K & N Filter --- worth it??

Nope. Paper filter at 2% K&N at 3%. 3 - 2 still equals 1 the last time I checked it out.

So what? It still only passes 1% more dirt in total volume than the OEM any way that you try to spin it.

It is not a matter of re-phrasing it, it is more of a matter of stating it correctly. There really is a big difference between 50% more and 150% more, like a 100% difference. It really seems like with so many other times, the one over his head happens to be you. BTW, where exactly is that clockspring????

While true, it is still meaningless unless you know exactly how much the OEM passes thru and once you realize that an OEM lets just about nothing thru,

150% of just about nothing is still just about nothing.

perhaps ypu should look up the definition of semantics before you fire up your accusations. This is not a matter of semantics becuaes what you said is simply WRONG. Face up to it for a change.

calculation

3-2 = 1

3 % - 2 % = 1 %

learn to handle percentages before you make an even larger ass of yourself (if that's possible)

who mentioned 'total volume' ?

I was talking about relative filtering ability

but that's probably beyond your comprehension

it depends on the vehicle

Jesus F Christ

must I repeat, yet again, the numbers that this is based upon ?

tell me what is incorrect about

3 % / 2 % = 150 %

go ahead, Fermat, have at it

Sorry Gary, but that would be you.

That is right and as by the total volume of dirt alloud to pass, the Kand N allows 1% more, any possible way that you try to spin it.

I did. When are you going to start?

Sorry Gary, but the only ignorant one here is you.

Yes, but 50% more of what you moron!!!!! Your calculation is based on the efficiency of the paper filter and if your paper filter was 100% efficient then your calculation would be mathematicall impossible which makes it meaningless, pretty much as it is now.

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe someday you may actually beleive it.

Like I said.

EXACTLY!!! Which means that the K&N is 1% less effective than the OEM like I repeatedly said.

LOL, sorry Gary, but it is you that needs to learn how to accurately use percentages rather that the distorted fuzzy math way you currently do.

The numbers you are basing your distorted calculations on ARE based on total volume. What you are comming up with is meaningless BS.

I understand that but when you are talking about high effeciency, the number that you come up with is a distorted value that really means nothing.

No, I have a full comprehension on how you are trying to distort the actual capabilities of the K&N with your fuzzy math. Perhaps you need to comprehend the definition of fuzzy math although I believe that you are fully aware of its meaning.

Taking the lords name in vain is a sin you know.

The numbers that it is based upon are already percentages that at least have some valid nmeaning. What you are calculating has no real value.

That is not what is incorrect. What was incorrect was that you said the K&N allowed 150% MORE dirt into the engine which is completely incorrect. While this was fun for a while, now it is getting tiresome so feel free to believe what you will. While the K&N is slightly less efficient at capturing dirt than an OEM filter, it does have less restriction to airflow and provided that both filters are within factory specs, it is up to the owner of the vehicle to determine which property is more desirable.

Arguments here are not unusual and actually bring some life into the group. There are some difference between them and it is up to the individual to determine what is more valuable. The K&N has better flow capability which may or may not improve HP and mileage depending on how restrictive the OEM filter is compared to engine need (this varies from vehicle to vehicle) It is also reusable which can lower the cost of ownership over the life of the vehicle. The paper filter has a lower initial cost but the constant need to replace them can increase the overall cost. The paper filter is also slightly better than the K&N at filtering dirt out and in vehicles with properly designed air intakes are more than sufficient for the air requirements of the engine. I guess that sometimes the choice is nothing more than the Bling factor.

T Bone, think of it in simpler terms

disregard the percentages

let's say for argument sake that a K&N filter lets in 3 pieces of dirt

Let's say the regular air filter lets in 2

the difference between the amount each lets in is 1.5 pieces of dirt

2 X 1.5 = 3

1.5 pieces of dirt = 50% of the total dirt allowed by the K&N more than the paper filter

so the K&N filter does not allow 1% more dirt but 50% more...does this make sense now?

Nope. If an OEM allows 1000 grams of dirt through after a certain amount of time, how much would the K&N? Just 1% meaning 1010 grams? It allows 50% more through, not 1%. Your baseline for comparison is incorrectly the total amount of dirt rather than the amount allowed through. The point of all this is that the K&N's are crap. If you like em, then use em. If you don't, then why the whining?

..... I guess I will have to throw my .02 in here as well.

First of all, the math isn't fuzzy, it's correct although you may not like the outcome, the numbers ARE correct.

Secondly, I have seen nowhere in print where the K&N filter meets manufacturers specs.... period. In fact, D/C, Cummins and GM all caution against using a K&N type filter because of poor filtration. It seems that D/C, Cummins and the General both think that the 1% is meaningful enough to caution their owners against their use.

Finally, the 99.5% spec Tom alluded to is very much real world. Paper filters ARE that efficient!

For everyone's interest and edification, please follow the below URL for more info. Interestingly, you will see that the K&N efficiency vs a stock AC Delco paper filter is much more that the 1% T-Bone alludes to. Also, look at the loading factor.

