You said it
Main reason I don't bother with one...

well here we go,

if i am wrong i will say so and move on, if i consider i am right i will fight to the death,with anybody ,anywhere.

i do not need to use sware words or yell to get my point across to anybody.

and yes i do know about the K&N filters as my EA had one when i bought it,i threw it out at the first opportunity i had. and don't forget filters will not stop all particles passing into the engine and it is only logic that dictates anything going passed a filter will continue on it's way till the air flow is stopped.

and your still an idiot for implying that a filter will stop all particles passing through it.

pepsimax I dont know whether you cant read or you just dont understand, from that other post I sent where did I imply that a filter will stop all particles from passing through it. I just pointed to the fact that if dust was getting passed you would see some sign of it on the other side of the filter. Not all dust will continue on its merry way into the motor. I gave you an example with the exhaust fan, maybe you can't reach that or your woman cleans it . So I'll give you another example go to your closet (maybe your already in there) grab your vacuum cleaner (dont put it on your knob) rub your finger around the inside of the vacuum hose and you will notice dust. But hang on this vacuum cleaner is sucking in air/dust, it should suck all the dust into the bag. But it doesnt it will leave a residue through the hose, which means not all the dust is going into the bag. Some of it gets left behind, try this little experiment and you'll be surprised Like my previous post stated if the K,N filter allows alot of dust through, there should be some residue on the other side.

I have an EF with a K,N filter and have had none of these problems mentioned, I also have a big block HJ holden with one and I also had one on a XE 351. All were fine I am also going to put one in my wifes AUII fairmont ghia 302. I'm not looking at the debatable performance gains, I'm buying it because its reusable to help the enviroment

PS I'm also a tough guy (fight to the death)

Last edited by bracks on Thu Jun 02, 2005 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Voxace not all things you put on your car you do for a performance reason. With my big block HJ Holden I had the extractors HPC coated, there is a so called performance gain with this coating but I couldnt feel it . It cost about $400 dollars just to get it coated. The reason I done that was to reduce under hood temperature and also if I accidently touch the extractors I wouldnt leave some of my skin on it. With big blocks heat is a big issue.

Far out. I agree with HPC coating is a good idea - I feel the car behaves much worse when the intake temperatures rise. Therefore HPC = Performance Mod

All I'm sayin is my bloody cam cost less than a god damn K&N filter, and since I'm a pov UNI student I would much rather spend that type of money on a decent mod. I've only had to replace the paper filter twice, whopdee doo what did that cost me $20 or something???

Your comparing a bloody air filter to stupid s**t man, Heat proof coatings and vacuum cleaners and what not.
What next? "An air filter is much like a d*ldo, when I had one of those 20 years ago I....blah blah blah"

although I think that paper filters are antiquated and in all likelyhood not the best filters on the market. I am sceptical of K&N filters and the like, purely for the reasons-

a) There is an assumption that an insufficient volume of air is reaching the engine. My guess would be that there is

b) Even if K&N's claims are correct, intuition would tell you that the filtration would be sacrifised for performance.

'The End of All Filter Arguments'
My a***, it's just started!!!!!!

@ bracks
I think why there is dust on bathroom exhausts fans is becasuse of moisture any of the dust clings to it - same as ceiling fans aswell
so after the k&n filter (or any other filter) there shouldn't be any dust in the upper ducts - no moisture
if the filter is working the particles would be so small to stick with engine vacuum against it IMHO

Firstly I brought a K,N filter for the reason that it was reusable, I got the extractors HPC coated to reduce heat. What I am pointing out to you Voxace was the fact I didnt buy these products for there performance gain, which seems to be the only thing you seem to look at.

Your motor draws fuel and air into it by way of vacuum, just like a vacuum cleaner draws dust/dirt/air into it to clean the carpet thats the comparison there. Now fair enough the ceiling fan probably does collect alot of moisture which would help the dust stick to it. But I dont believe the vacuum cleaner would if it is used on a dry surface. I see opinions vary but I dont see how if dust was getting past the filter that it would leave no trace whats so ever. I believe there would have to be some sign of that dust on the other side of the filter. With my K,N filter I have found no trace of dust on the other side of the filter.

In relation to the K,N filters oil getting sucked through the manifold that only happens if there is to much oil on the filter. You should be able to tell if it has to much oil on it (even if it is brand new) and the simple solution to fix that is to blow compressed air on it. The way some people go on about this oil problem makes you think the filter has its own oil reserve.

I imagine there would be tens of thousands of these K,N filters sold every year through out the world (as well as many copies). If the filters were so bad I'm sure we would of heard more about it than just one test. After all the K,N filters have been around a long time. By the way I tend to read alot of the American mags like Car Craft etc. They have more info in one month than Street Machine has in a whole year, less adds too.

