They're popular due to good marketing...it's like Bose.

 

You're way more likely to destroy your engine due to manufacturing flaws(#4 cyl problem), overrev, hydrolock, or low oil than due to wear via intake debris. Most of these S2000's will be rusted out with broken diffs and transmissions before anyone here sees a failure due to a K&N filter. This is just fearmongering for cars that spend their time on paved roads.

 

^what about people who have K&N's on CAIs? the ones that pick up significantly higher amounts of dust because they're so low to the ground? My friends Prelude has a CAI that picks up air from right behind the bumper.....It gets dirty..like BLACK every oil change (3K miles).

 

Personally, I think the concern about dirt passing through a K&N is much ado about nothing. I own a '94 Grand Cherokee that has had an FIPK on since '97.....had 60K miles at install, now has 175K miles. It runs perfectly. I have seen dozens of opinions that a car using a K&N filter will pass thru more dirt which will subsequently damage/shorten the life of the engine. Not once have I ever seen a scientific study that shows this. The initial quote mentioned refers to heavy construction/mining vehicles, and even then offers no data.

My challenge to the anti K&N crowd: provide any evidence that the use of a K&N filter has ever damaged or reduced the life of an auto engine.

 

+1

however, I doubt most people are going to see a significant increase in wear using a properly used/maintained K&N, unless they're driving on dirt roads or something

 

UOAs show it pretty consistently, the question is, is a little extra silicon in your oil really causing significant wear...in most cases, apparently not

 

i had a k&n fipk and then went back to stock and then added a k&n drop in filter shortly after for about 33K miles and still runs fine. but during spring when there is a lot of pollen i switch back to the oem filter and also during wither when the put that salt and gravel on the road. i also have the snorkel fwiw.

 

FWIW, I made no mention of silicon. My statement is that I have never seen any scientific evidence that even if the K&N passes a little more dust than paper that this has led to premature wear or breakdown of the engine.

I don't even know if a higher silicon reading means anything, but there are users on this board who say that with the use of K&N, their silicon reading in UOA has not changed. So even on that point, "consistently" is suspect, not to mention it is at best a guesstimate with no scientific study behind it.

 

Its clear just but holding the k&n up to the light...you can see how much bigger the holes are

 

whatever...you seem to be the ultimate skeptic, when the results of many UOAs are very clear than increased silicon in the oil is a DIRECT RESULT of using K&N filters...period....I've seen enough of them to know