IPD sale Volvo Parts

No K&N Controversy here?

Help, Advice and DIY Tutorials on Volvo's extremely popular car line -- Volvo's 1990s "bread and butter" cars -- powered by the ubiquitous and durable Volvo inline 5-cylinder engine.
1992 - 1997 850, 850 R, 850 T5-R, 850 T5, 850 GLT
1997 - 2000 S70, S70 AWD
1997 - 2000 V70, V70 AWD
1997 - 2000 V70-XC
1997 - 2004 C70
tjts1
Posts: 673
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:31 am
Year and Model: 96 855 NA 5 speed
Location:
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: No K&N Controlversy here?

Post by tjts1 » Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:56 pm

Don't Bother Changing the Factory Filter
http://autospeed.com/cms/A_2232/article.html

I would rather have a brand new Mann filter every 10k miles at $10/pop than blow $50 plus the cost of the oil on some reusable filter with a bunch of marketing an hot air behind it. I would have to keep the same filter for more than 50k miles just to break even my initial cost and I still have to clean it and oil it at the same 10k interval. There is no benefit in switching to a reusable filter.
Ambitious but rubbish

JDS60R
MVS Moderator
Posts: 3531
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:52 pm
Year and Model: 2007 S60R 2007 S60
Location: Mount Juliet, TN
United States of America

Re: No K&N Controlversy here?

Post by JDS60R » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:07 pm

I have realized a benefit in the time I save, the increased fuel economy, the lesser amount of oil being pulle dinto the combustion chamer as well as the number of sensors it effects or wears out sooner.

In my case the OEM filter is $35 and the K&N was $45 so the math is easy.

The OEM is like breathing through a brick.The K&N offers minimal restriction.
Masterworks Complete Auto Services
Volvo Spoken Here !!!
100 Park Circle
Old Hickory, TN 37138

instarx
Posts: 738
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 5:17 pm
Year and Model: V70 XC SE, 2000
Location: North Carolina

Re: No K&N Controlversy here?

Post by instarx » Sat May 02, 2009 8:01 am

JDS60R wrote:The K&N filtration performance increases significantly once dirty. This is a planned benefit of the filter and cleaning it actually lowers the filtration efficiency.
All filters get more efficient at removing particles as they get dirty. Its hardly a special design feature of K&N filters (although clearly their marketing department would like people to think so). The trade-off is that as filters get more efficient due to particle entrainment the resistance to airflow across them also increases. That's true for K&N filters too, which do not have an exemption from the laws of physics.

As for K&N filters giving 5 extra hp... I find that extremely unlikely. Pressure-drops across paper and K&N filters are all in the range of 6-7 inches-of-water when clean. A quick Google search will show you that K&N filters typically only provide about 0.5 "H2O less pressure drop than a stock paper filter - which would result in an insignificant improvement in Q (air volume/time) given the volume of air passing through the filters.

And BTW, an extra 0.5 "H2O of vacuum downstream of a stock filter isn't going to pull oil into the combustion chamber.

Just so everyone is on the same page with how small a pressure difference 0.5 "H2O is - put a straw in a glass of water and suck water half an inch up the straw. That's the pressure differential K&N would like you to think gives extra horsepower and mpg.

IMO, K&N aren't bad filters, but neither are they great filters. In truth, they are simply expensive high profit-margin filters with a hugely effective marketing department.
2000 V70XC SE - 184k miles... busted
2011 XC60 - 66K miles... the big blue marshmallow

nifton
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:52 am
Year and Model: 460 1997
Location: UK Sheffield

Re: No K&N Controlversy here?

Post by nifton » Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:02 am

tjts1 wrote:Don't Bother Changing the Factory Filter
http://autospeed.com/cms/A_2232/article.html

I would rather have a brand new Mann filter every 10k miles at $10/pop than blow $50 plus the cost of the oil on some reusable filter with a bunch of marketing an hot air behind it. I would have to keep the same filter for more than 50k miles just to break even my initial cost and I still have to clean it and oil it at the same 10k interval. There is no benefit in switching to a reusable filter.
Sorry for resurection.

