My engine tuner recommends me to get a K&N

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: HM12460
Jim, do you have any knowledge of the oil K&N uses? Just out of curiosity, how does the efficiency of an old oil bath air filtration system ( 2 cylinder John Deere )compare to a modern paper filter?


They make their own oil in either a spray or nippled bottle
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: HM12460
Jim, do you have any knowledge of the oil K&N uses? Just out of curiosity, how does the efficiency of an old oil bath air filtration system ( 2 cylinder John Deere )compare to a modern paper filter?


They make their own oil in either a spray or nippled bottle





Yeah, I know that.
 
Originally Posted By: HM12460
Jim, do you have any knowledge of the oil K&N uses? Just out of curiosity, how does the efficiency of an old oil bath air filtration system ( 2 cylinder John Deere )compare to a modern paper filter?


I know little about the oil K&N uses other than it's called a "tackifier" and is similar to other tackifier oils used in air filters (some cellulose filters use a small amount of oil to increase efficiency). It's carried in a volatile fluid that evaporates, leaving the sticky stuff. Without the oil, an oiled cotton gauze filter can't even make 50% efficiency.

As to oil bath, I have some very old SAE papers from the days when paper was just coming in as the big thing in the '50s. They illustrated/tested several types and brands of oil bath air filters vs the paper and they ran between 70 and 85% efficient in street cars and HD trucks on coarse dust. I have other material from the '60s and '70s that generically says "85% at best" for oil bath. I have some stuff from the '20s and '30s when they crowed about 50% efficiency!

With any oil bath filter, efficiency changes for the worse when the oil level in the oil bath is allowed to drop below the add line in the housing. Some commercial/industrial filters had cyclonic apparatus attached that added to their overall efficiency. Tractor and off-road equipment often have the most efficient air filtration systems in any era but I'd doubt your Deere is above 90% on it's best day.
 
Jim, thank you for your response. I would've guessed that the old oil bath's would have been better. Something I've wondered about for quite some time now. On the 520/620/720/820's, the cyclonic apparatus first appeared as an extra cost option when these tractor's were new. By the time the 3020/4020's came around, they were very common.
 
Originally Posted By: heyu
So in other words more air the better ,,very good to know a engine can run with more air and less gasoline when a computer regulates the mix ,It's great to know a computer signals less gas when more air flow is permitted and it still fires on all cylinders,,,If less restrictive air cleaners are so great ,,They would be installed at the factory ,,As my post started ECONOMY not racing applications


What a pile. There is no, repeat NO downside to a less-restrictive intake tract, except (possibly) intake noise. Offhand, opening the intake on my friend's Neon helped mileage and power; the difference at high RPM's (5000+) was noticeable, and it was worth about 1.5MPG. (It's not that good...the OE Neon setup is just that BAD.)

Had a K&N FIPK on my Cherokee for the last 20,000+ miles. Three different UOA's came back clean. (In fact, the HIGHEST silicon level was with the OE filter.) Which reminds me...I need to wash that filter.
 
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: HM12460
Jim, do you have any knowledge of the oil K&N uses? Just out of curiosity, how does the efficiency of an old oil bath air filtration system ( 2 cylinder John Deere )compare to a modern paper filter?


I know little about the oil K&N uses other than it's called a "tackifier" and is similar to other tackifier oils used in air filters (some cellulose filters use a small amount of oil to increase efficiency). It's carried in a volatile fluid that evaporates, leaving the sticky stuff. Without the oil, an oiled cotton gauze filter can't even make 50% efficiency.

As to oil bath, I have some very old SAE papers from the days when paper was just coming in as the big thing in the '50s. They illustrated/tested several types and brands of oil bath air filters vs the paper and they ran between 70 and 85% efficient in street cars and HD trucks on coarse dust. I have other material from the '60s and '70s that generically says "85% at best" for oil bath. I have some stuff from the '20s and '30s when they crowed about 50% efficiency!

With any oil bath filter, efficiency changes for the worse when the oil level in the oil bath is allowed to drop below the add line in the housing. Some commercial/industrial filters had cyclonic apparatus attached that added to their overall efficiency. Tractor and off-road equipment often have the most efficient air filtration systems in any era but I'd doubt your Deere is above 90% on it's best day.


