K & N air filter for 2.7eb
#1
06-21-2015, 08:14 PM
K & N air filter for 2.7eb
Hello everyone, I'm new to the site and just purchased a 2015 F150 2.7eb 4x4 with the 3.55 rear a few days ago. Has anyone changed just the filter out to an K&N, and if so, were there any noticeable gains with MPG. I'm not wanting to install any type of CAI at this time. Thanks...
#2
06-21-2015, 08:42 PM
- there are no gains (MPG | HP) to be had.
. - the Motorcraft air filter has MORE than enough air flow to meet/exceed any engine's requirements.
. - if there was any increase in CFM via the K&N filter it would come at the expense of filtration.
. - oil contamination (even minute) from the K&N filter decreases HP, MPG, and causes issues.
. - K&N filter refreshing is a PITA. *versus Motorcraft's remove/replace maintenance schedule (every 30,000 miles ... depending upon conditions).
#3
06-21-2015, 08:46 PM
- there are no gains (MPG | HP) to be had.
. - the Motorcraft air filter has MORE than enough air flow to meet/exceed any engine's requirements.
. - if there was any increase in CFM via the K&N filter it would come at the expense of filtration.
. - oil contamination (even minute) from the K&N filter decreases HP, MPG, and causes issues.
. - K&N filter refreshing is a PITA. *versus Motorcraft's remove/replace maintenance schedule (every 30,000 miles ... depending upon conditions).
#4
06-21-2015, 08:52 PM
- there are no gains (MPG | HP) to be had.
. - the Motorcraft air filter has MORE than enough air flow to meet/exceed any engine's requirements.
. - if there was any increase in CFM via the K&N filter it would come at the expense of filtration.
. - oil contamination (even minute) from the K&N filter decreases HP, MPG, and causes issues.
. - K&N filter refreshing is a PITA. *versus Motorcraft's remove/replace maintenance schedule (every 30,000 miles ... depending upon conditions).
#5
06-22-2015, 08:58 AM
dkf - Do you have some actual third party before and after chassis dyno graphs that show (#1) there is no gains?
FYI if the element is oiled properly #4 is not accurate. K&N did have filters that were over oiled from the factory.
It's not just a K&N issue, it's germane to any/all oiled air filters.
.
#7
06-22-2015, 10:38 AM
Trending Topics
#8
06-22-2015, 11:07 AM
#9
06-22-2015, 11:41 AM
Testand Corporation conducted an ISO standards test on automotive air filters which can be viewed at this link: Duramax Air Filter Testing * - Diesel Bombers
“After only 24 minutes the K&N had accumulated 221gms of dirt but passed 7.0gms. Compared to the AC, the K&N “plugged up” nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt.”
If you look at the flow data, WIX HP filters flow 98+% of K&N and have a much smoother flow post filter plus excellent filtering, for a fraction of the price! on an OEM replacement unit.
I know...science and real data by an ISO certified test facility.
The formula which is used by every air filter manufacturer in the world to determine the CFM for flat panel filters is...
Flat Panel CM= Length x Width x 6
So, take you relatively stock engine, calc the max CFM based upon mfg specs; calc the max CFM the oem filter will flow
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,
The 2013 Mustang 5.0 V8, for example if close to stock (assuming 6,800 max rpm & 90% volumetric efficiency- note that is race car spec and likely higher than reality) can only suck in a maximum of 535 CFM, and the OEM flat panel filter ( 12.375” x 9.675”) will flow 718 cfm,
....so how can just a CAI force more air into an engine that is already injesting everything it can? It can't plan & simple- basic laws of physics without a forced induction system.
bad math, no science...all PR materials for the sticker hp crowd!
I can also state, that K&N will not honor their warranty (purchased directly from them back in the good ol days)......this goes back to 1997, an issue on a brand new Merc Cougar Sport......installed the K&N, OEM engineers traced the issue back to the K&N filter.......K&N refused to refund the $ for the filter (less than 90 days old).
