Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner
1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
399 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I personally like the 3rd paragraph...

If mobile users are having issues..
http://i.imgur.com/JbGaC02.jpg

Edit: i put a link in for mobile people, but it just posts a smiley face. WTF Autoguide.... Sure glad I paid for the premium version.



Sent from my Note 3
 

Attachments

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
So what happens then if your turbo shows signs of premature wear, your oil testing proves inadequate filtration from excessive silicone levels, and GM denies your warranty claim at 95k miles claiming with evidence that your filter caused the failure? Will K&N cover the repairs?

Sent from mobile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Im glad that K&N tries to stand behind their product. That being said with the setup for the cruze it can literally be swapped back to stock within 10 minutes. If you leave the intake resonator out you can remove or install the stock box and accordian style tube as one piece. All it takes is a few bolts i tucked my stock box drain tube up out of the way in the engine bay. I have to say this is one of the easiest newer GM vehicles ive ever worked on. My HHR was a pain to do anything with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
So what happens then if your turbo shows signs of premature wear, your oil testing proves inadequate filtration from excessive silicone levels, and GM denies your warranty claim at 95k miles claiming with evidence that your filter caused the failure? Will K&N cover the repairs?

Sent from mobile.
That's kinda what it sounds like XR. Because if they are guaranteeing that no automotive maker will deny a warranty claim because of them, then they should cover it. A guarantee is a guarantee. But I also know business is business lol


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,643 Posts
When the dust settles, K&N will sell more product and turn more profit based on their claimed warranty superiority than they will lose settling denied warranty claims. It's a smart business/marketing descision.

Traditionally, the impact of less restrictive air filtration has had a very small and almost insignificant impact on the longevity of naturally aspirated engines and I don't expect that to change. BUT, with the recent popularity of turbocharged engines and the very real possibility of ingested debris causing damage to high speed turbocharger parts, I can see that changing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,490 Posts
So what happens then if your turbo shows signs of premature wear, your oil testing proves inadequate filtration from excessive silicone levels, and GM denies your warranty claim at 95k miles claiming with evidence that your filter caused the failure? Will K&N cover the repairs?

Sent from mobile.
So why would Chevrolet release cars with K&N filters in the car stock.

Sent From My Galaxy Note 3.
Which is bigger than my hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KOBALT

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,975 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
That's kinda what it sounds like XR. Because if they are guaranteeing that no automotive maker will deny a warranty claim because of them, then they should cover it. A guarantee is a guarantee. But I also know business is business lol


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
That is what one would hope, but is it spelled out clearly? Amsoil makes that warranty guarantee with their oils, that if the oil testing analysis shows that the oil is good and the manufacturer blames the oil on a failure, they will fight for you, and that of any oil is defective or does cause an issue where they recommend it under their recommended interval, they will repair or replace the components damaged.

Its a matter of legal liability. Blue Angel describes my concern below:

When the dust settles, K&N will sell more product and turn more profit based on their claimed warranty superiority than they will lose settling denied warranty claims. It's a smart business/marketing descision.

Traditionally, the impact of less restrictive air filtration has had a very small and almost insignificant impact on the longevity of naturally aspirated engines and I don't expect that to change. BUT, with the recent popularity of turbocharged engines and the very real possibility of ingested debris causing damage to high speed turbocharger parts, I can see that changing.
This is the issue. A turbo spinning at 200,000RPM will be sensitive to filtration effectiveness long-term. I'm talking over 100k miles.

So why would Chevrolet release cars with K&N filters in the car stock.

Sent From My Galaxy Note 3.
Which is bigger than my hand.
Chevy's liability is 5 years/100k miles. If there is an issue, how will you even prove that you oiled and cleaned it correctly?

Sent from mobile.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,975 Posts
I suspect there may be some validity to the K&N/turbo argument, but we won't really know until enough folks turn a lot of miles on these cars with that combination to know for sure.

