Attention Air Filter Junkies

[FNQracing]

Kinda confirms what I have expected for some time.

Air Filter Test ISO5011 (US)

[Racecraft]

ohh the K & N is a shocker.... might aswell just use a bit of stocking ....even clean they let alot of dust thru..

Good find, although being for desiel applications I guess the petrol ones are much the same

hmmm I wonder how acurate it is. I hope it isnt real accurate, cause I got the KN jobbie!

[Racecraft]

at $3000 AUS per test per filter it would want to be spot on...

[FNQracing]

I've always maintained that you cannot go wrong replacing the factory paper filter every 10,000k.

I doubt if anyone has detected *any* HP difference on a Dyno with changing ONLY the filter.

Performace aside, I'm much more concerned about the dirt that bypasses the filter.

There are even a few shots here in the galleries showing people who have installed pod like filters with no air box. Purely sucking in HOT air (and dirt) from the engine bay. Madness!

[Timmeh]

Originally Posted by FFOracing

I doubt if anyone has detected *any* HP difference on a Dyno with changing ONLY the filter.

Easy, I have. A change in 3hp and 5Nm and the second set of runs was two degrees higher ambient air, no other changes. Same day, same dyno, same fuel, within an hour of each other.

I can feel the difference and I have never regretted it, plus I never get charged for filter replacement on my services either.

I don't beleive everything I read, and I don't beleive the K+N Filter is worse or no better than stock. I'm happy with the dyno results considering all I was changing, and will happily buy another one when the need arises for the other car.

Just my experience. Tim

[Racecraft]

i am a paper filter man too, $8 a pop.. I tried the K&N's and after a short while the fuel economy went to poops, now I know why

The difference in power a filter such as K&N would make is probably minimal but it does work if it is used in combination with something else.

I have always used a "higher" flow filter and like in the article, some said there have been no problems. And whatever dust does get through is probably negligable and gets pulvarised in the combustion chamber anyway. That's just my opinion.

[neb]

i'm using a bmc filter.. i think they're meant to filter better than a k&n filter. and i noticed better throttle response then a paper filter.

[Kryton]

gee its not that bad really. K&N still filter 96%. its only 3% less than the top brand.
the way everyone was carrying on youd think they are only filtering 10%or something.

[Mike Gayner]

Gee, they're only letting through four time as much crap into your combustion chambers :rolleyes:

Considering the amount of air that passes through your engine (approx 14.7 kilograms of air for every litre of fuel) there is a huge difference between 99% and 96%. I recently changed my filter from a K&N job to a standard paper filter and I will never look back. The car is significantly quieter, doesn't have that irritating "thumping" sound at wide open throttle and it had absolutely ZERO impact of performance.

Hey guys read the fine print. The K&N filter filters out 96% of the FINE dust it was tested with compared to 99% of the COURSE dust all but one of the others were tested with. You have to ask why they only tested the other filters with COURSE dust?

I have a book at home called "Tuning BL's A Series Engine" written by David Vizard. At the time he had been doing a lot of work with Baja racing in California so he did some filter comparisons. What he found was that the K&N filter that was caked with dust still flowed better than a new paper filter. So we must ask why this latest air filter test had a different result.

I would have liked to have seen an "apples with apples" comparison where the testers used the same dust for every filter. Then we may have been actually able to compare results. I'm not going to swap out my K&N filter for a paper one based on this "test".

And no, I have no affiliation with K&N or anyone that sells K&N filters.

[Casper]

I want to know who paid for it and who performed it.
Lots of pretty numbers but light on the details of who did it and where the money trail leads.

Call me a critic but I'm betting the money trail leads straight to AC Delco's door.

[tickford2001]

Originally Posted by Casper

I want to know who paid for it and who performed it.
Lots of pretty numbers but light on the details of who did it and where the money trail leads.

Call me a critic but I'm betting the money trail leads straight to AC Delco's door.

yeh im with you on this one mate - unless it was done by someone like consumer affairs etc (and even thats pushing it sometimes these days!) im always sceptical about who is footing the bill...and its usually the bloke that comes out all clean and shiny and on the top of the pile!

[Racecraft]

OK after reading most of the 20 pages of the 40 in the thread, the test was done by a group of forum members that donated the filters, THe equipment that was used to actually do the tests was offered free of charge to one member of the forums. The company that did the test, Testand Corp. or something supplies testing gear to Fram filters. Hence why they didn't test any of the Fram filters. The actual company that did the test don't even make any of the filters but chose to omitt Fram incase it stood on some toes.

One little snippet that I found interesting though was the paper vs re-useable debate

1 inch of water = .036 psi.
AC Delco had 6.23 inches of water restriction
K&N had 4.54. This is a difference of .0608 psi. Virtually nothing!

At the same time the AC Delco filtered 573.898g of dirt and let 0.4g past
The K&N filtered only 211.58g and let 6g past.
The UNI filtered 374.638g and let 7.9g past.

