K&N Drycharger - Effective or Restrictive?

Just posted in my build thread, but I'll post here too. Also, searched TW for a Drycharger thread and didn't see one so here it is...

I added in a K&N Drycharger because I was tired of cleaning and re-oiling the filter after every trail run. I know most people on the forums swear against K&N, but I like my CAI setup. What I don't like is the fact that the oil seems to be a dust magnet. Hoping that this is a good alternative that will allow me to just remove, rinse and easily slip it back on the filter.

Reviews and claims say that the drycharger doesn't reduce performance but I'm skeptical. Anybody else run one of these and have any experience or input?

 

That is what it's suppose to do...

 

Yeah that's true, I guess I just seemed to have found myself having to clean it more often than I felt should be needed. After every run seems a bit excessive.

There's never dust on the inside of the intake tube, so I would hope that's not the case. So your saying it doesn't do its job as a "filter"? I guess that would make more of a point to have the drycharger prefilter.

 

AEM (owned by K&N now) makes a dry flow filter that doesn't need oiling.

 

I had a drop in K&N filter on my '01. I went to check it after about 1/2 year of driving and found the intake tube was almost yellow from pollen. Dont use it anymore

I have an AEM filter now that I check regularly and it seems to be working just fine.

 

The stock filter housing is a cool air intake. The stock air filter flows far more air than the engine uses it is not restrictive and is a real air filter. If you think noise equates to power than the K&N is for you.

 

I considered upgrading to the AEM dry filter but I didn't want to spend money upgrading to a whole new system. The K&N drycharger was the cheaper alternative that I was hoping would be a sufficient safeguard. Might be worth it though if it means protecting my engine.

Yeah, I've heard of testing for silica levels. That's a good idea but I'll take your word for it. Not the first time I've heard that about K&N...maybe it's time for a change.

Of course it's not the noise that equates to power, but when I originally invested in an aftermarket CAI it was the design that influenced me. The smoother tube body versus the stock one with many bends and creases appears to be efficient when transporting air. The reusable filter of any aftermarket CAI (not just K&N) deems as a cost effective alternative that pays for itself over time as opposed to replacing paper filters. Manufacturers are forced to make components to certain specifications that pass inspection and emissions hence why people upgrade to aftermarket parts.

However, facts and opinions on the K&N filter itself does not answer whether anyone has had experience with or currently uses the K&N Drycharger product. As Chris said, and I agree, an oil analysis would be the best way to test it. Has anyone done an analysis after using a drycharger?

Is a K&N filter with a drycharger component equivalent to an AEM/AFE dry filter?

 

The OEM filter and tubing are very efficient it has been proven many times removing all of the plumbing right to the throttle body makes no difference. I live on a 1/2 mile of dirt road I want/need all the filtering I can get. How restrictive do you think a filter full of oil is? Or even a dry one you have to wash? 30K is about the mileage I get from an OEM filter so $15 @100,000 miles = $50 that means I would have to drive about 350,000 miles to pay for a K&N. No thanks I want a good filter that has been proven time after time to perform equally as well as an aftermarket system with superior filtering and I don’t even have to wash it. Toyota has to provide warranty for their engines K&N doesn’t.

 

Just wondering how this was proven? Was the MAF sensor hung in front of the throttle body?

 

I have used a K&N on my Mazda with the drycharger on it and noticed no difference in performance vs. running it bare. My car has over 100k miles on the same filter/drycharger and runs as good as the day I bought it with 0 miles, still gets 31 mpg with a 4cyl/auto trans setup, burns no oil & evidently thrives on silica. Never have had anything inside the intake tube, nothing on the MAF and throttle body all clean and shiny. The truck has an aFe washable non-oiled filter due to the convenience of not having to do the extra step of re-oiling.

 

1) Lets use common sense here....How would adding filtration NOT slow down airflow?

*Any filtration will slow down the airflow.


2) Now let's flip this scenario... how would a K&N filter increase airflow without eliminating filtration?

*It doesn't. K&N eliminates filtration of small particles allowing more air and shit into your engine.

K&N sucks. When your engine blows from ingesting 1/2 the dust in your state you can hit up my awesome "has your engine blown up thread" and add your name to the list. http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/te...ad-major-failure-1grfe-v-6-a.html#post6048565

 

Haha. Agreeing with curiosity.

OP, get the AFe Stage 2.

 

Does the K&N come with a MAF? I should have been more specific but the point is there is no difference. If the filter and plumbing is designed for the engine it flows more air than the engine will ever use. K&N has spent a lot of money trying to convince people that they flow more air than a stock system and maybe they do but the bottom line what good does it do if it flows 10X the air if it is not being used. At any given point the air filter on a 4 liter engine only has to flow .66 liters. A washable filter is not a new ideal big trucks have been using them for decades and the only reason for that is because of the cost of the filters when one filter costs more than an entire K&N system you wash them until they are can no longer be used.

 

Ya that's what he is saying, in time you'll see what he means

 

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/air-filtration-test/

 

Thanks for the input from those who use the wraps.

Some interesting points here and on this thread as a whole. Good info, and I can see why the K&N filter itself can be proven inferior. We'll see how good of a solution this drycharger is. I'm definitely thinking it will keep more dust out and keep the filter cleaner, hence a cleaner engine. I do see how K&N versus anything causes an endless debate but like I said there's some interesting inputs nonetheless.

 

Yeah, I think I MAY have cleaned the filter on the car 4 times in the 100k it has been on the car and the drycharger has never shown dirt. I mainly just cleaned filter from time & mileage more than it was ever "dirty". MAF has never needed cleaning. Has always been spotless when checked. So has inside of intake. But, I don't offroad the car either. Only offroad it sees is the inside of the garage.



Old pic but still same intake/filter on the car today..............