ISO 5011/SAE J726 test of Duramax Air Filters

Status
Not open for further replies.
Isnt it true that these small particles that may get by your air filter are burnt off in the combustion chamber?? When the air/fuel mix occurs?? How is it possible for any of these small percentages of dirt to harm your engine?
 
interesting comment by the K&N employee very late in the thread where he questioned the feed rate of dust.

It appears that, to speed the test up, the feed rate of dust has been accelerated.
In this test they used a feed rate of 9.5g/hr, and the K&N guy reckons they (K&N) only use 0.04g/hr.
Another supposed lab tech chimmed in that it isn't uncommon to see dust tests lasting for days, and this test seemed a little accelerated. Another K&N stooge
dunno.gif


Any thoughts on whether the feed rate would change overall efficiencies ? although rankings probably wouldn't alter.

Rick.
who uses a Donaldson element.
 
What I find interesting is that with one test people will jump on the bandwagon, believe hook line and sinker. Why would someone give away $15,000 in testing for this? Maybe the K&N guy is on to something, that is being pushed by a competitor. What about all those tests for Prolong, Volcano. Slick 50 etc, they all showed the results the tester wanted people to see.


I have used one of those filters some condemn for over 20 yrs and guess what? Not one problem with anything, so its much ado about nothing with all the testing. Sometimes all they are comparing is a thimble full of dust over 100,000 miles of use. Also notice how some posters get po'd over this. Its just flys in the face of reason. They have been using something for a long time and now someone posts this test and they throw it out and get rilled up? Unbelievable.


Also, I get the impression that SPICER has a personal vendetta against K&N. Thats the feeling I get.

Thens there the guy complaining that his foam filter is clogged in 7-8000 miles. ***-That proof that it keeping the dirt out but he sees it as a negative? He is going back to paper so his filter stays cleaner? Say what?

[ August 08, 2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Mike ]
 
Well put Mike. You cannot go believing every "Test" result you hear. The results on the back of the box/case oft he product you are buying are probablly more accurate. Anyone remember Motor-Up?? The stuff you could use in your engine with no motor oil in it!! Those test results were pretty inacurate i must say.

I also cannot understand why people switch back to paper after using there cotton or foam filter for a couple of years. They seal much better for starters, and i believe that they filter much better. So many people complain about there Cotton or Foam fitler needing service too soon. Sounds to me like a job is being done in the air box. Even if they marginal test results prooved anything, they are so marginal, they have no effect on engine life What So Ever, period.

So then why would you want to be using the paper filter, with the cheap seals that can leak, rip, tear, or break off into your engine? why not use a cotton or foam with a great seal and build quality? If you have already purchased a Cotton or Foam filter, my advice would to be continue to use it because your using a much higher quality piece, and I am sure because of seal quality and build quality, it is filtering much better over a long period of time.
 
3rd party test for what. Are we talking about something that is live and death like electricity? No, its a part for a piece of machinery. They same people who praise OEM air filters are probably the first one to replace the brand of tires that came on their vehicle, or use the cheapest gas they can find but will go thru all this trouble and argue on and on over a air filter. Seems they need to get a life. I just find it unbelievable someone would go thru all this trouble for what purpose? If not to try and discredit some other product.

3rd party testing, OK they why doesn't the guy who started this test go out and do it?? Let him get 3 independent tests done to industry specs and then maybe it will have some credibility. Where is this data published and where does it say that is was independent? It was done on the QT was it not, and they guy did not pay for something he claims costs over $15,000 to do. How many of you in business would do this? Sorry but I don't care what they did, the results are useless IMO.
 
I have been warning people for years about the virtues of a nice OEM paper filter or what ever OEM spec. is! K&N and other oil guaze filter are great for very specific uses and daily drivers are not them! Even with a prefilter you can not beat good old papern for daily drivers!
 
My only thoughts

1. - I thought it was almost a given on these forums that the K&N filters flowed more air but filtered much less well. I want better filtering myself - keep the dirt out.

2. All these companies are afraid to sumit or pay for a 3rd party test - all the tests are done "in our labs". Dam glad electrical equipment in our house has independant testing( UL etc)
 
This test only backs up other tests and UOA observations. I'm convinced enought to stop using cotton oiled filters in all but race applications.

-T
 
Not me.

My friend has my 1996 Silverado and it has over 125,000 miles. When it was new I installed a K&N filter, its still in there today. Truck is sitting about 500 ft from me at this moment. His engine never used oil the 3 yrs I had it and not since he has had it. I put in Amsoil Series 2000 at 1000 miles, changed oil once a year and he does the same. I never ran an UOA.

So I think all this filter testing by self proclaimed experts to be nothing but product bashing. Everyone distrusts everyone, naturally every manf. can't be trusted and lies about there products and these guys are the only ones that can see thru the maze.

I got one of those foam filters in my 2002 Firebird, my 2004 GMC, my 1993 Lumina, my 2001 Honda Rancher. Won't change my mind.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
Not me.

My friend has my 1996 Silverado and it has over 125,000 miles. When it was new I installed a K&N filter, its still in there today. Truck is sitting about 500 ft from me at this moment. His engine never used oil the 3 yrs I had it and not since he has had it. I put in Amsoil Series 2000 at 1000 miles, changed oil once a year and he does the same. I never ran an UOA.

So I think all this filter testing by self proclaimed experts to be nothing but product bashing. Everyone distrusts everyone, naturally every manf. can't be trusted and lies about there products and these guys are the only ones that can see thru the maze.

