Wasn't able to find anything on here about pros and cons for k&n filters. I have heard good and bad things about them so i would like to know everyones thoughts.

 

I've always used K&N's (or other oiled gauze-type elements). Work as advertised, last forever, seem to breahe more freely. The "con" you will read about is the oil from the element contaminating the MAF sensor and creating drivability issues.

I did have this happen once on my 4Runner but have not had any more issues since I started cleaning the MAF sensor with some aerosol cleaner at each oil change. That takes less than a minute to do.

I'll probably buy one of these for the Mini sooner or later.

 

a waste of money

they mess with MAF sensors and with todays sensitive ECUs they just arent worth the trouble

 

Not only that, on my previous 2006 MB C230 Sport V6 it caused constant F/A related Check Engine Light and drivability issues. Later I was told by MB mechanic that ECU was getting confused or not being able to adap to the increased air flow rate. He told me how to "teach" the ECU but I yanked that K&N filter off and went back to the original paper type filter. And Check Engine Light never came on. I didn't notice ANY increase in performance or MPG with the K&N - a complete waste of money and mucho headache on the MB. However, on other older cars like Escalade and Celica GTS, K&N filters (all drop in type) didn't cause Check Engine Light or drivability issues, but no noticeable gain in performance or MPG either again.

 

Anyone have an actual example of a K&N screwing up a MAF on their MINI, right out of the box?

In all my years and using them on multiple car platforms, the only time the MAF is typically in danger of contamination from the filter is when someone cleans it and uses too much oil when they re-dress it. You just have to be careful.

I would be surprised if it contaminated the MAF filament right out of the box.

 

This has been my experience as well. Not disputing that others have experienced issues but I've used them (or similar brands of the same thing) on all my vehicles and never personally had a problem.

It seems unlikely to me that the ECU would not be able to "adapt" to the increased airflow of one of these. Especially on a turbocharged motor like ours. Just my 2-cents.

 

I agree, George.

To me, what might cause an issue is if during the installation of any kind of aftermarket air filter (other than a panel type replacement) where the MAF is relocated or clocked in a different position, some ECUs could be sensitive to that kind of change.

 

That, or lots of times, I don't just wonder if factory techs make stuff up because they either don't know how to explain it or just don't want to deal with it on a customer's car. Not saying that is the case with the gentleman, above, but I have seen lots of bogus explanations like that over the years.

It's just a flat panel air filter element, after all.

 

 

If you are referring to me...

The MB tech is my brother in law - maybe he was lying to me!

Regardless, I did witness numerous times Check Engine Light showing up on my MB for 6+ months during the entire time that I had the K&N filter. Hooking up my hand held OBD II coder reader and turning it off was my weekly ritual on that car. Actually it often caused severe drivability issue as well in addition to the Check Engine Light. The error code was always F/A related, switching between too rich or too lean, which told me that the ECU was confused. That's why I tend to believe my brother in law.





However, I'm not saying this willl or will not happen on MC.

 

"Too rich at idle" would actually imply a restriction or reduction in airflow relative to fuel ratio. If the K&N is actually letting in enough air to cause issues for the ECU, then the issue should be "too lean", not "too rich". I'm not arguing with you, just saying that I don't believe that code is being caused by "the increase in airflow", if that's what the tech was implying.

Now, it's possible that the MAF sensor got fouled with some filter oil and in that case, it's an easy fix, but I don't believe that just installing a free-er breathing element is what caused that code. Just my 2-cents.

 

You're assuming a K&N has a better flow rate than an oem filter on every application. But that's not the case

 

My take is that K&N has done a great job of making folks believe they will be able to see 10 HP gains over stock. I'm quite skeptical of those claims.
As far as MAF problems I don't know if that is a problem on the F56, but it has been a problem for others. Maybe this is caused by over oiled filters?
For my money I choose to not buy into the K&N hype.

 

I've used K&N on every vehicle I've ever owned. Helped lean out my 4.0 jeep cherokee and passed smog in WA, I could definitely tell a difference in my old toyota, the ford escape went from 35 mpg to 40 and you could tell from start up my ford f150 5.4l loved the extra air. The difference between the cooper and all of these is forced induction. In a naturally aspirated engine a more free flowing air filter can make a noticeable difference.

In the mini cooper the biggest thing I got out of my typhoon intake is increased sound. The exhaust sounds better, the wastegate sounds better. MPG is not appreciably differentiated. Power? I don't believe in seat of the pants dynos and I haven't been to an actual dyno so I couldn't tell you.

What I can tell you is a little secret on how to get the K&N Typoon 93 for a mini cooper s for much less than what they retail for. PM me for details.

Would I go back to stock? No. Do I regret my decision in purchasing the K&N? No. Especially cause I didn't spend 300 on it. Do I have any plans on ever changing it for something "better"? No. I love the thing. It looks good, sounds good and is a DAMN sight easier to remove than the stock intake if you ever plan on doing work on that side of the engine (IE Blasting the carbon off the intake valves).

 

Can you cite any data to suggest that it doesn't? Having removed, handled and inspected the pleated paper and floss filter which Mini supplies with the F56, I would be surprised if was not more restrictive than any of the cotton gauze types.

I agree that the horsepower gain figures seem subjective at best but I still choose to use K&N filter for the reason of longevity and cost savings. The OEM paper filter is $45 per unit. I am not sure what the K&N version costs. Maybe $100 at the most but probably less. So, for the price of two paper filters, I can have one that lasts forever. From that standpoint, it makes sense to me.

 

Have you tried a dry filter?

 

I would actually try one of those if somebody made one for the F56.