# K&N vs AEM



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

So, with all the debating, I just wanted an opinion on which is better. I like the AEM because of the dry filter and easy cleaning, and the K&N can leave oil on the MAF (but apparently makes more power?). I have a 225, and plan on getting it chipped this summer; should I go AEM, K&N, or just get an EvoMS? Thanks!


_Modified by l88m22vette at 5:09 PM 1-9-2008_


----------



## r0ach (Nov 20, 2007)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (l88m22vette)*

It's not even debatable that K&N flows more air than AEM.


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (r0ach)*


_Quote, originally posted by *r0ach* »_It's not even debatable that K&N flows more air than AEM.

got proof? And no, turbulent maf performance doesnt count 
AEM flows great, filters better, and is easy to clean


_Modified by cincyTT at 6:27 PM 1-9-2008_


----------



## TXR32 (Jun 4, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (cincyTT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cincyTT* »_
got proof? And no, turbulent maf performance doesnt count 
AEM flows great, filters better, and is easy to clean

_Modified by cincyTT at 6:27 PM 1-9-2008_

I'd sure like to see the proof as well ..... 
If you want to be on the safe side and avoid oil on the MAF, go with AEM. I personally haven't had any trouble with my K&N's but maybe i'm just lucky.....


----------



## r0ach (Nov 20, 2007)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (cincyTT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cincyTT* »_
got proof? And no, turbulent maf performance doesnt count 
AEM flows great, filters better, and is easy to clean


buy one yourself and see like I did, if it actually did outflow K&N it would be plastered all over AEM's website


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (r0ach)*

have you been to AEM's website? They have a comparison to other filters. AEM filters better and flows just as good while filtering about 2x the particles as the k&n.
I have had intakes and i run the stock air box now.... what does that tell you?


----------



## Murderface (Nov 13, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (cincyTT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cincyTT* »_I have had intakes and i run the stock air box now.... what does that tell you? 

Just curious, is yours swiss cheesed? mine is.
I like the look of the stock box sprayed:


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 10, 2001)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (l88m22vette)*

This is a bizarre question in my opinion. Im new to the TT forums and I see this has come up quite a few times. 
The filter is only part of the equation. Turbocharged engines need more then just cool air. They need that same air in hi volume and entering the compressor with as little turbulence as possible. 
This is where the principles behind the V-Flow come in. These are the same principles that separate it from every other filter on a stick out there. The V-flow is the only intake to feature a velocity stack and a venturi. 
The purpose of a velocity stack is to smooth incoming airflow. The venturi, works as a vacuum to help draw more air in. 
I run an oiled filter on my V-Flow. Many, if not all of our R32 customers have chosen the dry filter with filter sock. The performance is there with both filters however the dry filter with sock is easier to maintain and there is no chance of MAF failure due to over oiling on the recharge. The oiled comes pre cured with 7 grams of oil, this will not hurt your maf. 
I hope that helps.
-Phill


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (Murderface)*

has 3 1" holes on the bottom by the fender.


----------



## invncble (Oct 23, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (cincyTT)*


----------



## JettaRed (Aug 14, 2000)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (cincyTT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cincyTT* »_
I have had intakes and i run the stock air box now.... what does that tell you? 

I do the same. The stock filter actually works quite well. I've never been impressed with aftermarket intakes. I have found that they only add noise, at best.


----------



## heinzboy57 (Oct 7, 2007)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (invncble)*

I have the 2.75" AEM Dryflow for my 180Q and it's a nice upgrade from my stock airbox. Sound's nice. On the filter box, it bragged that it was more efficient in filtration compared to the cotton gauze filters, as well as being more durable in the long run. It also indicated that it 'flows 123% more than stock engine requires'. There are also graphs AEM provides that indicates it beat's competition when it comes to the amount of dust/dirt attached to the filter and airflow. so it'll filter/flow better than competitors after using it for months and not cleaning.
http://www.namotorsports.net/i...4.jpg








but looking at this graph, it looks like K&N has more flow than AEM initially - and then takes a sharp dip in inefficiency once it becomes dirty after use...sooooo i guess, yes, K&N is better flow initially, but AEM will be more efficient in the long run. this will be negligible depending on how often you keep your filter clean.
I don't have any complaints about my AEM Dryflow, since my car is basically stock. I used to run an AEM short ram intake with K&N cone filter on my civic. I currently run a big K&N oiled cone filter on my MR2 Turbo with good results.
I kind of want to run that velocity stack with a large K&N filter on my TT when i get a chance..but more importantly..i wanna find a way to secure the MAF and Cone filter from wobbling around the bay (right now it's tied with cable tles to the strut bar..kinda ghetto).
roach is right that K&N might flow better than dryflow (initially that is! once it gets dirty, AEM will be better). cincy is right that depending on your car/mods, the difference will be negligible since intakes are intakes, and small turbos can suck up only so much. once in boost, turbo will suck air..so i feel the initial differences in airflow between the two are insignificant. Plus he mentioned that if you don't want to risk over-oiling your filter and ruining the MAF, AEM is a safe, and still effective way to go.
so vette, to answer your question, if you're gonna chip later on, maybe get K&N only if you don't mind cleaning it often (to get the best results) and if you don't mind risking the MAF getting ruined (if you accidentally over-oil).
let's all stop complaining and fighting about stupid $hit..i'm a newbie here, but am already getting sick of the bickering..
sorry for the long post..holy cow i typed a lot..



