tonykharper

Anyone using these filters in their S65? I would like to try them but would like to hear of others experiences first.

Tony

Sgt. Schultz

funny I just installed these on Tue in my 600

was hoping it'd up the audible anti a bit more

it did unleash 'some' nice throttle-lift 'dump' sound if you load it under boost then abruptly lift, albeit a bit queefesque

better than nothing

flow-wise it's smoothened out the throttle on/off-ness

I figured w/ the neuly liberated exhaust - these made good sense

will say that the car positively rips proppah **** with flash/exhaust/filters - PROPPAH!

just go easy on the subsequent re-oil, forced induction cars will suck it off and foul the MAF

tonykharper

I read that same thing about clogging up the MAF. My problem is I don't know what a MAF is, nor do I know where it is located. Is it something easy to clean should I screw up and get it clogged?

Tony

grane

As Constantine says, "some people like it, some people don't."

Consider Using Techron regularly according to bottle directions no matter which filter you use. It will tend to keep the intake and combustion system including the pricey Mass Airflow Sensor (MAF) clean. It is the only additive blessed by MB. I have no data on whether it will neutralize or correct long term use of oiled filters on the intake system. It does in my experience with several high performance injected/supercharged cars over 10 plus years keep intake systems cleaner than not using it according to the techs who have worked on my cars. I keep my cars for a long time so they would have seen problems there.

If you insist on using nonMB filters minimal or no oiling is recommended. Some say the reason these aftermarket filters seem to give a boost is because they do not fit and filter as well as the MB filters thus allowing more air, and particulates to enter the engine. If you oil them you may mess up the MAF. Is it worth it? Consider if the car had been under warranty and one uses these filters and one has an engine problem, put in the MB filters before one makes a warranty claim.

tonykharper

Grane,

Thank you for your most helpful post. Think I will use the MB filters.

Tony

MB-Dude

First, it is not my intent to spin-up a number of folks...

But back in my much younger days, when I was riding 500cc off-road bikes, I used K&N oil-impregnated filters - similar technology to today's automobile K&N methodology. Now after each ride (couple hours in duration), I would dutifully wash and re-oil the filter. Then I began seeing 'dust' and occasional grit in the carb throat... and after about 60 hours of riding, the engine needed new rings.

Now I didn't mind spending an evening in the garage with a couple beers, rebuilding a 500cc 2-stroke motorcycle engine every 60-80 running hours, especially one that drops out after removing only 3 bolts, a hose clamp and a couple cables. But I'm not too sure how I would react to having to install new rings in my high-tech V8 with a zillion things hanging off of it, say, every 50,000 miles because the K&N Filter passes fine particles.

My direct experience with using K&N Filters on a dirt bike taught me that they're great filters, IF (and this is a huge 'if') you don't mind the added maintenance because they do *not* trap fine particles. For applications like off-roading, they're quite good. But you must be ready for the damage caused by them passing fine particles.

It doesn't matter how heavily you 'load up' the cleaned filter with lube - once you run the engine at high speed/RPM, the oil gets sucked out of the filter. On 4-stroke engines, that could mean the MAF gets clogged occasionally and the throttle throat gets an oily film on it. What makes K&N Filters a great free-flowing filter is the larger mean-free-path through the filter for air and... well... stuff, like particles.

For real data, take a look at this link…
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest3.htm

Although this page has been around for a while, the tests are fairly conclusive and based upon systematic sampling. Results notwithstanding, it’s really a good example of sound scientific technique. Unfortunately (as the author implies) the testing was completed primarily in a part of Washington that is inherently 'clean'. Would be interesting to review the same testing in a ‘harsher’ environment, like inland So. Cal., the Southwest, here in Texas, or Midwest during the summer months. Imagine cruising down the highway when that truck in front of you begins dropping dirt clods, driving through construction dust clouds, sand whipped up along the beach, etc.

Million mile claims (made by the filter maker, no less) aside, the author’s concluding statement is… well… common sense (and I quote)…
“Really, it is up to each individual to decide. The poorer flowing filters, remove more particles, and the better flowing filters remove less particles. If you think about it, that conclusion passes any and all common sense tests, so it is not surprising.”

