Which is a fairly small number.

whole,
No, its 1% more or 50% more than the other filter. Here we go with that fuzzy math again.

That is correct so the only thing that really matters is the 3% that gets through the K&N, not the misleading 50% more than the paper filter.

What does the surfacer of the filter have to do with anything? What I'm looking at is the total dirt each individual filter lets through, not some misleading comparison of the difference between two filters.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

We've been over this, the number is far from small.

Nothing fuzzy about it. Its an accurate representation of how much more gets through a K&N. Even you admit the numbers are dead on.

No, the 50% matters, because its what you can do something about by changing to a paper filter.

But the 50% figure doesn't compare the filters, it compares the amount of dirt getting through. I told you that you were stuck on the filter, not the dirt getting through, and you've proven it.
--
Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Until you can back up your numbers, they mean nothing.

gets
It is a representation of how much more gets through over a paper filter but who cares. My only concern is does the filter (any filter) block enough dirt to protect the engine while not being overly restrictive.

gets
changing
Now that would depend on many things such as air-flow, replacement costs, ect..

some
It most certainly does.

No it doesn't. The total amount of dirt getting through is 3% for the K&N or 1 % more than with the paper filter.

Actually Max, that would be you who is stuck on the filter with your 50% crap. The only numbers that matter are the 2% and 3%.that the filters actually let into the engine.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Already have. I've told you that the numbers are equal to every bit of dust you can see in the world. The numbers I refer to are the ones that make you wash your car so it looks better, dust and vacuum the house, and sweep the deck.

You've changed your concern because you know you lost the initial claim.

No, it depends on the micron rating of the filter, nothing more, nothing less.

See, you can't figure it out, can you? You are so worried about the filter, you forgot that you are protecting the engine from dirt, not trying to find a nifty airfilter. The 50% increase does not refer to the filter, it refers to the amount of stuff getting through the filter.

WRONG. I knew you were not gonna get it. You can't do percentages, there's no way you shoulda been able to pass algebra, explaining how the math works is lost on you. Do I have to show you the math AGAIN?
.03 / .02 = 1.5 or 150% not 1%, but 50% more dirt. The K&N filters 1% less dirt than the paper filter, which is an increase of 50% in the amount of dirt NOT filtered.

Yup, I knew you were a waste of time, but I got you to make a fool of yourself again, several times over. I'd say its a 50% increase over what Gary was able to do before I subbed for him.
--
Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
The fallacy in MD's statements are the numbers he begin with. K&N's efficiencies are between 97-98% with some as high as 99%. He conveniently chose the low end for his math. Paper filters are all over the board. Even though you can't see any holes, some of them are as bad as 93%. I'm not sure where the 98% number for paper comes from unless it relates to a specific brand of paper filter that has been tested or one of the best paper filters that has been tested. You can't just buy any paper filter and feel that you are filtering better than a K&N.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Most of MD's statements are a fallacy and if you hang around here long enough you will see that.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

"arkcal" < snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com> wrote in message
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
if there is a 'fallacy', it is in the original numbers posted:
that 'an OEM filter' removes 98 percent of dirt, and that a K\$N removes 97 percent
all else followed frome those figures
if you have better figures, verified by real-world testing, with URL to fact-check, please, trot 'em out
otherwise, your statement of 'fallacies' is so much phlogiston

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

The 98% figure for paper, and the 97% figure for K&N came from K&N's website and are from testing they claim to have run. If you'd like to dispute those two figures, you'll have to find a place that did an objective test on the K&N. However, having looked for such testing in the past, you'll likely find what I did, and that is that K&N does not filter as well as a good paper filter. I know a Mustang site did a very comprehensive flow/filtration test on a number of different filters of two basic styles, cannister and flat element. They found the K&N to be mid pack on both styles, and worse than a couple of the well known brands.
--
Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Can you provide the URL from K&N's website? I didn't really need luck in my search. At http://www.knfilters.com/facts.htm you can find:
"To ensure our air filters provide a high level of dirt protection, we regularly test our air filter designs using the testing procedure described above. Those tests demonstrate K&N air filters generally achieve overall filtration efficiency in the range of 97% - 98%, while some of our air filter designs have achieved levels as high as 99%." .... "We encourage customers to do their homework and be aware of the filtration capabilities of an air filter before they buy. Our own testing has revealed wide differences in filtering capabilities. We were surprised to see some disposable paper air filters with an overall filtration efficiency as low as 93%."
It appears you selected the worst case for K&N and the best case for paper. You can't assume paper filters are 98%. Unless you specify a brand that has been tested that is a mis-leading statement. I don't care what filter you like but your numbers seem to be slanted rather that stating the story as it is. If your only concern is getting a filter with the highest efficiency possible then you should probably find out which paper filters filter the best and use them but you can't just select any paper filter and think you are filtering better than a K&N. Also someone mentioned that there is only so much air an engine can inhale. It is true that an engine has a fixed volume for air intake, however, a more restrictive filter creates a larger vaccuum (causing thinner air) which results in less oxygen to the engine even though the cylinder has a fixed volume. Do you disagree with that? Thanks.
Max Dodge wrote:

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

1) You have the URL from K&N's site. 2) You found K&N's own info, not an objective testing of filters. For that, you will need a bit of luck.
http://www.audiworld.com/tech/eng18.shtml
A gentleman uses his Audi to test two filters via info from the MAF seonsor.
http://www.getdieselpower.com/my04dodge_files/Spicer%20Filter%20Testing/Spicer_Filter_Testing.html
A rather extensive test on a bunch of filters.
http://www.durangoclub.com/faq/Performance.html
A repost of a test run by a Corvette club.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm
A not so scientific test, but informative.
There is a start for you. Search parameters: "K&N filter testing" (no quotes)
--
Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Or you can try this URL

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Wow, forget that 50% more, its like 1700% more in one case....
--
Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

So wait... now 3%/2%00%?
:^)
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

figures in the link... K&N appears worse than even Tbone could imagine.
--
Max

Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

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

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
you flunked 'percentages and fractions' in 4th grade, didn't you ?

that
but
I'm
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
It was a simple math error Gary, get over it and crack those books on the true definition on the conservation of energy. The TC produces torque and consumes HP in the form of RPM to do it. No laws were violated, there is no magic here.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

"TranSurgeon" < snipped-for-privacy@mchsi.dotcom> wrote in message
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

no
no, idiot, it CONVERTS hi-rpm / low torque HP to low-rpm / high-torque HP
it 'produces' nothing
in fact, it loses about 4-8% as heat
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

the
and
is
A conversion produces one thing from something else.

Wrong.
Yep, something else that the TC and trans can produce.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

Where do you come up with these complete garbage. The converter / transmission combo does not lose anything, so there is nothing to re-create. It converts 4 - 8% of the energy it receives into heat. We call it a loss because that is not what we want done with the energy but your attempt at spin (and I really hope that it is spin) did little to change the subject. The fact is that it does produce heat as well as torque from the energy being put into it and you have yet to prove anything different. But keep trying, it is most entertaining.

And you really are a fool.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>

## Site Timeline

• ### First truck or vehicle at that

• - last updated thread in Dodge Trucks Forum

• ### 2006 GMC Envoy, (denali) rear air suspension problem

• - the site's last updated thread. Posted in Automotive Technologies
• Share To

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.