Originally Posted By: circuitsmith
Six years, 38K miles, restriction gauge still under 11".
You have a pic of what it looks like?
Six years, 38K miles, restriction gauge still under 11".
You have a pic of what it looks like?
why no extra efficient air filters?
- Thread starter edwardh1
- Start date
- Status
I'm not pursuing extra cfm, but extra engine protection, even if that means a more frequent filter changeout frequency than an installer grade or OEM disposable filter, by using higher efficiency aftermarket disposable filters than my OEM. Not any different than using a Fram Ultra or other high efficiency oil filter than OEM, other than possibly directional changeout frequency. My intake is unmodified, and the 5.7L Hemi has no MAF sensor.
Here's a couple of posts from someone who should know the numbers for my use for example.
BITOG Thread link 1
Bitog Thread Link 2
BITOG Thread Link 3
Here's a couple of posts from someone who should know the numbers for my use for example.
BITOG Thread link 1
Bitog Thread Link 2
BITOG Thread Link 3
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: jj51702
Originally Posted By: circuitsmith
Six years, 38K miles, restriction gauge still under 11".
You have a pic of what it looks like?
Well here is mine with 90k miles on it.
And here is my r/g that has 8" showing and that is with 90k miles on it
Just click on either of the pics to see all the pic's on photobucket.
ROD
Originally Posted By: circuitsmith
Six years, 38K miles, restriction gauge still under 11".
You have a pic of what it looks like?
Well here is mine with 90k miles on it.
And here is my r/g that has 8" showing and that is with 90k miles on it
Just click on either of the pics to see all the pic's on photobucket.
ROD
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
I'm not pursuing extra cfm, but extra engine protection, even if that means a more frequent filter changeout frequency than an installer grade or OEM disposable filter, by using higher efficiency aftermarket disposable filters than my OEM. Not any different than using a Fram Ultra or other high efficiency oil filter than OEM, other than possibly directional changeout frequency. My intake is unmodified, and the 5.7L Hemi has no MAF sensor.
Here's a couple of posts from someone who should know the numbers for my use for example.
BITOG Thread link 1
Bitog Thread Link 2
BITOG Thread Link 3
Maybe see if you can fit a Donaldson? It doesn't get any better than 99.97% efficiency as far as I'm aware.
I'm not pursuing extra cfm, but extra engine protection, even if that means a more frequent filter changeout frequency than an installer grade or OEM disposable filter, by using higher efficiency aftermarket disposable filters than my OEM. Not any different than using a Fram Ultra or other high efficiency oil filter than OEM, other than possibly directional changeout frequency. My intake is unmodified, and the 5.7L Hemi has no MAF sensor.
Here's a couple of posts from someone who should know the numbers for my use for example.
BITOG Thread link 1
Bitog Thread Link 2
BITOG Thread Link 3
Maybe see if you can fit a Donaldson? It doesn't get any better than 99.97% efficiency as far as I'm aware.
I looked at those, they appear to be for diesel engines and not come in flat panel style for my unmodified intake (as posted).
So I'm sticking to full pleat depth older Product of Mexico Fram TGA9401's & a few Purolator PureOne PA35462 for my near future needs. I made a stash of them in my garage.
So I'm sticking to full pleat depth older Product of Mexico Fram TGA9401's & a few Purolator PureOne PA35462 for my near future needs. I made a stash of them in my garage.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
I looked at those, they appear to be for diesel engines and not come in flat panel style for my unmodified intake (as posted).
So I'm sticking to full pleat depth older Product of Mexico Fram TGA9401's & a few Purolator PureOne PA35462 for my near future needs. I made a stash of them in my garage.
Correct, you'd need to fit one of their housings to your application, they are not available in a pleated configuration. I believe Widman has swapped in a number of their housings into various applications, so it doable if you have the space however I understand your desire to not have to go that route.
I looked at those, they appear to be for diesel engines and not come in flat panel style for my unmodified intake (as posted).
So I'm sticking to full pleat depth older Product of Mexico Fram TGA9401's & a few Purolator PureOne PA35462 for my near future needs. I made a stash of them in my garage.