Would I use K&N Filters? Absolutely, but in off-road vehicles that I don't mind rebuilding every so often. Or a true show car that sees very low mileage. Arguably, off-roading is far more torturous than street. But in the heat of the summer, when it's dusty, street conditions get closer than you think to off-road. It’s your ride… your car… your ‘investment’. Load what you want in it. For me, I’ll stick with paper filters. For what it's worth. I respect the opinions of others, and this one's mine.

Cheers,
Jeff

MB-Dude

Some time ago, K&N Filters made a big ballyhoo about the truck that did a million miles on K&N Filters. The owner was supposedly awarded a new turck. Surprisingl;y, the article is still on the web…
http://www.knfilters.com/news/news.aspx?ID=564
So let’s see if K&N’s marketing people have pulled a fast one here…

At the time of the million miles (2006), the 1998 truck was 8 years old (2006-1998). Assuming the truck was delivered with 0 miles on the odometer and exactly 8 years later hit 1,000,000, the truck was driven an average of 125,000 miles per year (1,000,000/8). This means the truck averaged 2,403 miles per week (125,000/52), or 342 miles a day (125,000/365)… every day… 365 days a year… for 8 continuous years.

Guys, that means this pick-up truck - not a commercial long-distance hauler - was on the road 342 miles a day for 2,920 straight days (365*8). That includes all holidays, birthdays, Sundays, all types of weather, good health, sickness, auto maintenance, etc. Assuming a very generous average speed of 55 MPH, this truck is being driven over 6 hours every day (342/55)… for 2,920 straight days. Any slower average speed (more probable) and the daily driven time just gets longer. Hello… There’s only 24 hours in a day, so another way to look at this is that the truck lived 1/4 of its entire life at an average speed of 55 MPH. That's pretty amazing... too good to be true.

Further assuming gas mileage of 15 MPG (rather generous for a late 90’s vintage truck), Mr. Judice is tanking up at least once a day. So add another 15 minutes to the average daily driving time. Does Mr. Judice ever do anything other than drive his truck? (Presumably, the truck is driven by multiple people. But you get the point.) Does this really make logical sense?!?

BTW, in order to keep the truck in even reasonable running condition, Mr. Judice is performing an engine oil change every other week (4,794 miles)… for 8 years. This is additional time Mr. Judice is associated with his truck and this does *not* take into account additional maintenance time for tires, other fluid changes, brake maintenance, etc. Even assuming nothing broke on the truck requiring repairs (unlikely), the fluid/periodic maintenance would add time to the truck’s ‘daily life’.

As a reference point, the small 2.4 liter Mercedes diesel engine is arguably considered to be one of the most durable and reliable engines on Earth. It is not uncommon for owners of the 240D to hit 1,000,000 miles. Here’s a real example…
http://www.ajc.com/ajccars/content/a...edes_0531.html

But look at the age of the vehicle (1981) as compared to the date of the article (05/28/2008). Let’s see… that’s 27 years. A little more realistic at a mere 37,037 miles per year, or an average of 101 miles per day. And more and more of this age vehicle is hitting 1,000,000 miles; not 8-year old vehicles, regardless of the brand of air filter! Do a simple Google search (Mercedes + million miles). There's a bunch of 'em - all 70's or early 80's.

Interestingly, if you try using the link buried in the statement, “…to replace his former million-mile plus truck he has been driving since 1998.” You get an error. Hmmm… why doesn’t K&N want the public to see the vehicle that is the center of attention?

Finally, let's exercise some of our little grey cells... If this truck really hit 1,000,000 ‘engine on’, driving miles in 8 years, don’t you think the truck’s manufacturer would be far more interested in the publicity than K&N?!? I must have missed that story somehow. I’m sorry, but this tall tale just doesn’t add up. Do I really want to trust my high-tech engine to a company that can't even get some basic marketing plausible?

I really have nothing against K&N Filters. I've used them for years on motrocycle engines, with great results. But for something as expensive as an MB engine, I get a bit squimish. I mean think about it... it's the same filtering technology as your lawn mower engine. Food for thought. Peace.

