After reading this report, you to may not want to use them.

http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm

 

I sort of expected that how else would the increase air flow be gained if not through larger pore space?

My car is not a daily driver and I do not drive it in dusty conditions so I am not too worried.

Good information however,, thanks

 

For those who dont want to read

http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/...s/image004.jpg

 

okay well first of all this sounds like a pretty indepth scientfic study. but i seem to have found a couple areas that interest me. they could be nothing but they seem to have caught my eye. #1 my k&n filter cone says it flows something like 880 CFM. now if it flows even close to that for a 5.7 L gas engine, then i imagine a 7.3L diesel turbo (power stroke engine) sucks a hell of a lot more air than our tiny gas engines. so why did they only test restriction to flow to only 350 CFM? Diesels need a ton of air to run, hence high displacement and high compression. so why would you do a deisel test to only 350 CFM doesnt make sense to me. #2 also at the beginning of the article it says that humidity drastically changes the results of the test. so why was there a 10% change in realitive humidity between when different filters were tested. i see no according adjustments to the filter results being made due to the different in the supposed "controls" of this experiment. #3 Also im assuming they tested each one of these more than 3 times to get realistic averages.i assume they did this but by skimming through the article i didnt fine it stated. could have missed it though. #4 why are the last two filters (K&N andAFE) being tested with fine dust also, in the charts then compared to dust collection percentage against Ac Delco with course dust. these may not be anything but im just pointing some small things that jumped out to me.

 

They only ran the test once i believe

"(Note: The Purolator was reported to have a seal malfunction during the test and passed more dirt than it would have with a good seal.)"

"In 60 minutes the AC Filter accumulated 574gms of dirt and passed only 0.4gms. After only 24 minutes the K&N had accumulated 221gms of dirt but passed 7.0gms"

"Compared to the AC, the K&N “plugged up” nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt."

 

Do you have any idea what you are reading? All that graph shows is how much dirt the filter can take in until it is 10% more restrictive than when it was clean.
This is the graph that you should be showing.
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm , or htis one
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm

 

I look at it this way:
According to those graphs, the AC Delco filter is approximately 40% (6.23 to 4.54) more restrictive to airflow but 3% (99.93 to 96.80) more effective at filtering. In that light, the K&N doesn't look so bad.
I did a leakdown test on my motorcycle after running K&Ns for years and the numbers were good so I keep up on my filter maintenance and don't worry about it.

 

Lol... It had the lowest K&N bar. Hehe jk. No i meant to get the efficiency chart. It shows the K&N really isnt that horrible.

http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/...s/image002.jpg

 

I've searched the internet in the past and after reading numerous, numerous articles, the K&N is great for our cars.

Dan

 

There is a fine line in regards to the amount of dirt you want your engine to ingest. The dirt and grit that get thru slowy wears at the engine.

But then again, if you do a lot of oil changes, who knows?

 

Would the dirt even reach our oil? Wouldnt most be blow out of the exhaust? If not, then wouldnt the oil filter pick it up? It cant be that horrible. No filter is going to stop all the dirt, and no engine is going to last forever. People who put GM847 and superchargers and N2O into their engines are doing probably 10x more damage then will a loose filter. I feel comfortable with a K&N on my car even if it leaks some dirt. I'm sure i will spin a bearing and put a rod through my block, snap a timing chain, or melt a piston long before my engine will wear down from that little bit of dirt. A good oil filter and changing your oil every 3k miles should take care of that should it not?

 

The data sounds a lot worse than it is for oiled type filters.

Pay attention to units as you read the article. If your K&N filter has 243 grams (over a 1/2 pound! ) of dirt in it, you should have cleaned it a long time ago. You don't run the thing to failure.

Most of us running a K&N do it primarily to pick up some power. That is where the K&Ns shine. On the "Dust Loading Curve" look at the initial restriction of the K&N. If it is cleaned somewhere in the 150 gram area (about 1/3 of a pound of dirt) then it never reaches the restriction of the clean paper filter.

The bottom line is clean your filter, change your oil, and don't worry about his sort of crap if you are the type of person that is otherwise rough on your ride. I powershift at redline. I don't muse over the slight gain in filer efficiency a paper filter may offer.

 

T/ARacer, on the deisel comparison, diesels run a lot lower rpms which will limit their air usage as compared to a gas engine of the same displacment. Don't just think how big the cylinders are but how many times per minute they fill.

I think the best bet would be to fit a large paper filter but few modern cars have room for something like that, I had a carbed mid 80s Chevy pickup with a 5 1/2" tall 14" round filter stock, no way a gauze filter could have gained me anything as the surface area more tham made up for the more restrictive paper.
As long as you treat your K&N well I think it will keep air clean enough, do something stupid like clean it with compressed air or high pressure water and you will ruin it even if you can't see that you have.

 

diesels may typically run less rpms driving down the highway or pulling a load but i can bet since these guys are horsepower and torque lovers like we are, they are running these powerstrokes to the max and i still believe a 7.3 L turbo diesel at 4.5k rpm burns more than a 5.7L gas engine at 6k. although im not exactly sure on the amount of oxygen required to get an effecient burn between gasoline and diesel i would assume that it takes a significant more amount of oxygen to keep that diesel making optimum power. just my thoughts though.

 

o yeah and i wouldnt give two cents to a "scientific" study that uses over a $250,000 machine then only tests each filter once. do it 2 more times each filter then id like to see the results. either way im NEVER filling my k&n past 1/3 POUND of dirt, like stated above.