Is there a direct corelation between different types of air filters used and oil longevity/efficacy/service, etc.? What about cotton/guaze ie. K&N? Do these actually work? Do these increase the life of the oil or decrease it? Does more dirt go past contaminating the oil quicker or is there a cleaner running engine, hence cleaner oil? What about foam filters?
Different types of air filters and Engine oil???
- Thread starter Dr. T
- Start date
- Status
![[Roll Eyes]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif){kind=icon}
Patman
Staff member
It's not the K&N filter oil that is increasing the silicon, it's the fact that the K&Ns let in more dirt, and dirt=silicon on oil analysis.
He's talking about silica (silicon dioxide) which is present in soil and natural dusts. Basically DIRT, i.e. abrasive.
You are thinking of silicone, which will still be detected by analysis but not cause problems with wear. This can come from the gaskets on some new cars, and liquid gaskets sometimes used in repair. But the Si levels will drop off over time.
I've run a K&N for over 25,00 miles now, cleaned it once a few months ago, so I'm interested in all of this. My 1st analysis, on Schaeffer S7K 10w30, showed Si at 11 ppm. The oil starts at ~9 ppm(see Bob's post on virgin oil analysis). If we assume it depleted half of the original Si in 3,263 miles(only a guess, no idea how much it depletes), that gives us a net gain of less than 7 ppm Si in 3,263 miles. If it depleted less, net gain even less. If it depleted all of it, 11 is still pretty close to the magic single digit. And the filter had been cleaned less than 3,000 miles before this fill, didn't have much "extra filtration dirt" on it yet. This seems like good filtration to me. If I'm missing something, please tell me what.
My point? How much better could a good paper, or oiled foam, filter have done? ![[I dont know]](/forums/graemlins/dunno.gif)
Patman
Staff member
Stuart, that does sound good, but I wonder what your interval would've been like with a paper filter?
I guess I will find out myself next year, as one of my upcoming modifications will be a K&N cold air kit for my LT1. If the silicon numbers go up, I will most likely put some sort of foam wrap around the K&N to help it filter better. If the numbers look the same, I'll leave it alone.
Here is an oil analysis using K&N replacement air filter:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000067#000000
The seal was a good fitment in my car. And the air filter system seems to contaminate my air filter like it's a diesel engine or something.
Regards,
Oz
On my previous vehicle, a 93 Olds Ciera 3.3 Buick V6, I had no problems with high silicon readings, even at a 12k interval, but with my present car, a 96 Impala 5.7 LT1, I did get a high reading, but I've not given up on the filter just yet.
I pulled it off for a Purolator, and will see how that one does. If I get the same silicon, or a slight downward trend, then I'll know it's a gasket I had replaced.
If it drops considerably, then I plan on oiling the K&N, getting some fresh sealing grease, put it back, and see if it repeats. If it repeats, it's gone.
BTW, I had a K&N on the Olds also
[ September 24, 2002, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: dragboat ]
I just put the stock air system back on my truck ('93 Toyota 4x4 V6 Xcab). I had a K&N Filtercharger system on for a couple of years. I read a site that tested stock filter vs K&N vs Amsoil on a dyno with his 4Runner (3.4 engine though). The K&N actually made the truck lose power, while the Amsoil gained a tiny bit. My truck is quieter now, too. I'm sticking with stock. www.gadgetonline.com was the site. Just remembered.
3 ppm more... paper filter is NOT fool proof.
I found paper filter manufacturers are using oil on paper elements to aid in filtration. ![[Frown]](images/icons/frown.gif)
The benefit of the K&N-style filter is that it filters enough dirt to keep your engine running safely but keeps the flow rate up.
The flow of a brand new paper filter is comparable to a K&N-style, although my testing shows othewrise. But once your paper filter clogs, air flow DROPS like a pair of cement shoes in the Hudson river.
The K&N, OTOH, allows for good flow even as it gets dirty because of its reduced pleat lengths and the ability to allow air to flow through non-clogged passages more easily.
I noticed a nice seat of the pants increase in throttle response with my Kool blue, as well as a quantitatively measurable increase in cfm throughout the engine's operating RPM range (more so at peak torque)
The benefit of the K&N-style filter is that it filters enough dirt to keep your engine running safely but keeps the flow rate up.
