X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.8) with ESMTPS id 6690419 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:48:19 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.214.180; envelope-from=billhogarty@gmail.com Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id wm4so3522073obc.39 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:47:45 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=mqRDSW04vzabsqxmYugrKD7ShNq/RzLNSIak3Cg7IHw=; b=JGHhSvfboNayKnNg/I/RJabv2KUBBQjRUhmOKq3VsowhOXrvTJUiUNHlnay3/kFcrg f8s2FYRc8OAaJbJLdzhK5G5FPTPsCk1gfLAkgVInGAgz4t8xRMeP4NWxb9fZjRbhf9wz j1ziJkeU+pGV9Cr7ha/4AUxLev0ggAMO2jCTk/sh9q8E/AUraTRCVmuODqnfgwDpGA/n NQfSFXef4Vwsumw/iysraBjiWONv0EDn/K1hzr7hsHx4pXu4eUZDGajWRVC5mUXiujmb EyIKoEA71u//stNUbHJ7rEYQOPIq0EP6i6DY5Wdq9wJBxlkEVORmsJtsoGOg3I1He1xK R7iQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.65.36 with SMTP id u4mr9427273obs.31.1389916064998; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:47:44 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.225.169 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:47:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:47:44 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: K&N air filters From: "William A. Hogarty" To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b604cbc526b8304f01f0de1 --047d7b604cbc526b8304f01f0de1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Bill: Do you have a recommendation for a Standard L-IVP? Regards, bill Hogarty On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Bill MacLeod wrote: > Yes, I did. K&N is in my neck of the woods--Southern California. Several > years ago I contacted them about designing a filter for the Jag XKR > (supercharged V8). They wanted to use my car for the design work. I > agreed and we scheduled a time for me to drop my car off for a few day. A > couple of days before I was to drop it off, I informed them that I would be > doing before and after dyno testing. (I've been building racing and high > performance engines for over 50 years and am obsessive compulsive about > testing, especially measuring the final product with carefully controlled > dyno tests. My intake and exhaust systems have been developed with many > hours of flow bench and dyno tests.) K&N said they would the dyno testing > at their facility. I told them that was fine, but I would still be doing > my own testing as I have a very solid consistent, replicable, reliable test > history on the car. They canceled the appointment the next day, without > explanation, only saying that they would contact me in the future if they > decided they needed the car. I thought that was an interesting chain of > events. I never did hear back from them. > > I eventually went to another filter manufacturer that uses a few different > types of fliter media, including the oiled cotton type used by K&N > (although different from the K&N and demonstrably more efficient and with a > higher dirt capacity). I was no longer interested in the OEM panel style > filter and needed a cone style filter to fit a new obstruction-free Mass > Air Flow sensor (peripheral sensing instead of center post style). This > company had some very sophisticated testing equipment and was able to show > the differences between the filter media regarding filtering efficiency, > dirt capacity, pressure drop, etc. Although their own reusable oiled media > was clearly superior to the K&N material in all respects, I, nonetheless, > decided the replaceable cellulose media was superior in all respects. The > cellulose filters were only marginally less expensive, had higher > efficiency from the beginning and held substantially more dirt before air > flow through the filter (pressure drop) was compromised. > > Although I could see no advantage to the oiled filter media--not to > mention the time consumed in cleaning and re-oiling them--I still have have > some made to satisfy the demand from those few individuals that believe all > the marketing hype and insist upon using them. I've given up trying to > confuse them with the facts. > > There have been several published tests (just Google) examining the same > parameters--air flow (from clean to dirty), dirt capacity, etc., across > several brands of automotive air filters. They reveal a surprising range > of measurable differences. To briefly summarize the findings; K&N and > similar oiled fabric media filters are the worst of the group and offer no > flow advantage even when new, they usually have much less surface area (for > the same spec filter), and have a much lower efficiency when new. As the > "dirt" (a size specific test media) coats the filter, the efficiency > increases (of course) and rapidly impacts the air flow negatively. The air > flow drops at a much faster rate (less surface area) for the same amount of > dirt. This results in a much shorter life cycle between > cleanings/replacement. > > I have not done this testing, other than witnessing the tests performed by > the filter manufacturer I used for my own filters, but have researched it > quite a bit and have read several of the aforementioned tests. Those tests > were pretty consistent in their results, even with some differences in > their methodology. Bottom line: don't believe all the marketing hype, > that's all it is, HYPE, not at all based upon demonstrable facts. Yes, K&N > and their ilk will keep the cats and dogs out of an engine, but not much > else. They yield no advantage over a properly sized (filter media area) > filter, capture much less dirt (over a cleaning/replacement cycle), have a > much more rapid decline in air flow and a much lower dirt holding capacity > (resulting in much shorter cleaning/replacement cycles). This is the > synopsis of what I have seen in the tests I have reviewed. > > Why waste your time and money in the hopes of (unlikely) obtaining some > negligible power increase at the expense of a proven increase in engine > wear? > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Greenbacks, UnLtd. wrote: > >> Going back 15 plus years there are some 68,567 posts here on LML and from >> what I can tell, >> we now have one or two people who have recently described them as being >> worthless. >> Have you tried to engage in an intelligent discussion with the >> manufacturer? >> >> Angier Ames >> N4ZQ >> >> >> -- >> For archives and unsub >> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html >> > > --047d7b604cbc526b8304f01f0de1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bill:

Do you have a recommen= dation for a Standard L-IVP?