It is an interesting read

Originally Posted by Racecraft

At the same time the AC Delco filtered 573.898g of dirt and let 0.4g past
The K&N filtered only 211.58g and let 6g past.
The UNI filtered 374.638g and let 7.9g past.[/i][/b]

It is an interesting read
[/left]

Did you read the figures at the bottom and notice that they tested the K&N with FINE dust but they only tested the AC Delco one with COURSE dust? I think you'll find that the results would be very different if they used FINE dust for all of the filters.

Gotta read the FINE print, man!
:

[Mike Gayner]

Actually WeirdEL if you have another look at the charts, the K&N was tested with both fine and coarse dust. It scored a 96.8% efficiency with the normal coarse dust and 89.85% with fine dust. It is still well below the significantly cheaper alternatives as far as filtering efficiency goes, although it has much better restriction figures than the others.

Originally Posted by Mike Gayner

Actually WeirdEL if you have another look at the charts, the K&N was tested with both fine and coarse dust. It scored a 96.8% efficiency with the normal coarse dust and 89.85% with fine dust. It is still well below the significantly cheaper alternatives as far as filtering efficiency goes, although it has much better restriction figures than the others.

Oops! I'm the one that should have read the FINE print better! (Crawls away to hide under a rock somewhere...) :

[needturbo6]

well this report goes agaisnt nearly everything ive read

[clampy]

just seems funny how the graphs are all expanded out to show the slightest differences anyway...

like a graph that shows the difference between a 302ci motor and a 308ci motor.. we know they're both pretty close in size, but you can graph it so that it uses the whole size of the graph for the 6inchs of difference..

it seems like trickery to me. and yeh... theres something about that AC delco...

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by jmartion

just seems funny how the graphs are all expanded out to show the slightest differences anyway...

like a graph that shows the difference between a 302ci motor and a 308ci motor.. we know they're both pretty close in size, but you can graph it so that it uses the whole size of the graph for the 6inchs of difference..

it seems like trickery to me. and yeh... theres something about that AC delco...

What has truck cleaners got to do with sports filters anyway. like comparing sandpaper to car polish. :

[eb2flyz]

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

What has truck cleaners got to do with sports filters anyway. like comparing sandpaper to car polish. :

please correct me if i'm wrong, but dont trucks actually draw more air in than a car would, so by doing tests to find out restrictions/flow rates would have alot of bearing on pwr/tq, also by measuring the amount of dust that goes through the filter can also play a big bearing engine life, a lot of us think that 200k is a lot of k's for a car, but with trucks they usually expect to get over the 1 000 000 km mark, before they need to do a rebuild, thus by knowing that a certain filter actually traps more dirt/dust without affecting pwr/tq can be quite important.
i myself am quite supprised with the results of the k & n and personnaly thought that they would have been higher, but you get that

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by eb2flyz

please correct me if i'm wrong, but dont trucks actually draw more air in than a car would, so by doing tests to find out restrictions/flow rates would have alot of bearing on pwr/tq, also by measuring the amount of dust that goes through the filter can also play a big bearing engine life, a lot of us think that 200k is a lot of k's for a car, but with trucks they usually expect to get over the 1 000 000 km mark, before they need to do a rebuild, thus by knowing that a certain filter actually traps more dirt/dust without affecting pwr/tq can be quite important.
i myself am quite supprised with the results of the k & n and personnaly thought that they would have been higher, but you get that

If your talking many 1,000s of Ks in adverse dusty condition the tests may have a bearing. I'd think twice before using one in these conditions.
In city and most rural driving a sedan car will not experience this stuff. There are a myriad of independant dyno tet that have proven the K&N offers better airflow and thus Kws. And with widespread use over many years I dont see hooroor stories of "my filter did not protect my engine". I dont doubt the test results I just dont think they fit car applications.

[Barry_v]

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

What has truck cleaners got to do with sports filters anyway. like comparing sandpaper to car polish. :

they're exactly the same mate, i fail to see any difference at all.

every air filter test is tainted in one way or another this one is obviously delco biased. they all do a good enough job for a car's engine.

It's not only dyno tests that prove it, the engine revs just that little bit smoother. And especially with turbo engines there is a noticable difference.

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by RATT

It's not only dyno tests that prove it, the engine revs just that little bit smoother. And especially with turbo engines there is a noticable difference.

Does RATT put the paper filter back for Warrantee service? :

Lol! Depends on what the dustometer picks up.

[FPVWEPN]

u felt a 3hp gain ?????????????????????? lol thats impossible!!!

[TIKFD6]

Looks like AC Delcon has been doing som nice little tests.
For what reason would you use two different lots of dust, other than to make the figures turn in you direction?

What a load of Crap.

[pepsimax]

well that conferms what i was told by a mechanic nearly 15 years ago,,my ea had one in it when we bought it,,the first thing i did was chuck it in the bin,,i just replace the normal twice a year,,easy