SAE reports on air cleaner service life and engine wear

Status
Not open for further replies.
On my carbureted Ford 302 V8, I always pull off the crankcase breather filter and the air filter to tune the carburetor and engine.

Sometimes I leave it like this for 30 min or more.

23 years later the engine runs like new.

In NJ, the air is VERY harsh and nasty. my air filters become opaque after 1 year w/ dirt, cotton fiber, pollen, and insects.

Of course I don't have any Amsoil-like figures and charts to prove how whatever filter I use is best. I just know frequent maintenance is the key thing to keeping your car alive as long as possible. The quality of the product comes next.

For what its worth, I've never heard of an engine failure due to the installation of a K&N. In fact, it will NOT void factory warranty if you use a K&N filter. Ford even used K&N's on some of their high end factory engines.

Just because its not amsoil doesn't make it absolute garbage.

The pre-wrap is used to keep your filter clean in dusty conditions preventing the absolute need to constantly wash the filter.

On my HEPA filter, it has a carbon pre-filter that's less expensive to replace. It catches a LOT of large particles that would otherwise clog the expensive HEPA filter. Instead, I just toss a $2 pre-filter and use the $20 HEPA filter for a year.

Same thing with the panty-hose pre-filter on the K&N. Since you're limited to about 25 washings, a pre-filter will keep your filter cleaner than normal in dusty environments. You just clean the pre-filter and tap out the K&N.

On my K&N filters, I tap them out every 6-12 months. For paper filters in the SAME operating environment, I have to toss them every year!!!!!

And BTW, it costs $16 for a new paper filter for the 2003 E-250. My Accel Kool Blue was $32. The cost of two paper filters. Its the same model filter used in 96-up GTs and Cobras. I have YET to hear of any problems associated with K&N filters used on these normally aspirated vehicles.

That being said, paper is indeed more efficient than oil cotton gauze, but I have yet to hear, read, or see any hard evidence supporting that K&N filters can kill your engine.

Most of the time, a LOT of dirt seeps through PCV seals, crankcase breather seals, or the filter seals. Its not going to kill your engine because you have an OIL FILTER.

On a lawnmower engine like a Tecumseh for my dad's Sears craftsman mower - there's no oil filter. So if you don't keep an eye on the air filter, and it tears or what not - dirt ingestion WILL KILL the engine due to the fact there's no way to get rid of it via a filter medium.

Change your engine oil frequently and use a decent oil filter. This is the mainr eason why I switched BACK to a dino oil. Running 6 qt of Amsoil + Amsoil oil filter gets way too expensive if you do frequent oil changes.
 
How about maintaining that great filtration by using two filters in series, each double the capacity (area) of the OEM filter. Every 15,000 miles, you move the first filter to the second spot, and put a fresh one in front. This way, you always get a constant balance of filtration and flow, much like always having the OEM filter at half-life.
 
K&N sells their stuff by the “appearance” of quality. Just like other high end products. You have to admit that they “look” nice.
Nothing really filters any better than paper other than a freshly oiled foam filter but then you have the variables of how well it’s oiled and then the oil doesn’t stay in place for a very long period of time. They work well on things like motorcycles because they get cleaned and oiled frequently.

A lot of people say that K&N work fine so they continue to sell them, but when was the last time you saw something like a earth mover working all day in the dust using anything other than a good paper filter?
I have found the best arrangement for filtering to be a high quality paper filter with a foam wrap to keep the bulk of the junk off of the paper.
 
My orginal post was not really trying to pick on any filter media. I think that the trends hold for any filter design, within limits, even for K&N.

So to net out the K&N issue, I don't think anyone really is saying that K&N AF will kill an engine any more than a cheap brand x SL oil will kill an engine. Is it not really more of a discussion of degress of wear vs total failure? Most any normal car care today will get you to 100-150k miles with any air filter, SL oil or oil filter.

Therefore,I would suggest for most low dust conditons and considering that you use a K&N filter longer the overall average wear of the K&N is similar to a paper filter changed around 7.5K miles, for example. It makes sense from a model standpont and the real world reports bear it out.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Americanflag:
If you are going to argue for leaving the filters in a long time you have to give K&N credit, they have been advocating that forever. Maybe K&N is the best...

K&N recommends to clean their filter every 50K under normal conditions. I thoroughly clean mine every 30K and brush out any bugs every fall.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Greaser:
I'm with Malibu on this issue...a clean air filter works better than one that has it's pours plugged with fine dust...the whole thing doesn't make any sense to me...

Unfortunately you are not correct. Doesn't matter if you understand it or not. What I don't understand is, how the SAE can do a report on something and people still don't believe it. Have you ever gotten an air filter tested by a lab? I have sitting next to me over $50,000 worth of ASHRAE air filter tests including capacity, resistance, efficiency of the entire loading range. Guess what they prove?

Just trying to help people out and save them some time/money. Oh well...
rolleyes.gif
 
Jason...It's hard to break old ideas...especially if leaving a dirty filter in longer seems like a good thing...the tests seem to say that this is so...but what about driving conditions of various areas..are they dusty,salty,damp,dry?Is this taken into account in the SAE tests?To be perfectly honest with you I'm leary of engineers in general.My nephew is a mechanical engineer at Porsche..was at Daimler/Chrysler for a few years..smart as a whip in the lab...but dumb as a bag of rocks around the house.Would you wax your car with-out washing it first?Would you power wash your interior door panels?He did,just to name a couple of things.May-be I'm just getting too old for the new engineering stuff...been repairing vehicles for almost 30 years...some of the stuff engineers come up with is pretty good..but some stuff makes you think there must have been an office party going on when they OK'ed those things
pat.gif
...and lately it's getting down right scarey,some of the stuff they expect to last 150k.If any engineers are reading this PLEASE think of us knuckledraggers at the other end of the spectrum,trying to work on these things...shop times getting cut everytime you turn around,equipment costing an arm and a leg,qualified people just giving up on the auto trade and going into big three plants to decompress...rant over..I believe you Jason,but my skeptisism is deep rooted and goes away very slowly...spelling mistakes are complimentary
grin.gif
 
Brings to mind when I had a long argument with an "engineer" on the web. He was determined that two cars of equal weight going 60 that crashed head on were the same as one car hitting a brick wall at 120. He couldn't get it through his head that an equal and opposite force is the moral equuivalent of an immovable object. Don't engineers have to take physics? Oh well, at any rate I am with Jason on this as I have seen it happen in a filter system for an oil filled dielectric tester. With a new filter it would have to run and run to clarify the oil, but with an old one it cleaned it up fast.

[ February 28, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: dickwells ]
 
Yes, I am buying the idea of a filter getting more effiecient the longer it is used. And this seems a very strong argument for the K&N, cleaned every 50,000 miles.

Also, if a new paper or K&N filter does let in more dirt, then why not just use a Mobil 1 oil fiter, since it cleans the oil with such high efficiency?
wink.gif
 
because dirt in the oil is only half the problem.

dirt scuffs cylinder walls, pistons, rings, valve seats, valve guides, all without even being in the oil. this is what happens when dirt goes in your intake and out your exhaust.

somtimes the dirt gets cought up in the oil and goes to the oil filter, somtimes it stays in the combistion chamber doing damage before finally getting blown out the exhaust.

that reminds me, i need to go clean my k&n now.
 
quote:

Originally posted by cryptokid:
because dirt in the oil is only half the problem.

dirt scuffs cylinder walls, pistons, rings, valve seats, valve guides, all without even being in the oil. this is what happens when dirt goes in your intake and out your exhaust.

somtimes the dirt gets cought up in the oil and goes to the oil filter, somtimes it stays in the combistion chamber doing damage before finally getting blown out the exhaust.

that reminds me, i need to go clean my k&n now.


Oil testing has shown that some engines don't have a problem with a K&N and some do...it's a crap shoot.I can't sell my K&N's at my local Jeep club get to-gethers..nobody uses em'..and on and on we go
gr_eek2.gif
 
Long post.

Greaser

Perhaps this might help..

First one of the SAE reports does talk about extreme offroad severe service and in that case the filers life was as low as 15k miles depending on filter media.

Second, on the issue of a 'dirty' filter filtering better than a clean one. Try this model. Imagine a flat board filter with 1 inch perfect holes and marbles of various sizes. The walls of the hole are strong and perfectly round. No marble with a diameter greater than 1 inch will get pass the filter no matter how hard you push. This would be a true 1 inch marble filter.

