K&N Filtercharger effectiveness?
David K.
than paper filters but is there any hard evidence that proves that the K&N
filter removes as much particulate matter?
Thanks
David K.
Jonathan French
I'm assuming it's doing it's job and filtering the air better and
straightening it out. Remember as the filter collects more dust and dirt,
the better job it does.
Jonathan French
David K. <myn...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:7e8k8b$r8f$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
Dave Feltenberger
it performs!?
--
- - - -
Dave Feltenberger
AExpert, Inc.
da...@aexpert.com
- - - -
Jonathan French <fjon...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Q6SN2.151$xI5....@typhoon.nycap.rr.com...
chris
better when more dirt is attached to it?Wouldn't it hinder air flow
instead of helping?
Robert Hancock
so smaller particles could be trapped. Of course it would be more
restricted.
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hanc...@nospamhome.com
Home Page: http://members.home.net/hancockr
Dave Feltenberger <dpfe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e9aig$n4u$1...@news-1.news.gte.net...
gerald zuckier
of the filter material. More dirt collected, more surface area to trap dirt.
The mesh is pretty wide open, so the added dirt doesn't restrict air flow
significantly, up to a really really really dirty point. Whereas with paper
filters, you are basically sucking the air through tunnels through the
paper. The dirt gets trapped by getting stuck in the tunnels, but of course
that clogs the tunnels.
=====
Message: 5 of 6From:chris <tops...@webtv.net>Topic:Re: K&N Filtercharger
effectiveness?Sent:Sun, 4 Apr 1999 23:16:12 -0400 (EDT)I was thinking of
buying one for my truck.Question.....how can it work better when more dirt
is attached to it?Wouldn't it hinder air flow instead of helping?
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
David K.
Thanks
Dave
twise wrote:
> > I have a K&N and love it. I definitely noticed an increase in power. So
> > I'm assuming it's doing it's job and filtering the air better and
> > straightening it out. Remember as the filter collects more dust and dirt,
> > the better job it does
>
> Did you replace just the filter, or the entire intake system?
>
> Travis
David K.
are sending to me) documentation from an independent lab that shows their filter will
filter as well as other filters.
I am not concerned that the filter is able to clean the air better, just that it
filters it as well as the oem paper filter. I do not want to sacrifice air quality to
my engine for any reason whatsoever.
I will post any interesting information that they send to me if people are interested.
Thanks
Dave
Jonathan French
way that it creates another filter barrier. Eventually it does get too
dirty and you have to clean it. It should say that ton the back of your box
you got it in.
Dave Feltenberger <dpfe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e9aig$n4u$1...@news-1.news.gte.net...
> What? Are you telling us that the more clogged up a filter gets, the
better
> it performs!?
>
> --
> - - - -
> Dave Feltenberger
> AExpert, Inc.
> da...@aexpert.com
> - - - -
> Jonathan French <fjon...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Q6SN2.151$xI5....@typhoon.nycap.rr.com...
> > I have a K&N and love it. I definitely noticed an increase in power.
So
> > I'm assuming it's doing it's job and filtering the air better and
> > straightening it out. Remember as the filter collects more dust and
dirt,
Jim Walker
The statement that the filter works better when it has collected some
dirt refers to the fact that as the filter begins to load up the screen
size decreases. Therefore you filter smaller particles and you have more
resistance to flow.
chris wrote:
> I was thinking of buying one for my truck.Question.....how can it work
> better when more dirt is attached to it?Wouldn't it hinder air flow
> instead of helping?
--
Jim Walker
Northern Virginia
Jeff Appelhans
----------
In article <MPG.117284e89...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, addre...@bottom.of.message (Dick Brewster) wrote:
In article <3708DACE...@att.net>, dav...@att.net says...
Please post it. But I doubt that they will give any substantial
evidence that their filter works as good as a paper filter.
All I have ever heard K&N say about their filtration compared
to a stock filter is that it meets "minimum" standards.
I have K&N filters on three vehicles, but I'm not fooling myself
into thinking that they filter as good as a good paper element.
I recently bought a K&N for an old motorcycle I am modifying.
The instructions that came with the filter said that if you use a
heavy layer of filter oil on the filter it would restrict flow.
Then they also said that if it was going to be used in very dusty
conditions to use extra oil.
Dick
--
username. dbrewste
domain. ix.netcom.com
sama...@my-dejanews.com
"Jonathan French" <fjon...@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> I have a K&N and love it. I definitely noticed an increase in power. So
> I'm assuming it's doing it's job and filtering the air better and
> straightening it out. Remember as the filter collects more dust and dirt,
> the better job it does.
to the replies to this, he is not saying that it gets clogged faster, it
collects the same ammount of dirt as a normal air filter, and if properly
cleaned at normal intervalls it will give better airflow over the stock filter
any day, if you let it sit there and build up dirt of corse the airflow will
decrease, but that goes for any air filter.
--
Sam
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jim Schings / SR Racing
The K&N's that we have tested all flow better (on our flow bench) than
comparable other brands. However, they are only middle of the road in
filtering capability. Racers are not that interested in protecting the
engine for 50K miles. We want a filter to keep small children and dogs
out of the engine but that's about all. Most race engines never see more
than 1000 miles on them MAX. 500 is more typical. If your biggest
concern is engine life, use another brand highly rated filter. If you
need performance use a K&N.
Jim (SR Racing)
Jim Schings / SR Racing
We have tested several versions of the K&N on our flowbench. They
outperform all the other comparables in flow. However, we have no
capability to test for particulate capture. Tests that we have seen on
filter brands indicate that the K&N is "middle of the road" in this area
of performance.
Jim (SR Racing)
alp...@my-dejanews.com
tops...@webtv.net (chris) wrote:
> I was thinking of buying one for my truck.Question.....how can it work
> better when more dirt is attached to it?Wouldn't it hinder air flow
> instead of helping?
>
as hard at "breathing" (so I was told.) Technically this should give you more
power, but then again, you can use a cheapie paper filter to do the same
thing, right??
David K.
mean? Better than what and worse than what? How much less effective do you
think they are than paper?
Dave
David K.
Coupe V6? Are there filters that are better than the oem?
Thank you
Dave
Jim Schings / SR Racing wrote:
Don Stauffer
thread is lots of smoke (similar ones in the past were too). Too many
qualitative statements thrown around, no numbers. I was about to ask if
there were any ME grad students with access to an engine lab, but it looks
like you have already done the work. Could you post some numbers, not only
for the K&N, but for some stock filters?
Jim Schings / SR Racing wrote:
> David,
>
> We have tested several versions of the K&N on our flowbench. They
> outperform all the other comparables in flow. However, we have no
> capability to test for particulate capture. Tests that we have seen on
> filter brands indicate that the K&N is "middle of the road" in this area
> of performance.
>
> Jim (SR Racing)
--
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
stau...@gte.net
http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/
Kenneth J. Harris
nothing" and "there's no such thing as a free lunch". Back in the olden days, before
paper filters came into use, automotive filters were all of the oil wetted or oil bath
type. Incoming particles stuck to the oil surface and were removed from the air (it
was hoped) before entering the intake system. For racing, since longevity wasn't
really a consideration, the less restriction the better and velocity stacks were used
with no filtration at all. I remember when paper filters first came into use on
production vehicles with many test results showing the dramatic decrease in engine
wear because of reduced particle intake. I have no doubt that paper filters do a
better job of removing particles than oil wetted mesh type filters. This may come at
a price of increased restriction but of course a paper filter with the proper capacity
for the engine will not only have low restriction but better filtration for increased
engine life. So, it seems to me that the choice is less restriction for better
airflow with poorer filtration and increased wear, or a bit more restriction with less
airflow but better filtration and decreased engine wear. Just my opinions.
Ken
gerald zuckier wrote:
> Naw, that's the way it's designed; the dirt gets stuck on the oily surface
> of the filter material. More dirt collected, more surface area to trap dirt.
> The mesh is pretty wide open, so the added dirt doesn't restrict air flow
> significantly, up to a really really really dirty point. Whereas with paper
> filters, you are basically sucking the air through tunnels through the
> paper. The dirt gets trapped by getting stuck in the tunnels, but of course
> that clogs the tunnels.
>
> =====
>
> Message: 5 of 6From:chris <tops...@webtv.net>Topic:Re: K&N Filtercharger
> effectiveness?Sent:Sun, 4 Apr 1999 23:16:12 -0400 (EDT)I was thinking of
> buying one for my truck.Question.....how can it work better when more dirt
> is attached to it?Wouldn't it hinder air flow instead of helping?
>
Clint Law
David K. wrote in message <7e8k8b$r8f$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>I know that the K&N air filters boast much more air flow and greater life
>than paper filters but is there any hard evidence that proves that the K&N
>filter removes as much particulate matter?
No. As a matter of fact, it is generally considered that a K&N will allow
about 1% more contamination through than a paper filter. I have never heard
of any motor where that has led to any kind of problem though - especially
since the extra 1% is in very very small particles.
John Shepardson
was posted on the Toyota Modifications server if anyone wants to
see it. I hesitate to post it because it could be propaganda by
someone who hated the company. Let me know.
--
John Shepardson
Car dr ase
and you'll see.
Don Stauffer
filter at a given airflow. By how MUCH? Half a percent? A percent? Ten
percent? Fifty percent? My impression is that stock aircleaners do not have that
great a pressure drop even at full throttle, so the reduction compared to stock
must be substantial to make it worth while.
Hear is what I mean. Suppose a stock filter has a half psi drop at full
throttle. Then we can say that the VE, and hence power, is reduced by about 0.5
in 15, or 1 in 30, or a 3% drop. Okay, now let us put in a filter that as a 0.25
psi drop. Only half the drop of a stock filter. So now we lose only 1.5 %
instead of three percent. Yeah, in competition I'd like a 1.5% edge on the other
guy, but for street use I wouldn't bother.
Car dr ase wrote:
> they are everything they claim. run back to back runs with stock type then k&n
> and you'll see.
--
John Shepardson
accuracy of it. Actually I must not because 2 of my 3 vehicles
have K&N air filters in them.
I suppose they let a little dust through but flow better.
I have heard of dyno tests where the air filter is totally
removed, and there is no difference in hp
As I said, this is pulled off the archives of the Toyota Mods server,
not my words.
John Shepardson
Start of quote
Subject: K&N Filters Don't
The following are two messages from a current thread on K&N filters, on
CompuServe's Automobile Forum:
Fm: George Morrison 75521,22
"I was responsible for evaluating re-usable air filters for a major
construction/mining company that had hundreds of vehicles ranging from large
earthmovers to pick-up trucks and salesmen's cars. This study was embarked
upon due to the fact that we were spending upwards of $30,000 a MONTH on paper
air filters. Using them one time then throwing them away.. I inititated the
study in that I was convinced that a K&N type filter or oiled foam would save
us many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour savings, and of course
engines as these would filter dirt better than paper. (yes, I had read the K&N
ads and was a believer)"
"Representative test units were chosen to give us a broad spectrum from cars
right through large front end loaders. With each unit we had a long history
of oil analysis records so that changes would be trackable."
"Unfortunately, for me, every single unit having alternative re-usable air
cleaners showed an immediate large jump in silicon (dirt) levels with
corresponding major increases in wear metals. In one extreme case, a unit
with a primary and secondary air cleaner, the secondary (small paper element)
clogged before even one day's test run could be completed. This particular
unit had a Cummins V-12 engine that had paper/paper one one bank and K&N/paper
on the other bank; two completely independent unduction systems. The
conditions were EXACTLY duplicated for each bank yet the K&N allowed so much
dirt to pass through that the small filter became clogged before lunch. The
same outcome occured with oiled foams on this unit."
"We discontinued the tests on the large pieces almost immediately but continued
with service trucks, formen's vehicles, and my own company car. Analysis
results continued showing markedly increased wear rates for all the vehicles,
mine included. Test concluded, switched back to paper/glass and all vehicles
showed reduction back to near original levels of both wear metals and dirt. I
continued with the K&N on my company car out of stubborness and at 85,000
miles the Chevy 305 V-8 wheezed its last breath. The top end was sanded
badly; bottom end was just fine. End of test."
"I must stress that EVERYONE involved in this test was hoping that alternative
filters would work as everyone was sick about pulling out a perfectly good $85
air cleaner and throwing 4 of them away each week per machine..."