FWIW, I went out to the garage and took the intake tube off of my '03 P5. This car has had a K&N drop in installed all of it's life (90,000 miles). The MAF is immediately upstream from the airbox followed by the partially pleated rubber intake tube into the intake manifold. I used a clean, white paper towel dampened with a cleaning fluid and wiped the entire inside of the intake tube out. The paper towel is surprisingly clean with very little "dirt" on it. That's after 90,000 miles of driving with the K&N filter installed. Mileage has been unchanged on this car since break in at 28 mpg city. The engine still uses no measurable oil between the 10,000 mile oil changes. This is a NA engine, but the fact that the intake was so clean is the tell for me. If this filter has been passing excess "dirt", I would think the inside of this intake would have had significant amounts inside, especially in the bellows areas.

UPDATE: Picture of the paper towel used in the cleaning of my intake. Compared to an unused paper towel off the same roll. White Paper Linens Textile Paper product
 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: KOBALT

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
I suspect there may be some validity to the K&N/turbo argument, but we won't really know until enough folks turn a lot of miles on these cars with that combination to know for sure.

FWIW, I went out to the garage and took the intake tube off of my '03 P5. This car has had a K&N drop in installed all of it's life (90,000 miles). The MAF is immediately upstream from the airbox followed by the partially pleated rubber intake tube into the intake manifold. I used a clean, white paper towel dampened with a cleaning fluid and wiped the entire inside of the intake tube out. The paper towel is surprisingly clean with very little "dirt" on it. That's after 90,000 miles of driving with the K&N filter installed. Mileage has been unchanged on this car since break in at 28 mpg city. The engine still uses no measurable oil between the 10,000 mile oil changes. This is a NA engine, but the fact that the intake was so clean is the tell for me. If this filter has been passing excess "dirt", I would think the inside of this intake would have had significant amounts inside, especially in the bellows areas.
Chrysler released a TSB for the Cummins turbo diesel to have dealer techs inspect the intake tract if the see turbo damage. If they find a dusted intake with a non-oem filter they are authorized to deny the warranty due to improper maintenance.

90% of the trucks for which the TSB exists have K&N filters. The remaining 10% are people who never changed their OEM filters. Source: Cummins diesel technicians I have asked about this.

It has been objectively proven that K&N filters provide inferior filtration effectiveness.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest3.htm
http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html

The 1.4T is a high tolerance motor with a high tolerance, high RPM turbo. I really don't care for anyone's anecdotal claims on a loose 10-20 year old engine, the fact is the filters don't filter well at all.

Summary: use at your own risk.

Sent from mobile.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
Was Chevy like Subaru where turbos are consider wear and tear items once you reach like 110K miles?


Sent from AutoGuide.com App
No, it's a fairly advanced turbo designed for a service life of at least 200k. That is, assuming the owner does their part and uses an oil suitable to its operating conditions, both stock and tuned, and provides it with OEM-comparable air and oil filtration.

Sent from mobile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
Realistically any high flow filter is going to pass more dirt.And K&N would be at the top of the list it is about the highest flowing filter.Anything that passes the filter will be so small i really cant see a problem.If the filter is checked and maintained and the oil is changed at 4000 miles or so i dont see a engine life problem.Ive been doing this stuff for years and the only problems i have seen is over oiled filters and MAF sensor damage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim Frye

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
Realistically any high flow filter is going to pass more dirt.And K&N would be at the top of the list it is about the highest flowing filter.Anything that passes the filter will be so small i really cant see a problem.If the filter is checked and maintained and the oil is changed at 4000 miles or so i dont see a engine life problem.Ive been doing this stuff for years and the only problems i have seen is over oiled filters and MAF sensor damage.
K&N filters pass bigger particles as well as more of them. The tests have been done and I can provide you the TSB from Chrysler showing what inadequate filtration does to an even better built turbo.

Changing oil, at least a synthetic oil, which you should be doing with a turbo, is a waste at 4k miles, and oil testing analysis has shown at least as much. If we're talking about Royal Purple, then 3-4k is advised as the oil thins out badly past that point, but that's the only "full syntheric" I would say that about. What you are most concerned with is oxidization, acidity, viscosity, and boil-off. The last one is the reason I recommend against conventional or semi-synthetic oils in turbo cars.