Now imagine a piece of paper with imperfect holes some slightly larger than 1 in and some smaller. This would be a filter with a nominal rating to filter 1 inch marbles. What would happen is that some of the marbles larger greater or equal to 1 inch marbles would get pass the filter for two reasons.

The first would be the oblivious. Some holes are larger than 1 inch. These would eventually get plugged by large marbles. The other is even the 1 inch hole walls might not hold a 1 inch marble due to the paper tearing or stretching due to the pressure. Over time, these issues will reduce and the filter would become more efficient. This is still an idealized model. In reality the filter is made of fibers strands that make varying slits not perfect holes. Also the dirt particles are not all round, so as the slit captures a dirt particles, it still could flow some air. The slit would therefore become smaller even capturing smaller particles now, but still passing air.

Of course, any filter as the holes plug is losing flow. So the dynamic design point is to have enough airflow at the same time capturing the dirt. Usually, this accomplished by more surface area with multiple pleats to increase the effective area. A typical car air cleaner would allow the trade-off to shift to efficiency, since most folks would have their Jiffy Lube change 7K anyway or they would do it themselves, like me.

Back to the K&N discussion, some guy did a test of a BMW filter vs K&N. If you look at his data, the initial efficacy of both filter was lower than final. This is the fact per the SAE reports. The K&N being lower both at initial and final by a factor of 2 over the BMW. What caught my attention was the middle point. At that time, the BMW was approximately 5 more efficient than the K&N. If I recall correctly, at all points the BMW filter flowed better and had better efficiency. Clearly in this case the BMW is the best choice. The only issues would be extremely long service life and if the K&N would flow better with more dirt. He stopped around 30mg of dirt, so this might happen.

My gut feeling is that for most air boxes sizes the trade-offs of airflow and efficiency do not work for K&N. On the other hands, for some air boxes the K&N might flow better especially with long service life. If your engine can respond to the additional airflow or the possible longer service life is your requirement, I would research K&N as an option. Unfortunately most things are trade-offs and it depends on you requirements. For example, most long life bulbs are less efficient, but for stoplights or on top of high towers, clearly these are the correct choices. At home, the cost of bulbs, the location, your physical ability and cost of electrify makes the decision more difficult. Or you can just buy a regular bulb and run to service life - hmmm. Seems similar to air cleaners.

[ March 01, 2003, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Fillherup ]
 
Marbles and light bulbs..very interesting.The tests I've seen on K&N filters on various vehicles,mainly off-road conditions,made me take mine off and put them on the shelf.Picture this..We have 16 Jeeps,in a row,going down roads that only CB confirmation will let you know where everybody is..very,very dusty.Most people carry two paper filters with them..one for our week-end excursions,the other for the highway drive home.In other words clouds of fine road dust all the time.I've seen engines hydrolock and blow with the K&N installed due to water crossings getting a bit too deep and water getting into the intake system.The paper filter will get wet and bog the motor...thats it..not the K&N.No-body up here takes that chance for a 2-3 HP gain...that I can't feel anyway.We have so much salt on the roads here a fine layer of salt dust is a daily occurance to deal with.Then it gets damp,then fridgid temps,terrible.There are two service schedules in my FSM..I go by the severe service schedule which states to change air element every 15,000 miles.This is what defines "schedule "B" driving conditions according to the Jeep FSM..Temps below 32 degrees,stop and go driving,extensive idling,dusty conditions,short trips under 10 miles,more than 50% of driving at temps above 90%,snow plowing or towing,police use,or using ethanol fuels.So there you go...how many people are in these parameters?As far as I know these are SAE requirements,or based on their tests as a benchmark to go by..yes,no?
 
Marbles,light bulbs and air clearner- it is called divergent thinking. Sounds good anyway
smile.gif


Scary part is makes sense to me.

[ March 01, 2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Fillherup ]
 
How did we get over to BMW filters??!??!

As if I could get BMW filters for my 2000 Ford Crown Vic!
smile.gif


When you spend close to $50k or MORE for a car, they tend to give you better parts. Then again your chances of being carjacked are VERY high especially in NJ.

