Amsoil Oiled Foam>???-Opinions?

[ULVER]

After having a K&N that was shoddy in construction, I tried an Amsoil oiled foam filter. Fit nicely (K&N didn't). Lately, it seems so many, dispute the advantage of any "specialty" air filter. Flow/filtering basically no better than plain paper. PAPER!!!

Amsoil makes such incredible claims for all their products. When it comes to oils, many seem to believe them. Could they really have dropped the ball, on the air filter, they so highly tout?
Oiled foam>???

 

[msparks]

After reading the Airfilter study one would think that anything besides AC delco is going to scrap your engine.

Well, If you notice on the tests even some of the paper filters did worse than the Amsoil as far as effeciency goes.

Now on the capacity part, wow, I was amazed at the difference. Does that mean your air filter will be totally clogged at one point? I doubt it if you are cleaning it at the proper interval.

Personally I'll continue to use my Amsoil oiled foam filter. I think it does a good job overall. It might not be as effecient as the AC delco, but that was only one application, for one type of vehicle. Could you be sure that all stock airfilters are like that. I don't know.

 

[Mike_dup1]

I have a Amsoil Flowzair filter in all my vehicle (4 of them). Recently had a UOA done on one of them for the heck of it. The filter was in there for 1 year and around 11,000 miles. The measure of air filter on the UOA is silicon (dirt) and mine was at 15ppm. Don't know if this is good or bad? Seems normal to me..I am half tempter to put back in the new OEM AC Delco and run that for the next year to have a comparison but a year is too long for me to keep up the interest.

NOTE-Per the report, silicon can also leach from gaskets/sealants and oil coolers.

 

[SPICER]

quote:

---

It might not be as effecient as the AC delco, but that was only one application, for one type of vehicle. Could you be sure that all stock airfilters are like that. I don't know. [/QB]

---

I don't think the specific application would cause the filters to "rank" differently than in this study. AC paper is AC paper, foam is foam. The efficiency should be the same. The ONLY thing that may be different for other applications would be dirt holding capacity. For instance, in our study (for a diesel pickup truck) a paper filter has a LOT of pleats. 1 and 1/2 times as many pleats as the identically sized paper filter for the gas engines. This extra paper allows for more dirt holding capacity before clogged.

Honestly a turbo charged diesel is one of the most air hungry machines on the road. At these flow rates the non-paper filters did poorly. Ironically, paper filter designs are modified (more pleats) to accomodate for higher air flows on turbo diesels. The K&N and AMSOIL and UNI were NO different from their gas engine counterparts. May be one of the reasons they clogged so fast and filtered so poorly. It may be that our study, using turbo diesel flow rates, exagerated the differences between paper, foam and gauze. However, the fact remains that if you use foam or gauze you WILL let in more dirt. You may still get low silicon numbers on oil analysis, but you are not doing your engine any favors using one of these air filters. Plain and simple.

This is in ADDITION to the fact that without further modifications (such as a chip and bigger exhaust and intake) you will also NEVER see the HP gains claimed by K&N and others. When the study was published on dieselplace.com, a K&N employee jumped on defending the product. After presenting data to him he did finally concede that on our trucks there would be NO performance gains. But it IS still printed on the box!
SPICER

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

After having a K&N that was shoddy in construction, I tried an Amsoil oiled foam filter. Fit nicely (K&N didn't). Lately, it seems so many, dispute the advantage of any "specialty" air filter. Flow/filtering basically no better than plain paper. PAPER!!!

Amsoil makes such incredible claims for all their products. When it comes to oils, many seem to believe them. Could they really have dropped the ball, on the air filter, they so highly tout?
Oiled foam>???

---

I am using an Amsoil planar air filter in my Nissan PathFinder and find that it filters better than most (as per UOA's), and a big plus is that it's edges seal better and they don't crack and fall off as do the Frams.

Cleaning and reoiling the oil-wetted filters is kinda of a pain, but I think they trap a lot of dust and dirt. We live on a gravel road and I think that's where oiled filters work best.