Correct, you'd need to fit one of their housings to your application, they are not available in a pleated configuration. I believe Widman has swapped in a number of their housings into various applications, so it doable if you have the space however I understand your desire to not have to go that route.
If you can handle the Spanish, check out these Donaldson PowerCore filters. I've put them on hundreds of cars and trucks. I have two pickups that I put them on once upon a time, one has slightly more than 500,000 km and the other slightly more than 400,000 miles, mostly on dirt roads. Neither has had the engine touched, neither consume more than 1/4" on the dip stick between 5000 mile oil changes with 10W-30.
PowerCore installations
PowerCore basics
PowerCore installations
PowerCore basics
^^ Still don't see anything flat panel for me unmodified intake, Spanish, English, or otherwise.
Many people don't understand particle capture ratings. These can be expressed in a mass fraction / percentage. Larger particles weigh more than smaller particles, yet the smaller particles are what we want to filter out.
As usual for particle analysis, let's assume roughly spherical particles in the size range of interest.
A 9 micron particle will weigh 27 times more than a 3 micron particle, all else (including density) being equal; formula for volume of a sphere is ∏Rᶾ.
Use a cube with 9 microns per side vs. a cube with 3 microns per side if you prefer, the relationship is the same.
Both the CA and TGA are rated at >98% efficiency with the TGA targeting better capture of smaller particles, which is my particular interest.
And isn't that really what the OP was asking about in the first place?
Many people don't understand particle capture ratings. These can be expressed in a mass fraction / percentage. Larger particles weigh more than smaller particles, yet the smaller particles are what we want to filter out.
As usual for particle analysis, let's assume roughly spherical particles in the size range of interest.
A 9 micron particle will weigh 27 times more than a 3 micron particle, all else (including density) being equal; formula for volume of a sphere is ∏Rᶾ.
Use a cube with 9 microns per side vs. a cube with 3 microns per side if you prefer, the relationship is the same.
Both the CA and TGA are rated at >98% efficiency with the TGA targeting better capture of smaller particles, which is my particular interest.
And isn't that really what the OP was asking about in the first place?
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
^^ Still don't see anything flat panel for me unmodified intake, Spanish, English, or otherwise.
Many people don't understand particle capture ratings. These can be expressed in a mass fraction / percentage. Larger particles weigh more than smaller particles, yet the smaller particles are what we want to filter out.
As usual for particle analysis, let's assume roughly spherical particles in the size range of interest.
A 9 micron particle will weigh 27 times more than a 3 micron particle, all else (including density) being equal; formula for volume of a sphere is ∏Rᶾ.
Use a cube with 9 microns per side vs. a cube with 3 microns per side if you prefer, the relationship is the same.
Both the CA and TGA are rated at >98% efficiency with the TGA targeting better capture of smaller particles, which is my particular interest.
And isn't that really what the OP was asking about in the first place?
No, he's suggesting what I'm saying is required, which is the replacement of the airbox with a Donaldson airbox. The only reason I brought up the Donaldson is its best in the business performance, however the already acknowledged caveat is that you need to modify your intake tract to accept their housing or one that utilizes their filters (which a number of the large HD diesel trucks use).
^^ Still don't see anything flat panel for me unmodified intake, Spanish, English, or otherwise.
Many people don't understand particle capture ratings. These can be expressed in a mass fraction / percentage. Larger particles weigh more than smaller particles, yet the smaller particles are what we want to filter out.
As usual for particle analysis, let's assume roughly spherical particles in the size range of interest.
A 9 micron particle will weigh 27 times more than a 3 micron particle, all else (including density) being equal; formula for volume of a sphere is ∏Rᶾ.
Use a cube with 9 microns per side vs. a cube with 3 microns per side if you prefer, the relationship is the same.
Both the CA and TGA are rated at >98% efficiency with the TGA targeting better capture of smaller particles, which is my particular interest.
And isn't that really what the OP was asking about in the first place?
No, he's suggesting what I'm saying is required, which is the replacement of the airbox with a Donaldson airbox. The only reason I brought up the Donaldson is its best in the business performance, however the already acknowledged caveat is that you need to modify your intake tract to accept their housing or one that utilizes their filters (which a number of the large HD diesel trucks use).
Define "little" quantitatively.
- Status
Similar threads
