K&N vs AMSOIL AIR FILTERS

[RONCLYDE]

The following question was recently sent to k&n.
Recently there have been a lot of rumors about the effectiveness of your
filters compared to amsoil air filters. i have been using your air filters
for years and am now wondering if there is anu truth to the rumors. have
you ever tested your filters against amsoil air filters? are the results
available for review? They claim that their filters trap moor fine dirt
than yours do. please advise. thanks!\

Here is there response.
Dear customer,
Our filters are tested by an outside, independent laboratory. They have
been proven to stop at least 99% of particles on a SAE dust test. This test
uses particles as low as the 0 - 5 micron range and goes up to 20 microns.
For comparison, a paper filter also stops 99% on the same test and the OEM
minimum standard is 96%. Foam is generally the worst media with a typical
efficiency rating of 75 - 85%. To get higher ratings, the foam must be more
dense and therefore way more restrictive. The "tack" characteristic of a K&N
allows for increase filtration without loss of flow as well.
The testing procedure used is SAE J-726 using ISO Test Dust. This test
is the standard of the air filter industry. The test procedure consists of
flowing air through the filter at a constant rate (airflow rate is
determined by the application) while feeding test dust into the air stream
at a rate of 1 gram per cubic meter of air.
As the filter loads with dust the pressure drop across the filter is
increased to maintain the prescribed airflow rate. The test is continued
until the pressure drop increases 10" H2O above the initial restriction of
the clean element (in this case .78" to 10.78" H2O). At this point the test
is terminated. The dirty filter element is then weighed. This weight is
compared to the clean element weight to determine the total Dust Capacity.
The amount of dust retained by the filter is divided by the total amount of
dust fed during the test to determine the Cumulative Efficiency.


The K&N filter achieved the following results:

Dust Capacity: 305 grams

Cumulative Efficiency: 99.05 %

Holding the filter to the light is useless, pin holes are normal. That
is what makes a K&N filter. There are actually hundreds of microscopic
fibers that cross these holes and when treated with oil, capture and hold
the very fine particles. On the same hand, they allow the filter to flow
more air than paper or foam. The filter is 4 ply cotton gauze unlike some
competitors synthetic material filters. The synthetics do not have the very
small fibers that natural cotton does. Also, the oil can be pulled off of a
foam filter contaminating electronic sensors. It will absorb into cotton
and stay in the media. In fact, Honda and Toyota only recommend K&N filters
when using aftermarket high flow filters as K&N is the only brand of filter
the oil does NOT come off of. They will not cover a failed sensor if foam
filters were used.
We got started over 30 years ago making filters for motorcycles and off
road racers. The filters did so well that these guys wanted them for their
cars and trucks. We started making filters for these applications and here
we are today. If they did not work, we would not still be here and growing
every year.
We now make filters for Chrysler/Mopar, Ford Motorsports, Edelbrock,
Rotax Engines, and Harley Davidson. We come as original equipment on the
2000 Ford Mustang Cobra-R. We even made filters for the Apache helicopters
used in Desert Storm because of maintenance problems with the original paper
design. If they work in these conditions they will work for you.


Thank You,
Susan Pascua
K&N Engineering Inc
1-800-858-3333
Susanp@knfilters.com

[madmax7]

Great article. They should go into the mechanics of filtration more as most people believe the filtration process to be somewhat of a sieving effect.
Nominal pore size does not relate to the samllest particle able to be captured. Filters need to be rated on the most penetrating particle to show efficiency. This particle size, however may not be representative of the application conditions.

[andy911]

Great Post.

It would be great to get some comparable data from an informed source at Amsoil.
I don't have any direct experience with Amsoil products, but the folks on this site seem to like them a lot. I have used K&N filters for years in my Gas Powered cars, but the dust concerns aren't as great as they are for a TurboDiesel engine. I look forward to reading more about this. smile.gif

[Rebel_Horseman]

Am I the only one that picked up on the fact that they did not say anything about Amsoil? I'd like to know similar results from Amsoil to get a true apples to apples comparison.

Reb

[More Power]

Does anyone here have the June 2002 issue of Hot-Rod magazine?

There is supposed to be an air filter "shootout" story in that issue that K&N isn't too happy about.

MP

[FirstDiesel]

I also noticed the fact that they gave the answer about what their filter did but failed to mention what the Amsoil did. Logic dictates that if they out performed the Amsoil filter on the test they would give direct comparison numbers.

