Subaru XV Crosstrek Forums banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
An intake that seems under the radar...At over $300 it's east to see why. However as far as quality goes it may very well be the best option.

like intakes for SOUND. Newer cars have pretty good flow. I find it hard to believe this would give 7 hp.

That being said...does anyone have this or seen one on a Trek?

https://www.aemintakes.com/search/product.aspx?prod=21-846C
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeCrush

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
I put a K&N filter in the stock airbox on my Civic Si and noticed an immediate difference in throttle response. Don't think it actually made the car any faster, but it made it feel that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Just my 2 cents...I think K&N are garbage...With the sensors in newer vehicles the last thing I want is filter oil going on them. AEM and others for example my DRY filters that should be just as good for performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
Just my 2 cents...I think K&N are garbage...With the sensors in newer vehicles the last thing I want is filter oil going on them. AEM and others for example my DRY filters that should be just as good for performance.
"Should be"? You mean you haven't checked actual performance data?

Then how are you so sure that one is garbage and the other is good?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Just my 2 cents...I think K&N are garbage...With the sensors in newer vehicles the last thing I want is filter oil going on them. AEM and others for example my DRY filters that should be just as good for performance.
Just a head's up, K&N directly responded to this claim a few years back regarding oil ruining sensors - response below (from https://www.knfilters.com/MAF/massair.htm)



No dealership or service provider, when contacted, has ever been able to provide us with evidence to support this "myth," and in fact, our investigations have revealed that even authorized dealerships are simply speculating and do not have the test equipment necessary to know whether the sensor has failed or why. In the last 7 years, we have had more than 300 actual sensors sent to us by consumers with documents showing dealerships claimed our product had caused them to fail. Microscopic, electronic and chemical testing revealed that none of these sensors were contaminated by K&N oil (K&N Detailed MAF Sensor Test Results). What is perhaps the single biggest clue to what is going on is that over 50% of these sensors sent to us were not broken in the first place for any reason. Click here for more information on how this may happen.

The oil treatment on our cotton is very small (usually less than 2 ounces) and is a critical component of our filtration technology. There is nothing unusual about the use of oil as a tacking agent to improve air filter efficiency. In fact, certain Ford Motorcraft and Fram disposable air filters are treated with oil. This makes us wonder if it is only the oil treatment from reusable lifetime air filters that is alleged cause a vehicle problem? The idea that oil comes off our filter throughout its life is truly ridiculous. Just like oil treated disposable air filters, once our oil is properly and evenly absorbed through the cotton, no oil will come off, even under extreme engine conditions. We have even conducted a test with an over oiled K&N air filter in which we flowed 1,000 cubic feet of air per minute for over twelve hours (few cars or truck could generate even 500 cubic feet of air flow). The use of an absolute filter confirmed that no oil came off the K&N filter tested, even in these harsh conditions.

We have tested many MAF sensors claimed to be damaged. We can fully diagnose their condition and likely cause of failure. For a full discussion of our MAF sensor test protocol and findings, see K&N Mass Air Flow Testing Results and Findings.

Not one of these suspected MAF sensors sent in for laboratory evaluation was shown to have failed due to contamination from K&N filter oil.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top