Air filter study on dieselplace.com
- Thread starter SPICER
- Start date
- Status
I don't believe these test accurately demonstrate the real world environment.
For me I am most concerned with the amount of dust passing through in the 0-15 micron size since it is the size that accounts for most of the wear in an engine.
See: http://www.envirofiltration.com/enginewear.htm
Since the regular oil filter removes most of the particles in the 20+ micron size they are irrelevant for the most part.
I believe the correct mix of dust particle sizes is of the most importance for this type of test. Here in the desert southwest where the dust size happens to be very fine I would be more interested in the results of the fine mixture as opposed to the course mixture which you chose for your testing.
A simple example of how the restriction in airflow differs from what your test shows is the restriction on 2 different filters used on my powerstroke.
My original filter went 5700 miles when I replaced it with an amsoil oiled filter element. I left the restriction indicator at its original position (about 1/4 the way restricted according to the indicator) and it has not moved to indicate the current filter is causing any more restriction in 15,000 miles than the factory element had at 5700 miles. So it is still flowing better with 3 times the mileage.
The big question is how much and of what size gets past these filters in my environment.
Personally, I believe this is the point where a bypass filter comes in handy to gather up all those 2+ micron particles in the oil.
I would like to see the tests done using the fine dust for your test and not the industry standard coarse dust. I would like to see an oiled foam and an oiled gauze filter and the AC delco done using this mixture. I believe with a mixture loaded with the more damaging 0-10 micron dust would be far more interesting. 55%+ vs 23%+ 0-10 micron dust particles.
Anyone know the breakdown in particulate size and percentages in the air in different regions of the country?
For me I am most concerned with the amount of dust passing through in the 0-15 micron size since it is the size that accounts for most of the wear in an engine.
See: http://www.envirofiltration.com/enginewear.htm
Since the regular oil filter removes most of the particles in the 20+ micron size they are irrelevant for the most part.
I believe the correct mix of dust particle sizes is of the most importance for this type of test. Here in the desert southwest where the dust size happens to be very fine I would be more interested in the results of the fine mixture as opposed to the course mixture which you chose for your testing.
A simple example of how the restriction in airflow differs from what your test shows is the restriction on 2 different filters used on my powerstroke.
My original filter went 5700 miles when I replaced it with an amsoil oiled filter element. I left the restriction indicator at its original position (about 1/4 the way restricted according to the indicator) and it has not moved to indicate the current filter is causing any more restriction in 15,000 miles than the factory element had at 5700 miles. So it is still flowing better with 3 times the mileage.
The big question is how much and of what size gets past these filters in my environment.
Personally, I believe this is the point where a bypass filter comes in handy to gather up all those 2+ micron particles in the oil.
I would like to see the tests done using the fine dust for your test and not the industry standard coarse dust. I would like to see an oiled foam and an oiled gauze filter and the AC delco done using this mixture. I believe with a mixture loaded with the more damaging 0-10 micron dust would be far more interesting. 55%+ vs 23%+ 0-10 micron dust particles.
Anyone know the breakdown in particulate size and percentages in the air in different regions of the country?
I understand what you are saying. Here is the answer. Course test dust was used because this is the industry standard. The content of the "Course Dust", however, is not rocks and marbles. The name is quite deceptive. I do not have the numbers in front of me, but comparing the Fine vs. the Course test dust is pretty xsimple. The test dust is a highly refined and controlled dust. Both dusts have very specific ratios of particle sizes. IIRC the course dust has about 10% of its content in the 5-10 micron size. The Fine has something like 18% in the 5-10 micron range. All of the dust in both the fine and course is below 100 micron size. Essentially xthe ONLY difference is the RATIO of these sizes.
If we ran all of these filters using the fine dust, the filters would still be ranked the same. The only difference would be the Efficiency% would be lower. We did in fact use fine test dust on two filters. The K&N (after it was cleaned and reoiled) and the AFE conical. I don't remeber the exact numbers but both had efficiencies down around 88%, a drop of about 10%. Rest assured, the filters would prove to rank the same even if we used fine dust. The design of an air filter dictates that only the smallest particles will get through. I agree that damage is done by the 5-10 micron range and our oil filters are inadequate. I use an Oilguard bypass. I have almost 15,000 miles on my oil and all is good through 2 oil samples. I will check it again at 15k. The oil is good for a LONG time, way over 3-5k miles. It is the dirt and other byproducts that make oil "bad". A good bypass filter can keep the oil "good" way over 3,000 miles. Something a standard full flow oil filter simply cannot do. SPICER.
