Torn between the Amsoil EaA & AEM Dryflow

[Peted]

Hello,

As the title reads I am town between the Amsoil Ea Air filter and the AEM Dryflow.

I have searched the forum and read, to my knowledge, every thread on these filters. Yet, I have not found conclusive evidence if one is greater than other. Which they very well could be equal.

The Amsoil EaA is a cellulose media with a layer of synthetic fibers. I believe this to be patented Donaldson technology.

From Amsoil, "AMSOIL Ea Air Filters incorporate a specially constructed cellulose media with synthetic nanofibers applied to the surface."

Cited: EA Filters

Amsoil Ea Air Filter Product Page

The AEM Dryflow is 100% Synetheic media fibers.

From AEM, "The DRYFLOW filter is made from a single-layer of pre-pleated polyester synthetic filter media with a nylon-reinforced internal cage for added structural rigidity."

Cited: AEM FAQ

AEM DryFlow

Both are long lasting and cleanable.

Question is, does one filter better than the other?

I have had no luck finding how these performed on a similar ISO test. Preferably ISO's Fine Dust test.

I Did however find this nuget of information on the AEM FAQ

"We use ISO 5011:2000 with ISO “A-2 Fine Dust" as the contaminant. Southwest Research Institute performs the testing and determines flow rate criteria based on the average flow requirements of a typical engine on which the filter to be tested will be used. The concentration of the contaminant introduced into the air stream is significantly higher than what would be encountered in normal use in order to perform the test in a reasonable time. Typically, 2 flow rates are used for testing. 160 CFM is used for smaller displacement engines. 240 CFM is used for larger displacement engines."

Except, they don't exactly state how the AEM fared in this test. They do claim to "Capture(s) up to 99% of harmful contaminants." Found on the main page: AEM Intakes

I have yet to find a single legitimate ISO test involving the Ea Air filter.

Your thoughts?

 

[Donald]

Either filter will be fine. But I have only heard of Amsoil. You can be sure that if Amsoil sells it, it will be high quality.

Just avoid the K&N. They are not much more than oiled window screening. Or so it seems.

You can also do your own test. Do UOAs and look at silicon. You will probably find that the OEM is fine also. One important thing is perfect fit of the housing against the rubber part of the filter.

 

[Peted]

It will not allow me to Edit the thread for one reason or another.

Would like to add this link so you can see the similarites of Amsoil Ea Air filters to Donaldson Endurance Air filters w/ Ultra-Web Nanofiber Technology

 

[randomhero439]

AEM ftw

 

[xxch4osxx]

Pablo could probably answer your questions on this subject. Try sending him a PM.

 

[dinkydau]

I had this discussion in the tread below about the new air filter study,and Jim recommended the AEM over the Amsoil but since AEM does not make a replacement filter for my car I have the Amsoil. He thought the Amsoil was a very good filter but prefered a synthetic media filter.The new filter test did not test the AEM so dont know how it would have rated in that test. DD

 

[Jeffs2006EvoIX]

I can speak from experience only on the AEM dry flow. EXCELLENT FILTER and I used one for 60K miles on my last Evo IX that was tuned running 400hp. Yes, that filter was in the stock air box and it made 360whp!!! better than that, I did UOA's on my Evo every 5K miles and Blackstone stated that air filtration must have been excellent because the contamination levels were always so low (Silicone levels etc).

I would HIGHLY recommend this filter. AND you never have to Oil it. I had two filters. One would be in while I cleanded the other one. So I always had one ready. AEM sells the solution to clean it and I used it every 5K miles. Never had an issue.

If you wish to see the UOA with blackstone stating above mentioned I can post it if you wish.

Jeff

 

[Clevy]

I've used K&N oiled gauze filters for years. A couple of years ago I took a hard look at my intake tract and saw dust on the supposedly filtered side. I've since gone to the oil-less Amsoil ones and the difference is visible to the naked eye. I don't know how they compare vs each other but ill never use anything but an Amsoil air filter on all my performance applications.
In a regular application though the oem paper filters are ideal. Cost effective and guaranteed to filter properly.
The difference in airflow between paper and the Amsoil dry filters is significant however in a stock application I wouldn't bother with anything but a stock paper element.

