Maybe I didn't make myself clear in my previous post. I am not going off of any claims K&N makes. I am not spewing K&N marketing material. The conclusions I draw are only based on third party results and physics theory which is to my knowledge quite widely accepted. I will also remind you, the results in question are those which you said would indicate a performance improvement if found. I am attempting to explain the physics of an air intake system to someone who appears determined to accept ignorance instead.

Whether you believe it or not, I actually took more than just a few physics courses, including on fluid dynamics, when I was completing my engineering degree at a relatively well-known school. I may work as a software engineer now, rather than as a mechanical engineer, but I do actually know what I'm talking about.


I am not trying to justify my use of K&N filters either. I might very well buy a replacement paper filter if I can find one for this intake, since I am not driving my car one day for a race. I am driving it daily and want it to last. Preferably without needing to take the engine apart and clean it (that said, I would love to take the opportunity to do this at some point). I didn't realize previously that the K&N filtration may be so bad since, as you say, the K&N marketing does a good job. And even more so, people love to rant and rave about their filters, even on this forum, so I assumed K&N filters would not pose any risk to my engine.

Regardless though, my point was never that you should use K&N filters. It is simply that K&N filters will perform better than equivalent paper filters in terms of power to the engine. Even if this is at the expense of filtration performance.