Hi, I'm new to J-Bodies and this forum (getting a 98 Cavalier as a beater to keep the Fiero nice). Since the majority of the members here seem to be using CAI kits and aftermarket "universal" fit cone air filters, I though I'd share some of what I've discovered through research.

One thing is that K&N's are... pretty bad. I started a thread on another forum, here - please check out the links to the graphs as well. Yes, there is data to back this up, so please don't flame me just because you disagree with the facts. I'm going with an Amsoil EaA with a larger filtering surface on my 1/4 panel scoop (Fiero) to get the same improved flow as a K&N and also have better filtering instead of much, much worse.

For those who don't want to read it all (though you really should), this is one of the many flow rate charts:




And this is one showing filtering efficiency (ability to stop contaminant particles):

where did you get this data just for the sake of curiousity



cardomain page

um i use k&n air filters on everything i own including dirt bikes four wheelers exc. but i use amsoil oil and its amazing i didnt no they made filters?

notallthere wrote:where did you get this data just for the sake of curiousity

x2




SPD RCR Z - '02 Z24 420whp
SLO GOAT - '04 GTO 305whp
W41 BOI - '78 Buick Opel Isuzu W41 Swap

SpeedRacerZ wrote:

notallthere wrote:where did you get this data just for the sake of curiousity

x2

http://www.bestsynoil.com

Sounds like yet another Amsoil ad to me...

Granted, I've never been a huge fan of K&N's "high tech" filters...but it just seems a little fishy to me, and reminds me of EVERY "Amsoil is better" ad, post, flyer, pamphlet and sales call i ever received while in the parts business. Amsoil sells a quality product, to be sure, but it's no better than what is commonly available on the market at MUCH better prices. Don't be fooled by hype and colorful graphs...they're no better than anyone else.






09:f9:11:02:9d:74:e3:5b:d8:41:56:c5:63

honestly, 0.8microns i wouldnt worry about too much myself lol, maybe over long periods of time but then again i've run race cars for years with no filters, not saying go ahead and do it, but its not something i will lose sleep over. This debate about How K&N's filtering is lacking has been going on for years now, but the company is bigger and better than ever. they must be doing something right.


_______________________
** Flat Broke Racing Inc.**

I have to agree with JimmyZ. This looks like somebody selling something. The same day he joins the org, he starts trashing K&N and extolling the virtues of Amsoil? Seems a little fishy to me.......

I've been using K & N's for 15 years or more. Keeping them oiled is the most important thing about them in my opinion. I've ran several cars/trucks with them, every one had over 200,000 miles before even thinking about being rebuilt so I think they filter ok. I've tried the Amsoil stuff in the past, but didn't think it was that much better than the other stuff i've used so I don't use it now.
Don

Manitoba Motorsports wrote:honestly, 0.8microns i wouldnt worry about too much myself lol, maybe over long periods of time but then again i've run race cars for years with no filters, not saying go ahead and do it, but its not something i will lose sleep over. This debate about How K&N's filtering is lacking has been going on for years now, but the company is bigger and better than ever. they must be doing something right.

I think you've got the best arguement. That's a damn small particulate size. I'm really not worried about anything that small.

I also have to agree with Jimmyz. Sounds like advertising FUD. Basically they ran tests untill they found one particular test where they are better than K&N, then they hype that one test like it's the most important.

If you want to convert people you'll need the same graphs at many different particulate sizes. Also how about some qualifications for those flow numbers. Like what kind of air? Don't laugh either! Companies contort facts like what "air" is made of to make their numbers look better all the time.

Funny, I've had the same K&N filter on my buick for 90K miles and I haven't had any problems with it. And I've run K&N filters on my Cavalier since I bought it, 120K miles ago, and again no problems with them.

I've had a K&N filter in my Z for over 75,000 miles with no problems. I even went and got one for my 2002 Trailblazer. I have never had any problems with either vehicle. Don stated is well, you gotta keep them oiled. I usually clean mine about every 25,000 miles or sometimes less if I see some dirty spots. I think I'll stick with my K&Ns.



