdoc101]

Yes Dale, it is K&N 33-2222. It will say "93 KIA Pride , but fits perfect. Thats what I use.

[rmoltis]

Same here.^^

My scanguage reported a %10 increase in engine loading by replacing the stock element.
A good increase in power and efficiency for little money.

[TorqueEffect]

Same here.^^

My scanguage reported a %10 increase in engine loading by replacing the stock element.
A good increase in power and efficiency for little money.

I assume that 10% increase over a standard one was done when the standard filter was new, or barely used.

[navdoc101]

Best thing about K&N is its the last filter you will ever buy for it.

[rmoltis]

I assume that 10% increase over a standard one was done when the standard filter was new, or barely used.

Yes I had a brand new filter to test along side the clean k&n filter.
I had been using the k&n.
And some parts I bought had a new filter sent with them.
So I figured I'd compare the 2 and see which was better.
The stock element would reach a peak of %75 engine loading at WOT
And with the k&n it Was at %85-86 WOT.

Assuming the k&n didn't really gain power rather it reduced the pressure drop across the element.

I only used the stock element once for a lengthy highway run.
Then placed it in storage ever since.

But I will say that I bought a cone filter later new
and it reduced engine loading the most.
It was in the %72-73 range.
Due to the air velocity being reduced by removing the hemholtz resonator.

[DaleInTN]

Have any of you noticed an MPG increase with the K&N installed?

I was getting around 40 MPG, but noticed that when I took the gas cap off, a lot of air was sucked into the tank. I just bought a lockable gas cap and took the "baffle" out so the tank can breathe. The con is I smell gas every now and then, but the pro is I'm getting 43 MPG now!

[TominMO]

Increased airflow will only occur at higher RPMs. No you will not see better fuel efficiency with a K&N. BTW you can get most or even all of the advantage of a K&N stock-size filter, or even a cone filter, by just opening up the airbox--i.e., drill a bunch of holes in the bottom piece, or just chuck it entirely. I've thrown mine away on my Aspire, and hold the stock air filter in place with a zip tie. You will then be flowing as much air as can get past the next restriction, the plastic intake air tube.

Another advantage of deleting the bottom airbox piece is easier access to the timing marks on the bottom timing belt cover.

I seriously doubt you are getting any MPG difference by what you described with the baffle. That has no relevance to what the motor is doing with the fuel.

[DaleInTN]

If that is why the MPG went up, I don't know. All I know is that is all I've done different and I'll take 3 more MPG!

[rmoltis]

Have any of you noticed an MPG increase with the K&N installed?

I was getting around 40 MPG, but noticed that when I took the gas cap off, a lot of air was sucked into the tank. I just bought a lockable gas cap and took the "baffle" out so the tank can breathe. The con is I smell gas every now and then, but the pro is I'm getting 43 MPG now!

Increased airflow will only occur at higher RPMs. No you will not see better fuel efficiency with a K&N. BTW you can get most or even all of the advantage of a K&N stock-size filter, or even a cone filter, by just opening up the airbox--i.e., drill a bunch of holes in the bottom piece, or just chuck it entirely. I've thrown mine away on my Aspire, and hold the stock air filter in place with a zip tie. You will then be flowing as much air as can get past the next restriction, the plastic intake air tube.

I agree with tom
I didn't notice any extra mpgs with any k&n filter.
But then again anytime you load the cylinders with more air.
You tend to lose mpgs for a lil power.

But
When I removed the hemholtz resonator and made a larger air opening in the intake box.

I actually lost the velocity of airflow to the cylinders which reduced the engine loading at wot from low rpms to high rpms.
Even in the 3000-5000 range.

I ended up buying a new stock airbox.
To get power and tq back.

As well as I have a new k&n cone filter in the box that I had on for a few weeks as well with velocity stack built into the center.
And it was almost exactly the same results as the airbox with a bigger hole in it.

Engine loading was reduced at wot from low to high rpms.
Even from 3000-5000
Due do decreased intake velocity.

So back to stock airbox with k&n filter again.

And with the stock airbox with k&n filter.
The %10 increase in Engine loading was due to the reduced pressure drop across the filter element.
Not neccasirly gained power but rather reduced losses in power from the filter element.
While the hemholtz resonator with the velocity stack
helps keep intake velocity high.

After having all three options done.
And now the extra boxes and filters still lying around the house.
As well as having to spend more money replacing the hacked stock airbox.
And verifying my results with the scanguageII.

The stock box with a k&n drop in filter is the best choice for power/efficiency.
And the cheapest and easiest.

Or at least until my engine has been modified to create more vacuum.
Port polish/ engine bore/ cam etc.
Then my cone filter may prove to be an improvement.
But in stock form ill stick with the drop in filter.

I'm actually impressed how well the aspire airbox was designed.
Even with the new exhaust it still seems to keep up with demands.

[TominMO]

The stock box with a k&n drop in filter is the best choice for power/efficiency.
And the cheapest and easiest.

Interesting observations, thanks. Might have to re-think this for the Aspire. :-)

[rmoltis]

It was odd for me because everything I learned online or knew about intakes.
Turned out to be different in application.


I think before the cone filter or more open intake is effective.
We have to increase the engine vaccuum/airflow requirements.
Possibly an engine bore+ port polish.

I think the standard intake charge speed engineers aim for is 650 feet per second.
A very efficient engine can get up to 710 fps
And an inefficient engine can be in the 600 fps range.

Which is usually attained at peak torque rpms.

Usually after 650 fps it tends to take more energy to force the extra air through than is efficient.

Which is why after peak torque rpms where the charge speed is greatest.
You get declining cylinder filling gradually as rpms rise.
And the demand for air increases.

Engineers actually design their engines around this 650 fps intake charge figure.

They decide where in the rpms they wish it to occur.
To determine when+where they want the engine to produce peak power.
And they adjust everything around it to match that rpm and charge speed.
Valve area/ piston size/ intake+exhaust ports etc.


So I think we all tend to underestimate what the airbox was designed for.
Which is to keep the intake charge speed in its optimal range for efficiency and cylinder filling.

I know I did.
I had to waste my money on extras before discovering these things.

And when we open it up too much the speed is reduced.
Beyond the useable range.


With all the science involved in everything.
I would love to be an engineer.
I bet they have all the fun.

[DaleInTN]

This car is only transportation to and from work for me. I am trying to get every tenth of a mile per gallon out of her. So, with that being said, would you buy a K&N filter?

[TominMO]

This car is only transportation to and from work for me. I am trying to get every tenth of a mile per gallon out of her. So, with that being said, would you buy a K&N filter?

1. Front air dam (useful on the hwy only)
2. good tuneup with ignition advanced a little
3. Light right foot (most important)
4. Hypermiling techniques in the city--coast whenever possible, cruise in 4th, shut off engine when approaching yellow or red lights. I once got over 50 MPG in city driving only by doing these things.
5. K&N can't hurt, might help a little.

[DaleInTN]

I already got #3 and #4 down. I drive a tractor trailer and average 7 plus MPG while grossing around 78,000 to 79,000 pounds. I am planning on a tune up, but wondered if the K&N was worth the money. Thanks for the info.