OMG MY K&N FILTER!!! - Page 4 - Toyota Yaris Forums

1stToyota · 02-27-2009, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChinoCharles

Its the simplest air flow meter that I know of.

Keyword: air flow ...not a lazer light show held at the hall of mirrors.

ChinoCharles · 02-27-2009, 09:58 AM

Keep trying to take the focus off the fact that you vehemently argued the world was flat for most of this thread.

With that, I'm out. -drops mic-

33OH · 02-27-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1stToyota

had a brand new K&N dropin that must have been over-oiled enough that it set a code and couldn't get much over 50% calculated engine load at WOT, until I cleaned the MAF and switched to a WIX filter...code didn't come back and saw well over 80% calculated engine load at WOT on my scanner's datastream.

You're not supposed to use ALL of the oil.

1stToyota · 02-27-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryank

You're not supposed to use ALL of the oil.

It was a customer that pulled the filter right out of the box and straight into the airbox of his Avalon. He didn't add adrop of oil that wasn't already there.

33OH · 02-27-2009, 10:14 AM

They don't send you pre-oiled filters? When I bought my K&N it came dry, with a bottle of oil with it.

1stToyota · 02-27-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChinoCharles

Keep trying to take the focus off the fact that you vehemently argued the world was flat for most of this thread.

With that, I'm out. -drops mic-

All you had to do is actually LOOK at the MAF meter to see how well the air flow is directed straight across the wires that measure the air flow.

Tamago · 02-27-2009, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1stToyota

Keyword: air flow ...not a lazer light show held at the hall of mirrors.

so then since you're the expert, explain how the sensor measures air flow

1stToyota · 02-27-2009, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tamago

so then since you're the expert, explain how the sensor measures air flow

The heated wires measure the air flow entering the motor, PCM measures their frequency. Mirrors SEEING invisible air is a new one on me.

ChinoCharles · 02-27-2009, 10:40 AM

WRONG, try again.

Tamago · 02-27-2009, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1stToyota

The heated wires measure the air flow entering the motor, PCM measures their frequency. Mirrors SEEING invisible air is a new one on me.

you're thinking ford hotwire here

you're wrong

1stToyota · 02-27-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChinoCharles

WRONG, try again.

Tell that to the Yaris owner here that recently asked what was wrong with his Yaris because it's down on power. Most posters jumped in and guess dirty meter. Guess what? Poster stated that he cleaned MAF and now everything is back as should be.

I wonder what he cleaned? Mirrors and lazer beams? No. Dirty wires. :)

1stToyota · 02-27-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tamago

you're thinking ford hotwire here

you're wrong

Wrong. Talking about EXPOSED wires.

ChinoCharles · 02-27-2009, 10:52 AM

Wires don't measure flow on the Yaris, they measure air temperature.

OK, seriously, I'm done. LOL no point in arguing with someone who knows all the wrong answers.

Tamago · 02-27-2009, 10:57 AM

and you let this fuckery continue but lock up a poll that really was just a little joke..

mod power!!

1stToyota · 02-27-2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChinoCharles

Wires don't measure flow on the Yaris, they measure air temperature.

OK, seriously, I'm done. LOL no point in arguing with someone who knows all the wrong answers.

You do realize that the sensor might serve two functions? Wires in the air flow path, up in the sensor, and a reddish blob hanging down in a more direct air flow path...

I need to hear more about those jiggling mirrors that are no where to be found, that send lazer beams to photo receivers.

Yaribhini · 02-27-2009, 11:06 AM

Ignorance is bliss I guess. I mean, why not believe everything that you read? Just in general, here is one example of many done by Jim Conforti testing both filtration and flow. But as a matter of conversation prior to the Conforti clip let my just say that
stock is good. K&N will flow a BIT more when freshly cleaned up but will also clog quickly, reducing flow.

Cotton doesn't filter as well as paper filter media and allows silicium in the engine's oil. There are multiple tests and studies that have shown this and it plainly points to how much BS is rampant in the world of aftermarket performance parts, and how inflated the claims given can be. Think for a moment the claims you read about HP gains from this or that modification and it's also a reminder of how we "enthusiasts" have a tendency to assume ANYTHING non-stock is better performance wise than whatever the OEM manufacterer provided. Clearly that is not always true.