Inquirying minds want real answers, not marketing BS or peoples opinions.

[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: FirstDiesel ]</p>

[Kennedy]

Guys, this is a "canned" response that has been around in many forms. It is nothing new. I got a similar response from the same guy who stated that a petroleum oil molecule was 5 microns in size and a synthetic was 10 microns.

In fairness, I use canned responses quite often myself as a general overview or primer.

I'd like to see this Hot Rod magazine!

[2DAMAX]

I think we all need to pick what we feel will work the best in our particular climate. Then you need to have your oil analyzed and if you don't like what you see than change, its that simple.K-N has been around A very long time either They have A very good product or people are very stupid and blind. :eek:

[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: 2DAMAX ]</p>

[george morrison]

From a lube engineer's perspective, the K&N does a great job of keeping bricks and birds out of one's engine; as for dirt and other matter, it is very questionable.. I review a hundred or so oil analysis results a day and can generally spot a K&N equipped vehicle a mile away with its very high silicon (dirt) and corresponding high wear metals that are created as a result. There are a few, very few, cases where a K&N filter seems to work almost as well as paper but that is dependent on installation, vehicle and environmental conditions.. If you want to use a K&N, I advise to first do a paper element baseline oil analysis, then switch to the K&N and do another oil analysis.. If it is the same as paper, proceed, by all means and listen to the roar.. However, from my experience, 99 out of 100 cases will reveal startingly high dirt levels; it only takes one teaspoon of dirt to destroy a large CAT or Cummins engine.. Much less for our jewels..
I believe John Kennedy can relate a number of years of successful oil analysis results with the Amsoil air filter..
George Morrison, STLE CLS

[Kennedy]

... and HOPEFULLY George will have good results with his 6.5 that is run in the mines with his new Amsoil air filter!

Those of you who know Buicks and turbos know John Craig. He and I share similar views. I havent done a follow up yet, but I sent him an Amsoil filter a couple months back for his Cummins. As a turbo guy he knows what the telltale signs of poor air filtration are.

[getupingo]

Here is my two cents...It depends mostly on the useage. For example my hot rod mustang performs great with the k&n compared to the paper filter; however I only drive the car maybe once or twice a week, therefore i am willing sacrifice some filtering ability for high air flow which in turn equals a few more ponys. My duramax on the other hand...is a daily driver and needs excellent filtration all of the time.

just my two cents
getupingo :cool:

[bora]

I run a K&N on my race car.
On street cars, I run the OEM (not aftermarket) filter. I figure I don't really need the 3-4 HP
that the K&N gives and the paper filters
are easy to replace for 10-30 bucks a piece once a year.

One big problem with K& N and cars with hot wire MAF sensors is that upon cleaning the owners put way too much oil, and it ruins the MAF sensor, Ka-ching, there goes 200-400 bucks.

[george morrison]

Regarding horsepower and turbo-charged diesel engines. At a recent TDI Dyno shoot-out the absolute winner in terms of horsepower was equipped with an OEM paper element. The gauze filtered, airbox modified engine had less horsepower on the dyno compared with the OEM paper element airbox equipped TDI. So, the K&N "horsepower right out of box" may not relate at all to our turbo-charged diesel engines..

And as John has related, I really do have a 2 stage Amsoil filter on our 6.5TD that I got from John. The engine has been plagued by high silicon/dirt/wear metals since new. The truck lives in extreme dirt conditions and has been equipped with AC OEM air filters since day one.
And yes, I am the one who tried foam/gauze/re-usable air filters years ago in a mining application without success. This 6.5TD engine has had a ferrography prior to the Amsoil 2 stage install and we will re-do after the engine has had several oil changes and re-visit. The ferrography indicated boulder level (under the microscope) dirt/contaminants! As I have said before, if there is a better air filter system that will enable cleaner air into the engine, I will be the first one to use and recommend it. The lower the level of induction contaminants that the engine/turbo sees the longer the life. Dirt ingestion is the #1 cause of engine and turbo failures that I deal with..
George Morrison, STLE CLS

[LanduytG]

This is a thread that has been going on on the VW TDI forum for sometime now. http://forums.tdiclub.com/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=17;t=004875;p=1

This is data that we have gotten by doing some testing of our own.

