Project Farm Air Filter Test!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by TiGeo
It's a cool test/setup he did...straightforward. Results of course make sense - flow and filtering are inversely proportional. I use a K&N and am glad I don't dump flower on top of it...hahahaha It's a good test but the real-world conditions I drive in are quite a bit different. My UOAs always look fine and my intake track behind the filter is always clean to the touch so clearly, while not filtering as well as a paper filter (duh) it does well enough for me. Also, I dig the 0-60 runs - the K&N works, it's not BS and for those of us tuning/trying to extract as much as we can out of our cars, it matters.


On a N/A engine, the K&N can help with that 0.1 psi reduction in pressure drop. But on a turbocharged application like a tuned Ford EcoBoost, that 0.1 psi delta in pressure drop is negligible.
 
And here are the "K&N sucks" folks...hahaha. If you look at "real" testing data, the efficiency difference is about 3% lower (~96
% vs. ~99%) vs. the paper filters, it's not a big deal to me. My UOAs always come back with low silicon/insolubles numbers which tells me it works just fine in my environment/use which does not include dumping mounds of fine dust directly on top of my filter.

Would have also been cool to see the AFe dry high-flow filters tested, I assume they would have been an in-between the highly-efficient paper filters and the high-flow K&N.
 
Originally Posted by Chris142
Originally Posted by slybunda
why k&n let in so much dirt?

Once they get dirt stuck to the oily fibers they filter better.

Spot on, they actually filter better when a little dirty. When new, they let quite a bit through though.
 
Originally Posted by racin4ds
Originally Posted by Chris142
Originally Posted by slybunda
why k&n let in so much dirt?

Once they get dirt stuck to the oily fibers they filter better.

Spot on, they actually filter better when a little dirty. When new, they let quite a bit through though.


This is a great point. I think it's also true of paper filters.
 
Originally Posted by metroplex
Originally Posted by TiGeo
It's a cool test/setup he did...straightforward. Results of course make sense - flow and filtering are inversely proportional. I use a K&N and am glad I don't dump flower on top of it...hahahaha It's a good test but the real-world conditions I drive in are quite a bit different. My UOAs always look fine and my intake track behind the filter is always clean to the touch so clearly, while not filtering as well as a paper filter (duh) it does well enough for me. Also, I dig the 0-60 runs - the K&N works, it's not BS and for those of us tuning/trying to extract as much as we can out of our cars, it matters.


On a N/A engine, the K&N can help with that 0.1 psi reduction in pressure drop. But on a turbocharged application like a tuned Ford EcoBoost, that 0.1 psi delta in pressure drop is negligible.


It was a bit more than 0.1 pressure drop.

Capture.JPG
 
Originally Posted by TiGeo
And here are the "K&N sucks" folks...hahaha. If you look at "real" testing data, the efficiency difference is about 3% lower (~96
% vs. ~99%) vs. the paper filters, it's not a big deal to me. My UOAs always come back with low silicon/insolubles numbers which tells me it works just fine in my environment/use which does not include dumping mounds of fine dust directly on top of my filter.

Would have also been cool to see the AFe dry high-flow filters tested, I assume they would have been an in-between the highly-efficient paper filters and the high-flow K&N.



Don't be so touchy. People who have actually used them in the past know that they're bad about dusting MAF's, the inlet tube after the filter and throttle plates. It happened on a Corvette I used to track and I've seen it on other vehicles that you don't see with standard filters. A track vehicle is one thing, but I would never run one on a vehicle that sees road use and various dust, dirt, etc. on a daily basis. More air flow comes with a price.
 
Originally Posted by TiGeo
Originally Posted by metroplex
Originally Posted by TiGeo
It's a cool test/setup he did...straightforward. Results of course make sense - flow and filtering are inversely proportional. I use a K&N and am glad I don't dump flower on top of it...hahahaha It's a good test but the real-world conditions I drive in are quite a bit different. My UOAs always look fine and my intake track behind the filter is always clean to the touch so clearly, while not filtering as well as a paper filter (duh) it does well enough for me. Also, I dig the 0-60 runs - the K&N works, it's not BS and for those of us tuning/trying to extract as much as we can out of our cars, it matters.


On a N/A engine, the K&N can help with that 0.1 psi reduction in pressure drop. But on a turbocharged application like a tuned Ford EcoBoost, that 0.1 psi delta in pressure drop is negligible.


It was a bit more than 0.1 pressure drop.



Nope. The difference between the highest vacuum (inches of water) to no filter is about 0.1 psid.
 
Originally Posted by PowerSurge
Originally Posted by TiGeo
And here are the "K&N sucks" folks...hahaha. If you look at "real" testing data, the efficiency difference is about 3% lower (~96
% vs. ~99%) vs. the paper filters, it's not a big deal to me. My UOAs always come back with low silicon/insolubles numbers which tells me it works just fine in my environment/use which does not include dumping mounds of fine dust directly on top of my filter.

Would have also been cool to see the AFe dry high-flow filters tested, I assume they would have been an in-between the highly-efficient paper filters and the high-flow K&N.



Don't be so touchy. People who have actually used them in the past know that they're bad about dusting MAF's, the inlet tube after the filter and throttle plates. It happened on a Corvette I used to track and I've seen it on other vehicles that you don't see with standard filters. A track vehicle is one thing, but I would never run one on a vehicle that sees road use and various dust, dirt, etc. on a daily basis. More air flow comes with a price.


Not being touchy - many (including me) use them with zero issues. I run K&Ns on all 3 of my cars including 2 with MAFs (my MK7 does not use a MAF), 1 over 100K miles. I have freely admitted that "more air flow comes with a price" but my experience shows that pice is negligible for my use/conditions. My MK4 Jetta had 2 MAFs go out....no K&N in site on that car. These posts are full of folks with no personal negative experience but just regurgitating the same old tired anti-K&N lines. Stop being so touchy.
 
Decided to return the Fram Extra Guard and buy Fram Ultra filters for a little more than double the price at Walmart.

Surprisingly, the Ultra is a little larger than the Extra and matches the OE Denso dimensions exactly. I'll post more tomorrow.
 
Originally Posted by gathermewool
Originally Posted by TiGeo
Originally Posted by metroplex
Originally Posted by TiGeo
It's a cool test/setup he did...straightforward. Results of course make sense - flow and filtering are inversely proportional. I use a K&N and am glad I don't dump flower on top of it...hahahaha It's a good test but the real-world conditions I drive in are quite a bit different. My UOAs always look fine and my intake track behind the filter is always clean to the touch so clearly, while not filtering as well as a paper filter (duh) it does well enough for me. Also, I dig the 0-60 runs - the K&N works, it's not BS and for those of us tuning/trying to extract as much as we can out of our cars, it matters.


On a N/A engine, the K&N can help with that 0.1 psi reduction in pressure drop. But on a turbocharged application like a tuned Ford EcoBoost, that 0.1 psi delta in pressure drop is negligible.


It was a bit more than 0.1 pressure drop.



Nope. The difference between the highest vacuum (inches of water) to no filter is about 0.1 psid.


Units. Got it.
 
With any manufacturer, I wonder how much they use the same media across their line up. We know that most of the manufacturers have a good number of filters that they source from other companies and/or countries.

My point is, I wonder if my WIX round, barrel shaped filter has the same media as the panel filter that Project Farm tested.
 
Originally Posted by doitmyself
With any manufacturer, I wonder how much they use the same media across their line up. We know that most of the manufacturers have a good number of filters that they source from other companies and/or countries.

My point is, I wonder if my WIX round, barrel shaped filter has the same media as the panel filter that Project Farm tested.


It would make financial sense for them to spread out the use of same or similar media as much as possible.
 
Originally Posted by gathermewool


It would make financial sense for them to spread out the use of same or similar media as much as possible.


For those they manufacture themselves in the same facility it may, but for contract-built filters that's not applicable.
 
Originally Posted by bulwnkl
Originally Posted by gathermewool
It would make financial sense for them to spread out the use of same or similar media as much as possible.
For those they manufacture themselves in the same facility it may, but for contract-built filters that's not applicable.
Perhaps, but Fram, for example, makes the same efficiency claim for its Chinese-contracted oil filter cartridges as for US-built spin-ons. Maybe they use the same media grade, shipped to the contract manufacturer? Likely similar plan for air filters?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by TiGeo
If you look at "real" testing data, the efficiency difference is about 3% lower (~96
% vs. ~99%) vs. the paper filters,

Another way to look at it is that the K&N lets 4X the dirt through: 4% vs 1%.
 
Ive heard it suggested that the cotton fibres of a K&N filter 'wave about' in the airflowand it is this waving that allows them to capture more dirt.
He referred to it as electrostatic attraction, I think.
 
Originally Posted by bulwnkl
Originally Posted by gathermewool


It would make financial sense for them to spread out the use of same or similar media as much as possible.


For those they manufacture themselves in the same facility it may, but for contract-built filters that's not applicable.


How so? Honest question - I'm probably just being dense.
 
Originally Posted by Olas
Ive heard it suggested that the cotton fibres of a K&N filter 'wave about' in the airflowand it is this waving that allows them to capture more dirt.
He referred to it as electrostatic attraction, I think.


I can't see this being the case. The fibers are pressed between two wire meshes. The construction is very solid. The more i think of this test the more i wonder the significance of flour as related to actual road-born particles. I'm one of those that's used K&N in many vehicles without issue (consumption issues or otherwise). I still know that a quality paper filter will 'filter' better. That's not up for debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top