Went back to Purolator from K&N

[Turk]

1) Mileage did go up about 0.5 mpg, maybe a hair less if conditions weren't Exactly the same, but it did go up.

2) There's 25.4 Microns in a Mil. One hair width is 2-3 Mils and a hair is easy to see.

Why am I even justifying myself...

These are particles that when there's so many up against each other on the lip of the drain, it's like a very fine dust and I wicked them up, that's about the size they were.

Microscopes with measuring eyepieces work wonders.

(Been in the micro-electronics industry for 25 years measuring things daily and I know my fine measurements quite well, thank you!)

 

[vad]

quote:

---

One hair width is 2-3 Mils and a hair is easy to see.

---

Are you kidding again?
One hair is far, far smaller than 2-3 mm wide!!!
A typical human hair is 50 microns in diameter.
There are 1000 microns in a mm!!!

Here is a good graph that provides a reference point to the measurements we're talking about.

[ February 10, 2006, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: vad ]

 

[UncleS2]

Results using a K&N or any other oiled cotton type air filter depend on lots of things, including how well the filter is serviced, operating conditions, & maybe most of all, what vehicle it's used on.

On my most recent UOA, a K&N air filter was on the car for the entire 11,500 miles, plus approximately 15,000 miles before that. The interval tested included last spring, summer, & fall when it was *very* dry & dusty here- unusually high duxt levels for NE Texas. My Si level after 11,500 miles? 4 ppm. No foolin'. That, and previous used oil analysis, convince me that a properly serviced K&N works well on *my* car.

Your results may be different.

I now have a paper filter on the car, & will use it until after "pine pollen season" has come & gone, probably for this entire current OCI, maybe 6 to 7 K. After that, I'll either service & install the K&N again, or may try a Pure One bought on sale. I use both oiled cotton & paper, both work well on my car(proven through OA)& fail to see what all the fuss is about.

And, FWIW:
1. Looking through paper filters for my car(Fram CA3660 or equiv) a couple of years ago convinced me that just because a company name is on the box doesn't mean that the filter inside is made by that company. Companies outsource filters from time to time, & the only way to be sure how well it's made is to look before you buy.
2. Mil and mm are two different units of measurement.

[ February 10, 2006, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Stuart Hughes ]

 

[Schism]

Well alot of people have noticed dirt inside their intake inlet when using a K&N. I don't think it filters as well, regardless of whether you see it as silica in your UOA. I recall seeing an air filter test and it showed the K&N reaching it's dirt capcity quite quickly.

Better way to increase power using a filter is to use an oversized paper filter. Ofcourse you will have to modify a few things.

 

[RichD]

Schism wrote >
> Well alot of people have noticed dirt inside their
> intake inlet when using a K&N. I don't think it
> filters as well, regardless of whether you see it
> as silica in your UOA. I recall seeing an air
> filter test and it showed the K&N reaching it's
> dirt capcity quite quickly.

Agreed.

> Better way to increase power using a filter is to
> use an oversized paper filter. Ofcourse you will
> have to modify a few things.

And, a lot of times, the air filter is far from the bottleneck in most intake systems. You can triple the size of the air filter, you still won't increase flow overall.

Regards,

Rich

 

[RichD]

tpitcher wrote >
> There is a lot of dirt on the cement when I bang
> it out !!!
> I just cleaned and re-oiled it 2 weeks ago. When
> I cleaned it under the sink, A LOT of very fine
> (~3-5 microns) kept coming out, so I kept
> draining water on it.
> Proof shows to me it is doing a great job of
> filteration !

Sorry, that is absolutely no proof of anything. You *measured* the amount of dirt it captured, not how much it left by. Whether it left through 0.01% or 10% of dirt into the motor, you would never know by the method you describe.

> There's 25.4 Microns in a Mil. One hair width is
> 2-3 Mils and a hair is easy to see.

Correct, but 3-5 microns would be 4% to 6% of 2-3 mils, so 1/16 - 1/25 of the width of a human hair would be incredibly difficult to see with the human eye, particularly a sphere shape that was 2-3 microns in diameter. It is widely accepted that a particle that is 10 microns or less in size is not visible to the naked human eye. So, estimating the size of the dirt is a bit silly, but not relevant either way.

Regards,

Rich

 

[RichD]

BlazerLT >
> When there are gains with the K&N, they are
> usually at the higher rpm levels if you look at
> the many K&N dyno pulls done throughout the net.

Show me some? You still haven't proven anything, you simply keep repeating the same statement.

Regards,

Rich

 

[vad]

quote:

---

There's 25.4 Microns in a Mil. One hair width is 2-3 Mils and a hair is easy to see.

Correct...

