UNI Air Filter

[Sandaholic]

Just installed my Uni Air Filter, looks to be a well made product. Got it from Kennedy Diesel, Great Customer Service! Filter also came with a service pack (cleaner and oil). Placed three orders so far with Kennedy diesel and all have been great, (fuel/oil/trany filters and other stuff). Definitely recommend them.

Thanks

[More Power]

We'll have a new product announcement available on the web site by the 15th covering the Uni filters. Some nice close-up photos and a description of the product will be included.

MP

[Burner]

I took my K&N "out" last week to put the UNI from John Kennedy in. The dang thing even looks better than the K&N. However, my main reason for the switch is "filtration" & Air.... not just a lot of "dirty" Air. :eek:


Burner------> :D

[VA_Dmax]

Question on the contents of my UNI filter from JK. It came with the filter and cleaner as you mentioned, but also came with a litte foam ring about 3-4 inches in diameter. Know what its for?

[Idle_Chatter]

VA DMax, I'll wager that the foam ring is for the missing "snorkle" that used to connect the DMax airbox to the passenger side fender. The plastic extension had a foam gasket to the airbox.

[VA_Dmax]

Yep that would make sense. Thanks, just wanted to make sure it wasnt supposed to do something and I didnt install it. So what year did they take that out? 2002?

[Ira Chandler]

On my 2001, my GMC mechanic suggested I let him cut open the fender side of the airbox. Seemed to help and sounds great. Also cut off the muffler. Not sure if that helped or not...

[george morrison]

From all indications, the UNI's filtration capabilitty seem to be excellent. I have reviewed one complete oil analysis to include particle count and ferrography which was frankly the cleanest ferrography/particle count result I have ever seen for a diesel engine.
The only meaningful oil analysis results with respect to air filter performance is by doing all three analysis procedures as the normal spectrographic analysis reports only particles of 5 micron range and smaller. With particle count and ferrography the complete contaminant picture is presented..
So, when the three phase oil analysis comes back with total absence of contaminants from small through large, very impressive performance with the UNI air filter!
George Morrison

[ 12-06-2003, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: george morrison ]

[Idle_Chatter]

Va-Dmax, they started taking the snorkles out in 2001. My "late-build" 2001 was "snorkless" and they even had a TSB to remove them and paste a big metallic sticker over the fender hole, leaving the side of the airbox where the snorkle fit open to the gap between the airbox and fender patch.

[SPICER]

George, can you tell us if this particular vehicle with the super clean oil had an additional oil filtration setup (ie. bypass oil filter)? And if it does, how does the additional filtration impact your ability to attribute the clean oil to the air filter being efficient vs. the bypass doing its job? Thanks for the clarification. SPICER :confused:

[george morrison]

The Duramax engine with the Unifilter did have a Harvard by-pass filter installed and certainly it was contributory to the excellent results, however, I have reviewed spectro/pc/ferrography for similar Harvard equipped vehicles equipped with paper elements and the Uni filtered results were superior. Additionally, I am relating results from just a few samples so we cannot be writing PhD papers from the data but the superb results just did not 'happen'; all components in the system (air filtration, oil filtration, oil) contributed to the superb results. Nothing detracted from the bottom line, all components were superb to enable the level of wear minimization reported in the results. Another point is that the Duramax results were in an engine that was, frankly, abused...
George Morrison

[jbplock]

Originally posted by george morrison:
The Duramax engine with the Unifilter did have a Harvard by-pass filter installed and certainly it was contributory to the excellent results....Would that be JK's?

[ibelyea]

I ordered my Uni-Filter directly from the factory and the box was filled with little foam rings. They used them for packing material.

[OC_DMAX]

Got mine directly from the factory also. Had the same yellow and black foam rings as packing material as mentioned above.