I got one of those foam filters in my 2002 Firebird, my 2004 GMC, my 1993 Lumina, my 2001 Honda Rancher. Won't change my mind.


I know of cars that used cheap oil at 10k+ OCI and lasted over 125,000 miles. What does that prove? One case, does not make good proof. People on this board are looking for what's best, not what might get them by. This board is also based on actual testing and proof. Anyone that provides this shouldn't be flamed. If anyone is showing bias it's the K&N users.

I've had K&Ns on several cars for years. My Wife's came off a couple weeks ago, and I don't plan on buying anymore.

-T
 
This test is great and supports what we already know from other test. One thing we should keep in mine is every application is slightly different. Just because AC Delco did well in this test does not mean that the AC delco for a German or Japannese car would be the best. It would be nice if there was consistancy by manufacture but I have discovered there is definitly not. Still for a GM vechicle I would use the AC Delco. Baldwin is definitely a good filter also as is the Wix/Napa. Great test!
 
What it means is the car has 125k on it. He never said the car died due to air filtration. The car is probablly perfect.

The K&N type filter was designed years ago for dirt bikes, and it stops so much dirt on those tracks. Friends of mine pull off the filters and they are caked with dirt, and the clean side is spotless.

I just checked my gf's K&N today, its got 15k on it, her intake ducting on the filtered side is SPOTLESS, end of story. The filter has filtered more then i have ever seen on a paper in 15k. Im not saying it filters the same, but it definately isnt like "running your car with no filter at all"

When people begin to say things like that it means they are beginning to become very paranoid.

FACT: You will never have an engine failure due to K&N or Paper differences, Nor will you shorten your engine life. Know how many people run a ripped seal filter for 35k and have there car until 300k miles before they sell it? ALOT. Know how many people run there car many many miles with a filter pinched?? ALOT OF PEOPLE. Your saying that a K&N may filter 3% less efficient? Perhaps, but your a fool to change your filter out. The K&N lasts a long time, if yours came apart in 4 years, oh well buy a new one, bad luck. A paper wouldnt have come apart in 4 years?? Please. Fact is, to think a K&N, Air Hog, or other cotton guaze filters is damaging your car is insanity. It filters perfectly fine, and its much better quality, i would not be afraid to service it every 50k. Oil gets dirty, thats why you change it, a K&N and paper filter makes such a marginal difference in filtration quality, its hardly worth measuring, so when a statement is made like "running a K&N is like running your car with no air filter" is obsessing over nothing.
 
quote:

Originally posted by T-Keith:
I know of cars that used cheap oil at 10k+ OCI and lasted over 125,000 miles. What does that prove? One case, does not make good proof. People on this board are looking for what's best, not what might get them by. This board is also based on actual testing and proof. Anyone that provides this shouldn't be flamed. If anyone is showing bias it's the K&N users.

I've had K&Ns on several cars for years. My Wife's came off a couple weeks ago, and I don't plan on buying anymore.

-T


T-Keith, it proves that an engine with a K&N can last 125,000 miles. If that's acceptable engine life when driven under the conditions that one engine was driven, then the testimonial is meaningful and a K&N is rrrright for you
lol.gif



I have K&N on one motorcycle. I don't expect to put enough miles on it to make a difference. Everything else I have gets high quality OEM or better paper type filters.
 
Reread my previous post. I never made any such claims.

Mike claimed that because his friend has a car with 125k on it the test was invalid. The point of the test was simply to test how well the filters worked, the K&N did worst, FACT.

-T
 
quote:

This board is also based on actual testing and proof. Anyone that provides this shouldn't be flamed. If anyone is showing bias it's the K&N users.

So if I understand you we cannot question these tests and should fall in line and agree?

I am not flamming anyone (intentionally) and if anyone feels that way I suggest they are not looking at this objectively. I am offering my opinion just like you are. If I read it correctly the test was run 1 time on new filters. A filter is only new for a short period of time. It was not too long many were stating that a filter will get better as it works till it reaches a point where it starts to be restrictive. Whats more important (IMO) is what does it do over the service life of the filter. An air filter has to be a compromise between good flow and good filtration. Anyone who promotes one over the other it not looking objectively.

fyi - I am not a K&N user, that was one of the few I ever purchased and it was an impulse purchase when I was in a local parts store that had them in stock at discount prices. I doubt I would ever buy another, I prefer the foam type from Amsoil.

And the 1996 truck is still running like new and looking new. Ray has no intentions of buying anything else in the foreseeable future, although he did consider my 2001 GMC but passed due to his being all set up for his business with the snow plow and emergency road service equipment. I asked him yesterday, he said he cleans the filter once a year usually in the spring using a K&N service kit. I looked at the filter, its still in good shape. If these filters were a bad as been touted (like a screen door on a submarine), this truck should be on its last legs which it is far from. btw--His last truck was a 1989 (?exact yr) Chevy and was worn out at 100,000 miles using QS products (which he sells and installs in his business).

[ August 10, 2004, 08:43 AM: Message edited by: Mike ]
 
Actually if you look at the test, they ran the filters until they reached a certain restriction. So yes it does demonstrate filtration over the life of the filter. Cleaning is nice, but you have to reclean a K&N several times before it reaches the price of a just buying new paper filters. The K&N for my car was $45, plus a cleaning kit for $15. A new paper filter is $5. Objectively the test seems fine to me. The only the K&N had was a flow advantage when new.

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your post, but you seemed to be dismissing the whole test because of an unrelated event, not based on the any actual fault of the test.

-T
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top