I have been running K&Ns for quite a while now. I have a K&N FIPK II on my 6.8l SD and just the element on my 74' F-100. I clean my MAF a minimum of once a year (Usually twice) and pull the filter and check the tubes for dirt. No dust or anything. I also have the K&N prefilter wrap on the filter too. Did a UOA last fall and had less than half the average amount of insoluables in the oil. If the filter was passing lots of dirt it should have shown up in the oil. Just don't over oil the K&N even though on most vehicles the MAF is a ways behind the filter.

 

I've seen this MAF claim from several different boards, spanning a few manufacturers. I think it started with the Toyota crowd, and some OEM even issued a statement stating that use of the K/N would void your warranty. To my knowledge, Ford hasn't done that.

Like has been said, it's not an issue if you don't go crazy with the oil. You run a greater chance of harming the MAF from increased particulate ingestion from the freer flowing filter. Chances are quite slim that any harm will come from it. I run K/N filters on my daily drivers, have serviced them many times, and no problems for me.

Remember, you can have filtering ability, or more air flow, but not both. In order for a K/N or similar filter to "flow more," it has to give up some filtering ability. There's no such thing as a "free lunch."

 

Apprently the burden of proof lies with the Automotive manufactures, if there is a sensor failure
Quote Direcly from K&N web site:

"Our air filters will not void a vehicles manufacturer’s warranty. They are high quality replacement parts and automotive or motorcycle dealerships cannot void a consumers warranty solely based on the existence of an aftermarket product. The law covering this issue is the Federal Magnuson-Moss Act. There only two ways in which a dealership can void a consumer’s warranty, the first is if the part in question is made available to consumer’s free of charge by the OE manufacturer. The second is if the Dealership can prove the aftermarket part has caused damage to the vehicle. The burden of proof is on the dealership even though they may attempt to shift that responsibility to the consumer. We have certainly heard the rumor that an over oiled K&N Air Filter can cause a failure of a vehicles Mass-Air Flow sensor. We have spent a great deal of money investigating this allegation. We have worked with dealerships and the OE’s and retrieved sensors they claimed were fouled by K&N Air Filter oil. When the sensors were tested both by an independent lab and at K&N, the results were that the K&N Air Filter was not to blame for the failure. We view this allegation as strange and unsubstantiated. Stranger still, some of the “bad sensors” we tested were in fact in perfect working order. Our investigations have revealed that often dealerships do not even have the equipment necessary to determine the cause of a sensor failure."

This in itself is a warranty from K&N are claiming that over oiling is a fallacy, they best have documentation to back it up.

 

That article is a little short on info; like, how many sensors were tested, what % was bad, and what was the name of that independent lab. This looks like a "puff" piece from K&N; I can't imagine Ford, GM, Chrysler and their dealers letting K&N "retrieve" anything.

Steve

 

Isn't there a burn off cycle every time the engine is shut off to clean the wire in the MAF sensor of contaminants?

 

Your right it is just propaganda.......I was hoping if someone new if there was a Federal Magnuson-Moss Act, or if it was a fallacy, and what the act reallly covers. I find some individulals interpretations of acts get a little twisted.

 

There is a Magnuson-Moss act. It states that a warranty and/or service contract must be stated clearly and precisely, and that any ambiguous statements go against the drafter of the warranty. The dealer can still reject unauthorized aftermarket part usage, that leads to a failure of some part or system.

If you want the full thing, you can either look it up on Wiki or through a government site.

What this means for K/N filters is that a manufacturer can specify a paper air cleaner, and if a cotton/gauze one is found, and there is something wrong with the MAF, or anything else related to the air intake system, they can deny warranty legally.

It sucks, but that's how it works.

 

Thanks Andrew
Yes it does suck, but me being who I ‘am some time winning becomes bigger than cost of the litigation

I would go after K&N and let them fight it out with the OEM. I know that is what we do, paying things out quickly keeps the customers coming back and we’ve always got it back from the OEM’s without the courts get involved. Bad press isn’t good for any manufacturer.

 

Not sure why it "sucks"; if you wanna modify your ride while under warranty then you should be responsible for any problems that mod causes. That M-M Act means Ford can't deny fixing a bad window regulator just because a K&N filter is installed.

Seeing as how warranty costs affect Ford's bottom line, I sure don't blame them for taking a hard line on this. Some dealers will work with you on this; some won't.

Steve

 

ever since I put my K&N on my 96 bronco 5.8 I have had code issues 171 &174 and 1151 and 1152 the 1151&52 may not be from the filter..also I found dirt in my intake hose also but checked the connections they were tight...It scared the crap outta me cuz I dont like seeing dirt in any intake...just for sure I cleaned everything and made every single connection was tight and went out for another dusty off road drive (not hard to find in vegas) and sure as **** ther was dirt in the intake, so I ditched trhe k&n for good. for some reason my 450 yfz never had trhe dust issue, and I run it at the dunes, maybe I got a bad filter or I need to find a pre filter for the truck. who knows but dirt is no good past the filter

 

When I bought my '00 Ranger it came with 138,000 miles and a K&N air filter. I now have 142,000 miles and has been trouble free. I changed the oil this past weekend, and looked at the filter. Wound up replacing it with a regular paper filter. The K&N felt oily and greasy to me. I was getting anywhere from 24 to 27mpg's depending on the weather. I'll see if it changes with the paper filter. I've also heard that the (pre oiled) toughgaurds from Fram cause MAF sensors to throw codes also. No proof, just rumors.

 

Yes, yes and yes. Straight out of the K&N box that has happened to myself on a brand new engine- 3 times in a row.

Check out air filter flow test on the net- you will see WIX makes a HP filter 9used in NASCAR) that flows within 1% iirr as well as K&N, filters much better and creates better flow characteristics post filter.

 

Nobody commented on my earlier post. Am I way off here or is that true? It makes sense to me but I'm not positive on the burn off cycle.

 

I've had the K&N in my f-150 since I bought it and have never had an issue related to it, but my buddy gets codes thrown up on his truck all the time. His filter also looks like it was dipped in a vat of oil as he swears it doesn't work just letting the oil wick into the filter. I don't have any contamination past my filter either ie MAF, Throttle body etc at almost 200,000. Used right you shouldn't have a problem