[SPICER]

I don't dispute George's findings, but obviously this is a single case (regarding oil cleanliness). On another recent thread we discussed air filtration efficiency. I was venting about how there are some manufacturers , Amsoil in particular, that claim superior dirt filtration but have been shown to be less effective than paper. In fact OEM AC paper filters, to my knowledge, have been shown to filter the best.

What I find ironic about George's findings is that on the UNI web site I have seen NO claims of SUPERIOR filtration. It sure would be nice to see a manufacturer come foreward, claim superior filtration, and then prove it.

My theory is this.....mind you, just a theory.

(1) I believe that OEM paper filters the most dirt.
(2) I believe that the aftermarket air filtering world is pretty small and the OEM manufacturers don't pay a whole lot of attention to the tiny loss of market share.
(3) I believe that because the aftermarket threat is small and the loss of market share is minimal, the OEM manufacturers feel little or no need to dispute the claims of these aftermarket companies.
(4) I believe that all manufacturers have done the comparison tests for their own benefit, and if they truly were superior they would brag with REAL NUMBERS. Anyway, interesting topic....I care little about performance because I have no performance mods, so my goal is filter efficiency, not flow. smile.gif SPICER

[ 12-08-2003, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: SPICER ]

[george morrison]

There will be more UNI Filter follow on oil analysis results coming through which should provide further information regarding the UNI's filterability which is also my prime interest.
My Duramax with OEM AC paper element indicates 3 times the dirt level compared with the two UNI equipped oil analysis results! This is exactly what prompted my examination of the UNI possibilities as increased filtration capabilities..
I am the original "paper/OEM" advocate. I have written papers on the subject and accordingly have six inches of scar tissue from doing tests on foam/gauze elements which "I" recommended as a trial and they failed miserably...
However, not being one to stick head in sand and do the Osterich deal, if there is a better air filter, onward and upward.
This is a continuing project but so far the UNI is blowing away my AC/OEM in terms of filtration........
George Morrison

[SPICER]

George, very interesting. I understand that you are using oil analysis to compare filtering ability which no doubt is an accepted practice. The tough thing is that it is obviously not a "controlled" test. It seems, though, that controlled tests are difficult and expensive. It would be nice to see a number of members post their oil analysis numbers before and after UNI. It won't be a controlled experiment, but if enough oil sampled are compared and individuals are careful to keep all other variables as consistent as possible, the data would atleast be statistically significant. You are right, 1/3 the dirt compared to paper is HUGELY PROMISING. I am still a little skeptical for this reason....If UNI has created a truly superior filter, I would find it hard to believe that they don't know it. AND if they know it why don't they brag about it? I sure would! Anyway, George, keep up the good work and keep us posted smile.gif SPICER

[OC_DMAX]

George,

Out of curiousity, how would you rate the Amsoil twin-foam oiled filter? (Not sure if you have any experience with it)

Is is equivalent to the UNI, better, worse, etc.

I have both filters for my DMAX and have been alternating between them. Just a convenience factor more than anything. If the UNI is better, then I would stick with it only.


A note: I never heard of AMSOIL until buying my truck several years ago and visiting this website. However, I have been riding off-road motorcylcles for 39 years in the So Cal desert. Somewhere along the way, UNI appeared on the scene (just don't remember when). I have used the filters for a long time on my bikes with good results (though have never done an oil anlaysis -- a little hard on two strokes --- a little easier on my XR600 if I wanted to do one)

[george morrison]

