On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:38:14 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote:

>On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Steve W. wrote:
>
>> > http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm
>> > Interesting stuff. Just look how well that K&N did at stopping dirt!
>
>> Yep, proves what I have thought all along, K&N SUCKS!
>
>Yep. The conspiracy theoristas are already hard at work attacking the
>study. Good luck, since it was impeccably conducted.
>

Actually the study results for % efficiency are very similar to what
was at one time posted on the K&N website (don't know if it still is).
K&N did report that paper filters had a typical filtration efficiency
of 98% and that K&N were about 96%. As presented, and with just that
one bit of info (not all the other tests in SPICER.htm) they said that
for the slight increase in dirt being passed, the 2% difference, you
got the big benefits of increased airflow. I never bought it but on
the surface it doesn't sound like you are losing a whole lot if your
primary goal is the extra 2 to 4 hp you might get at wide open
throttle. When you see all the other poor results you'd be nuts to
use a K&N - but I"m sure that this study won't slow their sales down
one bit.
--
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . .
Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House
of Representatives, August 17, 1789