#10
06-22-2015, 11:55 AM
Yep I saw the one Duramax test way back in 04'. Which only covers one filter design, one engine and zero dyno testing. I have also seen the BITOG articles. Then add my own testing done with over 10 years and 200k on 2 vehicles. Combine that with all the vehicles running all paper air filters I have serviced.
The fact is the filtering requirements are much different on a rather large diesel with forced induction vs a NA engine, small ci engine with low boost and etc. It is not as linear and transferrable as people seem to think. Also a problem with some filters regardless of make or composition can be airbox fit which can compromise the seal. The devil is in the details and the details often get overlooked.
A CAI does not "force" air into the engine I agree. And yes they have proven to increase power output on the chassis dyno of numerous vehicles, primarily with tuning. I have seen it myself despite what the "experts" here say about it.
The fact is the filtering requirements are much different on a rather large diesel with forced induction vs a NA engine, small ci engine with low boost and etc. It is not as linear and transferrable as people seem to think. Also a problem with some filters regardless of make or composition can be airbox fit which can compromise the seal. The devil is in the details and the details often get overlooked.
A CAI does not "force" air into the engine I agree. And yes they have proven to increase power output on the chassis dyno of numerous vehicles, primarily with tuning. I have seen it myself despite what the "experts" here say about it.
#11
06-22-2015, 01:44 PM
Yes...well publicized
Testand Corporation conducted an ISO standards test on automotive air filters which can be viewed at this link: Duramax Air Filter Testing * - Diesel Bombers
“After only 24 minutes the K&N had accumulated 221gms of dirt but passed 7.0gms. Compared to the AC, the K&N “plugged up” nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt.”
If you look at the flow data, WIX HP filters flow 98+% of K&N and have a much smoother flow post filter plus excellent filtering, for a fraction of the price! on an OEM replacement unit.
I know...science and real data by an ISO certified test facility.
The formula which is used by every air filter manufacturer in the world to determine the CFM for flat panel filters is...
Flat Panel CM= Length x Width x 6
So, take you relatively stock engine, calc the max CFM based upon mfg specs; calc the max CFM the oem filter will flow
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,
The 2013 Mustang 5.0 V8, for example if close to stock (assuming 6,800 max rpm & 90% volumetric efficiency- note that is race car spec and likely higher than reality) can only suck in a maximum of 535 CFM, and the OEM flat panel filter ( 12.375” x 9.675”) will flow 718 cfm,
....so how can just a CAI force more air into an engine that is already injesting everything it can? It can't plan & simple- basic laws of physics without a forced induction system.
bad math, no science...all <acronym title="Page Ranking">PR</acronym> materials for the sticker hp crowd!
I can also state, that K&N will not honor their warranty (purchased directly from them back in the good ol days)......this goes back to 1997, an issue on a brand new Merc Cougar Sport......installed the K&N, OEM engineers traced the issue back to the K&N filter.......K&N refused to refund the $ for the filter (less than 90 days old).
Testand Corporation conducted an ISO standards test on automotive air filters which can be viewed at this link: Duramax Air Filter Testing * - Diesel Bombers
“After only 24 minutes the K&N had accumulated 221gms of dirt but passed 7.0gms. Compared to the AC, the K&N “plugged up” nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt.”
If you look at the flow data, WIX HP filters flow 98+% of K&N and have a much smoother flow post filter plus excellent filtering, for a fraction of the price! on an OEM replacement unit.
I know...science and real data by an ISO certified test facility.
The formula which is used by every air filter manufacturer in the world to determine the CFM for flat panel filters is...
Flat Panel CM= Length x Width x 6
So, take you relatively stock engine, calc the max CFM based upon mfg specs; calc the max CFM the oem filter will flow
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,
The 2013 Mustang 5.0 V8, for example if close to stock (assuming 6,800 max rpm & 90% volumetric efficiency- note that is race car spec and likely higher than reality) can only suck in a maximum of 535 CFM, and the OEM flat panel filter ( 12.375” x 9.675”) will flow 718 cfm,
....so how can just a CAI force more air into an engine that is already injesting everything it can? It can't plan & simple- basic laws of physics without a forced induction system.
bad math, no science...all <acronym title="Page Ranking">PR</acronym> materials for the sticker hp crowd!