Heck, we got our beat up 89 E-150 cargo van stolen in NJ. It had NOTHING in the cargo hold, no A/C, AM/FM that wasn't working right, 4.9L gutless I6, stock rims, etc... it was so plain jane. Now I notice potential car thieves casing out my 81 T-bird which is even more plain jane if not more "beat-up".

The only vehicles I'd buy are domestics that everyone and their brother would probably have. Anything exotic or that stands out would make you easy prey for car thieves. We're all prey, but driving a BMW in Bergen County is like smothering fresh blood on a rabbit and setting him loose in wolf country. You won't get far w/o attracing attention.
 
quote:

Originally posted by metroplex:
How did we get over to BMW filters??!??!

As if I could get BMW filters for my 2000 Ford Crown Vic!
smile.gif


When you spend close to $50k or MORE for a car, they tend to give you better parts. Then again your chances of being carjacked are VERY high especially in NJ.

Heck, we got our beat up 89 E-150 cargo van stolen in NJ. It had NOTHING in the cargo hold, no A/C, AM/FM that wasn't working right, 4.9L gutless I6, stock rims, etc... it was so plain jane. Now I notice potential car thieves casing out my 81 T-bird which is even more plain jane if not more "beat-up".

The only vehicles I'd buy are domestics that everyone and their brother would probably have. Anything exotic or that stands out would make you easy prey for car thieves. We're all prey, but driving a BMW in Bergen County is like smothering fresh blood on a rabbit and setting him loose in wolf country. You won't get far w/o attracing attention.


He was just making a comparison with a BMW so us lower types (domestic) can benefit from the finely tuned parts comparisons
wink.gif
Car-jacked in NJ?OH-YA no concealed carry in that state...wouldn't want to give the criminals a dangerous working conditions
pat.gif
 
Yes, I used the BMW report only as a reference. In my early life I tried BMW and Audi without much luck. Last 16 years I have been quite happy with Toyota and Nissan cars and trucks.
 
This thread and some of the others got me to thinking about the oiled cotton gauze (simmilar to K&N) air filter I installed on my car. I ended-up putting the OEM "paper" air filter back in.

An air filter is basically a particle catching screen. When I look at the cotton gauze closely, I can easily see the pores. (Naked eye, I'm very nearsighted, you guys with good eyesight would need a magnafying glass "Making lemonade out of lemmons.")
wink.gif
When I look at the "paper" filter closely, I can't see the pores. Therefore, I'd say there's a good order of magnatude difference in the pore size.

The oiled cotton gauze with it's support screens is a thicker media. This limits the number of pleats they can put in the filter. The cotton gauze filter had 27 pleats. The "paper" filter had 80 pleats. The pleats are about the same size, so there's about 3 times the filter area in the "paper" element.

Priorities; performance or maintenance? Since I'm at a "optimum maintenance" type site, that answers the priorities question. Considering that the air filter supplies not only the air for combustion but also the crankcase ventilation air, I want that air to be as clean as possible. Therefore, the OEM "paper" air filter goes back on.

Just a few thoughts.

Oh, according to this thread, the OEM filter should be "aged" to perfection.
grin.gif


Anyone want to buy a slightly used oiled cotton gauze filter?
rolleyes.gif


This site keeps costing me money.
tongue.gif
 
Read some of the posts on the "K&N test at Murray's" or something like that above.I was in contact with a retired D/C engineer who gave me a few simple tests to perform on my K&N's.I took mine out too and went back to the OEM paper/foam combo on my Jeep.Still trying to sell them at my local Jeep get-togethers...no buyers yet
pat.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by Malibu:
If a car owner replaced their OEM air filter every 5,000 miles and always used an OEM replacement, would engine life significantly be shortened because they didn't wait until 15-30K to replace the filter? I seriously doubt it. And would Quaker State void its 250,000 mile engine life warranty if owners changed their air filter every 5,000 miles? I seriously doubt that.

Quality car makers instruct owners to change their OEM air filter when "it looks dirty". In my cars the OEM filter looks dirty (full of dust, dirt and bugs) at 10K miles so that's when I replace it.


Malibu, I have always stuck to the 10,000 mile rule also. I went 15,000 before changing the filter on my Explorer, and my last analysis showed a high insoluble/dirt level. I put a new filter on, double checked all of the hoses, clamps and vacuum lines and the oil cap. Hopefully the next couple analyses will look clean. -Joe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top