Doesn't Anyone use K&N?
- Thread starter lubechick
- Start date
- Status
Alot of people around here use KN oil filters.
I use a Frantz ByPass it has a removal rating of less than a micron!quote:
Originally posted by lubechick:
I've been using K&N which has an efficient removal of 10-20 micron particles. Any comments?
http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/circulars/ec013/3ACulpepper.pdf
http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/5359
Believe the K&N is at about the 20 micron level, same as a SuperTech...
Patman
Staff member
I use the K&N oil filter on both of my vehicles, and am extremely impressed with them. I think that for hard driven cars these filters are great since their restriction to oil flow is minimal. And they are built solid too, it would be extremely hard for road debris to damage one of them, so if you have a filter that sits under the engine like on my LT1 Firebird, you can feel more confidence.
It's a by-pass. The spin-on filter does its thing in the normal fashion, but at the 'oil sending unit' there is a T fitting and maybe 1 litre a minute goes through the second filter (hence the term by-pass), then returns it to the pan. One filter doing gallons per minute, at 20 or 30 or 40 microns; the other doing more super filtration but at a slower rate. Together they mean that his dipstick 6 months after an oil change will be clean as yours maybe 2 weeks after. I have had such contests in car club parking lots!
On a different thread, I sent a fellow oil nut several new and used filters to cut open, photo, and post; I'm pretty sure a by-pass element was in the parcel...For all I know he already has posted them.
MY filter element is easily the size of a whole spin-on, at first glance looks like a ball of yarn but made to higher standards, no loose ends, with inlet & outlet holes and seals.
Hope this helps!
(See PM, fellow Canadian!)
Rob
I use K&N oil filters on my 4Runner for all the reasons stated above.
The Nissan p/u and the Soob wagon get Napa Golds.
I may rethink this as I paid almost 8 bucks for the Napa Golds last night. I can get the K&N for 10 dollars at Checker.
If Wix came out with a synthetic media that flowed well they'd be the king of the spin on filters. The quality is apparent on these.
The Nissan p/u and the Soob wagon get Napa Golds.
I may rethink this as I paid almost 8 bucks for the Napa Golds last night. I can get the K&N for 10 dollars at Checker.
If Wix came out with a synthetic media that flowed well they'd be the king of the spin on filters. The quality is apparent on these.
The K&N website mentions filtration "as small as 10-20 microns in size." A Ford Taurus SHO website mentions "One other thing I learned is the media in a Mobil 1 filter only looks the same as a K&N oil filter media. The Mobil 1 filter has much higher synthetic fiber content designed to filter down to 10 micron while the K&N is designed for 'more sporting' applications and filters down to only 20 microns. The Mobil 1 is focused on deep cleaning while the K&N is optimized for higher flow." (This information appears to have been relayed to the SHO guys from a Champion, K&N, or Mobil 1 tech rep.) In comparison, Champion claims their $4 AC Duraguard filters have 25-30 micron capability.
The SHO website also mentions that both the Mobil 1 and K&N filters have shells 0.017 - 0.022 inches thick, but for some reason the K&N has a burst rate of 550 psi, versus 600 psi for Mobil 1. Some other shell thicknesses in inches (burst rates not known):
AC Duraguard: 0.015
AC Ultraguard: 0.0135 - 0.0180
Motorcraft: 0.0085 - 0.0150
Purolator PureOne: 0.009 - 0.011
STP: 0.012
Wix: 0.014
So it would indeed appear that the high-end filters have slightly thicker shells, although there's nothing uniquely robust about the K&N when compared to other $10 filters.
