WORKS High-Flow Air Filter
Greetings...
We've heard that they will be here on Monday the 5th, ready to ship on the 8th. We will be going through the backorder list first, of course. We will have plenty in stock, so everyone can get one...
Cheers,
Oliver Simons
WORKS
415-641-9675
osimons@worksmitsu.com
We've heard that they will be here on Monday the 5th, ready to ship on the 8th. We will be going through the backorder list first, of course. We will have plenty in stock, so everyone can get one...
Cheers,
Oliver Simons
WORKS
415-641-9675
osimons@worksmitsu.com
I installed this tonight. I noticed it at really low rpms going into first gear, no buck/stall. I think it pulls a little harder and smoother after 5k rpms. Overall I think it was worth it!
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Spec'd
Besides the 25% extra surface area, what makes the WORKS better than K&N ?
Interesting article about filters.
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm
Interesting article about filters.
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm
ummmm....
That report is seriously flawed and has been debunked in numerous forums since it was released in 2004. 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.
Was this an objective piece fo reporting? You tell me...
-- DavidV
Originally Posted by DavidV
ummmm....
That report is seriously flawed and has been debunked in numerous forums since it was released in 2004. 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.
Was this an objective piece fo reporting? You tell me...
-- DavidV
That report is seriously flawed and has been debunked in numerous forums since it was released in 2004. 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.
Was this an objective piece fo reporting? You tell me...
-- DavidV
I realize that test my not be perfect, however it does seem to provide a reasonable amount of Empirical data.
It does show on one of the graphs that the K & N filter was re-oiled.
K & N filters as well as WORKS are made to be reoiled anyways,
so they should perform well over and over after being cleaned
and re-oiled.
As far as the AC Delco or Fram ... So What ?
Maybe they didn't test the AC Delco or Fram because they are dung ?
Different days of testing ... So what ?
The conditions were similar enough to provide resonable results.
I would be interested to know what forum or forum(s) are saying that
test is not valid. Are they the filter keepers or some type of authority ?
In any event that article along with my own experience was enough
to make me remove my oiled K&N filter and purchase a new HKS super-hybrid.
A link to the ultimate drop in Evo panel filter test would be great.
WORKS oiled drop in panel filter included.
.
Last edited by Spec'd; Jun 15, 2006 at 11:22 PM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Spec'd
It does show on one of the graphs that the K & N filter was re-oiled.
K & N filters as well as WORKS are made to be reoiled anyways,
so they should perform well over and over after being cleaned
and re-oiled.
...
Different days of testing ... So what ?
The conditions were similar enough to provide resonable results.
K & N filters as well as WORKS are made to be reoiled anyways,
so they should perform well over and over after being cleaned
and re-oiled.
...
Different days of testing ... So what ?
The conditions were similar enough to provide resonable results.
Second, how do you know they cleaned and re-oiled correctly? They did not event compare apples to apples (same part numbers/applications) or conduct the test itself per SAE/ISO guidelines, given the other errors and ommissions in this test, I wouldn't be too sure the filters were cleaned and re-oiled according to manufacturers' guidelines.
-- DavidV
soooo, your an author of a book. thats nice.
spec'd-you come on here debating a product-two to be exact. i understand why you are asking for parameters of the test and why didnt they post the results or why they didnt use the AC Delco in the test. i dont really think that makes any comparasion for a customer who sees that the product offered by WORKS, well, works. there have been several occasions that people take out the K/N filter and replace it with the WORKS filter and be happy. they may also replace it with several other brands/types of filter systems or drop ins. i made the $210.00 mistake by getting the K/N Typhoon setup myself. i was sold on the the K/N name and quality. not bad for a product that has been around and proven itself time and time again. However, the Evo is a unique beast and i personally had a problem with the power delivery with the Typhoon set up. i put the stock airbox assembly back in the car and was amazed. my torque increase was amazing. their is a flaw with the K/N Typhoon set up, although unknown, its flawed. K/Ns response was to turn the MAS upside down, reinstall, and drive the car. didnt make a difference. no lower end rpm output, no stalling issues, and would spike to 30+psi easily. not the case with the WORKS drop in.
dont know why it works but it does.
so my question to you is-would it make you feel better for the companies to reveal all testing done to see if a fair and adiquate test was done for evaluation??
would it make you feel better if they just sent it to you to test since you are so technical and critical about parameters that any variation would make you NOT purchase a product??
why do you have such an interest in wanting technical data from the manufacturers testing?? being the author of a book makes me wonder why you have an interest....(in a positive way)
IMHO-there are alot more products out there that just skew numbers to make a product look good-eg. typhoon system. several people on this board as well as others can atest to that including Dynoflash, Buschur, etc. because they have done their own testing and tuning with the products.
bottom line-dont be so technical or critical about comparing a product such as WORKS to K/N.
spec'd-you come on here debating a product-two to be exact. i understand why you are asking for parameters of the test and why didnt they post the results or why they didnt use the AC Delco in the test. i dont really think that makes any comparasion for a customer who sees that the product offered by WORKS, well, works. there have been several occasions that people take out the K/N filter and replace it with the WORKS filter and be happy. they may also replace it with several other brands/types of filter systems or drop ins. i made the $210.00 mistake by getting the K/N Typhoon setup myself. i was sold on the the K/N name and quality. not bad for a product that has been around and proven itself time and time again. However, the Evo is a unique beast and i personally had a problem with the power delivery with the Typhoon set up. i put the stock airbox assembly back in the car and was amazed. my torque increase was amazing. their is a flaw with the K/N Typhoon set up, although unknown, its flawed. K/Ns response was to turn the MAS upside down, reinstall, and drive the car. didnt make a difference. no lower end rpm output, no stalling issues, and would spike to 30+psi easily. not the case with the WORKS drop in.
dont know why it works but it does.
so my question to you is-would it make you feel better for the companies to reveal all testing done to see if a fair and adiquate test was done for evaluation??
would it make you feel better if they just sent it to you to test since you are so technical and critical about parameters that any variation would make you NOT purchase a product??
why do you have such an interest in wanting technical data from the manufacturers testing?? being the author of a book makes me wonder why you have an interest....(in a positive way)
IMHO-there are alot more products out there that just skew numbers to make a product look good-eg. typhoon system. several people on this board as well as others can atest to that including Dynoflash, Buschur, etc. because they have done their own testing and tuning with the products.
bottom line-dont be so technical or critical about comparing a product such as WORKS to K/N.
Last edited by badhabit90; Jun 16, 2006 at 05:53 PM.
Originally Posted by badhabit90
soooo, your an author of a book. thats nice.
spec'd-you come on here debating a product-two to be exact. i understand why you are asking for parameters of the test and why didnt they post the results or why they didnt use the AC Delco in the test. i dont really think that makes any comparasion for a customer who sees that the product offered by WORKS, well, works. there have been several occasions that people take out the K/N filter and replace it with the WORKS filter and be happy. they may also replace it with several other brands/types of filter systems or drop ins. i made the $210.00 mistake by getting the K/N Typhoon setup myself. i was sold on the the K/N name and quality. not bad for a product that has been around and proven itself time and time again. However, the Evo is a unique beast and i personally had a problem with the power delivery with the Typhoon set up. i put the stock airbox assembly back in the car and was amazed. my torque increase was amazing. their is a flaw with the K/N Typhoon set up, although unknown, its flawed. K/Ns response was to turn the MAS upside down, reinstall, and drive the car. didnt make a difference. no lower end rpm output, no stalling issues, and would spike to 30+psi easily. not the case with the WORKS drop in.
dont know why it works but it does.
so my question to you is-would it make you feel better for the companies to reveal all testing done to see if a fair and adiquate test was done for evaluation??
would it make you feel better if they just sent it to you to test since you are so technical and critical about parameters that any variation would make you NOT purchase a product??