Cheers,
Jeff

mrbenzes

I like how MD-Dude thinks (and writes)..Im also a pure stock filter kind of guy...never used K&N in anything, includig my dirtbikes.
Mike

mbelite1

I think you guys are reading too much into this stuff. K&N has a million mile warranty on the engine air filter, not the engine. They guarantee their filters to last a million miles regardless of how long the engine lasts.

They combine the idea of a mesh filter with oil bath technology, meaning they use the oil on the filter to help trap the dirt and let the clean air in the engine. Also, the reason the air filter flows more air is because the area that is open to airflow is bigger than it is in a paper filter.

Fact, paper filters work better at FILTERING the air. K&N filters FLOW more air than paper filters. There is a HUGE difference between AIR FLOW and AIR FILTRATION. If you want more air flow, get the K&N. If you want clean air flow, then stick to paper filters. However, the small amount of "dirt" that enters through a K&N is not big enough to cause engine damage.

Also, the only time we had MAF failures with regards to K&N filters (I worked at Benz for over 6 years before becoming a Tech Rep for the Gov) is usually because people over oiled the K&N filter OR oil them and did not allow the filters time to completely air dry. I recommend cleaning K&N, then oil filter and allow at least 24 hrs to dry in a non-humid environment. Thats just my opinion. And I run K&N's on everything from my daily driver, race car, S65 and Armada. They are safe!

grane

We agree. The K&ns are better than paper filters,having a zillion mile warranty on the K&N filter, but not in fleece filter fitments where both paper and K&N lose. especially when the dealer says, "not covered, sir/madam" after some engine failure occurs.

Saturday morning car shows are like Road Runner cartoons for older persons and their commercials are not high budget.

MB-Dude

I think that is the gist of what I said. I agree that a K&N filter flows better, but there is a trade off. The data presented in the link is pretty specific - K&N technology allows more particulates to pass than paper.

Regarding the million-mile marketing hoopla, it does not matter whether the warranty is for the filter or the engine. I really don't care. The K&N marketing folks didn't bother to give their fanciful tale even the most basic of sniff test. So if they are willing to produce such outrageous marketing claims (Over 300 miles a day, every day, for over 2900 straight days on a single truck!?! Come on!) what faith should I place in their claims of good air filtration?

Bottom line - If someone wants to run K&N, go ahead. It's their ride. From a scientific standpoint however, I would be very interested in reviewing real-life, independently conducted and monitored dyno tests and paper vs. K&N filtering tests; not K&N sponsored or a shop biased, one way or another. Then one can make a judgement based on value fully knowing the precise filtering capability vs. the performance enhancement (i.e.: improved air flow). If such truly independent data exists, I'd love to review it.

Cheers,
Jeff

tonykharper

Since we probably never know all we should know about the filters and their long term effect on our motors, I think it best to just go with the MB filters and be done with it.

Bought them yesterday, from the dealer and they did not cost anymore than I would have paid for the K&N filters.

One thing for sure, I don't even want to think about screwing up that AMG Bi Turbo V12 because I went with a cooool aftermarket filters.

Tony

Sgt. Schultz

well, they ain't for everyone

not for those who don't know what a MAF is (no offense - tho it's a bit weird to think about owning a bajillion horsepower engineering marvel w/o that basic knowledge)

not for those who believe the particle pass-thru will nuke a motor (maybe a Chinese made motor?)

I've been running w/ scissors on all my cars for manymany years of hundreds of thousands of miles without issue

it's not like any of us will keep these things beyond 200k so are you really going to do 'worriable' damage???

different strokes / folks 8-)

MB-Dude

Paul,

Although my posts here may present a different opinion, I’m not as hardline against K&N’s as might seem at first blush. I simply believe that if the K&N technology was really, really that stupendous, that at least one car manufacturer (major or minor) would have leased the rights by now. So there must be some liability – regardless of how small – in the minds of all car manufacturers. And I seriously doubt it’s the principals of K&N not wanting to market the patent rights. I know – there are massive amounts of mega-dollars in patent licensing. Own a good patent and the licensing can keep you and your children in with the rich & famous set for many years. So clearly, car manufacturers are timid.