"So, I strongly suggest that depending upon an individual's long term plan for
their vehicles they simply run an oil analysis at least once to see that the
K&N or whatever alternative air filter is indeed working IN THAT
APPLICATION... It depends on a person's priorities. If you want performance
then indeed the K&N is the way to go but at what cost???"
"And no, I do not work for a paper or glass air filter manufacturing company
nor do I have any affiliation with anything directly or indirectly that could
benefit George Morrison as a result.."
(from another message in the same discussion)
"John: K/N filters have been independently tested for PERFORMANCE i.e. FLOW
and yes, they do indeed flow better than paper or glass elements. From my
very extensive (and expensive) field testing, on real live equipment, the K&N
(and other re-usables) do NOT filter DIRT as well as paper/glass. Period.."
"John, there is not one equipment manufacturer in the WORLD who is using K&N's
(or other) on off-highway or mining equipment. I am talking about engines
costing hundreds of thousands of dollars exposed to the dirtiest condtions
that exist; these pieces of equipment are built with cost no object in respect
to their induction systems. And John, paper or fiberglass is THE standard.
The only way to get positive filtration is to screen it. If you need to
filter to 4 microns, you have to have a four micron screen. In the K&N (and
others) it MAY filter to 4 microns but with its 1/8th inch opening, the filter
MAY allow an eighth inch chuck of dirt in also. And it will.."
Does anyone know of any other tests that either substantiate, or refute
George's test? His test is more than anecdotal, it's an objective, well-run
test on a wide range of vehicles. The conclusion is impossible to ignore, and
certainly sheds some doubt on both K&N's claims, and conventional wisdom.
The author of the original message can be reached at 7552...@compuserve.com
End of quote
--
John Shepardson
Tim
a given engine condition?? That, to me, would give much more meaningful
data.
Tim
Don Stauffer wrote:
>
> Can ANYONE provide some NUMBERS? I hear it has less pressure drop than a stock
> filter at a given airflow. By how MUCH? Half a percent? A percent? Ten
> percent? Fifty percent? My impression is that stock aircleaners do not have that
> great a pressure drop even at full throttle, so the reduction compared to stock
> must be substantial to make it worth while.
>
> Hear is what I mean. Suppose a stock filter has a half psi drop at full
> throttle. Then we can say that the VE, and hence power, is reduced by about 0.5
> in 15, or 1 in 30, or a 3% drop. Okay, now let us put in a filter that as a 0.25
> psi drop. Only half the drop of a stock filter. So now we lose only 1.5 %
> instead of three percent. Yeah, in competition I'd like a 1.5% edge on the other
> guy, but for street use I wouldn't bother.
>
> Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
> stau...@gte.net
> http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/
fl...@alaska.net
>At ANY given engine rpm (what other condition is there besides engine
>speed) the airflow will be the same no matter what kind of filter it
>has (unless the filter is so clogged the engine can't achieve higher
>rpm). The engine is a constant displacement air pump and it's airflow
>is DIRECTLY proportional to rpm regardless of the filter...
Is the poster saying that a certain 3-litre engine will pump the same
volume of air at 5000 rpm producing 40 hp as it will producing 200
horsepower at the same rpm? If so, I bet there will be some
disagreement from the NG.
Jay T
Bradford Sympson
> The engine is a constant displacement air pump and it's airflow
> is DIRECTLY proportional to rpm regardless of the filter.
Mr. Fun:
I don't want to be rude, but I believe you have made an error. While
an engine's displacement is constant, the amount of air that it "pumps"
is NOT directly proportional to the engine's RPM.
Possibly you have heard the term "volumetric efficiency" used in
discussions about internal combustion (IC) engines. This term refers
to the amount of air "ingested" by an IC engine, relative to the
engine's displacement, expressed as a percentage.
If you examine the volumetric efficiency curves of typical IC engines,
you will find that volumetric efficiency (VE) is well below 100% at low
engine speeds, approaches a maximum at/near the RPM where maximum torque
is developed, and then, eventually, starts to decline.
