X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:17:45 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-qc0-f182.google.com ([209.85.216.182] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.8) with ESMTPS id 6690456 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:58:07 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.216.182; envelope-from=macinsd@gmail.com Received: by mail-qc0-f182.google.com with SMTP id c9so3087147qcz.13 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:57:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.92.54 with SMTP id a51mr13615757qge.111.1389920253470; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:57:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.97.1.202 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:57:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:57:33 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: K&N air filters From: Bill MacLeod X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113ab97af9891904f02006ee --001a113ab97af9891904f02006ee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Bill, I only purchased my L-IV, N84PL, a year ago this coming April. It had a fresh 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 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'Reilly's and see what's available. 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 (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 >>> >> >> > --001a113ab97af9891904f02006ee Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bill,

I only purchased my L-IV, N84PL, = a year ago this coming April. =A0It had a fresh condition inspection includ= ing air filter change at the time. =A0Although I've had the cowling off= several times and saw that it had a flat ring type air filter, I've no= idea what car uses that filter. =A0Looks like something from a '57 Che= vy V8 to me. =A0:-)

If you know what the car application is for the air fil= ters on our L-IVs, please tell me and I'll go down to Pep Boys and O= 9;Reilly's and see what's available. =A0I'll examine them and s= ee what appears 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?

<= /div>
Regards, bill Hogarty


On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Bill MacLeod <m= acinsd@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



--001a113ab97af9891904f02006ee--