Towing CAI Question

[Keeblerz28]

Originally Posted by Longshot270

It is not that the oil breaks the sensor, the problem is the oil is said to coat the sensor and mess up the readings.

I don't think you clicked any of the video links on that page I linked earlier...

Out of 107 sensors returned: 65 functioning properly, 19 completely dead, 23 malfunctioning. Of the 23 malfunctioning, none had any evidence of k&n oil.
Mass Air Flow Sensors Intro & Test Results Summary

Test bench: 1000 CFM for 3 days straight using a 30% over-oiled filter = No oil loss from filter.
Can Oil Come Off Our Filters? High Airflow Testing & Engine Air Filter Dynamics

Dunking the MAF in a beaker of oil, initial readings were off, but sensor returned to normal operation after a few cycles.
What Does It Take to Foul a MAF Sensor? Extreme Testing

I think this myth is what Adam and Jamie would call:
BUSTED!

[Longshot270]

I'm not saying you or K&N are wrong.

Originally Posted by Longshot270

It is not that the oil breaks the sensor, the problem is the oil is said to coat the sensor and mess up the readings.

That is just one of the general opinions and like many general opinions can be supported or rejected just as easily.

Also like I said, when I installed my drop in filter I did notice an instant improvement so they do have a good product. I have no problem with oiled filters because I've been using them for years on everything from gocarts and motorcycles to large diesel tractors and havent had a problem with them yet.

[88Racing]

Originally Posted by Keeblerz28

I don't think you clicked any of the video links on that page I linked earlier...

Out of 107 sensors returned: 65 functioning properly, 19 completely dead, 23 malfunctioning. Of the 23 malfunctioning, none had any evidence of k&n oil.
Mass Air Flow Sensors Intro & Test Results Summary

Test bench: 1000 CFM for 3 days straight using a 30% over-oiled filter = No oil loss from filter.
Can Oil Come Off Our Filters? High Airflow Testing & Engine Air Filter Dynamics

Dunking the MAF in a beaker of oil, initial readings were off, but sensor returned to normal operation after a few cycles.
What Does It Take to Foul a MAF Sensor? Extreme Testing

I think this myth is what Adam and Jamie would call:
BUSTED!

How conviniant that K+N just so happens to use the GM mass air flow for its testing.
Also their tests are biased due to that they performed them and did not have third party intervention.
I challenge you to find third party testing before you announce BUSTED!

[88Racing]

Originally Posted by JackandJanet

That's an interesting link, Keebler. What I like about it is it seems pretty "calm", clear, to the point and was written by someone who knows how to write (at least the couple pages I've read so far). It makes me want to believe them.

Another thing I acknowledge is that "Bluejay", another Mod on f150online has been using a K&N drop in for years with no problems whatsoever. I suspect they DO have a product that works, although I can't really decide if it works any better than the OEM filters.

- Jack

Drop in air filters in the stock air boxes come after the MAF.

[Jackpine]

Originally Posted by 88Racing

Drop in air filters in the stock air boxes come after the MAF.

Uh, I don't think so. At least it wouldn't be that way on my truck. If I understand a drop in filter correctly, it just replaces the OEM paper one and that thing is upstream of the MAF.

However, I agree it would be nice for K&N to have an independent lab do the testing. Regardless though, I liked the "tone" of what I read so far. No wild claims and no emotional tirades.

- Jack

[88Racing]

Originally Posted by JackandJanet

Uh, I don't think so. At least it wouldn't be that way on my truck. If I understand a drop in filter correctly, it just replaces the OEM paper one and that thing is upstream of the MAF.

- Jack

Yes you are correct, I ran out and looked.

[Jackpine]

I'm delighted that I'm not the only one to make dumb posts now and then! I was starting to feel like an idiot after my questions in the Moderator's forum.

- Jack

[88Racing]

Originally Posted by JackandJanet

I'm delighted that I'm not the only one to make dumb posts now and then! I was starting to feel like an idiot after my questions in the Moderator's forum.

- Jack

Here's one for me>>>

[Keeblerz28]

Originally Posted by 88Racing

How conviniant that K+N just so happens to use the GM mass air flow for its testing.

Why would the car brand make any difference? The same K&N filter technology & same oil is used on all their filters...