98 Z24

RIP Specks

OMG I LYK took off my K&N Airfilter and gained like 15 horsepower!!! LLLOLERSKATEZ!!!!


___________________________________________________________________

All I have to say is, People are getting better and better at making graphs in ms paint

C.T.S wrote:

Manitoba Motorsports wrote:honestly, 0.8microns i wouldnt worry about too much myself lol, maybe over long periods of time but then again i've run race cars for years with no filters, not saying go ahead and do it, but its not something i will lose sleep over. This debate about How K&N's filtering is lacking has been going on for years now, but the company is bigger and better than ever. they must be doing something right.

I think you've got the best arguement. That's a damn small particulate size. I'm really not worried about anything that small.

I also have to agree with Jimmyz. Sounds like advertising FUD. Basically they ran tests untill they found one particular test where they are better than K&N, then they hype that one test like it's the most important.

If you want to convert people you'll need the same graphs at many different particulate sizes. Also how about some qualifications for those flow numbers. Like what kind of air? Don't laugh either! Companies contort facts like what "air" is made of to make their numbers look better all the time.

+1

its always been fact that any guaze style filter will filter the most when compared to foam.

paper is basically non reusaeable.

foam and guaze are durable enough to be cleaned, foam flows more, but also disrupts air velocity when particles you CAN NOT clean out get stuck inside. hence the reason mushroom filters are cheap and most now are rebuildable where you keep the base, but replace the foam element.

guaze, is cleanable to where small particles do not get jammed deep within a thick medium. oil is used on some filters, which can help with filtration, but also slow up air flow a small bit.


now this isnt going against facts, for most people this SHOULD be common sense logic.

wet filters which means filters that have been soaked or overoiled will not do the job right. K&N makes this disclaimer CLEARLY in their filter cleaning kits.... DO NOT OVER OIL.....so if amsoil claims its a wet guaze, then it leads anyone to believe they didnt do it right. which is starting to be normal in every company claiming they are the best at this and that.

leading to most companies mottos: lie your ass off, test till one product outperforms our comps product, some idiot will believe us and buy our products without using common sense....

sadly some filters have been tested new, against old used filters, which was pointed out in automobile or motor trend... one of the magazines i now subscribe to...





and as someone has said, 0.8 microns? who's engine, especially a performance engine doesnt have the combustion to eradicate something of so little in size???? thats if in fact the amsoil filter actually in installed correctly as it has a few warnings on installing and caring for it...

bottom line, almost any filter, if maintained will be effective. if someone is going for 25,000 miles without cleaning a filter, then they really arent performance oriented to begin with. nothing personal to anyone who do.... even i have done it at times... but when i do autocross for the few months a year i do it, the filter is cleaned every other event. this is basically a product for people who want to "set it and forget it"

theres no way this filter will be on for 25K and hold more dirt on a surface area and then any other filter, ANNND still give more air flow than a freshly cleaned and installed filter. unless its a paper filter, or stock which is REALLLLLY restrictive.

even amsoil made the statement on THEIR PAGE

Quote:

Holds More Dirt
A filter?s ability to contain trapped contaminants determines how well an engine will run and how long the filter will remain effective. If the capacity is too low, the filter will have to be replaced constantly. When the filter is full, air cannot pass through at the rate necessary for proper engine performance.

basically this states the more dirt your filter can hold, the longer you can go without cleaning it.

however the next paragraph states:

Quote:

AMSOIL Ea Air Filters hold up to five times more contaminants than cellulose air filters. Since the nanofibers in the media are so small there are more pores per square inch, allowing for higher dirt-holding capacity and lower pressure drop when compared to cellulose filter media alone. Thinner media fibers produce more uniform pore size distribution, improving the filter?s overall quality and ability to capture and retain particles. Testing shows that Ea Air Filters hold 15 times more contaminants than a wet gauze type filter. The capacity is so great, in fact, that the new AMSOIL Ea Air Filters remain effective for a full 25,000 miles or one year before cleaning. This coincides with the AMSOIL 25,000-mile/one-year motor oil drain interval, adding even more convenience for motorists by consolidating routine maintenance.

to start: 25K or ONE year? most people do around 10-15k yearly. unless you travel alot. like X country. they also do not account for dusty areas in their tests, which i do believe is in the K&N section of care. granted its common sense, it really makes you think where the tests were done....REAL WORLD or in a LAB with a diet Tab sitting next to the computer....

onwards....

