> Subj: K & N filters
> > 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..