As mentioned there a lot of independant tests that have been done but here is one from BMW tuner Jim Conforti.

Jim Conforti (AKA the Land Shark) did some testing:

This was a scientific test, not one done by filter manufacturer X to show that their filters are better than manufacturer Y. The test results are pretty irrefutable as the test lab tests and designs filters where "screw ups" are absolutely NOT allowable.

A scientific test was done on TEST filters where air was loaded with ACCTD (some standardized "test dust" called AC Coarse Test Dust) and sucked through the TEST filter then through an analysis membrane. From the Quantity of dust injected and the amount that gets through the TEST filter and is then captured on the analysis membrane we can calculate the efficiency of the TEST filter in Question.

BMW Stock Filter, Eff. Area of Media: 8.4 sq ft.
K&N Replacement, Eff. Area of Media: 1.6 sq ft.

The filters are the SAME size. They both fit in the STOCK BMW M3 airbox. The difference is that the STOCK filter has 65 pleats 1.5" deep and the K&N only 29 pleats each 0.75" deep.

Now, remember this ratio: " 5.25:1". It's the ratio of the AREA of STOCK to K&N. It's very important and will come into play later.

The STOCK filter efficiency started at 93.4% at 0 loading and increased to 99.2% efficiency as the loading increased to a max tested of 38.8 gm/sq ft of dust.

The K&N filter efficiency started at 85.2% at 0 loading and increased to 98.1% at the max tested loading of 41.38 gm/sq ft.

Now, I hear you. "Jim, that's only a FEW PERCENT". But is it?

Let's look. If we had 100 grams of dust on a new BMW filter we would let through a total of 6.6 grams of dust in. If we used the new K&N filter we get 14.8 grams of dust. That's 224% (TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR PERCENT!!) more dust ingested initially, stock vs. "free flow" and this ratio is pretty much held. Somewhere between 200-300% more dirt gets "ingested" anywhere across loading equivalence. The more INTERESTING thing is when you look at what happens to the DP or Differential Pressure at a constant airflow as you dirty both filters equally with time.

The test used a rate of 75gr of dust per 20 min. Here's where the AREA difference comes MAJORLY into play. See, even though the BMW filter flows a bit less at the SAME loading, it also LOADS UP 5.25 times SLOWER due to it's LARGER effective area. So what happens is that the K&N initially flows better, but as the dirt continues coming in, the K&N eventually flows WORSE while still letting MORE dirt in.

Now, does any of this additional dirt cause problems? I dunno. I suppose we could have a few people do some independent oil analyses on different motors using both K&Ns and Stock filters. Get enough of them, and you'd have a good statistical basis. For me though, it's simple: More DIRT = BAD.

The additional short-term airflow might makes sense on a track car. IMHO, it doesn't for the street.

-- Jim Conforti

One of many examples.

ChinoCharles · 02-27-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tamago

and you let this fuckery continue but lock up a poll that really was just a little joke..

mod power!!

LOL. Two facets of this job...

[1] Don't let people spread misinformation. (This thread)
[2] Don't let Tamago belittle everyone else on the forums. (Your thread)

Tamago · 02-27-2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChinoCharles

LOL. Two facets of this job...

[1] Don't let people spread misinformation. (This thread)
[2] Don't let Tamago belittle everyone else on the forums. (Your thread)

it would be self belittlement if someone were to click that choice...

i left it up to the voter which they'd choose!

and clearly it was a joke.. what, did Garm complain? he's not even awake yet

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DIY Cabin Air Filter	BailOut	DIY / Maintenance / Service	105	06-20-2019 12:59 PM
Liftback Air Conditioning (Cabin) Filter info	Snappy	DIY / Maintenance / Service	24	10-01-2010 06:36 PM
Cold Air intake with k&n filter	_S7V7N_	Performance Modifications	23	12-19-2008 02:36 PM
Nippon Oil Filter	IllusionX	DIY / Maintenance / Service	6	12-07-2008 02:00 AM
K&N 57i filter for TS 1.8	jim TS	Performance Modifications	5	06-24-2007 05:00 PM

02-27-2009, 09:58 AM	#56
ChinoCharles Banned Drives: LB Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: OH Posts: 7,787	Keep trying to take the focus off the fact that you vehemently argued the world was flat for most of this thread. With that, I'm out. -drops mic-

02-27-2009, 10:14 AM	#59
33OH Drives: '08 Yaris Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Dover, Ohio Posts: 7,606	They don't send you pre-oiled filters? When I bought my K&N it came dry, with a bottle of oil with it.