5 times more than a foam filter

15 times more than a guaze filter....

as i pointed out above, a gauze filter has less room for particles to get stuck in in comparison to foam which has deep bubble like holes, and also causes air flow disruption.

but then they go on to say, 15 times MORE than a guaze filter??? the only reason one would let a filter ACHIEVE 15 times MORE dirt and debris, is for longevity between cleaning. and think, with all that extra dirt, its not gonna flow nearly as good as a maintained filter.

size for size, the surface area of the filtration will determine how much air flows in a filter, the medium will matter as well, but guaze flows high, as well as foam, and prob the nano fiber... and Stainless steel for those who have these as well.

two filters of the same size and dimensions will flow similar in most ofthe cases aforementioned....similar to the point of both cars will be as effective, or the same car will be as effective with either filter.

basically the amsoil filters, like their oil filters are more for a longevity ordeal, rather than performance.....which is amsoils claim to fame of having filters than can go for 7k as opposed to most normal filter which only last to 3-4k which is when most people change their oil. when amsoil came out with a synthetic to last longer than 7-9k, they needed a filter to go along with.

amsoil has a good product, so does k&n and many other filters on the market.... but really the only claim to fame here is longevity. and as said if you are waiting 1/4 of 100k to change a filter, you arent worried about performance and maintainence as much as someone who races or concerned about performance.

also for such a well known company....you think they could have done some CFM tests and actually logged REAL data, instead of what they did show on their webpage....


i guess i also shouldnt point out that on a DIFFERENT page on the same site, they stated:

Quote:

More Capacity
AMSOIL Ea Air Filters hold up to two and a half times more contaminants than cellulose air filters.

http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/eaa.aspx

but remember, on this page http://www.bestsynoil.com/filters_filtration/amsoil_air_filters/amsoil_eaa_air_filters_ac.htm

they stated:

Quote:

AMSOIL Ea Air Filters hold up to five times more contaminants than cellulose air filters

SAME EXACT PRODUCT, Different claims.... hard to trust any data from a company that puts out inconsistent claims..... a lil research goes a hella long way.

Funky Bottoms (Event) wrote:

C.T.S wrote:

Manitoba Motorsports wrote:honestly, 0.8microns i wouldnt worry about too much myself lol, maybe over long periods of time but then again i've run race cars for years with no filters, not saying go ahead and do it, but its not something i will lose sleep over. This debate about How K&N's filtering is lacking has been going on for years now, but the company is bigger and better than ever. they must be doing something right.

I think you've got the best arguement. That's a damn small particulate size. I'm really not worried about anything that small.

I also have to agree with Jimmyz. Sounds like advertising FUD. Basically they ran tests untill they found one particular test where they are better than K&N, then they hype that one test like it's the most important.

If you want to convert people you'll need the same graphs at many different particulate sizes. Also how about some qualifications for those flow numbers. Like what kind of air? Don't laugh either! Companies contort facts like what "air" is made of to make their numbers look better all the time.

