Message: 4
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 20:16:38 EDT
From:
Subject: FWD Test on oiled air filters

Hi, got this off the Datalogit list, very interesting


>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 induction 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..


Here's the info I have on air filter performance. Tests were done using
SAE J726C Test Method 5-best --> 1-worst

Oiled foam(AMSOIL,UNI), Paper, Oil Bath, Oiled Gauze,(K&N)

Large particle efficiency 5 5 5 4
Small particle efficiency 5 4 1 2
Airflow capacity 5 2 3 5
Dust holding capacity 4 2 5 2
Load up characteristic 4 1 5 1
Backfire characteristic 3 2 5 3
Cleanability 4 1 4 3

As you can see, K&Ns are great for airflow, which is what they were
designed for. Their original application was on racing engines, where
airflow is important and ultimate engine life was of little consern.
They
are not as good at filtering as paper or oiled foam types.

Sorry that was so long but I thought it was important!

Originally posted by Cihuuy
is this for real???

Originally posted by Alien7
How are foam filters like the one on the HKS intake cleaned?

Originally posted by apneablue
You know, I remember readind somewhere that the foam filters break down and can get sucked in...I just bought the Airinx filters and the foam it came with is not Foam Foam, it's like Plastic Foam...I don't see how it can break down and get sucked in. I know this doesn't pertain to the subject here but I thought I would chime in.

Originally posted by bureau_c
I've also heard numerous stories of foam elements crumbling getting sucked into the intake, which is something the K&Ns won't do. I have no plans on ditching mine.

jds

Originally posted by ISUposs
I had a HKS intake with foam filters for a few years with abosolutely NO signs of degredation. I know this is bad of me, but I just regularly cleaned and oiled them. they didn't ever get very dirty do that told me one of two things. either they didn't work, or the engine bay of the FD doesn't get too dirty under normal city/hwy driving conditions. hope it was the second scenario. I replaced them with a couple of regular K&N cone filters.

Originally posted by reza
I don't understand the following, what does he mean by top end bottom end?

"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."