The flow of a brand new paper filter is comparable to a K&N-style, although my testing shows othewrise. But once your paper filter clogs, air flow DROPS like a pair of cement shoes in the Hudson river.
The K&N, OTOH, allows for good flow even as it gets dirty because of its reduced pleat lengths and the ability to allow air to flow through non-clogged passages more easily.
I noticed a nice seat of the pants increase in throttle response with my Kool blue, as well as a quantitatively measurable increase in cfm throughout the engine's operating RPM range (more so at peak torque)Do any of you use the K&N sealing grease? I have some left over from previous cars that had K&N filters and was thinking of using it on both of the filters(paper) in my current cars?-Joe
Patman
Staff member
From what I have noticed in looking at the oil analysis results on here, most people with K&N air filters have more silicon in the oil, decreasing that oil's life for sure.
Foam air filters seem to work the best, and paper OEM type filters aren't bad at all either. The key no matter what you use is to make sure the filter fits properly, and isn't allowing unfiltered air to leak past it.
I've tried both K&N and oiled foam filters (Amsoil) and considering the cost and hassle to clean and re-oil I would stick with OEM type filters.
And as Patman mentioned, with K&N your oil is going to last a shorter period of time, due to silicon contamination.
Joe, the sealing grease on the paper filters is a good idea.
Since we're on the subject, I have found that air filter sealing is more important than the type of filter used. A lot of F.I. air tubes are fitted "in a strain", allowing an air gap between the filter and air box, hoses, etc. Also pay close attention to the PCV system. Any silica entering through the PCV air intake goes directly into the crankcase, where it is "filtered" out by the oil... ![[crushedcar]](/forums/graemlins/crushedcar.gif)
Don
DonAs I've posted before, a K&N flows better and flows better for longer than a paper filter.
Sometime, an induction system is propely designed in a vehicle and gains can be hard to find, when comparing new filters, but put a K&N with 10k on it vs a paper filer with the same 10k, and see the difference.
Also, something that is often forgotten, is that when testing filters, back to back on a dyno, you are affecting the A/F mixture without giving the vehicle's engine management software time to adapt.
SOTP or seat of the pants, is a unreliable determinate of power at best. I've ridden in header equipped Impalas vs stock manifold equiped Imps and found no differece, SOTP, but the header equipped car was still a full 1.5 seconds quicker in the quarter mile and a second quicker 0-60.
Patman
Staff member
quote:No offence, but your SOTP meter needs recalibrating!
Originally posted by VaderSS: As I've posted before, a K&N flows better and flows better for longer than a paper filter. Sometime, an induction system is propely designed in a vehicle and gains can be hard to find, when comparing new filters, but put a K&N with 10k on it vs a paper filer with the same 10k, and see the difference. Also, something that is often forgotten, is that when testing filters, back to back on a dyno, you are affecting the A/F mixture without giving the vehicle's engine management software time to adapt. SOTP or seat of the pants, is a unreliable determinate of power at best. I've ridden in header equipped Impalas vs stock manifold equiped Imps and found no differece, SOTP, but the header equipped car was still a full 1.5 seconds quicker in the quarter mile and a second quicker 0-60.
![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon}
With all the cars I have modified, I have found I can feel a 2 tenths difference in the quarter mile, but nothing less. When you're talking about a second to a 1.5 second drop, that's like night and day!
FWIW, the K&N FIPK that I put on my last LT1 f-body gave me a tenth of a second improvement. I didn't really notice much difference with that on the street, but at the track I could see it on the timeslips.
[ September 18, 2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Patman ]quote:That was an exterme example, I've also ridden in cars that FELT fast, but were not. I drove a WRX and was suprised to see that it did not feel very fast, but the thing is actually much quicker than my car. I've seen mods make a car feel slower and show an improvement in times, and I've seen mods make a car feel faster and the times actually slipped.
No offence, but your SOTP meter needs recalibrating!
Patman
Staff member
I guess you're right, as different cars have different torque curves and can feel faster or slower than they really are. I remember when I first picked up my LS1 Formula I thought it felt like a low 13 second car at about 107 to 108mph. My first trip to the track, in awesome cool weather too, only netted me a 13.68 at 102.9, with an excellent 2.12 60ft too. It wasn't until later that year with more break in miles and a few cheap mods that I got it to run low 13s at 108+.
- Status
