I'm looking into a cone filter for my new turbo car, for the turbo inlet. Custom turbo kit. Any direct comparisons between the 2? I read on here in a thread that the Amsoil isn't happy if it gets wet, is that true? The filter will be exposed in the engine bay, behind the headlight. Can you get a sock for the AEM like you can for the Amsoil? Any help is appreciated. Thanks!!!
Comparison between Amsoil Ea and AEM DryFlow??
- Thread starter KenO
- Start date
- Status
You might want to check out this website, unfourtunately they don't have a direct comparison, but they do show that AEM's filtering efficiency is low(~95%) compared to others(98-99%). http://thetruthaboutfilters.com
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: JSP
You might want to check out this website, unfourtunately they don't have a direct comparison, but they do show that AEM's filtering efficiency is low(~95%) compared to others(98-99%). http://thetruthaboutfilters.com
I was surprised, the K&N actually did VERY well in their tests...........
You might want to check out this website, unfourtunately they don't have a direct comparison, but they do show that AEM's filtering efficiency is low(~95%) compared to others(98-99%). http://thetruthaboutfilters.com
I was surprised, the K&N actually did VERY well in their tests...........
I didn't get a chance to look at that website last night much, but it seems like a site made by a filter manufacturer?? Not sure how much I trust possibly biased testing.....
Regardless, the 2 filters I mentioned are the only 2 I'm considering. Any info on the 2 would be great. Thanks!!
Regardless, the 2 filters I mentioned are the only 2 I'm considering. Any info on the 2 would be great. Thanks!!
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: KenO
I didn't get a chance to look at that website last night much, but it seems like a site made by a filter manufacturer?? Not sure how much I trust possibly biased testing.....
Regardless, the 2 filters I mentioned are the only 2 I'm considering. Any info on the 2 would be great. Thanks!!
Yes, and their filter looks identical to the K&N filters.
I didn't get a chance to look at that website last night much, but it seems like a site made by a filter manufacturer?? Not sure how much I trust possibly biased testing.....
Regardless, the 2 filters I mentioned are the only 2 I'm considering. Any info on the 2 would be great. Thanks!!
Yes, and their filter looks identical to the K&N filters.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: KenO
I didn't get a chance to look at that website last night much, but it seems like a site made by a filter manufacturer?? Not sure how much I trust possibly biased testing.....
Regardless, the 2 filters I mentioned are the only 2 I'm considering. Any info on the 2 would be great. Thanks!!
Yes, and their filter looks identical to the K&N filters.
Well, if it looks identical to a K&N - I don't want it. I don't want an oiled element filter.
Originally Posted By: KenO
I didn't get a chance to look at that website last night much, but it seems like a site made by a filter manufacturer?? Not sure how much I trust possibly biased testing.....
Regardless, the 2 filters I mentioned are the only 2 I'm considering. Any info on the 2 would be great. Thanks!!
Yes, and their filter looks identical to the K&N filters.
Well, if it looks identical to a K&N - I don't want it. I don't want an oiled element filter.
a reputable 3rd party lab disagrees with those findings:
http://aempower.com/files/swri_dff_test_data_10-7.pdf
http://aempower.com/files/swri_dff_test_data_10-7.pdf
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: badtlc
a reputable 3rd party lab disagrees with those findings:
http://aempower.com/files/swri_dff_test_data_10-7.pdf
Good read!!!!
a reputable 3rd party lab disagrees with those findings:
http://aempower.com/files/swri_dff_test_data_10-7.pdf
Good read!!!!
Yeah, I forgot to mention the company also makes their own filters, but by looking over their data I don't think they skew their data. I have used their data to determine for me the best air filter for my application was a Wix not S&B, but I have a small motor that really doesn't require that much air.
The 3rd party lab doesn't disagree, instead it further confirms the data. The test setups were different one used coarse dust the other fine dust, one used air flow rate of 628cfm for determining filtering efficiency the other 240cfm.
http://thetruthaboutfilters.com/results/ISO_5011_Test_Results-AEMandAFE_Dry.pdf
http://thetruthaboutfilters.com/results/ISO_5011_Test_Results-Amsoil_EaA123.pdf
Which filter is best for you depends on the application you are going to be using it at. Since you have a turbo I assume your air flow will be greater than 240cfm, so I would have to recommend the Amsoil EaA based on the greater filtering efficiency.
The 3rd party lab doesn't disagree, instead it further confirms the data. The test setups were different one used coarse dust the other fine dust, one used air flow rate of 628cfm for determining filtering efficiency the other 240cfm.
http://thetruthaboutfilters.com/results/ISO_5011_Test_Results-AEMandAFE_Dry.pdf
http://thetruthaboutfilters.com/results/ISO_5011_Test_Results-Amsoil_EaA123.pdf
Which filter is best for you depends on the application you are going to be using it at. Since you have a turbo I assume your air flow will be greater than 240cfm, so I would have to recommend the Amsoil EaA based on the greater filtering efficiency.
Thanks everybody. Looks like I'll probably go with the Amsoil then.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JSP
The 3rd party lab doesn't disagree, instead it further confirms the data. The test setups were different one used coarse dust the other fine dust, one used air flow rate of 628cfm for determining filtering efficiency the other 240cfm.
