Air Filter with best Filtration

[Job]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
The intake runners are restrictions, the valve openings are restrictions.

Throttle bodies and carburetors have a cfm rating. Put a smaller on get less hp.


Yes, and all of that comes into play effecting the VE (volumetric efficiency) and hence the HP output of a NA engine at WOT throughout the RPM range.


I wasn't replying to you and was careful not to. Please stop clipping words I make out of the whole while replyng to someone else and interjecting your opinion.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
The intake runners are restrictions, the valve openings are restrictions.

Throttle bodies and carburetors have a cfm rating. Put a smaller on get less hp.

Yes, and all of that comes into play effecting the VE (volumetric efficiency) and hence the HP output of a NA engine at WOT throughout the RPM range.

I wasn't replying to you and was careful not to. Please stop clipping words I make out of the whole while replyng to someone else and interjecting your opinion.


Just adding technical information into the discussion - what's wrong with that?

This is a public chat board. I will quote and/or reply to whoever I want to, and say whatever I want to. If you don't like my comments then put me on ignore. Who poured yellow milk in your Wheaties this morning for you to decide to reply to this after 6 days, lol.

Maybe you should have been a little more careful not to make this off the wall comment ... are you on another trolling expedition?

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by The_Nuke
So what's the consensus, K&N for the win?

K&N for a bit more flow in exchange for a bit less filtration efficiency.

K+N is a viable choice for those of us who don't live in dirty/dusty environments.

 

[bbhero]

K&N beats the STP blue air filter in terms of efficiency... That poor STP blue air filter is 90%... And that is way,way worse than the K&N air filter.

 

[littlehulkster]

Originally Posted by Olas
Mann - 99.9% at 4 microns.

Why do other brands even exist when this is available??


Too much filtration can also be bad, though, as it means less air flow.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by Olas
Mann - 99.9% at 4 microns.

Why do other brands even exist when this is available??


Too much filtration can also be bad, though, as it means less air flow.


Which can be overcome with more surface area, hence filters like the Donaldson PowerCore.

 

[littlehulkster]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by Olas
Mann - 99.9% at 4 microns.

Why do other brands even exist when this is available??


Too much filtration can also be bad, though, as it means less air flow.


Which can be overcome with more surface area, hence filters like the Donaldson PowerCore.


Right, but I'm not sure if that's the case with that particular filter. For something that just fits in the stock filter box, you don't want too much filtration or you're starving your engine of air.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
Originally Posted by Olas
Mann - 99.9% at 4 microns.

Why do other brands even exist when this is available??


Too much filtration can also be bad, though, as it means less air flow.


Which can be overcome with more surface area, hence filters like the Donaldson PowerCore.


Right, but I'm not sure if that's the case with that particular filter. For something that just fits in the stock filter box, you don't want too much filtration or you're starving your engine of air.


True, there's only so much you can do within the confines of the dimensions of the factory airbox. You could use more pleats and make the element taller, but I don't know if they've done that here.

 

[Revving2Redline]

I like the Injen Dryflow!!

 

[Olas]

The most efficient air filters you can buy are the heavy-duty industrial vehicle filters. Vehicles that work in mines, quarries and the desert have the best air filters.

Donaldson is a big supplier in NA and Mann do a lot in EU.

Donaldson[/url

[url=https://www....competence-for-commercial-vehicles/]Mann


You would probably need to make or buy a bracket to securely locate one in your engine bay, and you might need a rubber hoas adaptor/reducer if the diameters arent the same.


If you just want something to fit in the factory airbox then pretty much any premium brand filter, used in conjunction with a pantyhose prefilter, will be good enough for anywhere you might drive on the daily

 

[Ws6]

This question about filter quality ignores one of the main causes of particulate matter entering an engine, IMO. By focusing on the filter itself, you are ignoring organic and mechanical failures, to focus solely on the performance of the filter media. This is similar to comparing a Mustang GT and WRX Sti based on paper track numbers in a magazine, and then going to race and finding out a light mist is on the track. Your careful hp/tq/lb calculations just went out the window, and now the AWD of the WRX STi is going to stop a mudhole in that RWD Mustang GT.

