[jstpsntym]

Yes, the majority of us understood that the 2010 part number would fit the 2011, but now it is official. I got this email today from K&N:

Thank you for your interest in K&N products. You are registered to receive notification about products for your vehicle. This email was sent automatically to inform you of available products that might fit this application. Listed below are the current K&N products for a 2011 GMC TERRAIN 2.4L. Please review the full application description including comments to ensure that the product will fit your vehicle.
Year Model Engine Comment Product Type Part Number Description
2011 TERRAIN 2.4L L4 F/I All Air Filter 33-2439
Replacement Air Filter

When purchasing a K&N Replacement Air Filter or High-Flow Intake System don't forget to purchase a K&N Recharger kit for proper cleaning and re-oiling of your K&N Air Filter.

We appreciate your feedback, and we use product requests like yours to help us determine what new products to develop in the future. We will notify you again if any additional products become available for this type of vehicle. More information about our complete line of products is available at www.knfilters.com. Please contact us if you have any additional questions. Please do not reply to this email.

Thank you for choosing K&N!
________________________________________
[/color]
Well, now there is one less website that I have to lie that my car is a 2010 in order to find the correct part number... ;D

 

[ObNOXious]

I have often heard the self oil K&N filters often damage the car. As oil is sucked into the injectors. K&N was great when you want more air flow with a Chevy small block with a 4 barrel carb, not so sure I want one with a very precise direct injection.

 

[bballr4567]

I have often heard the self oil K&N filters often damage the car. As oil is sucked into the injectors. K&N was great when you want more air flow with a Chevy small block with a 4 barrel carb, not so sure I want one with a very precise direct injection.

More air equals more power and more often then not, a K&N does improve MPG.

Also, a properly oiled K&N will not screw up anything. You only have problems with the MAF, which after a quick cleaning, is often fixed.

Plus, how does the oil from the filters go from the air side of the engine get sucked into the injectors? Doesnt flow that way.

 

[Dave25]

Exactly what bballer said. Every time I reoil my filter i clean my I remove and clean my MAF. You can use auto electronics cleaner or carb cleaner. It doesnt hurt to clean the MAF every once in a while even if not using K&N filters.

BTW ive had a K&N on my 2011 for a few weeks now. didnt notice a jump in MPG (like I had hoped) but I havnt driven much either.

 

[mdh4psu]

I have used K&N filters in the past and they do NOT increase mpg's in fuel injected engines let alone direct injected. Their company is well marketed in false promises.

 

[bballr4567]

I have used K&N filters in the past and they do NOT increase mpg's in fuel injected engines let alone direct injected. Their company is well marketed in false promises.

Sorry to hear that but in the two cars Ive used them in, Ive got about a 5% bump up in FE. One, a Grand Am with a V6 and my G8 GT.

 

[Dave25]

I have used K&N filters in the past and they do NOT increase mpg's in fuel injected engines let alone direct injected. Their company is well marketed in false promises.

I saw a gain in my 2001 Camaro v8. more air flow equals the possibility for better fuel economy.

 

[batmobile_ws6]

I'm going to wait for an Amsoil Synthetic Air Filter. It catches much finer particles while not restricting air flow.

In their verifiable studies they show that wet gauze type filters let more dirt through than a cellulose filter!


AMSOIL Ea Air Filters hold 15 times more dust than a wet gauze type filter. AMSOIL Ea Air Filter media removes 5 times more dust than traditional cellulose filters and 50 times more dust than wet gauze.

http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/eaa.aspx

 

[tsduke]

More air flow = possible more dirt in engine. The additional air flow has to come at the expense of filtration. I'll stick with the stock filter.

 

[JA]

I want to report out on the fuel usage now that I put a K & N replacement air filter (this is NOT the CAI referred to in other posts) on my 2011 EQUINOX 2.4 L FWD. First of all, years ago I put the same type of filter on my 02 Impala 3.4L and it increased my MPG by 1.0 (3.2%). I expected the same results on my NOX, but go better. With the replacement filter, my actual MPG (not DIC) increased by 2.11 (7.0%)-from 30.23 to 32.34. All of my calculations were done in 1,450-1,550 mile increments to reduce any pump to pump variation, using the same gas station and as much as possible similar driving conditions (about 98% of my driving is my daily work commute-flat country roads-few stop signs & lights). I installed the filter at 9,500 miles on the odometer, an easy five minute job (the OEM filter still looked in great shape).
Another interesting thing I noticed is the change in error when comparing the actual MPG to the DIC.
With the OEM filter, the DIC calculated 0.73 MPG (2.4%) lower than actual. With the replacement filter, the DIC calculated 1.34 MPG (4.1%) lower than actual. I don't know why, but it looks like the computer is not learning that less gas is being consumed.
Bottom line-at the current $3.50/gallon gas price, it will take about 7,000 miles of driving for me to break even-everything after that is a gas saving bonus (A WIX or Delco is almost half the cost of what I paid for the K & N).

OEM Filter K & N Replacement Filter

ACTUAL MPG 30.23 32.34

DIC MPG 29.5 31.0

 

[NoobNox]

More air flow = possible more dirt in engine. The additional air flow has to come at the expense of filtration. I'll stick with the stock filter.

This is true, simple physics really. I replaced mine with a Wix @15k miles (I live in Texas which has dust storms from the west) that closely matches the stock filter. The way engines are computer controlled these days, you would have to go way beyond dirty to reach the point where the ECU could no longer compensate for reduced flow.....and I suspect it would also comensate for the opposite. (increased flow)

 

[2011LT2]

On a computer controlled engine, more air means its out of stoichiometry unless it puts in more fuel. But it doesnt really get any more air, it just makes less vacuum. And less vacuum means the cylinder is working against less vacuum while the intake valve is open and its sucking air. The PCV will not work as well and some other vacuum controlled things may not work as well, and sometimes emissions things not working as well is a good thing. EGR is used to actually reduce the amount of oxygen in the cylinder (somewhat vacuum dependent), so if you want more air, then disable the EGR, because it pollutes the cylinder, so the computer needs to put in less fuel and has lower combustion temperatures from less oxygen. So on a fuel injected engine you really need to realize youre not really getting all clean air in anyway, and on a naturally aspirated engine you have no real way of putting more air in the cylinder. Increasing displacement or compressing air is the only way to put more in it really. Youre just making the engine work less to put the same amount of air through it. With better flow on intake and exhaust it can rev much easier because it has less vacuum working against the pistons and less backpressure working against the pistons.