Subject: Re: [TR] K & N air filters

From: John Macartney <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 14:23:48 +0100 (BST)

IMHO, the KN filter is a waste of money. I had two on my Triumph 2000, noticed
nothing in terms of 'increased performance' (but then I don't believe such
claims anyway) and certainly no increase in the amount of filth the KN
retained in comparison to my conventional Unipart paper filter. 
That said,
mere observation is an inaccurate method of efficacy measurement but I was and
still am far from convinced.
 I've also asked many people if they believed the
advertising hype, seen increased dirt retention or felt the KN was a better
option? The answers have been 'No' in all cases - but perhaps those people
were all grumpy old *b*****s" just like me? 
 
Jonmac

** [email-masked] **

Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
Unsubscribe/Manage: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/triumphs/[email-masked]

---

From: Robert Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 09:35:41 -0500

John an All;

Every English car magazine and many Englishmen pretty well treats everything
automotive originating in the USA with disdain.  Could there be a little of
that creeping in here?

Bob
On May 19, 2012, at 8:23 AM, John Macartney wrote:

> Unsubscribe/Manage:
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/triumphs/[email-masked]

---

From: John Macartney <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 17:08:55 +0100 (BST)

Hi, Bob
 
I had absolutely no idea until getting your post that KN was of
American origin/manufacture :) so *very, v-e-r-y* sorry to one and all if I
inadvertantly trod on patriotic toes. 
I still think it's a waste of money and
in the same vein as using synthetic engine oil in our engines. 
In the case of
the oil though, I applaud its use in modern engines because the operating
pressures and temperatures are so much higher. But for power units of forty
plus years (or more) ago, give me good ole mineral 20/50. And for old engines
with a bit of 'slop' in bearings and gaps you could drive a horse and cart
through, my favourite strawberry conserve (with or without the fruit) would
probably be just as good as an alternative.

John
 
________________________________
 From: Robert Jones <[email-masked]>
To:
John Macartney <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] 
Sent:
Saturday, 19 May 2012, 15:35
Subject: Re: [TR] K & N air filters

>John an
All;
>
>Every English car magazine and many Englishmen pretty well treats
everything automotive originating in the USA with disdain.  Could there be a
little of that creeping in here?
Unsubscribe/Manage:

---

From: Mark Hooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 14:17:00 -0400

In the past I have installed K&N filters on my motorcycles and my TR6 for the
following highly technical reasons:

/start technical reasons

1 - They look pretty.
2 - They let me fit nice shiny filter enclosures

/end technical reasons

They certainly do flow more easily than paper filters. Just put them on a
2-stroke motorcycle and watch it stop working due to the changed intake vacuum
level. Unfortunately it is probably also true that the flow improvement is due
to less effective filtering.

Faut souffrir pour etre belle.

Mark Hooper
1972 TR6 (with triple Strombergs and K&Ns)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of John Macartney
Sent: May-19-12 9:24 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [TR] K & N air filters

IMHO, the KN filter is a waste of money. I had two on my Triumph 2000,
noticed
mere observation is an inaccurate method of efficacy measurement but I was
and

Jonmac

---

From: Michael Porter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2012 13:26:11 -0600

On 5/19/2012 12:17 PM, Mark Hooper wrote:
> They certainly do flow more easily than paper filters.

I've only had limited experience with a K&N.  My GT6 came with ones 
that, admittedly, hadn't been properly maintained (hadn't been cleaned 
and oiled to spec).  It also burned oil at a prodigious rate.  When I 
did an emergency ring job on it, the cylinders looked as if they'd been 
smoothed with fine sandpaper (virtually all engines that have been 
broken in properly and had the oil and filter changed to schedule will 
retain some evidence of honing underneath the cylinder glaze--this one 
had none).

That said, most heavy-duty transit engines still use big canister-type 
paper filters.  When I first started in that business, there were a 
number of failures of Donaldson filters, which Donaldson tracked down to 
shops using compressed air to blow dirt off of and out of the filters.  
Even at fairly low pressures, that practice produced microscopic tears 
that allowed quite a bit of dirt to pass through the filter, so they 
began recommending that their filters be tapped gently to dislodge caked 
dust and be reused until they no longer met specs, since they had found 
that the finest dust particles tended to plug the pores in the paper 
advantageously--they stopped the small particles from passing the 
element.  (This is a practice that's probably unsuitable for 
normally-aspirated gasoline engines, since most big diesels today have 
turbos assisting cylinder charging, which means they can tolerate a 
bigger pressure drop across the filter, and most HD diesels have _really 
big_ filters with lots of excess capacity.)

But, still, most cars today typically run paper filters, and thanks to 
the minimal bore-washing that occurs with good engine management and 
fuel injection, will typically run several hundred thousand miles with 
regular maintenance.  Moreover, for most Triumphs, the real limiting 
factor for flow is the engine itself, not the carburetors or the air 
filters.

Cheers.

-- 

Michael Porter
Roswell, NM

Never let anyone drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance....