Mangahelic testing for the stock air box!!
12-10-03, 07:28 PM
#26
Originally posted by asherwood
I here some of what you say, however the pressures listed above for the Fram drop-in would support the fact that a poor flowing filter would account for approximatly a 100% increase in flow restriction!
With this in mind, I would rather have a K&N that gives me 'negligible' restriction versus a 100% increase!
Add to this that at the price I paid versus the cost of a genuine Mazda filter the K&N starts saving me money by the second cleaning.
Santiago, I think that most of us would still like to see the numbers for a freshly cleaned K&N
I here some of what you say, however the pressures listed above for the Fram drop-in would support the fact that a poor flowing filter would account for approximatly a 100% increase in flow restriction!
With this in mind, I would rather have a K&N that gives me 'negligible' restriction versus a 100% increase!
Add to this that at the price I paid versus the cost of a genuine Mazda filter the K&N starts saving me money by the second cleaning.
Santiago, I think that most of us would still like to see the numbers for a freshly cleaned K&N
Yes I don't see what most of the people have said in the past being represented in the tests we have conducted. Hopefully I can borrow a video camera for the next run so we can get it all on tape.
Even though the K&N filter that replaces the stock one would probably lower the restriction considerably I would still agree that it is not going to be "worth" the money.
If anyone wants to go ahead and buy a Genuine Mazda Filter here is a link from mazdaformance.: Mazda OEM Air Filter 21.63
Here is a link for the K&N drop-in offering at Mazdatrix: K&N Drop-in Filter
55.26
Santiago
12-10-03, 07:57 PM
#27
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by 1987RX7guy
I was reading up on the Racing Beat catalog and they ALSO recommend Fram oil filter's when using their filter relocation kits. Which directly contradicts all that you have said in the past about Fram being crap.
I was reading up on the Racing Beat catalog and they ALSO recommend Fram oil filter's when using their filter relocation kits. Which directly contradicts all that you have said in the past about Fram being crap.
12-10-03, 08:01 PM
#28
I am very aware of that. But in the past he has stated that their oil filters are bad. Given that is contradicted by A major company that isn't FRAM I would think that some proof that the Fram air filter be shown based on the info about the oil filters.
12-10-03, 08:29 PM
#29
Older than Dirt
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 1,448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I understand this whole thread this is the first step in showing the improvements of your intake system, right? First set the baseline with the stock setup and then your system sometime down the road.
If that in fact is the case, wouldn't successive dyno runs do it for you? After all most of the folks in here are looking for max HP gains cheap. Documented dyno results can serve that same function. While some of us in here understand your tests and applaud your effort, I feel that the masses will be clueless.
If that in fact is the case, wouldn't successive dyno runs do it for you? After all most of the folks in here are looking for max HP gains cheap. Documented dyno results can serve that same function. While some of us in here understand your tests and applaud your effort, I feel that the masses will be clueless.
12-10-03, 08:41 PM
#30
Originally posted by Mr. Gadget
If I understand this whole thread this is the first step in showing the improvements of your intake system, right? First set the baseline with the stock setup and then your system sometime down the road.
If that in fact is the case, wouldn't successive dyno runs do it for you? After all most of the folks in here are looking for max HP gains cheap. Documented dyno results can serve that same function. While some of us in here understand your tests and applaud your effort, I feel that the masses will be clueless.
If I understand this whole thread this is the first step in showing the improvements of your intake system, right? First set the baseline with the stock setup and then your system sometime down the road.
If that in fact is the case, wouldn't successive dyno runs do it for you? After all most of the folks in here are looking for max HP gains cheap. Documented dyno results can serve that same function. While some of us in here understand your tests and applaud your effort, I feel that the masses will be clueless.
This isn't the first set of tests for the CAI that I am going to be reporting. The first set was Temp readings. I personally know that the CAI works like majic specially after the car has been driven for over 10 min at which time the stock setup starts to heat up faster than the CAI. I didn't do the dyno tests yet for two reasons that are closely related. One I have the wrong gear set in my car currently. I have a 3.9 LSD in it because I need it it back on the road quickly and I don't know how to factor that into the dyno's calculations or if it will affect it. I do know that my speedo is off by a lot at high speeds. Second the hesitations would probably ruin the runs and would make it all just a big waste of money. Its ~100 bucks for the amount of runs that I want to do and that is a lot of money for a small timer like me to just throw away because of hessitations that can be fixed by finding the problem.
