K & N Filter --- worth it??

Page 4 of 6  


nothing
nothing.
you
nothing
just
dirt
an
Once again, your logic fails. As I said, you are taking a percentage of percentages which has no valid meaning in itself. Then on top of that, your wording is wrong. If we were to use your logic, it would let in 150% AS MUCH dirt as a paper filter, not MORE than a paper one. If it was 150% MORE, then it would be allowing 2 .5 times the dirt as paper and this is not true. It lets in up to 1.5 times as much dirt but when you look at how little dirt the paper element lets in, 1.5 times just about nothing is still just about nothing. Any way that you want to look at it, from a valid baseline, the K&N will allow up to 1% more dirt in than a high quality paper filter, big deal.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

not trying to start a new argument here but, why use it then if it isn't any different than a paper one?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

FWIW, I fully understand TransSurgeon's math and logic, it is correct. How you choose to interpret and apply it is up to you. I can hardly believe you are arguing about it...
You are showing either ignorance or a closed mind when you say a "percentage of a percentage" is meaningless. How about a fraction of a fraction, or a decimal divided by a decimal. A percentage is simply a fraction where the denominator is 100, and as such can be divided, multiplied, added and subtracted.
If the paper element allows 2% and the K&N 3% The K&N will allow 50% more dirt than the paper. If the paper element allows "N" amount of dirt to pass, the K&N will allow (N x 1.5) or 150% when compared to the *total* allowed by the paper element.
What could be simpler?
DJ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dick
on
for?
that
by
your
not
still
paper
nothing could be simpler
it's just so much fun to watch BoneHeaD spin in circles
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dick
on
for?
that
by
your
not
still
paper
I am arguing about it because it is a load of shit. While the math may be "correct", it does not provide a valid representation of the truth.

Hahahahahahahahahaha, you are joking, right?!?!?!?! A decimal and a fraction are simple numeric values and have no meaning on their own. When attached to a standard unit of measure or quantity then they have a clear meaning on their own. Because they are actual values, further mathematical function can be performed on them with no loss of meaning. A percent is a CALCULATED relationship between two of these quantities and has no definitive or clear meaning without knowing the values it was calculated from and using them in further calculations simply further abstracts what the numbers actually stand for so your comparison is about as invalid as Gary's.

Because it is a meaningless value. Who really cares about this relationship? It's only real purpose is to distort the reality of how much more actual dirt the K&N filter lets in.

How about the clear truth as in the paper filter is 1% better and both are within factory spec.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

is
for
lose
of
of
AS
is
mathematical
Jesus Christ, you are one dense person
It's been stated, over and over, that 'a K&N allows 3% of the dirt to pass', and 'an OEM allows 2% of the dirt to pass'
get with the program, will ya ?
or keep showing your ignorance, that's funnier

much
50 % more, Einstein

you're just too easy..................
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

with
Jane
for
stand
is
passed
that,
150%
how
is
valid
quality
be
When
clear
a
what
Sorry Gary, but that would be you.

pass',
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.

are
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe someday you may actually beleive it.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dick
on
for?
your
not
still
paper
yes, and that '1 %' is 50 per cent more

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

is
for
that
lose
by
LOL, yes, but it is still fuzzy math because there is no way to know if this huge difference is because the K&N is really bad or that the paper filter is really good. You want it to make the K&N sound horrible when in fact it is damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) and still within factory spec.. BTW, now you are saying 50% more when befor it was 150% more. Make up your mind or at least get your english correct.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

stand
of
passed
of
that,
AS
150%
is
how
this
is
is
wrong, Einstein
it passes 50% more dirt than an OEM
(0.03 / 0.02 = 1.50)

you know, when I have to re-phrase it so even you can understand it, then it's time for you to admit you're in over your head
" therefore, a K&N passes 150 % as much as ,or '50 % more' dirt than an OEM"
reduced to semantic flames, are you ?
you're really TOO easy........................

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

with
Jane
stand
for
or
is
amount
percentage
150%
this
is
valid
quality
filter
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????

OEM"
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.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

one,
calculation
you
at
nothing
if
I
3-2 = 1
3 % - 2 % = 1 %
learn to handle percentages before you make an even larger ass of yourself (if that's possible)

any
who mentioned 'total volume' ?
I was talking about relative filtering ability
but that's probably beyond your comprehension

150%
then
more,
the
it depends on the vehicle

OEM
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

time
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.

it
an
thru,
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.

up
said
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.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

like
yourself
OEM
total
number
actual
the
have
K&N
While
believe
dirt
provided
You are arguing apples and oranges. It lets in 50% more than THE OTHER FILTER and 1% more in TOTAL VOLUME. I really don't give a damn what it lets in compared to the other filter unless the other filter is compatible with it in all other properties.AND I know what the other filter is letting in My only real concern is what it passes in total volume and if that amount is within the engines filter specifications.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

kewl, gotcha.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

any
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.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

1500 vs 1000 is significant. The fuzzy math is trying to base it on a total amount. The only thing I care about is how much got into my engine. Not how much didn't. Comparing two cars, the one with a K&N will have 50% more dirt in it than the other. I don't care how much they were exposed to.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.