Regards, bill Hogarty=


O= n Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Bill MacLeod <macinsd@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, I did. =A0K&N is i= n my neck of the woods--Southern California. =A0Several years ago I contact= ed them about designing a filter for the Jag XKR (supercharged V8). =A0They= wanted to use my car for the design work. =A0I agreed and we scheduled a t= ime for me to drop my car off for a few day. =A0A couple of days before I w= as to drop it off, I informed them that I would be doing before and after d= yno testing. =A0(I've been building racing and high performance engines= for over 50 years and am obsessive compulsive about testing, especially me= asuring the final product with carefully controlled dyno tests. =A0My intak= e and exhaust systems have been developed with many hours of flow bench and= dyno tests.) =A0K&N said they would the dyno testing at their facility= . =A0I told them that was fine, but I would still be doing my own testing a= s I have a very solid consistent, replicable, reliable test history on the = car. They canceled the appointment the next day, without explanation, only = saying that they would contact me in the future if they decided they needed= the car. =A0I thought that was an interesting chain of events. =A0I never = did hear back from them.

I eventually went to another filter manufacturer that uses a= few different types of fliter media, including the oiled cotton type used = by K&N (although different from the K&N and demonstrably more effic= ient and with a higher dirt capacity). =A0I was no longer interested in the= OEM panel style filter and needed a cone style filter to fit a new obstruc= tion-free Mass Air Flow sensor (peripheral sensing instead of center post s= tyle). =A0This company had some very sophisticated testing equipment and wa= s able to show the differences between the filter media regarding filtering= efficiency, dirt capacity, pressure drop, etc. =A0Although their own reusa= ble oiled media was clearly superior to the K&N material in all respect= s, I, nonetheless, decided the replaceable cellulose media was superior in = all respects. =A0The cellulose filters were only marginally less expensive,= had higher efficiency from the beginning and held substantially more dirt = before air flow through the filter (pressure drop) was compromised. =A0

Although I could see no advantage to the oiled filter m= edia--not to mention the time consumed in cleaning and re-oiling them--I st= ill have have some made to satisfy the demand from those few individuals th= at believe all the marketing hype and insist upon using them. =A0I've g= iven up trying to confuse them with the facts.

There have been several published tests (just Google) e= xamining the same parameters--air flow (from clean to dirty), dirt capacity= , etc., across several brands of automotive air filters. =A0They reveal a s= urprising range of measurable differences. =A0To briefly summarize the find= ings; K&N and similar oiled fabric media filters are the worst of the g= roup and offer no flow advantage even when new, they usually have much less= surface area (for the same spec filter), and have a much lower efficiency = when new. =A0As the "dirt" (a size specific test media) coats the= filter, the efficiency increases (of course) and rapidly impacts the air f= low negatively. =A0The air flow drops at a much faster rate (less surface a= rea) for the same amount of dirt. =A0This results in a much shorter life cy= cle between cleanings/replacement.

I have not done this testing, other than witnessing the= tests performed by the filter manufacturer I used for my own filters, but = have researched it quite a bit and have read several of the aforementioned = tests. =A0Those tests were pretty consistent in their results, even with so= me differences in their methodology. =A0Bottom line: =A0don't believe a= ll the marketing hype, that's all it is, HYPE, not at all based upon de= monstrable facts. =A0Yes, K&N and their ilk will keep the cats and dogs= out of an engine, but not much else. =A0They yield no advantage over a pro= perly sized (filter media area) filter, capture much less dirt (over a clea= ning/replacement cycle), have a much more rapid decline in air flow and a m= uch lower dirt holding capacity (resulting in much shorter cleaning/replace= ment cycles). =A0This is the synopsis of what I have seen in the tests I ha= ve reviewed. =A0

Why waste your time and money in the hopes of (unlikely= ) obtaining some negligible power increase at the expense of a proven incre= ase in engine wear?


On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 6:05 AM, Greenbacks, UnLtd. <<= a href=3D"mailto:N4ZQ@verizon.net" target=3D"_blank">N4ZQ@verizon.net&g= t; wrote:
Going back 15 plus years there are some 68,567 posts here on LML and from w= hat I can tell,
we now have one or two people who have recently described them as being wor= thless.
Have you tried to engage in an intelligent discussion with the manufacturer= ?

Angier Ames
N4ZQ


--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/L= ist.html


--047d7b604cbc526b8304f01f0de1--