BlazerLT wrote >
> Sounds like you are digressing a little bit.
Really? How so? I am still standing by my original contention to your assertion that a stock paper filter is more constrictive at higher rpms than a K&N panel.
Again, just as a refresher for you, here were your original assertions that I took exception to >>
>> There are lots of dyno results where the
>> filter did do something.
>> Stock air filters will flow enough at normal
>> rpms but it is in the higher rpm range that
>> they start to constrict.
And the original poster and initial comments are all about a person replacing their K&N panel filter with a Purolator paper filter.
When San Diego Mac posted his dyno results where the K&N gained "ABSOLUTELY NO INCREASE IN HORSEPOWER OR TORQUE--NOT EVEN 1/2 HP!!!!" you responded with "There are lots of dyno results where the filter did do something."
I am still waiting for you to show me. If there are lots of dyno results, why can't you show me just one?
> Before you were so forward about how K&N lets
> so much more dirt into the engine than a stock
> filter and even stated that I was wearing out
> my engine.
Again, you aren't following along too well, my initial contention was with your statements above. Please go back and reread my posts (my first five posts addressing your comments are all about "performance gains" and not about dirt). I have provided some information showing that the K&N is more restrictive than a stock paper filter, you have provided nothing but conjecture. And I can't provide dyno charts proving the K&N is more effective than the stock paper filter, as I don't have any.
To add insult to injury, I believe and have seen proof that the K&N filter will allow more dirt into you motor than a proper stock paper filter. Whether or not you are wearing out your motor faster is up for debate, I know what I believe.
> Now you are saying that you don't see the
> results with a paper and so therefore you can't
> give credit to how K&N is not hurting his
> engine?
Let me explain this as simply as I can. Had Patman used the stock airbox with a stock paper filter, it would be somewhat interesting to see his used oil analysis, particularly the dirt particulate levels. Now, I don't fully believe that a used oil analysis is the only way or the definitive way to determine how much dirt a motor is ingesting but it does provide some insight. Alas, since he doesn't have any used oil analysis from his car with a stock paper filter, there is no comparison to study.
> As to the dyno results, how about going to the
> K&N site and see where most people are seeing
> their gains through their dyno results.
> As you will see, most of the gains are in the
> higher rpms.
Alright, I did just that. I was unable to find one single dyno chart comparing a stock paper filter to a K&N panel filter. Sure, I see a bunch of dyno results showing gains from their complete kits, but I was never contesting that (as they are replacing not only the stock paper filter but also the stock airbox and some of the intake plumbing as well).
So again, please show me proof where someone has dyno proven gains (beyond the 2% dyno error) with a K&N panel filter over a stock paper filter in the stock air box.
Preferably, it would be from a non-biased independent source and not from K&N themselves. I could come up with an air filter design of my own and create dyno charts touting its abilities.
> Again, all this "investigating" you have done
> and the links you have given don't prove your
> point, but just show a couple applications
> where the filter doen't net any better results.
So, I show you a couple of applications where the filter doesn't net any better results (I have more, there really is no reason to keep proving my point) but you have proven nothing.
Seems fair.
As this has basically turned into arguing with Dummies 101, I will refrain from further posting unless you can answer my original question.
Until then, happy air filter hunting to all.
Regards,
Rich
