[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
Actually it's a well known fact that performance filters do not trap as much dirt as a traditional paper filter. I would not use the K&N around serious dirt unless you are willing to sacrifice some additional wear. I have a friend that ended up sanding the fins of his turbo by driving in very dusty conditions with a K&N. Here is a letter written regarding a test done on this subject:
Subj: K & N filters
To: John M. Saturday, January 21, 1995 5:14:10 PM
From: George Morrison
John: If I wrote "subjective" I meant "objective".. 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..
posted by 63.117.36...
, Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:46:17
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
