wemay
Site Donor 2023
Filter after 50K km (31k miles) G37
Keep K&N or NOT ?
- Thread starter SubeeTedII
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by TiGeo
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Let's look at the dirt passed and time to restriction limit data. The duration of the test was 60 minutes and during that period, the amount of dirt passed by the Donaldson unit was 0.4g. The K&N passed 7g of dirt within 24 minutes and hit the restriction limit.
If we break this down to g/minute passed, a simple metric, we can perhaps gather some clearer data comparing the most efficient filter in the test, which also loaded up the slowest, and one of the least efficient.
1. Donaldson PowerCore: 0.0067g/min loading rate
2. K&N oil cotton gauze: 0.2917g/min loading rate
This means the Donaldson is 43.5x more efficient.
Ignoring the loading limit, if we just look at the performance within a 6 hour window:
1: Donaldson PowerCore: 2.4g of dirt passed
2. K&N oiled cotton gauze: 105g of dirt passed
That's a HUGE difference. The Donaldson would have to be run for 262.5hrs; 11 DAYS to pass the same amount of dirt as the K&N, or, looked at from the other direction, the K&N passes in 8.2 minutes what it takes the Donaldson 6 hours to pass.
I am looking at flow - does the Donaldson flow more air than the K&N? I doubt it. The K&N absolutely passes more dirt...it has too.
Given we are looking at filters all for the same application, and the Donaldson was OEM, meaning it was more than appropriate for that application in terms of flow, and also managed to pass the most air while simultaneously pass the least amount of dirt (which is why it was the only one that made it to the 60 minute mark) flow only becomes an issue when you are using a filter that from the get-go, isn't sufficient for the application. The application in this case was a Duramax, so conceivably if you could fit the Duramax filter to your ride, you could benefit from both traits here.
Filter area, due to design, on the Donaldson, which is completely different from other designs, is quite large. It's filter area that determines flow at a given restriction, which is the same reason you see more media crammed into the higher efficiency oil filters. So you have two options here:
1. Reduce efficiency, increasing flow
2. Increase surface area, increasing flow
We know the K&N does #1 without doing #2, in fact they may reduce surface area given how quickly it hits the restriction limit in the test. Donaldson clearly does #2 without doing #1, given they have the highest efficiency of any filter covered.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Let's look at the dirt passed and time to restriction limit data. The duration of the test was 60 minutes and during that period, the amount of dirt passed by the Donaldson unit was 0.4g. The K&N passed 7g of dirt within 24 minutes and hit the restriction limit.
If we break this down to g/minute passed, a simple metric, we can perhaps gather some clearer data comparing the most efficient filter in the test, which also loaded up the slowest, and one of the least efficient.
1. Donaldson PowerCore: 0.0067g/min loading rate
2. K&N oil cotton gauze: 0.2917g/min loading rate
This means the Donaldson is 43.5x more efficient.
Ignoring the loading limit, if we just look at the performance within a 6 hour window:
1: Donaldson PowerCore: 2.4g of dirt passed
2. K&N oiled cotton gauze: 105g of dirt passed
That's a HUGE difference. The Donaldson would have to be run for 262.5hrs; 11 DAYS to pass the same amount of dirt as the K&N, or, looked at from the other direction, the K&N passes in 8.2 minutes what it takes the Donaldson 6 hours to pass.
I am looking at flow - does the Donaldson flow more air than the K&N? I doubt it. The K&N absolutely passes more dirt...it has too.
Given we are looking at filters all for the same application, and the Donaldson was OEM, meaning it was more than appropriate for that application in terms of flow, and also managed to pass the most air while simultaneously pass the least amount of dirt (which is why it was the only one that made it to the 60 minute mark) flow only becomes an issue when you are using a filter that from the get-go, isn't sufficient for the application. The application in this case was a Duramax, so conceivably if you could fit the Duramax filter to your ride, you could benefit from both traits here.
Filter area, due to design, on the Donaldson, which is completely different from other designs, is quite large. It's filter area that determines flow at a given restriction, which is the same reason you see more media crammed into the higher efficiency oil filters. So you have two options here:
1. Reduce efficiency, increasing flow
2. Increase surface area, increasing flow
We know the K&N does #1 without doing #2, in fact they may reduce surface area given how quickly it hits the restriction limit in the test. Donaldson clearly does #2 without doing #1, given they have the highest efficiency of any filter covered.
