So after these responses, is the K&N filter a good option? Just the filter itself, no CAI.

 

You decide..

 

I am going to side with the no side. I put a K&N in my old truck and it made no difference, it cost more, and it was a pain in the *** to clean. Save yourself the headache and stick with the stock filter. When it gets dirty...drop in another one and have a beer while the K&N guy is still over there cleaning his.

 

Stock filter it is, thanks guys

 

Well that seemed to be an unexpected quick resolution after all the data talk...

Was it the beer that convinced you?? It did me. Maybe we should lead with that next time.

 

I'll drink to that.

 

I run a K&N replacement filter on my. 3V 5.4L. I have since it was new. Prior to that, I ran a K&N replacement filter on my 1995 5.0L.

No, it doesn't increase fuel mileage or performance. I run them because I am not filling up the garbage dumps with old filters.

I have accumulated about 340k miles on K&N replacement filters. I have never had an issue with dusting, or with a dirty/oily/crud contaminated MAF.

 

You're going to be environmentally pious over some polyester air filter media, while driving an 8000# brick that gets single digit MPGs while using at least 3x as many oil filters as air filters, plus literal gallons of motor oil? There's more fiber matting under the carpet in your cab than you could use in air filter media over the lifetime of the engine.

That's like Al Gore flying a private jet to Switzerland to complain about carbon footprints being too large.

 

Yeah, but how do you feel?

 

I'm with gDMJoe on this one....
If it were that easy to get HP and fuel economy, Ford would have done it already.
Motorcraft filters are the best and I hate using any thing else...

 

A filter swap in the stock air box is no useful gain. Just use a clean filter and you're good. That was the scope of the OP's question. He didn't ask about cold air intakes.

Actually the laugh is on you. There is variability from run to run using the same dyno. And the truck itself will vary run to run, too. The difference between air filters is so small that it is lost in the uncertainty of measurement and can't be detected. Chassis dyno is the wrong tool for the job. A bench test would be better. Sounds to me like Beachkid is on top of his game and you should listen to him.

 

I'm not pious, but if you feel that way then OK.

We'd all love a 4WD truck that sells new for $10,000, can tow 20k pounds and gets 40 MPG, but like unicorns and rainbow zebras that truck doesn't exist.

 

I have run a K&N in the past. I am sticking with stock filters for my 2013 F150 5.0L.


In all seriousness, if real HP & MPG gains could be made with those type of filters, then every new car would be rolling out with them already in the air box. There is a reason engineers have stuck with paper filters, even in most high performance vehicles.

 

Forgot to add, in a turbo application like the EcoBoost, you actually want better than average air filtration or your turbo is at risk for premature failure. Turbo replacements are not cheap!

 

Back when i was in high school i drove a 88 Bronco 2 with a 2.9 v6 and my buddy drove a 95 ford ranger with the 3.0 v6. We would race almost every day after school, work, or just whenever.. Our vehicles would always tie until we reached around 90mph and then his would slowly walk away from mine. I went out and bought a K&N filter and would leave him in every gear. By the time we were at 100 i was at least 2 links ahead. It was pretty awesome.. and then he bought one for his truck and his gains were obviously more than mine, because i could never catch him. It was the other way around.

So, for people saying that K&N air filters dont add performance, for me thats just silly.. Every vehicle is different but for our two vehicles they did wonders..

Ever since then i have bought one for every vehicle i have owned, NA or forced induction.