Smooth power everywhere

[Pterodactyl_imp]

I'm pretty sure I am not missing the point. I agree, flow is very easy to measure. I gave an explanation of how very different the physics between the two types of filters are, and why that accounts for the greater flow of the K&N. This difference widens with engine rpm and HP output.

Here's a little image taken from a comprehensive test which clearly shows K&N having the least restriction to flow by a wide margin, compared to several others along with an OEM unit:



The K&N did pass more dust, but whether that would be significant with respect to any real difference in engine wear is not known, since K&N does in fact meet OEM specifications and warranty requirements.

A link to the entire test follows; the test is not favorable to replacing OEM with aftermarket and asserts, wrongly, that engines simply cannot take advantage of the extra airflow of the K&N/similar unless heavily modified. That's uninformed at best and really borders on the disingenuous. Certainly, a family car with a low-revving four-cylinder engine, such as a base-model Camry or Accord, will not get much out of a K&N, as it's not designed to make its power in the upper third of the tachometer. But our motorcycle is, and it can benefit from the increased flow, on both the intake and exhaust sides of the cylinder head.

http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html

From Baldwin Filters: Most engine manufacturers suggest a maximum allowable restriction between 15 and 20 inches of water (3.75 – 5.00 Kpa) for gas and LP engines , and from 20 to 30 inches of water (5.00 – 7.50 Kpa) for diesels. Exceeding these maximums will affect engine performance.

So, you think that a fraction of an inch water column "clearly shows K&N having the least restriction to flow by a wide margin" ?????

Your assertion that "and asserts, wrongly, that engines simply cannot take advantage of the extra airflow of the K&N/similar unless heavily modified." is still incorrect. Unless the existing air filter is a restriction, it won't matter if you put ten additional filters in parallel (KnN or OEM), it WON'T make a bit of a difference. The engine will be limited by its own volumetric efficiency; not the air filter.

Many years ago, there was a note on the European Cummins website indicating that customers should NOT use the KnN filter due to excessive wear (yes, I saw the website with my own eyes). This was enough for me to never use this type of filter.

From Baldwin Filters: Most engine manufacturers suggest a maximum allowable restriction between 15 and 20 inches of water (3.75 – 5.00 Kpa) for gas and LP engines , and from 20 to 30 inches of water (5.00 – 7.50 Kpa) for diesels. Exceeding these maximums will affect engine performance.

So, you think that a fraction of an inch water column "clearly shows K&N having the least restriction to flow by a wide margin" ?????

Your assertion that "and asserts, wrongly, that engines simply cannot take advantage of the extra airflow of the K&N/similar unless heavily modified." is still incorrect. Unless the existing air filter is a restriction, it won't matter if you put ten additional filters in parallel (KnN or OEM), it WON'T make a bit of a difference. The engine will be limited by its own volumetric efficiency; not the air filter.

Many years ago, there was a note on the European Cummins website indicating that customers should NOT use the KnN filter due to excessive wear (yes, I saw the website with my own eyes). This was enough for me to never use this type of filter.

Red Mist,

The introduction to this specific test program (http://www.nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html) states:

For decades, the aftermarket hot rod, racing and tuning communities have relied on oiled-media filters to free up that extra few horsepower. In fact, it’s often one of the FIRST modifications many automotive enthusiasts do to their car. K&N filters, to their credit, is generally known to be the top name in oiled filters, and they do a great job of building a quality product. However, it’s always important to evaluate the claims and see exactly what you’re getting for your money.

This report shows, with empirical data and sound reasoning, why OEM filters perform better in a variety of areas.

Special thanks to Arlen Spicer and all others involved in making this information available.

A note from the author:
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 vehicles 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 engines 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 be recognizeable. At that point performance will decline somewhat. Replace the filter and get on with it.

Hopefully the results of this test will do 2 things. Shed some light on the misleading marketing claims of some aftermarket manufacturers and/or give us new insight on products already on the market that are superior to our OE filter.

----------------

I wouldn't, to say the least, call this, or the conclusions drawn from the testing an unqualified endorsement of after market filters. Would you? The test is titled: Debunking the K&N Myth – Why OEM is Better

Cheers