Originally Posted by JoelB
Interesting take on my comment, as i clearly implied they wouldn't be in business if they were ruining motors left and right.
Last I checked, Hyundai/Kia is still in business, and they've been ruining engines (ICEs are not motors, look to a Nissan Leaf or similar for those) left and right for many years now.
OP, I've had plenty of Subarus over the years. OEM, NAPA Golds, and now Fram Ultra air filters have all done a fine job. I'd take a super-efficient air filter over any other perceived or claimed benefits every day of my life.
Interesting take on my comment, as i clearly implied they wouldn't be in business if they were ruining motors left and right.
Last I checked, Hyundai/Kia is still in business, and they've been ruining engines (ICEs are not motors, look to a Nissan Leaf or similar for those) left and right for many years now.
OP, I've had plenty of Subarus over the years. OEM, NAPA Golds, and now Fram Ultra air filters have all done a fine job. I'd take a super-efficient air filter over any other perceived or claimed benefits every day of my life.
Originally Posted by Olas
Originally Posted by grampi
I'm going to ask a question I've never seen anyone ask before...is there such a thing as paper element filters that flow better than stock elements?
A paper element filter that flows better than stock? Surface area = flow so get more surface area. Either double up like how the GT uses 2x fusion filters, or, if for example you have 2 litre engine, get a filter from a 3/4/5 litre engine.
So how do I double up the filter area on a 5.7 liter? I don't know of any air boxes big enough for two filters, nor do I know any vehicles with 11+ liter engines...
Originally Posted by grampi
I'm going to ask a question I've never seen anyone ask before...is there such a thing as paper element filters that flow better than stock elements?
A paper element filter that flows better than stock? Surface area = flow so get more surface area. Either double up like how the GT uses 2x fusion filters, or, if for example you have 2 litre engine, get a filter from a 3/4/5 litre engine.
So how do I double up the filter area on a 5.7 liter? I don't know of any air boxes big enough for two filters, nor do I know any vehicles with 11+ liter engines...
Originally Posted by grampi
... So how do I double up the filter area on a 5.7 liter? I don't know of any air boxes big enough for two filters, nor do I know any vehicles with 11+ liter engines...
Well, I used air filters sold for a 2.8L GM engine on my 1.49L engine, in the original filter housing. It wasn't significantly larger than the OE, but was easier to find and less expensive.
... So how do I double up the filter area on a 5.7 liter? I don't know of any air boxes big enough for two filters, nor do I know any vehicles with 11+ liter engines...
Well, I used air filters sold for a 2.8L GM engine on my 1.49L engine, in the original filter housing. It wasn't significantly larger than the OE, but was easier to find and less expensive.
I found this you tube post from project farm comparing air filters including K and N.
https://youtu.be/sJ3L-E-ufYo
https://youtu.be/sJ3L-E-ufYo
Makes me feel better using the Injen / Donaldson dry flow air filter.
I enjoy Project Farm but that test is a bit out there - dumping powder directly on the filter is unrealistic. It's no surprise that the higher flow filters filter less (duh) but the testing I 've seen (proper testing) shows a drop in filter by only a few % points. He needs to meter the dust into the incoming flow vs. dumping it on there. Entertaining non-the-less.
Originally Posted by TiGeo
I enjoy Project Farm but that test is a bit out there - dumping powder directly on the filter is unrealistic. It's no surprise that the higher flow filters filter less (duh) but the testing I 've seen (proper testing) shows a drop in filter by only a few % points. He needs to meter the dust into the incoming flow vs. dumping it on there. Entertaining non-the-less.
Yeah, total bogus test ... just for "entertainment". He's usually not that sloppy.
I enjoy Project Farm but that test is a bit out there - dumping powder directly on the filter is unrealistic. It's no surprise that the higher flow filters filter less (duh) but the testing I 've seen (proper testing) shows a drop in filter by only a few % points. He needs to meter the dust into the incoming flow vs. dumping it on there. Entertaining non-the-less.
