K&N drop in filter is worth it for the HYBRID.

[chugiboi]

I went from 43 mpg to 54 mpg on the MPG meter. It's worth it to give it a try.

[Osager]

Please post a follow-up once you have filled up and calculated the mpg yourself. It is possible that the computer has been slightly confused by the newly increased airflow. Also, if you would, post your opinion on long-term living with this filter: does it clean up easily? Do you need to buy that refreshing fluid from K&N as often as they say, or more often?

[chugiboi]

Originally Posted by Osager

Please post a follow-up once you have filled up and calculated the mpg yourself. It is possible that the computer has been slightly confused by the newly increased airflow. Also, if you would, post your opinion on long-term living with this filter: does it clean up easily? Do you need to buy that refreshing fluid from K&N as often as they say, or more often?

i'll try it later, but it's been almost two weeks, my gas tank still has a more than a quarter left.

[JKinATL]

I know the gas engine on the hybrid is 1.3 liters. Does the same filter for the 1.8 and 2.0 engines fit the 1.3 engine?

[chugiboi]

Originally Posted by JKinATL

I know the gas engine on the hybrid is 1.3 liters. Does the same filter for the 1.8 and 2.0 engines fit the 1.3 engine?

no, the filter for the 1.3 is smaller compare to the 1.8 and 2.0.

[JKinATL]

Originally Posted by Osager

Please post a follow-up once you have filled up and calculated the mpg yourself. It is possible that the computer has been slightly confused by the newly increased airflow. Also, if you would, post your opinion on long-term living with this filter: does it clean up easily? Do you need to buy that refreshing fluid from K&N as often as they say, or more often?

That's possible at first if he didn't reset the ECU, but after a while of driving, the ECU picks up and adjusts, just not as quickly.

[duk]

i'm very interested by this

in for further results

[wildstar]

Hey guys, I think adding a K&N filter is a great idea! I have a 2006 Civic SI and just installed a drop in K&N air filter. This is my results......


I just drove from Seattle, WA to Kansas City, MO in two days and got 40mpg!

The first tank of gas, I drove 70 miles per hour and got 37mpg!
The second tank of gas was a lot of mountains and 75 miles per hour. That sucked my mileage down to 31 miles per gallon.
The third tank got a little better coming out of the hills and holding to 70 miles per hour. I pulled 34 miles per gallon.
The fourth and last tank was all American heartland from the Colorado state line into Kansas City along I-70. I filled up with 483 miles and a whopping 40.1 miles per gallon. Holy cow!!!! I drove this leg going mostly 65 but did about 25% at 70mph. And yes, I used quality premium unleaded gas from nationally known gas stations the whole way.

I'm driving a 2006 Honda Civic SI 6-speed (23,000 miles) with no mods except I changed out the stock air cleaner for a K&N filter that fit into the same air box. Oh, and I'm using Castrol GTX synthetic oil. The car was packed with some stuff that added maybe 300 pounds, but is all stock!

Honda doesn't even claim this kind of mileage (they say 31 highway for the SI model) but I have the receipts to prove it! Normally I drive it back and forth to work (20 miles each way) and I get 27-32 miles per gallon.

All I can say is I think it helped me get a boost in mileage.

[duk]

^ PLEASE keep us updated man.
Post back up with results in 2 weeks and a month, I really want to hear about the progress after then.

[SuperJay]

I also want to know where I can get one.

[darkdan]

IMO, all the extra dirt allowed into the engine isn't worth it:

ISO 5011 Duramax Air Filter Test Report

Stick with dry filters.

[csxian]

what a disappointment of K&N

[volvo9]

Originally Posted by csxian

what a disappointment of K&N

Cool test though, but that's why I've never used an oiled filter in any of my cars. I'd love to see something like that on oil. All we really have to go buy with most products like oil and filters is marketing.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by darkdan

IMO, all the extra dirt allowed into the engine isn't worth it:

ISO 5011 Duramax Air Filter Test Report

Stick with dry filters.

The only thing I will say about that test is that it marginalizes the difference in airflow, saying that it won't make a difference. While on the other hand it makes a big deal out of the difference in filtering performance. It points out that the K&N allowed 2.0 gms more dust than the Purolator, 2.6 more than the WIX, etc. However, it never really says if any of those numbers are high enough to cause a real difference in engine wear.

Having said that, I will say that the difference in flow was pretty small until higher volumes. So the argument that it isn't worth it makes sense.

A couple of the cheaper filters offered no better filtration than the K&N, and I have come across many filters with very poor gaskets/seals (as they found on the Purolator). I would venture to guess that the filters that a good number of people put in their cars are far worse than a K&N.

I guess I don't think it will make much of a difference performance wise, but I also don't think you are going to destroy your engine by using a K&N.

[JDoc]

I have a K&N filter drop in as well on my ex coupe A/T, i do a lot of city driving compared to highway but I have noticed maybe 2 to 3 miles added to my mpg ~30-33. I just got it for the million mile warranty that it has. No need to buy anymore filters, cleanning every 50k miles depending on how dirty your area is. The less stuff I have to change in my car the better imo.

Also at higher revs, especially when merging into the freeway, I have noticed my car pick up a little faster but I never dynoed it. Ive had my car for over a year and the filter has been on it for about a month now.