PureOne filtration specs:
-98% Multiple Pass Test (SAE J806)
-99.7% Single Pass Test
-BETA ratio of 7.2 at 10 microns
-Efficiency rating of 86.1% of 10 micron particles
Perhaps someone well-versed in BETA ratios and the like can interpret this for us. Here's a good pdf primer on micron ratings: http://baldwinfilters.com/engineer/pdf/89-5r.pdf
Personally I've come to the conclusion that the "high filtration" filters (Mobil 1, PureOne, Wix T03 media, Fram X2, Baldwin HPG, Fleetguard StrataPore, etc.) all appear competitively marketed as "10 micron filters" (give or take), although they use various testing methods to get there. Therefore I suspect that other features (bypass valve construction and location, silicone drainback valve, etc.) might prove the best tiebreaker. In my opinion, the Wix and PureOne filters offer good bang-for-the-buck "10 micron" filtration for only six or seven bucks.
Paying homage to the flow-versus-filtration argument, I'll steal some words from "Commuter" at another message board (link below): "...I cut open a Purolator PureONE just this past summer and while it had more pleats than the typical filter, I did not find it 'packed'. There was still space between the pleats...One of the other important specs is flow vs pressure drop (or vice versa). It's easy to make a filter with great filtering capability, but it may be so restrictive that there will be a high pressure drop. Again, 'looking' at the media gives you no indication of this characteristic. The filter I use employs microglass fibers. It filters to much smaller particle sizes than most filters, however, it has a lower pressure drop per given flow rate than most filters. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive."
http://pub110.ezboard.com/fultimatesubarumessageboardsfrm6.showMessage?topicID=98.topic
If you haven't read it, the SHO lube article is a great read, although unfortunately it's got no nudie pic's whatsoever:
http://www.shoclub.com/lubrication-oil/lubrication-oilpart1.htm
NOTES: Sources included the SHO article (info 3 yrs old), an update to same from July 2002, the Mini-Mopar filter site (a few years old?), and the K&N and Purolator websites.
[ October 25, 2003, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
The SHO website also mentions that both the Mobil 1 and K&N filters have shells 0.017 - 0.022 inches thick, but for some reason the K&N has a burst rate of 550 psi, versus 600 psi for Mobil 1. Some other shell thicknesses in inches (burst rates not known):
AC Duraguard: 0.015
AC Ultraguard: 0.0135 - 0.0180
Motorcraft: 0.0085 - 0.0150
Purolator PureOne: 0.009 - 0.011
STP: 0.012
Wix: 0.014
So it would indeed appear that the high-end filters have slightly thicker shells, although there's nothing uniquely robust about the K&N when compared to other $10 filters.
PureOne filtration specs:
-98% Multiple Pass Test (SAE J806)
-99.7% Single Pass Test
-BETA ratio of 7.2 at 10 microns
-Efficiency rating of 86.1% of 10 micron particles
Perhaps someone well-versed in BETA ratios and the like can interpret this for us. Here's a good pdf primer on micron ratings: http://baldwinfilters.com/engineer/pdf/89-5r.pdf
Personally I've come to the conclusion that the "high filtration" filters (Mobil 1, PureOne, Wix T03 media, Fram X2, Baldwin HPG, Fleetguard StrataPore, etc.) all appear competitively marketed as "10 micron filters" (give or take), although they use various testing methods to get there. Therefore I suspect that other features (bypass valve construction and location, silicone drainback valve, etc.) might prove the best tiebreaker. In my opinion, the Wix and PureOne filters offer good bang-for-the-buck "10 micron" filtration for only six or seven bucks.
Paying homage to the flow-versus-filtration argument, I'll steal some words from "Commuter" at another message board (link below): "...I cut open a Purolator PureONE just this past summer and while it had more pleats than the typical filter, I did not find it 'packed'. There was still space between the pleats...One of the other important specs is flow vs pressure drop (or vice versa). It's easy to make a filter with great filtering capability, but it may be so restrictive that there will be a high pressure drop. Again, 'looking' at the media gives you no indication of this characteristic. The filter I use employs microglass fibers. It filters to much smaller particle sizes than most filters, however, it has a lower pressure drop per given flow rate than most filters. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive."
http://pub110.ezboard.com/fultimatesubarumessageboardsfrm6.showMessage?topicID=98.topic
If you haven't read it, the SHO lube article is a great read, although unfortunately it's got no nudie pic's whatsoever:
http://www.shoclub.com/lubrication-oil/lubrication-oilpart1.htm
NOTES: Sources included the SHO article (info 3 yrs old), an update to same from July 2002, the Mini-Mopar filter site (a few years old?), and the K&N and Purolator websites.
