This topic has pretty much been taken care of but I noticed that there wasn't any mention of Foam Filters.

TRUEFOAM makes a Very good filter that flows much more than a Stock paper filter. It Filters More than K&N and the Stock filter. It does not flow quite as much as K&N but very close.

I would recommend one of these for a daily driver over K&N just because I would rather have a clean engine vs the tiny gain but with a dirty engine.

One thing I have noticed is that these filters don't last forever as do the K&N because the oil breaks down the foam material.

Just remember that K&N is trying to make money by selling filters. So they use marketing strategies. Our job is to look past those to the real truth and then go from there

That is because the OP didn't ask, but also because the thread hijack was just being followed in the context in which it was presented. Had we been talking about the benefits of all filters, I am sure it would have come up.



Do you mean "True-Flow" or a different product?



I would assume True-Flow is too. I noticed on their site that they make a similar claim that you get "more filter" and "more flow". I am not sure that is possible. The two are inversely related (v=Q/A, where v=velocity, q=flow rate, and a=flow area), which means if you get more of one, you have to get less of the other, right?

Besides, our flow rate would be capped at whatever the carburetor or throttle body flows. In the OP's case, he has a 260, and it should have the dual jet carburetor on it, which is rated at a whopping 161cfm @ 1 Hg.

At any rate, I am not trying to bust your balls, it just doesn't make sense to me-

Regards-

This worked for me earlier, but I tried it today, and it wasn't there.
here is a different link, to the same test.

What gain?


http://www.trueflow.com/premiumairfilters.php


"Off road" and "wash and re-use". Same rap as K&N.

I'm not impressed.

Norm

http://www.shopatron.com/product/part_n ... 1001.0.0.0

Same size filters, I use on my Coupes.



At that time, the 468 in my Grey Coupe, used a generic 14"x3" paper filter, while the 437 in my Red Coupe had the 14"x3" K&N.

The foam filter appears to have far less surface area, compared to the conventional "pleated" designs I've always used. Less surface area exposed = Less filtration, shorter service cycle and more restriction.

I'm sure 91buickman will be along to correct my numerous errors, in this post.

Norm

So the K&N was good for 4 tenths, and 31 CI?



I understand the logic in the greater surface area of the pleats, but what prevents the air from just going into the peaks of the pleats, instead of being filtered by them? This is something I haven't ever quite understood-The air will take the path of least resistance, right?



Wouldn't less filter mean more flow, and thus less restriction?

Also in related news, I cleaned the K&N that is in my Lumina today... I lost the cleaning instruction sheet, so I looked it up on their site. Funny thing is, on one portion of the site, they warn you to not over-oil the filter, and on another portion, they tell you you can't over-oil it. Things that make you go hmmmm....

Regards-

Yeah. In addition to 4 points of compression, 40° of valve duration, and .050” of valve lift.

But, I digress.


Air will be drawn from any part of the filter that is not restricted.


Yes. But by definition, the filter is a resistance.

Norm

Hi Norm, all,

It took me awhile to get back to this one, too much school work to do...

Thanks for the clarification Norm, but I still have one more question:



I understand that the filter is a resistance, but how does less filter surface area equal more resistance? I can see how it would result in a shorter service cycle, but I would think that less area would mean it is a more freely flowing filter than one that has more surface area.

Andrew

Comparing the subject 14"x 3",



to a taller 14"x 5" K&N,



as shown on my 437,



What effect would the extra 2" have?

Norm

Have any of you ever Flow benched a K&N vs a Stock paper filter?

An increase in airflow (which a K&N and True Foam [thank you for correcting me last time, My head was in the clouds]will provide) proves that There is a potential for an Increase of power.

Only if the airfilter is your actual restriction.

The only way to really know is with actual data to go from. Whether it be a Dyno or flowbench or strip. Theres really no room to argue that it will make or wont make power by having a different filter.

It is all theory until proven on paper.

I haven't. Have you? Has K&N? Has True Flow? Has anyone?


From the fourth post, on the first page:


What about True Flow?

http://www.trueflow.com/video/product.wvx

Which "paper filter" did they test? Was the red one a K&N, or a chinesium lookalike?


From the same post:

1. More air available = more potential.

2. More potential = useless if it's not needed.

How does more potential = increased power?


Does anyone here, have a restricted filter? I know I don't.

From the same post:


Nuff said?


Again, do you have any actual data?


Do you mean a Time slip, or two?


To make that statement, is to advocate censorship.

As long as there is someone who can learn from an exchange of ideas, there is always room for discussion.


On a paper timeslip?

Norm

If that plexiglass display at the local autoparts store counts, than yes.

Nobody is saying that a paper filter flows better than a K&N. The debate has, and is whether or not it will make a difference. Given the OP's car, and the small carburetor that is installed on it, the answer in this case is, "There is no difference".



Sure there is potential, if the engine could draw in any more air than it already is with the paper filter.



I don't really agree with this. If you know the CFM rating of the carburetor/Throttle Body, you know how much air the engine can ingest. If that number is painfully small, like in the OP's case, you know that you are wasting money buying useless parts.



I'd agree with this, provided there is evidence supporting a presented point. EG, there is really no room to argue that a K&N air filter cover is going to yield more power output on a 2bbl 260 Olds.

However, presenting a point, with data and evidence to back it up, is debating, which means there is "room to argue".



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

Could only happen if the OEM filter was less than adequate, which is hardly the case.


Carb/TB size has little to do with it. Example is, the 800 CFM Q-jet used on my 307. Probably can't use any more than ⅓ of it.

Displacement, maximum RPM, and Volumetric efficiency (CFM = RPM x Displacement/3456 x VE), will come close to an engines actual needs.

Norm

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 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.

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.

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.



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.

Thank you Norm. I thought it wasn't that easy-