Although, the test was primarily a direct comparison of the AC Delco vs the K&N, the comparison is valid for virtually all OEM filters.

Now, y'all can argue all you want about "fuzzy" math, 150%... 50%... etc., but I know math and the math Gary used ain't fuzzy. I also know that if you spend your money on a K&N filter, you are wasting it.... but hey.... it's your money and your engine...... think about it!

Mike

One more bit of info... here are some microscopic shots of a K&N vs a paper filter and a paper shop towel... looks like the shop towel was a better filter than the K&N.

Enjoy!

Mike

look, this isn't even a big deal. but.................

if 100 particles try to reach your engine, the paper filter stops 98 of them and the k&n stops 97. 2 get thru for paper, 3 for k&n.

if 1000 particles try to reach your engine, the paper filter stops

980 of them and the k&n stops 970. 20 get thru for paper, 30 for k&n.

now, i was never a math major but i think that means that the paper filter stops 1% more of the particles. as far as particles getting thru, it is what is left but you can construe that to say that 50% more particles get thru the k&n than the paper iif you want to. but it is only 1% more of the total particles that have tried to get thru.

just thought i'd point that out. not that anyone gives a shit. i mean, this just gets in the middle of good fight i think?

they aren't mike because the original comparison was how many particles get thru based on how many particles try to get thru. you guys are talking apples and oranges. that is how facts can be said to say whatever you want them to.

anyway, my point is only about the math, not the k&n. the k&n is crap no matter what it does or does not do.

that is the germane point mike. even dc and cummins say to stay away from k&n. there is a reason for that. it has been posted before but the point is, even the folks that make the engine say to avoid k&n. i think it would be a good idea to listen to them.

they are. they do a good job and when they are used up you can throw them away and put a new one in. nothing could be more simple. unless you enjoy cleaning grease off a sponge and putting it in your engine.

LOL, I would say that a paper towel is probably better than most paper filters as well since it was never designed with air flow in mind and blocks just about everything, including the air itself.

Sorry Mike, but while the math may be correct and I never said otherwise, it is still fuzzy for no other reason than it make one filter to be much worse than the other and that is not always true..

Really, please point me to some links. Most of the compalints I see are in regard to them not being oiled properly (over oiled) and the oil messing up sensors.

Funny then how DC, Ford, and Chevy dealerships have sold them as performance upgrades.

Some are but most are not as seen in the link that you provided.

Sorry Mike, but I have to stop you there. The one percent that you accuse me of alluding to was from Gary or did you forget the basis of the calculation that started all of this crap. 3% / 2% = 150% and the more accurate 3% - 2% = 1%.

I think that you may want to do a little research on this data before you present it as absolute fact. I did a little search on dogpile with the search being "Ken at Testand" and got multiple pages of results on all kinds of tests. It seems that Ken test all kinds of things for free and even Alvin is mentioned in many of these as well about all kinds of filters as well as the Ionic breeze. I don't recall that particular device being uised to filter the air for the Duramax but I could be wrong.

Perhaps you could answer a simple question based on these results. If all of the filters have the same surface area, how could a media trapping filter (the K&N) flow less air while allowing more dirt to pass and still plug up faster while containing less dirt than a surface blocking paper one (the AC Delco). How come Ken never gives his last name.

As theguy said, you are arguing apples and oranges. While the K&N may be

50% less efficient than the OEM, it still only lets in 1% more dirt than the OEM by volume and that is the number that really counts. As for peoples choice as to buy it or not, that is up to them. I have one and it has caused my engine no harm in 100,000 miles but I doubt that I will buy another one.

Your still wrong.

Look at the equation another way:

2 *X = 3

X would equal 1.5, or 2 x 150%=3

try both of these on your calculator and you will see that TranSurgeon was right all along.

Sorry Miles, but you got either your math or logic all wrong here. The one percent is in relation to the total volume, not what the OEM blocks. If the OEM blocked passed 1000 grams at 2% then it faced a total of 50,000 grams in your given period of time. If the K&N was 1% less efficient IOW 3%, it would pass 1500 grams during the same period of time. Like I said over and over and over and over.... there is nothing wrong with Gary's math as far as math goes, it is just fuzzy in the fact that it make the K&N seem much worse than it really is like in HOLY CRAP, 50% worse. I do have one but I doubt that I will buy another. I guess that depends on what vehicle I get next and how efficient the stock air filtration system is.

They are both right. It is just a matter of which one reflects the truth more.

So you're disbelieving his test results because he tests a lot of things? 'Fuzzy logic' indeed...

No, because it always seems to be for free by Ken after a call from Ken and why would Alvin be a part of any of it (besides the Duramax one). It seems more like a scam to me and the data just doesn't make any sense.

3% is 1% more than 2%. Prove it on your own calculator. 0.02 + 0.01 = 0.03 3 is 50% more than 2, but 3% is only 1% more than 2%. See the difference? A percent is an expression of "per 100". Saying that 3% is 50% more than 2% is just as wrong as saying that three cents is fifty cents more than two cents.