Rigorous air filter comparison test

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, N8N wrote:
>
>
>>Well, in my experience, I've never had a truly *BAD* German-made
>>product, which sadly, I can't say for domestic products. So buying
>>German does seem to give some amount of assurance that you are getting
>>at least an acceptable quality product.
>
>
> My experience differs. Everyone makes crap, all over the world. Some
> countries, to varying degrees, also make good stuff.
>
> My experience with German cars has been awful.
>
> DS

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I know where
you're coming from, but IME I've driven German cars that were well past
their "best before" date and had only what I consider to be a very
reasonable amount of problems.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Huw wrote:

>
>>I think people that make a big deal out of feeding an engine ultra-clean
>>air are chasing the wrong red herring. Dirt in the intake air is rarely
>>the life-limiting factor for any internal combustion engine other than an
>>off-road diesel earthmover.
>>
>
>
> A road engine on a damp day will injest clean air regardless. However,
> following a lorry carrying sand without an element could well cause damage
> within a few minutes.

IF the intake path actually allowed sand-sized grains in, yeah I could
see that.

But really, what is the difference between 96% filtration and 99% in
terms of ultimate engine life, and given that you stop the boulders in
any case?

> As far as ultimate cleanliness is concerned, I would tend to agree with you.
> But I was roundly condemned when I suggested that it is perfectly
> permissible to wash and reuse elements by people who suggested that some
> dust would somehow get past the pores after this and get through to damage
> the engine. Like you, I am pragmatic and realistic about what it takes to
> make a lump of metal continue to tick, because I own and run very many of
> them. Given the choice however, I would use elements with the best
> filtration efficiency or at least use the original equipment element model.
> However, any element is better than none.
>

Absolutely agreed. My comments are geared more toward people who seem to
have a terror of talc-sized dust getting past a filter and want
semiconductor fab-room clean air for an engine that makes carbon grit as
a NORMAL PART of its operating process.

Huw wrote:

>
>>I think people that make a big deal out of feeding an engine ultra-clean
>>air are chasing the wrong red herring. Dirt in the intake air is rarely
>>the life-limiting factor for any internal combustion engine other than an
>>off-road diesel earthmover.
>>
>
>
> A road engine on a damp day will injest clean air regardless. However,
> following a lorry carrying sand without an element could well cause damage
> within a few minutes.

IF the intake path actually allowed sand-sized grains in, yeah I could
see that.

But really, what is the difference between 96% filtration and 99% in
terms of ultimate engine life, and given that you stop the boulders in
any case?

> As far as ultimate cleanliness is concerned, I would tend to agree with you.
> But I was roundly condemned when I suggested that it is perfectly
> permissible to wash and reuse elements by people who suggested that some
> dust would somehow get past the pores after this and get through to damage
> the engine. Like you, I am pragmatic and realistic about what it takes to
> make a lump of metal continue to tick, because I own and run very many of
> them. Given the choice however, I would use elements with the best
> filtration efficiency or at least use the original equipment element model.
> However, any element is better than none.
>

Absolutely agreed. My comments are geared more toward people who seem to
have a terror of talc-sized dust getting past a filter and want
semiconductor fab-room clean air for an engine that makes carbon grit as
a NORMAL PART of its operating process.

< 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.

It's like the morons who pay several hundreds of dollars for speaker wire;
there's one born every minute.

< 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.

It's like the morons who pay several hundreds of dollars for speaker wire;
there's one born every minute.

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Huw wrote:
>
>>
>>>I think people that make a big deal out of feeding an engine ultra-clean
>>>air are chasing the wrong red herring. Dirt in the intake air is rarely
>>>the life-limiting factor for any internal combustion engine other than an
>>>off-road diesel earthmover.
>>>
>>
>>
>> A road engine on a damp day will injest clean air regardless. However,
>> following a lorry carrying sand without an element could well cause
>> damage within a few minutes.
>
> IF the intake path actually allowed sand-sized grains in, yeah I could see
> that.
>
> But really, what is the difference between 96% filtration and 99% in terms
> of ultimate engine life, and given that you stop the boulders in any case?
>
>> As far as ultimate cleanliness is concerned, I would tend to agree with
>> you. But I was roundly condemned when I suggested that it is perfectly
>> permissible to wash and reuse elements by people who suggested that some
>> dust would somehow get past the pores after this and get through to
>> damage the engine. Like you, I am pragmatic and realistic about what it
>> takes to make a lump of metal continue to tick, because I own and run
>> very many of them. Given the choice however, I would use elements with
>> the best filtration efficiency or at least use the original equipment
>> element model. However, any element is better than none.
>>
>
> Absolutely agreed. My comments are geared more toward people who seem to
> have a terror of talc-sized dust getting past a filter and want
> semiconductor fab-room clean air for an engine that makes carbon grit as a
> NORMAL PART of its operating process.
>

Not only that but modern diesels push a proportion of that hard carbon grit
back into the clean air inlet system. It's called EGR or exhaust gas
recirculation.