---

No, RichD, it's not correct.
There are 25.4 mm (millimeters) in an inch.
There are 1000 microns in a mm.
1 micron = .00003937 inch

Conversion table

 

[BlazerLT]

Prove what, that if there are power gains from a K&N are in the higher rpm threshhold?

That is common place.

Nothing to prove there.

 

[RichD]

vad wrote >
> No, RichD, it's not correct.

No Vad, you are wrong, we are talking about *mils* here, not millimeters (which is abbreviated as mm, not mils). There are 25.4 microns in a mil.

Here is a definition of mil:
a unit of distance equal to 0.001 inch: a "milli-inch," in other words. Mils are used, primarily in the U.S., to express small distances and tolerances in engineering work. One mil is exactly 25.4 microns, just as one inch is exactly 25.4 millimeters. In Britain this unit is usually called the thou.

> There are 25.4 mm (millimeters) in an inch.
> There are 1000 microns in a mm.
> 1 micron = .00003937 inch

Sure, that is correct too, but one mil is still 25.4 microns.

Regards,

Rich

 

[vad]

Thanks for clarification RichD.

I wasn't familiar with mils since I'm not originally from the U.S.

 

[JavaMan]

Maybe people really don't get bald. Maybe the hair just gets finer as we age and it gets too small to see.

 

[Turk]

Thanks RichD for the validation!

Some must have failed to read or acknowledge that "Microscopes with measurement eyepieces work wonders" part of my post.

The calibrated microscope validated the size I originally posted.

Now, if you were viewing the particle size "Right WITH me at the Microscope" and found that I measured wrong, well then ok, but you weren't there so there's something wrong here.

I measured them and they were 3-5 Microns !!!!!

Now, let's play well in the sandbox!

 

[Turk]

RichD, (< Overall Sandbox Good Guy...)

Yes I am concerned about what may have passed the K&N - very concerned payin' big bucks for vehicles. I'd like to keep 'er as a primary vehicle to at least 250k and if the K&N could be a detriment to that, well, I'll yank that baby right out !!

 

[BlazerLT]

RichD,

Prove to me that K&N's don't flow better than a stock paper filter.

You seem to think they don't so prove to me that they do.

 

[AndyH]

A K&N air filter thread isn't complete until someone posts a link to Spicer's air filter test.

 

[RichD]

BlazerLT said >
> Prove to me that K&N's don't flow better than a
> stock paper filter.

No BlazerLT, prove to me your assertions, you were the one that started out making claims as follows:

>> Stock air filters will flow enough at normal
>> rpms but it is in the higher rpm range that
>> they start to constrict.
>> K&N filters are great for higher performance
>> applications and that for sure isn't a gimmick
>> at all.

I respectfully asked you originally to prove your assertions and the best you come up with is no, you "prove to me that K&N's don't flow better than a stock paper filter". You know what, I don't have to prove squat, most car engineers have designed more than sufficiently sized air boxes with large enough panel filters holding standard OE paper filters to flow more than enough air into the motor.

So, you need to prove your assertions first, you do that, and I will show you all the evidence I have otherwise. Although, AndyH already posted one particularly good study.

Until then, you are blowing smoke, just like your motor will after using K&N air filters...



I crack myself up.

Regards,

Rich

 

[BlazerLT]

Well, see, you are telling me to prove my point yet you won't practise what you preach and show me where you side comes from.

Saying automotive engineers have designed the perfect air intake system is quite humerous.

If everything was 100% from the factory, there wouldn't be much of an aftermarket industry would there?

Blowing smoke? So everyone here with a K&N filter is wrong I guess and our engines are dying.

 

[RichD]

BlazerLT>
> Prove what, that if there are power gains from a
> K&N are in the higher rpm threshhold?
> That is common place.
> Nothing to prove there.

Thanks for the enlightenment, I can prove that they don't flow as well so I reject your "common place" argument. I have also never seen solid proof otherwise, hence why I asked since you seemed so knowledgeable on the topic. Also, there are rarely issues with the stock filter panels flowing adequately at higher rpms like you also claim.

Regards,

Rich

 

[RichD]

tpitcher wrote >
> Some must have failed to read or acknowledge
> that "Microscopes with measurement eyepieces
> work wonders" part of my post.

The only issue was that wasn't part of your original post, you simply said >>

>> When I cleaned it under the sink, A LOT of very
>> fine (~3-5 microns) kept coming out, so I kept
>> draining water on it.

Which sounds an awful lot like you saw dirt in the sink with your naked eye and you went "hmm, 3-5 micron sized dirt".

> The calibrated microscope validated the size I
> originally posted.

Yeah, that part wasn't part of your original post but I do see it clearly in your follow-up.

What do you think of my comments about the amount of dirt you didn't measure that may have flowed past your K&N? With your background, I would think that would be much more of interest to you than the amount of dirt you saw in the filter.

And, I am playing nice in the sandbox.

Regards,

Rich