I agree that the mass of FC owners are not going to have a clue as to what 8.5" of water means to them in reality but I want to put ALL the numbers out there for people to see I am no affraid of the truth much like the bigger companies are. This type of measurement was suggested to me by NZconvertible and I thought it would be neat to see the change. I still don't know how much it will change when I do the CAI but I hope it is significant so that all my work isn't wasted.
Santiago
12-10-03, 09:49 PM
#31
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thinks that this shows a little bit of savings!
I have the invoices:
From the dealer, N350-13-Z40 cost $64.96
Auto parts store, K&N 332017 cost $84.29
By my math I only have to replace the OEM filter once before I would be saving money on the K&N unit.
From the dealer, N350-13-Z40 cost $64.96
Auto parts store, K&N 332017 cost $84.29
By my math I only have to replace the OEM filter once before I would be saving money on the K&N unit.
12-10-03, 10:06 PM
#32
Re: I thinks that this shows a little bit of savings!
Originally posted by asherwood
I have the invoices:
From the dealer, N350-13-Z40 cost $64.96
Auto parts store, K&N 332017 cost $84.29
By my math I only have to replace the OEM filter once before I would be saving money on the K&N unit.
I have the invoices:
From the dealer, N350-13-Z40 cost $64.96
Auto parts store, K&N 332017 cost $84.29
By my math I only have to replace the OEM filter once before I would be saving money on the K&N unit.
12-10-03, 10:33 PM
#34
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheesh, thanks for the sympathy guys!
The Mazda cost is pretty much fixed, although now after all of the parts that I bought from them I now get a 15% break!
As for the K&N, the retail on that baby was a full $135, again I got a break! (I had the oil and cleaner already)
Welcome to the cost of parts in Canada!!!
P.S. Try an cheer me up a little, because I posting this thread in the middle of installing that new primary fuel rail/PD I'm afraid to tell what I paid for that...
The Mazda cost is pretty much fixed, although now after all of the parts that I bought from them I now get a 15% break!
As for the K&N, the retail on that baby was a full $135, again I got a break! (I had the oil and cleaner already)
Welcome to the cost of parts in Canada!!!
P.S. Try an cheer me up a little, because I posting this thread in the middle of installing that new primary fuel rail/PD
I'm afraid to tell what I paid for that...
12-10-03, 11:47 PM
#36
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 1987RX7guy
I didn't know it was from canadian prices. I was thinking it was US dollars you quoted. Silly me I didn't look at the location for you. lol
I didn't know it was from canadian prices. I was thinking it was US dollars you quoted. Silly me I didn't look at the location for you. lol
Yeah but the sad part is that if you make $10/hr and I make $10/hr (in our respective countries) and then we go out and buy the same air filter (or whatever) then you are still right....I paid too much
12-11-03, 12:21 AM
#38
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Originally posted by 1987RX7guy
When we took it out it wasn't clogged up at all. It looked close to new. Given other brands are not available here for stock replacement I used Fram(other than going to a dealer). I would like to see any data to support your claim that Fram is the worst out there. I was reading up on the Racing Beat catalog and they ALSO recommend Fram oil filter's when using their filter relocation kits. Which directly contradicts all that you have said in the past about Fram being crap. I just don't see them being wrong since they have been testing a lot since way back before I was even born so I would put my trust heavily on them since they have serious experience in various racing classes and they did do the land speed runs with their 7's. Anyways if you can show us that data it would be great help to us. James said that he is going to bring the K&N drop in from home when he comes back from his hanuka vacation. We will have addittions to this thread when that happens.
At the moment I am still trying to find the problems with my hesitating but I think I am going to set up my CAI again and test that when I find someone to write down the results while I drive.
Santiago
When we took it out it wasn't clogged up at all. It looked close to new. Given other brands are not available here for stock replacement I used Fram(other than going to a dealer). I would like to see any data to support your claim that Fram is the worst out there. I was reading up on the Racing Beat catalog and they ALSO recommend Fram oil filter's when using their filter relocation kits. Which directly contradicts all that you have said in the past about Fram being crap. I just don't see them being wrong since they have been testing a lot since way back before I was even born so I would put my trust heavily on them since they have serious experience in various racing classes and they did do the land speed runs with their 7's. Anyways if you can show us that data it would be great help to us. James said that he is going to bring the K&N drop in from home when he comes back from his hanuka vacation. We will have addittions to this thread when that happens.
