K&N Issue

jymmiejamz

Well-known member
Dec 5, 2004
6,010
362
36
Los Angeles, Ca
I'll start with a little background...

About a month ago a customer brought their 2012 LR4 (under warranty) to the dealership for a check engine light. I checked the fault codes and find P0172 and P0175, which means both banks are running rich. I've personally never seen this an any 5.0L trucks, or 4.4L, so I thought this was a bit unusual. I started doing some basic checks and found the vehicle was fitted with K&N air filters. I noticed oil sitting on top of the filters and determined that the oil on the filter had likely contaminated the mass air flow sensors. I replaced both sensors and air filters, test drove the vehicle, and everything seemed okay.

Fast forward to last week...

Our dealership gets a letter from K&N stating that there was a "complete misdiagnosis" and that there is nothing wrong with the mass air flow sensors. They included photos of the thermistor in the MAFS under a microscope and performed a bench test (whatever that means). They reimbursed the customer for the cost of the repairs I performed, and now are demanding that we reimburse them for my misdiagnosis. They also claim that this misinformation has caused substantial damage to their reputation.

According to K&N, I should have started by replacing both air filters to see if the fault followed. They included some info from Alldata which includes possible causes which includes...

-Leaking fuel injectors
-Fuel return line restricted
-Fuel rail pressure sensor bias
-EVAP purge valve is leaking when the canister is full
-Engine oil is contaminated
-Damaged or contaminated mass air flow sensor

Note that nowhere on that list does it say anything about an air filter.

The letter also says, "That is why CRC makes and sells Mass Air Flow Sensor cleaner as they do need to be cleaned periodically even with an O.E. paper air filter." I know for a fact that no where in any Land Rover service literature does it mention anything about cleaning a mass air flow sensor. Also, that is very poor logic since CRC also makes throttle body cleaner, which Land Rover specifically recommends against.

According to the Land Rover Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual, any damage to the vehicle caused by the fitment of non factory components are excluded from the new vehicle warranty.

They do not state whether or not the testing of the sensors was performed before or after cleaning, but they do claim that they were clean to start with. I'd also like to note that we did not agree to this testing, and that this level of testing to determine whether or not the sensors were at fault would be on the customer at the normal shop rate which would be cost prohibitive.

I'd also like to note that my manager called the customer to confirm that the vehicle is fixed and the fault has not returned. The customer is 100% satisfied and believes that my diagnosis was correct.

I'm just curious, what are everyone's thoughts? Keep in mind, I am paid by the job, not by the hour, so any significant diagnostic time would be charged to the customer. If I remember correctly I charged for the standard initial 1.0 hr of diag and an additional .2 hrs - .5 hrs for the air filters and sensors.
 
Jan 3, 2005
11,746
73
On Kennith's private island
Your dealership, or LRNA, should write a letter to K&N stating that from here on out that any vehicle coming into the garage with K&N air filter(s) installed will immediately void the warranty.

More air equals more dirt.
 
Jan 25, 2010
3,544
4
your moms bed
According to the Land Rover Warranty Policies and Procedures Manual, any damage to the vehicle caused by the fitment of non factory components are excluded from the new vehicle warranty.


I'd also like to note that my manager called the customer to confirm that the vehicle is fixed and the fault has not returned. The customer is 100% satisfied and believes that my diagnosis was correct


I would send k&n this which pretty much sums it all up. I would also attach a picture of your dogs asshole.
 

jymmiejamz

Well-known member
Dec 5, 2004
6,010
362
36
Los Angeles, Ca
Your dealership, or LRNA, should write a letter to K&N stating that from here on out that any vehicle coming into the garage with K&N air filter(s) installed will immediately void the warranty.

More air equals more dirt.

I would be inclined to refuse service to them all together!

I would send k&n this which pretty much sums it all up. I would also attach a picture of your dogs asshole.


The problem is that they are saying it passed their tests and was clean. i definitely agree about the picture of the dog's asshole.
 

K-rover

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2010
2,183
72
Raleigh, NC
Ive seen people put too much oil on the filter after cleaning. .thats probably the cause. You're supposed to only lightly coat it. That said I would never run one on offroad vehicle.. Its just a magnet for dust.
 

Blue

Well-known member
Mar 26, 2004
10,081
887
AZ
I had a K&N in my old '96 and I removed it and went back to stock after hearing all the negative reviews about the K&Ns letting in more dust. You could also see the dust on the downstream side of the air intake. Over oiling is also a common mistake with the K&Ns....if a little oil is good, a lot of oil must be better, right? I run a K&N in my Porsche but that's a horse of a different color.
 

chris snell

Administrator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2005
3,020
152
Why does your dealership owe K&N anything? Did you guys ever enter into a contract with them? It was their decision to pay your customer.

