K&N Filter tests
01-09-2009, 04:29 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Admittedly, I am a skeptic about many things. As I mentioned, I have had a K&N FIPK on my Grand Cherokee for over 10 years and 100K miles with no detrimental effect. So, when I see people claiming that use of a K&N filter will damage and/or shorten the life of an engine, this is contrary to my personal experience. Therefore, without any empirical evidence (i.e. scientific study.....no "it seems", or "everyone says", etc.) to support such claims, I will rely upon my personal experience. My one vehicle experiment is more scientific to me than speculative unsubstantiated claims. If that makes me the ultimate skeptic, I can live with it.
I have no idea what point starchland is trying to make about holding a K&N filter to the light. I don't think anyone has attempted to refute the fact that a K&N probably passes more particulate. The question is, if it does, is it enough to in any way be detrimental to the engine? There have been many claims that this is true, but no evidence to support it.
And, just by way of reiteration to 2007 zx-10, I have never said anything about silicon levels other than I don't know what they mean, and not everyone on the board agrees with his claim that everyone who uses a K&N winds up with higher silicon in their UOA. My point has always been that I have never seen any evidence to back up claims of excessive wear/engine failure from use of a K&N.
I keep pointing to claims of excessive wear/engine failure, and zx-10 keeps quoting me as if I am trying to make some claim about silicon. I am not smart enough about particulates to know what the significance is of increased silicon, how much of an increase really makes any difference, etc. I merely pointed out that not everyone agrees with the claim that everyone who uses a K&N has increased silicon in their UOA. zx-10 claims that he knows for certain that everyone that uses a K&N filter has higher silicon in their UOA. If he knows it, he should put the data together and post it, and explain the controlled experiment conditions that conclude that it is the DIRECT RESULT of the K&N filter and from no other factors that results in higher silicon. Further, he should post his analytical results of the damage to those engines from the higher levels of silicon. If he doesn't have this data, perhaps he should state that "he thinks", or "he believes" that this is the case.
Like most, I come on these boards to learn. If I am wrong and someone has performed a scientific study to show K&N filters do cause excessive wear/engine failure (in the type of environment where we drive our cars.....I rarely drive my S2000 in mining pits), I am happy to review it and learn. Who knows....maybe I have just been excessively lucky for 10 years with my Grand Cherokee.
I have no idea what point starchland is trying to make about holding a K&N filter to the light. I don't think anyone has attempted to refute the fact that a K&N probably passes more particulate. The question is, if it does, is it enough to in any way be detrimental to the engine? There have been many claims that this is true, but no evidence to support it.
And, just by way of reiteration to 2007 zx-10, I have never said anything about silicon levels other than I don't know what they mean, and not everyone on the board agrees with his claim that everyone who uses a K&N winds up with higher silicon in their UOA. My point has always been that I have never seen any evidence to back up claims of excessive wear/engine failure from use of a K&N.
I keep pointing to claims of excessive wear/engine failure, and zx-10 keeps quoting me as if I am trying to make some claim about silicon. I am not smart enough about particulates to know what the significance is of increased silicon, how much of an increase really makes any difference, etc. I merely pointed out that not everyone agrees with the claim that everyone who uses a K&N has increased silicon in their UOA. zx-10 claims that he knows for certain that everyone that uses a K&N filter has higher silicon in their UOA. If he knows it, he should put the data together and post it, and explain the controlled experiment conditions that conclude that it is the DIRECT RESULT of the K&N filter and from no other factors that results in higher silicon. Further, he should post his analytical results of the damage to those engines from the higher levels of silicon. If he doesn't have this data, perhaps he should state that "he thinks", or "he believes" that this is the case.
Like most, I come on these boards to learn. If I am wrong and someone has performed a scientific study to show K&N filters do cause excessive wear/engine failure (in the type of environment where we drive our cars.....I rarely drive my S2000 in mining pits), I am happy to review it and learn. Who knows....maybe I have just been excessively lucky for 10 years with my Grand Cherokee.
01-09-2009, 05:33 PM
#32
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2007 Zx-10' date='Jan 6 2009, 08:03 PM
however, I doubt most people are going to see a significant increase in wear using a properly used/maintained K&N, unless they're driving on dirt roads or something
01-10-2009, 11:01 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manteca, CA
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can find the information the OP posted quoted as far back as '97. Unfortunately, there's no way to validate it. Being an internet skeptic, I'm inclined to doubt it.
01-10-2009, 06:59 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2007 Zx-10' date='Jan 10 2009, 02:33 AM
from p. 1
01-11-2009, 07:34 AM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 17 ft below sea level.
Posts: 4,949
Likes: 0
Received 21 Likes
on
16 Posts
"High" levels of silicon in used engine oil by itself doesn't mean anything.. if you don't know the levels of silicon in the new oil.
Silicon is a known engine oil additive, an anti foam agent.
Some oils have it, some don't.
Silicon is a known engine oil additive, an anti foam agent.
Some oils have it, some don't.
01-11-2009, 10:56 AM
#36
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good point, but still higher than VOAs (abnormally high)...again, likely not a big deal for street drivers, but I wouldn't be using a K&N in an off-road 4x4, for example
more people need to check out the Amsoil Ea filters: good performance and no oil mess
more people need to check out the Amsoil Ea filters: good performance and no oil mess
01-12-2009, 02:07 AM
#37
Registered User
Originally Posted by 2007 Zx-10' date='Jan 11 2009, 02:56 PM
good point, but still higher than VOAs (abnormally high)...again, likely not a big deal for street drivers, but I wouldn't be using a K&N in an off-road 4x4, for example
more people need to check out the Amsoil Ea filters: good performance and no oil mess
more people need to check out the Amsoil Ea filters: good performance and no oil mess
01-12-2009, 03:48 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Scottsdale
Posts: 1,871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work for a large filter company - and no we don't make anything related to automotive intake filters - we may make some heavy equipment filters, but I'm not sure and that would be in a different division than I am in anyway. I have worked in the filtration business for more than 30 years, so I know a little bit about gas (like air - not gasoline) filtration (as I am one of the company's experts in that field).
A filter is typically defined by three parameters - permeability, cut size, and dirt holding capacity. Permeability is how much air can pass through the filter at a certain pressure drop. Cut size is the size particle the filter removes (typically in microns) and dirt holding capacity is how much dirt the filter holds before it needs to be replaced.
Basically, there are a few ways one can make a filter flow more air - increase the permeability or increase the cut size. You can increase the permeability without increasing the cut size. You could also increase the surface area of the filter - more pleats, bigger pleats, larger filter, etc.
Now with all this said, one of the guys that works for the company tested several of the aftermarket filters - he tracked an M3 then and wanted to know what filter to use on his M3, and found that most of them flowed more air - for a few minutes in our test, and then plugged to the point where they were actually flowed less air than the OEM filter. The oiled foam filter were the worst.
This was just something he did on the weekend and so did not write up a report or try to publish any results. Basically, if you have one of the aftermarket filters, you need to clean it often - foam filters - very often.
Now as far as silicon in oil - it is true that silicon is used in oil as an anti-foaming agent. However that silicon is typically tied to some organic molecule, and would be at the atomic level, therefore not an engine wear factor. Additional silicon (from dirt) would be in mineral form and would be particles.
I could probably go into SAE papers and find something about engine wear and particulate in oil, but don't really want to spend the time. I think it would suffice to say that less is better when it comes to contaminants in oil, and minerals like silicon, calcium, etc are much more erosive than the particulate formed in the combustion process
As for me, I run an OEM filter and change it out every October as summers here in AZ are very dusty.
A filter is typically defined by three parameters - permeability, cut size, and dirt holding capacity. Permeability is how much air can pass through the filter at a certain pressure drop. Cut size is the size particle the filter removes (typically in microns) and dirt holding capacity is how much dirt the filter holds before it needs to be replaced.
Basically, there are a few ways one can make a filter flow more air - increase the permeability or increase the cut size. You can increase the permeability without increasing the cut size. You could also increase the surface area of the filter - more pleats, bigger pleats, larger filter, etc.
Now with all this said, one of the guys that works for the company tested several of the aftermarket filters - he tracked an M3 then and wanted to know what filter to use on his M3, and found that most of them flowed more air - for a few minutes in our test, and then plugged to the point where they were actually flowed less air than the OEM filter. The oiled foam filter were the worst.
This was just something he did on the weekend and so did not write up a report or try to publish any results. Basically, if you have one of the aftermarket filters, you need to clean it often - foam filters - very often.
Now as far as silicon in oil - it is true that silicon is used in oil as an anti-foaming agent. However that silicon is typically tied to some organic molecule, and would be at the atomic level, therefore not an engine wear factor. Additional silicon (from dirt) would be in mineral form and would be particles.
I could probably go into SAE papers and find something about engine wear and particulate in oil, but don't really want to spend the time. I think it would suffice to say that less is better when it comes to contaminants in oil, and minerals like silicon, calcium, etc are much more erosive than the particulate formed in the combustion process
As for me, I run an OEM filter and change it out every October as summers here in AZ are very dusty.
01-12-2009, 07:26 AM
#40
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 3,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by INDYMAC' date='Jan 12 2009, 03:07 AM
Can you point us to the part number for the AMSOIL Ea filter?
http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/eaa.aspx