I put in a K&N filter and the improvement is noticable. I posted my milage on a filter post. The 300 mile trip includes a mountain pass and other steep elevation changes. We normally get 21-23 mpg, but we got 25.6 going, 24.2 returning at 65 mph average speed each way. I made the trip again yesterday and got 26.1 mpg going, average speed 69 mph. My last tank of gas for normal driving around town for 350 miles with a mixture of city and highway driving had a 23.0 mpg average. That is 1.5 mpg better than normal. I attribute this to improved airflow.
I'm pleased with my K&N as well. It was given to me by my stepson, who works at an auto parts store. Otherwise, I would have maybe gone for the dry filter. I really like the mileage improvement this has given me as well as the noticeable better response.
K&N filters are reusable. Totally worth the upfront cost.
if you want a performance oriented filter James Baron Racing sells a dry flow panel filter that's a drop in replacement for most 2012+ Mazda's. They're made by K&N but have no oil whatsoever. They flow better than OEM and they're cleanable. Probably your safest option.
I went with the K&N high flow filter, keeping the cover on. I’ve noticed a bit of a difference, but I’m too scared to take the cover off, as I don’t want particulates in my engine
A filter shouldn't void a warranty, and K&N even offers to fight warranty disputes with dealers who claim the filter did it. The top actually secures the filter in place. You can take it off, but I would check it once a week to be sure it didn't pop off the intake tube. a high flow filter is for increased air flow (easier/faster air intake) and not temp decreases. I have a snorkel and I have NEVER had water on the filter, but I also leave the airbox lid on (my 2013 has a ~1" gap between the hood and bumper that water likes to go through to the engine compartment). Oil coated air filters require you to wash and re-oil them every so often. The oil is what catches most of the dust.
I've been using a K&N for a few weeks. I haven't noticed any power gains, but the throttle response feels slightly quicker (this could be in my head, but who cares, I'm happy). No difference in fuel economy.
IMHO the performance gains from the K&N are marginal at best, especially on a 1.8 litre motor. It's less hassle to just replace the paper filter element every year with a freash one than cleaning the cotton filter annually. the K&N will likely require eight years to get your return on investment. Besides it you live anywhere where it's dusty you going to be doing your motor harm... I read about farm trucks with these installed the puke their motors because fine particles are getting into the motor. YMMV.
I'm not a believer in K&N. I've always thought of it as being rather gimmicky.
K&N is one of the worst. I run my engine in dusty conditions and was finding oily, dirty crud in my intake with K&N. I ditched it and went back to paper filters.
Write your review
Help others - share your experience with this part.
Voted AGAINST engine oil RAVENOL on the rating page
The brake pads OEM Alfa Romeo got the first review!
The tires OEM Fiat got the first review!
The ABS unit OEM FORD got the first review!
For oil additives LIQUI MOLY already 25 reviews.
For tires GISLAVED already 25 reviews.
In the rating best cabin filter already 13 brands participate!
In the rating best shock absorbers already 13 brands participate!
In the rating best fuel pump already 5 brands participate!
In the auto rating shock absorbers for Ford Ranger already 20 brands participate!
In the auto rating headlights for Volkswagen Golf already 5 brands participate!
In the auto rating tires for Toyota Corolla already 50 brands participate!
For cabin filter Fram already 25 reviews.
Voted AGAINST engine oil RED LINE on the rating page
Voted AGAINST engine oil PENNZOIL on the rating page