_Modified by heinzboy57 at 5:48 PM 1-9-2008_


----------



## r0ach (Nov 20, 2007)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (heinzboy57)*

That graph looks like pure unscientific propaganda. I'd trust someone's opinion after trying both filters rather than some ridiculous graph that looks like it's designed to sell something.
Of course it has the K&N winning, they're probably trying to spin the results and still didn't have the audacity to say the K&N loses.


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (r0ach)*

wow, your something else.


----------



## Blue TTop (Nov 21, 2003)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (l88m22vette)*

K&N has been proven to work well for many years. Really depends on how confident you are in cleaning/oiling it.


----------



## heinzboy57 (Oct 7, 2007)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (r0ach)*


_Quote, originally posted by *r0ach* »_That graph looks like pure unscientific propaganda. I'd trust someone's opinion after trying both filters rather than some ridiculous graph that looks like it's designed to sell something.
Of course it has the K&N winning, they're probably trying to spin the results and still didn't have the audacity to say the K&N loses.

I'd trust that 'unscientific propaganda' over your opinion anyday..why? because altho you might not be trying to 'sell' the K&N over the AEM..your stubborn attitude makes your credibility worthless..that might just be me, tho.
butt dyno's are pretty useless info..
AEM is a pretty reputable company..just like K&N. I feel like $hit would fly if they made unreasonable claims. yes, companies will market favorably toward their product (duh)..but they can exaggerate only so much before getting introuble..
okay..i'm done with this nonsense..


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (r0ach)*

everything he said was accurate and well put. He has no attachments to either side and you act like he is making money off what you buy.
You just want to be and jerk and i hope no one here is willing to help you in any way anymore. Its just not worth anyones time or effort.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (cincyTT)*

I agree with the stand of wanting to get as much air in as requested by the turbo. then of course is to keep things clean. my http://www.evoms.com kit works incredibly well, it's easy to clean and as mentioned has a full velocity stacking internal and length of tube to straighten air out before it hits the MAF.
Roach, you need to state your opinion and why. do NOT say something is NOT even debatable. it's impossible to prove. i'm not bashing on you here, it's just how it works in life and works best on forums.


----------



## octalon7 (Feb 17, 2006)

Most people aren't making enough power to even make a difference. Why do you guys argue these things so much?


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: (octalon7)*

Wow, didn't mean to create _another _ s**tstorm


----------



## diehlryan (Feb 22, 2007)

because intakes add 10whp and you want to make sure you buy the best one.


----------



## IndyTTom (Oct 23, 2007)

*Re: K&N vs AEM ([email protected])*

Hi [email protected],
I understand the concept of the Velocity funnel of the Evoms intake but what is the Venturi you are talking about that draws in air by creating a vacuum? I really do like the EVoms intake but it is sooo darn expensive. I like Cincy's option here: http://www.bpinitiatives.com/products.html 
It also has a Velocity funnel and a decent size Filter so it should flow pretty well. So how does it differ from the EVoms intake? 
Again, I am confused about the Venturi part.


----------



## IndyTTom (Oct 23, 2007)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (cincyTT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cincyTT* »_
I have had intakes and i run the stock air box now.... what does that tell you? 

Hey Cincy, You are actually running your stock air box again? 
I am ready to just put my stock box back in. I like the looks of a clean engine bay with a cover on top and that K&N cone filter I have now looks really cheap in that engine bay. 
I don't have a Big Turbo but do have the following mods:
Revo Tune, 42DD DP, Blue Flame Cat back, Hyperboost DV, Modshack Mofo and Boostmachine. 
In your opinion would the stock box flow just as well as an aftermarket intake or would it be worth it to invest in the EVoms type intake which from all the intakes out there seems to be the highest flowing. Or of course your suggestion of the BPi vel stack would be a much more economical intake without the heatshield or Venturi thingy.
Let me know what you think. I do value your opinion! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (IndyTTom)*


_Quote, originally posted by *IndyTTom* »_Hi [email protected],
I understand the concept of the Velocity funnel of the Evoms intake but what is the Venturi you are talking about that draws in air by creating a vacuum? I really do like the EVoms intake but it is sooo darn expensive. I like Cincy's option here: http://www.bpinitiatives.com/products.html 
It also has a Velocity funnel and a decent size Filter so it should flow pretty well. So how does it differ from the EVoms intake? 
Again, I am confused about the Venturi part. 


