cabin/engine air filter
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
OEM, by far.
If you compare OEM Toyota filters, they are much better quality than most aftermarket ones. An OEM filter costs -$30-35. And aftermarket one is anywhere between $15-20. Is saving $20 once every 30,000 miles worth risking the engine's longevity?
The expensive parts of OEM parts is labor at the dealer. Just buy the filter from your dealer and change it yourself.
If you compare OEM Toyota filters, they are much better quality than most aftermarket ones. An OEM filter costs -$30-35. And aftermarket one is anywhere between $15-20. Is saving $20 once every 30,000 miles worth risking the engine's longevity?
The expensive parts of OEM parts is labor at the dealer. Just buy the filter from your dealer and change it yourself.
Can the OEM filters be purchased online? I keep reading that Denso makes a great filter actually. Any thoughts?
http://www.rockauto.com/catalog/moreinfo.php?pk=2140992&cc=1441523
'13 Accord Sport
Alabaster Silver
Denso is part of Toyota Group Companies. Denso is to Toyota like Mopar is to Chrysler. So Denso is OEM filter, just in a different box.
Did you ever try Denso vs buying a filter from the dealer? Look at the price difference. Please advise. Above it sounds like you are saying just stick with the dealer.
'13 Accord Sport
Alabaster Silver
Using K&N filter is a perfect way to spend $4000 on engine re-build for the sake of saving $30 on air filter. K&N has the worst dirt retention performance among car air filter.
http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest3.htm
If you google around you will find many tests that show how poorly K&N performs when compared to disposable paper filters, as well as dozens of horror stories from people who had major engine damage from using K&N in dusty environment.
Joined
·
38 Posts
Thank you. The test you cited was for several air filters designed for the GM Duramax Diesel (not for RAV4 filters, OEM or otherwise). In the graphic you posted, the difference from "best" to "worst" is 3%. It's like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: 99.93 or 96.80 angels... The best filtration (and greatest restriction to airflow) possible would be provided by a solid steel plate, no? It would be interesting to see your list of people whose engines were ruined by the various types of air filters, including K&N. PS: the OEM Rav4 air filter and the K&N cost about the same, but the "life cycle cost" and environmental cost are vastly different.
The fact that is for a Duramax is really irrelivant. Basic concept of an Air Filter is to clean Air before it enters the engine. Type of vehicle does not charge that.
Also take into consideration that the oil based spray needed for the K & N is a common issue for Mass Air Flow issues.
When considering filter efficiency, you don't consider the percentage that is retained, but the amount that the filter lets go through. So the real difference in filtering efficiency is not 3%, but 100-99.93=0.07 vs 100-96.80=3.20, almost 50 times difference.
Also, a disposable paper filter is more environmentally friendly. Paper can be recycled, burned in a waste-fuel boiler or safely send to landfill because it is not toxic. On the other hand, solvents used to clean a reusable filter are toxic and difficult to treat / get rid of safely. Solvents, used motor oil, etc. are among the most environmentally un-friendly materials you can have.
Joined
·
38 Posts
According to Neville J. Bugli and Gregory S. Green in their SAE paper published in 2005 in Detroit, "Premature replacement of the engine air cleaner filter may increase engine wear and reduce its service life." Besides, if anyone is regularly throwing away their "million mile" K&N filters as if they're actually temporary "paper filters," they're doing something really stupid.
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Join the discussion