At the moment I am still trying to find the problems with my hesitating but I think I am going to set up my CAI again and test that when I find someone to write down the results while I drive.
Santiago
#2 RB does not endorse the use of Fram oil or air filters. In fact their wording is :
As supplied, these filter mounts accept the Fram HP-1 or equivalent
Use the Fram for your test if you want, it will just skew your results to prove to you, what ever you want.
I could also use a magnehelic meter, and use a Fram for my base line, and then use a piece of fiberglass insulation and compare and then say, look, my new fiberglass filter is 50% better than a stock style filter. You can buy it for only $50 per filter. The only truly accurate base line can be made only using the original filter the factory has specified.
As far as the quality of the Fram...
The ability of an air filter to protect your engine is generally measured using a testing procedure developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers identified as the SAE J726 procedure. Most manufactures subject a sample filter design to this test procedure using Coarse Test Dust, which includes particles ranging in size from less than 5.5 microns to 176 microns. As a point of reference, a human hair is approximately 50 microns in diameter. The result of the above test procedure is a specific air filtration efficiency number. This efficiency number represents the percentage of test dust retained by the filter and thereby kept out of an engine. The last I checked (about 4 years ago) the Fram panel filters were typically around 93-94%. K&N by comparison typically are around 97-98%. Now of course this does not even take into consideration air flow of more than 250CFM through the filter or clogging, by the particles.
Of course, you can say your filter looked clean… but then how many pieces of dirt can you see that are as thick as a human hair. Again though, your own tests have proved that your fram air filter is clogged with only your claimed 5K miles on it.
20 years ago, I too thought Fram the best when I was changing filters on my cars then… but luckily I learned better, and your testing has proved to me that the air filters certainly have not changed.
Last edited by Icemark; 12-11-03 at 12:33 AM.
12-11-03, 09:01 AM
#39
Use of the FRAM HP-2 model non-bypass filters will provide both excellent filter capacity and elimination of bypass. One other filter possibility is the FRAM HP-6. It is larger in diamited then HP-2, but only one filter is necessary, thus making it easier to mount.The only limitation to this filter is that it has an internal pressure bypass set for 22 psi. However this is high enough that bypass is unlikely to occure in reasonable use.
That is straight from their Catalog that I borrowed from James just two days ago. It makes no mention of HP-1 or "equivalent" It also states that with the use of HP-6 only one filter is necessary.
Before I keep going I want to say here that I am not trying to be an *** or anything but this does make me wonder of a lot of things said here and in other places on the net. Now I do trust in most of what you say because it is down right true but I would not say that this is them talking about FRAM in just an ordinary way. Why would they say "...both excellent filter capacity and elimination of bypass" why don't they just say use the equivalent? Why would they even go into talking about other filters from FRAM if they didn't trust in them. In any case we aren't speaking of oil filters but this makes me think about the air filters and what I have read here. In any case I am probably going to buy a OE filter if it is reasonably price and not what our canadian friend payed for it which is ridiculous in addition to a new Fram filter to appease you guys when comparing these to the drop in K&N.
The above quote can be found in theri Catalog entittled Rotary Performance Technical Manual & Parts catalog. It is black and has a pic of a rotor and the Racing Beat logo ont eh bottom. Page number is 67.
Santiago
PS- http://racingbeat.com/catordrform.htm you can get a catalog here.
12-11-03, 10:05 AM
#40
I would be appreciative of any links you have from the last time you looked at the SAE test results. I went to their website. www.sae.org but i can't seem to locate any results on there so I am guessing they have a separate site for that.
12-11-03, 10:18 AM
#41
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Originally posted by 1987RX7guy
That is straight from their Catalog that I borrowed from James just two days ago. It makes no mention of HP-1 or "equivalent" It also states that with the use of HP-6 only one filter is necessary.
