Nice. Says it fits the 2.5l too.K&N now has a filter too.
http://www.knfilters.com/search/product.aspx?prod=33-2480
Nice. Says it fits the 2.5l too.K&N now has a filter too.
What about AEM dry flow drop in filters? No oil used to filter. Hopefully they'll make one for our cars.
http://www.aemintakes.com/search/product.aspx?prod=28-20293
No oils needed to clean. Just spray their product & dry.Haven't heard much about AEM. Do they clean well and flow better than OEM?
does anybody have a k&n in their cx-5 yet..?
ive been looking to buy one since i got the car last week(obviously not dirty yet...i've owned it for a week..has about 60mi on it)
but figured i'd get a hair better performance, sound and mpg sicne it flows better...
An oiled cotton gauze filter (such as K&N) will return the same or worse performance, about the same cabin noise level and the same or worse MPG.
But it will let more dirt into the engine, take more time to service and have higher long-term operating costs (due to more dirt in the intake which will impact the accuracy and useful life of the MAF sensor as well as the life of valve guides, piston rings, etc.).
In short, there is zero potential benefit coupled with considerable long term risk.
Also if you over oil them they can coat the MAF sensor and cause poor performance and a CEL too.
(tho it probably doesn't help i bought it used, not new so it was liely overoiled from the beginning...but i was too lazy to wash and re-oil prperly..so i just resold it)
That's one situation in which laziness worked to your benefit. However, I can't fathom buying a used air filter.
{quote]i know the filters have less surface area...that's the point...less filter = less airflow restriction, which can increase performance even if only marginally...the point is to allow the engine not to work as hard when trying to suck air through the filter...
I think I'll head over the 3 forum and see if anyone is happy with their K&N filters. Read a few posts in various forums and the consensus is the K&N contributes to worse gas mileage, probably allows more dirt into the engine causing faster wear, and may provide 1% - 4% more horsepower but only at maximum RPM. Might save some money over replacing stock filters for a lifetime but if you lose 5-10% fuel economy, it actually costs more.
No offense, but you don't seem to understand even the most basic mechanics of the fluid dynamics involved in filtration.
Filters have pleats precisely to increase surface area. This is not a bad thing! The increased filter area reduces the velocity of air through the filter media. This reduction in velocity corresponds to a reduction in pressure differential. And the reduction in pressure differential increases the flow rate while simultaneously increasing filtering effectiveness.
Which flows better, a capped garden hose with one pin hole in it or a soaker hose in which the entire length of the hose is the "filter" media? More filter area = more pores in the filter media = more flow.