X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [207.46.163.242] (HELO na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.8) with ESMTPS id 6691064 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 09:13:44 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.46.163.242; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com Received: from BY2PR07MB550.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.217.145) by BY2PR07MB552.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.217.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.842.7; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:13:03 +0000 Received: from BY2PR07MB550.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.217.145]) by BY2PR07MB550.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.217.145]) with mapi id 15.00.0851.011; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:13:03 +0000 From: Robert R Pastusek To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: RE: [LML] Re: K&N air filters Thread-Topic: [LML] Re: K&N air filters Thread-Index: AQHPE0vhlOa2ngQAEkGXUU87vPuuCJqI682g Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 14:13:02 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [108.28.164.93] x-forefront-prvs: 0094E3478A x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10019001)(689001)(679001)(779001)(377454003)(199002)(189002)(24454002)(19300405004)(74502001)(63696002)(51856001)(90146001)(31966008)(2656002)(83072002)(85852003)(80022001)(16236675002)(76482001)(74706001)(65816001)(47446002)(66066001)(74662001)(54316002)(56816005)(74316001)(46102001)(54356001)(74366001)(4396001)(19580395003)(59766001)(15975445006)(53806001)(83322001)(19580405001)(47736001)(74876001)(87936001)(47976001)(81342001)(80976001)(92566001)(56776001)(76796001)(49866001)(81816001)(69226001)(93136001)(76576001)(87266001)(76786001)(77982001)(81686001)(15202345003)(85306002)(93516002)(79102001)(81542001)(50986001)(33646001)(24736002);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102;SCL:1;SRVR:BY2PR07MB552;H:BY2PR07MB550.namprd07.prod.outlook.com;CLIP:108.28.164.93;FPR:;RD:InfoNoRecords;A:1;MX:1;LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_b31ffd5a979a4004b16d5ba695171226BY2PR07MB550namprd07pro_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: htii.com --_000_b31ffd5a979a4004b16d5ba695171226BY2PR07MB550namprd07pro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill Bradbury, If one followed the building manual, the air plenum/filter assembly in the = bottom of the IV/IV-P cowl was made from pre-molded pieces and "hand fitted= " to a particular filter. I built mine to exactly fit a K&N #E2865, includi= ng molded layups that conform to the sealing ridges/grooves in the top and = bottom faces of the K&N. I believe that was the recommended filter at the t= ime, and as someone else noted, it looks like the filter from a 50's Chevy.= I "took on faith" that the K&N was a top quality filter, but have since c= ome to appreciate that the filter media erodes in use...probably from ice p= articles passing though it from time to time? I have therefore changed it a= t each annual, but they are pricey as compared to other filters. One thing = I like is that it has wire mesh inside the filter media, which "keeps the c= ats and dogs out," to quote an earlier post. You might try by cross-referencing this one, or at least matching the dimen= sions with what you have? Bob Bill, I only purchased my L-IV, N84PL, a year ago this coming April. It had a fr= esh condition inspection including air filter change at the time. Although= I've had the cowling off several times and saw that it had a flat ring typ= e air filter, I've no idea what car uses that filter. Looks like something= from a '57 Chevy V8 to me. :-) If you know what the car application is for the air filters on our L-IVs, p= lease tell me and I'll go down to Pep Boys and O'Reilly's and see what's av= ailable. I'll examine them and see what appears to be best. Bill On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:47 PM, William A. Hogarty > wrote: 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 (superc= harged V8). They wanted to use my car for the design work. I agreed and w= e scheduled a time for me to drop my car off for a few day. A couple of da= ys before I was to drop it off, I informed them that I would be doing befor= e and after dyno testing. (I've been building racing and high performance = engines for over 50 years and am obsessive compulsive about testing, especi= ally measuring the final product with carefully controlled dyno tests. My = intake and exhaust systems have been developed with many hours of flow benc= h 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 say= ing that they would contact me in the future if they decided they needed th= e car. I thought that was an interesting chain of events. I never did hea= r 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 (althoug= h 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 a= nd needed a cone style filter to fit a new obstruction-free Mass Air Flow s= ensor (peripheral sensing instead of center post style). This company had = some very sophisticated testing equipment and was able to show the differen= ces between the filter media regarding filtering efficiency, dirt capacity,= pressure drop, etc. Although their own reusable oiled media was clearly s= uperior to the K&N material in all respects, I, nonetheless, decided the re= placeable cellulose media was superior in all respects. The cellulose filt= ers were only marginally less expensive, had higher efficiency from the beg= inning 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 m= ade to satisfy the demand from those few individuals that believe all the m= arketing 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 pa= rameters--air flow (from clean to dirty), dirt capacity, etc., across sever= al brands of automotive air filters. They reveal a surprising range of mea= surable differences. To briefly summarize the findings; K&N and similar oi= led fabric media filters are the worst of the group and offer no flow advan= tage 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 co= urse) 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 re= sults 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 q= uite a bit and have read several of the aforementioned tests. Those tests = were pretty consistent in their results, even with some differences in thei= r 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 th= eir ilk will keep the cats and dogs out of an engine, but not much else. T= hey yield no advantage over a properly sized (filter media area) filter, ca= pture 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 wha= t I have seen in the tests I have reviewed. Why waste your time and money in the hopes of (unlikely) obtaining some neg= ligible 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 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/List.html --_000_b31ffd5a979a4004b16d5ba695171226BY2PR07MB550namprd07pro_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bill Bradbury,