Before I keep going I want to say here that I am not trying to be an *** or anything but this does make me wonder of a lot of things said here and in other places on the net. Now I do trust in most of what you say because it is down right true but I would not say that this is them talking about FRAM in just an ordinary way. Why would they say "...both excellent filter capacity and elimination of bypass" why don't they just say use the equivalent? Why would they even go into talking about other filters from FRAM if they didn't trust in them. In any case we aren't speaking of oil filters but this makes me think about the air filters and what I have read here. In any case I am probably going to buy a OE filter if it is reasonably price and not what our canadian friend payed for it which is ridiculous in addition to a new Fram filter to appease you guys when comparing these to the drop in K&N.
The above quote can be found in theri Catalog entittled Rotary Performance Technical Manual & Parts catalog. It is black and has a pic of a rotor and the Racing Beat logo ont eh bottom. Page number is 67.
Santiago
PS- http://racingbeat.com/catordrform.htm you can get a catalog here.
That is straight from their Catalog that I borrowed from James just two days ago. It makes no mention of HP-1 or "equivalent" It also states that with the use of HP-6 only one filter is necessary.
Before I keep going I want to say here that I am not trying to be an *** or anything but this does make me wonder of a lot of things said here and in other places on the net. Now I do trust in most of what you say because it is down right true but I would not say that this is them talking about FRAM in just an ordinary way. Why would they say "...both excellent filter capacity and elimination of bypass" why don't they just say use the equivalent? Why would they even go into talking about other filters from FRAM if they didn't trust in them. In any case we aren't speaking of oil filters but this makes me think about the air filters and what I have read here. In any case I am probably going to buy a OE filter if it is reasonably price and not what our canadian friend payed for it which is ridiculous in addition to a new Fram filter to appease you guys when comparing these to the drop in K&N.
The above quote can be found in theri Catalog entittled Rotary Performance Technical Manual & Parts catalog. It is black and has a pic of a rotor and the Racing Beat logo ont eh bottom. Page number is 67.
Santiago
PS- http://racingbeat.com/catordrform.htm you can get a catalog here.
And sice you highJacked your own thread comparing oil filters to air filters and your stand up on Fram:
Originally posted by Russ W. Knize Years ago Fram was a quality filter manufacturer. Now their standard filter (the radioactive-orange cans) is one of the worst out there. These filters are manufactured by Allied Signal, Inc. Please do not buy these filters. By boycotting it, we may be able to cause some change. I have personally had one if these filters fail and actually cause engine damage due to bits of paper and glue floating around in the engine.
Fram Extra Guard PH8A (HP-1/HP-2 replacement)
This filter cartridge has a small outside diameter with a rather low filter element surface area (193 sqin), and features cardboard end caps that are glued in place. The rubber anti-drainback valve seals against the cardboard and easily leaks, causing dirty oil to drain back into the pan. If you have a noisy valve train at startup, this filter is likely the cause. The bypass valves are plastic and are sometimes not molded correctly, which allows them to leak all the time, but they often leak anyway. The backplate has smaller and fewer oil inlet holes, which may restrict flow, and is made of thin material.
The telltale signs for a Fram Extra Guard are: It has 8 small holes for the oil inlet and a thin, cheap-looking backplate, and is currently stamped with a “2Y”. There are 5 very small crimps holding the gasket in place. If you look into the center hole all the way to the top of the filter, you will see a kind of “button” in the end cap of the cartridge (which looks like it's made of metal from there). This is the plastic bypass valve.
Average Retail Price $3
Cartridge Length 4.125 inches
Cartridge Outside Diameter 3.000 inches
Cartridge Inside Diameter 1.375 inches
Cartridge Pleats 34
Cartridge End Cap Type Cardboard
Anti-Drainback Valve Type Nitrile rubber diaphragm
Bypass Valve Type Spring-loaded plastic
Element Type Paper media, stamped metal seam
Element Length 47.5 inches
Element Width 4.063 inches
Element Surface Area 193 square inches
Shell Thickness 0.015 inches
Backplate Thickness 0.089 inches
Gasket Type Nitrile rubber
Hydrostatic Burst Pressure Unknown
SAE J806 Filtration Efficiency 80% Single pass
SAE J1858 Filtration Efficiency Unknown
Fram Double Guard DG8A
This is a frustrating filter. Please do not buy it. It is one of the most expensive filters you can buy and it is junk. Inside is a basic Fram Extra Guard (PH8A) filter element that has larger diameter
holes at the end and has been pre-oiled. You can see this in the picture above (far left). I assume this is to hold the Teflon particles in the filter element before the unit is installed. Don’t put Teflon in your engine. It does not belong there! DuPont does not recommend using their Teflon product in internal combustion engines.
