Air Flow Tests on Napa Gold, Amsoil,Jackson Racing,K&N, and Baldwin

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is a weird one ...

A neighbor is interested in using the Amsoil foam element on his K&N filter. He's not too thrilled about the dirt that the K&N may not trap, so can the Amsoil foam element be bought and made to fit a K&N FIPK filter? He was thinking of surrounding the cone filter with the foam.
 
quote:

Originally posted by red2rebel:
Here is a weird one ...

A neighbor is interested in using the Amsoil foam element on his K&N filter. He's not too thrilled about the dirt that the K&N may not trap, so can the Amsoil foam element be bought and made to fit a K&N FIPK filter? He was thinking of surrounding the cone filter with the foam.


K&N makes assorted types of foam pre-filters for use with their filters. Why not get one of them?
 
I have a k&n filter on my vehicle. I also purchased the k&n dry wrap which is wrapped around the original filter on the FIPK kits.
Was this wrap considered or used during these flow tests.
What error percentage exists and what boundry conditions were established prior to this extensive test.
 
From what I had read months ago I installed a OEM paper filter in the airbox of my new motor. 98% of the time my 2.3 liter (140ci) engine is running under 2500 rpms. So why would I need the increased airflow and decreased filtration that comes with the K&N that I had in my old engines airbox. Until I found this site I thought that the K&N type filters flowed far more than the OEM paper filters. This test just varified what has been stated by those smarter than me on this board. I will say that when I removed the K&N (about 4,500 miles since cleaning) the area that was down stream from the filter including the airbox lid, and plastic piping that goes to the AMM was practically spotless.
 
Does anyone know the OEM air flow for the filter on a 2001 5.9L Dakota QC, and the comparison to the Amsoil filter replacement for the same truck?

OEM = (flow)
Amsoil Air Filter # TS29 = (flow)

Thanks!
 
FYI,

Amsoil has revamped their filter line, They are using a different metal support than the square holed ones pictured.

Also I'm not sure if they have changed the structure of the foam or not, I've got to do some follow up with this.
 
I've run a similar test with an amsoil plate filter and stock volvo plate paper filter on a 1987 volvo 760 turbo using a Filterminder to measure pressure drop across the filter (ok, relative to ambient outside the box). The filterminder has a sprag loaded indicator that indicates maximum pressure drop achieved. Full scale is 10" Hg.

No air filter = no pressure drop recorded pushing over 15psi of air into a 2.4liter engine at 5500 rpm. Slightly modified volvo, really sucks through the box.

New volvo paper air filter indicated roughly 5" Hg drop at full throttle/5500 rpm. No difference in boost pressure although it might have spooled up a little slower. Remember turbos are boost controlled, the turbo just sucks harder and heats up the air more.

New amsoil foam filter showed zero pressure drop on the filter minder at same test conditions. Guess which filter I'm using? At 30K miles the filterminder barely moved off the stopp, maybe 1" Hg. I didn't bother to clean it.

I think the secondary filter used in the air filter test is interesting. It demonstrated that any filter lets some (a LOT of coloring stuff) particles through on the first pass, even the original paper filter didn't stop stuff that the second paper did. Also, it's interesting that the environment where the test was done had to be pretty dirty...here in Washington DC/MD/VA I can run a paper filter for 5000 miles and it's essentially as clean as the day I put it in.
 
I think amsoil HAS changed their filter/foam stuff...I've had three 'lifetime' air filters replaced in the last several years, they were over 5 years old.

Seems the old foam tended to break down under high heat....the one on the Saab almost crumbled when I took it off my K&N filter (I used the amsoil as a sock to avoid having to clean the K&N) after three years. I punted and eliminated the K&N and put back the stock saab filter box. Miserable box alone sucks 5" of Hg even without the filter, BTW.

But the good news is that amsoil KNOWS the older foam breaks down and simply sent me replacements. The new ones have lasted much better.

Fair disclosure: I'm a lifetime amsoil dealer.
 
Actually, the environment where this test was run is very very clean! I don't live in a dirty dusty region like parts of New Mexico, Texas, Arizona or any other myriad of southwestern and midwestern states. The soil here is usually too damp to become airborne easily, and the vegetation grows so thick that it holds all the soil down too. I live about 50 miles from rainforest as the crow flies. Water has a strong tendency to hold dirt down and prevent it from going airbornes. All of the filtration tests were completed during the rainy season and not the relatively dusty summer.

Air filters pass lots of dirt, end of story. What most fail to understand is that any two filters in series will trap a whole lot more dirt than a single filter.
 
Anthony I was thinking the same thing. I was looking the other day under the hood and trying to figure how to build a inline low restriction air box or a airbox disk with a filter between my intercooler and throttle body. Anything can be built but at what cost. I want to keep it under $50. That is what I like about Home Depot they have all kinds of neat stuff that has multiple uses.
 