I can also state, that K&N will not honor their warranty (purchased directly from them back in the good ol days)......this goes back to 1997, an issue on a brand new Merc Cougar Sport......installed the K&N, OEM engineers traced the issue back to the K&N filter.......K&N refused to refund the $ for the filter (less than 90 days old).
Yep I saw the one Duramax test way back in 04'. Which only covers one filter design, one engine and zero dyno testing. I have also seen the BITOG articles. Then add my own testing done with over 10 years and 200k on 2 vehicles. Combine that with all the vehicles running all paper air filters I have serviced.
The fact is the filtering requirements are much different on a rather large diesel with forced induction vs a NA engine, small ci engine with low boost and etc. It is not as linear and transferrable as people seem to think. Also a problem with some filters regardless of make or composition can be airbox fit which can compromise the seal. The devil is in the details and the details often get overlooked.
A CAI does not "force" air into the engine I agree. And yes they have proven to increase power output on the chassis dyno of numerous vehicles, primarily with tuning. I have seen it myself despite what the "experts" here say about it.
The fact is the filtering requirements are much different on a rather large diesel with forced induction vs a NA engine, small ci engine with low boost and etc. It is not as linear and transferrable as people seem to think. Also a problem with some filters regardless of make or composition can be airbox fit which can compromise the seal. The devil is in the details and the details often get overlooked.
A CAI does not "force" air into the engine I agree. And yes they have proven to increase power output on the chassis dyno of numerous vehicles, primarily with tuning. I have seen it myself despite what the "experts" here say about it.
But, will the negligible gains from an aftermarket CAI and or a K&N filter/kit ever pay for itself in performance and fuel economy?
I'll let the experts answer that one. As far as I'm concerned, one dollar spent to modify the engine on an otherwise stock truck is a dollar wasted. You'll never get it back on resale. No one, especially a car dealer will appreciate your efforts as much as you do.
#12
06-22-2015, 02:48 PM
#13
06-22-2015, 08:24 PM
Yep I saw the one Duramax test way back in 04'. Which only covers one filter design, one engine and zero dyno testing. I have also seen the BITOG articles. Then add my own testing done with over 10 years and 200k on 2 vehicles. Combine that with all the vehicles running all paper air filters I have serviced.
The fact is the filtering requirements are much different on a rather large diesel with forced induction vs a NA engine, small ci engine with low boost and etc. It is not as linear and transferrable as people seem to think. Also a problem with some filters regardless of make or composition can be airbox fit which can compromise the seal. The devil is in the details and the details often get overlooked.
A CAI does not "force" air into the engine I agree. And yes they have proven to increase power output on the chassis dyno of numerous vehicles, primarily with tuning. I have seen it myself despite what the "experts" here say about it.
The fact is the filtering requirements are much different on a rather large diesel with forced induction vs a NA engine, small ci engine with low boost and etc. It is not as linear and transferrable as people seem to think. Also a problem with some filters regardless of make or composition can be airbox fit which can compromise the seal. The devil is in the details and the details often get overlooked.
A CAI does not "force" air into the engine I agree. And yes they have proven to increase power output on the chassis dyno of numerous vehicles, primarily with tuning. I have seen it myself despite what the "experts" here say about it.
1. For a test to be considered "scientific", it must be able to stand the test of repeatability and validated by others (3rd party).......it just hasn't happen to date
2. Every dyno mfg specific states in their equipment stats, dyno reading amongst different dynos (even the same model by the same manufacturer) will vary measured output of up to 5%..........you won't find any performance improvement outside of this variable....and when factored in (like the national standards stipulate), they show zero performance gain and in some cases less than oem.
