Land Rover and Range Rover Forum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,236 Posts
I have had great luck...I have better fuel economy and I notice it helps me pull my camper in higher elevation!
 

·
MG
Joined
·
771 Posts
It's actually quite a controversial topic: some people swear by them while others don't think that they're ok (mostly they point at blown MAFs and the possibility that they don't keep the dirt out - but there's no conclusive evidence either way, it's all circumstantial).

You can search LRO, it's been discussed several times. In one of those previous strings, someone posted this link, draw your own conclusions: http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm

Personally (that means that I'm not going to try to convince anyone that I own the Truth), I've decided to keep the stock paper filter and improve performance via a octane boosting in the fuel (not a whole lot of premium around here), MG alternator (the stock one eat its bearing), MSD coil, 8 mm Magnecor HT leads (OEM leads are 10 years old) and perhaps (but that's a whole other controversy that I haven't finished mulling over) some Bosch Platinum plugs.

Good luck!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,033 Posts
Nothing bad about your decisions....

As for the plugs, nothing seems to fase my 1996 Discovery ignition system. Had the stock plugs, and I also had the Bosch Plus 4s on my old Mitsu Mirage. My Mirage was much more sensitive to plugs than I expected. However, my expierence with plugs have been overall positive.

As for the K & N filter, I put in the filter designed for the stock airbox. No problems there either.

I got the pep and the punch for takeoff. Would I like more? You bet.

As for the MAF, well, it is a design based on a hot-wire and how well it is cooled and anyone has seen with a lightbulb, filaments break. If someone had designed a vane style or even a true 3rd party replacement, maybe we as a whole would not be so captive to a Lucas world.

Many of the blown or contaminated MAFs are not due to the air filter but the inability to oil the airfilter properly and most importantly let it dry. That can take time, something most people think they don't have time enough to have.

Keep a extra paper filter handy and let the K & N dry, like in the back of the car.

Most think they can dry it back inside the box,drop it back into service and then the replacement oil contaminates the MAF. Well, that is why you have intake cleaner. I try to clean the hoses and the intake manifold about 2x a year and let it all evaporate.

The results afterwards can be astonishing.

Adam in NYC
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,208 Posts
I just picked up an '89 with an ITG air filter assembly (JC60 Maxogen to be exact) on it. The assembly is huge and fits right where the usual filter assembly would go. The truck has some exhaust issues so I haven't really had the opportunity to see what impact it has on performance but it looks serious. It pretty much operates on the same principle as the K&N but it seems to be geared purely for performance. In a 3.9L it might be a bit of overkill.

http://www.itgairfilters.com/airfilters.asp?section=maxogen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,971 Posts
K&N passes more contaminants than paper- I run K&N on my race car and I don't really care about longevity in that engine. The engine in the Disco I'd like to keep for awhile. Every test done by anyone other than K&N results in the K&N not performing well as far as filtering.

As for performance, can you run your Disco up to 100MPH and rev it to 5,500RPM or so with the stock filter? If it can flow all the air needs to run wide open like that, why do you think you need more flow at 65mph?

Even if you gained power from it- let's say 5HP (unlikely), you won't feel that in a heavy truck with few HP to start with. Placebo effect plays in a lot in reports from owners, and if it makes you FEEL good, I suppose that's fine too.

ITG makes good stuff- better than K&N IMHO. Not really what I'd want in a Rover, but for a streetbound machine I suppose that's ok. I'd never run a cone filter in the engine compartment because it sucks hot air- even the stock setup is better, although without the cool noise.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,033 Posts
Muddy Oval said:
I'd never run a cone filter in the engine compartment because it sucks hot air- even the stock setup is better, although without the cool noise.
Not if it is designed with a proper cold air intake. Most sport compact or truck CAIs use either a cone filter designed with a box taking in cold air from outside the engine compartment or by using a very large air box down by the lower airdam. I don't think it will matter with the Rover engine.

One point though about the Rover engine. It was originally designed back when warm air was needed for air intake. Whenever I monitored the stock air temperature using the OBD2 codereader and with the stock airbox, the mean temp has been measured about 115 to 117 degrees F.

As much as anyone wants to jam cold dense air, you still have to figure out the thermal soak effects of the original hoses , the MAF, and the heating effects of those trumpets in the older Sagen/GEMS air intake. As for the newer bunch of bananas intake on the BMW/Thor engine, I can not say.

Do I use a K & N? Yes.
Is my D1 an work appliance or a personal toy? No.

Adam in NYC
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,033 Posts
Paul Grant said:
I just picked up an '89 with an ITG air filter assembly (JC60 Maxogen to be exact) on it. The truck has some exhaust issues so I haven't really had the opportunity to see what impact it has on performance but it looks serious. ]
Before you go any further, think about you want it for the next 6 months, 12 months, down the road. Even though it is a '89, and I know little or nothing about Rover motors, maybe you should resolve those exhuast issues.

