Found this website www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/air-filter-study.html
Air filter study
- Thread starter steveh
- Start date
- Status
Im glad i use wix filters!
STP performance is a surprise, K&N under-performance is not.
steveh: Thanks for finding and linking. On the surface, a decent test... certainly apples to apples. Gotta do some research on the MAF method for looking at airflow and I'm not sure a 5HP vacuum is enough oomph bit still veeeeery eeeeteresting!
Interesting. I've been considering going for a Wix/Napa Gold for the Civic. Different type of filter element in my app and no MAF sensor, but I've been procrastinating about getting rid of the K&N I have. Now, do I spend more ($45) for a Pro Dry S aFe or get the Wix/NG for $15?
would liked to have seen denso tested also
I've been using Wix and Napa oil and air filters on my cars, I believe I will keep using them after seeing the reports. I knew that the K&N air filters allowed more contaminants to pass through, but not as much as the tests showed.
I don't use their oil filters anymore, but I have continued to use the Wix-made air filters, be it Napa or CarQuest.
Glad I have!
Glad I have!
I expected PureOne to do much better.
Amsoil Ea filter is very impressive, much better than anything on the test. If they have an application for my cars I would use it.
Too bad they didn't use the Pro Dry S aFe instead of their "oiled" version.
aFE 11-10005 is Pro Dry oil free filter.
I'd like them to test a Denso air filter. They got an impressive filtering media but it's only made for import vehicles (mostly toyota)
i don't understand why the pureone did more poorly than the classic. can anyone explain this?
^Test repeatability would be challenged, to get a trend going and for the allowance for errors in at home testing.
What point do the line graphs serve?
Since the linked author references his "oil filter study" prior this AF test some points were made on the oil filter board when it was posted there. Upon closer inspection it was noted that the same oil filters, eg. Napa Gold and Wix, Fram Extra Guard and High Mileage(same media), showed very different test results. What's different though is that many/most of the oil filters have published efficiency ratings, not so true with air filters. For the oil filters, I'm going to be more inclined to believe the tested efficiency ratings done under controlled conditions (ISO test), then some random guy's patch/particle test done in his basement. Here the only identical AF's I recognize is the Napa Gold and Wix.
No AF published ISO test eficiency rating to refer to, the most I'd take from this test is that the K&N and True Flow fall outside of the filtering norm 'in his test.' Beyond that, I'd not be concerned with using any of the other air filters. For the record, I generally use a standard Fram AF filter (not tested), and change it ~30k intervals.
Much like the oil filter test a nice effort, but imo too many uncontrolled variables to give the test results too much credence.
No AF published ISO test eficiency rating to refer to, the most I'd take from this test is that the K&N and True Flow fall outside of the filtering norm 'in his test.' Beyond that, I'd not be concerned with using any of the other air filters. For the record, I generally use a standard Fram AF filter (not tested), and change it ~30k intervals.
Much like the oil filter test a nice effort, but imo too many uncontrolled variables to give the test results too much credence.
my opinion this is all bogus....
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Since the linked author references his "oil filter study" prior this AF test some points were made on the oil filter board when it was posted there. Upon closer inspection it was noted that the same oil filters, eg. Napa Gold and Wix, Fram Extra Guard and High Mileage(same media), showed very different test results. What's different though is that many/most of the oil filters have published efficiency ratings, not so true with air filters. For the oil filters, I'm going to be more inclined to believe the tested efficiency ratings done under controlled conditions (ISO test), then some random guy's patch/particle test done in his basement. Here the only identical AF's I recognize is the Napa Gold and Wix.
No AF published ISO test eficiency rating to refer to, the most I'd take from this test is that the K&N and True Flow fall outside of the filtering norm 'in his test.' Beyond that, I'd not be concerned with using any of the other air filters. For the record, I generally use a standard Fram AF filter (not tested), and change it ~30k intervals.
Much like the oil filter test a nice effort, but imo too many uncontrolled variables to give the test results too much credence.
Pretty good synopsis, sayjac.
I do see some value in this test, if you grant that they were consistent in their methodology (maybe they were, maybe not) because it gives you some idea how the filters rank. If you compare it to the Spicer test of about 8 years ago (which was done to ISO specs) there are some very general correlation trends to this one but there is really no way to compare this test to any published efficiency rating done to standardized tests. The Spicer test is still the best but it's too bad it's now so old.
Since the linked author references his "oil filter study" prior this AF test some points were made on the oil filter board when it was posted there. Upon closer inspection it was noted that the same oil filters, eg. Napa Gold and Wix, Fram Extra Guard and High Mileage(same media), showed very different test results. What's different though is that many/most of the oil filters have published efficiency ratings, not so true with air filters. For the oil filters, I'm going to be more inclined to believe the tested efficiency ratings done under controlled conditions (ISO test), then some random guy's patch/particle test done in his basement. Here the only identical AF's I recognize is the Napa Gold and Wix.
No AF published ISO test eficiency rating to refer to, the most I'd take from this test is that the K&N and True Flow fall outside of the filtering norm 'in his test.' Beyond that, I'd not be concerned with using any of the other air filters. For the record, I generally use a standard Fram AF filter (not tested), and change it ~30k intervals.
Much like the oil filter test a nice effort, but imo too many uncontrolled variables to give the test results too much credence.
Pretty good synopsis, sayjac.
I do see some value in this test, if you grant that they were consistent in their methodology (maybe they were, maybe not) because it gives you some idea how the filters rank. If you compare it to the Spicer test of about 8 years ago (which was done to ISO specs) there are some very general correlation trends to this one but there is really no way to compare this test to any published efficiency rating done to standardized tests. The Spicer test is still the best but it's too bad it's now so old.
Also, we've seen different UOA varying from the real world driven conditions. They go on to post good reports regarding silicon values with the same filter that others get questionable or 'watch worthy' regarding a trend up in Si. Even K&N did well in another user's Civic from PA, like 5 or 6 ppm. It was awesome.
That said, I'm not happy with K&N in my app and I'll be changing very soon to see if I can get Si to trend downward.
That said, I'm not happy with K&N in my app and I'll be changing very soon to see if I can get Si to trend downward.
- Status
Similar threads
