Oil Filters ---- Again

stewardc, here are some more Lexus owners who have switched back to factory filters after using the K&N:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mburnickas

I would not use a oil glazed filters in any car or diesel I own, period! To many

problems in the past. Never mind high silcate readings on oil analysis tests.

My parents car 2002 taurus and fathers 2004 exploder have sticker

saying, "Using an oil glazed air filter will void warenty." It is also

stated in there car manuals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RA40

Took out my K&N for the same reason...higher than average silicon

results. I'll be doing the next oil analysis in 1.5K miles and will see

what the readings are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SC400-V8

The TRD performance air filters are just K&N filters made by K&N for

toyota company. Virtually every company makes performance air filters

now. I was in walmart the other day and noticed that FRAM now offers

the "Air Hog" series. Substantially more expensive, but look and feel just like a

typical K&N. I do not recommend using any filter than what the factory

designated. Trust me... if they could have gotten 10 more horsepower out

of the car safely by using this type of filter, they would have done it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey guys, allow me to swerve back onto the subject of oil filters for a second. I was at my local Toyota dealer Thursday afternoon after work, looking to buy a coupla genuine Toyota oil filters for my Corolla. I was amazed to find that they were only $3.99 a copy! I was used to paying $5.99 from the same source. So, looking to capitalize on the low price, I purchased a case of 12! So, now I have (theoretically) a 3-year supply of genuine Toyota oil filters, and saved $24.00 in the process!

Now...if only I could buy a barrel of Mobil 1 5W30 for about two bucks a quart...

[quotePlease name one country that the U.S. "invaded" in order to control their oil.  Just one. 

I agree with Shaun. Imagine if Captain Picard, from the Starship Enterprise, beamed Iraq's entire oil reserves up to Mars. What would we do? Would we continue our occupation of Iraq or would we pull out immediately so no more American lives would be lost for nothing? We would pull out, of course and not risk any more lives. And if Captain Picard had beamed Iraq's oil to Mars 2 years ago, we would not have invaded Iraq to begin.

 

I see your problem clearly. You, like most Americans, are not getting the whole story out of Iraq, mainly because you appear to be depending on the liberal Democrat-controlled U.S. news media, with it's socialist, Anti-Bush agenda, for your news about what's happening in Iraq. The truth is, our "liberation" of that country from the sadistic regime of Saddam Hussein and his murderous sons has been gratefully received by the Iraqi people. The insurgency we are battling there now is only there because the true, die-hard terrorist factions of militant Islam have been exposed for what they are, and they are now doing whatever they can to fight for their cause. The good thing is, we are fighting them on THEIR turf instead of our own. You'll notice that there have been no more mass terrorist attacks against the U.S. since 9/11/01!

As usual, the United States has had to take the leadership role in this struggle for peace and freedom, and pay a heavy price in American lives and material resources. Fortunately, no more innocent Iraqi citizens are being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night and tortured for daring to oppose the regime of Saddam Hussein! U.S. military casualties in the Iraqi War have been low by the standards of modern warfare, but I'm sure that will not impress those who are perfectly willing to allow innocent, peaceful people to live in fear and brutality while the anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Capitalist American liberals comfortably enjoy the peace and freedom their own country's strength and high moral values have secured over the decades.

As for this war being about oil, I can only hope that somehow, someday, it does get around to BEING about oil in some manner! After all, it would be only fair for the U.S. to have a big price advantage on Iraqi oil as a result of all the sacrifices we have made to liberate their beseiged nation. However, so far, as I have already stated, any oil we've received from Iraq has been bought and paid for at OPEC market prices. I think it's about time President Bush sent some of our tankers over there, opened the lids on their oil bunkers, and said, "Fill 'er up, boys, and keep it coming -- with the meter OFF!"

BTW -- once we're finished with the Islamic terrorists, our next "targets" should be the environmentalist terrorists that want to subordinate American national security to the whims of wrong-headed enviro-terrorists who would have the United States become another third-world country.

yes, like the US liberated vietnam. had the US been successful, 3 million civillians had lost their lives anyway. The US has not liberated Iraq, not by a long shot. There will be a coup, and it will be back to square one. 100 iraqi civilians a day are being killed by these insurgents, I do not belive that such a number was being killed by saddam hussein. It will be a verrry long time before any sort of order is reached. The US had an arabic ally in the war on terror and Bush conquered it - how stupid is that?

