I've said in the other K&N threads - if you are a daily driver type person in average car driving in average ways, these are just not worth the cost or hassle vs. cheap paper replacement filters. If you are chasing power on a modified or performance car, then have a go b/c 5 hp is 5 hp on the top end (if you can get it with one of these) and the little bit of fine dust (if any...will depend on your conditions) that is getting in is the least of your concerns w/r to longevity of your tuned-out boosted to the limit engine. I've showed my UOAs in the other threads that show excellent filtration using both a drop-in K&N as well as an open-element intake with a K&N cone filter by the analytical metrics available on the UOA (silicone and insolubables according to BS) and shown pics of my intake tube that is clean/dust free when I wiped it with a paper towel. I see zero downside for me and only upside. I run them in all 4 of our cars.
The great filter debate.
- Thread starter TrainingPolicy
- Start date
- Status
I run a drop in K&N one as well in my Infiniti and I just bought a paper FRAM ultra and I am going to install it and see if I notice any difference. I am glad you found something you are happy with! I have seen your UOA's as well, they look good too!
One other upside - you can get a little more induction noise due the high-flowing media allowing more sound waves through (my hypothesis at least). On our Atlas with the 3.6 VR6, the growl is a little more noticeable.
Is that Infinity naturally aspirated?
Its not my desire or intent to infringe on anyone's "belief". Factually speaking from the tenets of best practices and the scientific method they simply don't have any merit. Period. That's not really open to debate. I invite you to clearly explain what "merit" you believe they have relative to any legitimate point and how they establish those "facts" toward that point.
No, they are not "perfect" by any stretch of the imagination - they are however carefully and accurately measured, controlled and equally repetitive. That's why they mean what they mean.
If the test doesn't simulate real world conditions then what valid conclusion's ( relative to "real world" claims as the video indicates) can be drawn from it? Same can be said from the "backyard" tests they if they don't properly consider and evaluate every proper component then they are not "real world" either. Accurate is accurate- tainted is tainted regardless of the test environment.
That would be an invalid or inapplicable test- what point were you trying to make?
Is there a point to that?
That's putting the cart before the horse. The "test" is there to prove ( or disprove) the "problem statement" and has to be designed around that.
Step 1 is to specifically define the problem/question in terms and conditions that can be broken down and analyzed leading to a conclusion that's accurate ( first) and meaningful (second)
Once that's done- then conditions and parameters can be developed.
Here's an example I used earlier relative to this discussion.
Does a (insert type here) filter increase HP in a vehicle? ( that seems to be an accurate condensing of most of the statement's in this part of the forum)
If that's a correct question then its impossible to answer because no filter "creates" or "adds" HP to any engine. That's where the skewing starts and arguing endlessly begins.
Does engine x in car y generate more hp/tq using a high-flow aftermarket filter (insert brand here) vs. a standard paper filter. Dyno 9x each, compare data. How would you approach answering this question? I'm a geologist - while not the most stringent of scientific disciplines, I am aware of how experiments/testing hypotheses works.
I can tell by your responses you have a firm grasp of the analysis process and respect that so I was not impugning anything about you- filtration is just one of my areas like geology is one of yours. I was more addressing the "masses" so if you will indulge me along that line please...
In your example, that question is proper in terms of a specific car ( car Y/ engine X) with a specific comparison criteria ( generate more HP/T) with a specific component ( high flow V. standard paper) produce a comparative result?
In that case, dyno and swap filters and compare direct results. ( as you stated) Just repeat enough to have a valid data set.
The problem enters when that specific test and conditions is used to represent "all" cars in "all" environments ( not a room with a dino) with "all" engines and "all" transmissions and so forth. Those original "valid" results just became invalid.
Then there are special cases and conditions such as : measuring HP at the PTO or tire ( varying factors such as ratio, mechanical losses and so forth ) all of these change conditions of said test thus requiring adjustment of the deliverables.
My whole point is a "test" is worthless when its so vaguely designed that even the test question is open to interpretation and a set of conditions.
Fruit of the poison vine- if the test design is fatally flawed then all acts of testing as well as the conclusions are equally flawed.
Good stuff and I agree - the test is only valid to answer the question on car Y/engine X, not others and that's what's done here a lot of the time. The biggest issue I see with all the filte/intake testing is repeatability and a proper number of dyno runs going back/forth to actually see if you have a trend or if it's the noise you get. I can change my power output based on 1/4 trap speeds and weight by which gas station I fill up with!
Your "feelings" are what they are- what they are not is any legitimate standard or result which is what the maker of the video is claiming.
That question ( bolded) is fatally flawed at birth because there is no such thing as "gain" in terms of HP ( or anything else) because if the potential for additional work is not there then nothing can "gain" it and if it is there and un utilized- the only way the filter ( to the exclusion of everything else) can legitimately said to be the "causal factor" of the gain- then EVERY OTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTOR would have to me recognized and monitored to ensure they don't bias the test.
That's not me that's the scientific method and proper testing protocols.
What would challenging one improperly performed video with another improperly performed video accomplish?
I don't follow you
There's a hidden variable there in terms of engine HP- that's the air itself ( in terms of available free volume, density, saturation, temperature etc.)
There are also issues in validating the dyno (I have to do this with electric motor testing to IEEE std)
People also make a lot of assumptions based on uncontrolled tests/variables that "invisibly" skew the results too
I am challenging you to provide me with a process that is adequate at judging filter performance. As far as I am aware no manufacture release videos or information testing their OEM air filters, only aftermarket is left to prove anything. You talk a big talk, but all you have done is nit-pick what has been provided and you have added nothing meaningful to the conversation. In the words of Benjamin Disraeli "How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct", so Mr.Engineer provide some data please.
Yes, it is the N/A V6 VQ.
Would definitely agree, that low pitch growl the K&N produces, does give the impression that something is happening. lol
So on the other hand you're advocating the validity of a goofy and worthless "test" just because you're not aware of something better?
The essence of a failed "gotcha".
I challenge you the same. Show me better. Don’t make foolish statements unless you can back them up. You guys have a lot of busy lips and idle hips.
My statements in this thread have been 100% correct and in no way foolish. Only the people who do not have any idea what they are talking about (and have demonstrated it here) are the foolish ones.
The lack of understanding of science and experimentation you see is always surprising to me but I'm not sure why.
The noise, IMHO, is part of the butt-dyno placebo folks feel when they swap in a K&N.
I remember getting that same kind of noise on my '74 Buick Regal by inverting the air cleaner cover.
For sure - temp/pressure/humidity all play into how your car will perform on a dyno but I *believe* that is handled by the corrections applied to the raw data to bring all the data into line.
- Status
Similar threads