+1

its always been fact that any guaze style filter will filter the most when compared to foam.

paper is basically non reusaeable.

foam and guaze are durable enough to be cleaned, foam flows more, but also disrupts air velocity when particles you CAN NOT clean out get stuck inside. hence the reason mushroom filters are cheap and most now are rebuildable where you keep the base, but replace the foam element.

guaze, is cleanable to where small particles do not get jammed deep within a thick medium. oil is used on some filters, which can help with filtration, but also slow up air flow a small bit.


now this isnt going against facts, for most people this SHOULD be common sense logic.

wet filters which means filters that have been soaked or overoiled will not do the job right. K&N makes this disclaimer CLEARLY in their filter cleaning kits.... DO NOT OVER OIL.....so if amsoil claims its a wet guaze, then it leads anyone to believe they didnt do it right. which is starting to be normal in every company claiming they are the best at this and that.

leading to most companies mottos: lie your ass off, test till one product outperforms our comps product, some idiot will believe us and buy our products without using common sense....

sadly some filters have been tested new, against old used filters, which was pointed out in automobile or motor trend... one of the magazines i now subscribe to...





and as someone has said, 0.8 microns? who's engine, especially a performance engine doesnt have the combustion to eradicate something of so little in size???? thats if in fact the amsoil filter actually in installed correctly as it has a few warnings on installing and caring for it...

bottom line, almost any filter, if maintained will be effective. if someone is going for 25,000 miles without cleaning a filter, then they really arent performance oriented to begin with. nothing personal to anyone who do.... even i have done it at times... but when i do autocross for the few months a year i do it, the filter is cleaned every other event. this is basically a product for people who want to "set it and forget it"

theres no way this filter will be on for 25K and hold more dirt on a surface area and then any other filter, ANNND still give more air flow than a freshly cleaned and installed filter. unless its a paper filter, or stock which is REALLLLLY restrictive.

even amsoil made the statement on THEIR PAGE

Quote:

Holds More Dirt
A filter?s ability to contain trapped contaminants determines how well an engine will run and how long the filter will remain effective. If the capacity is too low, the filter will have to be replaced constantly. When the filter is full, air cannot pass through at the rate necessary for proper engine performance.

basically this states the more dirt your filter can hold, the longer you can go without cleaning it.

however the next paragraph states:

Quote:

AMSOIL Ea Air Filters hold up to five times more contaminants than cellulose air filters. Since the nanofibers in the media are so small there are more pores per square inch, allowing for higher dirt-holding capacity and lower pressure drop when compared to cellulose filter media alone. Thinner media fibers produce more uniform pore size distribution, improving the filter?s overall quality and ability to capture and retain particles. Testing shows that Ea Air Filters hold 15 times more contaminants than a wet gauze type filter. The capacity is so great, in fact, that the new AMSOIL Ea Air Filters remain effective for a full 25,000 miles or one year before cleaning. This coincides with the AMSOIL 25,000-mile/one-year motor oil drain interval, adding even more convenience for motorists by consolidating routine maintenance.

to start: 25K or ONE year? most people do around 10-15k yearly. unless you travel alot. like X country. they also do not account for dusty areas in their tests, which i do believe is in the K&N section of care. granted its common sense, it really makes you think where the tests were done....REAL WORLD or in a LAB with a diet Tab sitting next to the computer....

onwards....

5 times more than a foam filter

15 times more than a guaze filter....

as i pointed out above, a gauze filter has less room for particles to get stuck in in comparison to foam which has deep bubble like holes, and also causes air flow disruption.

but then they go on to say, 15 times MORE than a guaze filter??? the only reason one would let a filter ACHIEVE 15 times MORE dirt and debris, is for longevity between cleaning. and think, with all that extra dirt, its not gonna flow nearly as good as a maintained filter.

size for size, the surface area of the filtration will determine how much air flows in a filter, the medium will matter as well, but guaze flows high, as well as foam, and prob the nano fiber... and Stainless steel for those who have these as well.

two filters of the same size and dimensions will flow similar in most ofthe cases aforementioned....similar to the point of both cars will be as effective, or the same car will be as effective with either filter.

basically the amsoil filters, like their oil filters are more for a longevity ordeal, rather than performance.....which is amsoils claim to fame of having filters than can go for 7k as opposed to most normal filter which only last to 3-4k which is when most people change their oil. when amsoil came out with a synthetic to last longer than 7-9k, they needed a filter to go along with.

