Keep K&N or NOT ?

[Spktyr]

Originally Posted by TiGeo
You mean by ~3% less than a paper filter?


Did you ever bother reading the actual report that graphic that you so proudly posted come from? Here's a mirrored copy at Nicoclub: https://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html

You also left out the graphics that show the K&N plugs up ridiculously quickly and (embedded below) that it flows more dirt through than any other (again, save the stupid foam pod filter).

Quote
The other filters, most notably the oiled reusable types, had an exponential loading response before reaching maximum restriction. These filters had a lower initial restriction, but they became exponentially more restrictive under a constant flow of dirt.

This runs counter to the "myth" that oiled media filters actually "work better" as they get dirtier.


K&N: Flows more air! Flows more dirt!

Last I checked, the purpose of an air filter was to, er, filter dirt and other particulates out of the air your engine is ingesting. Efficiency means nothing on the street if the filter won't keep crap out of your engine.

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted by Nissanfan845
The K&N air filters are the best air filter you can purchase for your vehicle as far as design and how well they flow they are superior. When it is time to service your K&N air filter just clean and re oil them with the K&N air filter recharge kit it is easy to do. Replace your K&N air filter if it is damaged.

Originally Posted by Nissanfan845
The K&N air filters are the best air filter you can purchase for your vehicle as far as design and how well they flow they are superior. When it is time to service your K&N air filter just clean and re oil them with the K&N air filter recharge kit it is easy to do. Replace your K&N air filter if it is damaged.



Obviously paid troll is obviously paid to troll.

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted by grampi
I'm going to ask a question I've never seen anyone ask before...is there such a thing as paper element filters that flow better than stock elements?


A paper element filter that flows better than stock? Surface area = flow so get more surface area. Either double up like how the GT uses 2x fusion filters, or, if for example you have 2 litre engine, get a filter from a 3/4/5 litre engine.

 

[TiGeo]

Originally Posted by Spktyr
Originally Posted by TiGeo
You mean by ~3% less than a paper filter?


Did you ever bother reading the actual report that graphic that you so proudly posted come from? Here's a mirrored copy at Nicoclub: https://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html

You also left out the graphics that show the K&N plugs up ridiculously quickly and (embedded below) that it flows more dirt through than any other (again, save the stupid foam pod filter).

Quote
The other filters, most notably the oiled reusable types, had an exponential loading response before reaching maximum restriction. These filters had a lower initial restriction, but they became exponentially more restrictive under a constant flow of dirt.

This runs counter to the "myth" that oiled media filters actually "work better" as they get dirtier.


K&N: Flows more air! Flows more dirt!

Last I checked, the purpose of an air filter was to, er, filter dirt and other particulates out of the air your engine is ingesting. Efficiency means nothing on the street if the filter won't keep crap out of your engine.


Yes, I have read that article/referenced it many times. It still stands - in a daily driven car in "normal" conditions (read - not super dusty), these work just fine with the added benefit of increased flow/washability. I wash mine at 50K per K&N's instructions and they typically show dirt visibly but aren't filthy. I have run these in all my cars with some having over 200K miles. My current vehicle has had excellent UOAs (posted on BITOG many times) showing no high silicon or other parameters indicating poor filtration. My inlet hose is clean. Not sure what else you want.

 

[adams355]

I have to run one on my car because it needs 550-600hp worth of air through the filter, that's pretty good for a 5" cone filter. Never had an issue, clean oil. No dust/dirt build up in intake. They really shine once you get past stock levels of HP.

 

[TiGeo]

^^^100%

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by adams355
I have to run one on my car because it needs 550-600hp worth of air through the filter, that's pretty good for a 5" cone filter. Never had an issue, clean oil. No dust/dirt build up in intake. They really shine once you get past stock levels of HP.


Wouldn't you just fit an airbox/filter for something with more power? A stock Trackhawk or Hellcat airbox/filter would be more than sufficient for example.

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted by TiGeo
... You mean by ~3% less than a paper filter?
Your graph shows it not to be ~3% worse, but several hundred percent worse than most of the others.