That said I see no reason why someone wouldn’t run K&N’s on the track, then switch to paper for the daily driving. They are a well-built, free flowing filter. They just don’t collect as much stuff as paper. I’m sure you, and many others, have great experience with K&N’s in street applications. And I agree, if you don’t want to keep the ride for 200K, then sure, why not? The engine is the next sucker’s problem; caveat emptor. But just the thought of tiny particles migrating through my supercharger and upper end gives me that three-quarters-of-a-bottle of tequila feeling in the belly. It’s like the little backroom secret that K&N keeps hidden from the public; "We flow good… including particles." And of course, their marketing folks’ outrageous fantasy tales don’t help.

Cheers,
Jeff

Sgt. Schultz

I hear ya Jeff, and it's not like I don't agree in principle

I just don't think it's a real biggie

and mostly

I'm just havin fun funnin ya's with this as with everything 8-)... passes the time

besides - track?

the world is my roadcourse 8-)

SeaCoupe

I have a C Coupe with 226k miles. I have run at least140k of those miles with a K&N. No problems here.

Ed

MB-Dude

Paul,

See the concern and heart-wrenching tears in my eyes? <sniffle, sniffle> LOL

Opinions are like... well, you know rest. Every swingin' dink's got one and you know... that's OK! I respect anyone who can bring forward a good argument / discussion based on data and logic. And truth be told, I too, like having a bit of fun with the K&N guys. You guys get sooooo cocky about a piece of oil-soaked foam rubber surrounded by chicken-wire. LOL

It's a good product - in the right application - but not something that'll turn your rice cooker into a screaming F1 machine. I'll remind you of this thread when my '05 S55 hits the million mile mark on paper! Let's see, at current pace... that should be in the year of our Lord, 2064. LOL

Cheers,
Jeff

Quadcammer

K&N filters offer essentially zero benefit.

When clean/freshly oiled, they flow marginally better than clean stock paper at the expense of less filtration. When dirty, they actually filter better, but flow as poorly or even more poorly than a dirty paper filter.

Then you have the issues with maf oil damage and increased silica in your UOAs, which could lead to worse cylinder sealing somewhere down the line.

If these things resulted in some tangible performance benefit at the cost of an engine life of 200k miles instead of 250k miles, I'd probably go for it, but for the maybe 2-5 hp you gain (which you won't feel on a 500bhp car), is it worth it? I say no.

g9s8r

I read that Bob the oil guy thing and one thing I question....well kind of a dual thing. How much dirtier does a K&N filter look being that dirt sticks to the oil. And, when the filter gets dirty because of pure dust/dirt/particles mixed with the oil, how does it flow compared to the paper filter that is slightly dirty. I think a PROPERLY oiled filter shouldn't be an issue with MAF/MAP sensors. But like MB Dude said, its an opinion and we all have them. From what this sounds like, you either like them or you don't and you stick with your decision regardless.
So, what are the downsides of using an aftermarket paper filter that does not require oiling?

babyman1737

What are the upsides of using an aftermarket filter in the first place is the question you should be asking? "Because it says it adds 5hp, my butt dyno can feel it" doesn't count.

g9s8r

It may not be noticeable and what is 5hp to a 500hp monster. Well, the same could be said about replacing a body panel with a carbon fiber one. Everything is relevant when you want to reach a goal of either weight savings or hp mark. Me personally, its about finding anything (without spending $$$$$) to get an advantage over the next person. Of course, there will always be someone who has like a stage 100 with carbon/titanium/bla blah blah who one will never compare. But, in general, mentally speaking, we like adding better (presumably better) products that can be done quickly and for minimal money.

Sgt. Schultz

negative ghostrider

don't care what the box says

have you tried one in any car?

they can smoothen out boost threshold and enhance throttle response in many cars

I noted a discernable difference in both upon install

YMMV

MB-Dude

Although I have had a little fun with Paul above, in many respects I agree with him. While I bemoan the marginal filtering of K&N's, I do believe they will increase performance. And I believe you probably could 'feel' the difference. I would love to see quantitative data. But in the meantime, I am toying with the idea of trying a set for myself. Doubt I would keep them, but I can't truly poop on the idea if I don't experience it.

Cheers,
Jeff