I doubt they said it but anyway how could they force or enforce it? Clearly they haven't a hope.

 

I just found this on the K&N site.

"- WILL USING A K&NŽ REPLACEMENT AIR FILTER VOID MY FACTORY WARRANTYNo. In the United States, in order for the manufacturer of a warranted product to void or deny warranty coverage of a repair due to the use of an aftermarket part, the manufacturer must provide proof that the aftermarket part is the cause of the necessary repair. These rights are protected under the Consumer Products Warranty Act of 1975 (also referred to as the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act)."

Good to know but not relevant for these cars which are nearing 20 years old.

2001 XK8 Coupe

 

OP is in Calgary, which is Canada I think. USA laws only apply at most to USA.

Jaguar could easily defeat that claim, too, if they felt like it.

 

Forget about the MAF. They are relatively inexpensive and easy to clean. The real problem is whether abrasive dirt is getting into the engine. This is the kind of damage that only shows up long after a warranty period but is very expensive. Older engines that used oil bath filtration probably lubricated any particles that got past the filtration setup which might have mitigated some potential damage. Remember that the manufacturers recommend changing the engine oil and filter more often under dusty conditions. This means that there is some concern for particles getting in from the air intake even under ideal filtration conditions. Why make it potentially worse?

 

+1

Jaguar have a specific extra set of things to do in that kind of environment, including much more frequent oil & filter changes.

 

yes, a while back i posted the page number in one of the vehicle care guides where it advised performing the yearly service at a six month interval under certain conditions which most manufacturers called severe usage (service). Things like dusty conditions, short runs, stop and go traffic, etc. Most people in urban areas are in severe usage and do not realize it, but the dealers sell them on the yearly service as well as the manufacturers. They cover themselves by including the reality in the owner's literature. The effects are also covered by the phenomenon of short term leasing, early retirement of vehicles at low mileage and sale of vehicles within five to seven years. Certain abuse like K&N filters only shows up with very long term use.

BTW: a friend was an engineer at GM. There was a crossover period where cars went from oil bath to paper filters. Some oil bath setups were a woven metal mesh that was washed in kerosene and then re-oiled. My family owned one such car. Some conversions were as simple as dropping in a paper element manufactured by GM according to him as was the case with our family car. The K&N filter originally came about as a way to eliminate having to deal with the oil bath but still have a reusable filter. These engineers used controlled test equipment and discovered that the K&N performed worse in terms of particle filtration but a little better in terms of flow. The upgrade paper elements were superior in terms of filtration, better than the original oil baths using mesh by a lot in terms of airflow and more restrictive than the K&N style. The paper airflow deteriorated with fine particles faster than the K&N style due to the fact that the K&N style let them pass. Under normal conditions, the paper elements did not deteriorate to any noticeable degree within the recommended mileage limits. The original selling point of the K&N style appealed to a society that still did not like to throwaway things. GM also studied under controlled conditions that engine wear was less due to oil quality and frequency of change but more to total amount of particles entering the engine over its lifetime. This ultimately led to much better sealing of air-cleaner housings and gasketing of the assemblies with rubber. The very slight, imperceptible performance loss was considered a worthwhile trade-off to the brand image of having longevity. Additionally, the first area of wear would be the piston sealing rings and it was understood that even minor changes would affect emissions compliance. Another thing that this engineer discussed was that a significant amount of research was poured into perception. Sound could make a person think that there was more power. They would place cars on dynos and remove the air filter. Less than ten HP increase and people thought that the engine had much more power. If the auto makers spent millions to do this, it would have been the obvious thing for K&N style companies to do. As an aside, during the fuel crisis engine intakes were made quieter to give the impression of fuel economy while still providing the same HP.

Regarding track usage and special situations. Remember that these situations are controlled environments where dust might not be as much of a factor and shorter engine life is assumed. One is going for performance not longevity.

In my experience an engine not abused by particles can in many cases fail but not require the "rebuilding" that people do as a matter of course as they do not know any better. In many cases parts are nicely seasoned and worn in and it is only a matter of inspection and replacing wear items such as rings with mild honing, valve seals and unit specific small issues. Additionally, very few "re-builders" can perform as good of a job as the manufacturer. Yet, I will say that some small, humble operations have some real genius. One thing that they all have in common is that they are clean in the process. Here is how to find the exit door with anyone attempting to do an engine repair for you. If the person says regarding dirt getting into the engine during work that the oil filter will get it.

 

exactly why the racing crowd loves them. They only care about maximum power, and not a whit about wear.”

Z