Chevrolet Malibu Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
We are proud owners of a 2008 amber bronze 2.4L 2LT. We love the car with only a few VERY minor complaints.

As some of the reviews out there indicate, we agree it may seem a bit too heavy for the 4 cylinder. We notice it when accelerating from a standstill; it seems a bit hesitant through the end of first gear, then seems to pick up at second gear and thereafter. Anybody else notice this?

I thought about trying a K&N air filter to increase power at initial acceleration. Anybody try this yet? I was about to buy one until I pulled the factory air filter and noticed that it seems to be a higher quality cotton filter (not paper). Checked the manual, it says the factory filter doesn't need to be changed until 50,000 miles. So now I'm torn - I'm guessing the K&N won't make much of a noticeable difference over the factory filter. Any thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Well, it will make one difference, but not the one you are looking for. Although their are exceptions, almost across the board, K&N filters let in more dirt than standard paper filters. Everybody has thier on thoughts on them, but the fact is that 90% of the UOA (used oil analysis) I've ever seen show elevated levels of silicon (dirt) with K&N filter users vs standard OEM paper filters. How much is too much is the real debate... Other's have issues with the MAF sensor (mass air flow) and the oil from the filter, but that's only if you don't follow proper techniques when cleaing/oiling the filter.

As far as any performance gains, no. Improved airflow, yes, but the real restriction is in the airbox design (as with most vehicles) and not in the filter itself. Same thing goes with mileage... nil improvments. Some will argue otherwise, but mostly it's just a placebo effect.

The only REAL advantage the K&N has is that it's reuseable, so EVENTUALLY over the life of the car, the K&N pays for itself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
i sell you one for $30 shipped, brand new
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Great price, I have one on the way for mine or would buy it. Guess I will hope for better mpg with my K&N, always been happy with them.

Bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Hi,

Trying a different approach towards air induction. Hold on Folks, it's a try at easying the airflow without any removal of any stock component of the intake track. I'll let you on the first step: washing and polishing from the 'horn' in the lower right/hand bumper to the Throttle Body.

I shall keep you posted,

mwcbu08
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Well, it will make one difference, but not the one you are looking for. Although their are exceptions, almost across the board, K&N filters let in more dirt than standard paper filters. Everybody has thier on thoughts on them, but the fact is that 90% of the UOA (used oil analysis) I've ever seen show elevated levels of silicon (dirt) with K&N filter users vs standard OEM paper filters. How much is too much is the real debate... Other's have issues with the MAF sensor (mass air flow) and the oil from the filter, but that's only if you don't follow proper techniques when cleaing/oiling the filter.

As far as any performance gains, no. Improved airflow, yes, but the real restriction is in the airbox design (as with most vehicles) and not in the filter itself. Same thing goes with mileage... nil improvments. Some will argue otherwise, but mostly it's just a placebo effect.

The only REAL advantage the K&N has is that it's reuseable, so EVENTUALLY over the life of the car, the K&N pays for itself.
Exactly right on the money with one exception, using the OLM means leaving the oil in longer to get even dirtier (which will shorten engine life) and if you use to much oil on the filter when you clean it you run the risk of some of it ending up on the MAF sensor which could lower fuel economy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
I've tried K&N before and I'm waiting for the Penn and Teller BS show that is sure to come. I tried the filter in my 01 Camaro, a 96 Silverado, and my current 05 Silverado. It made no difference at all in the Camaro or the 96 but in the 05 my fuel mileage actually went down slightly.

I agree with the earlier poster about it letting more dirt through then paper filters. In addition it's a pain in the the butt to clean and you have to wait for it to dry before you spray the coating (basically WD40) on it. Any power increase would be at high RPMs so it won't help on take off anyway.

An engineer I work with compared K&N vs paper with his 95 Mustang at the local test and tune. After 5 runs each alternating filters there was no difference at all and he was very pro K&N until then.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top