If we ran all of these filters using the fine dust, the filters would still be ranked the same. The only difference would be the Efficiency% would be lower. We did in fact use fine test dust on two filters. The K&N (after it was cleaned and reoiled) and the AFE conical. I don't remeber the exact numbers but both had efficiencies down around 88%, a drop of about 10%. Rest assured, the filters would prove to rank the same even if we used fine dust. The design of an air filter dictates that only the smallest particles will get through. I agree that damage is done by the 5-10 micron range and our oil filters are inadequate. I use an Oilguard bypass. I have almost 15,000 miles on my oil and all is good through 2 oil samples. I will check it again at 15k. The oil is good for a LONG time, way over 3-5k miles. It is the dirt and other byproducts that make oil "bad". A good bypass filter can keep the oil "good" way over 3,000 miles. Something a standard full flow oil filter simply cannot do. SPICER.
SPICER, could you put a filter designed for a Duramax on a 5.3L Silverado and get increased flow and filtration?
Gas engines are a little out of my league. However, if it is a newer Silverado I am pretty sure the filter dimensions are the same. If so, The filter will work. The diesel version of the filter is only different in the fact that it has more pleats/paper. This is because the diesel has higher air flow by nature. More air flow means more potential for restriction at the filter. More air flow also means more dirt will ultimately be introduced at the filter, so more pleats means more dirt holding capacity. As far as I am aware, the media/paper is no different.
So to answer your question, Yes, the diesel filter will have less restriction. You probably don't need better flow, but the diesel filter will certainly go longer before getting clogged. As far as better filtering, it is the same paper. The ONLY potential for better filtering is the fact that more paper = more surface area for filtering = slower air flow per unit of media = possibly better filtration. I would not count on it though. If they are close to the same price, go for it. SPICER
These tests are interesting, but certainly should not serve as the basis for anyone abandoning their chosen method of air filtration. I question this tester's credentials (firefighter and tree climber?) and the scientific repeatability of his "methods." There is another agenda here, don't be a lemming.
Thanks for putting the effort into this study and discussion Spicer. My dodge boys the over at the turbodieselregister are talking about your study. I linked this thread so you might be able to answer some of their questions here. TDR is a pay site.
A lot of people believe the K&N hype, and for some it's the only option that will fit the space.
The only productive question on the TDR was asked by Bill Weber. He said:
I am interested to here your answer. And despite what some say, THANKS for spending your time on this!
A lot of people believe the K&N hype, and for some it's the only option that will fit the space.
The only productive question on the TDR was asked by Bill Weber. He said:
Here is a link to the TDR discussion.
I am interested to here your answer. And despite what some say, THANKS for spending your time on this!
I organized the test. I live in Wisconsin. The test was done by Testand Corp. in Rhode Island. If you want to question credentials, it would have to be their credentials. However, I would advise against it. Their business IS test stands for air/oil filter testing. As far as "methods", this is the ISO 5011. The method is an internationally accepted method for testing air filter performance. If you have any suggestions for the ISO on how they could improve their test method, give them a call. They will probably first ask for your credentials though.
As far as the numbers go, I will certainly look into it. I must first verify any inconsistencies on the original data sheets. The report is a hand typed copy. Very well could be some typos. The raw data is 100% computer generated, no room for human error. SPICER
GatorJ,
There is no need to question Arlen Spicer’s credentials…I can assure you that this test is 100% legitimate and scientific. Read the AIR FILTER STUDY REPORT I compiled for Arlen and you will see that the ISO 5011 test was independently performed under controlled conditions using a $285,000 machine at Testand Corp of Rhode Island manufacturer of the machine – Arlen did not perform the test – Teststand Corp did. There was no hidden agenda…
OffOrWFO,
Thanks for the kind words and the reference to the TDR discussion … Regarding the TDR post, please let these those folks know that the feed rates listed are nominal values and should not be used to calculate the ACTUAL dust fed. The machine accurately measures the actual amount of dust fed, dust trapped and dust passed. If you look at the tables for the dust loading test you will see actual dust feed values versus time. For the efficiency test, values for dust retained by the filter and dust passed by the filter are reported as they are the values used to compute efficiency.
