sfirestine

Wow, you got that right, Yves. I put a K&N CAI on my truck about 2 years ago and that's why I went with this one over the EVO. The one for the truck was the easiest and best install of any aftermarket product I've ever done. This one was far from an easy install with half the parts missing and the diagram being drawn for viewing only through a microscope. If it's the oil on the filter causing this problem, I doubt any R&D was put into the product.

I'm going to check the codes once my reader comes in and if it says it is the MAF, I'll order one from the link Wross gave... seems to be a darn good price. I also just ordered an AEM Dry Flow non-oiled cone filter to replace the K&N one, to take yet another precaution. The part number for theirs that seems to match up closest to the K&N that came with our kit is the AEM 21-204DK one. I found one here at AJUSA: AEM Cone Filter

Once again, I'll keep you posted!

jeff_c

I guess I have to pile on here too.

I had the exact same problem (and symptoms) as sfirestine yesterday and I just got the call from my indy...it's the MAF! So the question I immediately have to ask myself is whether or not this is the K&N CAI (which I have had on since mid-June and 1K miles) or just a coincidence?

Jeff

wross996tt

The coincidences just keep adding up...intakes can be a problem (either aftermarket systems or filters). Of course much depends on other mods, environment and driving habits...but well you can guess the rest!

yvesatlanta

So let me run a financial analysis on this one :
- K&N kit : 300$
- Replace MAF : 250$
- Buy other cone filter : 50$

=>The K&N cold air actually seems to cost 600$...

Something doesn't make sense over here.
There such a thing like product liability (especially in the US).
Anybody up for contacting K&N and submitting an official complaint ?

Let's try to make a tally of number of occurances on the K&N product.
Anybody who's up for it, please chime in.

CosmosC4S

That's exactly what I was thinking!
And I would assume the MAF would go bad again soon in the near future.
It makes more sense to just stay away from K&N
I don't think CAI's give enough, if any, hp improvements to justify the costs.

JasonAndreas

The ABS and PSM control units rely on inputs (engine speed, torque, etc.) from the DME control unit so as a safety precaution the ABS and PSM will shutoff when the DME control unit registers a fault. With a PST2 or PiWiS it will show up as fault code 5540 when interrogating the PSM control unit.

Oscypek

same problem with my k&N im up for sighning something and contacting K&N we should get a bunch of us with the problem to sighn somthing

Telamon

This forum rocks...
Just happened last night...
Woke up -Got out of bed_skipped the comb and came straight to the Forum...
Voila- The issue i wanted to research is on the front page

Now a quick question...Is this covered under warranty?
assuming it is a bad MAF.
Same problem abs/psm failure

Bos

May or may not be relevant...

I recall reading someplace "along the way" that K&N filters are over oiled from the factory. Suggestion was to wash and re-oil before initial use. Maybe this is contributing to the fouling / failure of the MAF sensor wires?

No idea personally, just passing this on...

RayGT3

My feeling is, the filter itself, is unlikely the source of the problem. I've gone through this earlier before everyone took the jump into these modified intakes. The MAF relies on the flow being laminar in nature, meaning the flow is equal across the tube cross section as tha MAF only measures the flow at a couple of points and assumes the rest of the flow to be the same. The OE MAF and intake is a tuned and calibrated system. When you change the intake configuration you change the flow patterens (turbulant flow) into the MAF making them uneaqual. Lets say the maf is now seeing an incorrect low flow reading and thinks there is less air going in than actually is. It will then cut back fuel to compensate resulting in a lean condition and throwing a code. The same could happen in the opposite direction, or anyplace in between, with the MAF seeing a high flow situation and then adding fuel. It's my opinion that a lot of the claimed HP gains are a result of the incorrect MAF readings and adding fuel to make more HP, not better breathing. When you change the intake geometery there is no telling what the outcome might be. As I said before, procede at your own perrell.