#14
06-22-2015, 08:58 PM
Because of the laws of physics, a dyno test doe not have to be done because of the component testing. With regards to "dyno's showing" increased performance, well, that is very much non-scientific for the following reasons:
1. For a test to be considered "scientific", it must be able to stand the test of repeatability and validated by others (3rd party).......it just hasn't happen to date
2. Every dyno mfg specific states in their equipment stats, dyno reading amongst different dynos (even the same model by the same manufacturer) will vary measured output of up to 5%..........you won't find any performance improvement outside of this variable....and when factored in (like the national standards stipulate), they show zero performance gain and in some cases less than oem.
1. For a test to be considered "scientific", it must be able to stand the test of repeatability and validated by others (3rd party).......it just hasn't happen to date
2. Every dyno mfg specific states in their equipment stats, dyno reading amongst different dynos (even the same model by the same manufacturer) will vary measured output of up to 5%..........you won't find any performance improvement outside of this variable....and when factored in (like the national standards stipulate), they show zero performance gain and in some cases less than oem.
#15
06-23-2015, 01:12 PM
LOL. That is why I said before and after runs. Same dyno, same day, because installation takes little time. Dynos are not scientific but the machine that tested the air filters in your beloved article is infallible and 100% scientific? LOL. This is obviously a lost cause. Later.
http://www.fordracingparts.com/downl...ceTechTips.pdf the engineers at Ford racing have a article on just exactly how “tuners” play games with the hp/tq ratings, how calibration can cause misleading dyno results, & some of the “tricks” that are used to gain supposed power increases when in fact, mis-managing the engine.
A K&N rep a few years ago- let's just say "Came after me" (verbally), after it was all said and done, and all of my "Personal" documentation was provided (including OASIS reports (with documentation/notations from Ford Engineers), "they' all seem to vanish....
with regards to my "Performance experience".....if you will google "Thunder-Alley", you will fine the history of our family and where the best of the best racing cars were designed and built for decades......the list includes, Guldstrand Engineering, Eddy, Speedway Pattern Mfg, and Traco Engineering hung out there a bit........
Our family's engines are very well documented, dating back to 1949 when running a N/A flathead, "she" (the car) ran 149 mph at El Mirage....the same engine was run again in 1955 and turned 210 mph in a belly-tank streamliner.....
Dyno's, PR, and real ISO certified testing processes, yes, I do understand them completely. To quote Arlen Spicer (whom I'm sure you know and respect),
“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! Some will say " I have used aftermarket brand X for XXX # years with no problems. The PROBLEM is you spent a chunk of ching on a product that not only DID NOT increase your horsepower, but also let in a lot of dirt while doing it! Now how much is a lot? ANY MORE THAN NECESSARY is TOO MUCH!
Others are persuaded by the claims of aftermarket manufacturers that their filters filter dirt "better than any other filter on the market." Sounds very enticing. To small timers like you and me, spending $1500 to test a filter sounds like a lot. But if you were a filter manufacturer and you believed your filter could filter dirt better than any other media on the market, wouldn't you want to prove it? Guess what. Test your filter vs. the OE paper. It will cost you $3000 and for that price you will have the data that you can use in your advertisements. Your investment will be returned a thousand fold! EASIER than shooting fish in a barrel! So why don't these manufacturers do this? Hmmm? Probably not because they would feel guilty about taking more market share.
Now I am not saying that ALL aftermarket filters are useless. A paper filter does not do well if directly wetted or muddy. It may collapse. This is why many off-road filters are foam. It is a compromise between filtering efficiency and protection from a collapsed filter. Now how many of our trucks collapse their filters from mud and water? However, if a filter is using "better airflow" as their marketing tool, remember this....Does it flow better? At very high airflow volumes, probably. BUT, Our trucks CAN'T flow that much air unless super-modified, so what is the point? The stock filter will flow MORE THAN ENOUGH AIR to give you ALL THE HORSEPOWER the engine has to give. And this remains true until the filter is dirty enough to trip the air filter life indicator. At that point performance will decline somewhat. Replace the filter and get on with it.