 

[TiGeo]

Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by TiGeo
... You mean by ~3% less than a paper filter?
Your graph shows it not to be ~3% worse, but several hundred percent worse than most of the others.

It shows the K&N at 96% efficiency vs. 99 for the best...am I missing something?

 

[adams355]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by adams355
I have to run one on my car because it needs 550-600hp worth of air through the filter, that's pretty good for a 5" cone filter. Never had an issue, clean oil. No dust/dirt build up in intake. They really shine once you get past stock levels of HP.


Wouldn't you just fit an airbox/filter for something with more power? A stock Trackhawk or Hellcat airbox/filter would be more than sufficient for example.


It is in a contained airbox, which shortened the length from standard box. It has a cold air flex pipe coming from near the grille as well which keeps temps down for fuel economy while cruising. The cold air pipe comes up close to the filter, that part of filter does get dirty quicker. But it's not restrictive on boost with it dirty but slightly effects cruise air temp.

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted by TiGeo
Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by TiGeo
... You mean by ~3% less than a paper filter?
Your graph shows it not to be ~3% worse, but several hundred percent worse than most of the others.

It shows the K&N at 96% efficiency vs. 99 for the best...am I missing something?


When a test doesn't conform to their belief's they usually say "well that's just this filter in this particular test". But if you use the same argument, it's glossed over. This Nico "test" is one of many and it shows the K&N to be 96% efficient. That's pretty darn good in my book. Not the best...but still good. Many have enjoyed the benefits (eco-friendly, pays for itself, nice sound) of these with great UOA to show for it, not to mention hundreds of thousands of miles in use. We get it, some of you don't like K&N but the vitriol is hilariously over the top.

 

[TiGeo]

Originally Posted by wemay
Originally Posted by TiGeo
Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by TiGeo
... You mean by ~3% less than a paper filter?
Your graph shows it not to be ~3% worse, but several hundred percent worse than most of the others.

It shows the K&N at 96% efficiency vs. 99 for the best...am I missing something?


When a test doesn't conform to their belief's they usually say "well that's just this filter in this particular test". But if you use the same argument, it's glossed over. This Nico "test" is one of many and it shows the K&N to be 96% efficient. That's pretty darn good in my book. Not the best...but still good. Many have enjoyed the benefits (eco-friendly, pays for itself, nice sound) of these with great UOA to show for it, not to mention hundreds of thousands of miles in use. We get it, some of you don't like K&N but the vitriol is hilariously over the top.

Bravo

 

[CR94]

Originally Posted by TiGeo
It shows the K&N at 96% efficiency vs. 99 for the best...am I missing something?
That's just a deceptive way of saying the K&N allows 4% of dust reaching the filter through to the engine, vs. only 1% for "the best." That's 300% more dust.

 

[TiGeo]

Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by TiGeo
It shows the K&N at 96% efficiency vs. 99 for the best...am I missing something?
That's just a deceptive way of saying the K&N allows 4% of dust reaching the filter through to the engine, vs. only 1% for "the best." That's 300% more dust.


Ah...fun with data! I think your analysis is quite deceptive- 300% more? Yes I agree in saying it allows 4% vs. 1%. But saying a filter that has 1% less efficiency than the top filter at 99% let's 100% more dust through...come on... It's no shocker here that K&N does not filter as well as a paper filter - never have denied it. You can't have both high-flow and ultimate filtering. The question to me has always been - does your vehicle need 99% vs. 96% efficiency to run well and last? Based on my experience/data the answer is no. That's all the data I need. Is having 99% efficiency good? Sure!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by adams355
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by adams355
I have to run one on my car because it needs 550-600hp worth of air through the filter, that's pretty good for a 5" cone filter. Never had an issue, clean oil. No dust/dirt build up in intake. They really shine once you get past stock levels of HP.


Wouldn't you just fit an airbox/filter for something with more power? A stock Trackhawk or Hellcat airbox/filter would be more than sufficient for example.


It is in a contained airbox, which shortened the length from standard box. It has a cold air flex pipe coming from near the grille as well which keeps temps down for fuel economy while cruising. The cold air pipe comes up close to the filter, that part of filter does get dirty quicker. But it's not restrictive on boost with it dirty but slightly effects cruise air temp.