Passenger cars typically have a peak VE of about 80%. Well-designed
racing engines that do not use a supercharger can generate VE values
in excess of 110% over a range of engine speeds that falls somewhere
between the engine's torque peak and its horsepower peak. Supercharged
engines can generate peak VE levels in excess of 200%. In all cases,
after the VE curve peaks, it eventually starts declining as RPM
continues to increase.
To review: As engine RPM increases steadily, the amount of air that
is "pumped" by an engine increases at first, reaches a maximum (which
is not, in general, equal to the engine's displacement), and then,
eventually, starts to decline. The amount of air pumped is not
"DIRECTLY" (or inversely) related to engine RPM. Mathematicians and
engineers call this type of quantitative relationship "non-monotone".
JBS
Jerry Jackson
Yes, the engine is a "fixed displacement" pump.... however, the air it is
pumping can be compressed and expanded...so the airflow will not always be
the same at a given rpm. The free flowing air filter provides for less
expansion of the intake air as it is drawn into the cylinder...thus giving a
higher air density when the compression stroke begins.
The secret of getting more power from an engine with spark plugs boils down
to three things:
1. air/fuel ratio....which varies with fuel type.
2. ignition timing.
3. cylinder pressure at the moment of ignition.
These days, with computers, the air/fuel mixtures and ignition timing are
easy to handle from a design and tuning perspective.
With cylinder pressure, it's not so simple (well..maybe it is simple if
you're running a turbo or supercharger). The engine's power band is
determined by the rpm range where the cylinder pressures are the greatest.
Many things affect cylinder pressures at a given rpm...the biggest of which
is the valve lift and valve timing.... Without getting too long winded, I'll
close by saying anything done to raise the cylinder pressure at the time of
ignition can also raise the power output....as long as air/fuel ratios and
ignition timing are correct.
Jerry Jackson
Mr. Fun <gri...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:3712db8e...@news.primenet.com...
> On Fri, 09 Apr 1999 16:00:36 -0400, Tim <Tim.W...@analog.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Wouldn't it be more useful to know how much airflow the filter allows at
> >a given engine condition?? That, to me, would give much more meaningful
> >data.
> >
>
> At ANY given engine rpm (what other condition is there besides engine
> speed) the airflow will be the same no matter what kind of filter it
> has (unless the filter is so clogged the engine can't achieve higher
> rpm). The engine is a constant displacement air pump and it's airflow
> is DIRECTLY proportional to rpm regardless of the filter. A more
> restrictive filter simply makes the engine use more of it's power to
> pump air and leaves less "left over" to drive the wheels. Obviously,
> for maximum power to the wheels you want the least restrictive
> filter... but for engine protection you want one that filters the crap
> out. Paper filters are good at both, K&N are only good at low
> restriction.
fl...@alaska.net
>The secret of getting more power from an engine with spark plugs:
>1. air/fuel ratio
>2. ignition timing.
>3. cylinder pressure at the moment of ignition.
Okay as far as it goes, but the poster forgot one of the most
important factors in getting more power out of an engine with spark
plugs - rpm. Since horsepower can be defined as BMEP x rpm, engine
speed cannot be forgotten. He has the factors effecting BMEP, but
without rpm there is no power. Keep BMEP constant, and for practical
purposes power increases with rpm to the point of engine failure ( or
to the eventual, inevitable loss of BMEP ).
Jay T
michael dominguez
I do know however that at 35,000 miles on my toyota and too many $$$ spent
on paper filters that were choking the lil fourbanger, I bought a K&N stock
box filter for $34.00. After a parking lot install, i couldn't believe the
difference and the lil four broke the tires loose on a u turn, hah. Well
after much abuse, I traded in my ol toy 92 4x4 with 110,000 miles and I can
say the engine was still strong and the truck was still worth $8200.00 after
many an airborne trip. I only washed that K&N twice and the intake was
always clean. I can say that once I did clean out the fuel injector bore
with carb cleaner (a no no) and it did make a difference, but there was no
signifigant wear that I noticed. And to the flamers at the dodge newsgroup
who said that i could stick the filter up my ass, cause that's where it
would do best, "whatever"
Just my three cents
Don Stauffer <stau...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:7edhpe$rhk$2...@news-2.news.gte.net...