Hello everyone I'm new to this forum and have tried the search button and could not find a thread on this so I'm posting. My question is which of these 2 cone air filters does a better job at filtering, the AEM dryfow or Amsoil Ea cone filer? I not to concerned about the flow since both provide the engine with more then enough air. Thank you for you help.
Amsoil Ea or AEM Dryflow
- Thread starter sixonthefloor
- Start date
- Status
I think there is no independent study that I know of - hence no one has answered your post. I keep hoping someone will do a new study.
Amsoil posts this:
Amsoil EaA
Amsoil posts this:
Amsoil EaA
Information from AEM's website:
Element is cleanable and is guaranteed for the life of your vehicle
DRYFLOW air filter will NOT void your vehicle’s warranty
Delivers 99.4% cumulative filtration efficiency, based on independent SAE J276 JUN93 Fine Dust Air Cleaner Test Code procedures
AEM has had independent studies of their airfilters, but I don't know that any comparisons between AEM and amsoil. There are a couple out there between AEM and KN..
http://www.aempower.com/files/dryflow/SWRIresults_injen5inch-kn9inch-airaid9inch.pdf
But in the end, this says it all for me:
Our unique non-woven polyester element filters out 98.6% of airborne dust in initial efficiency (99.4% cumulative efficiency), and filters down to ONE MICRON of particulate!
Element is cleanable and is guaranteed for the life of your vehicle
DRYFLOW air filter will NOT void your vehicle’s warranty
Delivers 99.4% cumulative filtration efficiency, based on independent SAE J276 JUN93 Fine Dust Air Cleaner Test Code procedures
AEM has had independent studies of their airfilters, but I don't know that any comparisons between AEM and amsoil. There are a couple out there between AEM and KN..
http://www.aempower.com/files/dryflow/SWRIresults_injen5inch-kn9inch-airaid9inch.pdf
But in the end, this says it all for me:
Our unique non-woven polyester element filters out 98.6% of airborne dust in initial efficiency (99.4% cumulative efficiency), and filters down to ONE MICRON of particulate!
thanks for the info everyone
Oh wait, Pablo what does the EA filter down to? I know the AEM filters down to one micron. If I understand your second link correctly it syays the EA filters down to .08 micron. Is this correct?
Hey sixonthefloor. Good to see a fellow TN'er finally posting here.
The Amsoil page says the EA filters 5x better than cellulose filters at 0.8 microns. That seems pretty shady to me. Technically, cellulose could filter at 1% efficiency at 0.8 microns in which case 5x better would be 5% efficient.
There is no hard evidence on the filtration numbers for the EA filters. Just some marketing slides. While they may indeed possibly filter better than the AEM DryFlow, I still prefer the one that posts their SAE test results.
The Amsoil page says the EA filters 5x better than cellulose filters at 0.8 microns. That seems pretty shady to me. Technically, cellulose could filter at 1% efficiency at 0.8 microns in which case 5x better would be 5% efficient.
There is no hard evidence on the filtration numbers for the EA filters. Just some marketing slides. While they may indeed possibly filter better than the AEM DryFlow, I still prefer the one that posts their SAE test results.
i have a dryflow and satisfied.
boone88rr,
As an engineer, I suggest you run your own tests of this filter in comparison to anything else out there. I think you'll see the small particle efficiency is indeed superior.
The "nanofiber" technology used in these filters has already been thoroughly proven by Donaldson Corp in OTR trucks and commercial applications, as well as in the M1 Abrams tank. All Amsoil is doing is licensing it and applying it to passenger vehicles.
I'm not familar with the AEM dryflow, but it also looks to be an excellent product. I don't think you can go wrong with either one...
Ted
As an engineer, I suggest you run your own tests of this filter in comparison to anything else out there. I think you'll see the small particle efficiency is indeed superior.
The "nanofiber" technology used in these filters has already been thoroughly proven by Donaldson Corp in OTR trucks and commercial applications, as well as in the M1 Abrams tank. All Amsoil is doing is licensing it and applying it to passenger vehicles.
I'm not familar with the AEM dryflow, but it also looks to be an excellent product. I don't think you can go wrong with either one...
Ted
Well Ted, as an engineer you can learn to read between the lines. If the media is as good as advertised, post the test results.
I really like Amsoil products. Frankly, I can't stand their marketing. This is just another example of why.
If you can't be straight with me, then I feel you are hiding something.
I have been very happy with my AEM. As with my UOA results.
AMSOIL is collaborating with a number of different oil and air filter manufacturers. As a practical matter, they are not about to publish any kind of comparisons which would be equivalent to throwing rocks at the guys you are working with.
Far as specs on the AEM, I doubt that AMSOIL has even looked at them for comparison purposes--
Far as specs on the AEM, I doubt that AMSOIL has even looked at them for comparison purposes--
Do the new Amsoil cone replacement filters have a metal frame? I'm just curious because the AEM Dry Flow I purchased seems to be rubber, which turned out to be beneficial during installation of their 9" filter on my Jeep.
I was torn on which one to get. I went with the AEM because it was cheaper and there seemed to be a sizeable user base experiencing good results. I suspect either of these filters would be better than the K&N I replaced. At least I hope that's the case.
I was torn on which one to get. I went with the AEM because it was cheaper and there seemed to be a sizeable user base experiencing good results. I suspect either of these filters would be better than the K&N I replaced. At least I hope that's the case.
I will bring this post back to offer the following link to an off-site study (I have no connection with this study on the publisher). I find the results interesting and I would be very interested in hearing comments. The article does not elaborate on specific testing methods. In their tests the AEM and Airaid come out ahead of the EaA. I have not put my hands on an AEM however having had my hands on several EaA drop-in filters and currently having an Airaid, I find these results to be questionable. Is there anyone here on the board that has the resources to run independant testing?
http://www.jpmagazine.com/shop4parts/154_0611_jeep_air_filter_upgrades/index.html
http://www.jpmagazine.com/shop4parts/154_0611_jeep_air_filter_upgrades/index.html
Does this mean that the Fram SynWash filters may be very good after all??
I question that study as well. Actually I question most magazine studies. I'm not sure how great their test methods are, but you always have to look at who advertises in the mag........
I have the Amsoil Cone filter...3.5" by 6....The only "issue" I have is the fact you vacuum it versus the AEM wash and dry method....I am watching the silicon in my UOA's to verify it continues to filter with a vacuum job....first UOA was skewed by a missing nitrous plug in the intake tube...so we had to throw that one out....next one will reflect how will the Amsoil is doing versus the oiled KN.....most curious of the long term numbers with the cleaning methodology of the Amsoil.
Do the Amsoil EaO filters use a rigid, or metal, frame?
Metal mesh just like KN. The AEM I just put on my Dodge R/T has a really cive plastic skeleton insude....
I just had keyboard stroke. I meant to say the AEM has a really nice plastic skeleton frame.....the Amsoil is wire mesh just like KN.....
- Status
