Glenn A. Merrell wrote:
>
> Yo Trevor,
> Uhhh, I think not...I've been using K&N for over 20 years, the record
> speaks for itself.
> 190,000 on an 86 Subaru XT TURBO, 160k on a 87 XT Turbo, 160k on an 88
> GL10-Turbo, 56k on an 81 Honda 900cc, over 160 K on my TR250, all NO
> rebuilds, original parts when I was done with them, never replaced a turbo
> or carb, and air paths kept clean. I'll use one on my Stag when it is done
> too! So you say... where is your proof in testing?
There was a very long and detailed scientific study posted on
the web, which unfortunately is gone. However, many listers will
remember it, it was bantered about.
It was a study done on industrial equipment, machines that are
worth six figures and have their oil lab analysed every month
to keep them in top shape.
The goal was to increase fuel economy by switching to K&Ns.
I hope somebody can repost the study, but the net result was
that after the first series of lab results were in, the silicates
(sand) level in the engine was deemed too high to even continue
the test for the most expensive machines, and the full test was
only done for the older expendable ones.
In other words, after one month of an approximately six month
planned test, they feared destruction of their 6-figure valued
machines and stopped the test.
Please, somebody repost the article if you have it, it was a big
discussion about a year ago.
--
Trevor Boicey
Ottawa, Canada
tboicey@brit.ca
http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
|