If the US is the shining knight larry purports it to be, then it would liberate North Korea - hey, they aren't even allowed mobiles, or internet!! and at LEAST Saddam allowed his population to go across the border! but to date the US has not. why? North Korea has no oil and actually does have WMDs. North Korea would be too even a match. USA is merely a global bully who is afraid to pick on someone its own size. but, i am willing to retract my comments IF the USA invades and liberates North Korea. The gaunlet has been thrown down.

larry has shot himself in the foot. if that does indeed occur (cheap oil), it is clear evidence that the USA only does something when it wants revenge, or something in return.

BTW - i will be waiting for larry and his capitalist, pro-bush/NRA/warmongering/environmental destruction mates to blow up my condo and corolla with a 'daisy cutter' - hey, i'm an enviro-terrorist who wishes that noone should starve and that everyone should have the basic essentials. but since the islamic terrorists will NEVER be beaten, i don't think i'm that worried...

stewardc, here are some more Lexus owners who have switched back to factory filters after using the K&N:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

mburnickas

I would not use a oil glazed filters in any car or diesel I own, period! To many

problems in the past. Never mind high silcate readings on oil analysis tests.

My parents car 2002 taurus and fathers 2004 exploder have sticker

saying, "Using an oil glazed air filter will void warenty." It is also

stated in there car manuals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RA40

Took out my K&N for the same reason...higher than average silicon

results. I'll be doing the next oil analysis in 1.5K miles and will see

what the readings are.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SC400-V8

The TRD performance air filters are just K&N filters made by K&N for

toyota company. Virtually every company makes performance air filters

now. I was in walmart the other day and noticed that FRAM now offers

the "Air Hog" series. Substantially more expensive, but look and feel just like a

typical K&N. I do not recommend using any filter than what the factory

designated. Trust me... if they could have gotten 10 more horsepower out

of the car safely by using this type of filter, they would have done it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see no mention of Lexus in any of these. In fact, the first one is FORD (gag)

First guy - No clues at all...sounds like he's 14 and talking about mommy's car. Went to the Ford dealership to check his claims...bogus.

Second guy - no proof...silicon from an air filter ??? Get real.

Third guy - TRD ofer them aftermarket because of the lucrative parts business. Can you actually imagine a manufacturer offering a car with a lifetime air filter?They'd loose millions in air filter sales. It's all about economics.

Well DC, since you have alot of experience with VW diesels and turbo diesels, lets look at what some owners of Dodge Trucks equipped with Cummins turbo-diesels have had to say about K&N air filters:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Gary C

I was talking to my off-road friend today and he says hardly anybody uses a K&N filter any more for off-road. So I asked why, he said it was simple, he said take out your drop in K&N and hold it up to the sky and tell me what you see. I told I would do it in a bit. So later on I pulled the filter out and held it to the blue sky and saw 1000's of little holes in the filter, I would think that dirt is a lot smaller and would easily pass through these small holes. I grabbed the stocker filter and threw it back in.

The truck with the K&N ran better and and notice an increase in fuel mileage instantly. But it is not worth the cost of a new motor.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Lee Weber

EZ, I have to agree with you about the value of holding a new K&N up to the light. IMHO, K&N has a major quality control problem, which is at the root of this controversy. I use K&Ns in my 2 gAssers, because they definitely give a couple of mpg increase with naturally aspirated engines. But the last one I bought didn’t pass the eyeball test described by Gary. I took it in to the lab and checked it out with a dissecting microscope and found that many of the holes were greater than 100 microns. Now that will pass dirt regardless of the oiling state. I exchanged the filter for another that pAssed both the eyeball and microscope test. So there are some bad ones out there but the rest are fine.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Mundgyver

Gotta love them K&N boys. They tout the fact that their filters will flow more air and will give more power. This be true! Only problem is, they don't tell you about how thin the filtering is. I got a friend that went through two MAS-FLOW units at $600 a pop before he figured it out. Stick with the stock or go to the AMSOIL.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Vaughn MacKenzie

I had a bad K&N. Silicate level was 15 on my oil sample when running it, then dropped to half that when I put the Amsoil in. I got tired wiping the dust out of the inside of my intake hose.

I think most K&Ns are good and do the job, but there are bad ones out there and you won't catch me using one again.

Vaughn

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: ROAD WARRIOR

I totally agree with Gary on this subject. I had a friend who put a K & N in his Banshee and went racing in the local quarry. He said after a couple of hours he noticed a big loss in power. He lifted up his seat and to his surprise there was a quarter inch of gravel dust laying inside of his beloved K & N. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sigh....why do I get tangled up in arguments with this guy????

