GrandAm and M1 vs. K&N filters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 26, 2003
Messages
2,544
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
[Cool] The test you've been waiting for. 99 Grand Am 2.4L, Mobil 1 5w-30 and 5000 miles on both. K&N filter @ 60k / M1 filter @ 55k Alum 2 2 Chrom 1 1 Iron 20 15 Copper 2 2 Lead 1 2 Tin 3 1 Moly 72 53 Nickel 1 0 Manganese 0 1 Silver 0 0 Titanium 0 0 Potassium 0 0 Boron 134 123 Silicon 7 9 Sodium 6 5 Calcium 2809 2744 Magnesium 15 16 Phos 709 704 Zinc 905 865 Barium 0 0 Fuel <1.0 0.3 Antifreeze 0 0 Water 0 0 Insolubles 0.4 0.4 Nothing unusual in this second sample from your Pontiac. Wear was low compared to averages for this type of engine. Iron was up a little from the first sample but only to an average level. WE found no fuel dilution, moisture, or any signs of coolant contamination in this sample. Air and oil filtration were functioning normally while this oil was in use. In short, everything looks good in this sample and we have no problems to report for your engine at 60,000 miles. My take: A few things were a little higher with the K&N filter than the Mobil 1 but could be within normal variance. Both had 1/2 qt added over 5k, though Blackstone says 1 qt [I dont know] . Note the Insolubles were the same. Mobil advertises good filtration while K&N advertises flow but the K&N filters nearly as good as the Mobil 1. That said, the car is maintained real well and got Mobil 1 every 5k since 30k when my wife bought it, so it might not be much of a challenge. I think either filter is a good choice. My .02. [Cheers!] [ March 12, 2004, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: JohnnyO ]
 
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
35,451
Location
NJ
Good report. I'd like to see if Amsoil could lower the Iron. Any chance you could run a shot of Amsoil? [Big Grin] Could be just the nature of this GM motor though.
 

JohnnyO

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 26, 2003
Messages
2,544
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
quote:
Originally posted by buster: Any chance you could run a shot of Amsoil?
[Cool] Nah. [Big Grin] What I'm doing is keeping Mobil 1 in the car and getting UOA's with different filters to get some hard data for you people. [Big Grin]
 
Joined
May 16, 2003
Messages
243
Location
PA
Thanks J.O.! You helped dispell my minor fears with running a K&N filter.
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Messages
398
Location
Chicagoland, IL USA
JohnnyO- Interesting that the iron went up with the higher flow filter, not what I'd have expected. But then again, lead went down. One thing we all need to keep in mind is the error within our testing. Who's to say that if the filters had been reversed for the intervals driven, the numbers would stay in the same columns while the filters would swap. There just isn't anyway of telling... [Confused] I'd say that the K&N is no worse than the Mobil-1, especially since the Mobil-1 should be holding more of the wear metals in it since it filter finer, possibly skewing the results of the analyis, i.e. making the Mobil-1 look better than it is. And just so people don't think I'm biased against Mobil-1, it's the only filter other than the factory that's been used on both my girlfriends '02 Mustang GT, and my '03 Ranger (except for this past time, tried a Wix on the Ranger to see how the insolubles would do). I still think Bob's tests on the bench he setup and a real answer from the manufacturer on how much flow is needed (which I don't think we'll ever get, not for every vehicle we inquire about) is what is really needed. I'd think as long as a filter flowed as much oil as a OEM filter both dirty and clean, then it would be fine. But hey, I'm just a computer geek! [Smile] Chuck
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
5,785
Location
Dixie
The difference in iron levels is related to the colder average temps during the fall/winter, and has nothing to do with filtration. You almost have to run engines on a dyno, in a temp controlled clean room, to make valid filter comparisons ....
 

Al

Joined
Jun 8, 2002
Messages
19,609
Location
Elizabethtown, Pa
quote:
Originally posted by TooSlick: The difference in iron levels is related to the colder average temps during the fall/winter, and has nothing to do with filtration. You almost have to run engines on a dyno, in a temp controlled clean room, to make valid filter comparisons ....
Exactly.
 

JohnnyO

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 26, 2003
Messages
2,544
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
quote:
Originally posted by TooSlick: You almost have to run engines on a dyno, in a temp controlled clean room, to make valid filter comparisons ....
[Cool] I agree, but hey, I'm trying. [Big Grin]
quote:
Originally posted by chucky2: One thing we all need to keep in mind is the error within our testing.
[Cool] Again I agree, like I said it could be within the standard variance even if I used the same filter. I'm going to test a few more. I don't think I'll test a Fram though. [No no] With the good UOA I got on my mom's car with an M1/M1 combo, I think that could be the best way to go. Bottom line here (I think) is fear not the K&N. [ March 12, 2004, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: JohnnyO ]
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2003
Messages
312
Location
Ohio
JohnnyO, I know you said you probably won't try a FRAM, but does that include the X2? As far as the price, it should be equivalent to the Mobil 1 and K&N. I'm running one on my wife's 2000 Grand Am GT right now (not positive they make one for 2.4L). I'd really like to see how it compares number-wise with the Mobil 1 and K&N. -Z P.S., I'm talking solely about the FRAM X2, so please let's not turn this into a FRAM-bash. [Wink]
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
3,796
Location
Chattanooga, TN
If I am going to have wear I prefer iron over lead and your lead ppm is lower with the K&N. As mentioned above the winter may have had a bearing also. I have one engine that I have analysis on (once a year OCI) with K&N the past 2-3 years and Pure Ones and Amsoil the previous 3 years. UOA was/is basically the same in terms of wear metals. I like the K&N simply for construction and flow and will stay with it and I am considering converting my Amsoil engines to teh K&N in lieu of Amsoil although Amsoil filters are less expensive for me. As Bob has recently pointed out though, other then construction does it make a difference what we use as no filter gave him good resutls as well.
 

JohnnyO

Thread starter
Joined
Sep 26, 2003
Messages
2,544
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
[Cool] Sadly, the experiment is finished. We traded the '99 Grand Am in today on a very slightly used '03 Taurus Wagon. Too bad, I'd just put in a fresh batch of M1 and an AC two weeks ago after an Auto-RX treatment. Worth noting that the start-up rattle came back with the AC filter. The wife had decided that her Grand Am would not fit two adults, two kids, and one 72 lb. greyhound all at once. [I dont know] [Big Grin] At least now I get to try out some 5w-20 Motorcraft and 0w-20 M1. I hope my info helped a little bit though. [Cheers!]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top