[darkdan]

Originally Posted by BigT

The only thing I will say about that test is that it marginalizes the difference in airflow, saying that it won't make a difference. While on the other hand it makes a big deal out of the difference in filtering performance. It points out that the K&N allowed 2.0 gms more dust than the Purolator, 2.6 more than the WIX, etc. However, it never really says if any of those numbers are high enough to cause a real difference in engine wear.

Having said that, I will say that the difference in flow was pretty small until higher volumes. So the argument that it isn't worth it makes sense.

A couple of the cheaper filters offered no better filtration than the K&N, and I have come across many filters with very poor gaskets/seals (as they found on the Purolator). I would venture to guess that the filters that a good number of people put in their cars are far worse than a K&N.

I guess I don't think it will make much of a difference performance wise, but I also don't think you are going to destroy your engine by using a K&N.

Well 60% of engine wear is caused by particles in the 5 micron to 25 micron range.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by darkdan

Well 60% of engine wear is caused by particles in the 5 micron to 25 micron range.

Obviously any dirt that gets into your engine is bad. All filters allow some dirt through. I'm simply saying that the amount of difference between a K&N and a paper filter may not be enough to make a real world difference in the life of an engine. Particularly since some of the cheap paper filters people use are pretty poor.

By the way, that article specifically says that they used "coarse" dust for the testing. "Fine" dust was used in a couple tests on the K&N, but none of the others. Since you say that 60% of engine wear comes form 5-25 micron particles I would be interested to see how the paper filters do on those. Not trying to be argumentative, I'm genuinely curious. The article even says that manufacturers use "coarse" dust so their filtering percentages appear higher. That leads me to believe that they don't fare as well against fine dust. In the few tests done with "fine" dust on the K&N it performed worse than with coarse, so it would be interesting to see how paper filters fare against fine dust.

For the record, I don't have a K&N in my car and like I said, all dirt is bad and the amount of flow difference probably isn't worth the risk. I was just pointing out that the chances of noticeably reducing engine life by installing a K&N are pretty small.

[darkdan]

5 to 25 micron is VERY fine (smallest thing a human eye can see is 40 microns).

But it's safe to say if a filter lets through more course it's going to let through a lot more fine.

I'd say noticeably reducing engine QUALITY life is very high (would you rather your engine at 100k act like it has 100k or act like it has 140k miles? What about at 140k)

I've seen plenty of used oil analysis results on vehicles with K&N and the trend is always a higher amount of dirt in the engine oil.

[spocheld]

Originally Posted by wildstar

Hey guys, I think adding a K&N filter is a great idea! I have a 2006 Civic SI and just installed a drop in K&N air filter. This is my results......


I just drove from Seattle, WA to Kansas City, MO in two days and got 40mpg!

The first tank of gas, I drove 70 miles per hour and got 37mpg!
The second tank of gas was a lot of mountains and 75 miles per hour. That sucked my mileage down to 31 miles per gallon.
The third tank got a little better coming out of the hills and holding to 70 miles per hour. I pulled 34 miles per gallon.
The fourth and last tank was all American heartland from the Colorado state line into Kansas City along I-70. I filled up with 483 miles and a whopping 40.1 miles per gallon. Holy cow!!!! I drove this leg going mostly 65 but did about 25% at 70mph. And yes, I used quality premium unleaded gas from nationally known gas stations the whole way.

I'm driving a 2006 Honda Civic SI 6-speed (23,000 miles) with no mods except I changed out the stock air cleaner for a K&N filter that fit into the same air box. Oh, and I'm using Castrol GTX synthetic oil. The car was packed with some stuff that added maybe 300 pounds, but is all stock!

Honda doesn't even claim this kind of mileage (they say 31 highway for the SI model) but I have the receipts to prove it! Normally I drive it back and forth to work (20 miles each way) and I get 27-32 miles per gallon.

All I can say is I think it helped me get a boost in mileage.

I don't know what engine they put in your car, but I also drive a '06 Civic Si with almost 50,000 miles and have gotten over 30 MPG exactly three times. I get 29.5 MPG almost exactly every time on the freeway doing 70-75. I do have a SRI, but have actually seen my MPG increase by about one after the install. FYI they rate the freeway MPG now at 29, not the 31 they originally did back in 2006. But I am also a big believer in quality fuel, I saw an increase of about 30 miles per tank when I switched from Costco fuel to Shell.

[GoHuskies]

Originally Posted by spocheld

I don't know what engine they put in your car, but I also drive a '06 Civic Si with almost 50,000 miles and have gotten over 30 MPG exactly three times. I get 29.5 MPG almost exactly every time on the freeway doing 70-75. I do have a SRI, but have actually seen my MPG increase by about one after the install. FYI they rate the freeway MPG now at 29, not the 31 they originally did back in 2006. But I am also a big believer in quality fuel, I saw an increase of about 30 miles per tank when I switched from Costco fuel to Shell.

^ Tire pressure? His and yours?

Honestly it can make a big difference. When I first got the hybrid in 06 I was excited to make EPA estimates on 42 mpg in city. This was at the fresh off the lot 34 psi. After some reading I went up to sidewall 44 psi. Instant ticket to 48 mpg. Slowing down and adding a few more techniques, block heater, and grille blocks and now I'm just shy of 60 mpg and hoping to break it by summers end.

So little story moral is higher pressure is a good thing. As long as your not going over the limit. Granted you drive a sporty car where lower pressure might be desirable but if your talking about fuel economy then upping the tires is a must.