914-6 factory air cleaner - vs - K&N's, Which unit performs best Options

[david63]

Currently have a factory 914-6 air cleaner on the 3.0 in my 74 conversion. Question for the group is which system breathes better, the factory system or the K&N filters? I like the look of the two filters with the watershields but if the factoy system is better performance wise I guess I should stick with it? Please advise.

[Maltese Falcon]

K+N is also washable + re-useable, which is also cost effective in the long run. I have found that good high quality U.S. Made cotton gauze filters work better than paper filters. K+N is probably the leader, but check out S+B filters, (the truth about air filters) .They specifically use a high grade cotton, and pleat their filters different from the leading brand. Over oiling is a problem with any reuseable air filter , S+B filters are factory oiled by programmed robots.
One of my engine builder customers uses our 3.2 high flow filter kits, for their POC customers /orange group, no complaints.
Marty

[Cap'n Krusty]

K+N is also washable + re-useable, which is also cost effective in the long run. I have found that good high quality U.S. Made cotton gauze filters work better than paper filters. K+N is probably the leader, but check out S+B filters, (the truth about air filters) .They specifically use a high grade cotton, and pleat their filters different from the leading brand. Over oiling is a problem with any reuseable air filter , S+B filters are factory oiled by programmed robots.
One of my engine builder customers uses our 3.2 high flow filter kits, for their POC customers /orange group, no complaints.
Marty

"Cost effective in the long run"? For a stock 914 1.8 or 2.0, the K&N retails for 50 bucks +. The stock element is 12-13 bucks (OE Mfr.) For 4 times the money, plus the cost of a bottle of the special oil, you get less than a quarter of the filter area, you have to wash (an involved and time consuming process) and re-oil the filter, and you get a substantially higher quantity of contaminants flowing into your engine. Not yet mentioned is the physical deterioration of the element by heat. Most high mileage (i.e., used for 4-5 years of daily driving) K&Ns look like they've been in there for decades. I can't think of a system of calculation that could be used to determine that this scenario is more cost effective.

Let's go over this once more. Substantially higher cost. Significantly fewer square inches of filter media. The need to clean and re-oil the element at frequent intervals. Heat/time based deterioration. Passes far more, and far larger, particles of contaminants. Unverifiable HP increases (even if their HP claims were true, they may be over a small RPM range and are certainly not able to be felt "seat of the pants" by 99.9% of the drivers out there, except for verification by wishful thinking, a common improvement rating system). Beyond all those "features, you're paying for their advertising and car sponsorship, a BIG part of the selling price of the filters, and they NEED to spend YOUR money to keep sales numbers up for an inferior product. They might as well be selling those things on late night cable TV.

As with FRAM oil filters, it's clamor over substance.

This is FUN! Can we do it some more? Wanna discuss SS Braided Teflon brake lines or slathered-on orange RTV? How 'bout AGM batteries?

The Cap'n

[mskala]

I'll skip the argument of the k&n problems since I have no data.

But for me personally I don't want to worry about when to oil, how to do
it properly, and how to know if it was done properly.