Similarly, when focusing on the filter media, you are ignoring the manner in which it is to be used. Most factory induction systems feature an "airbox" and the filter is sandwiched between a lower (dirty) half, and the upper (clean) half. It is secured with several spring-type clamps, typically. The tension on the filter gasket is both imprecise, and minimal. Vibration of the airbox, flex, low tension, varying vacuum, can all then play a role in particulate matter bypassing the media all togather. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In comparison, many aftermarket systems feature a much more secure method of attachment, involving T-bolt clamps on every juncture. Note the one below, which I just installed on my turbo CX5:

Also, I took some photos of the inside of the intake tube leading to the turbo, as well as the "clean" side of the filter housing box. The dust on my road is indeed white. The filter is OEM, and has been changed at least once, maybe twice, at regular interval over 35.5K miles I have put on the vehicle. I have done this myself, each time, verifying correct placement of the filter and closure of the clamps, which indeed were properly secured at all times I have inspected them, including this removal. Based on the distribution of the contaminant within the "clean" side of the intake box, one can see and deduce how this contamination got there...it wasn't via passing through the excellent filter media. In each of these photos, I have wiped an area to show surface distribution of contaminate via contrast.

In this way, I feel that it is very deceptive and overlooking the "system as a whole" to fixate upon filter media exclusively, as I am willing to bet that my "99.4% cumulative efficiency down to 1 micron" AEM filter and intake assy. is likely to vastly out-perform my OEM filter and intake assy, even presuming the OEM filter is slightly more "filtery", due to the integrity compromises made in the OEM filter assembly housing.

Also, based on the advertisement from CS's dyno chart, I gained 8-12whp. I independently verified this myself, and have concluded that yes, this is likely accurate, based on acceleration times 20-80mph. Yes, the BOV and turbo are actually quite noticeable with the radio off, as 17psi is 17psi. I am very impressed with the noise cancellation the OEM managed! As far as the filter location being "hot", after driving for an hour, I parked in my garage, popped the hood, and felt the bolts on the clamp near the filter. It felt cool to the touch, as did the rest of the assembly. Ambient was around 60*F, and it felt 60-80*F to my touch. Further, the front mount intercooler post-turbo kindof negates a CAI purpose anyways, even if it did pick up cooler air, which it doesn't seem likely given my observations and track and dyno testing done by CS and their tuner and others, 3rd party.

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by wemay
While on throttle, every vehicle can take in more air than a typical filter will flow. The less restrictive a filter, the more air that's sucked in.

Nope, that's backwards. Most filter's CFM rating is significantly higher than the flow rate for the TB. For example, I had a 75mm throttle body on my 302, which was mounted to a TFS-R, feeding a set of very heavily massaged GT40's. It was connected through the factory intake plumbing, which was ~90mm in diameter, to the stock Fox panel filter, which was about 12" long by 9" wide (going by memory). IIRC, the flow rating for that panel filter was ~1,250CFM. The maximum that TB would flow was ~920CFM without forced induction (N/A application) and at ~325HP (flywheel) I was consuming nowhere near that.

As I said earlier, you can easily verify if the filter is a problem using a vacuum gauge plumbed into the box or plumbing on the clean side of the filter. The K&N filter restriction gauge is probably an ideal fit, as it is both very sensitive (much more so than the typical diesel ones) and locks in place at the restriction level, so you can go out, do a WOT run and see if it showed any restriction.

Here's a CFM calc:
https://racingcalcs.com/cfm-cubic-feet-per-minute-calculator/

If I plug in my 392, and get ridiculously generous with the VE, putting it at 90%, at 6,500RPM, my air requirements are only 663CFM. The factory filter flows 1,080CFM.

EDIT: Actually, we can get much more accurate here, as they have a displacement + VE to HP calculator too, which also gives CFM requirements:
https://racingcalcs.com/engine-horsepower-calculator/

So, my 392 makes 475HP, so VE is 88%, which pegs my CFM requirements right around 650, meaning the factory filter is VERY generously sized.


Spreadsheet analysis < Results. Better intake setups do make power, and do typically put down 1-3mph trap speeds, depending on the vehicle. It's just how it is.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by OVERKILL

Nope, that's backwards. Most filter's CFM rating is significantly higher than the flow rate for the TB. For example, I had a 75mm throttle body on my 302, which was mounted to a TFS-R, feeding a set of very heavily massaged GT40's. It was connected through the factory intake plumbing, which was ~90mm in diameter, to the stock Fox panel filter, which was about 12" long by 9" wide (going by memory). IIRC, the flow rating for that panel filter was ~1,250CFM. The maximum that TB would flow was ~920CFM without forced induction (N/A application) and at ~325HP (flywheel) I was consuming nowhere near that.

