asasa11

Jeep JL 3.6L AFE Air Filter

Messages
8,733
Location
Houston, TX
Thread starter
I am considering an AFE filter for my Rubicon and they are currently 21% off on the AFE website. Which one of these would you choose? They both fit in the OE air box with no modifications. I am leaning towards the cone shaped one because it **seems** like it has more filter surface area. What say you? [Linked Image from iili.io] [Linked Image from iili.io]
 
Messages
1,488
Location
Danville, Indiana
I'd stick with a paper filter. The air intake on the JL is a really well though-out design that works very well with a good paper filter. If I were looking for a performance filter, I'd go all out with a Banks Ram Air. But, being an off-road vehicle, as fun as that 3.6 is on the road, I decided to keep mine set up to minimize dust intrusion. I'm currently running Wix filters from Napa. I had one in it for a trip to Moab and it went through a week of horrendous dust on the trail. It was loaded with dirt on the proper side. Not a speck of dust was found on the clean side of the filter or housing. I don't think a cloth filter would have fared so well. It certainly wouldn't have the area of the paper filter or the capacity, let alone the ability to filter as fine a dust. I doubt you'd gain any noticeable power with the cloth filter, either, unless you did the whole CAI. It might sound pretty cool, though. Between those two, I'd go cone. I think you are right that it would have more area. I'm sure Afe would tell you the difference. Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,075
Location
Parts Unknown
I assume the lower half of the airbox has enough volume to accommodate the cone style? Which at first glance I would choose, which the clean side of the air filter may give more "room" for the air to make it to the intake tube without harsh transitions. I would also choose the Pro Dry S media.
 
Messages
8,733
Location
Houston, TX
Thread starter
Originally Posted by IndyFan
I'd stick with a paper filter. [..]
Yep; I am currently running a WIX too, but it appears to be the exact same as the OEM Mopar, which makes sense because they are both made by Mann+Hummel.. WIX dropped the silicon dramatically in my F-150 FX4 over an OEM MC years back, but the media is not the same as it is today. I collaborated with Jim Allen some years ago on AFE filters and they were solid and reduced the silicon in his 2008 F-150 to 3PPM (if memory serves). I have not seen a negative comment about AFE unlike K&N which is typically bashed all over the place. The AFE costs about as much as 2 paper filters and has a lifetime warranty so the price is not the issue. I was curious as to the cone versus the flat filter and I guess I can reach out to AFE to see what they may convey. I believe there are a few guys over on the Wrangler forum running them so perhaps I will get a few hits there on experiences with them.
 
Messages
8,733
Location
Houston, TX
Thread starter
Originally Posted by UG_Passat
I assume the lower half of the airbox has enough volume to accommodate the cone style? Which at first glance I would choose, which the clean side of the air filter may give more "room" for the air to make it to the intake tube without harsh transitions. I would also choose the Pro Dry S media.
Yes; either filter will fit with no modifications. Would you choose the Pro Dry S because it does not require oil?
 
Messages
24,196
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
I was curious as to the cone versus the flat filter and I guess I can reach out to AFE to see what they may convey.
Yep, ask them which one has more surface area and if they have any flow vs pressure drop data on both.
 
Messages
3,075
Location
Parts Unknown
Originally Posted by 2015_PSD
Originally Posted by UG_Passat
I assume the lower half of the airbox has enough volume to accommodate the cone style? Which at first glance I would choose, which the clean side of the air filter may give more "room" for the air to make it to the intake tube without harsh transitions. I would also choose the Pro Dry S media.
Yes; either filter will fit with no modifications. Would you choose the Pro Dry S because it does not require oil?
Yes, I prefer dry filters, especially if you have a heated film MAF sensor after the airbox (which I have on my car)
 
Messages
3,075
Location
Parts Unknown
Originally Posted by oldhp
I thought the factory Jeep filter was designed to keep out water if it got deep enough. That's the reason it looks like it does.
Filters don't protect you from that. It's the design of the intake system, in particular, where does the airbox draw its air from.
 
Messages
1,488
Location
Danville, Indiana
I talked to a guy that has an AFE CAI and he loves it. His is the dry filter. Anyway, he said it brings some nice sound out of the 3.6, especially combined with an exhaust. I've got a Magnaflow axle-back and it really makes the 3.6 sound great going through the gears. Anyway, he loves the AFE. If you do one of these, let us know the stats you find and how it changes the sound, if at all. It may take the whole intake to change the sound, but I'm just curious if the filter itself does it.
 
Messages
34,438
Location
NY
I looked into it, and asked around. I'm sticking with the OE filter for my 2016 Wrangler, I doubt there's any benefit that I'll be able to measure with a $50+ air filter. JMO.
 
Messages
2,229
Location
SE MI
OE paper filter. The AFE, K&N, and other aftermarket brands use some really bad seals - they are normally rigid polyurethane and doesn't conform or seal as well as the OE paper seals, mainly because the harder PU is intended to last a long time. You really need it to seal well. I replaced the OE paper filter on my girlfriend's 2015 Malibu at about 60k miles and used a new Purolator paper air filter. I would gently tap it out every 10k miles or so and at 40k miles (100k miles) the paper filter still looked very clean and free of debris. I replaced it with a Wix that has the foam winter/moisture pre-filter.
 
Top