 

[Jim Allen]

Peted: Before K&N and AEM merged, AEM had on their website several SWRI studies that listed the efficiencies of the Dryflow media, as well as some of the competition. Those tests didn't put the K&N in a great light, so they are now gone. The AEM Dryflow media had an initial efficiency of 98.35 and a final efficiency of 99.41, both on fine test dust according to ISO 5011. The final number is the usual quoted number in filter specs and a filter reaches a level near this about 20 percent of the way into it's operational life. These tests were done on AEM's original gray media. The new red media has slightly higher efficiency according to what I was told by their Chief Engineer but I don't remember by how much and my notes are out of reach.

Amsoil seems to studiously avoid offering ISO 5011 numbers in a way that can be evaluated against other filters A few years ago I read the number "98.7% on fine dust" from one of their dealer websites but don't know if this was initial or final. Or even where that number came from. It would be a great initial number and just a good final one. Great in my book is over 99 percent final on fine dust.

In 2004, Arlen Spicer tested a bootload of filters according to ISO 5011 and published the results. Google Spicer Air Filter Test... it's still all over the internet. An Amsoil TS123 filter was in the mix and tested at 98.63% final on COARSE dust. That was WORSE than a factory AC Delco filter for the same application and not so hot. In this test, the Amsoil didn't do well in the capacity department, doing significantly worse than all the filters on the list, plus it was very restrictive (second only to the AC Delco OEM filter. What I don't know is how the 2004 Amsoil filter relates to the Amsoil filters of today.

 

[Jim Allen]

Followup: The Amsoil TS123 in the Spicer test is their old foam filter, gone many years now, so disregard anything on the Spicer test as far as current Amsoil filters are concerned.

 

[Jim Allen]

Another followup: When reviewing the Spicer test, bear in mind that his test will show slightly lower results than some other tests you may see of the same part numbers. ISO 5011 allows for some test parameter choices, most notably in airflow rates (constant vs variable) and dust injection rate (variable rate starting off slowly and increasing or a constant rate). The lab that did the testing for Spicer used a less common combination of options than what is used by other testers. The Spicer test is useful for comparison of the filters tested in the that environment, but they are only useful as a yardstick measurement when comparing them to other tests that do not match the parameters exactly.

 

[Jeffs2006EvoIX]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
I've used K&N oiled gauze filters for years. A couple of years ago I took a hard look at my intake tract and saw dust on the supposedly filtered side. I've since gone to the oil-less Amsoil ones and the difference is visible to the naked eye. I don't know how they compare vs each other but ill never use anything but an Amsoil air filter on all my performance applications.
In a regular application though the oem paper filters are ideal. Cost effective and guaranteed to filter properly.
The difference in airflow between paper and the Amsoil dry filters is significant however in a stock application I wouldn't bother with anything but a stock paper element.


Keep in mind though that the AEM filters are NOT oiled like the K&N and what the problem is there is people over apply the oil, the engine sucks some of it in and your MAF sensor goes hay wire. No Good at all. The AEM's elliminate these issues.

Like I said, I have dyno proof and 60K miles of track and DD use on an AEM filter with Oil tests to proof its good. Running 28psi of boost through one of those AEM's and still no contamination. No one in the track world where I live uses Amsoil anything. Why? Who knows, its just what I observed.

Jeff

 

[Jeffs2006EvoIX]

All I can say is the AEM does what it is supposed to do. What is the Air filters Job?? to filter the air. If you can get one that flows more air without comprimise of air quality then you hit a homerun. From my own experience, I can tell you this. As mentioned before. I had a modified 4G63 Evo running an AEM dry flow filter, running 28psi at WOT and this car was dyno'd so many times over the years I lost count, track hours more than i can count, not to mention DD use, AND had UOA's done every 5K miles and never had an issue. To me?? Its a homerun. The choice is up to you.

Jeff

 

[kkreit01]

You cannot wash Amsoil Ea filters. Thus, I'd pick aFe, AEM, Airaid -- all of which can be washed in additional to vacuuming.

 

[DragRace]

I've got the Amsoil air filter here on the Explorer.I've had no issues with fit or quality,etc. All I do to clean it,is remove and vacuum any debris and replace,good as new.