I've been using an oiled type filter in my car for 3 years with no problems.

ianwallwork

I agree totally with RayGT3. A K&N (or any other oiled filter) is unlikely to 'blow' a MAF - if a little oil gets on it, then yes it can go out of calibration but it can be cleaned of with contact cleaner and the sensor should work properly again. This is not the experience people have been having with the K&N intakes. What is happening here iis the intake goes on, works OK for a while then on comes the CEL. Cleaning the MAF doesn't work. Put in a new one and it appears to work for a few miles then... another CEL. One or two people have reported cleaning to appear to work if they've disconnected their battery as well

What' I believe is actually happening s this. The intake goes on. As RayGT3 states, the flow over the MAF is not laminar as there are no flow straighteners on the K&N as there are on the OEM MAF tube. The MAF takes several (hundred) miles to re-calibrate fully - only then does it throw a CEL. The CEL is due to the lambda (O2) sensors effectively 'telling' the DME that the MAF is out of calibration (it isn't, it's just measuring the non-laminar flow incorrectly). If the MAF is clean, then cleaning it changes nothing and the CEL stays on. If it was contaminated, cleaning it will cause it to re-calibrate, no CEL to start with then back it comes after several miles again. Removing the battery lead also causes a re-calibration, hence it looks like cleaning 'worked' if the battery lead was disconnected. A few miles later - hello CEL! Replacing the MAF causes another (several miles of) re-calibration, also after which the CEL comes on again. Annoying, isn't it!!

The trick with CAIs is to choose one that doesn't eliminate the flow straighteners. Fabspeed (to give you one example) found this out and have amended their instructions for their airbox kit - they now tell you to teave the straighteners well alone for this very reason.

Hope the explanation helps

Ian W

sfirestine

Thanks again for lots more great input. Here is the latest on my adventures with this whole scenario, and it seems to match up perfectly with the last 2 posts. I had read PorscheDoc's reply on the Autobahn forum about trying to clean the MAF with some CRC QD electronics cleaner and possibly trying a non-oiled filter to see if it worked (with the thought that the oil was getting on the MAF and triggering a fault). Well I got my AEM dry filter yesterday and immediately installed it, after disconnecting the battery and cleaning the MAF once again. Put all back together and took it out for the test drive. Once again, it looked good for about 5 miles or so, then on another hard pull in 3rd past 5 grand, the 2 lights come on again.

As you can imagine, this is getting really frustrating. I think we have enough exact same cases here to say it SURE looks like the K&N CAI is the culprit. I would definitely be interested in contacting them to see what they are going to do for all of us who have experienced this with their product that evidently did not go through enough quality assurance and testing.

However, I am still interested in opening up the air into the engine since the MaxFlo mufflers allow a little better flow out of the engine (open it up on both ends as they always say for performance). Has anyone experienced this problem or a CEL problem with the EVO CAI kit??? That was the one I was going for originally and got convinced to go with the K&N, a decision I am really regretting now.

Thanks again for all the helpful input and comments. Anyone just post if you have any success speaking to K&N about this.

RayGT3

Here's a suggestion, take a hole saw and cut some holes in the existing air box. And before you beat me up about hot air and all that, yes, you will get a bit more warm air into the box when putting around town but at high speed the difference in air inlet temp is negligable. I have never seen a comparison of inlet temps with holes and without. Anyone have a set of measured numbers or are we just guessing? I think the latter. This solution is priced right and will cause no ill effects code wise. I personally would like to have those numbers as a reference so anyone with a few thermocouples and some time, go for it (ambient, air box inlet and MAF inlet temps vs. speed/rpm) . And let us all know.

yvesatlanta

I think I've had it with this product. I'm not willing to pour in hundreds of dollars trying to remedy for somebody else's eror. We also need to take into account we might put our entire engine at risk.
The product seems to be poorly designed and K&N should take responsibility.

RayGT3

Another thought, if you really want to make an improvement why not get rid of those anchor batteries you're dragging around. Install a dry cell (Odyssey) battery, easy install, and save a bunch of weight for about $100. You'll get more "real" performance from losing 20 lbs than you could ever get from a trick air box. Just a suggestion.