Wonder if there is a Volant (Donaldson PowerCore, probably the most efficient filter in existence) CAI that would fit?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by TiGeo
Originally Posted by CR94
Originally Posted by TiGeo
It shows the K&N at 96% efficiency vs. 99 for the best...am I missing something?
That's just a deceptive way of saying the K&N allows 4% of dust reaching the filter through to the engine, vs. only 1% for "the best." That's 300% more dust.


Ah...fun with data! I think your analysis is quite deceptive- 300% more? Yes I agree in saying it allows 4% vs. 1%. But saying a filter that has 1% less efficiency than the top filter at 99% let's 100% more dust through...come on... It's no shocker here that K&N does not filter as well as a paper filter - never have denied it. You can't have both high-flow and ultimate filtering. The question to me has always been - does your vehicle need 99% vs. 96% efficiency to run well and last? Based on my experience/data the answer is no. That's all the data I need. Is having 99% efficiency good? Sure!


Umm, yes you can, by using alternative filtering designs. The highest ranked filter in that test is actually a Donaldson PowerCore re-branded as an AC Delco offering. Based on that test, it is shown as 99.93% efficient, which is significantly more than 3% more efficient than the K&N. I believe Donaldson's official figure is very similar, I think 99.97% off the top of my head?

This is not a traditional pleated filter, but rather a completely different design for high performance diesel engines with the intention of providing the best possible efficiency, excellent flow, coupled with long filter life. The biggest issue is fitment in aftermarket applications, because they are drum-shaped, so can be difficult, if not impossible to retrofit in many cases.

 

[OVERKILL]

Let's look at the dirt passed and time to restriction limit data. The duration of the test was 60 minutes and during that period, the amount of dirt passed by the Donaldson unit was 0.4g. The K&N passed 7g of dirt within 24 minutes and hit the restriction limit.

If we break this down to g/minute passed, a simple metric, we can perhaps gather some clearer data comparing the most efficient filter in the test, which also loaded up the slowest, and one of the least efficient.

1. Donaldson PowerCore: 0.0067g/min loading rate
2. K&N oil cotton gauze: 0.2917g/min loading rate

This means the Donaldson is 43.5x more efficient.

Ignoring the loading limit, if we just look at the performance within a 6 hour window:

1: Donaldson PowerCore: 2.4g of dirt passed
2. K&N oiled cotton gauze: 105g of dirt passed

That's a HUGE difference. The Donaldson would have to be run for 262.5hrs; 11 DAYS to pass the same amount of dirt as the K&N, or, looked at from the other direction, the K&N passes in 8.2 minutes what it takes the Donaldson 6 hours to pass.

 

[TiGeo]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Let's look at the dirt passed and time to restriction limit data. The duration of the test was 60 minutes and during that period, the amount of dirt passed by the Donaldson unit was 0.4g. The K&N passed 7g of dirt within 24 minutes and hit the restriction limit.

If we break this down to g/minute passed, a simple metric, we can perhaps gather some clearer data comparing the most efficient filter in the test, which also loaded up the slowest, and one of the least efficient.

1. Donaldson PowerCore: 0.0067g/min loading rate
2. K&N oil cotton gauze: 0.2917g/min loading rate

This means the Donaldson is 43.5x more efficient.

Ignoring the loading limit, if we just look at the performance within a 6 hour window:

1: Donaldson PowerCore: 2.4g of dirt passed
2. K&N oiled cotton gauze: 105g of dirt passed

That's a HUGE difference. The Donaldson would have to be run for 262.5hrs; 11 DAYS to pass the same amount of dirt as the K&N, or, looked at from the other direction, the K&N passes in 8.2 minutes what it takes the Donaldson 6 hours to pass.


I am looking at flow - does the Donaldson flow more air than the K&N? I doubt it. The K&N absolutely passes more dirt...it has too.

 

[wemay]

Filter Dirt Test G37:



Filter Flow Test G37:

 

[TiGeo]

Originally Posted by wemay
Filter Dirt Test G37:



Filter Flow Test G37:


Not possible....fake news....