sorry, double-post.
Last edited:
Can anyone offer proof that K&N is inferior?
- Thread starter gulledge
- Start date
- Status
I don't know if this has been posted already but here is what I consider proof.
http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm
http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm
So does that mean the pictures I've posted from the main page air filter test are wrong too?
I wish I had that impression but try as I might I can't seem to get there. Must be me.
Everyone has an agenda, whether they realize it or not.
BTW, K&N used to have data on their website that showed that a K&N didn't filter as well as a "paper" element.
I suppose that's true. It didn't come out right though. I meant no offense to Terry. Just that sometimes certain things don't seem to add up. As for using a K&N been there done that. Seen the results. I've passed on them ever since.
You don't see them used on multi hundred thousand dollar off road military or construction vehicles either. And it's not because they haven't been tried.
Spoken like a true K&N apologist...lol.
Tell me, what did the person(s) running the air filter test off the main page of BITOG have to gain? They ran OEM, aftermarket paper, & aftermarket cotton gauze filters in the test. I don't see how anyone could say they had an "agenda" other than to show how those 6 filters performed. I'm sure if the same test was run 10 times you'd have the same results each time.
Tell me, what did the person(s) running the air filter test off the main page of BITOG have to gain? They ran OEM, aftermarket paper, & aftermarket cotton gauze filters in the test. I don't see how anyone could say they had an "agenda" other than to show how those 6 filters performed. I'm sure if the same test was run 10 times you'd have the same results each time.
If you think they are great, use them. I think all cotton gauze filters are terrible, or at least inferior to paper. This belief comes from seeing all the grit that got by them in dusty conditions. I do not see the grit with paper filters.
That's not a problem. K&N will custom make filters to any size you want. Their charge to develop a new sized filter is less than the major manufacturers charge for a new "paper" filter.
They also make a large variety of flat panel filters, up to about 24 x 20 inch that can be adapted to lot of large equipment
That's proof that Terry has used UOAs to look at silicon levels and based on that K&N's have done ok. Air filter makers don't use UOAs to tell how well their filters work; they use ISO 5011 air filter tests and other industry-specific test procedures that provide not only accuracy of data but much more data than silicon levels in UOAs can provide.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Well, I've used a K&N on my wife's jeep for 5 years. I've done several UOA and didn't show any out of whack contaminant or wear metal indications. I bought it to reclaim the air box space for the installation of remote filtration. That is, I didn't buy the K&N with any notions of "unleashing the hidden horsepower trapped within your engine" (yeah, in a jeep 4.0 ..right). I just wanted the space (now I know that I have more then I thought). I don't use remote filters anymore so I may put the stock air box back on ...but I won't be in any hurry.
I'm not saying that K&N filters are inferior but, I would say to leave them only on race applications. Almost all my co workers run K&N air filters on their personal trucks. My boss commented that he had taken his son's filter off his pick up truck and commented on how much dirt had made it's way into the intake tube. The screw drivers and rackets came out and the guys started to dismantle their airboxes to take a look at theirs. Guess what? All had some amount of dirt in the intake tubes.
This was on chevy, ford, and dodge pickups in the lot. The guys who had plain paper filters pulled theirs and found no dirt in the tubes.
This was on chevy, ford, and dodge pickups in the lot. The guys who had plain paper filters pulled theirs and found no dirt in the tubes.
My agenda is to sell my service in an unbiased fashion. If I can't deliver that to the paying customer ( many who compete against one another), my business is dead.
My agenda in providing info at BITOG was driven by breaking into the "consumer level" market AND to help divide chaff from wheat in marketing vs. science.
You guys are still confusing marketing with science and who you can trust. A never ending battle, I would say like science, accuracy over time should be a good indicator.
JAG, I see and work data that is not just consumer level UOA, I just can't share it here because I don't own it.
I can share my opinions based on many varied aspects of testing though.
K&N is a PIA to keep clean and properly serviced. If its not perfect OR has loaded with dust,dirt,pollen,oil,salts,potassium chloride,Urea, it will cause a artificial riching effect that the ECU won't be able to compensate for. If the media has micro tears or is channnelling the debris you have increased wear effect from the fuels acting like cutting lubes for the dirt.
Every filter can do this but, because of the oiled gauze, and variable of servicing we pay closer attention to K&N.
My agenda in providing info at BITOG was driven by breaking into the "consumer level" market AND to help divide chaff from wheat in marketing vs. science.
You guys are still confusing marketing with science and who you can trust. A never ending battle, I would say like science, accuracy over time should be a good indicator.
JAG, I see and work data that is not just consumer level UOA, I just can't share it here because I don't own it.
I can share my opinions based on many varied aspects of testing though.
K&N is a PIA to keep clean and properly serviced. If its not perfect OR has loaded with dust,dirt,pollen,oil,salts,potassium chloride,Urea, it will cause a artificial riching effect that the ECU won't be able to compensate for. If the media has micro tears or is channnelling the debris you have increased wear effect from the fuels acting like cutting lubes for the dirt.
Every filter can do this but, because of the oiled gauze, and variable of servicing we pay closer attention to K&N.
the funny thing to me is the scale of the graphs used to portray the filtering performance in most of the visuals used...the difference between 97% and 99% looks huge when the graph only covers 5% of the chart...the scale could easily show the full 100% range and the difference would be hardly discernable to the naked eye...not that the 2% is the actual scientific difference nor that 2% isn't the difference between a clean engine and a dirty one, because i don't know...just a general observation on the visuals
what about the farmer in louisiana who has documented records showing over a million miles on his gm pickup with a k&n filter? would he have a million left had he used paper?
what about the farmer in louisiana who has documented records showing over a million miles on his gm pickup with a k&n filter? would he have a million left had he used paper?
2% difference could be a lot, if 1% (99% efficient) represents passing a certain amount of dirt (say 1 gram), 3% (97% efficient) would be 3 times as much dirt.
- Status
