 | Home > Puma (Tdci) > Has anyone used a K&N air filter ? |
 
|
|
|
| custom90 Member Since: 21 Jan 2010 Location: South West, England. Posts: 20915  
|
Personally myself stuck to OE but been very very tempted by after market but thought better of it. As you mention there has been mentioned of filter oil contaminating the MAF but likewise any proof I don't know. Personally I would rather just stick to OE as it's proven and problem free and the difference would be very slight if noticeable I'd imagine. However K9F on here use's and ITG and has had no problems I'm aware of. ___\âï¸Lone|Star|State/___
____\We|Will|Win/___[/size] ____/🇬🇧🇺🇸\____ _//*⛽ï¸ðŸ›¢ï¸âš™ï¸ðŸ§°*\\_ |
||
14th Oct 2012 12:39pm |
|
| Dave-H Member Since: 08 Feb 2011 Location: Surrey Posts: 1507  
|
Got a pipercross in mine ...... made absolutely no difference to mpg/power etc, i just prefer them as you can whip them out for a quick clean anytime and refit
 Guns and Landrovers .... anything else is irrelevant. |
||
|
14th Oct 2012 12:49pm |
|
| leeds Member Since: 28 Dec 2009 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 8582
|
Since Defenders are not exactly a performance vehicle do you need a 'so called' performance filter?
Used to run K & N filters in our red 110 until I read some independent comparison tests done in Australia. I went back to the standard LR filter after reading the reports and have stuck with original ever since! . Are there any real concerns about the amount of air available for the diesel engine in Defenders to 'breathe' Do the remapping experts on here suggest you change your filter type when remapping your vehicle? Have heard people recommend them for overland use. Not a view I agree with as it has always been easy to clean out or replace original ones. The independent reports showed that the K & N filters passed more dust and clogged up faster then paper ones Then if you are keeping vehicle a long time the K & N might work out cheaper. Brendan |
||
|
14th Oct 2012 12:51pm |
|
| jst Member Since: 14 Jan 2008 Location: Taunton Posts: 8337  
|
i ran a K&N in my td5 for 110k miles
now run a ITG one from Porny in my Puma (18k miles) and my last Puma (22k miles) doesnt make any odds from what i can feel in mpg/performace on std tune, seems to have better low down pickup and top end when remapped. although pseudo effect? Cheers James 110 2010 XS Utility 130 2011 M57 bespoke Camper 90 2010 Hardtop 90 M57 1988 Hardtop |
||
|
14th Oct 2012 1:07pm |
|
| rossy Member Since: 29 Nov 2010 Location: Co. Roscommon Posts: 1296  
|
thanks all !
 should've done a search - which I have now done and the overwhelming evidence is that standard is more than enough. And thats good because Paddocks do an OE service kit (not Britpart) which consists of oil, fuel and air filter for £36. Damned fine value for money IMHO ! |
||
|
14th Oct 2012 1:52pm |
|
| Supacat Member Since: 16 Oct 2012 Location: West Yorkshire Posts: 11018 
|
Brendan - would be interested to read that - do you have a link please? |
||
|
17th Oct 2012 11:06am |
|
| tatra805 Member Since: 16 Aug 2011 Location: Dolany Posts: 436  
|
i've seen multiple independent test with opposite results depending from which site the testers were independent
oh, and yes a K&N will pass more dust as it passes more air volume, certainly when new and 100% clean. I get a bit nervous of manipulating results in so called independent results. it's a old and ongoing discussion and i guess it is really hard to make a conclusion as a customer based on that type of info I'm using K&N and no side effects noticed over the 15 years i am driving cars. Not positive or negative that is. Reason why? Don't know really but i remember having a paper filter disintegrate after a splash of water and being sucked into the engine (samurai petrol) which made me replace it with my first k&n. |
||
|
17th Oct 2012 11:31am |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2025 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
