Notices
86-95 Trucks & 4Runners 2nd/3rd gen pickups, and 1st/2nd gen 4Runners with IFS

K&N FIPK for the 3.0L, pro's & con's wanted

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 03:54 PM
  #1  
Belize Off Road Team's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,850
Likes: 1
From: Edmonton, Alberta
Post K&N FIPK for the 3.0L, pro's & con's wanted

i want to hear from people who have or had the K&N FIPK.

did it improve fuel economy? or power?

are there any installation pics (removal of old intake and installation of K&N).

does it improve ANYTHING? or just change looks and make a sound when suckig in the air.

what do you have to remove for that to work?

Can you please include pictures of your K&N FIPK on your 3.0 petrol

how much does it cost and what is the part number?
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 04:01 PM
  #2  
Paul H.'s Avatar
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,454
Likes: 10
From: Eastern NC
I don't have one but this topic has been done before and results showed that all it did was take money out of your pocket. Gadget, a member here, did a dyno test and showed that it really did not help with power or anything else except to let more dirt into your throttle body.
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 04:02 PM
  #3  
Whitey13's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
From: MA
See if this looks familiar...
https://www.yotatech.com/forums/f116...dyno-s-134502/
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 04:15 PM
  #4  
Belize Off Road Team's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,850
Likes: 1
From: Edmonton, Alberta
yes that is why i started this thread. and i see it gives me more power to the wheels, but i want personal experiance from people who have run this for years and put it through the full off road test
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 04:28 PM
  #5  
jfreisner's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
From: Leawood, KS/Fayetteville, AR
It was a huge waste of money.
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 04:33 PM
  #6  
Squeebs's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 593
Likes: 1
From: Bakersfield
Well...



I went from 220-230 miles a tank to 25-265.


Even got highway once.



Power... I can climb the gripevine (I-5 South between bakersfield and castaic) at 65 mph now instead of 50.


Worked out great for me.
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 04:41 PM
  #7  
yotasavg's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
From: Chico Republic, NOR*CAL
^first good thing i've heard.

belize: have you looked at the downey kit?

anyone else have that one?
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 04:51 PM
  #8  
SEAIRESCUE's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 491
Likes: 1
If, your stock filter area is about equal to the filter area of the aftermarket filter and, the aftermarket claims more power than the OEM filter, then its moving more air at a given RPM which means the filter is less effective and your engine is sucking dirt. And, the aftermarket filter makers rate their horsepower gain at a really high RPM which is were you don't drive your 3.0 99% of the time. Like many have said, it was a big waste of money. I rest my case.
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 04:54 PM
  #9  
Squeebs's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 593
Likes: 1
From: Bakersfield
Originally Posted by yotasavg
^first good thing i've heard.

belize: have you looked at the downey kit?

anyone else have that one?
According to downey... who first designed an intake like that.... they had no plans of gaining any power or fuel efficiency.


they were worried about power in the air box getting into the throttle body.


I guess it is hit or miss.


Works amazingly for me, not for others.
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 04:57 PM
  #10  
yotasavg's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
From: Chico Republic, NOR*CAL
Originally Posted by Squeebs
According to downey... who first designed an intake like that.... they had no plans of gaining any power or fuel efficiency.


they were worried about power in the air box getting into the throttle body.


I guess it is hit or miss.


Works amazingly for me, not for others.
you have the downey one?
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 05:19 PM
  #11  
Squeebs's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 593
Likes: 1
From: Bakersfield
K&n....
Reply
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 05:46 PM
  #12  
Mr_Martinez1982's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area CA
I Have had the FIPK intake for a while.
Cons: bought it new, wayyyy too expensive, if you can find one used, and way cheaper, go for it.
Pros: Not sure if it was a power gain, i thought it sounded a lil better, so i gave it more gas, so i went faster. an so did the fuel.
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 04:25 AM
  #13  
Belize Off Road Team's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,850
Likes: 1
From: Edmonton, Alberta
ok, so what would be the best bet for me to go with to improve air flow to my engine?
K&N FIPK with filter wrap
Downey Air Cleaner with filter wrap
TJM or ARB Snorkel

so what i am asking, just post what YOU would run to improve air flow into your 3.0L petrol. what is the best bang for the buck?
i do run in VERY sandy conditions, i don't plan on usin my Surf as a river crosser. i want something to give me either more MPG or a little more power.
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 05:06 AM
  #14  
patrickryanb's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: Billings, MT
Waste of Money, had it on a jeep wrangler, and ford ranger, i wish i had my cash back. i just run the OEM filter....trust me its not like "that" much more air is getting into the engine....just do the deckplate mod if your in to more air....also check out www.bobtheoilguy.com i think he does a filter comparison and the amount of dirt K&N lets in to the throttle body is enough proof for me, just my 2cents.
patrick
Reply
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 05:10 AM
  #15  
Belize Off Road Team's Avatar
Thread Starter
Contributing Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,850
Likes: 1
From: Edmonton, Alberta
Patrick:
thank you for the info, the more info i get the better, i want to hear ALL pro's and con's from everyone who has experianced these type of filter systems. and i don't want to do a deckplate because there is a lot of crap that would get in from underneath due to all the rain we get during rainy season.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
the1998sr5
95.5-2004 Tacomas & 96-2002 4Runners
15
Jul 14, 2020 08:35 PM
Coreyr384
86-95 Trucks & 4Runners
2
Jul 10, 2015 11:13 AM
Yotoder865
Tires & Wheels
0
Jul 9, 2015 07:51 PM
tpd143
General Vehicle Related Topics (Non Year Related)
1
Jul 7, 2015 09:06 AM
Nickdigg
86-95 Trucks & 4Runners
1
Jul 7, 2015 06:04 AM




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:45 PM.