K/n Drop In Filter - Page 2

Armada · 02-27-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mach1

you want to sell your aircharger?

Nope. I still like to play with it and might put it on for some comparison runs at the strip later in the year.

Armada · 02-27-2006, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by racefan92307

i have a K&N in my wifes car and it's going to get replaced with a true flow foam filter, ordered today. check out the video on there web site www.trueflow.com and you will not want to put a K&N in your truck.

05 4X4 LE
BLIZZARD WHITE
ACTIVE GROUND KIT

Choose whichever pleases you. But I must say this controversial subject has been beat to death here and elsewhere. No one has shown me that any difference that passage of small particles has on engine life. I've been running K&N's (and other oiled gauze) brand filters on many vehicles for over 25 years, including use in dedicated off-road vehicles used in high dust, dirt and mud. My '77 CJ-5 has a K&N pancake filter sitting on tip of a Weber carb'ed Clifford high performance intake. It was put on there over 15 years ago. I've only cleaned it once. Same filter. The engine runs just as strong as ever. Same compression, no indication of and deterioration in performance. I run the pi$$ out of that truck in really bad stuff.

BTW, we are a family owned business. We do production and custom automotive engine rebuilding. We just don't see problems with these aftermarket air filters causing shortened engine life and have no problem with their use on our engines.

So, use what you like. I want to see hard data that the additional very fine particles actually harm the engines. That data has not been produced. It's the big stuff you need to worry about and all of the filters catch that. If you worry about contaminants, do what we recommend: change your oil more frequently, preferably at 3,000 miles. That's where the contaminants end up. Change the oil, get them out.

buzzkillwill · 02-27-2006, 06:31 PM

I've posted about this before...

I have the AmsOil nonfilter. It's a new technology, and with my Banks, it's great!! Far superior than the OEm air filter, FAR BETTER!!

I like that fact too, that there's no oil, just vaccuum or air hose clean, and put it back in. It has a 100,000 mile warranty.

*mach1* · 02-27-2006, 07:27 PM

I agree that a little bit of dirt will do no harm to your engine at all. But the advantage of the trueflow is it flows better when dirty than the K&N or paper filters, so they say anyway.

Makes sense, it reminds me of a lawn equipment filters with the foam that u clan and re-oil.

racefan92307 · 02-27-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armada

Choose whichever pleases you. But I must say this controversial subject has been beat to death here and elsewhere. No one has shown me that any difference that passage of small particles has on engine life. I've been running K&N's (and other oiled gauze) brand filters on many vehicles for over 25 years, including use in dedicated off-road vehicles used in high dust, dirt and mud. My '77 CJ-5 has a K&N pancake filter sitting on tip of a Weber carb'ed Clifford high performance intake. It was put on there over 15 years ago. I've only cleaned it once. Same filter. The engine runs just as strong as ever. Same compression, no indication of and deterioration in performance. I run the pi$$ out of that truck in really bad stuff.

BTW, we are a family owned business. We do production and custom automotive engine rebuilding. We just don't see problems with these aftermarket air filters causing shortened engine life and have no problem with their use on our engines.

So, use what you like. I want to see hard data that the additional very fine particles actually harm the engines. That data has not been produced. It's the big stuff you need to worry about and all of the filters catch that. If you worry about contaminants, do what we recommend: change your oil more frequently, preferably at 3,000 miles. That's where the contaminants end up. Change the oil, get them out.

that may be true but if can protect the engine better from fine particles why not do that. i live in a dusty area. there video is food for thought. i always change my oil at 3000 miles.and does the engine suffer as the filter becomes dirty? the trueflow appears that it will maintain the same air flow as it gets dirty. where the k&n will not due to it's construction.

05 4X4 LE
BLIZZARD WHITE
ACTIVE GROUND KIT

ExtremeTitan · 02-28-2006, 02:53 PM

i too would not be worried about the things they say on that video. There are alot of differant things they could have done in that video to make their product look far superior. I myself have run both differant kinds of filters in my trucks and my high performance four wheelers. And still the only differance i see in either one that would say a foam filter is better is the water resistance. A foam filter will keep water out better then any paper or gauz filter. But i still feel that a K&N filter flows better with the moderate kind of dirt that we get on our filters in normal driving conditions.

