And how will it Increase Horsepower And Acceleration as advertised?

waste of money, no noticble difference in engine performance. unless you change your filter every 3 months for 10 yrs dont see how it would be worth the money.

EZ, for those who finally change their air cleaner at 100,000 miles (dusty conditions or not), one can well appreciate the performance improvement....

Otherwise, IMO, just another scam..
The best (sensible) performance option would be the Diesel engine - available in advanced countries around the globe..

My brother-in-law and I had a big discussion about this when he put one of these on his gas-guzzling Dodge Ram. I didn't think it'd do any good. For a while he claimed it got better mileage, but then after a couple months he said his average mileage was no different than before. He was probably driving more easily after he got the filter, maybe not even intentionally, in an attempt to prove to himself that the filter did help. So the gas savings probably came from the easier driving, not the filter.

Then there can be some problems with over-oiling the filter, so you have to be careful not to do that, and I've read some things here and there that say that some of the aftermarket oil-soaked filters let in more dirt than the stock paper elements. Enough to do any harm? Who knows, but to me it's not worth taking a chance, especially considering that it's doubtful it'll make any difference in either performance or economy. If you think about it, if it were really that easy to get both extra horsepower and improved mileage, wouldn't the car companies put these on as standard equipment?

Yes, they are worth the price for the construction.

However, your question is a little open-ended. Worth it from the point of view of gas economy, replacement economy, added horsepower, added cleaning capability, or bragging rights? All are valid.

Jane Driver won't notice a difference in gas economy going to the store or across country.

If you are in a dusty environment, it may save you money cleaning the filter rather than replacing paper very frequently.

The damp-style element does trap more small particulates, and this may be a factor for you.

They do provide lower flow restriction and a bit more horsepower. You may notice this if you use the engine to its limits but not many people use it that hard.

They are excellent for bragging rights and they look good. A K&N indicates you want to keep all the grit from your engine and want to spend money to get the last bit of performance from your car. Their visible cone filters add a tech-racy design element to the engine compartment.

Does the $43.95 include the oil and solvent and pans and rags and brushes you'll need to clean up the oily sludgy mess both on the car and possibly the garage floor when you change and/or clean and perhaps re-oil the supposedly reusable filther plus a storage container for the used oil and solvent and sludge and rags and old filther if you don't re-use it (till you can get it to an environmentally acceptable disposal site) plus possible attendant disposal costs?

Doesn't sound like a good deal after all.
Thanks for the info!

I've read tests that said the K+N protects your engine far less over it's lifetime. It lets in more air because it lets in more of everything. Also, few people know how to clean and re-oil it properly anyway.

Paper element filters are hard to beat in terms of keeping out dirt, but they need to be replaced on a regular basis, people seem to have forgotten this. Maybe part of it is the 100k mile before a 'scheduled tune-up' manufacturers talk about. Filters, oil won't go that long naturally.

I had a twin-choke Weber Carb bolted onto my 1600 Astra when the original equipment died of old age. A K & N filter was recommended as they supposedley went so well with twin choke webers. Well with that setup my Astra went like stink. It tended to use a bit more fuel than before but boy was it fun to drive.
I guess the increased fuel consumption was mainly down to the fact I was engaging in more 'Traffic Light Grands-Prix'