Is it just you gotta replace stuff or is it time for a engine overhaul?

Adam in NYC
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,033 Posts
I would.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,208 Posts
Here is a photo of the ITG. It fits perfectly on the end of the MAF. The foam has a little indentation on the underside as there really isn't an proper mount for it and it was resting on the old air filter assembly mount. If you're really interested make me an offer. I honestly have no idea what these things are worth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
jumping in late...

I used to have an Xterra, and was pretty consistent with running used oil analyses on it. At some point during my ownership I switched to a K&N filter. It didn't really help the gas mileage or the output on the "seat of the pants" dyno, but, after running an oil analysis with the K&N it was evident that there were more insolubles in the oil than before. Coincidence? I guess it could be, but there were no other changes made to the vehicle other than that. From then on I haven't run one in a daily driver. However, being hypocritical, I do have one on the series truck for fair weather performance, just because I was concerned that the oil bath was starving me for air...that's another story though...

Bogatyr
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
No difference

I run two defenders for work both with 300tdis. One has a k&n and one has stock. Blindfolded I could not tell between them. I average about 40k miles a year in both and the mpg is the same for both. I wouldn't bother buying another.
 

·
Faster than the speed of hound...
Joined
·
48 Posts
Hey Bogatyr...

...or anyone else that may want to answer,
I have been considering swapping out my oil bath for a K&N setup. This is my daily driver, but no real off-roading. Just the occasional dirt road, just because sometimes that's the only way to get where you're going around my parts. Can you see any improvements as far as fuel consumption, or better performance? I am running primarily on LP Gas, but can run either that or Petrol. Seems to be tuned to run LPG since that's what it likes best.
Not sure if I should just stick to what works, or try to improve it in some way. The oil bath just seems a bit antiquated, albeit effective.

Thanks,
George :drive:
 

·
Faster than the speed of hound...
Joined
·
48 Posts
Never mind

After doing a little more reading of some earlier posts and giving it a little thought, I think I'll just stick with the oil bath. As they say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!".

Thanks anyway,
George :drive:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
361 Posts
Of Plugs and K&N's

I have a 1970 109 SW with a 2.25 petrol. Every time I make a change I compare my acceleration between certain points on my drive to and from work. I was tickled with the change to Bosch Platinum plugs but after a few weeks, the performance of the 109 got progressively worse. I tried tracking the malfunction for weeks and was getting frustrated beyond reason. There seemed to be no change in the rough running of the engine no matter what modification I made. I changed coil, plug wires (for the 3rd time in 6 months), rebuilt the dizzy, changed timing again and again, adjusted the carb inumerable times, all to no avail. If I pulled plug wires, only # 4 made the engine run differently. (No! Not all at the same time, silly, one at a time.) Finally, and with no rational reason to, I put in my ancient, old, AC plugs. PRESTO!!!! It ran perfectly. 3 of 4 of the platinum plugs had failed. They fired occasionally. THREE out of FOUR were junk!

I took them back to my supplier (not where I bought them) and they refunded my money and sold me regular, old fashioned, plugs. All of them work and not a plug failure since! (3 years ago) I'm told the platinum plug isn't compatable with a rich running engine, I'm not sure if that is a correct excuse or not. With a carb, sometimes you can't avoid a rich running condition. Carb or EFI, you won't see platinum plugs on anything of mine ever again.

K&N filter on a 2.25 petrol makes a very noticable change, for the better. Or so I found on my un-official time and speed trials on my way to and from work. In one example, on the hill going West from my house, I can top the crest in 4th gear at 62 kmh vs 59 kph with the oil bath. It makes it so I shift down later and up, sooner, maintaining a higher average speed. I've never checked fuel economy differences with the K&N vs oil. The filter I have is larger than most would put on a small engine and I have attached it to the intake hose right where the oil bath unit would normally clamp on. If I felt a need to I could simply re-install the oil bath by undoing 1 gear clamp and tightening it up on the oil bath. IF LR engineers calculated the air intake hose into the engine performance, I've maintained that. I don't think the performance is as good by just removing the hose from the carb and running with no filter, as it is with the hose attached and K&N on the end of it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,367 Posts
Ive been watching this thread, hesitant to post. I have a K&N filter and I think it is sweet! Though it was the first thing I bought for my rover....even before I was able to test it without the K&N, so I cant tell you how it affected gas mileage. I also got it before I could drive it legally.....so I also cant say if it gave it some more giddyup.

Good news is that I never blew my MAF sensor.....I dont think keeping the stock paper filter to limit your air flow so you dont blow you MAF is the way to go.....just replace MAF with one that doesnt bust...(not like you could actually do that, but they are out there.....mine hasnt....yet).

Thats right though....there has been some question on whether the K&N's filter as well as the paper filters...
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top