team-thicko
[Top] [All Lists]

K& N filters

To: <spridgets@Autox.Team.Net>,
Subject: K& N filters
From: "Wm. Severin Thompson" <wsthompson@thicko.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 16:55:48 -0600
Some interesting reading on the effectiveness of K & N filters from the
LandCruiser list...


>Subj:  K & N filters
>From:  George Morrison
>
>John:  If I wrote "subjective" I meant "objective"..  I was
>responsible for evaluating re-usable air filters
>for a major construction/mining company that had
>hundreds of vehicles ranging from large earthmovers
>to pick-up trucks and salesmen's cars.  This study
>was embarked upon due to the fact that we were
>spending upwards of $30,000 a MONTH on paper air
>filters.  Using them one time then throwing them
>away..  I inititated the study in that I was convinced
>that a K&N type filter or oiled foam would save us
>many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour savings,
>and of course engines as these would filter
>dirt better than paper. (yes, I had read the K&N ads and was
>a believer)
>
>Representative test units were chosen to give us a
>broad spectrum from cars right through large front
>end loaders.  With each unit we had a long history
>of oil analysis records so that changes would be
>trackable.
>
>Unfortunately, for me, every single unit having
>alternative re-usable air cleaners showed an immediate
>large jump in silicon (dirt) levels with corresponding
>major increases in wear metals.  In one extreme
>case, a  unit with a primary and secondary air cleaner,
>the secondary (small paper element) clogged
>before even one day's test  run could be completed.
>This particular unit had a Cummins V-12 engine
>that had paper/paper one one bank and K&N/paper on
>the other bank; two completely independent
>induction systems.  The conditions were EXACTLY
>duplicated for each bank yet the K&N allowed so
>much dirt to pass through that the small filter became
>clogged before lunch.  The same outcome occured
>with oiled foams on this unit.
>
>We discontinued the tests on the large pieces almost
>immediately but continued with service trucks,
>formen's vehicles, and my own company car. Analysis
>results continued showing markedly increased
>wear rates for all the vehicles, mine included.
>Test concluded, switched back to paper/glass and all
>vehicles showed reduction back to near original levels
>of both wear metals and dirt.  I continued with
>the K&N on my company car out of stubborness and at
>85,000 miles the Chevy 305 V-8 wheezed its
>last breath.  The top end was sanded badly; bottom
>end was just fine.  End of test.
>
>I must stress that EVERYONE involved in this test
>was hoping that alternative filters would work as
>everyone was sick about pulling out a perfectly good
>$85 air cleaner and throwing 4 of them away
>each week per machine...
>
>So, I strongly suggest that depending upon an
>individual's long term plan for their vehicles they simply
>run an oil analysis at least once to see that the
>K&N or whatever alternative air filter is indeed working
>IN THAT APPLICATION...  It depends on a person's priorities.
>If you want performance then indeed the K&N is the
>way to go but at what cost???
>
>And no, I do not work for a paper or glass air
>filter manufacturing company nor do I have any affiliation
>with anything directly or indirectly that could
>benefit George Morrison as a result..


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>