it may not be "new" to you, but it's new to those who haven't seen it yet, and I suspect there are many.

If your oil analysis showed a silicon content that received the comment "you might be able to bring this number down by changing the air filter" I would consider that a smoking gun.

Silicon that gets to the oil, obviously has passed by the rings, or somehow up into the (intake) valve guides. None of that sounds like "the best" care to me if your oil analysis people are even mentioning the air filter to you.

I suspect the info I posted will gain a negative reply from some people like me. Personally, I was rather disgusted with myself after I found out I had been "screwed" so to speak, by the fact that I was using a filter that admitted more dirt (and did nothing in the way of performance).

As for the reuse economics, I can't argue with that. I do know the re-oiling is a source of MAF failures and problems, because apparently people tend to over oil thinking "more is better".

In the end, it's our car, our money, and our choice to use the available information to choose the product that works best for our own situation. If you maintain a K&N properly it will provide good service and perhaps save some replacement dollars. The dirt issue is what bothers me though, and what bothers me even more, are the firms who sell these things under the guise of "increased performance", often with fancy cone filter assemblies located "behind the radiator" (LOL) for sometimes as much as $400 or more. Those people, in my opinion, are unethical, based on my simplistic view of the universe.

I appreciate your comments.

Hey, all the best to you

Mr. P

--
2004 XC90 2.5T AWD, 1990 944 S2 Cabriolet, 1989 740 GL 16v, 1984 944, 1983 928S 5-speed, 1974 TVR 2500M