[ October 25, 2003, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
I can certainly see striving for better flow if one has a race engine, or even a street car occasionally run at track events. I can also see a K&N filter preferred for extended drains if one is concerned about a high-filtration filter potentially clogging over time. But has anyone PROVEN that the PureOnes and Mobil 1's (to name a few) have insufficient flow characteristics whether new or after a few thousand miles? I'm not trying to be argumentive here, and will readily acknowledge the gut logic of "If it filters better, it probably restricts more." I've heard anecdotal comments here-and-there about various high-end filters not appearing to flow well, but is there quantified data out there to verify such suspicions about the "10 micron" medias? Microglass media proves that filtration and flow need not be mutually exclusive. Perhaps a revisit to Bob's flow test threads is in order...
One more thing I'm curious about. From the SHO website: "..Engines pump oil at 7 gpm or more. Small spin-on filters are rated at only 8 gpm. Tall spin-on oil filters are rated at 12 gpm..." K&N claims flow of 12-16 gpm. If a typical small spin-on filter is good for a ballpark flow of 8 gpm, then a comparably sized K&N filter is supposed to be good for around 12 gpm+ (50% higher) while still filtering to 20 microns? Are there magic elves in the K&N filters which manage to push 50% more oil through the same size cartridge? Or do they claim more simply because of a higher bypass setting? I'm not slamming K&Ns, which are very good filters -- I'm simply tired of marketing departments who obviously put LSD in their water coolers before touting such numbers.
[ October 25, 2003, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
One more thing I'm curious about. From the SHO website: "..Engines pump oil at 7 gpm or more. Small spin-on filters are rated at only 8 gpm. Tall spin-on oil filters are rated at 12 gpm..." K&N claims flow of 12-16 gpm. If a typical small spin-on filter is good for a ballpark flow of 8 gpm, then a comparably sized K&N filter is supposed to be good for around 12 gpm+ (50% higher) while still filtering to 20 microns? Are there magic elves in the K&N filters which manage to push 50% more oil through the same size cartridge? Or do they claim more simply because of a higher bypass setting? I'm not slamming K&Ns, which are very good filters -- I'm simply tired of marketing departments who obviously put LSD in their water coolers before touting such numbers.
[ October 25, 2003, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
wonder how close the pure one is spec wise?
Maybe K&N uses a LOWER bypass setting: IE the filter goes into bypass MORE often, hence the higher flow rates...
The SHO site mentions something about ALL filters going into bypass above a certain rpm...
...or maybe it is magic elves...who really knows...?!?!
The SHO site mentions something about ALL filters going into bypass above a certain rpm...
...or maybe it is magic elves...who really knows...?!?!
That is, of course, if the filter in question has a bypass valve...
More likely the filtering medium chosen by K&N is less restrictive...
More likely the filtering medium chosen by K&N is less restrictive...
Patman
Staff member
Bingo! Since the oil filters for my car don't use a bypass valve (it's in my block) then I can see exactly which filters show themselves to have more restrictive media, based on my oil pressure behavior at full throttle at the redline.
Some interesting points here. But I'm unsure of how potentially bumping up flow ratings by simply lowering the bypass setting is an engineering coup. I wouldn't count on the bypass circuit coming to the rescue anyway, since (at least for the Fram PH3600 at 15 to 17 psi), that relief valve will flow 3 GPM maximum due to its orifice size. The Fram uses a maligned plastic bypass valve, but I have photos of it, and it appears the same approximate diameter (and therefore flow) as the competition. Source:
http://www.shotimes.com/SHO3oilfilter.html
Other manufacturer's "racing" filters have HIGHER bypass settings than their street filters, so I'm not sure why K&N would be different (K&N doesn't list bypass settings that I could find). Wix filters often have 13-19 psi bypass, while Wix racing filters have 18-22. The street Fram PH3600 opens at 6-12 psi, while the same application HP-1 (sporting/racing filter) opens at 9-12 psi.