Yeah, total bogus test ... just for "entertainment". He's usually not that sloppy.
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by TiGeo
I enjoy Project Farm but that test is a bit out there - dumping powder directly on the filter is unrealistic. It's no surprise that the higher flow filters filter less (duh) but the testing I 've seen (proper testing) shows a drop in filter by only a few % points. He needs to meter the dust into the incoming flow vs. dumping it on there. Entertaining non-the-less.
Yeah, total bogus test ... just for "entertainment". He's usually not that sloppy.
Agree - enjoy his videos/tests. This one though just doesn't seem to replicate "normal" driving conditions where most folks will see just some dust etc. coming in a low concentrations. This would mimic driving down a dry dusty dirt road BEHIND a large truck kicking up a massive cloud of dust....and even then it's probalby worse that that.
Originally Posted by TiGeo
I enjoy Project Farm but that test is a bit out there - dumping powder directly on the filter is unrealistic. It's no surprise that the higher flow filters filter less (duh) but the testing I 've seen (proper testing) shows a drop in filter by only a few % points. He needs to meter the dust into the incoming flow vs. dumping it on there. Entertaining non-the-less.
Yeah, total bogus test ... just for "entertainment". He's usually not that sloppy.
Agree - enjoy his videos/tests. This one though just doesn't seem to replicate "normal" driving conditions where most folks will see just some dust etc. coming in a low concentrations. This would mimic driving down a dry dusty dirt road BEHIND a large truck kicking up a massive cloud of dust....and even then it's probalby worse that that.
Farm home testing pretty good. Better than anyone here has done. Good correlation between measured restriction new and efficiency. If that was way off, then maybe the efficiency test is not so good.Good to have baseline restriction number with no air filter. Dyno boys didn't do that. Air temp will vary hp. anyway plus other factors. Dyno not important to real world use IMO.
Air filters are passing the air one time. Oil filter multi pass tests circulate the oil and periodically heavily load the oil with particles. I find it interesting people say the air filters weren't tested exactly as in real use, with low concentrations of contaminants spread out over time, while ignoring that same idea with the oil filter test. It's the circulation of oil in an engine and the non circulation of air that have big differences in filtration, among other factors.
Here is what a company in the air filter monitoring field says. It takes a lot more restriction before a filter reduce hp in a meaningful way.
http://filterminder.com/resources/l...cal-air-filter-restriction-readings.html
Here comes the Z charging through the gate.
Air filters are passing the air one time. Oil filter multi pass tests circulate the oil and periodically heavily load the oil with particles. I find it interesting people say the air filters weren't tested exactly as in real use, with low concentrations of contaminants spread out over time, while ignoring that same idea with the oil filter test. It's the circulation of oil in an engine and the non circulation of air that have big differences in filtration, among other factors.
Here is what a company in the air filter monitoring field says. It takes a lot more restriction before a filter reduce hp in a meaningful way.
http://filterminder.com/resources/l...cal-air-filter-restriction-readings.html
Here comes the Z charging through the gate.
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Farm home testing pretty good. Better than anyone here has done. Good correlation between measured restriction new and efficiency. If that was way off, then maybe the efficiency test is not so good.Good to have baseline restriction number with no air filter. Dyno boys didn't do that. Air temp will vary hp. anyway plus other factors. Dyno not important to real world use IMO.
Air filters are passing the air one time. Oil filter multi pass tests circulate the oil and periodically heavily load the oil with particles. I find it interesting people say the air filters weren't tested exactly as in real use, with low concentrations of contaminants spread out over time, while ignoring that same idea with the oil filter test. It's the circulation of oil in an engine and the non circulation of air that have big differences in filtration, among other factors.
Here is what a company in the air filter monitoring field says. It takes a lot more restriction before a filter reduce hp in a meaningful way.
http://filterminder.com/resources/l...cal-air-filter-restriction-readings.html
Here comes the Z charging through the gate.
Lol wut?
Farm home testing pretty good. Better than anyone here has done. Good correlation between measured restriction new and efficiency. If that was way off, then maybe the efficiency test is not so good.Good to have baseline restriction number with no air filter. Dyno boys didn't do that. Air temp will vary hp. anyway plus other factors. Dyno not important to real world use IMO.
