AMSOIL Ea is the best?

[00firebird]

I've had a K&N for like 60k miles without issue but I'm thinking it's about time to replace it. Nothing lasts forever and I got my money's worth out of it. I'm just now reading alot of people saying they filter horribly though. I'm looking at a EAA83 to replace it which is nearly as much as my K&N was. It seems as though the amsoil is far superior though. I guess it makes sense that if it has amazing flow it can't have amazing filtering. I actually read one test where the K&N flowed better than having absolutely no filter in place. fwiw, nothing.
Is the inverse true of the amsoil? It has the greatest filtering, but would it have poor flow? It would only seem logical, but i don't know. Here's a test I read where the amsoil won hands down for filtering.
http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/air-filter-study.html

 

[Donald]

Amsoil is top rate everything filters included. Yes more difficult and expensive than walking into Walmart, but most would say its worth it. You should do a UOA of your oil with a K&N filter and see how much silicon is in your oil. If there is dirt in the air (going into engine) there is dirt in the oil.

Amsoil use to sell the oiled foam filters, but got rid of them years ago.

 

[TallPaul]

Fram has oiled air filers too and I can't find them anymore. Yes, the air filtration if very important to the oil and engine cleaness, far more so than the oil filter, but with poor air filteration, you better have a good oil filter. Sorry to hear that K&N oil filter is not that great. I'll have to look into the Amsoil filters next time.

 

[barlowc]

Originally Posted By: TallPaul
Sorry to hear that K&N oil filter is not that great.

I believe we're talking about K&N air filters here.

As Donald suggested, do a UOA with the K&N air filter and see how much silicon is in your oil. It's an indicator of how much dirt is getting in. You can also examine the air intake conduit AFTER the filter and see if there's any dirt/dust coating it.

I am running K&N filters in both of the vehicles in my signature. The silicon levels in my UOAs are fine and when I inspected the Saturn's intake conduit, there was no dust of any kind. So while I probably wouldn't get a K&N air filter if I were to do it over, it seems to be doing a fine job in my vehicles.

 

[Donald]

Seems to me if people are worried about air flow, get a turbo rather than a filter that trades filtration for flow.

 

[Donald]

Seems to me if people are worried about air flow, get a turbo rather than a filter that trades filtration for flow.

 

[ltslimjim]

I agree with the others. Get better filtration.

That's a pretty funny comment, Donald. lol

 

[Shannow]

After Donald's remarks, I'm going to sort of go out on a limb here.

A super flowing filter is only "good" at full throttle, while a super filtering air filter is good all day every day.

For a normally driven car, air filter restriction is cumulative with what's already being applied by the driver as throttle plate restriction, so a degree or two of throttle plate, couple with a more restrictive filter means nothing in terms of part throttle acceleration, or fuel economy.

The driver dials in with his right foot a "power output", and if there's a restrictive, or partially blocked filter, it's a little more throttle...and MAF/MAP, the same nett result in terms of fuel burned.

Full throttle power, and the air filter means something, and you can decide how much more wear you need for the hp.

Turbodiesel, and the wastegate is gauged off ambient anyway, so boost doesn't see the air filter either.

Per the linked test, a vacuum source isn't truly representative of a power train, and may have been better served by dialling up an engine at (say) 100hp, with the test and scientific filter in service, then introducing the contaminant and seeing a resultant.

I'm worrying a lot less about my air filters lately.

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
After

A super flowing filter is only "good" at full throttle, while a super filtering air filter is good all day every day.

For a normally driven car, air filter restriction is cumulative with what's already being applied by the driver as throttle plate restriction, so a degree or two of throttle plate, couple with a more restrictive filter means nothing in terms of part throttle acceleration, or fuel economy.

The driver dials in with his right foot a "power output", and if there's a restrictive, or partially blocked filter, it's a little more throttle...and MAF/MAP, the same nett result in terms of fuel burned.

Full throttle power, and the air filter means something, and you can decide how much more wear you need for the hp.


Well said. In fact, the part I highlighted in red is brilliantly said!

The only part I disagree with is your comments on the linked Spicer test. I found it the most useful air filter test done thus far. It was focused around a particular size of filter and engine, so it directly benefitted only those with a similar vehicle but I found a fair bit of useful general info there too that really got me to thinking at the time. Spicer's test were done according to SAE protocols,so they could be compared to industry tests. Knowing a particular filter's particular airflow capacity and dirt capacity, the airflow needs of the engine to attain maximum power, you can estimate the approximate point at which power will be lost due to restriction. That's the ideal point to change the filter... even though you can go father if you operate below that full-power point.Anyway, the Spicer test was an eye opener for me when it came out and inspired a lot of study on my part, so I suppose I have an irrational need to defend it.