Wow...I thought I was the only one here to have seen an oil-bath filter!
laugh.gif
I have to admit: the first time I saw the instruction telling me to "CHECK AIR FILTER OIL LEVEL", I was confused.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: heyu
So in other words more air the better ,,very good to know a engine can run with more air and less gasoline when a computer regulates the mix ,It's great to know a computer signals less gas when more air flow is permitted and it still fires on all cylinders,,,If less restrictive air cleaners are so great ,,They would be installed at the factory ,,As my post started ECONOMY not racing applications


What a pile. There is no, repeat NO downside to a less-restrictive intake tract, except (possibly) intake noise. Offhand, opening the intake on my friend's Neon helped mileage and power; the difference at high RPM's (5000+) was noticeable, and it was worth about 1.5MPG. (It's not that good...the OE Neon setup is just that BAD.)

Had a K&N FIPK on my Cherokee for the last 20,000+ miles. Three different UOA's came back clean. (In fact, the HIGHEST silicon level was with the OE filter.) Which reminds me...I need to wash that filter.


So your UOA showed less silicon levels with the K&N filter? That's pretty cool. I really want to get a UOA done on my cobalt. I think I might have too just to how my cone air filter is doing.
 
Bear in mind that one test does not provide much of an indication on way or another. It is merely a snapshot of one particular moment in time. To really be able to make a claim, you need a series of UOA with each type of filter.

Say, for example, the OCI was over a wet winter when the dust was low. Or perhaps the dust is just lower in a certain area. Also, some areas are more prone to having coarse dust,vs fine, which the K&N(or any other OCG filter) is more efficient at filtering vs an area where there is more fines in the air at which a typical OE style filter is better at filtering vs an OCG.

Also, what do we know about the "OE" filter being discussed? Is it an actual branded part from the car manufacturer, a quality replacement or a cheeseball, no name filter? Did the "OE" filter have a sealing issue? These factors, and others, can influence what you might see in UOAs. And not all cellulose filters, OE or otherwise, are created equal. Some may be no better than an OCG, or not by much.

Generally speaking, OCG filters are less efficient than cellulose or synthetic when comparing tests run on the same grade of test dust. A good OCG is still in a "safe" range either way but it delivers much better efficiency on the coarse grade of test dust. Lesser efficiency may not be much of an issue for everyone... depending on where they live and drive. Or it might be!

The thing to remember is that for the modern engine, which generally does not produce much in the way of wear metal (after break-in) or contamination internally, the air filter is the PRIMARY method of ingress for wear producing particles that both cause wear in and of themselves and create more wear particles that also cause wear. Wear begets wear and all that tends to challenge the oil more so the OCI may have to be shorter.

My thinking is if you eliminate as much of that contamination input as possible via a highly efficient filter choice, you have added to both engine and lubricant life. The way some people own, operate and maintain their engines... it may not matter much in the long term because whatever issues are created become issues for ANOTHER guy down the road. Me, I tend to keep my stuff longer .. a truck bought new in '86 and a car in 2000, so it matters.
 
Jim
Thank you for that response it was an excellent explanation. It be honest I do not think that the dust in my area is that bad. We have a Hugh level of humidity here. Do you think that the high humidity reduces dust?
 
I don't really know for sure how humidity effects dust levels in the air. I would suspect humid air carries less dust but can't say that with authority.
 
Originally Posted By: FFeng7
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: heyu
So in other words more air the better ,,very good to know a engine can run with more air and less gasoline when a computer regulates the mix ,It's great to know a computer signals less gas when more air flow is permitted and it still fires on all cylinders,,,If less restrictive air cleaners are so great ,,They would be installed at the factory ,,As my post started ECONOMY not racing applications


What a pile. There is no, repeat NO downside to a less-restrictive intake tract, except (possibly) intake noise. Offhand, opening the intake on my friend's Neon helped mileage and power; the difference at high RPM's (5000+) was noticeable, and it was worth about 1.5MPG. (It's not that good...the OE Neon setup is just that BAD.)

Had a K&N FIPK on my Cherokee for the last 20,000+ miles. Three different UOA's came back clean. (In fact, the HIGHEST silicon level was with the OE filter.) Which reminds me...I need to wash that filter.


So your UOA showed less silicon levels with the K&N filter? That's pretty cool. I really want to get a UOA done on my cobalt. I think I might have too just to how my cone air filter is doing.


Silicon dropped from 11 to 9. With the K&N, I have not had silicon levels above 9 (five samples). Two samples with the paper filter were both 11.

The paper filter was a part-store replacement I think was a Purolator.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle


Silicon dropped from 11 to 9. With the K&N, I have not had silicon levels above 9 (five samples). Two samples with the paper filter were both 11.

