> You should report them if you truly think they are
> engaging in false advertising.
No, I did NOT say that. What I said was that I believe, on the information
I have, that they let more dirt through than the average paper element
filter. I am still waiting for you to present ANY evidence to the contrary.
> You are obviously emotionally invested in your opinion on
> paper filters;
No more than you are in your opinion of K&N.
> My guess is that one might gain 2 HP on these cars with a k&n
> simply because the early filters have such little resistance.
Which is remarkably similar to what I said. But then how much do you lose
due to advanced piston ring wear?
> Every little bit helps!
Depends on your goals. My goal is a reliable car I can drive every day for
a long time. If sacrificing 2hp buys me another 30,000 miles without
replacing the rings, I'm good with that. If it was a race car, I would feel
differently (and might well run K&N filters if I ran any filter at all).
But I would also be changing the rings every hundred miles or so.
> Did the engines need re building every 10,000 miles? Of course not.
Uhm, just how many miles have you driven a TR3 with those screen filters, in
a dusty environment? I particularly like the comment in the owner's manual
about "excessive" oil consumption being one gallon (Imperial presumably) per
thousand miles.
> So, we worry about trapping bits one third the size of the things rattling
around in the oil system?
Dunno about you, but I don't put in dirty oil, while the air is already
dirty. And oil filters do remove particles smaller than 15 microns, just at
a lower percentage. Since they get many, many passes at the oil, they don't
need to be as efficient to remove the dirt. In fact, the early TR3s used a
bypass oil filter and fed the mains with oil directly from the pump.
-- Randall
|