Regarding the posting of 'before & after' paper/uni, etc. It gets a bit cost prohibitive in that simple spectrographic analysis (normal used engine oil analysis) is limited to 5 microns and smaller components analyzation. i.e. one could actually drop significant chunks of metal in an oil sample and very likely the results would indicate that all is fine with the sample. Spectrographic is simply blind to >5 micron particles. Thus if a filter is passing 10-15-20 micron dirt particles (20 microns are as small as one can see with the naked eye), even a significant amount, those contaminants will not be reported. So just looking at silicon levels in a spectro will not provide enough information to make decisions as to air filter efficiencies.
The analysis I have been discussing is the complete spectro, particle count, and ferrography. i.e. 'the rest of the story' oil analysis procedure. At $100 per sample, a bit expensive for everyone to be doing 'before & after' with. As I indicated I have followed 3 Duramax, and two 6.5TD's with before, before, before and after on each unit. (the 'befores' being paper, Amsoils foam, Uni, various 'before' oils, after oils of Delvac 1, etc. along with iterations of by-pass oil filtration)
As in John Kennedy's case, we have watched his Duramax engine oil analysis results improve signficantly with each successive ferrography/pc/spectro result. In oil analysis, especially ferrography/particle count, any variation in sampling technique results in sample degradation, not improvement... Thus even a small sampling presents good data, especially if the results are excellent.. "Excellents" just don't 'happen'..
Again, ongoing....
George Morrison

[ 12-08-2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: george morrison ]

[Kennedy]

Originally posted by george morrison:

As in John Kennedy's case, we have watched his Duramax engine oil analysis results improve signficantly with each successive ferrography/pc/spectro result. In oil analysis, especially ferrography/particle count, any variation in sampling technique results in sample degradation, not improvement... Thus even a small sampling presents good data, especially if the results are excellent.. "Excelllents" just don't 'happen'..
Again, ongoing....
George Morrison Best part is, it just keeps getting BETTER! Adding the KD/Harvard bypass (almost ready) made a profound difference. Then the Filtermag also made a HUGE difference...

[SPICER]

I am keeping an open mind, but now it is time for a little soap box action. I am not trying to burn bridges or point fingers, I am just a logical person looking for some objective data. I refuse to be naive. If TraceF were here he would agree, though I didn't agree with him on too many issues. :rolleyes:

I have been doing a little research on the air filter issue. Let me first say that I have a HUGE amount of respect for George M. and John K., and don't expect that to change any time soon. They are obviously intelligent individuals and have made enormous contributions and sacrifices of time and research that we have all benefitted from. I also hold HUGE hope that the "promising" results of the UNI come to fruition. However, I was burned once with the Amsoil marketing deceit and hope to educate myself a little this time around to protect my fragile ego. I feel a little chumpy right now and distinguishing marketing scams from trustworthy data is how I am dealing with it. :D

Anyway, this is what got me going today.....I took a look at the new articles on TDP and saw a brief article about the new and hyped UNI filter. The article had some general information about the company and information about the new Duramax application. What got me eye-popping was the statement "We've known for a long time that a properly designed dual-stage oiled- foam element traps dirt better than any other type of air filter media."

I pray that I can publicly eat crow and proclaim that " in the face of overwhelming evidence, I am a UNI believer." However, at this point I feel compelled to proclaim instead that this statement is irresponsible and misleading at best. There are a lot of people who visit this site looking for guidance. Are we doing what is right?

In another article about the MEGA filter there was data and truth abounding. In fact, while visiting my dealer today for a noisy belt, I gave a copy of the MEGA filter review from TDP along with a copy of the article from Heavy Duty Trucking magazine to my service manager. They knew about the fuel filter and wanted to know more.This is real and useful information. It is verifiable and trustworthy.

I sent an E-mail to UNI without reply so far. I simply asked for some data about filtration efficiency since there was nothing posted on their website. I got the idea after visiting the Baldwin website. Baldwin's website has data showing their efficiency in filtering. Here Baldwin uses the SAE J726 test, "the industry standard for air filtration." Here the Baldwin is shown to remove 99.93% of fine dust vs. 99.95% for the OEM and 99.77% for the "leading competitor". Now this is useful data! I'm sure Baldwin was selective in the data they chose to publish in their website, but it is real data using real standards. Baldwin was even brave enough to post results that showed the OEM to be slightly better!!! Atleast I respect them for that!

