I see who I suspect are mostly kids, buying expensive cone filters and billet aluminum housings to rebuild a perfectly good airbox (usually with a K&N filter as part of the kit) under the guise of "increased performance". These are normally located behind the radiator where they will suck in hot air (LOL).

In addition to probably producing "less" power, these good people are actually installing a filter that has been fairly well proven to admit more dirt. Now having spent all that money, that really doesn't appear to be such a good deal. As for the money saved over the cost of a paper filter, one has to make a descision if the re-oiling kit cost + the initial filter + the additional dirt is = or better than the convenience of the paper filter with equal over-the-road performance, superior filtering of dirt, and perhaps some small measure of additiional cost.

When I make this evaluation for the machinery I'm running, I don't mind the small addl cost of the paper filter, as I'm not interested in saving a few bucks on a car that cost $50,000 in 1983, or one that is now valued close to the same value as a North American Rockwell Saberliner on the used jet market. "Any dirt" on those cars is too much dirt.

I appreciate your comments, each of us must make a decision regarding what is best for our own situation. In the end it's our car, our money, and our choice. I offer this info to assist in making that choice. I do know for a fact that the recharging of the K&N has lead to a lot of grief for people who think "more is better" and end up with too much oil on the foam. Also, once that foam gets caked with dry dust, it no longer filters "anything", so it's important to constantly monitor and assure your K&N has an oil film.

Sincerely,

Mr. P
--
2004 XC90 2.5T AWD, 1990 944 S2 Cabriolet, 1989 740 GL 16v, 1984 944, 1983 928S 5-speed, 1974 TVR 2500M