Air filters are passing the air one time. Oil filter multi pass tests circulate the oil and periodically heavily load the oil with particles. I find it interesting people say the air filters weren't tested exactly as in real use, with low concentrations of contaminants spread out over time, while ignoring that same idea with the oil filter test. It's the circulation of oil in an engine and the non circulation of air that have big differences in filtration, among other factors.
Here is what a company in the air filter monitoring field says. It takes a lot more restriction before a filter reduce hp in a meaningful way.
http://filterminder.com/resources/l...cal-air-filter-restriction-readings.html
Here comes the Z charging through the gate.
Lol wut?
Nah, lost cause ... only believes in homemade farm testing over official ISO world standards testing.
Some people's latched on misconceptions will never be changed no matter how much science, data and logic is presented, just like flat Earthers will never believe the Earth is round.
Clogged and restrictive air filters don't decrease engine performance at WOT ... sure.
Clogged and restrictive air filters don't decrease engine performance at WOT ... sure.
No trumpets or anything,they just appear dropping out of warp speed.
Farm Bro presented some nice data on restriction and did a nice job all around. Now then, except for pictures who on here has shown any of their own home brewed performance data lately? I was glad to learn no filter is about 1 inch restriction and Wix is 4 with others in between. Then Wix wins the efficiency as would be expected.
Filter Minder seems to have a pretty good handle on what filter life is too. Takes around 20 inches of water to start looking at replacing.
Farm Bro presented some nice data on restriction and did a nice job all around. Now then, except for pictures who on here has shown any of their own home brewed performance data lately? I was glad to learn no filter is about 1 inch restriction and Wix is 4 with others in between. Then Wix wins the efficiency as would be expected.
Filter Minder seems to have a pretty good handle on what filter life is too. Takes around 20 inches of water to start looking at replacing.
Project Farm tests (especially his air filter efficiency dust test) of different brand products are mainly worthless (entertainment only) until his data is compared to official industry standard ISO and/or SAE test results to see if there's any correlation at all. Someone who believes Project Farm test data over ISO and SAE test data without cross verification is basically just flat Earthing, trolling, obtuse ... or all three.
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
No trumpets or anything,they just appear dropping out of warp speed.
Farm Bro presented some nice data on restriction and did a nice job all around. Now then, except for pictures who on here has shown any of their own home brewed performance data lately? I was glad to learn no filter is about 1 inch restriction and Wix is 4 with others in between. Then Wix wins the efficiency as would be expected.
Filter Minder seems to have a pretty good handle on what filter life is too. Takes around 20 inches of water to start looking at replacing.
Respectfully, no. I have to fully concur with "Z" here and his overall comments.
As a layman doing his thing and coming up with some really entertaining stuff, I give Farm very high marks and enjoy watching a lot of his stuff ( and he raises very good and salient points at times)
On this specific topic and issue, his efforts, tests, results and conclusions are fundamentally and fatally flawed at every level and should not be relied upon for any decision making.
This is a very well defined and understood science ( filtration) both air and fluid separation. Darcy and other equations are very well known as well as the conditions of their validity in context with the specific applications.
One of the big disconnects is that filter testing to standard is a "uniform" method of various performance parameters for various products to compare themselves against. ( basically marketing bragging rights). They are not meant to be used as direct measurements of actual applications ( the types of testing people in industries I work in do which is the next level) because that's literally an infinite set of variables to consider.
Another big problem is anecdotal conclusions as there is seldom a direct and dependent causal link between a specific parameter or test result and the "claimed" performance enhancement ( like the 1 armed bandit tests) and marketing agents exploit this regularly.
So these home grown tests need a high degree of scrutiny and even advertising claims need it when they "draw conclusions" from these "test results"
Theres a long road between raw data, evaluated data, relevant data and the actual conclusion and its rarely a straight one and almost always is condition and parameter specific.
Just submitted for a baseline on all filter comparisons be it air or liquid- the science is the same, only the specifics of the application differ.
No trumpets or anything,they just appear dropping out of warp speed.
Farm Bro presented some nice data on restriction and did a nice job all around. Now then, except for pictures who on here has shown any of their own home brewed performance data lately? I was glad to learn no filter is about 1 inch restriction and Wix is 4 with others in between. Then Wix wins the efficiency as would be expected.
Filter Minder seems to have a pretty good handle on what filter life is too. Takes around 20 inches of water to start looking at replacing.
Respectfully, no. I have to fully concur with "Z" here and his overall comments.
As a layman doing his thing and coming up with some really entertaining stuff, I give Farm very high marks and enjoy watching a lot of his stuff ( and he raises very good and salient points at times)
On this specific topic and issue, his efforts, tests, results and conclusions are fundamentally and fatally flawed at every level and should not be relied upon for any decision making.
This is a very well defined and understood science ( filtration) both air and fluid separation. Darcy and other equations are very well known as well as the conditions of their validity in context with the specific applications.
One of the big disconnects is that filter testing to standard is a "uniform" method of various performance parameters for various products to compare themselves against. ( basically marketing bragging rights). They are not meant to be used as direct measurements of actual applications ( the types of testing people in industries I work in do which is the next level) because that's literally an infinite set of variables to consider.
Another big problem is anecdotal conclusions as there is seldom a direct and dependent causal link between a specific parameter or test result and the "claimed" performance enhancement ( like the 1 armed bandit tests) and marketing agents exploit this regularly.
So these home grown tests need a high degree of scrutiny and even advertising claims need it when they "draw conclusions" from these "test results"
Theres a long road between raw data, evaluated data, relevant data and the actual conclusion and its rarely a straight one and almost always is condition and parameter specific.
Just submitted for a baseline on all filter comparisons be it air or liquid- the science is the same, only the specifics of the application differ.
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Farm home testing pretty good. Better than anyone here has done. Good correlation between measured restriction new and efficiency. If that was way off, then maybe the efficiency test is not so good.Good to have baseline restriction number with no air filter. Dyno boys didn't do that. Air temp will vary hp. anyway plus other factors. Dyno not important to real world use IMO.
Air filters are passing the air one time. Oil filter multi pass tests circulate the oil and periodically heavily load the oil with particles. I find it interesting people say the air filters weren't tested exactly as in real use, with low concentrations of contaminants spread out over time, while ignoring that same idea with the oil filter test. It's the circulation of oil in an engine and the non circulation of air that have big differences in filtration, among other factors.
Here is what a company in the air filter monitoring field says. It takes a lot more restriction before a filter reduce hp in a meaningful way.
http://filterminder.com/resources/l...cal-air-filter-restriction-readings.html
Here comes the Z charging through the gate.
Lol wut?
It can be broken to pieces for you. First lesson, learn what a gram is by searching on the internet. Then find something in the kitchen like flour to try and make a one gram pile. You may need to order a scale from Amazon. Tomorrow it is math, you will learn how to calculate how long an engine runs at 60mph for 1000 miles. I am not able to spend a lot of time on you so do your homework on time.
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Farm home testing pretty good. Better than anyone here has done. Good correlation between measured restriction new and efficiency. If that was way off, then maybe the efficiency test is not so good.Good to have baseline restriction number with no air filter. Dyno boys didn't do that. Air temp will vary hp. anyway plus other factors. Dyno not important to real world use IMO.
Air filters are passing the air one time. Oil filter multi pass tests circulate the oil and periodically heavily load the oil with particles. I find it interesting people say the air filters weren't tested exactly as in real use, with low concentrations of contaminants spread out over time, while ignoring that same idea with the oil filter test. It's the circulation of oil in an engine and the non circulation of air that have big differences in filtration, among other factors.
Here is what a company in the air filter monitoring field says. It takes a lot more restriction before a filter reduce hp in a meaningful way.
http://filterminder.com/resources/l...cal-air-filter-restriction-readings.html
Here comes the Z charging through the gate.
Lol wut?
It can be broken to pieces for you. First lesson, learn what a gram is by searching on the internet. Then find something in the kitchen like flour to try and make a one gram pile. You may need to order a scale from Amazon. Tomorrow it is math, you will learn how to calculate how long an engine runs at 60mph for 1000 miles. I am not able to spend a lot of time on you so do your homework on time.
- Status