If you don't like aftermarket filters, don't use them. I do like them and have used them in cars for the last 20 years (over 3 million kilometers) with great success. I will continue to use them, saving gas and filter replacement costs and gaining performance.

Hey c2105026,

Guys like you are fun. I wish you'd identify yourself to me out in the real world. instead you hide. You can sure run your mouth but I know you can't back it up.

I'd hit you on the head bady doll.

Signed,

Enotoga

yes, like the US liberated vietnam. had the US been successful, 3 million civillians had lost their lives anyway. The US has not liberated Iraq, not by a long shot. There will be a coup, and it will be back to square one. 100 iraqi civilians a day are being killed by these insurgents, I do not belive that such a number was being killed by saddam hussein. It will be a verrry long time before any sort of order is reached. The US had an arabic ally in the war on terror and Bush conquered it - how stupid is that?

If the US is the shining knight larry purports it to be, then it would liberate North Korea - hey, they aren't even allowed mobiles, or internet!! and at LEAST Saddam allowed his population to go across the border! but to date the US has not. why? North Korea has no oil and actually does have WMDs. North Korea would be too even a match. USA is merely a global bully who is afraid to pick on someone its own size. but, i am willing to retract my comments IF the USA invades and liberates North Korea. The gaunlet has been thrown down.

larry has shot himself in the foot. if that does indeed occur (cheap oil), it is clear evidence that the USA only does something when it wants revenge, or something in return.

BTW - i will be waiting for larry and his capitalist, pro-bush/NRA/warmongering/environmental destruction mates to blow up my condo and corolla with a 'daisy cutter' - hey, i'm an enviro-terrorist who wishes that noone should starve and that everyone should have the basic essentials. but since the islamic terrorists will NEVER be beaten, i don't think i'm that worried...

Yes, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. If you think Saddam and son's did not murder Iraqi's at a horrific rate, you know nothing of the history of that regime. They are still excavating Saddam's killing fields. This fact and the atrocities are well documented. Oh well, Keep the faith - Saddam may be re-instituted as President for life. Maybe then you could be happy for the Iraqi people - And rejoice in the failure of the US intervention - Ah- but that's the main thing, isn't it?

BTW-

The US was not fighting to 'liberate' VietNam, the US was fighting to preserve South VietNam from infiltration and occupation by their neighbors from the northern worker's paradise. This was the same reason the US participated with Aus and the UN in defense of South Korea. Who now has the better standard of living and human rights record - North or South Korea?

The failures of the US war in VietNam are epic (and also well documented and debated). I'm you believe that China and Russia's role in the VietNam conflict was purely esoteric.

no, liberate iraq if you must - if that is what it really is. but why not liberate other regimes if the US is the shining knight everyone purports it to be. i'd say nth korea and the old iraq are as bad as each other.

yes, the US participated in korea war - THAT WAR WAS A UN ACTION!! i have/had no problem with gulf war Mk1, that was liberating a country, AND a UN action.

i am not defending saddam or what he did - i'd just, for once, would like to hear the US call a spade a spade - why did they choose to liberate iraq, not nth korea? oil, ind iraq is no match for the US. that also begs a question - why can nth korea have WMDs, yet iraq cannot?

if the US wants to liberate people, sure ok, many people out there cannot fight for them selves. I will believe that the Iraq occupation is a liberation when a) there are no more tyrants in that countrie i.e. no coups or anything, the US still continues to pay market rates for oil c) the US leaves ASAP and the UN replaces. I have no issue with iraq being liberated. I only have issue if iraq is exploited and raped, which the west (nth america, eurpoe, even australia) likes to do to third world countries. But i have an issue with they way this liberation was done. I am a huge supporter of the UN and its fine work. But if the UN sez no, its not on and i don't give a sh*t if US wanted to blow iraq up or not.

yes saddam broke many a human rights law - but so did bush by invading a country that was no threat to the US, no terrorist links and no WMDs. The US doesn't like hearing 'no', they got a no from the UN and they illegally invaded iraq like an insolent child. If the US wanted to they could have funded/armed opposition groups and toppled saddam that way. at least when saddam was in power, there was order. now there is not. it will cost billions to rebuild iraq. ****uming the US foots the bill, this is money that could be spent on foreign aid to other democratic but poor countries. i m not against iraqi liberation, but believe there were other ways around it.

if the US wanted to 'share its wealth' then they would have given the free trade agreement to OZ unconditionally. no, a condition is that we militarily support the US in everything they do. The 'with us or against us' approach is unfair, undemocratic, and plain childish. why can't we just be cool with america, but don't follow it like a lost puppy into all the mess it creates.

enotoga, in the unlikely event we bump into each other in the real world i won't hide. I am who i am, i mean what i say.

