K&N Marine approved spark arrestors

quote:

Originally posted by jbacchi

Everyone knows more air equals more horse power which equates to better performance.



No, more air and fuel at the proper ratio in the combustion camber is the key to increased power.
quote:

Originally posted by jbacchi

There have been many dyno tests proving an increase in performance



I've only seen numbers on automotive engines at or near maximum rpm, but how often do you drive your car at or near wide open throttle?
quote:

Originally posted by jbacchi

and I dont think K&N would still be in business if they didnt have a proven product.



I think this and other similar post proves that marketing works pretty well.

Just because a K&N marine filter will allow more airflow, doesn’t mean the engine can use it.
 
That seems exactly right . Most of us very rarely use more than about 75% of the horsepower already readily available to us. There doesn't seem to be much point in installing a marine spark arrestor one has to oil, since dust isn't normally a factor during boating. I'm gonna save my money for boat hubcaps.
 
If you want more flow get the 2" high, high performance marine flame arrestor.
 
quote:

Originally posted by yzer

I still have that expensive and K&N filter in my car right now. I've done the service cleaning and re-oiling once.

I watch my MPG closely from time to time and did so before I replaced the standard filter (several thousand miles before scheduled) with the K&N. The K&N made no difference that I could determine. Of course, with a turbo car my MPG can vary widely. One factor I do notice in MPG is that I get less miles off of the winter RFG fuel we have to use in California.

When the K&N filter gets dirty enough to clean again I'm going to toss it and go back to the Purolator filters.






I will not argue MPG figures since I think they are widely affected by weather, especially in your case if you are running a turbo car.

You and I both know that your car performs better when it is cool outside - winter versus a 105 degree summer day are like night and day when it comes to performance.

I have a twin screw Cobra that spins around the 700 RWHP mark. From my own observations - 10 minutes apart: Same Dyno, same day, same temp, as I noted before 10 minutes apart.

We tested the paper filter vs the K&N on my car - to make it fair we started the test on the paper filter and ran 3 consecutive times - the HP numbers were within +/- 5. Next we swapped to the K&N and received gains of 21-24 hp, again 3 consecutive runs within +/-5.

We started with the paper filter first to give the benefit of doubt to the K&N failing - since as you know forced induction cars will lose power as they create more heat since proper programming will remove timing to eliminate detonation.

So in my world the K&N made a 21-24 hp difference - albeit it being on a Forced induction car (at the time only around 400 RWHP).

I would probably not put K&N filters on my boat since I think the "little" metal tins probably flow quite well -

I will also tell you that if I considered it - I would run the boat without the flame arestors just once to WOT to see if there really is a diffence......
 
quote:

Originally posted by yzer

K&N filters save gasoline compared to a new paper filter? I don't think even K&N makes that claim. If that was the case you would see them on every new car sold in the US. I rest my case.





If they can make a re-useable air filter then why do they still sell paper ones .. Why its all about the bottom line. TO MAKE MONEY.. car makers rely on your car breaking down and the parts attached to it ... thats why they dont put K&N filters in every new car.... Car Makers have stakes in replacement part manufacturers ..i.e. AC Delco sound familiar?
 
There is a direct relationship between airflow restriction and mileage. The theory behind this is simple, the harder an engine has to work to suck air through the intake tract and air filter, the more gas gets wasted in the process. This impact is so dramatic that a clogged air filter can reduce mileage by as much as 10%. This is a number published by the US Government. Often, this decrease in mileage is not noticeable because it happens slowly and over time, but it adds up. 10% is HUGE, with the price of gas it’s easy to see how important and valuable it would be to reduce the amount of time spent driving a vehicle experiencing a shortage of air. We have often wondered why there is not a gauge for restriction right on the dashboard since it seemingly is one of the most important things that a driver should be watching.

It is virtually impossible to make sweeping and general claims about mileage and anyone who does should be approached with extreme caution. Even the EPA fuel rating numbers are often not representative of the mileage you actually experience on a new car. There are many variables that affect mileage such as: tire inflation, the type of fuel, weather, elevation, the speed at which you drive, the gear in which you drive, the speed with which you accelerate, engine maintenance, excessive idling, cruise control, the grade of motor oil you use, and of course, the condition of your air filter. In short, mileage is complicated.

And when we’re talking about air filters, consider this: The actual air path to the engine can create restriction even without an air filter installed, lots of restriction. We have even seen instances in which the tubes and ducting to an engine have more restriction than a K&N Air Filter, so our air filter flows more air than their ducting!

Many of our customers write us about the mileage improvement they discovered after installing our filters and intake kits. We certainly understand why that is possible with our high-flow technology, but do not go so far as to claim our products will always provide an increase in mileage. We know K&N filters are less restrictive than disposable paper air filters and that K&N Intake Systems are less restrictive than the factory installed air path. So K&N technology could be an important tool, when combined with other elements, to help keep mileage as high as possible.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MAXUM27

There is a direct relationship between airflow restriction and mileage. The theory behind this is simple, the harder an engine has to work to suck air through the intake tract and air filter, the more gas gets wasted in the process.