Lastly there is a range of automotive books out there called S-A Design by David Vizard. One book is called How to build and tune cars for Performance With Economy. It has a chapter about air filters and there tests showed the K,N filter was better than any paper element. I think that this test would be just as indepedant as the one on that site listed at the start of this thread. Which didnt show the graphs on it when I looked at it a few times.

So your saying that this other book did a test and they got better filtration out of a K&N Vs a standard paper filter. I don't think there is any argument about it not flowing better, just the difference in respect to your whole engine is neglible.
Can you post the results of the other test?

Also have we agreed that there is no real performance gain from using a K&N filter? -against what 90% of the rest of this forum/world thinks. -Just making a point, I also think that there is no real performance gain.

Seccondly I think looking in your intake is a poor way to judge how well your filter is working. Mayby you don't live in a dusty area?
Perhaps the relaibility situation would be differnent if you lived in the bush and had to drive behind road-trains kicking up bulldust all the time.

I would say that for the cost $12 each paper filter vs at least $100 for a K&N filter (+ that cleaning kit thing). You have to travel about 180,000 k's for it to pay itself back. Considering it has no real performace increase and questionable dust filtering capability at best.
Doesn't sound like a good buy to me.

Perfectly summed up.
Really it doesn't matter either way (cost and performance wise - stock vs K&N), but just seeing the test results - why risk it?

Perfectly summed up.
Really it doesn't matter either way (cost and performance wise - stock vs K&N), but just seeing the test results - why risk it?


That's pretty much right man. In terms of the big picture, an increase of 0.25 kW (or some s**t amount) is not gonna make a s**t of difference in the real world driving situations.

Why risk something so trivial when the cost of replacing internals is much higher than that of ANY potential gains?

Damn ... you guys are getting into a heated discusion.

That oil in the intake runners and also the plenum, etc. Isn't from the filter as people are mentioning ... it's coming through from the motor itself ... it's a knon fact that most or all engine do suffer from a little bit of blow-by (more excessive in turbo charged cars ... hence a catch can is used).

This is not from the oil out of a filter ... I had a bit in my intake in my XG ute ... and that was using a paper filter.

There's a breather pipe running from the rocker cover to the intake ... that's where the oil is coming from.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Everyone to there own I'm happy with my K,N filters and yeah it would probably have made a difference (to whether I brought one or not) if I didnt have the cash to afford it.

In relation to those results sorry I'm not computer literate enough to post them but you can still buy the book or look at it. S-A Design automotive books are quite popular they cover all sorts of automotive topics, that book is still floating around.

As for the performance issue I cant say whether it does give you a performance gain. But then again you people hav'nt given me any evidence that it wont. Some dyno results would be great, but they would also have to be done with a clean/slightly/very dirty element, to give a true indication.

As for the dust getting through the filter, really do you honestly think the intake runner would be spotless. I'm talking about a plastic runner like the set up on a EF or AU not a 4 barrel aluminium manifold. The thing to remember in relation to the plastic runner is that it can become static, which dust tends to stick to.

Voxace going back to an early comment of yours saying that your cam was cheaper than a K,N filter. I gather its a Wade cam but you would of had to replace the lifters, gaskets and labour as well. I can only estimate figures but considering Crane/Crow cams cost $200 + not including lifters I would start looking at other places to my auto gear.

I bought the cam for $100, and the shims for $50. Didn't have to replace the gaskets or lifters or anything

I'm sick of this argument anyway. I think we've established that either way is good, and for those of us who believe we would rather not risk it.

Cheers.

this taken from the K&N website..

11. What is the micron rating and filtering efficiency of the K&N filter?

Air filters are not rated by micron size on an absolute basis. (See technical service bulletin 89-5R from the Filter Manufacturer's Council) The proper rating system for air filters is a testing procedure developed to measure the efficiency of the filtration media at varying micron sizes. We routinely subject a sample of our air filters to this testing procedure conducted by independent laboratories. The primary purpose of this testing is to ensure that our air filter designs meet or exceed automotive industry standards. These filtration tests are performed in accordance with the Society of Automotive Engineer's (SAE) J726 testing procedure. The content of the test dust used in accordance with the testing procedure follows:
Particle Size in Microns % by Volume (+/- 3%)
<5.5 13
5.5 to 11 11
11 to 22 13
22 to 44 19
44 to 88 28
88 to 176 16

Our testing has demonstrated that on average, K&N air filters have an overall efficiency rating of between 97 and 99%. With proper cleaning K&N air filters will protect your engine for the life of your vehicle.


i could not find any information on the motorcraft website about how efficient there filters are in regards to dust filtering.

the only reference on the ryco website states that ryco filters are "engineered to meet vehical manufacturer's efficiency life and flowrequirments"


uni filter also fail to mention on there website any information about dust filtering efficiency


so why is it that K&N openly provide this kind of information yet the other brands do not????

what are they trying to hide??


and with K&N getting between %97 and %99 it would be hard for any of the other filter to be any better at dust filtration. and we all know that no matter how good a filter is, it will never get %100 dust filtration