Hello,
As the title reads I am town between the Amsoil Ea Air filter and the AEM Dryflow.
I have searched the forum and read, to my knowledge, every thread on these filters. Yet, I have not found conclusive evidence if one is greater than other. Which they very well could be equal.
The Amsoil EaA is a cellulose media with a layer of synthetic fibers. I believe this to be patented Donaldson technology.
From Amsoil, "AMSOIL Ea Air Filters incorporate a specially constructed cellulose media with synthetic nanofibers applied to the surface."
Cited: EA Filters
Amsoil Ea Air Filter Product Page
The AEM Dryflow is 100% Synetheic media fibers.
From AEM, "The DRYFLOW filter is made from a single-layer of pre-pleated polyester synthetic filter media with a nylon-reinforced internal cage for added structural rigidity."
Cited: AEM FAQ
AEM DryFlow
Both are long lasting and cleanable.
Question is, does one filter better than the other?
I have had no luck finding how these performed on a similar ISO test. Preferably ISO's Fine Dust test.
I Did however find this nuget of information on the AEM FAQ
"We use ISO 5011:2000 with ISO “A-2 Fine Dust" as the contaminant. Southwest Research Institute performs the testing and determines flow rate criteria based on the average flow requirements of a typical engine on which the filter to be tested will be used. The concentration of the contaminant introduced into the air stream is significantly higher than what would be encountered in normal use in order to perform the test in a reasonable time. Typically, 2 flow rates are used for testing. 160 CFM is used for smaller displacement engines. 240 CFM is used for larger displacement engines."
Except, they don't exactly state how the AEM fared in this test. They do claim to "Capture(s) up to 99% of harmful contaminants." Found on the main page: AEM Intakes
I have yet to find a single legitimate ISO test involving the Ea Air filter.
Your thoughts?
As the title reads I am town between the Amsoil Ea Air filter and the AEM Dryflow.
I have searched the forum and read, to my knowledge, every thread on these filters. Yet, I have not found conclusive evidence if one is greater than other. Which they very well could be equal.
The Amsoil EaA is a cellulose media with a layer of synthetic fibers. I believe this to be patented Donaldson technology.
From Amsoil, "AMSOIL Ea Air Filters incorporate a specially constructed cellulose media with synthetic nanofibers applied to the surface."
Cited: EA Filters
Amsoil Ea Air Filter Product Page
The AEM Dryflow is 100% Synetheic media fibers.
From AEM, "The DRYFLOW filter is made from a single-layer of pre-pleated polyester synthetic filter media with a nylon-reinforced internal cage for added structural rigidity."
Cited: AEM FAQ
AEM DryFlow
Both are long lasting and cleanable.
Question is, does one filter better than the other?
I have had no luck finding how these performed on a similar ISO test. Preferably ISO's Fine Dust test.
I Did however find this nuget of information on the AEM FAQ
"We use ISO 5011:2000 with ISO “A-2 Fine Dust" as the contaminant. Southwest Research Institute performs the testing and determines flow rate criteria based on the average flow requirements of a typical engine on which the filter to be tested will be used. The concentration of the contaminant introduced into the air stream is significantly higher than what would be encountered in normal use in order to perform the test in a reasonable time. Typically, 2 flow rates are used for testing. 160 CFM is used for smaller displacement engines. 240 CFM is used for larger displacement engines."
Except, they don't exactly state how the AEM fared in this test. They do claim to "Capture(s) up to 99% of harmful contaminants." Found on the main page: AEM Intakes
I have yet to find a single legitimate ISO test involving the Ea Air filter.
Your thoughts?