If it were me they wrote to, I would spend the money for one hour of a lawyer's time to review the letter.
 

Ed Cheung

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2006
1,584
2
Hong Kong
Pretty much a well known issue on K & N filters.

Edited: ask them for an independent lab test with result from different amount of oil spray on their filters.
Plus, their product is not recognize by pretty much all manufacturer and dealers.
I would leave the letter in the trash and forget about it.
 
Last edited:

kennith

Well-known member
Apr 22, 2004
10,891
172
North Carolina
Man, fuck K&N.

One cannot discount the mountain of complaints. Even if they're right; even if it's an oiling issue... If it's that damned difficult to get the volume and distribution correct, it's not worth a fuck at all.

Their little toy has always been a questionable compromise, anyway. This bullshit has been going on for years, and for years they keep coming back with the same nonsense excuses.

Send them a quarter in the mail and tell them to go buy half a fucking gum ball.

Cheers,

Kennith
 

Howski

Well-known member
Oct 19, 2009
1,499
213
Alabama
You don't have a Porsche. You have a Boxster. Calling a Boxster a Porsche is like calling a Freelander a Range Rover.

The 944 or Panamera would fit the Freelander role more IMO. The Boxter/Cayman is atleast mid engine with the 718 being pretty a well respected platform

Sorry to get off the topic of dogs buttholes...
 

emmodg

Well-known member
Apr 17, 2006
4,273
1
I have heard VERY few good things about K&N. I do know BMW doesn't recommend them for their bikes. I've had one in cars I've purchased and bikes I've purchased and they are ALWAYS oily as hell and you could SEE oil trails in intake tubes and throttle bodies. K&N's "heyday" was back in the carb days. They've steadily battled their poor reputation in all-things FI for years now. They're a bad idea and they know this.

I also want to get this straight: Their defense is: A customer of a new six-figure Land Rover that installs a K&N is responsible for carrying around a can of CRC MAF cleaner? That sounds reasonable to them?
 

Maximumwarp

Well-known member
Mar 22, 2015
836
26
Fairburn GA
The 944 or Panamera would fit the Freelander role more IMO. The Boxter/Cayman is atleast mid engine with the 718 being pretty a well respected platform

Sorry to get off the topic of dogs buttholes...

This. The Boxster/Cayman are frequently lauded for how well they handle and how balanced they are. A friend who was into sports cars once told me that Porsche didn't really want people to know how good the Boxster was, because then why would you spend $40k more on a 911? Seemed to makes sense to me.
 

p m

Administrator
Staff member
Apr 19, 2004
15,651
869
58
La Jolla, CA
www.3rj.org
Many years ago when I noticed just how much fine dust K&N filter let pass through, I tossed mine in the garbage and never used them again.

emmodg: if a customer of a new six-figure LR installs K&N filters in his/her truck, let them carry the whole box of cleaners.
 

Ed Cheung

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2006
1,584
2
Hong Kong
This. The Boxster/Cayman are frequently lauded for how well they handle and how balanced they are. A friend who was into sports cars once told me that Porsche didn't really want people to know how good the Boxster was, because then why would you spend $40k more on a 911? Seemed to makes sense to me.


And the GT 4 is based on the Boxster/Cayman rather than the 911 now.
 

Howski

Well-known member
Oct 19, 2009
1,499
213
Alabama
And the GT 4 is based on the Boxster/Cayman rather than the 911 now.

While the GT3 is still 911 based there's a reason Porsche is politicking to move the engine forward in their GTE/Am spec. 911's for 2017. They've realized the rear engine is a hinderance (albeit classic Porsche) in comparison to other mid-engine competitors. I'm sure it'll continue to creep forward in their production 911's as well
 

Tugela

Well-known member
May 21, 2007
4,767
567
Seattle
The 944 or Panamera would fit the Freelander role more IMO.

Having never been behind the wheel of a Porsche, I think the Panamera would be the best one to drive for the reason that if you are inside the car you can't see its nauseating exterior styling.
 

Ed Cheung

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2006
1,584
2
Hong Kong
Having never been behind the wheel of a Porsche, I think the Panamera would be the best one to drive for the reason that if you are inside the car you can't see its nauseating exterior styling.

That is so funny, when I read up to "Panamera would be the best" I was like ......that was the ugliest piece of shit Porsche ever built.