Why do you think GM came out with the Dexos1 requirement? Because what we have been doing for years no longer works with newer engines. I've seen the piston ring tolerances on the 1.4T and it is really tight. The way GM manufactures engines has changed vastly in the last 5 years and most significantly in the last 3.

Sent from mobile.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
One thing I wanted to add that deserves its own post. If you have ANY doubts about what I've said or need validation of the issues K&N filters cause on turbo cars, go create a thread on tdiclub.com and see what they have to say about it.

I would recommend using their search feature first however so you don't get chewed out for missing the thousand or so threads where the K&N issues have been hashed out to infinity.

Sent from mobile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
First on Turbo Diesl the Duramax has a track record of being beat to death with tunes.Intakes and Exhaust.I haven't seen GM throw any darts at K&N yet.I have seen 2 Claims denied because we found tunes.Not my doings GM power trane had the programs in the ECMs looked at.As far as Dexos oil thats a racket.It costs 1 million bucks for a oil company to get the license.So there oil can be included and used in newer cars.And sure its a good oil spec but no real magic there.And its what i would call legal black mail to get GM 1 Million bucks.As far as extended oil changes.I have never seen as many lubrication related failures as i have in the last 5 years.In my book higher mileage oil change intervals are not a good idea.My oil is always changed by 4000 to 4500 miles.We also do sugjest our customers follow that practice as well.Just the view from my end of the wrench
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
10,711 Posts
...
Changing oil, at least a synthetic oil, which you should be doing with a turbo, is a waste at 4k miles, and oil testing analysis has shown at least as much. If we're talking about Royal Purple, then 3-4k is advised as the oil thins out badly past that point, but that's the only "full syntheric" I would say that about. What you are most concerned with is oxidization, acidity, viscosity, and boil-off. The last one is the reason I recommend against conventional or semi-synthetic oils in turbo cars.
Running past 4K on certain Subaru turbos was not recommended. There are banjo bolt filters that get clocked starving the turbo and oil control valves that also have issues on longer OCI's. Eventually you get a change oil, oil control valves or rebuild your engine cel.



Sent from AutoGuide.com App
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,763 Posts
First on Turbo Diesl the Duramax has a track record of being beat to death with tunes.Intakes and Exhaust.I haven't seen GM throw any darts at K&N yet.I have seen 2 Claims denied because we found tunes.Not my doings GM power trane had the programs in the ECMs looked at.As far as Dexos oil thats a racket.It costs 1 million bucks for a oil company to get the license.So there oil can be included and used in newer cars.And sure its a good oil spec but no real magic there.And its what i would call legal black mail to get GM 1 Million bucks.As far as extended oil changes.I have never seen as many lubrication related failures as i have in the last 5 years.In my book higher mileage oil change intervals are not a good idea.My oil is always changed by 4000 to 4500 miles.We also do sugjest our customers follow that practice as well.Just the view from my end of the wrench
I didn't say Duramax, I said Cummins, and I didn't say intakes and exhaust.

As far as the Dexos1 certification, it is a minimum quality certification. Say what you will about it, it does force you to use at minimum a synthetic blend oil. No more conventional oils for GM engines.

The reason why you believe higher mileage oil change intervals are a bad idea is because (and don't take this the wrong way), you don't know how oil changes in an engine, and that lack of information, which let me tell you is very hard to find, is why you and just about everyone else I've run into keep telling me that long oil drains are a bad idea.

Same people told me that running my tires at max sidewall was a bad idea last year and that I would wear out the centers of my tires. Sometimes, one has to wonder if they've been doing something one way for so long that they no longer pay attention to the changes.

Running past 4K on certain Subaru turbos was not recommended. There are banjo bolt filters that get clocked starving the turbo and oil control valves that also have issues on longer OCI's. Eventually you get a change oil, oil control valves or rebuild your engine cel.



