|
Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated. |
|
The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
05-01-2005, 10:03 AM | #1 | ||
RAGE Engineering
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 651
|
__________________
If it doesn't fit, use a BIGGER hammer |
||
05-01-2005, 10:31 AM | #2 | ||
they call me Tibbo
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 6,163
|
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
__________________
|
||
05-01-2005, 10:45 AM | #3 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
hmmm I wonder how acurate it is. I hope it isnt real accurate, cause I got the KN jobbie!
|
||
05-01-2005, 11:03 AM | #4 | ||
they call me Tibbo
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 6,163
|
at $3000 AUS per test per filter it would want to be spot on...
__________________
|
||
05-01-2005, 11:20 AM | #5 | ||
RAGE Engineering
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 651
|
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!
__________________
If it doesn't fit, use a BIGGER hammer |
||
05-01-2005, 11:28 AM | #6 | ||
they call me Tibbo
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 6,163
|
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
__________________
|
||
05-01-2005, 11:35 AM | #7 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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. |
||
05-01-2005, 11:42 AM | #8 | ||
hibernating
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,135
|
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.
|
||
05-01-2005, 12:01 PM | #9 | ||
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 9,292
|
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. |
||
05-01-2005, 01:30 PM | #10 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tauranga, New Zealand
Posts: 1,488
|
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. |
||
05-01-2005, 02:55 PM | #11 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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. |
||
05-01-2005, 03:17 PM | #12 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 12,083
|
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.
__________________
Older, wiser, poorer. Now in Euro-Trash. VW Coupe V6 4motion.
|
||
05-01-2005, 03:23 PM | #13 | |||
Fairmont Ghia
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,144
|
Quote:
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 |
|||
05-01-2005, 06:20 PM | #14 | |||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,647
|
Quote:
__________________
Gone cruising
|
|||
05-01-2005, 07:19 PM | #15 | ||
they call me Tibbo
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 6,163
|
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
__________________
|
||
14-01-2005, 06:51 PM | #16 | |||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Gotta read the FINE print, man! : |
|||
14-01-2005, 07:37 PM | #17 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tauranga, New Zealand
Posts: 1,488
|
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.
|
||
14-01-2005, 07:54 PM | #18 | ||
ooga-lagga-ligga-lagga
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 776
|
well this report goes agaisnt nearly everything ive read
|
||
14-01-2005, 10:20 PM | #19 | ||
Mr Extraordinary
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: perth sor.
Posts: 481
|
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... |
||
14-01-2005, 10:48 PM | #20 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Not suffering Fools Gladly!!
Posts: 2,864
|
Quote:
|
|||
14-01-2005, 11:26 PM | #21 | |||
bettering 13.7
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: perth
Posts: 528
|
Quote:
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
__________________
std stroke, alloy heads, comp cam, tfs manifold, 75mm t/b, 70mm maf, 30lb inj, adj fuel press reg, twEECer FPV/Tickford Club of W.A Performance is Electronic BPT Motorsport |
|||
14-01-2005, 11:38 PM | #22 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Not suffering Fools Gladly!!
Posts: 2,864
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
14-01-2005, 11:53 PM | #23 | |||
rocknrolla
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Adelaide, SA
Posts: 1,589
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
15-01-2005, 12:44 AM | #24 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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.
|
||
15-01-2005, 12:53 AM | #25 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Not suffering Fools Gladly!!
Posts: 2,864
|
Quote:
Last edited by RED_EL_XR8; 15-01-2005 at 12:54 AM. |
|||
15-01-2005, 02:05 AM | #26 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Lol! Depends on what the dustometer picks up.
|
||
15-01-2005, 02:57 AM | #27 | ||
Team Urinal Cake Racing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,075
|
u felt a 3hp gain ?????????????????????? lol thats impossible!!!
|
||
15-01-2005, 08:32 AM | #28 | ||
Number 5 is alive!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 3,438
|
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.
__________________
Kerry Tickford wings are for Tickford cars! "Experimental Racer" #6 1994 Gunmetal XG XR6 1997-1999 [B][COLOR=Red] 1994 Le Mans Red ED 2008 MA XR5 Mondeo 2015 VOLVO V60 T6 R-DESIGN-POLESTAR Enhanced |
||
15-01-2005, 09:11 AM | #29 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: northern nsw
Posts: 320
|
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
__________________
NO ONE DIES A VIRGIN AS THE WORLD SCREWS US ALL :thebirds: |
||
15-01-2005, 11:45 AM | #30 | ||
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Croydon, VIC
Posts: 501
|
I think people are overlooking the flow restriction of the Delco filter. This doesn't seem biased at all, it just depends what you want; max airflow or max filtration. For a road car, i'm sure a K&N is well and truley adequate, wheras in dusty conditions (where the diesel truck enthusiasts conducting the tests probably work/play) it'd be a smart move to go the AC-Delco...
Horses for courses. Comparing the Delco to K&N is like comparing sandpaper to car-polish, but you'r not gonna polish the paint of that old set off draws are you? -Stu Last edited by dogbreath_48; 15-01-2005 at 11:46 AM. |
||