K&N filter test

No, and neither did you.

Your "test" is not indicative of anything other than the anecdotal.

Color is subjective. Driving conditions are never the same from year to year. You can't observe atmospheric content of particulates which may end up in your oil. These particulates vary without your knowledge or observation for the most part.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no fan of K&N filters, but unscientific "tests" such as yours are not really to be considered evidence.

------------------------------------------------- "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

k&n is fine if you need to clean the filter alot. some cars can go 50,000 on a stock filter. some can only go 1,000 It depends on if its the dustbowl or not.

i disagree. on an average 5-6 month time period, my truck will experience approx. the same amount of dirt, so my test (dirt wise) should be valid. since i did clean K&N approx every 3 months, i will swap out oem filter after 3 months.

color is not subjective if i have a index color to start with. my drain oil did not use to be this dark, the only difference has been K&N filter.

it may not be the filter at all. since i went to Mobil-1 i run the oil 4-6 months.

as a "compare", my 4runner also went to Mobil-1 (at 52k miles) and the drain oil on it was golden brown, not black.

if my next drain, approx late march 2004, comes out golden brown, i would be convinced that the K&N was letting in much more dirt.

if i had time to build a test aparratus i would, but i dont have time to do such. maybe summer 2004.

please post as to why you think this test is valid or invalid...

thanks.

Do an used oil analysis. That will tell you what's in it precisely...no guess work.

You're entitled. That doesn't make you correct.

Wrong. You have no empirical proof that you're encountering the same amount of dirt. You have no way to control the quality of air being taken in by your engine. You have no way to verify suspended particulate matter in your oil. This would be the only way to prove your point, and it takes oil analysis to do so.

That's your ONLY verifiable fact. You changed or cleaned the filter on a three-month schedule.

What are you using for this index system? Your eye? If so, you're still on thin ice, as color perceived means nothing.

Then you're also risking your engine even more. Oil shouldn't be spending that much time in your engine no matter what brand you're using. Synthetics give you no excuse to leave them in longer.

Done. Game...set...match.

Have fun with your reading assignment.

------------------------------------------------- "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

Bingo.

------------------------------------------------- "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

but a bigger and better oil filter does. the WIX i use has almost double capacity, and from the readings i've read thus far, has a better filter element and design.

can do, but it will be at least another 5 months before i get drain oil for testing, then another 5 months for another with K&N filter.

also, my 1996 did not drain this dark color. same oil, same oil filter, same miles, same environment, different air filters.

Post your oil analysis results after using both air filters.

Until then, you're smoke in the wind.

------------------------------------------------- "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

!*!*! Rhetorical question alert !*!*!

Why run synthetics in the first place, for bragging rights?

Is synthetic oil that much better, or is it really just snake oil (which some would claim describes Amsoil, or K&N filters)?

Does it give better gas mileage (a proven 2-3 MPG), and if so, does the increased gas mileage offset the higher cost of the synthetic oil, especially if it gets changed on about the same schedule as dino oil?

I've heard that some people claim to get more engine life when using synthetics, but I also have heard of a lot of Toyota owners who claim that they got over 250,000 miles with dino oil, for about one-third the cost in oil.

In *MY* opinion (which is worth as much as anyone else's ), unless I get substantially better fuel economy and plan to keep my vehicle for

200,000 miles or so, it might not be worth the extra expense of synthetic oil. But that's a decision each person has to make for themselves...

Having owned my Toyota pickup for 16 years, this coming February, I can say that dino oil has done fine so far, even though I only changed the oil and filter once a year for the seven years I lived in Denver . The only real problem is a very slight leak around the rear main seal. I have to add a quart every 2,000 miles or so.... :>))

Tom - Vista, CA

Different truck, different engine, different age vehicle, different air quality on any given day.

Take two identical trucks (for all practical purposes, let's say same year manufactured at the same plant, same engines checked for structural soundness, with the same load, etc) run them on a track simultaneously for the same miles and at the same time, with identical driving style, only difference is the air filter... Then test the drain oil. Only then would the difference between air filters be valid.

If your 'test' validates the usefulness of your K&N in your own mind, then that's fine. Everyone's entitled to believe in whatever they want to feel good about something. But when you start talking proven scientific results, it has to be well documented and in a controlled setting. How would you feel if medication were tested in the manner which you describe? Like giving an antibiotic to a 95 year old man and a 40 year old woman, ethnically similar and living in the same town and home environment, but possibly raised under different circumstances (thus different medical histories) and with possible unknown existing ailments. Would their results be the same whether they wear the same type of paper mask? I think not. And it would be just as unscientific to take the results of your test as proof of K&N's worth.

If you're nervous about using the K&N, then don't use it.

-- Dee

Note: please remove all pre-flight tags before replying via email.