 

[metroplex]

I ordered, received, and returned an AEM filter for my Cobalt SS Turbo and the seal design is thicker than OEM. Also, the OEM flows better with deeper pleats and the way the A3106C is designed allows for air to hit the pleats immediately. I have not looked at the Amsoil filter for my application, but K&N is the same way.

FWIW, the AEM filter media looks pretty robust and much better than the K&N gauze. I just think that AEM and K&N designed their replacement filter around the standard Cobalt air filter (2.2/2.4L) and not the Turbo 2.0 air filter

 

[Jim Allen]

Originally Posted By: metroplex
I ordered, received, and returned an AEM filter for my Cobalt SS Turbo and the seal design is thicker than OEM. Also, the OEM flows better with deeper pleats and the way the A3106C is designed allows for air to hit the pleats immediately. I have not looked at the Amsoil filter for my application, but K&N is the same way.

FWIW, the AEM filter media looks pretty robust and much better than the K&N gauze. I just think that AEM and K&N designed their replacement filter around the standard Cobalt air filter (2.2/2.4L) and not the Turbo 2.0 air filter


How do you know the OEM flows better? That would not be typical (though it's possible) but if you have flow benched the two filters in the original airbox, I'd like to hear the particulars.

 

[metroplex]

Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: metroplex
I ordered, received, and returned an AEM filter for my Cobalt SS Turbo and the seal design is thicker than OEM. Also, the OEM flows better with deeper pleats and the way the A3106C is designed allows for air to hit the pleats immediately. I have not looked at the Amsoil filter for my application, but K&N is the same way.

FWIW, the AEM filter media looks pretty robust and much better than the K&N gauze. I just think that AEM and K&N designed their replacement filter around the standard Cobalt air filter (2.2/2.4L) and not the Turbo 2.0 air filter


How do you know the OEM flows better? That would not be typical (though it's possible) but if you have flow benched the two filters in the original airbox, I'd like to hear the particulars.


Just an engineering estimate based on the fact the AEM pleats are deeply shrouded by the thick polyurethane seals, and because of the polyurethane that leached into the mesh screen blocking off a small portion of the filter media. I looked at the OEM filter which is made of a synthetic fiber media that has deep pleats and is passing air almost everywhere that isn't part of the seal. It was a noticeable difference in design because the dirt on the old OEM filter was in a pattern that would mostly hit the thick seal on the AEM. Also, the AEM seal surface is thicker than stock which made it difficult to close the factory airbox. I wasn't referring to the AEM media not flowing as well as stock, I was referring to the filter design and the amount of exposed media compared to stock.

 

[Jim Allen]

Oddly enough, I have flowbenched an AEM drop in filter (I posted the pics here a few years back) for one application ('04-08 F-150) and it flowed slightly less than the stock element... I think for the reason you described. It was around 5% less on average. AEM was upfront about it before I even did the test. The efficiency is higher than the MC cellulose filter, however, plus it's cleanable so I will trade 5% of the 35-45% percent of extra flow capacity I have for peak power (depending on what VE I want to claim) for those features. AEM media starts with 99+ percent efficiency and goes up from there. I noted a huge drop in silicon levels after installing it (from 19 to 2 ppm and that lower number came from an OCI that was 3K miles longer, plus I live on a gravel road in farm country). A second 11K UOA (different lab) showed 8 ppm silicon). Last time I checked , the restriction gauge was sitting on 8" with 30K on the filter and no cleaning.

 

[metroplex]

The arrow indicates the direction of incoming air. This is the side of the filter facing away from the MAF/engine (dirty side). Every corner/side of the OEM filter media is used to filter incoming air while the AEM is built much like a K&N replacement. In most cases, I don't see an issue (like a standard panel filter) but my stock filter (on the left) showed a lot of dirt caught on the edge of that filter where the AEM has its polyurethane seal. Also, what isn't shown is the thicknesses of the filter seals. The AEM has a much thicker seal which would give me trouble in the stock airbox. You can also see the black polyurethane on the AEM seeping into some of the pleats, which would reduce the effective size of the filter. This is already a really small filter and airbox for an engine that produces 260 hp stock and up to about 315-330 hp with just a retune and new MAP sensors (for 25+ psi boost from the turbo) with a factory warranty.