K&n Filters Vs Airaid Filters
03-20-2003, 09:02 AM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Houston, Tx USA
Posts: 1,903
stock paper filter..
but depends on what you are asking..
are you asking what flows more when comparing new vs new?
perhaps you mean to ask which will last longer?
Most manufacturers agree that paper outflows them. Thats why many will state that they will out flow a paper filter after its old or has become dirty. But thats when you are supposed to replace it right? Then they hit you with, "You dont have to replace ours! Just clean it!" woo hoo.. I would rather run a new clean one more often that cleaning a more restrictive filter.. sure it may be protecting my engine more.. but I seriously doubt that these tolerances havent been tested before..
but depends on what you are asking..
are you asking what flows more when comparing new vs new?
perhaps you mean to ask which will last longer?
Most manufacturers agree that paper outflows them. Thats why many will state that they will out flow a paper filter after its old or has become dirty. But thats when you are supposed to replace it right? Then they hit you with, "You dont have to replace ours! Just clean it!" woo hoo.. I would rather run a new clean one more often that cleaning a more restrictive filter.. sure it may be protecting my engine more.. but I seriously doubt that these tolerances havent been tested before..
03-20-2003, 08:06 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Erie, Pa
Posts: 87
Originally posted by psychocabbage
stock paper filter..
but depends on what you are asking..
are you asking what flows more when comparing new vs new?
perhaps you mean to ask which will last longer?
Most manufacturers agree that paper outflows them. Thats why many will state that they will out flow a paper filter after its old or has become dirty. But thats when you are supposed to replace it right? Then they hit you with, "You dont have to replace ours! Just clean it!" woo hoo.. I would rather run a new clean one more often that cleaning a more restrictive filter.. sure it may be protecting my engine more.. but I seriously doubt that these tolerances havent been tested before..
stock paper filter..
but depends on what you are asking..
are you asking what flows more when comparing new vs new?
perhaps you mean to ask which will last longer?
Most manufacturers agree that paper outflows them. Thats why many will state that they will out flow a paper filter after its old or has become dirty. But thats when you are supposed to replace it right? Then they hit you with, "You dont have to replace ours! Just clean it!" woo hoo.. I would rather run a new clean one more often that cleaning a more restrictive filter.. sure it may be protecting my engine more.. but I seriously doubt that these tolerances havent been tested before..
03-20-2003, 08:12 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Erie, Pa
Posts: 87
oh and i forgot one thing, to provemy point abot the k&n outperforming a paper i got 2 rwh more with a brand new k&n than with a brand new paper. it may not be much but it is better than nothing. and to eliminate variances i did both runs in a matter of 10 minutes of each other on the same day and the engine was at the same normal operating temp.
03-20-2003, 08:24 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Republic of Korea
Posts: 681
Originally posted by z top
im sorry but i have to disagree with you as i am staring at my k&n box and it has a very noticable graph on the bck were it shows the airflow of a brand new k&n a dirty k&n a brand new foam and a brand new paper and that is the order that were in starting with the most airflow and the k&n's filtering abilities are far supperior from what i understand then paper or foam.
im sorry but i have to disagree with you as i am staring at my k&n box and it has a very noticable graph on the bck were it shows the airflow of a brand new k&n a dirty k&n a brand new foam and a brand new paper and that is the order that were in starting with the most airflow and the k&n's filtering abilities are far supperior from what i understand then paper or foam.
I honestly have no clue, which filter actually filters better or which filter flows more...and I really don't care because I don't run a filter at the track and I very rarely street race.
The only reason I bought the K&N is because I can just clean it and reuse it whenever it gets dirty...and it gets pretty dirty, pretty quick with the FRA. I know it's not the only reusable filter, it just happens to be what MTI sold with the lid.
03-20-2003, 09:48 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Casselberry FL USA
Posts: 606
Originally posted by z top
im sorry but i have to disagree with you as i am staring at my k&n box and it has a very noticable graph on the bck were it shows the airflow of a brand new k&n a dirty k&n a brand new foam and a brand new paper and that is the order that were in starting with the most airflow and the k&n's filtering abilities are far supperior from what i understand then paper or foam. and to answer the orrigional question which is better k&n or airaid filters the answer would be airaid as the k&n wastes valuable space on the edges of the pleats to affix the filter to the rubber surround and i believe it even filters out smaller particles than the k&n
im sorry but i have to disagree with you as i am staring at my k&n box and it has a very noticable graph on the bck were it shows the airflow of a brand new k&n a dirty k&n a brand new foam and a brand new paper and that is the order that were in starting with the most airflow and the k&n's filtering abilities are far supperior from what i understand then paper or foam. and to answer the orrigional question which is better k&n or airaid filters the answer would be airaid as the k&n wastes valuable space on the edges of the pleats to affix the filter to the rubber surround and i believe it even filters out smaller particles than the k&n
From What you understand
Have you reviewed any non-biased reviews or comparisons? Ever wonder why they use a foam filter and not paper filter on their displays? Dirtier K&N filters provide better filtration at the cost of power.
I'm currently using a K&N, but the cleaning process is messy and you have to worry about not getting too much oil in the pleats and having it stick to the MAF wires, etc. I'll be switching back to paper when my cleaning kit runs out.
oh and i forgot one thing, to provemy point abot the k&n outperforming a paper i got 2 rwh more with a brand new k&n than with a brand new paper. it may not be much but it is better than nothing. and to eliminate variances i did both runs in a matter of 10 minutes of each other on the same day and the engine was at the same normal operating temp.
03-21-2003, 07:49 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Erie, Pa
Posts: 87
it seems as tough we have some people here who are defiant of modern technologicly advanced items as their claims seem too good to be true such as an air filter than can outflow and outfilter any paper or foam filter thus resulting in increased power and increased protection for your engine. all i've got to say is go ahead and believe what you want to believe and i'll believe what i want to believe atleast i can feel confident that i have proof that i made the right decision. even though not every single dyno is going to give yo the same number, you can make three runs in a row with a mod to see if the dyno is accurate. in my case i ran three runs in a row with the brand new paper and then three runs with the brand new k&n, the first run with a paper came up .25 rwhp less than the second and third run and all three results for the k&n were the same so i guess that means that my local dyno is pretty acurrate. as far as were to get an airaid go to www.macromotive.com the part number is evg-850-118 and the cost is $52.83an depending on were you live you should be ble to get it shipped to your door step for under $10. i must appologize if i haved affended anyone as that is not my intension, but my intension is to try and spread my beliefs as i feel i have enough proof to support my beliefs. and if i find the test that i read that compared airfilter flow rates i'll be sure to post it.
03-21-2003, 09:05 AM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Casselberry FL USA
Posts: 606
OK, I'll aree to disagree. I've read dozens of these threads on LS1.com and LS1Tech.com since '98. The consensus is basically a high-dollar filter will gain you a little, and it all boils down to personal preference.
I've seen reports where the paper tests equally or better than the oiled media, and vice versa. The consensus seems to be if due to mods or geographic area the filter would get dirty faster it might be a better idea to use an oiled media.
I've seen reports where the paper tests equally or better than the oiled media, and vice versa. The consensus seems to be if due to mods or geographic area the filter would get dirty faster it might be a better idea to use an oiled media.
03-21-2003, 09:32 AM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Houston, Tx USA
Posts: 1,903
yeah.. what he said... hehe
You cant go around believeing everything some company prints on their box. If that were true, then why use mobil 1 as it is shown to be worst that some conventional oils on Amsoil literature. I tested Amsoil on the dyno.. before and after.. No gain.
Actually I spent quite a bit of my own $ to test 3 filters(K&N, Amsoil and stock paper)... I did dyno runs on my stock car.. and instead of your 10 min difference, I did them faster... I have a whole table on the site in my sig (see reviews)..
As for no filter, I found that it too did not help.. the paper filter just did a better job all aound.. with or without aftermarket lid.
If I were to use a more restrictive aftermarket filter, I would choose Amsoil, simply because it is black and the cleaning kit costs about $4. thats much cheaper than the K&N or the others. I still havent seen the air raid filters. Website anyone?
You cant go around believeing everything some company prints on their box. If that were true, then why use mobil 1 as it is shown to be worst that some conventional oils on Amsoil literature. I tested Amsoil on the dyno.. before and after.. No gain.
Actually I spent quite a bit of my own $ to test 3 filters(K&N, Amsoil and stock paper)... I did dyno runs on my stock car.. and instead of your 10 min difference, I did them faster... I have a whole table on the site in my sig (see reviews)..
As for no filter, I found that it too did not help.. the paper filter just did a better job all aound.. with or without aftermarket lid.
If I were to use a more restrictive aftermarket filter, I would choose Amsoil, simply because it is black and the cleaning kit costs about $4. thats much cheaper than the K&N or the others. I still havent seen the air raid filters. Website anyone?
03-21-2003, 09:41 AM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Tampa, FL USA
Posts: 100
they look also identical to the K&N:
http://www.macromotive.com
i think they are way overpriced...personally. almost 60 for a filter for my RA T/A? i don't think so...not when paper costs $13 and there seems to be no advantage...
http://www.macromotive.com
i think they are way overpriced...personally. almost 60 for a filter for my RA T/A? i don't think so...not when paper costs $13 and there seems to be no advantage...