After reading your link, and the other one with the actual comparason tests over 500 miles per filter, the nay sayer is talking ou this arse.

While the benefits may be negligable, the guy saying not to bother says that he only observed a .5 drop in atmospheric preasure without the filter. The link with the road tests states a very large difference, of sometimes 40% diffrence (read 7 with napa filyer, 5 with no filter).

I'm inclined to go with the latter, however I think the tester failed to appriciate the back preassure he'd have by mounting a second filter after the post air-box sensor, had he done the test on a standard system, I think there would be even lower readings.

OP, did you fit a K&N? i have a 460 GS and i think the filter has never been replaced after 13 years and 93k miles. Was toying with the K&N replacement, still not sure, looks like a hung jury.

[email protected]
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:31 pm
Year and Model:
Location: Knoxville TN
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: No K&N Controlversy here?

Post by [email protected] » Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:22 am

Yes, I now have about 1,700 miles on the K&N filter.

My perception is that there was a slight increase in throttle response (I already performed the airbox mod and the 960 throttle plate mod so I am not sure how much more could be expected here).

My fuel economy average since the switch actually dropped 1.85 MPG compared to the previous 4K miles (from 22.29 MPG to 20.44). I am not aware of any other factors which may be influencing the MPG but I think the data so far is inconclusive. If anyone is wondering, I replaced the fuel filter (Genuine Volvo) and spark plugs (Bosch Super Plus 7955 copper and cleaned the throttle body about 7K miles ago. I thought about switching back to the paper filter after about 4K miles on the K&N and seeing if the MPG goes back up but I'm not sure I really care enough to go to the trouble.

I paid $47.62 including tax for the K&N filter at AutoZone. As best I recall the most recent paper filter I purchase was Genuine Volvo for around $15-$20 from Daryl Waltrip (purchased the air filter and the cabin filter together for $33.87 including tax - no shipping).

Not sure any of this helps anyone, but it is what it is - for what it's worth......
Calvin
98 S70
00 V70
Previous:
240,245,760,940,850 Turbo

shilander
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:04 pm
Year and Model: 240DL 1990
Location: Austin, Texas USA

Re: No K&N Controlversy here?

Post by shilander » Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:34 pm

Amsoil Absolute Efficiency Air Filter (EAA209)

or

Mann Air Filter (C35148)

Amsoil used to use technology similiar to K&N.

The new Amsoil EAA filters perform much better...

nifton
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:52 am
Year and Model: 460 1997
Location: UK Sheffield

Re: No K&N Controlversy here?

Post by nifton » Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:44 am

Thanks for the quick replies,

[email protected], What are these mods you're talking about i've been trawling the forums for weeks since getting my 460 just over 2 months ago, and the only mods i could find where ECUrepro or induction kits, which don't really count imo.
Maybe the difference in flow is so much more it needs krypton tuning? I was going to stick the end of a funel with the bottom cut out and some mesh over the end on the end of my air duct, then stick it on a little bracket down in the flow of air near the shaft, change the filter and send it to the kryton guys.

Shilander, cheers for the tips, i'll do a bit of research tonight. I'll be sorting this over the next week, so i'll you know which i go for.

[email protected]
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:31 pm
Year and Model:
Location: Knoxville TN
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: No K&N Controlversy here?

Post by [email protected] » Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:48 am

Nifton, the mods that I referred to apply to the US petrol 2.4 non-turbo engine that's in my 98 S70 and in base 850 models.

The stock throttle plate in these engines has a large plastic "restrictor" attached to it which limits air flow into the throttle. A plate from a 960 throttle body does not have the added restriction and is an exact fit into the S70/850 (non Turbo) throttle body. As far as I know, no one has measured the increase in performance but it is a very easy and inexpensive modification through which many people (including myself) report that they experience a noticable (and pleasing) improvement in throttle response.

The "airbox mod" that I refer to involves the flap mechanism (sometimes called the airbox thermostat) in the intake hose to the airbox. The flap is vacuum actuated and directs air heated by the exhaust manifold through a flexible tubing into the airbox when the engine is cold. After the engine warms up, the flap closes off the hot air so that the throttle receives ambient air through the airbox. Especially in the 93 - 97 850 models, this flap mechanism frequently malfunctions and remains in the hot air position full time - robbing power and reducing fuel efficiency. The fix for this problem involves disabling the vacuum control mechanism and glueing, screwing, jamming, or otherwise permanantly placing the flap in the ambient air position.