Although it has the worst filter element possible (193 sqin), it does have a clever spring-loaded nitrile rubber anti-drainback valve and bypass valve combination. Too bad the rest of the filter is worthless. Please don’t buy this filter!
The telltale signs for a Fram Tough Guard filter are: It has a better backplate that is usually shiny, with six larger holes for the inlet and 6 spot welds around the them. The backplate should be
stamped with a “1K”. There are 6 large crimps holding the gasket in place. The anti-drainback valve diaphram behind the inlet holes is black. If you look into the center hole all the way to the top
of the filter, you will not see the “button” in the end cap of the cartridge (which looks like it’s made of metal from there).
Average Retail Price $10
Cartridge Length 4.125 inches
Cartridge Outside Diameter 3.000 inches
Cartridge Inside Diameter 1.625 inches
Cartridge Pleats 38
Cartridge End Cap Type Cardboard
Anti-Drainback Valve Type Nitrile rubber diaphragm
Bypass Valve Type Nitrile rubber, integral
Element Type Paper media, stamped metal seam
Element Length 47.5 inches
Element Width 4.063 inches
Element Surface Area 193 square inches
Shell Thickness 0.015 inches
Backplate Thickness 0.187 inches
Gasket Type Nitrile rubber
Hydrostatic Burst Pressure Unknown
SAE J806 Filtration Efficiency 80% Single pass
SAE J1858 Filtration Efficiency Unknown
Now lets compare to the popular Purolator Pure1:
Pure One PL30001
This filter has a few improvements over the Premium Plus. It has a denser filter media to filter out smaller particles and more surface area to make up for the flow restriction. Aside from those the cartridge is the same construction as the Premium Plus.
The filter cartridge has an even more impressive surface area of 400 sqin. The potential issue is that this filter element is compressed into even more pleats (64) than the Premium Plus. This may restrict flow more than it helps relieve it. It also features a spring-loaded metal bypass valve and a silicone rubber diaphram-type anti-drainback valve, which doubles as the seal between the backplate and the cartridge. The bypass valve is located at the base of the cartridge, not at the top.
Average Retail Price $5
Cartridge Length 4.125 inches
Cartridge Outside Diameter 3.250 inches
Cartridge Inside Diameter 1.625 inches
Cartridge Pleats 64
Cartridge End Cap Type Stamped-steel
Anti-Drainback Valve Type Silicone rubber diaphragm
Bypass Valve Type Spring-loaded steel
Element Type Paper media, stamped metal seam
Element Length 100.0 inches
Element Width 4.000 inches
Element Surface Area 400 square inches
Shell Thickness 0.011 inches
Backplate Thickness 0.115 inches
Gasket Type Nitrile rubber, PTFE-treated
Hydrostatic Burst Pressure Unknown
SAE J806 Filtration Efficiency
Single pass: 99.7%
Multiple pass: 96%
SAE J1858 Filtration Efficiency Unknown
Fram Extra Guard PH8A (HP-1/HP-2 replacement)
This filter cartridge has a small outside diameter with a rather low filter element surface area (193 sqin), and features cardboard end caps that are glued in place. The rubber anti-drainback valve seals against the cardboard and easily leaks, causing dirty oil to drain back into the pan. If you have a noisy valve train at startup, this filter is likely the cause. The bypass valves are plastic and are sometimes not molded correctly, which allows them to leak all the time, but they often leak anyway. The backplate has smaller and fewer oil inlet holes, which may restrict flow, and is made of thin material.
The telltale signs for a Fram Extra Guard are: It has 8 small holes for the oil inlet and a thin, cheap-looking backplate, and is currently stamped with a “2Y”. There are 5 very small crimps holding the gasket in place. If you look into the center hole all the way to the top of the filter, you will see a kind of “button” in the end cap of the cartridge (which looks like it's made of metal from there). This is the plastic bypass valve.
