K & N Filter --- worth it??

Now paper filters at 2%, lets say there's 100 dirt particles, 98 will be stopped and 2 will pass through the filter. K&N at 3%, with 100 dirt particles, 97 will be stopped and 3 will pass through the filter. Tbone is right, what's the big deal, 98-97=1 or 3-2=1 dale

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.

It depends on what you use for your baseline. I measure the amount of dirt in my engine and use that as the baseline. Your assumption that this isn't the truth is false.

You have 2 cents and I have 3 cents. I certainly do have 50% more than you. You're trying to compare the two based on total pennies neither one of us has. I don't care about pennies or dust that I don't have or isn't in my engine.

Because I don't care about the dirt that didn't get through. I look at the dirt that did.

Now I see that it is your logic that is failing you. Both of them show the total amount of dirt that enters the engine or rather, the percentage of volume that gets by. The difference is that the 3% is baselined on the total volume of dirt (what you claim that you want to know) while the 150% is baselined on the efficiency of the other filter which really means nothing..

You can't really have one without the other.

You do know that these numbers are ridicules, right? I assumed that you used 1000 grams for mathamatical simplicity since 1000 grams is a hell of a lot of dirt, never mind 1500. It would probably be more like 1 gram or .1 gram and in that case 1.5 grams or .15 grams suddenly doesn't seem so bad. If the factory spec for the engine allows for 2.5 or .25, either filter would do.

In all honesty Miles, I know that in the past hat we have gone round and round on some rather idiotic topics but this makes no sense to me. How can you not care how much was blocked? If you don't know the total volume involved, then the amount that gets through is meaningless and even if 1 is

50% more efficient than the other, if they are both within spec then who cares.

My entire point in this discussion is the usage of the "%" symbol. I don't have a K&N and have no interest in defending the product's reputation. I don't really care about the pennies either.

3 is 50% more than 2. I've never claimed otherwise. 3% is 1% more than 2%. 3% is NOT 50% more than 2%. 52% is 50% more than 2%.

Notice where the "%" symbol is (and is not) used. That is the only point I am arguing.

No, I don't want to know the total volume of dirt. I want to know how much is in my engine over a set amount of time. I don't have an easy for to measure how much dirt I drive through. But I can run tests on oil and find out how much dirt is in my engine. Thats what I compare, thats my baseline.

It is very common to compare two items by using one of them as a baseline for comparison. You are hung up on this 3 vs. 2 thing. I'm not. My concern is amount of oil in my engine so thats what I'll use as my baseline and it is certainly the truth.

What hurts an engine? Dirt that got through, or dirt that didn't? Forget about this 3 vs 2 thing for just a minute TBone. Lets take a car with an OEM filter through some dusty driving conditions. Lets also take a car through the same area at the same time with a K&N filter. Now lets do an oil test on both. The car with the K&N will have 50% more. The 3 vs. 2 thing you are hung up on means nothing.

This statement makes no sense. I can easily do oil tests on a car with and without a K&N and see the difference. I do not need to know how much was blocked to be able to compare the effectiveness of the filters. The oil tests will show the difference.

nope

while 0.02 + 0.01 = 0.03, the phrase 'more than' implies that the larger is divided by the smaller, to give a ratio

not fuzzy math, fuzzy definitions

wrong again

3 is 50% more than 2....so far so good

now divide the 3 by 100 to get 3 % and the 2 by 100 to get 2 %

since you have divided both by hte same number, the ratio remains the same

that makes three wrongs

"just as wrong as saying that three cents is fifty cents more than two cents"

incorrect interpretation

you sued 'fifty cents' instead of '50 per cent'

>

Possibly some of the dirt that gets thru but that is completely dependent on the amount and type of dirt the filter comes in contact with.

That is not always true but even if we say that it is, what matters is if it is enough to actually damage the engine and with the extreme efficiency of the paper filter, I doubt that either would allow enough if maintained regularly.

That is what I'm talking about Miles.

I guess that where you live that may be required but I have yet to ever do that and have yet to have an engine fail prematurely.

How does the filter determine the amount of oil in your engine?

Unless both vehicles were driven to exactly the same places at exactly the same time, that test would reveal nothing. But even still, unless one filter is letting in a damaging amount of dirt, does it really matter if one lets in a little more?

I've seen first hand how much dirt K&N's let through. And yes, properly maintained. Here in AZ we have very very fine dust. K&N's are horrible for filtering it. They let through alot more than just a little. I've seen it too many times.

I disagree with you, and you disagree with me. No matter what either of us say I doubt either of us will change our minds. Again.

Then in your area a K&N would be a bad choice.