If one followed the building manual, the air plenum/filter assembly in the = bottom of the IV/IV-P cowl was made from pre-molded pieces and “hand = fitted” to a particular filter. I built mine to exactly fit a K&N #E2865, including molded layups that conform to the sea= ling ridges/grooves in the top and bottom faces of the K&N. I believe t= hat was the recommended filter at the time, and as someone else noted, it looks like the filter from a 50’s Chevy. I “too= k on faith” that the K&N  was a top quality filter, but have since come to appreciate that the= filter media erodes in use…probably from ice particles passing thoug= h it from time to time? I have therefore changed it at each annual, but the= y are pricey as compared to other filters. One thing I like is that it has wire mesh inside the filter media, which &= #8220;keeps the cats and dogs out,” to quote an earlier post.

 

You might try by cross-referencing this one, or at = least matching the dimensions with what you have?

 

Bob

 <= /p>

 

 

Bill,

 

I only purchased my L-IV, N84PL, a year ago this com= ing April.  It had a fresh condition inspection including air filter c= hange at the time.  Although I've had the cowling off several times an= d saw that it had a flat ring type air filter, I've no idea what car uses that filter.  Looks like something from a = '57 Chevy V8 to me.  :-)

 

If you know what the car application is for the air = filters on our L-IVs, please tell me and I'll go down to Pep Boys and O'Rei= lly's and see what's available.  I'll examine them and see what appear= s to be best.

 

Bill

 

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:47 PM, William A. Hogarty = <billhogarty@= gmail.com> wrote:

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 <<= a href=3D"mailto:macinsd@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">macinsd@gmail.com= > wrote:

Yes, I did.  K&N is in my neck of the woods= --Southern California.  Several years ago I contacted them about desig= ning a filter for the Jag XKR (supercharged V8).  They wanted to use m= y 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 bef= ore 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 e= ngines for over 50 years and am obsessive compulsive about testing, especially measuring the final product with care= fully 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 th= e car. They canceled the appointment the next day, without explanation, onl= y saying that they would contact me in the future if they decided they needed the car.  I thought that was a= n interesting chain of events.  I never did hear back from them.<= /o:p>

 

I eventually went to another filter manufacturer tha= t uses a few different types of fliter media, including the oiled cotton ty= pe used by K&N (although different from the K&N and demonstrably mo= re 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 (per= ipheral 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 reu= sable oiled media was clearly superior to the K&N material in all respe= cts, 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 beginni= ng and held substantially more dirt before air flow through the filter (pre= ssure drop) was compromised.  

 

Although I could see no advantage to the oiled filte= r 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 wit= h the facts.

 

There have been several published tests (just Google= ) examining the same parameters--air flow (from clean to dirty), dirt capac= ity, etc., across several brands of automotive air filters.  They reve= al 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 w= hen 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 fl= ow 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, b= ut have researched it quite a bit and have read several of the aforemention= ed tests.  Those tests were pretty consistent in their results, even with some differences in their methodolo= gy.  Bottom line:  don't believe all the marketing hype, that's a= ll 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 properl= y 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 o= f what I have seen in the tests I have reviewed.  

 

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

 

 

--_000_b31ffd5a979a4004b16d5ba695171226BY2PR07MB550namprd07pro_--