Originally posted by LanduytG:

Paper

Weight of filter before test 1508.7 grams
Weight of filter after test 1526.7 grams
Weight of safety filter before test 1.8 grams
Weight of safety filter after test 1.9 grams
Total amount of dirt that passed through the filter was 10 grams. 64.28% efficient.

K&N

Weight of filter before test 1589.0 grams
Weight of filter after test 1615.9 grams
Weight of safety filter before test 1.8 grams
Weight of safety filter after test 1.9 grams
Total amount of dirt that passed through the filter was 1.1 grams. 96.07% efficient.

Amsoil

Weight of filter before test 1469.2
Weight of filter after test 1497.1
Weight of safety filter before test 1.8
Weight of safety filter after test 1.8
Total amount of dirt that passed through the filter was .1 gram. 99.64% efficient.

Greg

You would not beleive the number of emails that I have gotten since this thread started. My test show the K&N is better than the OEM paper. Not sure as to way this happened but it did. Testing is not over by any means, we have a lot more planned.

Greg

[csimo]

The entire reason to NOT use a K&N, or any other oiled filter on the Duramax is missed in this discussion. Our Bosch fuel injection system relies heavily on input from the MAF sensor in the cold air intake system. The MAF will run for years under normal condition, even dirt, but even a very slight film of oil will kill it dead.

Every oiled filter passes oil... no exceptions. Many people over at the TDI club have already figured this out. It will take time for the Duramax crowd to discover this downfall.

As for who is better... Amsoil or K&N... if you ask K&N they will say they're better, or if you ask Amsoil they will say they're better. The same goes for any brand.

I don't have anything against K&N. They make great filters for racing. Racing technology doesn't always apply to street use. We have to worry about longevity not just performance.

The only thing I have against Amsoil is their cult like community. They have a great way of twisting test results, or only using the parts of a test that make them look good (they never publish the entire test, only small parts and mostly parts that don't apply to the normal use of the product). They are masters at brainwashing their sales associates into believing such nonsense. They do make some great products, and some lousy ones. Most are middle of the road just like everybody elses.

I worked in management for GM and Chrysler for 15 years total. I have been on the ground floor of important design decisions. I have talked and worked with some of the best automotive engineers in the world. I have talked with many of them for hours about this subject and believe what they say. One day I was speaking to a visiting engineer from Mobil. I asked him about their lubrication products (his specialty). The bottom line on the subject is that you could make the best oil in the world but it won't last any longer than a good middle of the line oil... they both get dirty and that's why you change the oil.

[Kennedy]

csimo,

Properly oiled, either of these filters should not oil the MAF sensor, AND if they did, it isnt a simple game over deal. Clean it up and go again.

I too dislike the Amsoil marketing structure and such, but I cannot argue with the product.


Now just to show you guys how open minded I am on this (no Amsoil tattoo on my arse) I will be running Mobil Delvac 1 for my next extended drain analysis. George will do another ferrography, and it should prove enlightening...

[LanduytG]

How many MAF have been fouled on the TDI forum? If they have been its because of the person putting it on. The Amsoil filter has been in my TDI for 17K miles and not one problem. I would have to say that may be some have been brainwashed into thinking you have to change oil every 3-5K. This is NOT the case and many oil analysis have proven that.
Greg

[mackin]

What MP was reffering to ,I guess,no dates........

Sniff and breath around here,go to car tech/tech articles/engine/more/Air cleaner shoot out...... Doesn't say much other than all aftermarket air cleaners are very close in performance ,not in removing dirt particles ,they didn't get into that testing.......Just seat of the pants,dyno numbers......
=&gt;http://www.hotrod.com/

MAC smile.gif

[ 07-23-2002: Message edited by: mackin ]</p>

[Joe.G]

Yes, Cismo is correct, the life of the oil is dependent on how well you filter it and how long it retains it's additives and viscosity. People think that black oil needs changing, this is not always correct, the only way to tell is by anaylsis.
Air filters work the same way, you analize your oil and it tells you if the air filter is worth a crap.
Remember this, 40% of your engine wear occurs at cold start-up!

[afp]

Greg,

Thanks for the honesty in your post. I actually expected the results you tests have shown so far. Flow numbers will put it all in perspective.

