Air filters!
- Thread starter Chris
- Start date
- Status
As for as paper air filters go, I believe FRAM is as good as any of them. I personally use K&N air filters in all of my cars. I believe they do a good job of filtering, they are easy to maintain, and they do have less restriction to air flow. I just love the sucking sound my little 3.8L Pontiac makes when I step on it. Kind of reminds me of my old 56 Chey of long ago.
As of right now, I've never heard anything bad about Fram's air filters (unlike their oil filters), but I have heard bad things about K&N. I've heard that the K&N's don't filter as well as OEM's do. The problem I have with all of this is that it's all heresay, none of it's been confirmed by lab testing. Have any of you seen any lab testing done on air filters? I haven't, but would like to.
My oil analysis suggests that my K&N cone filter has done a perfectly admirable job at keeping dirt out of my engine ... and this part of the state has a surprising amount of sand in it.
One thing I don't like about the less expensive air filters (including Fram) is the excess gasket material I usually find in them, clogging up the edges of the pleated area.
I know that's being a bit anal, but I'd still like to have that additional surface area available for filtering.
One thing I don't like about the less expensive air filters (including Fram) is the excess gasket material I usually find in them, clogging up the edges of the pleated area.
I know that's being a bit anal, but I'd still like to have that additional surface area available for filtering.
Patman
Staff member
Bror listed his oil analysis results under the thread I started in the oil analysis results section entitled Does anyone have data on Redline?
Somwhere I have seen a complaint from one or two people that fram air filters made with the new synthetic media shed fibers which melted to the Mass air sensor wire and caused problems. This may have happened under some special conditions. Regards, RW
I used a dual foam by Western Diesel(amsoil is identical except for the frame) and had a 6 on Silicone in 8K. My analysis is posted in that forum topic.
widman, even with a drain interval of over 7,000 miles?
I should say that the 2nd oil sample was actually primarily a paper filter. I run the stock air box and paper filters during the winter months (December through end of March) and the second oil sample was used December through some time in May.
According to Blackstone's averages, my results were pretty good, overall.
I should say that the 2nd oil sample was actually primarily a paper filter. I run the stock air box and paper filters during the winter months (December through end of March) and the second oil sample was used December through some time in May.
According to Blackstone's averages, my results were pretty good, overall.
MolaKule
Staff member
See:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000038
I use Amsoil 2-stage Foam AF's. The AF had almost 40,000 miles on it. Cleaned it right after the oil analysis.
I have a Hastings paper AF on the Nissan, seems to be good only to about 28,000 miles. Does any know if K&N has an oil-wetted filter for a Nissan 2001 Frontier, 2.4L, I4?
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000038
I use Amsoil 2-stage Foam AF's. The AF had almost 40,000 miles on it. Cleaned it right after the oil analysis.
I have a Hastings paper AF on the Nissan, seems to be good only to about 28,000 miles. Does any know if K&N has an oil-wetted filter for a Nissan 2001 Frontier, 2.4L, I4?
I wouldn't let a K&N touch my car with a 10ft pole. Unless I was racing and needed that last hp or 2. However on many engines, especially small disp you may not see any gain. I found this also:
http://members.aol.com/mr2home/dyno/dynoday1/graph-2.gif
And we had a K&N laying around here and I just took a real quick microscopic photograph and measured the pore size aproximately at a gargantuan 625micron. K&N claims microscopic fibers crossing this void, however as you can see in the photo it is essentially wide open. And there is only 4 ply of this material.
And not only is it wide open but the dropin replacements seem to have about 1/8th of the media area of a paper, so you will have 8 times the air to cloth ratio, therefore 8 times the media velocity= not good
I don't have anywhere to host the image, so I can email it if anyone would like to see or host.
http://members.aol.com/mr2home/dyno/dynoday1/graph-2.gif
And we had a K&N laying around here and I just took a real quick microscopic photograph and measured the pore size aproximately at a gargantuan 625micron. K&N claims microscopic fibers crossing this void, however as you can see in the photo it is essentially wide open. And there is only 4 ply of this material.
And not only is it wide open but the dropin replacements seem to have about 1/8th of the media area of a paper, so you will have 8 times the air to cloth ratio, therefore 8 times the media velocity= not good
I don't have anywhere to host the image, so I can email it if anyone would like to see or host.
Just another piece of anecdotal evidence, but the mass air flow sensor on my 93 Ciera had, at 80k when I bought the car, had a dust build-up on it. This build up had caused a hesitation on take-off. After almost 80k, using a K&N replacement filter, there is no dust buildup on the MAF. I lived at the end of a 3/4 mile dirt road for the majority of that time. I had purchased the car from my mother who had purchase it new. It had had Fram filters used exclusively.
Molakule, K&N lists a filter for your Nissan. www.knfilter.com
Sorry but like oil analysis on different engines you cannot compare oil analysis results using a K&N on one engine and and Fram on another and only look at the silicon ppm. I do not have one engine out of five that yields the same or similar silicon readings and I use OEM air filters, and Purolators as well. To do a comparison you must use the same engine under the same conditions,. Almost impossible to compare. 15 ppm in one engine may be great but just terrible in another! Not to mention mileage on the oil sample taken as well. I don't think anyone has shown K&N air filters are better then anything else out there, like oil filters, all anecdotal personal experiments and opinions with no science.
I agree. But like engine oil, oil filters etc. true scientific studies will never be performed. They take too long (years to do under normal driving condition, not the 1000 laps around a race track) and no one wants to pay for them.
For engine oil I want 10 years of 12-15,000 miles per year, stop and go traffic, typical car usage, not the 50,000 mile around a race track studies. Those are meaningless. Of course, in those 10 years to do theoil will have changed, engines changed etc, so the study will be meaningless when finished anyway.
For engine oil I want 10 years of 12-15,000 miles per year, stop and go traffic, typical car usage, not the 50,000 mile around a race track studies. Those are meaningless. Of course, in those 10 years to do theoil will have changed, engines changed etc, so the study will be meaningless when finished anyway.
Lab testing air filters wouldn't be nearly as difficult as testing oil, they're aren't as many variables. All they'd have to do is measure the size and amount of foreign objects that are allowed to pass through a given filter. Pretty simple actually.
[ July 12, 2002, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: bottgers ]
[ July 12, 2002, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: bottgers ]
- Status