Hopefully Arlen will chime in here and elaborate more…
[ December 18, 2004, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: Bill Plock ]
Without going DEEP into the data, I agree with Bill. You cannot just look at DURATION and FEED RATE. The data tables in the report show the EXACT feed rate and time. Sometimes the ACTUAL feed rate is slightly + or - the intended 9.8g/minute. This is documented in the data. The ACTUAL feed rate MUST be recorded and used in all calculations. If not, it will appear that there are errors in numbers. The INTENDED feed rate is 9.8g/min. The ACTUAL feed rate is measured at the time the dust is introduced to the filter. This is the number that must be used in order to calculate the efficiency, etc. If this still does not add up, let me know. The numbers on the data sheet DO add up. SPICER
After looking a little closer, there are a couple of oversights in the presentation of our data. Here is the oversight.....The K&N was run for 4 minutes. The machine was shut off, and then restarted. The total run time is actually 20 minutes + 4 minutes. The reason it was shut off was to test initial efficiency. The initial efficiency was not included in our presentation of the data, but it is in the raw data.
Initial efficiency is the efficiency of the filter at the beginning of the test. Filter efficiency changes as a filter is loaded. MOST filters are more efficient after some loading.
Not all filters were tested for initial efficiency. This was a time issue for Ken. However, the fact that some filters were tested for initial efficiency and others were not has NO influence on the outcome of the study. All filters were tested in an identical fashion. The Efficiency used for ranking the filters is the efficiency % listed. This Efficiency % is the AVERAGE efficiency calculated from total dirt introduced and total dirt passing the filter. From the raw data it appears that the WIX and K&N were both tested for initial efficiency. The K&N ran for 24 minutes, and the WIX for 48 minutes, NOT 20 minutes and 44 minutes.
I will take a closer look at the data. Bill and I will correct any errors in our presentation and interpretation of the data. SPICER
Initial efficiency is the efficiency of the filter at the beginning of the test. Filter efficiency changes as a filter is loaded. MOST filters are more efficient after some loading.
Not all filters were tested for initial efficiency. This was a time issue for Ken. However, the fact that some filters were tested for initial efficiency and others were not has NO influence on the outcome of the study. All filters were tested in an identical fashion. The Efficiency used for ranking the filters is the efficiency % listed. This Efficiency % is the AVERAGE efficiency calculated from total dirt introduced and total dirt passing the filter. From the raw data it appears that the WIX and K&N were both tested for initial efficiency. The K&N ran for 24 minutes, and the WIX for 48 minutes, NOT 20 minutes and 44 minutes.
I will take a closer look at the data. Bill and I will correct any errors in our presentation and interpretation of the data. SPICER
I just took a closer look at the reports Arlen originally sent me and as Arlen pointed out the reported value of 6g dust passed for the K&N didn’t include the initial 4 minute efficiency test which also passed 1g of dust. So, the total value of dust passed for the K&N during the 24 minute interval was 7g ... 1g during the initial 4-minute test and another 6g for 20 minutes before the test stopped at maximum restriction. The last set of tables in the report shows actual dust fed versus time for each filter. Efficiency is calculated as follows:
Efficiency = (1-(dust passed/total dust fed))x100%
For the K&N this is (1-(7g/218.6g))*100 =96.8% The K&N values in the table are listed as 6g dust passed and an efficiency of 96.08. The report will be corrected to show 7g dust passed and the 96.08% will be changed to 96.8 (this was a typo)…
I appreciate the fact that people are looking close at these numbers. If there are any mistakes in the report please let us know and they will be corrected. I tried to be careful when transcribing the numbers from hardcopy reports to MS Excel but I may have missed something.
[ December 18, 2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Bill Plock ]
Efficiency = (1-(dust passed/total dust fed))x100%
For the K&N this is (1-(7g/218.6g))*100 =96.8% The K&N values in the table are listed as 6g dust passed and an efficiency of 96.08. The report will be corrected to show 7g dust passed and the 96.08% will be changed to 96.8 (this was a typo)…
I appreciate the fact that people are looking close at these numbers. If there are any mistakes in the report please let us know and they will be corrected. I tried to be careful when transcribing the numbers from hardcopy reports to MS Excel but I may have missed something.
[ December 18, 2004, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Bill Plock ]
Thanks for the link. I read the discussion. Hopefully we have answered any questions for them. Please pass on to them our recent discoveries in our interpretation of the data. We will fix it. I do not wish to join another forum at this time. I do appreciate those who scrutinize the presentation of the data. Mistakes obviously do happen.