Still you aren't wrong about your proposed "realer-world" test, it's just that Spicer did it according to SAE test parameters and that's comparable to other info you might find out there. That's the value of his test, IMO.

To bring this back on point to the Amsoil topic, they do make great filters but there are some that equal them for less money.

 

[martinq]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
To bring this back on point to the Amsoil topic, they do make great filters but there are some that equal them for less money.

Ohhhh ... c'mon. You have to keep us hanging?!?

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
To bring this back on point to the Amsoil topic, they do make great filters but there are some that equal them for less money.

Ohhhh ... c'mon. You have to keep us hanging?!?


Two that come to mind are AEM dryflow and AFE dryflow. There may be others but I have seen test results for those that are right there with Amsoil for a bit less money. The Donaldson Power Core is another great filter media, but with no (or very few) applications in passenger car or light truck realms. The Spicer test showed that some of the premium replacement filters are right up there in terms of efficiency too, but since that test is scratching at 10 years old, the results may not be useful now. Application is always an issue, so you may find your app with one company and not another (assuming we are talking about drop ins, not a full aftermarket/CAI type performance replacement). In comparing mfr. info, always try to determine the test method because you may not be able to compare results from two different companies if they use a different method. You can make you filter look really good by choosing a coarse test dust. The biggest problems are the lack of data about the standard replacement fitlers, Fram, Wix, Purolator, etc. We just don't have much info on their performance. It's somewhat application specific too. Many times, they use the same media for all the filters but sometimes a change is needed for a particular application. It looks to me like the "premium" lines are just that and use a better media. Generally. We just don't know their actual performance.

 

[TallPaul]

Originally Posted By: barlowc
Originally Posted By: TallPaul
Sorry to hear that K&N oil filter is not that great.

I believe we're talking about K&N air filters here.

Oops!

Gotta remember to check the forum when I jump in from the recent topics sidebar. So my K&N oil filter is not that bad after all. Still, wouldn't hurt to check out Amsoils oil filters.

 

[Jim Allen]

Actually I believe we are talking about "high efficiency" filtration. The Amsoil certainly fits there but I don't think a K&N (or any other oiled cotton gauze) does. The specs I have on them put them at "average." Which is often OK, depending on the environment in which the vehicle operates. If your oil cotton gauze filter has the option of the foam sock, that really improves filtration and so equipped, I'd put it into "high efficiency" status. To me, "high efficiency" means 99.XX efficiency with ISO fine grade test dust.

 

[Ken2]

Back to 00firebird's question...what is your goal? None of the filters mentioned will cause significant engine wear in the length of time most of us own a vehicle, and none will make a performance difference that can be measured in less than a coupl'a hundredths of a second, if any. None at all will make any gas mileage difference.

If you can really feel a performance difference (not just louder intake noise), go with that one. Otherwise, spend your money on changing any top quality standard filter more often.

(By the way, a K&N air filter in my turbo Volvo was the only one that left dust on the downstream side of the airbox. Results vary, but no more K&Ns for me.)

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
The only part I disagree with is your comments on the linked Spicer test. I found it the most useful air filter test done thus far. It was focused around a particular size of filter and engine, so it directly benefitted only those with a similar vehicle but I found a fair bit of useful general info there too that really got me to thinking at the time. Spicer's test were done according to SAE protocols,so they could be compared to industry tests.


I'll cede those points, and agree that the test gives heaps of useful information.

 

[ltslimjim]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Actually I believe we are talking about "high efficiency" filtration. The Amsoil certainly fits there but I don't think a K&N (or any other oiled cotton gauze) does. The specs I have on them put them at "average." Which is often OK, depending on the environment in which the vehicle operates. If your oil cotton gauze filter has the option of the foam sock, that really improves filtration and so equipped, I'd put it into "high efficiency" status. To me, "high efficiency" means 99.XX efficiency with ISO fine grade test dust.


+1, good post.

 

[dailydriver]

I use an EaO 83 on my LS1 in the late fall-winter-early spring (crushed leaves, dust, SALT dust, POLLEN, etc.

), and an AFE Dry Flow in the LATE spring/summer.

 

[gizzsdad]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
I use an EaO 83 on my LS1 in the late fall-winter-early spring (crushed leaves, dust, SALT dust, POLLEN, etc.

), and an AFE Dry Flow in the LATE spring/summer.

I would be curious as to your washing method for the aFe - just run tap water through it, or use some of their cleaner products??

 

[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.

 

[gizzsdad]

Thanks Steve!