...

 

but to compare apples to apples, you have to use the same surface area, otherwise its an unfair comparison. please read my original post, i said it was merely my opinion, so i dont know why you feel the need to continuously point that out

 

Dust has a higher affinity for oiled surfaces than non oiled. Doesn't prove the k&n is better or worse, but it complicates the issue.it is not just about surface area, airflow, or pore size. they all play a role

 

i understand that dust might stick better to an oiled surface, but im just saying that i find it hard to believe that oiled gauze will let more air through while providing an equal amount of protection. in my head, you cant have the best of both worlds, there is a trade off, more air and decreased filtration or less air and better filtration. not to mention the fact that if you get too much oil on the filter, it can damage the maf. and why take the chance for just a different sound and virtually no power gain?

 

To: Everyone who posted here about which type of filter is better - Welcome to the internet!

http://www.mkiv.com/techarticles/filters_test/2/

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/index....d=58&Itemid=66

Conclusion: Paper filters aren't the best for filtration!!!

 

Nice Find.

 

 

that bobistheoilguy test is the one i was referring to, great find!

but how can you come to that conclusion when this is specifically stated at the end of the filtration (not the flow) test:

"Well there is a clear pattern on filtration ability compared to both flow and the type of filtration media used. The "high performance" cotton gauze and foam filters do not filter as well as some have claimed. I actually received an e-mail from K&N stating their filters filter within 99% of the OEM filters. This may be true, and 1% may not sound like much. I contend that 1% over many miles, may be important. Really, it is up to each individual to decide. The poorer flowing filters, remove more particles, and the better flowing filters remove less particles. If you think about it, that conclusion passes any and all common sense tests, so it is not surprising. There are many that will be shocked by the results, that should not be though. I've used high performance filters in the past, and I might again in the future. At the same time, I know that the stock OEM type filters perform very well in filtration and don't inhibit flow nearly as much as some think. "

 

Because he has it backwards, that's why. It's well known that paper isn't as restrictive as people say and actually does filter well. Oiled cotton was the std for many years but now is in question.

What these tests DON'T show are results from synthetic dry filters that Amsoil, AEM, Fram, etc etc etc have out now.

One would do well to look up Hydrazine's screen name and just read his posts. Very enligntening view on filters.

 

you beat me to it. maybe he was looking at the flow test and not the filtration test. but even the flow test showed extremely minimal increases in flow over the paper filters. the filtration pictures speak for themselves in people dont want to read the whole test....

 

i agree with you on the new amsoil filters, but i havent heard that fram had something similiar? does it have a specific name? i know the amsoil nanofilters are very spendy, but im guessing fram would be more affordable. i will look up hydrazine's posts to see what he has to say about all this, unless you want to link us to a specific thread of his?...