NES wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:42:45 -0500, "Steve W." >
> wrote:
>
>
>>http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm
>>
>>
>>Let's see
>>K&N passed MORE dirt/dust and plugged up faster than just about every
>>other filter tested.
>>
>>
>>(Arlen) SPICER wrote,
>>
>>"Now that I am not doing the tests and my objectivity is not necessary,
>>let me explain my motivation. The reason I started this crusade was that
>>I was seeing people spend a lot of money on aftermarket filters based on
>>the word of a salesperson or based on the misleading, incomplete or
>>outright deceiving information printed on boxes and in sales literature.
>>Gentlemen and Ladies, Marketing and the lure of profit is VERY POWERFUL!
>>It is amazing how many people believe that better airflow = more power!
>>Unless you have modifications out the wazoo, a more porous filter will
>>just dirty your oil! Some will say " I have used aftermarket brand X for
>>XXX # years with no problems. The PROBLEM is you spent a chunk of change
>>on a product that not only DID NOT increase your horsepower, but also
>>let in a lot of dirt while doing it! Now how much is a lot? ANY MORE
>>THAN NECESSARY is TOO MUCH!
>>
>>Others are persuaded by the claims of aftermarket manufacturers that
>>their filters filter dirt "better than any other filter on the market."
>>Sounds very enticing. To small timers like you and me, spending $1500 to
>>test a filter sounds like a lot. But if you were a filter manufacturer
>>and you believed your filter could filter dirt better than any other
>>media on the market, wouldn't you want to prove it? Guess what. Test
>>your filter vs. the OE paper. It will cost you $3000 and for that price
>>you will have the data that you can use in your advertisements. Your
>>investment will be returned a thousand fold! EASIER than shooting fish
>>in a barrel! So why don't these manufacturers do this? Hmmm? Probably
>>not because they would feel guilty about taking more market share.
>>
>>
>>
>>Now I am not saying that ALL aftermarket filters are useless. A paper
>>filter does not do well if directly wetted or muddy. It may collapse.
>>This is why many off-road filters are foam. It is a compromise between
>>filtering efficiency and protection from a collapsed filter. Now how
>>many of our trucks collapse their filters from mud and water? However,
>>if a filter is using "better airflow" as their marketing tool, remember
>>this....Does it flow better? At very high airflow volumes, probably.
>>BUT, Our trucks CAN'T flow that much air unless super-modified, so what
>>is the point? The stock filter will flow MORE THAN ENOUGH AIR to give
>>you ALL THE HORSEPOWER the engine has to give. And this remains true
>>until the filter is dirty enough to trip the air filter life indicator.
>>At that point performance will decline somewhat. Replace the filter and
>>get on with it.
>>
>>
>>SURPRISE!!!
>
>
>
> WHAT??!! K/N filters aren't worth the money??!! You mean their
> literature is full of lies??!! What's this world coming to?
>
> All kidding aside, I've never purchased a K/N filter for the simple
> reason that, more airflow through a similar sized filter equals more
> dirt. It's elementary.
>
> I learned my lesson about creative marketing when I had a Aero Turbo
> muffler installed on my truck. Their literature boasted large
> increases in MPG with their muffler. I figured any increase would be
> worth it. I didn't realize any increase at all.
>
>
> NES
What are the particulars concerning your Aero Turbo installation. I
know the literature makes claims that defy the physical rules of the
universe, but I keep hearing stories that seem to support their claims.
What year and model vehicle did you put it on, did you follow their
requirements? And what was the actual outcome??
Thanks,

George