As for K&Ns having a higher-flowing media while still claiming 10-20 micron filtration, I don't buy it. That would truly be an engineering coup that has somehow escaped the other filter manufacturers. In fact, they don't even explain how they supposedly achieve higher flow, other than the following comment on their website: "We use metal top end caps instead of paper to ensure that no unfiltered oil can get back into the system. The solid construction allows for oil flow rates between 12-16 gpm (depending on filter size)..." So evidently K&N achieves more flow by using...(drum roll please)...metal end caps. So evidently the oil permeates through the STEEL of the end caps in K&Ns, as well as through the paper media, bumping up flow. (In all seriousness, trumping their construction in regards to flow suggests a higher bypass setting..?..enabled by a stronger cartridge than "cardboard" competitors..?)http://www.knfilters.com/oilfilter.htm
Trust me, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. And I have full confidence that K&Ns would make a fine choice for anyone, Average Joe or occasional track racer. I'm just still waiting for evidence that 1) K&Ns actually do flow more than say, its cousin Mobil 1; and 2) That Mobil 1's (or PureOnes or Wix's, etc.) DON'T flow sufficiently when new or used.
[ October 30, 2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
http://www.shotimes.com/SHO3oilfilter.html
Other manufacturer's "racing" filters have HIGHER bypass settings than their street filters, so I'm not sure why K&N would be different (K&N doesn't list bypass settings that I could find). Wix filters often have 13-19 psi bypass, while Wix racing filters have 18-22. The street Fram PH3600 opens at 6-12 psi, while the same application HP-1 (sporting/racing filter) opens at 9-12 psi.
As for K&Ns having a higher-flowing media while still claiming 10-20 micron filtration, I don't buy it. That would truly be an engineering coup that has somehow escaped the other filter manufacturers. In fact, they don't even explain how they supposedly achieve higher flow, other than the following comment on their website: "We use metal top end caps instead of paper to ensure that no unfiltered oil can get back into the system. The solid construction allows for oil flow rates between 12-16 gpm (depending on filter size)..." So evidently K&N achieves more flow by using...(drum roll please)...metal end caps. So evidently the oil permeates through the STEEL of the end caps in K&Ns, as well as through the paper media, bumping up flow. (In all seriousness, trumping their construction in regards to flow suggests a higher bypass setting..?..enabled by a stronger cartridge than "cardboard" competitors..?)http://www.knfilters.com/oilfilter.htm
Trust me, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. And I have full confidence that K&Ns would make a fine choice for anyone, Average Joe or occasional track racer. I'm just still waiting for evidence that 1) K&Ns actually do flow more than say, its cousin Mobil 1; and 2) That Mobil 1's (or PureOnes or Wix's, etc.) DON'T flow sufficiently when new or used.
[ October 30, 2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: TC ]
The industry standard, "SAE J806, multiple pass filter test", includes a protocol for measuring filter capacity. The test uses a weighted mixture of AC fine dust, in the 1-40 micron range. The test progresses until the pressure drop across the filter, ie PSID, reaches a pre-determined value.
Filter design is always a trade off of efficiency, capacity and flow rate ....The particular mixture of celluose, glass, polyester, etc media used has a direct impact on the characteristics of the filter. So the best compromise depends on the application and length of filter service....
Filter design is always a trade off of efficiency, capacity and flow rate ....The particular mixture of celluose, glass, polyester, etc media used has a direct impact on the characteristics of the filter. So the best compromise depends on the application and length of filter service....
- Status
Similar threads