There are extensive posts on MVS regarding both of these modifications that you can search for if you are interested in reading more about them.

I know abolutely nothing about diesel engines or your 460, but I kind of doubt either of these would apply to it. You or someone more knowledgeable than I am can confirm that.
Calvin
98 S70
00 V70
Previous:
240,245,760,940,850 Turbo

Ferrisml
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:28 am
Year and Model: 1999 s70
Location: Houston Tx

Re: No K&N Controlversy here?

Post by Ferrisml » Thu Mar 18, 2010 12:54 am

I heard that poking 4, 1/2" holes in the bottom of your air box will increase more air flow and your car will preform better ? Is this not true ?

vxo
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:50 pm
Year and Model: 1997 850 T5
Location: Miami, FL

Re: No K&N Controversy here?

Post by vxo » Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:41 pm

Suddenly, an engineer appears!

I dropped in the K&N on my 97 850 T-5. I'm not concerned with the MAF sensor, since the MAF sensor will simply burn off any oil it sucks in. The sensor uses a small platinum wire (which is why these things are so expensive, in case you were wondering) :lol:

The ambient temperature inside the MAF's tube is sensed, and a known amount of electrical power is dissipated (converted to heat) through the wire. The resistance is sensed by determining the voltage drop across it. This is proportional to the rate of airflow, since the specific heat and the density of the air are known (calculated by temperature and MAP).

Every time you shut down the engine, or probably also if an error is detected while driving, a high "burnoff" current is applied to the platinum wire which causes it to glow white hot! Platinum's capable of putting up with insane temperatures without melting, and it has several nice catalyst properties, so heating it up like this is the ideal way to keep the wire clean. Needless to say, the vegetable based oil that K&N sells for spraying their filters will not survive this process.

MAF sensor cleaner would be useful in cleaning out fuzz that's blocking it up, but I wouldn't recommend using it -- there's a good risk of blowing a ball of crap around inside the MAF that falls on the platinum wire. Ow. If the screens are dirty at the ends, I'd probably just want to clean it carefully with a vacuum cleaner.

That aside, here's why I changed to the K&N: The stupid paper filter now costs $30+, whereas a single K&N was $45. Do the math... :D

After changing a *dirty* paper filter for the K&N, I did notice better throttle response, higher city mileage, and the car no longer had little jitters at highway speed. Unfortunately, since the paper filter was SPENT, this is comparing apples to oranges. One odd side effect of the change: When the car is initially warming up, for the first minute or so, if I start driving at low speeds, I get a sound similar to that of blowing over the top of a soda bottle. It fades away as soon as the temp gauge reaches about 25% of the range. I think the low-resistance K&N filter is simply not absorbing the sound coming from the EGR valve like the old paper filter did?

Now, on to the subject of large holes in the bottom of the air box: Don't do it! Look at your intake. It pulls COLD air into the system. If you punch large holes in the bottom of the air box, you'll be pulling hot underhood air into the engine, reducing its efficiency and power.

Do ensure that the SMALL weep hole that's factory-punched in the box is clear. Regularly open up the filter box and vacuum out any schmutz that's gathered in its bottom, particularly anything that blocks the hole. When I put in my K&N, road construction dust had almost filled the bottom of the box, and there was a vortex-like pattern from where air currents had been swirling it around and allowing it to slowly trickle out through the weep hole. Aaaaaargh!

If you replace your air filter box with a cone filter, I will simply be forced to laugh at you. :lol:

As for the preheat flap.. The 850 T5 doesn't have that flap valve nonsense, though I do remember either a 240 or 740 we had in the past being equipped with it, and we'd just wedged it shut with a drywall screw. I recall the intake to the plastic flap valve being a long piece of what looked like dryer hose, running down in front of the engine...? Either way, I'm in south Florida, so the benefit of having this preheat is more or less lost.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Herb Goltz, WhatAmIDoing and 71 guests