----------

synthetics (along with a better oil filter) will let you go longer on drain intervals. now i have to get under the ruck less often. synthetics also have better oil properties (shear, viscosity range, etc).

i don't think i will get any more mileage out of the engine with synthetics, but i'm under the truck less and pay the same $$$ for oil and oil filter per year as i did with dino oil.

What the man is really talking about when he says 'color' isn't color at all, which is determined basically by the wavelengths of relfected or transmitted light. The color of the oil may change somewhat - however, I imagine the primary quantity being evaluated as a result of his trial is 'turbidity.' And, actually, evaluation of turbidity via the human eye is commonly done with very good results (as is human evaluation of color, provided the person doing the evaluating has good color vision.)

I think to dismiss this man's information as useless because it was not a designed experiment (he never said it was) is giving it short shrift. Certainly, the data that he recovered was striking enough that it warrants further investigation. I, for one, would be interested in hearing the results thereof.

As far as his measurement system goes, I don't see a problem with it. Both oils started out with the same level of turbidity and, when evaluated visually, one ended up with a much higher level of turbidity. It was the same set of eyes comparing the samples, so the qualitative data can be accepted as properly gathered.

Given this, something caused the increased turbidity. What could it be? Everyone named some factors -- driving conditions between the two vehicles, engine age, gas used, blah blah blah -- and they are all valid. However, these response variables (that is what they are called) do not all have the same degree of influence on the measured quantity, the turbidity of the used oil. Certainly, the type of filter used could be a valid response variable. Where does it stack up against the others? Anyone's guess is as good as the other without more experimentation.

I would call what this fellow did more of a trial than an 'experiment.' Trials are done all the time and these are typically what leads to more controlled endeavors. To say that his data is useless shows a certain naivte with regard to the scientific method and the application thereof in engineering design and/or process improvement.

Afterall, what is the genesis of a properly designed experiment? Observation.

I find that this gentleman has made an interesting observation. Granted, he has jumped the gun on his conclusion with regard to the cause. However, his data has value and has certainly led to further thought on the matter if nothing else.

Luther

I proffer that what the man is really talking about when he says 'color' isn't color at all, which is determined basically by the wavelengths of relfected or transmitted light. The color of the oil probably does vary a bit during use; however, I think a better term for the variable being evaluated in his trial is 'turbidity.' And, actually, evaluation of turbidity via the human eye is commonly done with very good results (as is human evaluation of color provided the person doing the evaluating has good color vision.)

I think to dismiss this man's information as being without merit because it was not the result of a designed experiment (he never said it was) is giving it short shrift. Certainly, the data that he recovered was striking enough that it warrants further investigation. I, for one, would be interested in hearing the results thereof.

As far as his measurement system goes, I don't see a problem with it. Both oils started out with the same level of turbidity and, when evaluated visually, one ended up with a much higher level of turbidity. It was the same set of eyes comparing the samples, so the qualitative data can be accepted as properly gathered.

Given this, something caused the increased turbidity. What could it be? Everyone named some factors -- driving conditions, engine age, gas used, blah blah blah -- and they are all valid if we assume that turbidity is directly proportional to the amount of suspended solids in the used motor oil (probably a pretty safe bet.) However, these response variables (that is what they are called) do not all have the same degree of influence on the measured quantity, the turbidity of the used oil. Certainly, the type of filter used could be a valid response variable. Where does it stack up against the others? Anyone's guess is as good as the other without more experimentation.

I would call what this fellow did more of a trial than an 'experiment.' Trials are done all the time and these are typically what leads to more controlled endeavors. To say that his data is useless shows a certain naivte with regard to the scientific method and the application thereof in engineering design and/or process improvement.

Afterall, what is the genesis of a properly designed experiment? Observation.

I find that this gentleman has made an interesting observation. Granted, he has jumped the gun on his conclusion with regard to the cause. However, his data has value and has certainly led to further thought on the matter if nothing else.

Luther

Nope. Wrong again, K.

The use of a synthetic in no way affects how much dirt gets into your oil. Period.

That dirt, and combustion by-products, are the reason to change your oil. That a synthetic delivers superior lubricant qualities is the ONLY reason to use one.

You may be paying less, but your interval is negating any benefits of the aforementioned lubricant qualities.

You're running dirty oil, and keeping it in too long.

But, hey...it's your vehicle.

------------------------------------------------- "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

His data is worthless. Subjective interpretations of oil color are no substitute for analysis of the oil. Anything else is simply a straw man.

------------------------------------------------- "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

how about switching filters among vehicles and see if the "color" follows or not. put a k&n in the 4runner, and oem in the tacoma.

That still remains anecdotal evidence.

Oil analysis is the only way to measure air filter performance.

------------------------------------------------- "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan