Any thoughts on this?

http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm

I think I should get rid of my K&N on my Cummins.

Well I'm right now trying to find something to confirm these tests.

Or something to counter them...

As we all know, most test can be skewed one way or the other...but there are limits.

Been using nothing but AC or Purolator (mostly AC)airfilters all these years with no problems.

Originally posted by Rowdymon:

As we all know, most test can be skewed one way or the other...but there are limits. If all filters were subjected to the same criteria, then how can the test be skewed?

Looks good except for the very artificial nature of the test.

In real life, dirt accumulates slowly.

In this test, dirt is flung on all at once.

In real life, dirt on an oiled medium filter like K & N will wick out some of the oil in the filter, and become part of the filter medium itself. Because the dirt doesn't build-up in the normal manner, (short time span) the K & N may be handicapped in this test.

I'm not saying the test is invalid. But you better be very careful about the conclusions you draw based on a test that is so different from the conditions of ordinary use.

the tests are rigged. if your start checking the dirt feed rates were different on the filters which would throw out the comparisons and you don't know which k&n test is being used in the chart comparison, the one with fine dust or the one using the croase dust. and why wasn't the fine dust tested on all the filters? and what size is the dust encountered in real life? no sense testing with something so small you will never enconter it in real life driving

Originally posted by mechcanic427:
the tests are rigged. if your start checking the dirt feed rates were different on the filters which would throw out the comparisons and you don't know which k&n test is being used in the chart comparison, the one with fine dust or the one using the croase dust. and why wasn't the fine dust tested on all the filters? and what size is the dust encountered in real life? no sense testing with something so small you will never enconter it in real life driving Actually if you compare the tests to the charts, you can see they used the 'course' for the charts. They specifically didn't compare the 'fine' dust to anything...again, you can see that by looking in the charts.

I'm not saying they can't skew the results, as one guy said...instead of over time they are throwing all this dirt in one hour. Unless you are running behind another vehicle, say on a sand dune, you won't see that level of contamination.

There are pluses and minuses to every kind of filter media. Fool yourself not, everything else held equal, it is not hard to believe that higher airflow through a filter equals lower filtration.

I like and use both K&N and OEM air filters. K&N has remarkably well promoted its line of air filters. But if they really know so much about filtration then why do K&N's other filters (oil, etc) lag in the marketplace?

The single biggest issue with K&N style filters is proper cleaning and re oiling. If you have read K&N's instructions you will see that they call for a substantial settling in time after re-oiling before the engine is ran again. Very few people wait, which greatly reduces filter efficiency. This lack of waiting, along with over oiling, is the prime reason why mass air flow sensors on efi engines can get oiled over. Regular paper filters will never have that issue.

Small point: I sell medium duty trucks, many of which have Donaldson style long life air filters. When delivering a truck to a new customer I ask them if they will be servicing their own air filters. If yes I remind them that after removing a full filter (they have a restriction guage on the airbox), that they should use a shop vac to clean out the airbox. Too often people will remove a caked air filter and leave debris in the airbox - where do you suppose the leftover debris goes when the engine is restarted?

How times have changed - I remember when it was cool to run open carbs with stacks or scoops and NO filter!

Thomas

They forgot the bar graph showing who spends what on advertising. At least K&N would win that one!

K & N may or not may not be a great air filter.I don't know. I just don't like foolin' with a filter I have to oil! I'm pretty much a "throw away" guy. I didn't like the old cannister oil filters either! I'm "spin on" all the way! graemlins/thumbsup.gif

So, give me paper!

...then again, I like vacuum cleaners that use throw away bags, too! graemlins/clonk.gif

Dave

I've used K & N Air Filters for years in everything that I have owned from Mercedes Diesels to my 00 Ford Ranger, 00 jeep Grand Cherokee,94 T-Bird,87 Cutlass Olds,82 F-150 Ford 4x4 & currently have one in my 67 Camaro with a 396 Engine,to me they are a good filter, if you take time to clean, reoil properly, & reinstall when ready, I always keep a paper filter on hand to use while cleaning my K & N filter, with amount of dust that we have here in Eastern Kentucky,they do save me a lot of money on replacement filters over the life time of a Vechile

the tests are rigged. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

what about the 350 cfm flow rate i saw...............gee what happens to the other filters if your car is using more then 350 cfm...like maybe lets say 750 cfm at max rpm.......wonder which filter would be the highest restrictor then........maybe thats why K&N filters have shown over and over a hp increase over oem.......drag racers and hot rodders of the likes want hp ......i know i dont drive my hot rods on dirt roads or snow or rain.....if it can be helped......shoot a lot of use spend hours tunning a car with the air cleaner off..........i guess do you want power or the best filtration filter you can get.......guess buy for how you drive i suppose.

i run K&N on everything i have.....and more then likely will keep on doing it.........

I dig topics like this because they are unwinnable.

Tell me who you think has more engineering capability: K&N or GM? Companies like K&N wouldn't even want to think about all the engineering validation tests required by GM. Remember that GM is the kind of company that likes to validate their performance engine combinations with 300 hour long blasts at WOT (outside of Mercury Marine I'm not aware of others who do this). You may not agree with GM's thoughts on anything from filters to engines - but GM's standards and testing ensures repeatable and reliable results.

Good for the guys that know how to properly reoil and maintain K&N type air filters - bad part is that they are a fraction of the consumers.

Here's a challenge for finding horsepower in a filter: for you guys running the popular K&N 14" x 4" tall filter, go get an AC644 paper filter of the same 14" x 4" size and tell me which one gets you down the track faster.

K&N's do look more "trick", and they are available in a greater variety of sizes - so they will always be popular with enthusiasts. I have used K&N filters based on size availability reasons alone.

Thomas

You may not agree with GM's thoughts on anything from filters to engines - but GM's standards and testing ensures repeatable and reliable results.
You are a wise man! smile.gif There is a reason OEMs do not use oiled gauze filters.

My thoughts on a "do-it-yourself" test for air cleaner efficiency.

Wipe a thin film of oil/atf/wd-40/whatever on the clean side of the air cleaner base.

Drive the car for six months.

Is there any dust on the film of oil? If yes, your filter is passing dirt. If no, and the engine runs good, the filter is fine.

We would put silicone spray on the inside of the air cleaner housings on our dirt track car with a K&N. On a moderately dusty night it was full of dust. No telling what went into the engine.

Originally posted by novadude:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You may not agree with GM's thoughts on anything from filters to engines - but GM's standards and testing ensures repeatable and reliable results.
You are a wise man! smile.gif There is a reason OEMs do not use oiled gauze filters. </font>[/QUOTE]While I agree, there is another factor that goes into al that engineering - cost. If GM had to spend $30 extra on every filter they issued with a new car... well that'd likley be millions of dollars. So, that means they use the best filter for the cost that does not impact warranty claims. No?

Is any of this really a surprise? Less restrictive filters will pass more air AND more dirt. Likewise, if your engine gets enough air with a paper filter it may not need a less restrictive filter.

Why didn't they run a dyno test? THAT would be interesting. Possibly trade a little dirt for HP.

Do you think it costs K&N $30 for an air filter, or for that matter if GM bought a million of them $30? You are right on the durability and life of the engine.

Doug is right... It sure does not cost $30 to make a K&N filter. You are paying for thier stupid TV commercials and magazine ads.

You trade flow for filtration... simple as that. K&N pass more air, AND more dirt.