MR2 Owners Club Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I'm replacing my air filter, but all the ones that I see come in this funky design by K&N: http://www.knfilters.com/search/product.aspx?prod=E-2485

How does one install an air filter like this one? Sorry for the noob question...but I've become incredibly ecstatic about doing my own work on the MR2, but I will admit, I'm not all too experienced with working with one.

Also, I tried searching around, but didn't find too much information, I hope I am able to get a response to verify...
I'm installing a new cold air intake, which is this one: http://www.knfilters.com/search/product.aspx?prod=57-0063

Is it worth the price and will I need anything else required for installation? Thank you very much for helping me out! I hope I don't entice an angry mob out there for my inexperienced questions, haha. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,754 Posts
Dude. Dude.....
It's an air filter. You can figure it out by looking at your car.

Now as the the k&n ones, it really up to you. There's been a ton of debate as to the oil used on the filter affecting stuff. I had one on my '88 sc really didn't notice a difference. A new oem filter did the same effect. I did notice a bit more oily junk in my inner cooler hoses.

I guess the only positive is that you can reuse it. But $8 for a new oem filler every so often is really not much. Guess the big question is: do you really want to spend $50+ on an air filter for a '85 na mr2 with 120-ish horsepower?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Dude. Dude.....
It's an air filter. You can figure it out by looking at your car.

Now as the the k&n ones, it really up to you. There's been a ton of debate as to the oil used on the filter affecting stuff. I had one on my '88 sc really didn't notice a difference. A new oem filter did the same effect. I did notice a bit more oily junk in my inner cooler hoses.

I guess the only positive is that you can reuse it. But $8 for a new oem filler every so often is really not much. Guess the big question is: do you really want to spend $50+ on an air filter for a '85 na mr2 with 120-ish horsepower?
Oh, don't get me wrong, I know how to change an air filter, it's just that this one looks like a circle, while my '85 MR2 uses a sort of square like filter; however, when I used the website, the filter that I mentioned says it's compatible with my MR2 but it doesn't seem to fit...
Do you see where I'm confused at?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,255 Posts
That kit replaces your air box and just mounts on the end of the included dryer vent.
Now whether an air filter and a section of dryer vent is worth $90 is worth it to you is something only you can answer.
As far as performance goes you will not see any change over a clean quality filter in the stock box.
Before choosing a filter you might want to read this.
http://www.mr2.com/forums/threads/100306-How-well-does-YOUR-air-filter-work

I really need to add some more filter options to my website as I do feel like K&N isn't the best option especially for DDs.
I can get AEM filters which is likely what I will be switching to when the time comes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,188 Posts
If you have the original filter setup, then you just open the can, take the old filter out, and put in the new one. If you have an aftermarket air intake, then you need to get a filter that fits it. The fact that a filter was manufactured for the 85 MR2 would make no difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
That kit replaces your air box and just mounts on the end of the included dryer vent.
Now whether an air filter and a section of dryer vent is worth $90 is worth it to you is something only you can answer.
As far as performance goes you will not see any change over a clean quality filter in the stock box.
Before choosing a filter you might want to read this.
http://www.mr2.com/forums/threads/100306-How-well-does-YOUR-air-filter-work

I really need to add some more filter options to my website as I do feel like K&N isn't the best option especially for DDs.
I can get AEM filters which is likely what I will be switching to when the time comes.
Ah, this was a wonderful read! That helped me out a lot. Thanks. :)
Also, it seems I finally found where it went. I guess I wasn't looking careful enough, haha.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,030 Posts
I would avoid the rechargable filters. The oil I've used for a MAF sensor automobile caused it to not function as well after a few years causing me to replace the MAF sensor. Those are much more expensive to replace than a filter.
 

·
Super Moderator
91t gen5
Joined
·
6,766 Posts
I would avoid the rechargable filters. The oil I've used for a MAF sensor automobile caused it to not function as well after a few years causing me to replace the MAF sensor. Those are much more expensive to replace than a filter.
But the MKI doesn't use a MAF sensor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,030 Posts
I understand that but it still uses a sensor via AFM, MAF, etc. I'm just saying that the agents used for those rechargeable filters can clog or gunk up your sensor which would be a more costly fix than a filter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
I've read that comparison before, but do not necessarily believe it was an impartially compiled test. Not saying it doesn't have some merits, but you have to read it carefully to see what it is really telling you.

Regarding the K&N results, they don't bother to say how, or if, the filter was properly oiled, etc. Additionally, the following test comment regarding that filter, and some of its competitors need to be looked at carefully:

1. "Compared to the AC, the K&N “plugged up” nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt. See the data tables for a complete summary of these comparisons"

**Two of those measurements tell you that the K&N filter obviously has much less surface area than the AC filter. No measurements of air filter surface area were performed, or reported, so hard to use this data in a truly meaningful manner. K&N does often make replacement filters that have significantly less surface area than even oem filters, so some tests will make them look bad. Not to let K&N off the hook because of that, as it is lazy/cheap on their part, but it should be considered when looking at direct comparison tests. Only tests run between comparably designed filters would really be useful.

2. "The other filters, most notably the oiled reusable types, had an exponential loading response before reaching maximum restriction. These filters had a lower initial restriction, but they became exponentially more restrictive under a constant flow of dirt."

**Again, read the info carefully; they're saying that oiled filters like K&N do breathe better when clean, but do not breathe as well when really dirty. Okay, that' fine, but what is 'really dirty'? They don't tell you at what point the oiled filters fall behind. Clean your oiled filters on a regular basis and you should be ahead of the game.

3. "note how the AC Filter, which passed the smallest amount of dirt and had the highest dirt capacity and efficiency, also had the highest relative restriction to flow. The less efficient filters correspondingly had less restriction to flow."

**Here was the kicker, the filter that kept out the most dirt also was the most restrictive filter. Of course this makes sense, but is it worth the trade-off? As for the filters ability to hold dirt, what happened to the dirt that filters couldn't hold, lol. In this test I'm assuming that it just fell away from the test filter since they probably were not held inside oem type air cleaners. Well, who really cares as long as the dirt didn't get through the filter.

**As for the overall actual test, the amount of dirt/dust they were using was a rather large amount in a very short time, compared to standard use in most cars. They also didn't bother to mention exactly what type of dirt/dust they were using, which could technically affect the test results as well, and favor differently designed filters.

Not saying that the test was meant to favor one filter or another, or make others look bad, but it well could have.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top