Sent from AutoGuide.com App
Like I said, it depends on the oil. I can create a 2-page post explaining exactly why this is so (and would be more than happy to explain it to you over the phone), but I'll leave you and GM Master Tech here with a condensed explanation:

1. Boil-off in conventional, synthetic blend, and to some degree group 3 hydrocracked base stocks causes small molecules to evaporate into the PCV system and thicken the oil beyond the original viscosity spec. Group 4/5 PAO and Ester base stocks have an entirely uniform molecular structure.
2. Oxidization in conventional, synthetic blend, and to some degree group 3 hydrocracked base stocks causes the oil to literally sludge. Leave a quart of cheap conventional oil in a pan for 8 months out in your garage and come back and tell me what it looks like after those 8 months. You'll say something along the lines of "waxy layer at the bottom" because the top layer molecules keep oxidizing and falling to the bottom. Group 1, 2, and 3 base stocks have an issue with this.
3. VI additives in conventional and synthetic blend oils deplete over time. These VI additives keep the oil thinner at cold temperatures and thicker at warm temperatures. Group 4/5 PAO and Ester base stocks are formulated on the molecular level to behave a certain way without those additives to deplete.
4. TBN in conventional, synthetic blend, and group 3 hydrocracked base stocks leave much to be desired. TBN exists to neutralize the acidity; a byproduct of the combustion cycle.
5. Conventional and semi-synthetic oils have very poor heat transfer and increased friction, which accelerates the boil-off issues mentioned in point 1 and reduces acceptable oil change intervals. Turbo vehicles will cause even greater stress.

On top of all this, Mobil 1 no longer uses Group 4 PAO base stocks in their standard Mobil 1 "full synthetic" oil. They used to be great, and now they're just another group 3 hydrocracked base stock. Among the companies that sold out include Royal Purple, which also no longer uses their proprietary synerlec additive, making it no better than Mobil 1.

When I say synthetic, I mean TRUE full synthetic. A Group 4/5 PAO/Ester formulation that is not refined from petroleum oil like group 3 hydrocracked oils are, but chemically synthesized in a lab. There used to be a lot of companies who sold oil in that formulation including Royal Purple and Mobil 1, but they since found it a lot cheaper to go with Group 3 hydrocracked base stocks, because nobody will use a Group 4/5 PAO/Ester to its full mileage potential anyway. Everyone was still scared shitless of running their cars past 5,000 miles (which was a feat in itself given people previous to that were scared to go over 3k), so instead of making a PAO/Ester base stock and additive formulation that could exceed 15,000 miles, they went ahead and produced an oil that is equally effective for those people for a fraction of the cost. Why do you think full synthetic oils got so cheap? You can get 5 quarts of Mobil 1 for $23 at walmart now.

The Petroleum Quality Institute of America shows this "smoking gun" about as clearly as anyone would want to see it.
March 2013 - Test Results for AP

NOACK volatility for true Group 4/5 full synthetics is below 8%. NOACK volatility for Group 3 hydrocracked base stocks is ~10% or above. Amsoil Signature Series is at 6.9%. The only other oil that competes is Pennzoil Ultra, followed by Quaker State ultimate. The latter is most like a Group 3/4 blend.

This is why you can't extend oil drain intervals past 5-6k in some cars. The only companies that still make a mass-market oil that is truly capable of going 15-25k are Amsoil and Pennzoil.

For the record, GM Master Tech, this is why it doens't matter how long you've been doing something; but how up to date you are.

Now here's a bit of trivia for you. In most of Europe and the UK, all they have available is true full synthetics due to the cost of petroleum. Take a guess as to what GM's recommended oil drain interval is for most of these vehicles. I'll give you one engine in particular to research. 2.2L Ecotec. The answer to that trivia question will prove my point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
I go by what i see in the field.Why do you think we have update after update on oil life monitor systems.Reprogramming EC Ms for shorter and better management of oil change intervals.Some of the problem is also people running there engines low on oil.Normal oil consumption can be up to 1 qt in 2000 miles.GMs spec not mine.Your average soccer mom drives in in her Suburban with 9000 on a oil change and the engine started out with 6.5 Qts in it. Do the math.Would you want to buy that vehicle with 30k on it? And no not all use 1 qt per 2000. Just getting a point out there.As to why extended oil changes in some cases are not good ideas.I am also very aware of todays oil technology.But remember i also fix cars in the real world
 
  • Like
Reactions: XtremeRevolution
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top