K&N Airfilters (and other.. thingie)

andrewk · Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:11 am

oldsguy88 wrote:

I have a Quick question. These threads I've been reading through, which have had a lot of very good information in them, seem to be a lot of (what seems like) people just trying to seem smarter than other people. Honestly, Is this true?

I won't speak for anyone else, but I like providing the most accurate information as possible. The discussion that results may appear that way I suppose, but I never felt that was the case. The idea is to generate discussion, think some things through, and hopefully help someone learn something they didn't know before.

Quote:

I actually have done tests. I would like to consider myself a researcher in the automotive field. I performed them with a Super Flow SF 600 Flow bench.

That little box at the parts store does not give real numbers. I saw that and it made me want to try the SF 600 on similar filters to see actual data.

The box line wasn't serious, just a bit of sarcastic humor-

Quote:

When I performed the test I had a stock Chevy head with 1.94" intake valves. and 1.5 " ex valves. At .450 valve lift. Bolted to an Ed. Performer intake with an ed 600 cfm carb the combination was flowing 214 cfm on the intake side and 186 on the exhaust side. That was with out a filter. With a Stock Filter it was down to 179 intake and 156. With a True Foam it was at 190 cfm intake and 165 cfm ex. With the K&N it was at 194 cfm intake and 169 ex.

Those are just the numbers I got and even if I did it again I would probably get different numbers. They would be close, but Im Just saying that those numbers proved to me about the real flow of the filters.

I think all you proved in this test is that the other filters flow more air, which was never debated. You still don't have any tangible data that the engine could use the extra flow.

Quote:

Now your ideas of more airflow by less filtering is a very obvious assumption. but if you ever get the chance try their filtering capabilities for yourself. I took some awesome dirt to all them now. I laid down a white piece of paper under the same filters I just had on the flow bench. The paper had a considerable amount of dirt that fell through. The K&N had about the same, just slightly larger particles mixed in everything that fell through, and next was the True Foam. I ended up Pouring all the dirt i had on that filter. Because no matter how little or how much dirt was on it. Nothing fell through.

I would like to add that the filtering capability test was pretty much as un-scientific as it gets, but Since I have no way of actually measuring what falls through in comparison to the airflow It isn't a good Argument. I just thought it was interesting to see What made it through to the naked eye. So as far as the filtering test, Thats still up for debate. It was just interesting and I thought you all might be interested.

If you look at the ISO 5001 test I posted a page or two back, you can see a graphical display of these tests, compared to a multitude of other filters. K&N Doesn't do too hot. There is reason some guys call them "rock guards".

Quote:

I made that statement because a lot of ignorant mentality judges power by their seat-of-their-pants dyno. I am Sure that you are aware of this though. Im skeptical until I see it on paper. IE Dyno sheets (correct ones, Not ones edited by manufactures) Time Slips (by someone who can get consistent reaction times with a consistent car) or Flow Bench data.

Me too. The ass dyno doesn't have much value. I think the "true" test would be a dyno test, as it would be the most consistent. I think most people are also misled that a "better" air filter is going to give them more power. In 95 percent of street applications, its ("Hi-po" air filters) a 60 dollar bragging right, and doesn't add much more value than that.

Andrew

88 Coupe · Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:07 am

oldsguy88 wrote:

........ a lot of (what seems like) people just trying to seem smarter than other people ........

You must have been reading 91buickmans posts, and seen how he makes it up as he goes.

oldsguy88 wrote:

........ Honestly, Is this true? ........

Good topic for a new thread.

oldsguy88 wrote:

........ That little box at the parts store does not give real numbers ........

It is called sarcasm. It was so obvious, even I recognized it.

oldsguy88 wrote:

........ Performer intake with an ed 600 cfm carb the combination was flowing 214 cfm on the intake side and 186 on the exhaust side ........

186 on the exhaust side?

oldsguy88 wrote:

........ With a Stock Filter it was ........

What manufacturer and part number?

oldsguy88 wrote:

........ With a True Foam it was at 190 cfm intake and 165 cfm ex. With the K&N it was at 194 cfm intake and 169 ex ........

And the K&N outflowed your "sponge". Nice touch.

oldsguy88 wrote:

........ Im Just saying that those numbers proved to me about the real flow of the filters ........

They proved nothing. If you cannot repeat the numbers, they are worthless.

oldsguy88 wrote:

........ The paper had a considerable amount of dirt that fell through. The K&N had about the same, just slightly larger particles mixed in everything that fell through ........

What sizes, in microns?

oldsguy88 wrote:

........ no matter how little or how much dirt was on it. Nothing fell through ........

Larger particles? In microns?

oldsguy88 wrote:

........ It was just interesting and I thought you all might be interested ........

How could anyone be interested in your "azz dyno" equivalent?

oldsguy88 wrote:

andrewk wrote:

oldsguy88 wrote:

It is all theory until proven on paper

Isn't a theory an idea that hasn't been proven, on paper?

I made that statement because a lot of ignorant mentality judges power by their seat-of-their-pants dyno ........

Your use of schoolyard name calling, to create a diversion, does not impress anyone.

If you misspoke, simply say so.

oldsguy88 wrote:

........ Im skeptical until I see it on paper ..... IE Dyno sheets (correct ones, Not ones edited by manufactures) Time Slips (by someone who can get consistent reaction times with a consistent car) or Flow Bench data.

Read the following, again:

oldsguy88 wrote:

........ those numbers proved to me about the real flow of the filters ........

Which is it?

oldsguy88 wrote:

........ Time Slips (by someone who can get consistent reaction times with a consistent car) ........

What do reaction times have to do with anything?

It is a legitimate question, and a perfect example of one that 91buickman (or any other troll) will ignore.

Norm

88 Coupe · Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:51 am

andrewk wrote:

........ I think the "true" test would be a dyno test, as it would be the most consistent ........

I wouldn't accept less than an average of 50 pulls, or an average of 50, or more, ¼ mile passes.

Remember, we would be looking for something that does not exist.

andrewk wrote:

........ most people are also misled that a "better" air filter is going to give them more power .........

One, if not the biggest, reason, is:

88 Coupe wrote:

oldsguy88 wrote:

........ for an Increase of power .........

How does more potential = increased power?

Too few "experts" willing to step up, and post obvious answers.

Norm

K&N Airfilters (and other.. thingie)

Who is online