As I said earlier, you can easily verify if the filter is a problem using a vacuum gauge plumbed into the box or plumbing on the clean side of the filter. The K&N filter restriction gauge is probably an ideal fit, as it is both very sensitive (much more so than the typical diesel ones) and locks in place at the restriction level, so you can go out, do a WOT run and see if it showed any restriction.

Here's a CFM calc:
https://racingcalcs.com/cfm-cubic-feet-per-minute-calculator/

If I plug in my 392, and get ridiculously generous with the VE, putting it at 90%, at 6,500RPM, my air requirements are only 663CFM. The factory filter flows 1,080CFM.

EDIT: Actually, we can get much more accurate here, as they have a displacement + VE to HP calculator too, which also gives CFM requirements:
https://racingcalcs.com/engine-horsepower-calculator/

So, my 392 makes 475HP, so VE is 88%, which pegs my CFM requirements right around 650, meaning the factory filter is VERY generously sized.


Spreadsheet analysis < Results. Better intake setups do make power, and do typically put down 1-3mph trap speeds, depending on the vehicle. It's just how it is.


You seem to have ignored or skipped most of my post and focused solely on the fact I posted a calculator. Please read the rest of it and then revisit your comment to see if it is warranted, I think you'll find it isn't. Restriction is measurable, and thus it can be easily determined if it is present in a factory induction system, at which point making steps to reduce it as much as possible, perhaps by fitting an alternative filter or system would then make sense. If it isn't present, then there won't be gains in performance. Most induction systems are oversized, but there are always exceptions which may be due to the fitment of silencers or other accommodations. The filters themselves are typically oversized as well, to account for loading. But again, this is all measurable, which was my point.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by OVERKILL

Nope, that's backwards. Most filter's CFM rating is significantly higher than the flow rate for the TB. For example, I had a 75mm throttle body on my 302, which was mounted to a TFS-R, feeding a set of very heavily massaged GT40's. It was connected through the factory intake plumbing, which was ~90mm in diameter, to the stock Fox panel filter, which was about 12" long by 9" wide (going by memory). IIRC, the flow rating for that panel filter was ~1,250CFM. The maximum that TB would flow was ~920CFM without forced induction (N/A application) and at ~325HP (flywheel) I was consuming nowhere near that.

As I said earlier, you can easily verify if the filter is a problem using a vacuum gauge plumbed into the box or plumbing on the clean side of the filter. The K&N filter restriction gauge is probably an ideal fit, as it is both very sensitive (much more so than the typical diesel ones) and locks in place at the restriction level, so you can go out, do a WOT run and see if it showed any restriction.

Here's a CFM calc:
https://racingcalcs.com/cfm-cubic-feet-per-minute-calculator/

If I plug in my 392, and get ridiculously generous with the VE, putting it at 90%, at 6,500RPM, my air requirements are only 663CFM. The factory filter flows 1,080CFM.

EDIT: Actually, we can get much more accurate here, as they have a displacement + VE to HP calculator too, which also gives CFM requirements:
https://racingcalcs.com/engine-horsepower-calculator/

So, my 392 makes 475HP, so VE is 88%, which pegs my CFM requirements right around 650, meaning the factory filter is VERY generously sized.


Spreadsheet analysis < Results. Better intake setups do make power, and do typically put down 1-3mph trap speeds, depending on the vehicle. It's just how it is.


You seem to have ignored or skipped most of my post and focused solely on the fact I posted a calculator. Please read the rest of it and then revisit your comment to see if it is warranted, I think you'll find it isn't. Restriction is measurable, and thus it can be easily determined if it is present in a factory induction system, at which point making steps to reduce it as much as possible, perhaps by fitting an alternative filter or system would then make sense. If it isn't present, then there won't be gains in performance. Most induction systems are oversized, but there are always exceptions which may be due to the fitment of silencers or other accommodations. The filters themselves are typically oversized as well, to account for loading. But again, this is all measurable, which was my point.


Oh, I know. Filters are oversized, so are intakes, but then we have to also accept that regardless, CAI's have smoother plumbing, and the OEM filter still restricts a few horsepower. Just is what it is. Unless you can show zero pressure drop over the filter, then it can always be better...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Oh, I know. Filters are oversized, so are intakes, but then we have to also accept that regardless, CAI's have smoother plumbing, and the OEM filter still restricts a few horsepower. Just is what it is. Unless you can show zero pressure drop over the filter, then it can always be better...