 

[SPICER]

quote:

---

Cleaning and reoiling the oil-wetted filters is kinda of a pain, but I think they trap a lot of dust and dirt. We live on a gravel road and I think that's where oiled filters work best. [/QB]

---

Here is the "purpose" of an oiled foam filter. Oiled foam is not "USELESS". It does have a specific application and that application is off-road where water and mud are present.

Water and mud can be disasterous to a paper air filter. Paper, when wet or clogged with mud, can collapse. A collapsed filter can tear and dump a lot of crap into your induction tube and engine. This is why many off road type vehicles use foam instead of paper. FOAM is a COMPROMISE between filtering performance and protection from a collapsed filter. It DOESN'T filter as well as paper but is a whole lot better choice in wet/muddy conditions because of the risk of a collapsed filter.

Here is where marketing deceit and our own common sense logic suckers us. It SEEMS logical that the type of filter used in the most ADVERSE conditions would be SUPERIOR to a standard paper air filter. In reality (and as proven by ISO 5011/SAE J726) foam FILTERS OUT LESS DIRT, CLOGS FASTER, AND COSTS MORE than paper. So tell me, where is the benefit? Call or write Amsoil and ask to see their SAE/ISO data that PROVES their claims. You won't get it. I tried several times and they refused.

My head was sore and figured they were not refusing to share this data because the data was favorable.

These manufacturers have been very clever in their advertising. I too owned an Amsoil. When my silicon was in the mid teens I asked why. I was told to try a UNI foam filter. I questioned why go from one foam filter to another? I asked UNI for their data too. They refused. Only Baldwin has real data on their website, and even THEY show the OE to be superior.

My whole point is not to push paper. I really don't care what people use, AS LONG AS THEY UNDERSTAND THE COMPROMISE IN FILTERING EFFICIENCY THEY ARE MAKING. SPICER

 

[Mike_dup1]

I have had a Amsoil air filter in our 1993 Lumina V6 sedan since its first oil change. Hard as it may seem, it still running. Uses no oil. We have always changed oil yearly as the vehicle does not rack up a lot miles as its mainly a car to get around with when I don't fell like running the Z71 or the WS6, like in the winter when the roads are bad.

I know some people put lot of credence in tests but I never pay attention to them myself.

I am trying to recall how many times I have celaned it, I can only recall 2 or 3 times in 12 yrs.

 

[Steve S]

There are no better air filters than "paper" .I have never seen any foam or oiled gauze filters on any heavy equipment whose engines cost way more than we all could imagine. I have tried Amsoil filters they seem to not let dirt into the engine but they are a pain to wash and should be allowed to throughly dry before reoiling and installation.

 

[MolaKule]

Any filter is a compromise and in my situation, I have not found a paper filter manf. with a paper filter that:

1. Sealed the edges of the drop-in filter frame/tray.

2. The filter edges actually sealed and didn't crack or spilt.

The Amsoil "Squishamatic" oiled air filters were the only ones that sealed and "conformed" to the PathFinder's drop-in filter frame.

Hey, I am open to suggestions for this specificic application. Always looking for a better Pizza.

 

[Steve S]

I use rtv to seal my air filters. Air filter housings are like the cars they are put in ,cheap and poorly made.

 

[SPICER]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve S:
There are no better air filters than "paper" .I have never seen any foam or oiled gauze filters on any heavy equipment whose engines cost way more than we all could imagine. I have tried Amsoil filters they seem to not let dirt into the engine but they are a pain to wash and should be allowed to throughly dry before reoiling and installation.

---

Very perceptive. George Morrison, a forum member here and on dieselplace.com is a lube engineer and has a lot of experience in the mining industry. In mining, according to George, hundreds of thousands are spent on air filters. The air is THICK with dust. Since paper is not reuseable, a reuseable alternative to paper would make good economic sense.

Guess what, NO washable air filter met the demands. They ALL still use paper.

I have also used rtv sealant. It is always important to check the seal. If it looks questionable, rtv can work very well.