For those with Cummins Dodges in warranty it would be wise to check the FAQ on the Dodge Ram link at the Cummins website.

Cummins mentions K&N specifically and states that DC and Cummins regard highflow filters like the K&N a due to inadequate filtration leading to piston scoring.
lol.gif


A mention of a manufacturer by name indicates that Cummins is prepared to present evidence in court.
 
Thanks for running these tests. It takes something like this to enlighten us as to the claims of the different filter manufacturers. All the agricultural equipment engines that I am aware of use paper element air filters and most engines will last 5,000 to 10,000 hours and up to 30,000 hours running in very dusty conditions. In the days before the safety element was incorporated after the main filter, if the main filter ruptured (essentially no filter) the engines would not last 10 hours. Come to think of it, the safety elements (after filters) never show any (none whatsoever) signs of dirt getting thru the main filter unless the main filter ruptures.
 
Interesting reading for sure. I'm sticking with good quality paper filters. For normal street use the marginal potential for improved flow with an oiled filter simply does not make any sense, particularly with the risk of letting more dirt in.

John
 
I had a carb 88 Toyota Corolla and when I checked the carb with paper filter I could feel a film on it. When I replaced with the Amsoil Foam Filter, the carb was clean and no film after 20,000 miles. I got to belive the Amsoil filters a bit better than the paper filter but Amsoil doesn't make the foam filter for 97 Ranger 3.0...got stuck with the paper filter. Anyone know of a foam filter for 97 Ranger 3.0...
 
I have a Miata that uses the same filters used in this test. I had used the OEM which he tested and was getting around 28mpg. I looked for a better filter before the test and found the NAPA GOLD. My milage went to 31mpg and stayed there. I even reinstalled the OEM filter and it went back to 28mpg. This is a car I drive to work over the same route day in and day out at the same speeds using cruise control. The difference in flow though little can make a big difference in the milage you get.
 
For the record:

I have a 1998 Honda Prelude with a 2.2L VTEC H22A4 engine.

I've been using a K&N drop in oiled filter.

The filter has been properly mainstained and serviced.

The winter was particularly rough with respect to snow. As such, the DOT was salting and sanding the roadways a considerable amount.

I ran a recent UOA on some 0W40 Mobil 1 oil and the results indicated that my silicon what 5 times larger than normal!!

I left the same oil filter in the car, changed the air filter out with a NAPA Gold filter, and changed the oil.

During the next oil change the UOA indicated that the silicon had chnaged to acceptable levels.

It appears that in extremely dirty situtations that K&N passes more micro-fine particles than the OEM type filters.
 
Great work AnthonyS
This topic will rage on for ever it seems ??
I dont have the means to conduct such test in such a manner as AnthonyS did. But what I have done is the simplest route IMO
I ran K&N air,M1 and K&N oil filter
I ran Amsoil filter,M1 and **Delco Gold Oil(before they discontinued them)**
I ran WIX paper,M1 and WIX oil filter
Each was run for 3K miles per filter/oil combo,samples taken and tested
During each test the car was Dyno-Jet tested for RWHP***numbers NEVER CHANGED***
Best over-all oil test result was from the WIX,M1,WIX combo.
Ya`ll can argue if the sky is blue,and throw money into that Amsoil Pyramid scam/K&N sucksbetter hype till **** wont have it,but Anthony did a fine job of kicking the HYPE square in the ashtray !!
But the common folks arrived at the same point some time back,just pop a few lids and see whats under there.......... LOL!! PAPER BABY !!

SS/LS

Test Vehicle:
01 SS Camaro LS1/M6
338 rwhp 334 rwtq
12.97 @111.** 1/4 mile w/KDW Street tires
Direct-Flo,w/WIX paper
S3 PTB
GMMG Catback
73K miles
 
AnthonyS,I read your after a 5.0 TB
Check with GM in regards to their TSB on GM MAF`s being fried from oiled filters,it will give you a jump on the blue oval venture.

Side note to the richardhead that saw fit to tag me a noob almost instantly via email to my previous post.Please refer to my member # and register date !! What an asstray
rolleyes.gif


SS/LS
 
The dirt on the secondary filter was from many 1000's of cubic feet of engine airflow over the 500 mile test. The extra dirt passed by some filters may not be significant. I'd bet there is just a fraction of a gram difference in the dirt passed by the best vs worst filter. Still I'm a little reluctant to put the K&N I have on my car.
 
As far as the Amsoil wisecrack, knock it off.

Funny thing about the Amsoil airfilter is that I actually didn't/don't trust them that much and in fact went back to a paper filter on my newer car because of "gut instinct". Yet this car in the past and other cars, including the turbo with 250K miles, show pretty darn clean UOA's and low wear rates.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top