A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Rigorous air filter comparison test



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 3rd 05, 11:32 PM
Huw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Steve W." > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
>>
>> 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!
>
>


But only for a short time.

Huw


Ads
  #12  
Old January 3rd 05, 11:38 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #13  
Old January 3rd 05, 11:38 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #14  
Old January 4th 05, 03:32 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Good stuff, just am curious about the Donaldson Edurance filters and
how they perform under these tests?
RH

  #15  
Old January 4th 05, 03:32 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Good stuff, just am curious about the Donaldson Edurance filters and
how they perform under these tests?
RH

  #16  
Old January 4th 05, 03:32 AM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

TeGGer® wrote:

> Nate Nagel > floridly penned in
> :
>
>
>
>>Too bad they didn't test any Mann or Mahle products,

>
>
>
>
> Too bad also that they didn't test any FRAM filters, considering FRAM's
> terrible reputation on the Internet.
>


Actually from what I've heard their air filters aren't nearly as crappy
as their oil filters. But you're right, it would have been nice to see.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  #17  
Old January 4th 05, 03:32 AM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

TeGGer® wrote:

> Nate Nagel > floridly penned in
> :
>
>
>
>>Too bad they didn't test any Mann or Mahle products,

>
>
>
>
> Too bad also that they didn't test any FRAM filters, considering FRAM's
> terrible reputation on the Internet.
>


Actually from what I've heard their air filters aren't nearly as crappy
as their oil filters. But you're right, it would have been nice to see.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
  #18  
Old January 4th 05, 05:53 AM
AZGuy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #19  
Old January 4th 05, 05:53 AM
AZGuy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #20  
Old January 4th 05, 04:43 PM
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > > http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm
> > > Interesting stuff. Just look how well that K&N did at stopping

dirt!
>
> > About what I suspected! The surprise to me was that the AC-Delco

did so
> > well. I've been pretty much sold on Wix and Purolator for oil

filters,
> > but I might have to go to the dark side next time I need an air

filter.
> > I thought AC-Delco was still associated with GM somehow?

>
> It is, but be advised this was a test on air filters for *one

specific
> application* which happens to have been a GM Duramax diesel engine.

I'd
> hesitate to generalize these AC-Delco results to a non-GM

application,
> only because I don't know the degree to which AC-Delco buys and

reboxes
> filters for non-GM applications. I'd have to scrutinize the

construction
> details and compare to other filter makes to see.
>
> > Too bad they didn't test any Mann or Mahle products, I'd sure be
> > interested to see how they stack up against the domestic brands.

>
> > Mann or Mahle, everyone "knows" they are better

>
> Pffft. "It's German, so it *MUST* be better!" (and variants of the

same
> fairy tale) is the only existing basis for such opinions.
>
> DS


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. Now whether it's *superior* or
not, that's another question entirely.

nate

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. Steve W. Dodge 48 January 12th 05 02:22 PM
REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. Steve W. 4x4 25 January 12th 05 02:22 PM
old oil filter question Nate Nagel Antique cars 8 October 12th 04 01:18 AM
Alfa 166 Air Filter - same as GTV 3,0 or 156 2.5 ??? jenks80085 Alfa Romeo 0 June 11th 04 12:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.