02-27-2009, 10:40 AM	#63
ChinoCharles Banned Drives: LB Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: OH Posts: 7,787	WRONG, try again.

02-27-2009, 10:52 AM	#67
ChinoCharles Banned Drives: LB Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: OH Posts: 7,787	Wires don't measure flow on the Yaris, they measure air temperature. OK, seriously, I'm done. LOL no point in arguing with someone who knows all the wrong answers.

02-27-2009, 11:06 AM	#70
Yaribhini Banned Drives: Yaris Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: USA Posts: 20	Ignorance is bliss I guess. I mean, why not believe everything that you read? Just in general, here is one example of many done by Jim Conforti testing both filtration and flow. But as a matter of conversation prior to the Conforti clip let my just say that stock is good. K&N will flow a BIT more when freshly cleaned up but will also clog quickly, reducing flow. Cotton doesn't filter as well as paper filter media and allows silicium in the engine's oil. There are multiple tests and studies that have shown this and it plainly points to how much BS is rampant in the world of aftermarket performance parts, and how inflated the claims given can be. Think for a moment the claims you read about HP gains from this or that modification and it's also a reminder of how we "enthusiasts" have a tendency to assume ANYTHING non-stock is better performance wise than whatever the OEM manufacterer provided. Clearly that is not always true. As mentioned there a lot of independant tests that have been done but here is one from BMW tuner Jim Conforti. Jim Conforti (AKA the Land Shark) did some testing: This was a scientific test, not one done by filter manufacturer X to show that their filters are better than manufacturer Y. The test results are pretty irrefutable as the test lab tests and designs filters where "screw ups" are absolutely NOT allowable. A scientific test was done on TEST filters where air was loaded with ACCTD (some standardized "test dust" called AC Coarse Test Dust) and sucked through the TEST filter then through an analysis membrane. From the Quantity of dust injected and the amount that gets through the TEST filter and is then captured on the analysis membrane we can calculate the efficiency of the TEST filter in Question. BMW Stock Filter, Eff. Area of Media: 8.4 sq ft. K&N Replacement, Eff. Area of Media: 1.6 sq ft. The filters are the SAME size. They both fit in the STOCK BMW M3 airbox. The difference is that the STOCK filter has 65 pleats 1.5" deep and the K&N only 29 pleats each 0.75" deep. Now, remember this ratio: " 5.25:1". It's the ratio of the AREA of STOCK to K&N. It's very important and will come into play later. The STOCK filter efficiency started at 93.4% at 0 loading and increased to 99.2% efficiency as the loading increased to a max tested of 38.8 gm/sq ft of dust. The K&N filter efficiency started at 85.2% at 0 loading and increased to 98.1% at the max tested loading of 41.38 gm/sq ft. Now, I hear you. "Jim, that's only a FEW PERCENT". But is it? Let's look. If we had 100 grams of dust on a new BMW filter we would let through a total of 6.6 grams of dust in. If we used the new K&N filter we get 14.8 grams of dust. That's 224% (TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR PERCENT!!) more dust ingested initially, stock vs. "free flow" and this ratio is pretty much held. Somewhere between 200-300% more dirt gets "ingested" anywhere across loading equivalence. The more INTERESTING thing is when you look at what happens to the DP or Differential Pressure at a constant airflow as you dirty both filters equally with time. The test used a rate of 75gr of dust per 20 min. Here's where the AREA difference comes MAJORLY into play. See, even though the BMW filter flows a bit less at the SAME loading, it also LOADS UP 5.25 times SLOWER due to it's LARGER effective area. So what happens is that the K&N initially flows better, but as the dirt continues coming in, the K&N eventually flows WORSE while still letting MORE dirt in. Now, does any of this additional dirt cause problems? I dunno. I suppose we could have a few people do some independent oil analyses on different motors using both K&Ns and Stock filters. Get enough of them, and you'd have a good statistical basis. For me though, it's simple: More DIRT = BAD. The additional short-term airflow might makes sense on a track car. IMHO, it doesn't for the street. -- Jim Conforti One of many examples.