Some of the silencers impose some pretty significant flow restriction for the sake of noise control in an intake tract that's otherwise pretty free-flowing. The factory intake plumbing on my 2002 Expedition for example, the truck had a huge filter, and large generous plumbing, but there was a silencer smaller than the diameter of the TB in the plumbing

Along with a "horn" shaped inlet tube that necked down again smaller than the TB to go into the fender. I eliminated both of those, and it made a SOTP difference at WOT. It was also definitely louder, making their purpose obvious. My Mustang, i went from a smooth tubed CAI with a huge cone to a factory airbox, silencer deleted, and the factory elbow, which was well sized, and it made no difference on ET or trap.

Now of course none of that's universal and those are just personal anecdotes, but the idea is that one should verify restriction before spending money on something that might give up filtration efficiency for zero improvement in performance. On the other hand, if a restriction is confirmed to exist, you've now made a case for eliminating it. Your example of poor airbox seal on your Mazda is a great example of why the OEM setup may not always be the best choice

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by Ws6
Oh, I know. Filters are oversized, so are intakes, but then we have to also accept that regardless, CAI's have smoother plumbing, and the OEM filter still restricts a few horsepower. Just is what it is. Unless you can show zero pressure drop over the filter, then it can always be better...


Some of the silencers impose some pretty significant flow restriction for the sake of noise control in an intake tract that's otherwise pretty free-flowing. The factory intake plumbing on my 2002 Expedition for example, the truck had a huge filter, and large generous plumbing, but there was a silencer smaller than the diameter of the TB in the plumbing

Along with a "horn" shaped inlet tube that necked down again smaller than the TB to go into the fender. I eliminated both of those, and it made a SOTP difference at WOT. It was also definitely louder, making their purpose obvious. My Mustang, i went from a smooth tubed CAI with a huge cone to a factory airbox, silencer deleted, and the factory elbow, which was well sized, and it made no difference on ET or trap.

Now of course none of that's universal and those are just personal anecdotes, but the idea is that one should verify restriction before spending money on something that might give up filtration efficiency for zero improvement in performance. On the other hand, if a restriction is confirmed to exist, you've now made a case for eliminating it. Your example of poor airbox seal on your Mazda is a great example of why the OEM setup may not always be the best choice

What filter did you use in the Mustang factory airbox, and what year/model mustang was it?

Also, the filter box style on my Mazda is hardly unique. I wonder how many "meh" UOA's come from filter SEAL issues and not filter FILTRATION issues...

 

[Ws6]

Enjoying being able to hear all 17psi, lol!

 

[caprice_2nv]

I recently replaced the filter in my 05 Silverado and while the filter was probably still okay for a little bit longer (could still see some sunlight through it) the gasket around the edge was split at 3/4 corners which could/would allow dirt to get past. I also noticed one screw was stripped so now it's temporarily held down with a zip tie until I can get a good used replacement or just delete the box altogether.

Filtration is important to me because I work most of my days in dusty construction sites and I see Honda engines in Packers and generators smoking like crazy and my theory is they're getting dirt past the air filter. Inhale enough of that oil smoke and it gets you thinking about that stuff.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Ws6
What filter did you use in the Mustang factory airbox, and what year/model mustang was it?

1987 GT T-top, I ran three different filters:
1 - Huge K&N cone with a CAI
2 - K&N panel in the factor airbox
3 - FRAM paper filter from Canadian Tire in the factory airbox

No difference at the track between any of them. I removed the K&N when I was (probably unnecessarily) concerned about MAF contamination after I converted the car and K&N oil fouling of MAF's became a hot-button topic.

Originally Posted by Ws6
Also, the filter box style on my Mazda is hardly unique. I wonder how many "meh" UOA's come from filter SEAL issues and not filter FILTRATION issues...

Yep, I know, which makes a good case for inspecting your air intake tract like you did to see if there are any issues. The housings on my Jeep and RAM are both the bolt-down style.

it also makes a good case, IMHO, for the fitment of a restriction gauge so that somebody isn't unnecessarily, and excessively, opening the filer housing. One can remove the plumbing and inspect downstream of the filter if desired to confirm nothing is bypassing the filter.

 

[Job]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3L-E-ufYo

Maybe this has been posted before. The 0-60 data, to me shows they are all the same power wise within such a test for normal consumer purposes. At least he did two runs not just one.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Farnsworth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3L-E-ufYo

Maybe this has been posted before. The 0-60 data, to me shows they are all the same power wise within such a test for normal consumer purposes. At least he did two runs not just one.


A much better testing process, and his dyno numbers correlated with 0-60 times. Bottom line again is that less intake restriction can add more HP at WOT. It's been proven a million times over the last 70 years.