Originally Posted by 88Racing

Also their tests are biased due to that they performed them and did not have third party intervention.
I challenge you to find third party testing before you announce BUSTED!

As for 3rd party testing, how about the 107 supposedly defective sensors that were returned to them, 65 were totally fine! They sent the 23 malfunctioning ones to an independent lab (3rd party) to examine and determine contaminants. NONE had k&N oil on them. This is all from the first video link I provided earlier.

What about the millions of other filters they have sold over the years? Just think of how many millions of miles have been driven with their filters? How more unbiased a study do you want?

I have a technical background, I work in a lab, and I do a lot of testing according to standards. So I can appreciate when a company spends the time to do the R&D, with a dedicated test fixture, with annually calibrated instruments. You won't even find that at Mythbusters...

This myth is busted, IMO

[Power Hungry]

Originally Posted by Keeblerz28

As for 3rd party testing, how about the 107 supposedly defective sensors that were returned to them, 65 were totally fine! They sent the 23 malfunctioning ones to an independent lab (3rd party) to examine and determine contaminants. NONE had k&N oil on them.

There's no question that many automotive "Technicians" are merely parts changers, with often inadequate diagnostic training if any at all. I don't doubt that a number of sampled MAF sensors we completely fine and were replaced with the "Well, let's replace it and see if it fixes it" approach.

I think the point being made is that K&N was the party that was handling the testing (at least as far as which "independent" company handled the testing) as well as handling the information on their results. With this in mind, it's possible (although I'd hope unlikely) that they could intentionally obfuscate the facts in their favor. I think it would be more credible if a fully independent test, of which K&N had no control whatsoever, was done.

Originally Posted by Keeblerz28

What about the millions of other filters they have sold over the years? Just think of how many millions of miles have been driven with their filters? How more unbiased a study do you want?

I can't offer any opinion on that without case studies of applications, vehicle types, induction systems, maintenance procedures, and about a zillion other things that would have any bearing on this discussion.

Originally Posted by Keeblerz28

I have a technical background, I work in a lab, and I do a lot of testing according to standards. So I can appreciate when a company spends the time to do the R&D, with a dedicated test fixture, with annually calibrated instruments. You won't even find that at Mythbusters...

I can appreciate your work environment and training, and with that in mind I can understand how people can be opinionated, especially in regards to supporting opinions with empirical data. Again, if the testing was handled entirely by a third party, then I would have a better feeling about the results. Because K&N was so involved in the testing, it leaves room for doubt.

For example:

A few years ago, Ford was reflashing 6.0L trucks with updated ECM/TCM/FICM strategies and IMMEDIATELY (as in before they even left the parking lot) customers noticed a loss of performance and subsequently noticed losses in fuel economy. Ford, in response to these complaints, did study of these complaints and this was what they had found:

http://www.gopowerhungry.com/Downloads/6.0L Fuel Economy Test.pdf

Apparently, it's Ford's opinion that there is no problem with the updated strategies and that all the customers that have lost performance and fuel economy must be suffering from some sort of mass delusion. Just because the manufacturer claims it, doesn't make it so.

For what it's worth, I have PERSONALLY removed MAF sensors from vehicles that had oil residue on and in the units, not to mention all down the intake tubes. This would be, presumably, from improper/over oiling of the filter element. While the sensors hadn't "failed" per se, the oil coating the sensor wires would cause delayed response of the sensor by insulating the thermal transfer across the sensing element. This would result in backfiring, throttle hesitation, and minor drivability issues. A simple cleaning with electronics cleaner and the residue was removed and the drivability symptoms would clear right up. Based on K&N's testing though, I must be crazy to think their filter had anything to do with the problems.

Originally Posted by Keeblerz28

This myth is busted and so are your pathetic arguments.

One final thought... We always enjoy in partaking of a hearty, and sometimes even heated, discussion on a variety of subjects. However, our forum is based on the respect of other members, and as such, insults will not be tolerated. Calling someone's arguments or opinions "pathetic" is not only unacceptable, it's not conducive to argument/debate process. If that type of behavior continues, the consequences will be swift and severe. Keep it respectful, and we'll all get along just fine.

Take care.