REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk.

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!!!
--
Steve Williams

In article >, "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.

I once found a site in Japanese where some creative street racers
decided to test filters. They used a shop vac, a measured spoonful of
copier toner, and what appeared to be coffee filters. As usual the K&N
was near the bottom in filtering ability.

They were also quite worried about MAP sensor failures on oiled air
filter equipped cars. Both K&N gauze type and oiled foam.

Its more extreme with a Diesel, as in the SPICER test above, but any
reduction in restriction (K&N's claim to fame) is compensated by closing
the throttle. Your engine requires one quantity of air per unit of work
and this quantity is regulated by the sum of the throttle plate, air
filter restriction, and other intake restrictions. Reduce restriction on
one and increase it on another to maintain the same quantity of air. So
unless your foot is pressed against the floorboard the air filter
restriction doesn't matter.

With the HP race automakers want every cheap horse they can find. If air
filters were as important for HP as K&N suggests then all an automaker
has to do is increase the size of their paper air filters. Bigger paper
filters flow the same volume with less restriction. Only example I know
of is the huge Porsche 928 air filter.

You are right the benefit of K/N is questionable. If it is that good, why
doesn't car manufacturer install them in their car? As far as increase
horsepower! all people have to do is to remove the air filter and try it out
to see if they can tell an improvement. Replace the filter after the test
run. My brother has purchased after market K/N cold air intake. We have
tested the car with and without using G-Tech (accelerometer to test for
acceleration). Test after tests, weather condition, road condition. There
is no benefit. We did not test its filtration ability but sound the copier
toner is a logical way to test.

"David Kelly" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "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.
>
> I once found a site in Japanese where some creative street racers
> decided to test filters. They used a shop vac, a measured spoonful of
> copier toner, and what appeared to be coffee filters. As usual the K&N
> was near the bottom in filtering ability.
>
> They were also quite worried about MAP sensor failures on oiled air
> filter equipped cars. Both K&N gauze type and oiled foam.
>
> Its more extreme with a Diesel, as in the SPICER test above, but any
> reduction in restriction (K&N's claim to fame) is compensated by closing
> the throttle. Your engine requires one quantity of air per unit of work
> and this quantity is regulated by the sum of the throttle plate, air
> filter restriction, and other intake restrictions. Reduce restriction on
> one and increase it on another to maintain the same quantity of air. So
> unless your foot is pressed against the floorboard the air filter
> restriction doesn't matter.
>
> With the HP race automakers want every cheap horse they can find. If air
> filters were as important for HP as K&N suggests then all an automaker
> has to do is increase the size of their paper air filters. Bigger paper
> filters flow the same volume with less restriction. Only example I know
> of is the huge Porsche 928 air filter.
>

WOW.

Once it got to a throw-away paper filter, I figured it would all be the
same. I think I should look into finding an AC Delco that meets the size
I've decided on for my beast!!

GMC Gremlin

"Steve W." > wrote in message
...
> 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!!!
> --
> Steve Williams
>
>

I have expected this all along. If you pick up a reusable filter like K&N
or in the case of my truck, 2000 Toyota Prerunner V-6 A TRD reusable
filter from Toyota. When I first installed the filter I was skeptical ,
because I could see through the Trd filter way better than the brand new
stock filter I had just Bought from the dealer. To me if I could see
easier through the $60 Reusable filter than the $12 factory filter it had
to let more dirt through. My truck had 42,000 miles on standard filters
from Toyota my mass airflow sensor and intake tube to the throttle body
was like new ( no dirt ). At 51,000 I looked at the same parts again,
There was dirt on the inside of the filter box where the good old Arizona
dust had gotten past the filter, the intake tube to my throttle body had
dust also , power was no different and mileage was the same, and the truck
made more noise. I just have to consider it a $ 50 mistake and pitched the
EXPENSIVE filter in the trash. Regular factory filters for me. I had to
see it for myself. Scott

I wont defend K&N officially however, the comment that you dont need
that extra air and wont benefit from it is ludicrous. More air, and
cooler air, to a point will get you more power, maybe not enough to
really notice.. 5-6 hp is probably about average. Why doesnt the dealer
put it on, because it gives a bit more growl with that extra flow. add
a CAI set up and you really increase noise. It all depends on the
vehicle. My Discovery runs just fine with the factory filter and being
that dirt is the issue on an offroad vehicle I would prefer to be safe
rather than sorry. However, a conical filter (not K&N) on a high flow
CAI set up produces noticible increase in high end power on every BMW I
have put them on, plus the roar you get with the CAI/foam filter is
awesome.