Armada · 02-28-2006, 04:39 PM

I too worry about that video being misleading. True Flow makes a great filter. I'm not going to say anything bad about the filter. But I do have issues with marketing departments that promote their product at the expense of their competitors and do not design objective test criteria. For example:

1. Why test at only 100 cfm? Did you notice that? Most high performance V8 engines are going to flow at 400 cfm or more, perhaps closer to 600 or more cfm at wide open throttle. We simply don't know from that video how any of the filters would have performed at representative flow rates.

2. Why select particles so small? They are at least three times smaller than what is known to be capable of producing internal damage. The really small stuff like that usually gets totally consumed in the combustion process. If what remains gets into the bottom of the engine, it will either get picked up in the oil filter (if large enough) or if smaller, is harmless.

3. Why needlessly exaggerate by using more grams of "dirt" on the True Flow filter? This is particularly misleading because it implies better filtration, when in fact, they were merely putting the extra "dirt" on top of the material already there, rather than expanding it out to cover more of the filter. That "extra" dirt was being blocked from entering the filter by the dirt which was below it.

Again, I think True Flow makes a great filter.

As an off-roader, I don't buy the dust clogs the filter argument. I did mention that I've only cleaned the K&N on my CJ5 one time in 15 years. There is a lot of data that oiled gauze filters actually filter better when they are covered with dust, and in most applications, the filter flow rate is so high, even when they are dirty (I mean really dirty) that it exceeds the flow rate of the intake system they are attached to. If a filter can flow 200% of the air the intake can handle, cutting its flow rate in half is meaningless.

Just a few thoughts.

racefan92307 · 02-28-2006, 09:33 PM

you some have some valid points but please see the info on the following link
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm then tell me how good your k&n is. this test was performed by a indepedant lab.

05 4X4 LE
BLIZZARD WHITE
ACTIVE GROUND SYSTEM

ExtremeTitan · 03-01-2006, 12:53 PM

i will never use an AC delco filter again in my life! the only one that ive ever had fell apart on me. I went to take it back, and the company said that i had to go directly through them. After i sent pictures of the filter, then eventually sent the filter back to them, they told me that the only possible explanation was that i used gasoline to clean the filter. Well im not an idiot, and in fact i didnt even clean the filter at that point. This was after about 6000 miles on the filter. Needless to say they never refunded any of my money and they can go to hell

Armada · 03-01-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by racefan92307

you some have some valid points but please see the info on the following link
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm then tell me how good your k&n is. this test was performed by a indepedant lab.

05 4X4 LE
BLIZZARD WHITE
ACTIVE GROUND SYSTEM

There is another thread here where the AC Delco filter test is discussed. It has many of the same biases and is not objective. However it does show that the AC had three times the restriction in flow as the K&N at the maximum flow rate tested, which I believe was 350 cfm.

Further did you note that for some reason that is not explained they chose to show the effeciency rate for the K&N only for "fine dirt" rather than the larger dirt particles used to test the other filters. Why the change? Objective testing keeps the variables the same. We do not have evidence this fine dirt is harmful, and we are left to speculate how well the other filters would have done in catching the fine dirt, or how well the K&N would have done in catching the larger dirt used with the other filters.

Seemingly objective testing from a supposedly "independent" lab should be subjected to the same scrutiny as advertising and promotional information from a manufacturer, because you do not know who is really sponsoring the test or if the tester has his own bias and is changing variables in the test to produce a preconceived outcome.

Just a few thoughts.

Armada · 03-01-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by racefan92307

you some have some valid points but please see the info on the following link
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm then tell me how good your k&n is. this test was performed by a indepedant lab.

05 4X4 LE
BLIZZARD WHITE
ACTIVE GROUND SYSTEM

Which of those points do you wish to acknowledge?