amsoil has a good product, so does k&n and many other filters on the market.... but really the only claim to fame here is longevity. and as said if you are waiting 1/4 of 100k to change a filter, you arent worried about performance and maintainence as much as someone who races or concerned about performance.

also for such a well known company....you think they could have done some CFM tests and actually logged REAL data, instead of what they did show on their webpage....


i guess i also shouldnt point out that on a DIFFERENT page on the same site, they stated:

Quote:

More Capacity
AMSOIL Ea Air Filters hold up to two and a half times more contaminants than cellulose air filters.

http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/eaa.aspx

but remember, on this page http://www.bestsynoil.com/filters_filtration/amsoil_air_filters/amsoil_eaa_air_filters_ac.htm

they stated:

Quote:

AMSOIL Ea Air Filters hold up to five times more contaminants than cellulose air filters

SAME EXACT PRODUCT, Different claims.... hard to trust any data from a company that puts out inconsistent claims..... a lil research goes a hella long way.

Yeha what he said^^^

Interesting text above, and as an Engineer it sounds correct. FYI - The K & N's i use i clean on a regular basis. Usually every other oil change (I change my oil at 3000-4000 miles and use Mobile 1). So i go 6000 to 8000 miles and clean my K & N. Re-oil and back on the road. My '93 GMC truck i bought new, installed a K & N at 5000 miles and at 203,500 it still runs pretty well. Never did anything to it except a timing chain at 190,500. I pull a dual axle car transport trailer every so often, and the old GMC is finally starting to lose a little power. If the K & N allowed junk to enter the motor like the amsoil add above, I firmly think the truck would not have performed as well as it has for over 200,000 miles. My 2 cents worth.
Don

The more filtering you do, the more restrictive it has to be, of course compareing equal surface areas. It's very simple, in order to filter more (smaller) particles you have to put more material in the way of those particles, more material means less flow.

As for your fiero, you're a genious for putting a larger filter element in to increase flow. Wow!

Manitoba Motorsports wrote:This debate about How K&N's filtering is lacking has been going on for years now, but the company is bigger and better than ever. they must be doing something right.

Yeah, their marketing deparment making ricers think they'll get 5% hp gains by switching air filters Maybe a smaller increase than that, and you get a better gain just by switching from a dirty to a clean filter.

Hey, there's a lot of data out there supporting the *ahem* fact that oiled filters don't filter well and don't provide much of a hp increase. If you want increased performance, there are better places to look than an air filter. If you insist on the filter, the smart thing to do is just get something with more filtering area - you'll get the same increase in airflow while increasing filtering efficiency and capacity rather than decreasing it. Increasing surface area will help a lot, even if you stick with a K&N.. much better flow and less intake air contamination from outside contaminants and aspirating the oil from the cotton media.

Yes, I know a lot of people have run K&N's for a long time without noticing any increased engine wear. Just because you don't notice it, or because your engine went 200,000 or more doesn't mean that it's not true. The fact is there would be some degree less wear with a better filter.

K&N's let a lot of crap through, especially when they're not perfectly cleaned and oiled, and increasingly more as they age regardless of the care in servicing them. Hey, it's just a fact. So get a bigger or better filter, or just ignore it, but don't try to dispute it. What is this, "I reject your realitiy and substitute my own"?

Aside from the many independant laborataory tests, I've run K&N's (oiled by myself and pre-oiled, so I have a comparison for the two and know it was done right) inline with another standard filter downstream, and I tested on all-paved roads and also with some gravel driving. I tested with "universal fit" cone filters, cylindrical OEM style filters, and panel type OEM style filters. I tested with conservative and "spirited" driving. The downstream filter always captured a very noticable amount of crap that that K&N let pass straight through, especially at higher throttle/ air velocity.

The original poster won't post back his point to defend what he came with???

Da Ghost (Qc) wrote:The original poster won't post back his point to defend what he came with???

