AMSOIL Ea is the best?

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I have an AFE pro-dry and all you do is mix a bit of Tide or other clothes detergent (like a tablespoon) in a gallon of warm water and submerge it a few times.

It will clean up like magic.


I was just cleaning it with a strong shop vac (just like the EaA), NO water/detergent AT ALL.

Is there a specific time frame/dirt level when a wet washing is required??

(And yes, that should be EaA in my last post above, NOT EaO!!)

 

[SteveSRT8]

I usually clean it around every six months or whenever I see it get really dirty. It does not need frequent cleanings.

 

[Brigadier]

Here is my perspective, for what it is worth.

In March I bought a 2006 Colorado, 3.5L I-5 4X4, 41k miles. It had a K&N air filter in the stock intake, and a complete cat back Magnaflow noise maker on it. All in the name of 'performance'. Part of the deal I made with the car dealer was to have the muffler replaced with a stock one. Done. And then I saw this study:

http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/air-filter-study.html

And saw that the K&N filter, didn't filter. So now I have a NAPA Gold filter on it.

And now my truck is actually faster at low rpm than it was[and lots quieter too], in part to using e0 gas.

My point is, given the price of a K&N air filter and a cat back exhaust system, I can buy alot of e0 gas and my truck will run better, pull harder, and I get better air filtration and less hearing damage in the meantime.

YMMV

 

[SteveSRT8]

Great study, thanks for the well researched data.

 

[Jim Allen]

That's a great study but it dates to 2004. Note also that the Amsoil filter also did poorly in that test in certain areas, but I think the Amsoil filter is now a completely different animal.

An even larger flaw... one that I just noted today... is that all the filters were tested under ISO 5011 using coarse dust EXCEPT the AFE and the K&N. You don't see that mentioned in the explanation but you will find it in the tabulated data. Using fine dust WILL skew the efficiency readings lower. Usually, fine dust is used for testing street vehicles filters and coarse is used for off-highway units. This reflects the norms of each type of operational environment. By using coarse dust for the filters you want to look good and fine for the ones you want to look bad, you can skew the results. I am not sure by how much. I have a question in to an industry person I know and will relay it. I also sent an inquiry to the publisher of the test, Arlen Spicer, but since I haven't spoken to him in a number of years, my contact info may no longer be valid.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: Brigadier
Here is my perspective, for what it is worth.

In March I bought a 2006 Colorado, 3.5L I-5 4X4, 41k miles. It had a K&N air filter in the stock intake, and a complete cat back Magnaflow noise maker on it. All in the name of 'performance'. Part of the deal I made with the car dealer was to have the muffler replaced with a stock one. Done. And then I saw this study:

http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/air-filter-study.html

And saw that the K&N filter, didn't filter. So now I have a NAPA Gold filter on it.

And now my truck is actually faster at low rpm than it was[and lots quieter too], in part to using e0 gas.

My point is, given the price of a K&N air filter and a cat back exhaust system, I can buy alot of e0 gas and my truck will run better, pull harder, and I get better air filtration and less hearing damage in the meantime.

YMMV


I would prefer E0 fuel... but where the heck can you find it these days? Not around here, certainly and if you can find it easily where you are.. I'm jealous ( : < ).

I agree that the gain in power from most performance intake systems (on an otherwise stock engine) is hard to justify financially, but I disagree that a truck will run better on E0, without either a cat back or CAI, than it will with those items installed and running on E10. Better mileage... most certainly... but the one thing E10 does hold it's own on is the power equation. You (or the PCM if the engine has knock sensors) can generally run a little more timing and that pays off in the power department.

 

[ltslimjim]

Nice going, Jim Allen. That's an interesting twist. I've not considered researching test variances in standardized testing. Go figure?

 

[Jim Allen]

Actually, I screwed up here. I was commenting above on the earlier 2004 Spicer test. The GM Central test is another animal. In an attempt to retain some credibility here, I'll connect both the tests.

RE Spicer Test: here is Where it can be found: Spicer Test

My comments:

No reply back from Spicer but I did get info back from my sources who say that, yes, fine vs coarse dust will skew the efficiency numbers lower on the fines. How much is not linear and depends on the filter's initial efficiency. In the Spicer test, I discovered the same K&N #33-2135 was tested BOTH with coarse AND fine. On the fine dust, it was 89.85% efficient. On the coarse, it was 96.8% efficient. That's a bit over a 7 percent difference in this case. I was happy to see that the higher coarse number is listed on the bar graphs, which settles me down a bit.

The GM Central Test, linked by firebird above, has a lot of variables and inconsistencies because it was not done to an industry standard. It does show the general trend... you can have flow or filtration but not an abundance of both in the same filter. In reading between the lines, I think that's what the producers of the test were trying say but as with many such things, it's also being used as "evidence" that one filter is "better" than another. It's much less valid and useful taken that way.


The teachable moment here is to remember that when viewing and comparing air filter tests, take note of the type of dust used. Fine dust will "challenge" any filter more and skew it's numbers downward. It's safe to compare results from different ISO 5011:2000 tests as long as you look at the details. One of the major details is coarse vs fine dust.