To all,

I don't think there has yet been an exhaustive, accurate apples-to-apples comparision between the Amzoil and the K&N. I still think there are many variables that are not accounted for. On one hand you have Broker running K&Ns on all his diesels, and his 01 DMax has 400,000 miles on it. On the other hand George Morrison talks about routinely finding high silicone levels and corresponding engine wear in K&N equipped engines. We have independent lab tests showing the K&N does not let even dust by and filters at least as well as a factory filter, but we also have John Kennedy finding grit in the intake tract of K&N equipped 6.5 liter diesels.

When the results are that varied, then some things aren't adding up. We may be getting things like damaged K&N filters, improper installation, improper maintenance, a huge variance in operating conditions, unrealistic lab tests, etc.

I find it interesting K&N only compares against the old style foam air filters and not against the new Amzoil. I find it equally interesting Amzoil provides no actual filtering or flow numbers.

I really like my K&N Aircharger system. Not so much for the filter, but for the intake tube. If I find too much silicone in my oil, I may try Amzoil air filter oil on my K&N (I'll still keep the drycharger filter cover). I'm told the Amzoil air filter oil is stickier than the K&N--from my friend who is an Amzoil dealer and runs both K&N and Amzoil. I know K&N recommends to use only their oil, but come on. If the Amzoil oil won't break down foam when I doubt it will break down cotton. I also may try a new air filter being developed for the K&N aircharger.

Blaine

[CSDMAX]

AMSOIL vs. K&N.........I have the K&N and am happy thus far.....although, I am not totally convinced one way or the other as to which is better. That is the great debate......
PS - we re not the only ones which are having this debate, the guys over at f..d-diesel.com are battling over it as well. :D I have a buddy who just bought PSD and was talking about different aftermarket add ons, forums, etc...so I was curious as to what they say and do over there.... talk about a bunch of bull s...!!! I have to say we definitely have a GREAT forum. smile.gif

[Kennedy]

afp,

I considered the incorrect installation theory, especially since K&N provides a cheesy piece of foam weatherstrip to "build out" the air box on the flat style 6.5 filters. This strip migrates all over the place when the adhesive gets warm :rolleyes: and could cause problems.

Thing is, I've seen it on 97+ 6.5 trucks, and that filter hose clamps on and cannot leak. I've seen it on a 4.3 NA throttle body. That one had grit all over the Tornado (garbage) sitting inboard of the filter. Again, the lid seals those type of filters very well.I saw it in my own 6.5 and 6.2 NA so I decided to burn them.

NOW, will running a K&N ruin your engine? Not likely in the short term, but if you put in 5w30 ECII (car) motor oil and ran Fram oil filters, it likely would have no immediate effect either... The K&N may well do a reasonable job with the fine stuff, but I've seen a lot of big stuff get through.

A lot has to do with driving style and environment too. Some of us pull 490+ g/s (max of MAF sensor reading) of air through our engines routinely, while others likey never top 380 g/s. Greg knows first hand all of the beefs that I have had with Amsoil, and knows that I am seldom happy with their service. I am actully very near the point of driving (or riding) up to the HQ some day to vent my frustrations.

Simply put: the fact is, they have some damn good products, and the Dual stage filter is one of them...

[Amianthus]

One of the things that convinced me not to go with the K&N (at least in my application) was the fact that the gasket wouldn't seal on it's own in the stock airbox. So K&N sends along a tube of sealing grease to apply to your airbox to help make the seal. WHAT?! Bad engineering fixed by grease?! Not for me.

Now FYI, I had a K&N on my Ford and loved it. But I am not convinced that it was right for my current truck. I went with the Amsoil and am very happy with the decrease in EGT's that it provided. But, tell you what, I'm dreading having to clean this thing. It is such a royal pain. JMHO.

[SledZep]

What kind of conditions do some of you run in? Will the differences between filters really matter if I am almost never off road? The only dirt I drive on is when they tear up the road for construction. Almost all of my miles are on the interstate right now (empty 85mph) Is my truck actually being exposed to that many tiny harmful dust particles?? Is this the same dust that I am always washing off the outside? I never really thought that that type of dirt is what I am fighting to keep out.

Thanks

[drthv8r]

"Those of you who know Buicks and turbos know John Craig. He and I share similar views."

As the owner of two 87 Turbo Buicks I know John Craig all to well. The man is a class act for sure. I'd be interested in his input on this matter, if he sends you a reply.