# K & N Filter --- worth it??

Page 3 of 6
• posted on April 21, 2005, 6:21 pm

No, I would.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 21, 2005, 6:50 pm
Nosey wrote:

then you would be,,,, ummm.....wrong
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 21, 2005, 6:52 pm
Bryan wrote:

Why?
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 21, 2005, 7:08 pm
Nosey wrote:

ummm now you are confusing me.
my point was that you wouldn't say 3 cents is 50 cents more than 2 cents.
you would say 3 cents is 50% more than 2 cents
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 21, 2005, 8:11 pm

That is what I have been saying all along.
The cents are parts of a dollar, but they are presented as whole numbers and compared as a percentage of each other. I have no problem with that. When you try to compare percentages of something, the % symbol expresses a portion of the whole where it is first used, for the entire statment. 3 is 50% more than 2. 3% is 1% more than 2%.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 22, 2005, 12:04 am

and
no
saying that '3 is 50% more than 2' is imprecise
instead, say that '3 is fifty percent LARGER than 2'
and yes, 3 % is 1 % more than 2 %
'more than' indicates that all numbers in a statement are in the same units; subtraction in other words
'larger than' indicates that a comparison has been made; usually by way of a ratio
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 22, 2005, 6:10 am
TranSurgeon wrote:

I can live with that. Wholly shit, we agree on something! Or shoud that be we agree about something?
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 22, 2005, 12:50 pm

holy f*ing shit ! how about 'we agree amongst ourselves about something' ?
now...........................can you explain the concept to BoneHeaD ?
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 22, 2005, 1:34 pm

be
?
Yawn... I understand the concept and never said that it was mathematically wrong. What I said was that it was FUZZY math because you were using it to make the K&N look much worse than it really is and you know it. And BTW, many times you did say the K&N lets in 150% MORE dirt which I pointed out was every way wrong. Although you tried to hide you mistake behind semantics, I see that you are now careful not to make that mistake anymore so at least you are capable of learning something.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 22, 2005, 2:06 pm

same
that
something'
there's nothing 'fuzzy' about 3% / 2% = 150%
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 22, 2005, 7:37 pm

by
?
mathematically
LOL, sure it is. You are playing on the efficiency of the two filters which makes even a slight difference seem like a big deal, even when it really isn't. The fact that you keep saying it this way when it is clear that you don't like K&N more than shows your true intent but hey, I don't own any stock in K&N so knock yourself out. The only down side is that it really doesn't do much for your credibility.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 22, 2005, 11:04 pm

no it's not
the math is not at all 'fuzzy'
dig out that 5th grade arithmetic book and study a bit
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 23, 2005, 12:05 am

the
usually
shoud
Keep comparing apples to oranges Gary, it's the only chance you got. I never said that the math was wrong. I said that you were when you were claiming 150% MORE dirt and that percentages are fuzzy by definition since they don't really stand for anything in particular. They are nothing but relationships between two other values and can be based on anything, including other percentages. They can also very easily be used to give a distorted view of a subject like you are doing here. Do what you want dude, I'm done with this thread.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 23, 2005, 12:11 am

if the math is not wrong, how can it be fuzzy ?

and you oobviously can't comprehend the values involved

there's nothing distorted
a K\$N passes 50% more dirt than an OEM

go ahead and bail out, loser
come back when: 1) you understand basic math; or 2) you want your butt kicked again
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 25, 2005, 6:03 pm
it really doesn't matter, because 1% is 1%. any way you look at it. Also, it depends on your driving environment. As a filter begins to soil, it filters better than when it is clean. So say, someone who lives in Los Angelos will have made up the 1% difference within a day compared to someone in Denver CO. Actually, who cares, better performance, and the small dirt particle that will pass at 1% will have virtually no effect on your engine as long as you change your oil regularly...Wake up people.....common sense....and common math...3%-2%=1% Robb
--
Message posted via http://www.carkb.com

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 22, 2005, 12:57 am
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 18:21:56 GMT, "Nosey"

i would say that 3 cents is one penny more than 2 cents. then i would say that it isn't enough to make a difference.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 26, 2005, 12:54 am
ok dip shi*s, you fail to grasp the reality of the situation.....let me spell it out for you S L O W L Y your math is correct by any calculator. your theorey is what is completely bird brained. you are not including the many many other variables involved to come to that final point of 150%. It is only a one percent difference....your theorey behind the division is what is at fault... Wrong formula, wrong situation. I believe with your calculations, are inaccurate... both filters experess their effectiveness in a percentage of.....what? Amount of particles stopped by a given chart as to what is or isn't acceptable.....you must use their chart to see the difference. Both being equal, they are only 1% apart. Their math. see the calculation in many other postings above. Possibly you are believing, what??? What is the 150% . You divide the percentages to come up with 1.5. Just because you convert that to percentage doesnt mean squat without a sound theorey...... MY LAST POST ON THIS
--
Message posted via http://www.carkb.com

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 26, 2005, 1:04 am
hey, Braniac:
the derivation of the percentages have been posted here over and over:
a K&N filters 97%
an OEM filters 98%
you go bone up on 4th grade math, I'm sure after a few weeks of Dick and Jane and Spot problems, you will be able to figure it out

150%
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 18, 2005, 3:05 pm

From what I am reading from you here, I can see that Dick and Jane is about as far as you got in your education.

Sure it does but the real question is what does .03 and .02 stand for on their own and the answer is nothing at all. And if they stand for nothing as is, what in the hell does the 1.5 you get by dividing them stand for? I think that you will find the answer is the same as the last one, nothing. For this reason alone, it either shows a failure in your logic or that you are a graduate in the GWB fuzzy math academy. Your calculation is nothing more than a percentage of a percentage and when you do that, you lose just about all valid meaning.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on April 18, 2005, 4:55 pm

and