why do you have such an interest in wanting technical data from the manufacturers testing?? being the author of a book makes me wonder why you have an interest....(in a positive way)
IMHO-there are alot more products out there that just skew numbers to make a product look good-eg. typhoon system. several people on this board as well as others can atest to that including Dynoflash, Buschur, etc. because they have done their own testing and tuning with the products.
bottom line-dont be so technical or critical about comparing a product such as WORKS to K/N.
spec'd-you come on here debating a product-two to be exact. i understand why you are asking for parameters of the test and why didnt they post the results or why they didnt use the AC Delco in the test. i dont really think that makes any comparasion for a customer who sees that the product offered by WORKS, well, works. there have been several occasions that people take out the K/N filter and replace it with the WORKS filter and be happy. they may also replace it with several other brands/types of filter systems or drop ins. i made the $210.00 mistake by getting the K/N Typhoon setup myself. i was sold on the the K/N name and quality. not bad for a product that has been around and proven itself time and time again. However, the Evo is a unique beast and i personally had a problem with the power delivery with the Typhoon set up. i put the stock airbox assembly back in the car and was amazed. my torque increase was amazing. their is a flaw with the K/N Typhoon set up, although unknown, its flawed. K/Ns response was to turn the MAS upside down, reinstall, and drive the car. didnt make a difference. no lower end rpm output, no stalling issues, and would spike to 30+psi easily. not the case with the WORKS drop in.
dont know why it works but it does.
so my question to you is-would it make you feel better for the companies to reveal all testing done to see if a fair and adiquate test was done for evaluation??
would it make you feel better if they just sent it to you to test since you are so technical and critical about parameters that any variation would make you NOT purchase a product??
why do you have such an interest in wanting technical data from the manufacturers testing?? being the author of a book makes me wonder why you have an interest....(in a positive way)
IMHO-there are alot more products out there that just skew numbers to make a product look good-eg. typhoon system. several people on this board as well as others can atest to that including Dynoflash, Buschur, etc. because they have done their own testing and tuning with the products.
bottom line-dont be so technical or critical about comparing a product such as WORKS to K/N.
I honestly wasn't intending to be-little anybody personally or professionally.
For the most part WORKS does seem to make some fine products.
As a consumer I am entitled to purchase whatever product I feel best
fits my needs. As a consumer I am also entitled to have concerns or questions
about certain products on the market.
So if that test is really that bad, what better unbiased test is there that says
WORKS filters are better or different then every other oiled type filter on the market.
Other than the 25% larger surface area and the 40% higher price.
Once upon a time, along time ago, before fuel injection motors became as
prevailent as they are today, when carburators ruled the land, oil type air filters were the great late technowledgy of that day. They're not really anything new. I had personally used them for about 40 years on cars and motorcycles.
One characteristic that seems true with oil type air filters is that they do seem to
filter very well when they are coated with lots of oil. That was fine with older
carburated motors because all that oil spewing into into the carb wasn't a problem, you get carb cleaner and spray it into the venturis and run it out.
So WOW! ... here we are in the modern age of automotive technowledgy with Electronic Fuel Injection and the Mass Air Flow Sensor. ( hmmm where might I be going with this. ) I'm not so sure that K & N or Uni oiled type filters of today are immune to spewing that same filteration oil as they did back in the carburation days. Since there is no carb, where does the oil go ? , especially on a vehicle
with forced induction. Welp my Toyota truck sure seemed to have a lot of oil crystals on the MAF as a result of using K & N oil type filters. They were a pretty red color too.
So as a consumer, The questions I ask...
1.)What magic formula or voodoo makes WORKS filter worth the $100.00 price tag
as compared to a K & N filter ?
2.)Will they filter properly with a small amount of oil ?
3.)Will they be required to use a large quantity of WORKS "special filter charger oil" in order to filter properly ?
4.)Will the WORKS filter leave pretty blue crystals on my MAF ?
5.)Is there any real world or empirical proof regarding WORKS filters ?
.
.