The paper filter was a part-store replacement I think was a Purolator.


The difference between 11 and 9 PPM ( that's PARTS PER MILLION) is inconsequential and doesn't show much of anything. Certainly nothing that you can use as a flag to wave claiming oiled cotton gauze is "just as efficient" as (most good quality) paper. The simple truth is that it isn't. OCG may be adequate in environments that don't challenge the filter all that much. Your results show that, in your particular situation, the K&N is doing just fine. That's a very good thing to know, so more power to you for paying attention. If you lived in a more challenging environment, you very well might see much higher silicon and wish for a more efficient filter.

I'm just trying to discourage a defensive attitude that doesn't acknowledge the realities.
 
The air-filter is an easy thing to tackle but it's one of the last things I would tamper with when looking for power. I'd never use a wet-cotton filter (K&N) again after having several years experience with them and seeing the results. It's an easy thing to sell but it's the wrong type to use unless:

1. Engine life isn't a priority.
2. OE replacements are insufficient or unavailable.
3. It's the only filter available that will work in the modified application (re-routing).
 
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle


Silicon dropped from 11 to 9. With the K&N, I have not had silicon levels above 9 (five samples). Two samples with the paper filter were both 11.

The paper filter was a part-store replacement I think was a Purolator.


The difference between 11 and 9 PPM ( that's PARTS PER MILLION) is inconsequential and doesn't show much of anything. Certainly nothing that you can use as a flag to wave claiming oiled cotton gauze is "just as efficient" as (most good quality) paper. The simple truth is that it isn't. OCG may be adequate in environments that don't challenge the filter all that much. Your results show that, in your particular situation, the K&N is doing just fine. That's a very good thing to know, so more power to you for paying attention. If you lived in a more challenging environment, you very well might see much higher silicon and wish for a more efficient filter.

I'm just trying to discourage a defensive attitude that doesn't acknowledge the realities.


Note: 9 was the HIGHEST level with the K&N...last two were 5.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle

Note: 9 was the HIGHEST level with the K&N...last two were 5.


I repeat... inconsequential differences. All are within safe limits for any engine I can think of, which is good for you no matter what.

There are a couple of air filter-related UOAs on the board. One significant one I printed out was from Colton (45WRS, I think) who went from 39 ppm (in the danger zone... 22 ppm was the average for the car type) to 15 ppm with a filter change. That's a significant difference. My own F150 went 19 to 2 on after a swap to an AEM filter from a stock MC, then it went back up, then back up to 8 PPM after another 10K run... and the air filter housing had not been touched at all. The drop from 19 to 2 was significant but could be lab calibration or just a fluke. I'd need dozen of UOAs with each filter to brag too much about the AEM. I do know that in my rural, farm area, it's keeping out the majority of the dust. But then so did the MC, really because 19 ppm is pretty good overall.

Here are some typical difference in efficiency tested according to ISO5011:
(the Spicer Test)

K&N 33-2135(fine dust)- 89.85%
K&N 33-2135 (coarse dust) - 96.8
Delco A1618C (coarse dust)- 99.93 (no fine test done)
FYI- I have some other tests on paper with fine dust but I don't consider them to be reliable enough to present as "evidence." They are in the 99+ percent range but there are some ambiguities in the testings.

Here are some others done under slightly different, but roughly comparable to above, ISO 5011 parameters by Southwest Research Institute, Test Report 08.12717.01.004. Goal of the test was to see the efficiency changes of cleanable filters after five washing, drying and airflow tests.

K&N RE0870 (fine dust)- 93.72 (new filter)
K&N RE0870 (fine dust)- 92.26 (after cleaning & reoiling)
AEM 21-3059 (fine dust)- 98.14 (new filter)
AEM 21-3059 (fine dust)- 97.77 (after cleaning)
AFE 72-40035 (fine dust) - 96.86 (new filter)
AFE 72-40035 (fine dust) - 96.74 (after cleaning)
Airaid 700-470 (fine dust) - 95.77 (new filter)
Airaid 700-470 (fine dust) - 96.09 (after cleaning)
 
The AEM is a dry filter, as is the Airaid. The AFE is a ProGuard 7, which is an oiled gauze filter.

Also, I should add this tidbit. The info above is dated 2008. It's possible some of these products have changed in their performance specs. I do know that K&N uses different numbers of gauze layers with some filters. More layers improves efficiency some, though decreases airflow. I don't know their criteria for choosing which filter application gets more layers. I'll see if I can find out.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom