Vacuum is a Vacuum. I'll trade 1 HP for better filtration any day.

 

Here is a test comparing some high performance air filters to a Napa Gold filter. The tests include both air flow and filtration results:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm

There is another excellent study on the internet that examines both filtration efficiency and flow efficiency as the filter fills with dust/dirt. I can't find the link now though. What I remember most from the study was that while the clean K&N flows better than a new paper element, K&N flow efficiency quickly drops below that of a paper element as the paper element and the K&N element are given the same dust/dirt loading. If I can ever find the link, I'll post it.

 

not to knock the vacum cleaner & stopwatch test, but how about some real scientific data from an ISO 5011 test?

http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm

 

Not to knock the pruported ISO 5011 test that Spicer ran, but that has been debunked numerous times on other forms since it came out:

I'll summarize some of the errors, ommissions, and cheats.

For one thing, it was not apples to apples comparison - they failed to disclose that the part numbers they were comparing were not for the same application.

Why is it that the capacity, effificency, and fine dust test on 7/13 of the AFE use a prt number 72-90008 rather than the 73-10062 filter that was used in other tests?

Why was the AC Delco used as a benchmark, yet there is no test data for it?

Why were some tested with fine dust, and some with coarse dust? Shouldn't they all be tested the same?

The report says that they conducted testing on three different days - 7/6, 7/12 and 7/13). Were new K&N filters used in each test or was one K&N cleaned and reused?

They claim the test costs $1,700 per filter, and that Testand (right down the road from FRAM) conducted the test, yet FRAM was not tested.

-- DavidV

 

good to know, definatly some disturbing inconsistencies there.......

i wonder.......was the test not up to ISO standards & just slipped under the radar, or are the requirments really that lax that there could be that many inconsistencies?

 

It was based on the ISO 5011 test, but they never ran the full test (would have been impossible for the number of filters tested over such a short period of time) and Arnold Spicer admitted to extrapolating the results. K&N has its own SAE/ISO lab on site, and when they re-ran the full test and made all the filters apples-to-apples (same application) the results were very different.

-- DavidV

 

Cool, thanks for the correction on the bunk test, ill have to check out K&N's site for thier side of the story

 

Where are the results for the apples-to-apples retest performed by K&N?

 

I've seen this test before and felt that is was a good test.

However it was shot down by one of the original founding principals
of a major vendor on this forum.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...3&page=9&pp=15



.

 

After DavidV tossed out some general criticism of that test in another thread without providing specific examples of the flaws in the testing methodology, I went through the Duramax air filter test with a fine tooth combo, and determined that its totally legit. I went point for point with DavidV in another thread, and none of his criticisms had any basis.

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...&page=10&pp=15

Starts at post #146. In the end, the only thing that I could agree with him on was that neither of us had any information on whether or not the reduced filtration capacity of a K&N filter would have a significant effect on engine life.

 

I still think that test provided good comparative information about air filters.
Why not have a test on all filters specifically used on the Evo.
i.e. K&N, WORKS, HKS, Blitz and all others available ... both cone and dropin.

This would put the debate to rest once and for all.

 

wouldnt it be more accurate to test air filters according the the standards of ISO 5011; a global filtration standard?

 

And a year and a half later, the same question asked in post #33, was answered in post #34 Mr. Darwin.