OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, he and I discussed that (in a very civil manner) in the other thread. He lives in a very low dust area (his engine bay is immaculate) so it's not surprising that his readings are low.
Got bored. Installed K&N filter.
- Thread starter hardcore302
- Start date
B/c I'm likely the only person using one here that posts them. Lots of UOAs from VWs I can find on the various forums/FB groups that are not BITOG members with aftermarket high-flow filte intakes/filters with no SiO2 issues. Drop-in K&N filter here for the 3 shown....looks just like mine.
^^^Opps! I goofed. His UOAs are with the Amazon/cheap-o high-flow cotton gauze filter that is not oiled, so not a K&N (likely worse!). Appologies....but good data no less and v. low SiO2! I've put the request out on one of the VW FB groups for some data on this...I may also ask Blackstone what their database shows...
Last edited:
He did not replicate the exact airflow his filter would be experiencing in his vehicle.
When you're driving on the road, a big load of dust/dirt doesn't magically pile up on the face of the filter ... maybe if you're in the Baja 1000 following 10 guys in front of you.
If you took 1 ounce of appropriate dust (not home made "dust" from smashed concrete) and evenly distributed it evenly over the entire filter surface vs just taking that same 1 ounce and making a little thick pile of dust in the center of the filter, then the filter will be flowing differently and letting particles through differently. The filter with the evenly distributed layer over the entire surface area will suck through more particles. It can't suck particles in the high pile like it could from a thinner evenly distributed layer of dust.
Last edited:
Well you’ve lost me. But in any event it seems K&N performs terribly in this test and in the ISO5001 tests you referenced earlier so……He did not replicate the exact airflow his filter would be experiencing in his vehicle.
When you're driving on the road, a big load of dust/dirt doesn't magically pile up on the face of the filter ... maybe if you're in the Baja 1000 following 10 guys in front of you.
If you took 1 ounce of appropriate dust (not home made "dust" from smashed concrete) and evenly distributed it evenly over the entire filter surface vs just taking that same 1 ounce and making a little thick pile of dust in the center of the filter, then the filter will be flowing differently and letting particles through differently. The filter with the evenly distributed layer over the entire surface area will suck through more particles. It can't suck particles in the high pile like it could from a thinner evenly distributed layer of dust.
Do you think 1 oz of dust evenly spread over the face of the filter vs that same 1 oz of dust in a small tall pile represents the same air flow and ingestion of the dust through the media? It can't be the same. The filter with the thin evenly distributed layer of dust will suck more of that 1 oz of dust through the media.
So you allege that he spread it more evenly over the K&N thus inflating the number or particles allowed through?
No ... I'm taking about any filter. I'm talking about test method and how it may have an effect on the resulting data in a "garage test".
As has been shown many times, the K&N efficiency is a lot lower that other paper type filters using more official ISO efficiency testing. I don't stick up for K&N either way ... people can decide if they want to use them or not for whatever reason they deem appropriate.
SammyChevelleTypeS3
$50 site donor 2023
I have re-visited this K&N vs OEM regular filter question for my personal use many times. Matter of fact put myself thru it again today a few hours ago before this thread started. Always find plenty of pros and cons. I had even bought and installed one around 2008 for my Chevelle 400cui 4bbl engine. Even went a step further and special ordered the one with the majority of the inside area of the carb cover replaced with a section of the pleated K&N filter media. I ran the thing for a couple years and noticed absolutely zero difference I could make out. Today I stumbled onto a site asking the same question with answers and even some testing results. They explained how not only is there zero power gains but over time the K&N clogs up in ways the owner operator would not be able to see. Also something about the oil used to treat filters can creep down into the air chamber and foul the mass airflow and other intake sensors. I tried to convince myself to buy one yet ended up walking out of Auto Zone with the same OEM (well paper) suggested part. Well a paper STP filter like I been using. Even though I have bought and used their oil filters on occasion when my usual were were not on the shelves that day. The main pros or pluses I could find for the K&N comes from racers who need to attempt to squeeze every ounce of power they can for the short race lengths. Sounds to me just as racing oil is not recommended for use with daily normal service use vehicles due to the quick loss of long term (longer miles than down the tracks) protection benefits. The K&N filters were originally designed for racing applications only to eventually be tried and sold for the regular use / driven home autos. So to each his own kind of like the great debates of the Mobile1 / Amsoil / Shaeffer's , etc... expensive motor engine oils many of us use with zero real hard evidence or proof the extra costs are worth the benefits we basically can not see without engine dismantling or extensive oil tests that still do not satisfy some on either side.
Last edited:
Some high flow filter/low SiO2 UOAs. Someone noted 7ppm SiO2 with an Injen open element intake in my post as well but didn't post the UOA. There is a user here on BIYOG with a modded Golf R that likely has some sort of high-flow filter with low Si numbers but need him to confirm his intake setup.
SammyChevelleTypeS3
$50 site donor 2023
I have recently read comments all across BITOG that sound like people do not have confidence in Blackstone these days? I was going to use them to avoid any "oil company lab" to prevent any suspected brand bias for some OSA to check oil dilution / fuel issues and have read that they seem to have a wide range of inconsistency in the area of fuel in oil. I will probably go with Amsoil since I have used them years ago and was quite satisfied. Its just some folks got me thinking I would be wasting time and money on Blackstone OSA at this time.? I hope this does not start a rock throwing competition as all I can do is base my decision on what some folks I respect here have mentioned.
This thread is about K&N air filters - your post isn't relevent to this one, I'd post elsewhere.
Agreed - I don't think anyone here is saying a K&N doesn't have lower filtering efficiency than a paper filter but this testing where you dump a pile of fine dirt on a filter seems silly to me vs. realworld use or the ISO testing. I used to work at a mine and had a company truck....very dustry conditions in the summer that could approach some of this testing being done. Would have been a great setup to do some UOAs between paper/OE and K&Ns to replicate a "worst case scenario" filtering environment!
Here's a dude in a Mustang that drove through a dust storm with a K&N and UOA...interesting but to me he has high SiO2 vs. what I see in my cars but he seems to think the opposite:
SammyChevelleTypeS3
$50 site donor 2023
For sure. Truly very sorry. Will go away and bother you no longer after these irrelevant words. This thread is full from top to bottom of Blackstone Used Oil Sample Analysis so I assumed that everyone (oops I see its not everyone posting them) anyone posting Blackstone Used Oil Sample Analysis scanned reports would be glad to kindly offer a word of their expertise , experience , attitude or thoughts (about the Blackstone Company) to a person who is considering the use of Blackstone Used Oil Analysis for things they offer in testing and reports. So excuse me. Mea Culpa.
I will chose "no blindfold" for the firing squad over my faux pas of expecting a tiny bit of "multi tasking" ( asking someone to offer advice) instead of quite a lot of back & forth over a filter every one agrees are best for one thing and not so much for other applications). Have a nice relevant day. *Note* By the way I just LOVE your chosen AVATAR! One of favorites.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2021
- Messages
- 15
Real-world data, similar to what TiGeo has posted. K&N oiled flat panel filter dropped into the stock airbox. This is mixed street and track use on a single filter over the past year. Track driving (12 events) has been on hot days, rainy days, and through the occasional cloud from oil-absorbant cleanup powder. Silicon level is low, showing the K&N filter is doing its job.
Without knowing the exact details about the air being ingested that doesn't tell much. "occasional cloud of oil absorbent" isn't a laboratory value. Besides you're looking at a second-order effect, how does anyone know how abrasive the material is and what the actual effect on a UOA would be?
A UOA isn't a real substitute for air filter efficiency testing.