Fram uses the same standard on their website to compare themselves to other filters. Fram is selective also in publishing information that makes them look good. Fram's data refers only to filter dirt holding capacity. They say that according to SAE J726 their filters hold 22% more dirt than the "leading competitor". They do use a * to clarify that oil wetted material is excluded from this claim. With regards to filtering efficiency, Fram simply states that their filters "provide high levels of protection from dust and dirt."
In a similar way Amsoil calls thier level of filtration "excellent". UNI uses some other adjective on their website, I forget it now.

I am just looking for some real data. I am sure any worthwhile manufacturer has done the comparisons for their own benefit. If they are unwilling to come foreward with it then only one conclusion can be assumed regarding the substance of that data. For now I am still optimistic. However, I will not be suckered. UNI, some data please. SPICER

[Kennedy]

I'm relying on the product demonstration type of data. The one where a suction is applied to the clean side of the filter THROUGH a white secondary filter, and then screened (sized), measured dust is fed to the filter. The residue caught by the white filter (looks like the old smoker exhaling through a hanky commercial) shows the TRUE results of what got through in a "seeing is believing" fashion.

Combine that with my positive ferrography results, and I'm a believer!


BTW, for those not familiar with the test, More Power did a home version of this back in say 1998 or so with the Amsoil foam filters...

[OC_DMAX]

John,

I'll re-ask my question that I posted above, this time directed to you. I purchased an Amsoil Foam filter from you a little over a year ago. I purchased a UNI from their headquarters here in SoCal (on my way to work I pass by their facility).

How would you rate the Amsoil twin-foam oiled filter relative to the UNI in it's ability to filter particles from the air? What would make one stand out over the other? (I am looking for an opinion here, not test data.)

I have both filters. I rotate them in the truck. Just trying to determine if I should continue this practice. So there is nothing more for me to purchase. Just looking for a little product support.

I feel it is a relevant question to ask. A lot of people on TDP have purchased the Amsoil Air Filters from you and other vendors. Now there seems to be a push on the UNI. I also understand that Amsoil had a production problem on a recent version of their filter. Why the switch?

Alan

[max out]

can the UNI filter be used on a AFE stage II tube?

[Kennedy]

My reasoning is based on the NEW generation Amsoil filter changes. There is nothing wrong with the Amsoil unit, the I just find the Uni to be better.



My reasons for switching aside from the early "blue surround" separation issue:


The overall quality/construction of the Uni is far superior.

Uni uses a "less coarse" first stage. This should help filtration performance from the get go. The foam is rated at 50ppi fine, and 90ppi coarse.


The Amsoil unit is several components "piecemealed" together, and each part is obvious. The Uni is a molded unit where all components end inside the surround .

The surround on the Amsoil is approx 1" wide detracting significantly, and unnecessarily from the flow area, and is only bonded via a glue bead whereas the Uni moulded surround is plenty adequate, yet not excessively wide.

The Amsoil unit went to a very heavy gauge screen with much less flow area (smaller perforations) in an attempt to gain rigidity similar to that provided by a moulded surround. Uni has large hex honeycomb patterned mesh which provides plenty of rigidity, yet offers the bare minimum restriction.

As an added bonus, the red foam of the Uni is excellent for a visual reference as to when to service, and when properly cleaned. The contrasting color to black dirt is a great concept.

The Uni is boxed and bagged. The bag is a nice snug fit (vacuumed?) and the service kits are boxed nicely as well. The Amsoil used to be saran wrapped, and now has a semi loose fitting opaque sealed bag on it. The oil bottles do not have a seal, and i've found them very prone to leaking.


As for a Uni for the AFE kits, there is currently not a listing for an element with similar dimensions.

[OC_DMAX]

John, thanks for the reply.

I always thought the interface between the Amsoil filter and the stock airbox was a little crude. Where the UNI is almost the same as the stock paper element. Never noticed the other things you mentioned, good eye on your part! Anyway, next rotation I'll stick with the UNI. Have them on the dirt bikes, might as well stay consistent.