This may possibly be true on a carburated engine but not on a fuel injected one with a MAF sensor and oxygen sensors(automotive applications). The amount of fuel is based on the amount of air(after the filter or arrestor).

I used to use K&N filters in all my vehicles. Not anymore...too many tests have determined that the K&N filter rarely filter well enough after they have been cleaned and oiled to prevent a lot of dirt from getting into the engine.

A good test to see if your engine would benefit from a K&N spark arrestor would be to run the engine with and without the stock spark arrestor with the engine cover off. If it performs better with it off, maybe you will benefit from a more free flowing arrestor.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MAXUM27
[br
If they can make a re-useable air filter then why do they still sell paper ones .. Why its all about the bottom line. TO MAKE MONEY..





No...its because the paper ones actually protect your engine better.

There is a balancing act between free flow and filtering. The more free flow a filter is, the less filtering there will be.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MAXUM27

quote:

Originally posted by yzer

K&N filters save gasoline compared to a new paper filter? I don't think even K&N makes that claim. If that was the case you would see them on every new car sold in the US. I rest my case.





If they can make a re-useable air filter then why do they still sell paper ones .. Why its all about the bottom line. TO MAKE MONEY.. car makers rely on your car breaking down and the parts attached to it ... thats why they dont put K&N filters in every new car.... Car Makers have stakes in replacement part manufacturers ..i.e. AC Delco sound familiar?







Here are some facts: Purolator OEM panel filter vs. K&N re-usable panel filter on my 2003 WRX:

K&N Reusable air filter
250K miles:
1 K&N filter $60
2 recharge (cleaner) kits: $40

total cost $100
total down time (car is unusable) 60 hrs.*
filter cleaning interval for max airflow: 50K miles.
benefit: unrestrictive airflow with an unspecified gain of up to 10.5 HP rb2@gr5t 7,000 RPM**. On my WRX, that's: 230-240.5 HP

PUROLATOR PAPER FILTER
250K miles
8 Purolator air filters (same as OEM) $96

total cost: $96
total down time (car is unusable) 2 hrs.
filter replacement interval for max. airflow: 30K miles.
benefits: unrestrictive air flow at specified 230 HP for my WRX (and up to 300 HP).

*Excessive down times with the K&N is due to the drying time between cleaning and oiling of the filter. This does not include cleaning and oiling time. In addition, many users recommend placing newly oiled filters on paper towels overnight prior to installation. This would double the down time I listed.

** 7,000 RPM is redline on the WRX and about 700 RPM over the power band top end for this turbo-charged car. There is no performance advantage to be gained by revving this particular engine to 7,000 RPM except for WOT top gear during track use. 10.5 HP is a lawn mower engine.
 
Interesting that many people will puit one on to save a few tenths of PSI drop across the filter. Only to compensate for it with that massive air restrictor called a throttle.

If you are not running Wide Open Throttle at high RPM, there is not much point in any high performance air filter.
 
I put a large K&N on the 502 mag in my Velocity and picked up over 250 RPM.......however I also went from Merc stock exhaust (through hull)to Lightning headers. This is probably the easiest way to make more power. Not cheap but it will make power.
 
Padraig, what you wrote makes sense, with the addition of the lower restriction headers. Have you ever tried putting the original flame arrestor back on to see if you still get the same 250 rpm increase with just the headers? I would think that the K&N has no effect and the increase was from the exhaust.
 
quote:

Originally posted by zackman

Padraig, what you wrote makes sense, with the addition of the lower restriction headers. Have you ever tried putting the original flame arrestor back on to see if you still get the same 250 rpm increase with just the headers? I would think that the K&N has no effect and the increase was from the exhaust.






I thought about it but I didn't want to know bad enough to swap them out. <g> it still wouldn't be apples to apples as I also had the ECU tweaked to take advantage of the less restrictive exhaust. Besides as someone else said I like the looks of the shiny Hardin Marine Breather. <g> I would guess that the K&N had minimal effect but you need to look at both ends, intake and exhaust.
 
It's interesting to read the various responses to this question. I just put the 9" diameter x 2" tall K&N on my 5.7L mercruiser and ran it for the first time this past weekend. I can definately say my engine ran better, particularly at cold start up. My engine used to sputter, smoke some, and generally idle poorly until it warmed up. It would often stall if I tried to put it in gear too soon (a real hassle on busy days when others are waiting for you to get out of the way at the ramp). All that went away. It "seems" to have better throtle response too, which I've heard guys say about cold air intakes on cars. That part could be my imagination. However my wife pulls me skiing and was completely unaware of the modification. She even commented that the boat seems to run smoother. I can say I feel like my engine benefited. Think of it like NASCAR without the restrictor plate. The top end output of the engine may only change slightly, but the time to get there is what I think you will notice. I don't think you will be disappointed but you won't know for sure until you try one. But if you think of your boat generally as a toy anyway what's the harm.
 
Back
Top