As far as those scrutinizing my intentions, that is OK too. At the end of the study we included some info about me. It is a piece that I wrote during the study/before we got the data back. It explains my motives. I AM a firefighter, I AM a tree climber, and I do have a college degree. I studied natural resources at Ball State U. in Muncie IN. We did a LOT of air quality research and data collecting. That is why I THOUGHT I could do this study on my own. I was wrong. The variables were too numerous and too hard to control. My data was erratic. I did not have the money or time to finish what I had started.......Along came Testand Corp. who I had called asking for advice. A couple months later Ken, the owner, called me back offering to do the study for us. He is a diesel owner and was curious to see the results too. The dieselplace.com forum members banded together to send as many filters as we could to Rhode Island. The rest is history. I am an advocate of paper because it does the job and makes no claims it cannot back up. The others rely on misleading information and deception/marketing hype. I don't like being dooped and I don't like seeing other innocent consumers being dooped. I don't care what people use in their cars. I just want them to be informed before they make a choice. SPICER
Spicer & Co.
Thank you for organizing this test and publishing the data. There is precious little high quality data published for the world to see on topics such as this.
I've been an automotive enthusiast for about 30 years now, and the number of unfounded claims for miracle fuel economy and power improvements I've seen is countless ... and these things predate my lifetime.
In this test it looks like GM optimized the filter design very well with a high priority being on effectiveness and capacity with a slightly higher restriction being the trade off. The other paper filters seem to be designed to different tradeoff points and also different manufacturing cost points. The K&N demonstrated that big holes are less restrictive to airflow and let more particles through.
I put no stock in the particle-size handwaving arguments of the K&N fan club.
Anyway, great work!
John
Thank you for organizing this test and publishing the data. There is precious little high quality data published for the world to see on topics such as this.
I've been an automotive enthusiast for about 30 years now, and the number of unfounded claims for miracle fuel economy and power improvements I've seen is countless ... and these things predate my lifetime.
In this test it looks like GM optimized the filter design very well with a high priority being on effectiveness and capacity with a slightly higher restriction being the trade off. The other paper filters seem to be designed to different tradeoff points and also different manufacturing cost points. The K&N demonstrated that big holes are less restrictive to airflow and let more particles through.
I put no stock in the particle-size handwaving arguments of the K&N fan club.
Anyway, great work!
John
Rubbish.
Bob W.
SPICER,
Thanks!
Thanks!
Thank you for doing this study. I changed my filters on both my Hondas after joining this site and reading all this information. I went from the K&N to the WIX filters.
I didnt noticed any improvement when I first started using K&N. When we bought my wife a car, a CR-V, I bought one for it. My wife actaully told me it runs like crap now with that filter in it. I told her to give it time. This was 2 months ago, and she still says it does not run like it did with the OEM filter in it. So I went out and bought two Wix filters and my Accord runs smoother and stronger and the CR-V is back to normal. It also runs smoother and stronger. So, no more K&N.
Thanks again! And this is a great site!
I didnt noticed any improvement when I first started using K&N. When we bought my wife a car, a CR-V, I bought one for it. My wife actaully told me it runs like crap now with that filter in it. I told her to give it time. This was 2 months ago, and she still says it does not run like it did with the OEM filter in it. So I went out and bought two Wix filters and my Accord runs smoother and stronger and the CR-V is back to normal. It also runs smoother and stronger. So, no more K&N.
Thanks again! And this is a great site!
Thanks Spicer & Co for your work.
I also bought K & N filters for my cars, my wife couldn't tell a difference. I did notice a difference in my Acura. Always appreciate facts that I can review and not just what I read from the company.
Thanks to BITOG, I decided to at least reinstall Fram air filter in my cars for the winter since a lot of sand and salt is used here.
I also bought K & N filters for my cars, my wife couldn't tell a difference. I did notice a difference in my Acura. Always appreciate facts that I can review and not just what I read from the company.
Thanks to BITOG, I decided to at least reinstall Fram air filter in my cars for the winter since a lot of sand and salt is used here.
Also I wish to compliment Spicer & Co for their great job on "airfilters". It certainly contributes to your goal of making better choices possible for the consumer.
As I read you yourself use a bypassoilfilter from Motor Guard. Can you inform a little more why you chose this brand and how does it compare to the period that you didn't use this unit ?
As I read you yourself use a bypassoilfilter from Motor Guard. Can you inform a little more why you chose this brand and how does it compare to the period that you didn't use this unit ?
- Status