This is a very interesting study. It displays the AC Delco filter in almost
the same light as others try to display the K&N filter.

Are there other studies out there like this? It is difficult to analyze one
versus another. But if there were three different, unrelated surveys and
they all pointed the same way . . .

Thinking twice about putting a K&N on my new vehicle. Maybe it belongs on
eBay instead?

Paul P
"Steve W." > wrote in message
...
> 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!!!
> --
> Steve Williams
>
>

I guess if the price is reasonable and you're not concern about if you
actually gain 5 to 6 hp than install one. But paying over 100 dollars is
bit too much for me. I wont say that I know a lot about engine breathing
nor know how to tune the engine to get extra horsepower with just 100 or 200
dollars. I thought that to get extra horse power you need air + fuel then
exhaust the burnt fuel out with less exhaust back pressure. So if that
case, than improving air does not necessary improve overall engine
performance. Ofcourse I am not talking about clog paper air filter either.
We have to assume that the stock air filter is clean and is representable
for this test. So change once per year is all you need for average driving
condition.
As far as CAI, once again not being the expert on this and since we are in
discussion mode, most CAI I have seen is placed inside engine bay. There is
no fresh air inlet from outside such as ramp-air to funnel the cold air in,
do you still think there is a cold air benefit? Cold air is better for
engine without question as it is more dense than warm air. I can see that if
you change your air intake ports or opening your throttle body or MAF sensor
to increase the cross sectional area plus air inlet from outside to get
cooler air, then you will see a benefit. I have a Bonneville SSEi. I have
removed the air filter, remove the MAF screen one day on open road to test
the car. With the accelerometer, I took several readings and the results
does not indicate with or without air filter to simulate an ideal filter
(stock air box) that there is an improvement.
We did the same test on Focus with Zetech engine but this time with full CAI
cone kit couple with 2 inches aluminum pipe. Once again, the results is not
conclusive.
Perhaps my accelerometer measurement resolution and accuracy is
questionable, but still the benefit between stock air filter vs CAI with K/N
or what have you is still out there.
Having said that, improve Hp does not come cheap with just K/N. I think
there is more to it than that.



"Corey Shuman" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I wont defend K&N officially however, the comment that you dont need
> that extra air and wont benefit from it is ludicrous. More air, and
> cooler air, to a point will get you more power, maybe not enough to
> really notice.. 5-6 hp is probably about average. Why doesnt the dealer
> put it on, because it gives a bit more growl with that extra flow. add
> a CAI set up and you really increase noise. It all depends on the
> vehicle. My Discovery runs just fine with the factory filter and being
> that dirt is the issue on an offroad vehicle I would prefer to be safe
> rather than sorry. However, a conical filter (not K&N) on a high flow
> CAI set up produces noticible increase in high end power on every BMW I
> have put them on, plus the roar you get with the CAI/foam filter is
> awesome.
>

well power wise its more on a per engine basis than a lot of people here
give credit. my cavy had a highly noticable increase in performance with
a 10" round eldebrock muscle car filter set-up than with its original
set-up... and then when i got too gutting that cat on that one is was a
very even set-up ... not too much low and not too much high

Paul Proefrock wrote:

> This is a very interesting study. It displays the AC Delco filter in almost
> the same light as others try to display the K&N filter.
>
> Are there other studies out there like this? It is difficult to analyze one
> versus another. But if there were three different, unrelated surveys and
> they all pointed the same way . . .
>
> Thinking twice about putting a K&N on my new vehicle. Maybe it belongs on
> eBay instead?
>
> Paul P
> "Steve W." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>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!!!
>>--
>>Steve Williams
>>
>>
>
>
>

....
> Thinking twice about putting a K&N on my new vehicle. Maybe it belongs on
> eBay instead?...

The K&N was the best at what it claimed to be the best at. Free air flow.
One thing the study didn't talk about what how much tolernace for dirt did
the motor have? Were all air filters within the manufactures specs?

Less junk getting into your motor is a good thnig, but at some point it
won't matter due to your oil filter etc.