Huw

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> Huw wrote:
>
>>
>>>I think people that make a big deal out of feeding an engine ultra-clean
>>>air are chasing the wrong red herring. Dirt in the intake air is rarely
>>>the life-limiting factor for any internal combustion engine other than an
>>>off-road diesel earthmover.
>>>
>>
>>
>> A road engine on a damp day will injest clean air regardless. However,
>> following a lorry carrying sand without an element could well cause
>> damage within a few minutes.
>
> IF the intake path actually allowed sand-sized grains in, yeah I could see
> that.
>
> But really, what is the difference between 96% filtration and 99% in terms
> of ultimate engine life, and given that you stop the boulders in any case?
>
>> As far as ultimate cleanliness is concerned, I would tend to agree with
>> you. But I was roundly condemned when I suggested that it is perfectly
>> permissible to wash and reuse elements by people who suggested that some
>> dust would somehow get past the pores after this and get through to
>> damage the engine. Like you, I am pragmatic and realistic about what it
>> takes to make a lump of metal continue to tick, because I own and run
>> very many of them. Given the choice however, I would use elements with
>> the best filtration efficiency or at least use the original equipment
>> element model. However, any element is better than none.
>>
>
> Absolutely agreed. My comments are geared more toward people who seem to
> have a terror of talc-sized dust getting past a filter and want
> semiconductor fab-room clean air for an engine that makes carbon grit as a
> NORMAL PART of its operating process.
>

Not only that but modern diesels push a proportion of that hard carbon grit
back into the clean air inlet system. It's called EGR or exhaust gas
recirculation.

Huw

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, N8N wrote:
>
>> Well, in my experience, I've never had a truly *BAD* German-made
>> product, which sadly, I can't say for domestic products. So buying
>> German does seem to give some amount of assurance that you are getting
>> at least an acceptable quality product.
>
> My experience differs. Everyone makes crap, all over the world. Some
> countries, to varying degrees, also make good stuff.
>
> My experience with German cars has been awful.

Late 80's and early 90's vw & Audi cars had some issues,
but for the most part, for decades, German cars are pretty
good designs, I have a 928 with over 200,000 miles, and it
still does what it should (well, it's getting new driveline bearings
now, but c'mon, its got a ****load of miles on it.) and I have a
Mercedes 300sd with 236,000 miles, and it drives like it
had a tenth as many on it.

You just have to pick the right ones, just like anything,
go price a carburetor for a 80's Honda, and talk about
design.

Bernard

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, N8N wrote:
>
>> Well, in my experience, I've never had a truly *BAD* German-made
>> product, which sadly, I can't say for domestic products. So buying
>> German does seem to give some amount of assurance that you are getting
>> at least an acceptable quality product.
>
> My experience differs. Everyone makes crap, all over the world. Some
> countries, to varying degrees, also make good stuff.
>
> My experience with German cars has been awful.

Late 80's and early 90's vw & Audi cars had some issues,
but for the most part, for decades, German cars are pretty
good designs, I have a 928 with over 200,000 miles, and it
still does what it should (well, it's getting new driveline bearings
now, but c'mon, its got a ****load of miles on it.) and I have a
Mercedes 300sd with 236,000 miles, and it drives like it
had a tenth as many on it.

You just have to pick the right ones, just like anything,
go price a carburetor for a 80's Honda, and talk about
design.

Bernard

"Bernard Farquart" > wrote in message
news:RZ1Dd.26135$_62.16730@trnddc01...
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
>> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, N8N wrote:
>>
>>> Well, in my experience, I've never had a truly *BAD* German-made
>>> product, which sadly, I can't say for domestic products. So buying
>>> German does seem to give some amount of assurance that you are getting
>>> at least an acceptable quality product.
>>
>> My experience differs. Everyone makes crap, all over the world. Some
>> countries, to varying degrees, also make good stuff.
>>
>> My experience with German cars has been awful.
>
> Late 80's and early 90's vw & Audi cars had some issues,
> but for the most part, for decades, German cars are pretty
> good designs, I have a 928 with over 200,000 miles, and it
> still does what it should (well, it's getting new driveline bearings
> now, but c'mon, its got a ****load of miles on it.) and I have a
> Mercedes 300sd with 236,000 miles, and it drives like it
> had a tenth as many on it.
>
> You just have to pick the right ones, just like anything,
> go price a carburetor for a 80's Honda, and talk about
> design.
>
> Bernard
>

I too have had nothing but good luck with VW.... an early 90's VW with
280,000km of relatively troublefree driving and now a 2002 VW.

The 2002 TDI has done 80,000 km with only a single lightbulb burning
out!!!!!