The US invaded Iraq because Saddam was preparing terrorist attacks against us. Russia (and others) gave us that information in October, 2000. And, North Korea and Iran were helping Iraq develop nuclear capabilities. President Bush made the correct call. If we had waited and had a nuclear terriorist attack, wouldn't that be stupid? BTW, Saddam's nuclear project was moved to Libya before we attacked Iraq. Libya gave it up after we found Saddam in the spider hole.

60,000,000 people have died since 1972 because the USA, Canada

and western Europe have denied 3rd world countries access to DDT.

So that makes us the biggest mass murderers & terrorists in history.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/arti...summ02/DDT.html

"Sixty million people have died needlessly of malaria, since the

imposition of the 1972 ban on DDT, and hundreds of millions more have

suffered from this debilitating disease. The majority of those affected

are children. Of the 300 to 500 million new cases of malaria each year,

200 to 300 million are children, and malaria now kills one child every

30 seconds. Ninety percent of the reported cases of malaria are in

Africa, and 40 percent of the world’s population, inhabitants of

tropical countries, are threatened by the increasing incidence of

malaria."

But i have an issue with they way this liberation was done. I am a huge supporter of the UN and its fine work......................If the US wanted to they could have funded/armed opposition groups and toppled saddam that way. at least when saddam was in power, there was order. now there is not.

You oppose the US invading Iraq to remove Saddam, but you would support the US funding/supplying opposition forces to create a civil war there? You can't expect me to believe you would not be equally critical of the US in that role.

The US has had over 800 US soldiers killed (plus the Brits, Poles, Spaniards and Italians) in the liberation of that country, and all you self righteous can do is sit around and whine about how it should have been done differently? Give me a break.

So you prefer the order under Saddam. How illuminating. There is precious 'order' under Kim Jong-Il also.

anything is better than the chaos that is war. WW2 was worthwhile in hindsight , it DID create change, and because there was some history of democratic order. but with this, i am not so sure. well before saddam came into the scene, the third world has always been a haven for warlords and despots. In iraq i do not think there ever has been democracy. Its a nice pipe dream, but as soon as military forces leave it'll start alllllllll over again.

Part of the UN preamble is that it does not interfere with the running of any country. But there is an offshoot (amnesty international) that does campaigns - peaceful ones - to free prisoners of conscience etc. I resent that the US barged in against the will of most of the globe and chose the will of a country. with the other idea of arms then the people could decide, have an uprising inciting a revolution from below.

before the UN there was 2 world wars in 31 yrs. with the UN there has been greater level of peace than the human race has ever contemplated.

why can't iraq have WMD yet the US, UK and france can? same as Nth Korea? There has been no credible link between iraq and al-quaeda/911. in the war on terror iraq was a potential ally. bush had the chance to form an alliance with an arab country, yet he blew it up. what an idiot.

Jeff, every year the use of DDT in 3rd would countries could save 2,000,000 lives from malaria. Therefore by denying 3rd world countries access to DDT we kill approx. 25 million people every 12 years. Guess what the human population of Iraq is? Answer: 25 million people. So every 12 years we kill off the human population equivalent of Iraq. In other words, we cannot possibly be occupying Iraq right now for humanitarian reasons because we have a long standing reputation of being oppressors and murderers on a scale that makes Saddam look like a pussy cat. Therefore the only realistic reason we could be in Iraq is for a big potential economic return on our investment; i.e. unobstructed access to a nearly unlimited supply of cheap, high quality crude oil for decades to come.

i agree, consider this..............

1. 88 australians die in 12/10/02 bali bombing. very sad. millions spent on counter terrorism and defence.

but..........

2. 83 australians killed in 18/01/1977 granville rail accident. very small amount of money allocated for rectifying rail system.

3. 20 australians die in 9/11

4. 36 australians die in kempsy bus accident, 22nd december 1989. no money spent by government on safety upgrades.

5. no australians died in madrid bombing - mAssive amounts spent on rail security.

6. 13 people die in newcastle earthquake (28 december, 1989). all that was happened was building code realigned - very little money spent.

7. 3000 die in 9/11. but, how many have been killed as the result of an SUV rollover since 1990? wouldn't be surprised if it were a similar amount. 4200 aussies have died on the roads since 9/11.

Jeff, every year the use of DDT in 3rd would countries could save 2,000,000 lives from malaria. Therefore by denying 3rd world countries access to DDT we kill approx. 25 million people every 12 years.