K&N Filters

[b_hickman11]

[QUOTE=1stToyota;353779]

Originally Posted by b_hickman11

Sure, we all see the point that you're trying to make about K&N's 1% spot, and how you'd like to use this little thread as an example...from recent postings: Service departments not wanting to mess with drippy filters, concerns over sensors and dust, HP loss on the dyno, big power loss due to datastream info that's way below specs, damaged motorcycle engines, poor results on UOA, former K&N buyers going back to paper, "filtration" problems, K&N supporter stating that even he wouldn't use a K&N with very dirty/dusty conditions, auto makers not getting too excited about non-paper filters, etc... hey, maybe they could try throwing in an extra sticker or two.

btw, It's a tie @ 63 postings each, so far...feel free to pull way ahead, since you're on vacation and real bored. LOL!

OK let me dumb down the question and then see if we can get an answer.

Why do sales reports at auto parts stores show other filter companies such as Wix and Fram, selling more filters than K&N during 1 year?

p.s. Fram, STP, and Purolator all have claims on their boxes that their filters will increase MPG and maximize performance. But there is no proof on the box, just like K&N.

Another question about the K&N claim. When they say "Increase horsepower and acceleration," what do you think they are basing that on. Does it say, "compared to stock setup" or does it say "compared to a dirty air filter"? No it doesn't say either one. It's an opened ended claim. So when you read it, you are probably thinking about the stock setup and maybe they are talking about a dirty air filter.