Average Retail Price $3
Cartridge Length 4.125 inches
Cartridge Outside Diameter 3.000 inches
Cartridge Inside Diameter 1.375 inches
Cartridge Pleats 34
Cartridge End Cap Type Cardboard
Anti-Drainback Valve Type Nitrile rubber diaphragm
Bypass Valve Type Spring-loaded plastic
Element Type Paper media, stamped metal seam
Element Length 47.5 inches
Element Width 4.063 inches
Element Surface Area 193 square inches
Shell Thickness 0.015 inches
Backplate Thickness 0.089 inches
Gasket Type Nitrile rubber
Hydrostatic Burst Pressure Unknown
SAE J806 Filtration Efficiency 80% Single pass
SAE J1858 Filtration Efficiency Unknown
Fram Double Guard DG8A
This is a frustrating filter. Please do not buy it. It is one of the most expensive filters you can buy and it is junk. Inside is a basic Fram Extra Guard (PH8A) filter element that has larger diameter
holes at the end and has been pre-oiled. You can see this in the picture above (far left). I assume this is to hold the Teflon particles in the filter element before the unit is installed. Don’t put Teflon in your engine. It does not belong there! DuPont does not recommend using their Teflon product in internal combustion engines.
Although it has the worst filter element possible (193 sqin), it does have a clever spring-loaded nitrile rubber anti-drainback valve and bypass valve combination. Too bad the rest of the filter is worthless. Please don’t buy this filter!
The telltale signs for a Fram Tough Guard filter are: It has a better backplate that is usually shiny, with six larger holes for the inlet and 6 spot welds around the them. The backplate should be
stamped with a “1K”. There are 6 large crimps holding the gasket in place. The anti-drainback valve diaphram behind the inlet holes is black. If you look into the center hole all the way to the top
of the filter, you will not see the “button” in the end cap of the cartridge (which looks like it’s made of metal from there).
Average Retail Price $10
Cartridge Length 4.125 inches
Cartridge Outside Diameter 3.000 inches
Cartridge Inside Diameter 1.625 inches
Cartridge Pleats 38
Cartridge End Cap Type Cardboard
Anti-Drainback Valve Type Nitrile rubber diaphragm
Bypass Valve Type Nitrile rubber, integral
Element Type Paper media, stamped metal seam
Element Length 47.5 inches
Element Width 4.063 inches
Element Surface Area 193 square inches
Shell Thickness 0.015 inches
Backplate Thickness 0.187 inches
Gasket Type Nitrile rubber
Hydrostatic Burst Pressure Unknown
SAE J806 Filtration Efficiency 80% Single pass
SAE J1858 Filtration Efficiency Unknown
Now lets compare to the popular Purolator Pure1:
Pure One PL30001
This filter has a few improvements over the Premium Plus. It has a denser filter media to filter out smaller particles and more surface area to make up for the flow restriction. Aside from those the cartridge is the same construction as the Premium Plus.
The filter cartridge has an even more impressive surface area of 400 sqin. The potential issue is that this filter element is compressed into even more pleats (64) than the Premium Plus. This may restrict flow more than it helps relieve it. It also features a spring-loaded metal bypass valve and a silicone rubber diaphram-type anti-drainback valve, which doubles as the seal between the backplate and the cartridge. The bypass valve is located at the base of the cartridge, not at the top.
Average Retail Price $5
Cartridge Length 4.125 inches
Cartridge Outside Diameter 3.250 inches
Cartridge Inside Diameter 1.625 inches
Cartridge Pleats 64
Cartridge End Cap Type Stamped-steel
Anti-Drainback Valve Type Silicone rubber diaphragm
Bypass Valve Type Spring-loaded steel
Element Type Paper media, stamped metal seam
Element Length 100.0 inches
Element Width 4.000 inches
Element Surface Area 400 square inches
Shell Thickness 0.011 inches
Backplate Thickness 0.115 inches
Gasket Type Nitrile rubber, PTFE-treated
Hydrostatic Burst Pressure Unknown
SAE J806 Filtration Efficiency
Single pass: 99.7%
Multiple pass: 96%
SAE J1858 Filtration Efficiency Unknown
12-11-03, 10:27 AM
#42
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Originally posted by 1987RX7guy
I would be appreciative of any links you have from the last time you looked at the SAE test results. I went to their website. www.sae.org but i can't seem to locate any results on there so I am guessing they have a separate site for that.