I do not doubt that many vehicles have gone many trouble free miles with reuseable filters. These 2 facts remain (1) They do not filter as well as paper. (2) the manufacturers like Amsoil and K&N REFUSE to publish true comparison data PROVING their claims. Now that we have done the simple side by side comparison study that Amsoil, K&N and others refuse to do, we can see the unbiased results for ourselves. Be decieved no more! SPICER

 

[02RedSpec-V]

I think K&N would flow more air than the thick foam style. I have a K&N Typhoon CAI and I love it. Olded foam should filter good I would think, just more restrincion.

 

[ekpolk]

Rarely mentioned in these discussions is the gain vs. risk analysis. How much more performance does the typical user gain in exchange for giving up optimum filtration? My G35 sedan actually weighs slightly less than a V-6 Camry (my last car) but generates a lot more hp and torque (260/260 vs 210/220). The car performs startlingly well already. In addition, the G has an extra flow opening in the ducting that allows the owner a direct look at the filtering surface, making it easy to monitor filter condition. For me, I just can't see any good reason to compromise filtration by not using the OEM filter (which looks like some form of fluffy paper).

 

[1sttruck]

From what I've gathered so far good paper filters work a lot better than oiled foam filters, but can clog quickly. Good oiled foam filters don't clog as easily and can flow well longer. It seems like for severe conditions you'd want to use a large, lightly oiled foam filter as a pre-filter for a paper filter. The pre-filter would allow the paper filter to last longer, keep water and mud off of it, and the pre-filter could be cleaned and re-oiled if it got clogged.

 

[SPICER]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1sttruck:
From what I've gathered so far good paper filters work a lot better than oiled foam filters, but can clog quickly. Good oiled foam filters don't clog as easily and can flow well longer. It seems like for severe conditions you'd want to use a large, lightly oiled foam filter as a pre-filter for a paper filter. The pre-filter would allow the paper filter to last longer, keep water and mud off of it, and the pre-filter could be cleaned and re-oiled if it got clogged.

---

No No No, quite the contrary my friend. Please read the results of the air filter study! You are right about paper filtering better. However, it is the Oiled foam and gauze that clogged the fastest. In fact, the paper filters were able to hold about 2.5X the dirt before clogging than tha foam and gauze. The ONLY thing foam and gauze did better was flow air. More flow=More dirt passing into the engine. Plain and simple. And the supposed horsepower gain from these "free flowing" filters is merely marketing deception. Unless you are driving a race car you will NEVER flow enough air volume to notice the restriction loss caused by a "more restrictive" paper filter. SPICER

 

[ULVER]

[ November 05, 2004, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: ULVER ]

 

[ULVER]

Well Spicer, due to the sincere spirit of your test, and the additional comments you've offered---I ordered a couple AC-Delco air filters. I will shelve the Amsoil foam. I would suspect the difference felt will be ZERO.

I had a K&N at one time, but I didn't like the construction quality. Strangely---I never felt the 15 horsepower they promised, by just droping their filter in>???

My gut feeling is that flowing more air (AND DIRT!) may have some apps, at WOT for racing. For daily drivers, even say...Firebirds, I don't think it "works". And...seems filtering is still the most important job...for a FILTER.

 

[LarryL]

Can oil from these foam filters damage a mass-air-flow sensor?

 

[ULVER]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LarryL:
Can oil from these foam filters damage a mass-air-flow sensor?

---

LarryL:

I had a K&N right out of the box, that soaked my MAF sensor. It never ran too good with the K&N, and the construction was shoddy. They make a beautiful hi-flow oil filter, but I don't like the "performance" air filter too much.

I went to the Amsoil FOAM. Never a prob with the MAF. Can't say that the Amsoil made much difference. In performance. It may have trapped more dirt. Then again, the AC-Delco paper filter traps even more.

Bottom line: Most of us don't drive RACE CARS. Hi-flow filters seem to offer ZERO in terms of performance, for a daily driver. They may---including foam---allow more dirt into the engine.

 

[AndyH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LarryL:
Can oil from these foam filters damage a mass-air-flow sensor?

---

Yes, there have been some MAF failures on Audi S4's due to over-oiled foam and cotton gauze air filters.