Air filter test results

[hako]

I just came across a link to some people who conducted proper tests on a number of air filters...things like airflow, amount of dirt let thru etc and the result was that the best one was AC Delco (which is GMH in Australia) and the two worst performing ones were K & N and Amsoil.
It makes for interesting reading - make your own mind up.

http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm

 

[clinster73]

Thats very interesting.
It almost goes against everything that K&N says on their website?
It doesnt seem right. I noticed a diff when i put my Redline filter on my car!!??

 

[hako]

Advertisers can say almost anything they like about their product and most people who buy that product based on the claims made will not admit they wasted their money. Similarly with money-back guarantees most people just can't be bothered to go thru the hassle. I only found out recently that you can patent any invention and it doesn't even have to work.
Another good site on fuel economy is:
http://www.fuelsaving.info/debunk.htm

 

[holden#1]

dead right hako....

most people could not be bothered returning product for money back guarantees...

I brought some Hi Clones some time ago which were a total waste of money.

Didn't get around to returning them....

 

[kopper69]

Its very interesting (not just in this case but many other examples) how experts can come up with completely COMPLETELY different results. It makes it hard for us, the consumer, to decide whether a product will really do what we pay it to do. K&N filters. When we talk about fuel effiency theres always the member that screams out "get a k&n filter". They dont know if it works, but its well promoted and costs a bag of $ so must be good.

You read the K&N website and see "independant tests". Surely this must mean they are a company that lives up to its claims, but who knows. I see on ebay the little fuel saving devices that "save up to 25% fuel" etc.

Car manufactures invest millions and millions of dollars into making your car fuel efficient. Does anyone really believe you will save up to 25%. It just screams out wild claim! Unfounded.

On that site hako posted, the writer said:

Most "fuel saving devices" fit this pattern:


"About a 10 - 15% claimed fuel saving (gas saving / gas mileage improvement)
Claimed reduced emissions
Claimed improved performance
Cost about £50 (80 US$) (so costs about £5 to make!) "

And they do, because thats what we want out of our cars.

I spose when are young and enjoy driving and cars, as we all do, you will give these things a go. Why not. The car makes you happy so you might as well look after it and try and give it the best, to get the best out of it.

At the end of the day the only thing that really gets hurt is the poor bank balance. And if cars didnt take it all than women would anyway :bop:

 

[hako]

I think the secrest to it all is who hires the "independant experts" to do the testing...and if the testing is actually done. The very least us poor consumers can do is question question question.

 

[grigor]

test your own

I just tested a Skyline one on the dyno. Made zero difference with the paper filter, no filter or the clean K&N.
Got a lot more induction noise with the K&N of course but that's 255rwkw.
I have reports from others with well over 300rwkw and the same results.
I've got better things to do with my time than to be washing and oiling air filters that then deposit their gunk on my AFM.

 

[Don Sutton]

Some further comments or my 10 cents worth.
1] If a company A pays an external company B to carry out tests for them then the results will often be skewed to show the results that A wants. What contracting company is going to give bad results and thus loose business?
2] A lot of things that people believe about cars particularly in the area of improved performance or better fuel economy are the result of urban myth.
Some examples:
a] Some years ago I worked for the Bendix Corporation in Sydney, makers of Stromberg carburettors. At the time we were working on resetting the jetting for a new model. It was common at the time to see Falcon V8's with the air cleaner lid fitted upside down and owners would tell you that they had heard from a mate that it gives it more power and they actually believed it as it made more sucking noise. I tried it on the engine dyno and guess what, it actually lost power at the low end and remained the same at the top end.
b] Castrol introduced there GTX at about the same time. I was running a 4.1 Falcon engine, the first of the alloy headed cross flow engines. I had heaps of power and torque results from the standard Castrol so one weekend I changed the oil twice with GTX and ran power and torque results a couple of times over the weekend and it made absolutely no difference at all.
c] A friend put one of those fuel magnets on his Nissan patrol 3.0 litre fitted with a carburettor. I asked him how does it work when fuel is not magnetic. He gives a whole list of friends of friends of friends who have tried it and swear blind that it works but guess what it didnt do anything for his vehicle.

 

[digisol]

Fancy charts there but you forgot Redline AKA an Aussie K&N ?

Sure a paper filter will capture all dirt but what of the lousy air flow ?

Oiled properly they do a good job, both performance and fuel use is positive.

 

[kopper69]

I have mapped my fuel usage before and after a K&N filter and the results are the same. Paper filter works just as good as the K&N filter for my VR commodore and I dont care what any other result says. Performance? Havent noticed a single thing with the K&N filter. If there is an increase it is not noticable.