I would be appreciative of any links you have from the last time you looked at the SAE test results. I went to their website. www.sae.org but i can't seem to locate any results on there so I am guessing they have a separate site for that.
You would want to contact the specific filter manufactures tech support department for that (and hope what they tell you is true).
12-11-03, 10:32 AM
#43
EDIT I just say your above post. I will have to make some phone calls then.
Well for one I do not use Fram oil filters. I used it once then I used bosch or other brands. But like I said I used FRAM air filters because I couldn't find anything else and I didn't even want to see the price tag on an OE filter. But since I have spare time I might just roll by mazda today after attending to some maintenance and repair to try and fix my car's hesitation.
BTW I don't mind highjacking my own thread if it helps us all by providing facts which you did and I am happy with that. But I would still like to see facts about the air filters.
And I already said that we will do some more tests when James returns. I just don't trust anyone else in my car than him or MAX and MAX isn't here at the moment so I can't do runs safely. But I am working on finding a new FRAM filter element and an OE one.
Santiago
EDIT#2 I just thought of something. Since we did a run with NO filter on there we now have a basline before filtration for the stock intake. Like you said using a dirty filter is not the best representation of its performance. But given we have a baseline to judge from we can know see the difference not only between two filters but how far all the filters restric from the baseline. Man i need to brush up my graph skills so I can make this into a chart or bar graph to use as a visual representation of the data logs and have side by side comparo's
Also we can see how much a NEW perfet filter does against a "clogged filter" I wonder to what extent it does restrict the flow after 5k miles.
Please delete the post below.
Originally posted by Icemark
Perhaps they have changed their approval of the Fram oil filter, since the info I posted was from their website.
And sice you highJacked your own thread comparing oil filters to air filters and your stand up on Fram:
But all of this is regardless, since this thread is about air filters. You can keep using Fram products if you like. The 80% filtering ability (compared to most other filters 85%-95%, must be fine for you). It is your choice. But using a old air filter (or even a dirty K&N) invalidates any testing that you are doing by comparing a dirty filter to no filter at all.
Perhaps they have changed their approval of the Fram oil filter, since the info I posted was from their website.
And sice you highJacked your own thread comparing oil filters to air filters and your stand up on Fram:
But all of this is regardless, since this thread is about air filters. You can keep using Fram products if you like. The 80% filtering ability (compared to most other filters 85%-95%, must be fine for you). It is your choice. But using a old air filter (or even a dirty K&N) invalidates any testing that you are doing by comparing a dirty filter to no filter at all.
Well for one I do not use Fram oil filters.
I used it once then I used bosch or other brands. But like I said I used FRAM air filters because I couldn't find anything else and I didn't even want to see the price tag on an OE filter. But since I have spare time I might just roll by mazda today after attending to some maintenance and repair to try and fix my car's hesitation. BTW I don't mind highjacking my own thread if it helps us all by providing facts which you did and I am happy with that. But I would still like to see facts about the air filters.
And I already said that we will do some more tests when James returns. I just don't trust anyone else in my car than him or MAX and MAX isn't here at the moment so I can't do runs safely. But I am working on finding a new FRAM filter element and an OE one.
Santiago
EDIT#2 I just thought of something. Since we did a run with NO filter on there we now have a basline before filtration for the stock intake. Like you said using a dirty filter is not the best representation of its performance. But given we have a baseline to judge from we can know see the difference not only between two filters but how far all the filters restric from the baseline. Man i need to brush up my graph skills so I can make this into a chart or bar graph to use as a visual representation of the data logs and have side by side comparo's
Also we can see how much a NEW perfet filter does against a "clogged filter" I wonder to what extent it does restrict the flow after 5k miles.
Please delete the post below.
Last edited by 1987RX7guy; 12-11-03 at 10:48 AM.
12-11-03, 10:49 AM
#46
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
Originally posted by 1987RX7guy
I just say your above post. I will have to make some phone calls then.
I just say your above post. I will have to make some phone calls then.
Sure it was a little BS, but they gave me the info, which if I was just a regular consumer or even worse a reporter, they would have never given me the exact info.
12-11-03, 12:17 PM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Morgan County, Indiana
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
show mevalid proof of this ever happening, not just what someone has said. and they only fall apart if you dont treat them, because they tend to dry out.