Don't be a little punk.

There are plenty of good tests out there, including my own, so I shouldn't have to return here to answer to people who disagree as soon as they post because, if they're going to deny the facts anyway, what's the point of arguing? I also happen to have a real life as well (and I'm not saying you don't!, so don't flame me) so I'm not spending all of my time on this board. If someone loves their little K&N stickers that much, go right ahead. I couldn't care less what they do to their engines. I'm just trying to help some of the people who keep an open mind.

By the way, I did make a point of mentioning that "Statistics are always always skewed, altered, stacked or otherwise biased". You have to look beyond the raw numbers and do your own intelligent analysis, factoring in things that others intentionally leave out or misrepresent.

Proven Fact: K&N's filter like crap compared to standard cellulose filters and others like the Amsoil EaA series

Proven Fact: Switching filters alone is not going to provide much tangible power gain in the real world anyway.

Proven Fact: The smartest way to increase the flow rate of a stock filter system is to do so by increasing filter surface area so as not to decrease the filtering efficiency (by having a less efficient media or by forcing the air to move more quickly through the same media, thereby also decreasing the efficiency). If you're running a race engine that gets rebuilt all the time, some would say that it wouldn't matter so much what filtering efficiency you have.

FieroGT42 wrote:K&N's let a lot of crap through, especially when they're not perfectly cleaned and oiled, and increasingly more as they age regardless of the care in servicing them. Hey, it's just a fact. So get a bigger or better filter, or just ignore it, but don't try to dispute it. What is this, "I reject your realitiy and substitute my own"? .

So your opinions are facts and realities and everyone else's are just substitutes for facts and realities?

And the testing you claim to have done on the K&N appears borderline fanatic. I've never heard of an average consumer or even a car nut (of which I know quite a few) who has ever taken on such an in-depth test apparently aimed just to prove the inadequacy of a particular product line. I'm not disputing your "realities", but your presentation just makes you want to go, "hmmm..."




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, August 08, 2006 10:23 AM

FieroGT42 wrote:

Da Ghost (Qc) wrote:The original poster won't post back his point to defend what he came with???

Don't be a little punk.

GREAT RESPONSE!!

Pot: Yo, you're black!
Kettle: No @!#$!

Sorry dude...you're the one that came here with what sounds JUST LIKE an Amsoil sales pitch. I got into the parts business 17 years ago (been out of it for awhile now thankfully) and I've heard them all. Pamphlets, flyers, "dyno proof" and (as mentioned above) outright FUD. Every company will claim that their @!#$ is the best and have SOME way to "prove" it.

So now....EXPLAIN that second graph. Measuring "efficiency" on a scale of 1-6? What exactly does that mean? Where is the empirical data to back that chart up and make sense of what that 1-6 rating means? Who conducted those trials, and were they independently verified? As for the first graph..."Initial resistance to flow at 250CFM"...explain that one. Does that mean there is a 250CFM column of air and they suddenly insert a filter in the airstream? Or do they install the filter and start the air moving? Those graphs prove nothing other than the fact that someone is capable of selecting colors in MS Paint and that other people are gullible enough to believe it.

Now, on to the reliability issue...my father was a truck driver for almost 40 years when he retired 2 years ago. I've seen and helped work on more diesel trucks than I can count. A lot of shops and leasing facilities switched over to K&N on the promise of better efficiency and mileage. I don't know how true that part of the claim is but what I can tell you I saw with my own eyes were diesel engines that had logged well over a million miles on K&N filtration, with no noticable damage or additional wear when rebuilt. They want to try to scare you with horror stories of .8 micron particles killing motors, which is a crock of @!#$. .8 microns is small enough that it could almost slip past your piston rings unabated. You could fit 125 of those particles, stacked end to end, in a bearing gap of only .001". It's not damaging anything.

The only thing sounding bad here is the Amsoil-fanboy, IMHO.






09:f9:11:02:9d:74:e3:5b:d8:41:56:c5:63