The venturi draws air from 6" funneled into a 3" hole. It helps bring in far more air than a 4" wide filter with flat space for 1" and then a 3" hole.
The sizes between the 2 are the same, the only differnce is the $150 heatsheild the doesnt really do much but provide a fixing point for the intake. Both will flow basically the same and have the same end results.


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (IndyTTom)*


_Quote, originally posted by *IndyTTom* »_
Hey Cincy, You are actually running your stock air box again? 
I am ready to just put my stock box back in. I like the looks of a clean engine bay with a cover on top and that K&N cone filter I have now looks really cheap in that engine bay. 
I don't have a Big Turbo but do have the following mods:
Revo Tune, 42DD DP, Blue Flame Cat back, Hyperboost DV, Modshack Mofo and Boostmachine. 
In your opinion would the stock box flow just as well as an aftermarket intake or would it be worth it to invest in the EVoms type intake which from all the intakes out there seems to be the highest flowing. Or of course your suggestion of the BPi vel stack would be a much more economical intake without the heatshield or Venturi thingy.
Let me know what you think. I do value your opinion! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

I had a intake just before i installed my gt28r which i sold shortly after since i ran short on funds due to school. Since i wasnt gaining anything from it, i went back to the stock intake since my brother wanted my intake.
The stock box is fine for the stock turbo. A couple holes and drop in filter provides plenty of air for the turbo. If you want a intake, the bpi is a velocity stack like the evoms with the same size filter if not a inch or so longer. It would be the best thing to add one if you want a intake.


----------



## Maverick1.8t (Jun 24, 2005)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (cincyTT)*

lol.this is by far one of the most ridiculous discussions i have seen on this forum.for starters, dont believe every graph a certain manufacturer posts on their website, statistics can be manipulated to convey a specific idea.second, since short ram intakes are going to provide little to no benefit, why not just go for a filter which will not ruin other expensive parts of your car?as for the research and design- you can do it yourself and save money and have crappy results (roach) or you can pay $$$ for the research that has already been done for you and enjoy the "benefits".


----------



## Bmorlok (Jan 11, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (Maverick1.8t)*

I am definitely just going to get a drop in filter... First off I dont want excessive noise, plus I have a feeling that I wouldnt be losing much by not having one anyhow. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## IndyTTom (Oct 23, 2007)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (cincyTT)*

Crap, I forgot, I am running the MOFO which doesn't attach to the Stock Airbox. So I guess I am going with the Bpi and make my own heat shield http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (IndyTTom)*

you can also get a bigger connector from EVOMS. My car now runs an S4 maf and we got their bigger connector for that. 
the heat shield is like Cincy said, good for holding the filter. Where it's even better is it comes with a billet adaptor for your secondary air hose to connect to and then a small baby filter to go on that. 
it ALSO has attachment tabs for the stock airbox cover to fit!!!!


----------



## DIMCE (Oct 11, 2007)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (M this 1!)*

k&n is cool i have it but, it makes the car really loud. it might not be for everyone, it works for me because i like my cars loud...


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_Where it's even better is it comes with a billet adaptor for your secondary air hose to connect to and then a small baby filter to go on that. 


you can get a 1" filter from atp that fits on the sai hose.


----------



## IndyTTom (Oct 23, 2007)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_you can also get a bigger connector from EVOMS. My car now runs an S4 maf and we got their bigger connector for that. 
the heat shield is like Cincy said, good for holding the filter. Where it's even better is it comes with a billet adaptor for your secondary air hose to connect to and then a small baby filter to go on that. 
it ALSO has attachment tabs for the stock airbox cover to fit!!!!

Are you sure? Because the pics I have seen never said anything about being able to run the stock cover and I don't see how that is possible with the V-Flow heat shield in place? Also the people that I talked to said to make sure to let them know when you order the EVoms that they know it's for a TT so they can include the secondary airpump filter. I wonder if Evoms makes 2 different intakes for the TT 225?


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (IndyTTom)*

the only difference is probably the 225 is a 3" od maf and the rest of the 1.8t's are 2.75"


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (cincyTT)*

here is the only pic i have of the cover on over the filter. this is after my stgIII intall even:








the very top cover of your filter has two phillips screws on the firewall side and a clip on the radiator side. there are 2 tabs on the heat shield that line up for the phillips screws. the front clip grabs the forward most edge of the heatsheild. used it for 4 years now.


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (M this 1!)*

That looks sweet Nate. If your intake man stood out less, you could almost pass it off as stock to an unknowing soul








"serisouly man, all i have is a catback"


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (cincyTT)*

thx! that would be cool. since the shot, i re-routed the vacuum line and got rid of the blue coupling. it originally came with the manifold being REALLY course. i had a few weeks for install so i sanded/polished it on my couch. but you're right, if the writing wasn't on it............super stealth. 
still it's fun to watch people poke around when the hoods up at a GTG.


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (M this 1!)*

do you just sit back and laugh under your breath? They arent going to see much unless they stick their head behind the engine.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: K&N vs AEM (cincyTT)*

exactly. unless it's on a lift, you can't see sh!te from the top


----------