There is another thread here where the AC Delco filter test is discussed. It does not respond to those points. It has many of the same biases and is not objective. However it does show that the AC had three times the pressure drop as the K&N at the maximum flow rate tested, which I believe was 350 cfm.

Further did you note that for some reason that is not explained they chose to show the effeciency for the K&N for "fine dirt" but not for the AC and most of the others. Why the change? Objective testing keeps the variables the same. We do not have evidence this fine dirt is harmful, and we are left to speculate how well the other filters would have done in catching the fine dirt.

And since the test for the more general coarse dirt includes fine dirt particles also, we don't know how much of the coarser stuff got through the K&N or any of the others. That was a mix of coarse and fine. For all we know, the grams of dirt that were showing up in the coarse dirt tests were actually smaller particles which were also included in the sample. Why didn't they exclude them from the coarse sample, since they were going to test some but not all (why???) for fine dirt separately?

This is just not good science.

Seemingly objective testing from a supposedly "independent" lab should be subjected to the same scrutiny as advertising and promotional information from a manufacturer, because you do not know who is really sponsoring the test or if the tester has his own bias and is changing variables in the test to produce a preconceived outcome.

I cannot emphasize enough that these are all good filters. All of them.

The emphasis should be on regular and frequent oil changes and using very high quality oil filtration, where this really matters, and not get hung up on the filtration ability of air filters to trap very small 1-3 micron particles which have not been shown to be harmful.

Just a few thoughts.

Moon · 03-01-2006, 03:32 PM

Yeah! What he said!

*mach1* · 03-02-2006, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by racefan92307

you some have some valid points but please see the info on the following link
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm then tell me how good your k&n is. this test was performed by a indepedant lab.

05 4X4 LE
BLIZZARD WHITE
ACTIVE GROUND SYSTEM

If anybody thinks a K&N filters as effectively as a more restrictive (air flow wise) alternate style of filter, I believe they are mistaken.

I have seen other tests that showed the K&N not filtering as well as the more resrtictive filters. This isnt the first. And it really boils down to common sense. If it allows more air through, guess what, it allows more dirt through as well

However, with that said, I believe its not a factor. A little bit of dust isnt going to hurt your engine. So the trade off is better airflow (and hopefully more response/power) for a liitle more dirt. since the dirt isnt harmful, why not do it?

You make the call

BTW, I once broke down (overheated) in my 1973 Pontiac Grand prix (400 CID, headers and glass packs, exhaust exited in front of the wheels, it sounded bas a$$) on a long trip once, and had to get towed to a gargage. They replaced a blown heater hose, serviced my cooling system, overcharged me terribly for anti-freeze, and I was on my way. About 4 more hours of interstate driving, and i was at my destination. A few days later, and more driving, I popped the hood to look around, and to my surpise, the mechanic at the gargage never put my air filter back on. To make a long story short, I drove the car with no air filter at all for probably 900 miles or more and it never hurt my motor in any way. Car always ran great up to the day i sold it a few years later.

Mr. B · 03-02-2006, 12:57 AM

My '71 Nova hasn't had an air-filter for about 11 or 12 years and about 65k miles.....I don't visit any dirt roads with it.

Armada · 03-02-2006, 10:26 AM

Now I must respond to the "no air filter" posts. There is a big difference between going with a low restriction filter and none at all. The big particles will hurt. They will not be consumed during combustion, particularly quartz (ie sand).

When we tear down engines that have been run with no filter at all, we can tell. The cylinder walls look like they have been sand blasted (they have). The main and rod bearings are wiped out and scored. Engine life terribly suffers.

900 miles without a filter might get you by, but there would have been some damage.

Running without any air filter for prolonged periods of time is very risky business.

Oiled gauze filters and other similar open design filters do trap the stuff that is likely to cause harm. All commercially available filters do a pretty good job of this. Running with no filter lets the bad stuff right through. In time, the consequences are disasterous.

Let's not take this discussion too far.