Um, you might be confused. In the SWRI lab tests they used fine dust, not coarse dust. The fine dust is more difficult to filter and yet the AEM and dryflow both filter a lot better than in the S&B tests. This points very much towards S&B skewing their data and it doesnt at all correspond to the 3rd party testing.
S&B did use greater CFMs, but hate to break it to you, 99% of the people out there aren't running a huge diesel like S&B tested.
The 3rd party lab doesn't disagree, instead it further confirms the data. The test setups were different one used coarse dust the other fine dust, one used air flow rate of 628cfm for determining filtering efficiency the other 240cfm.
Um, you might be confused. In the SWRI lab tests they used fine dust, not coarse dust. The fine dust is more difficult to filter and yet the AEM and dryflow both filter a lot better than in the S&B tests. This points very much towards S&B skewing their data and it doesnt at all correspond to the 3rd party testing.
S&B did use greater CFMs, but hate to break it to you, 99% of the people out there aren't running a huge diesel like S&B tested.
The filter efficiency test for both labs were only taken at one air flow rate, so you really can't compare the labs based on that test alone. The air flow restriction test is tested at multiple air flow rates and this test showed similar results at both labs. Is it possible that S&B skewed their results? Sure, but in IMHO they didn't.
A 2.5L turbocharged engine will see around 450 CFM at 6000rpms. A 5.0L supercharged engine will see around 675 CFM at 6000rpms. A 3L NA engine will see around 250 CFM at 6000rpms.
Sure it would have been nice if either lab tested filter efficiency at different air flow rates, but they didn't. So, yeah if your engine is not going to be pulling above 240 CFM the AEM filter is probably a great filter choice. The Amsoil showed a large filter capacity, which means that you will have to clean it less.
A 2.5L turbocharged engine will see around 450 CFM at 6000rpms. A 5.0L supercharged engine will see around 675 CFM at 6000rpms. A 3L NA engine will see around 250 CFM at 6000rpms.
Sure it would have been nice if either lab tested filter efficiency at different air flow rates, but they didn't. So, yeah if your engine is not going to be pulling above 240 CFM the AEM filter is probably a great filter choice. The Amsoil showed a large filter capacity, which means that you will have to clean it less.
Looks like I'm probably going to go with the Amsoil filter then. Thanks guys!!!
if Amsoil does not make the filter for your car...which filter should be bext choice...
I am currently using K&N...SICK of washing drying and oiling it every six months....so who would be closer to Amsoil's (from technological point of view) Air filter?
who filter and do not comprimise air flow...heard K&N is real bad at filtering?
any comments..please share!
I am currently using K&N...SICK of washing drying and oiling it every six months....so who would be closer to Amsoil's (from technological point of view) Air filter?
who filter and do not comprimise air flow...heard K&N is real bad at filtering?
any comments..please share!
^ Why are you washing/drying/oiling every 6 mos on your K&N? Do you drive 50k mi in 6 mos, or drive in extremely dirty/dusty conditions? Let it get dirty, and do it's job.
no i do not drive in extreme dirty dusty conditions...i average 25K KM in six months...I thought those were the instructions?
^ Sorry to get off topic, but this is from K&N's website:
"If you have not experienced a decrease in mileage or engine performance, chances are your filter is fine and does not yet need cleaning. To be more specific, the filter does not require cleaning if you can still see the wire screen on the entire air filter regardless of how dirty it may appear. When the screen is no longer visible some place on the filter, it is time to clean it. When used in normal paved road, street or highway conditions, our replacement air filters that fit in the factory air box should require cleaning every 50,000 miles and our large conical filters on an intake system should require cleaning every 100,000 miles. When used in dusty or off-road environments, our filters will require cleaning more often. We recommend that you visually inspect your filter once every 25,000 miles to determine if the screen is still visible."
This is often the problem and creates some of the bad rep. People clean them too often, and use too much oil.
"If you have not experienced a decrease in mileage or engine performance, chances are your filter is fine and does not yet need cleaning. To be more specific, the filter does not require cleaning if you can still see the wire screen on the entire air filter regardless of how dirty it may appear. When the screen is no longer visible some place on the filter, it is time to clean it. When used in normal paved road, street or highway conditions, our replacement air filters that fit in the factory air box should require cleaning every 50,000 miles and our large conical filters on an intake system should require cleaning every 100,000 miles. When used in dusty or off-road environments, our filters will require cleaning more often. We recommend that you visually inspect your filter once every 25,000 miles to determine if the screen is still visible."
This is often the problem and creates some of the bad rep. People clean them too often, and use too much oil.
thank you....i was going to clean it next month....well...i guess i am okay for a WHILE now...thank you!
^NP -- I know it's very hard to get in this mindset. The mind will tell you that "if it looks dirty, it needs cleaning". I feel the same way, and have to force myself to leave it. For mostly "city" driving, this could take a long time. My dad used and open-air K&N while living on a farm (daily gravel road travel). Now his got dirty!
- Status
Similar threads
