[Tachyon]

This is a very interesting video. Engine masters took a high power (high air-flow) engine and tested a bunch of common and not so common air filter types and setups. The results are probably going to surprise you. Warning, if you're one of those people that goes around spewing about how K&N and similar oiled filters suck, you may not want to watch this.

I guessed a lot of this in the early half, but the top 5 had some surprises. This also has some (IMO) positive implications for cold air intakes with the right filter setup.

I guess I won't be getting rid of me K&N FIPK (Cold air intake kit).

Anyway, I thought this was some useful information for people trying to decide on filter upgrades for their prized ride.

 

[xPosTech]

I have 80K on my truck. I think I've gone to WOT possibly 5 times when passing on a 2 lane country road. If you want to crunch those numbers have at it. My point is that those tests of filters have absolutely no meaning to me. If I was 50 years younger and still racing around and jawboning about how much horsepower I added over stock it might mean something.

I'll settle for a quality heavy duty filter made for my truck/application. Maximum filtration means a lot more to me than any supposed power benefit a "CAI" or other type of "guaranteed to add power by our dyno tests" filter setup. My truck came with a CAI from the factory. I did remove the aneurysms on the airtube by switching to a MIT.

Edit: I wasn't surprised. I noticed that didn't test K&N against a stock filter. And 50 years ago we removed the air filter when racing on the street. My 55 chevy had a round primered spot on the hood to prove it.

Ted

 

[RayVoy]

Hmmmm, fun to watch vid @Tachyon; but, real big GM engine, big 4 barrel carb, no computer, filter sitting on the carb

Apples and oranges, I don't think much compares.

My 2 cents

 

[Tachyon]

Hmmmm, fun to watch vid @Tachyon; but, real big GM engine, big 4 barrel carb, no computer, filter sitting on the carb

Apples and oranges, I don't think much compares.

My 2 cents

airflow is airflow. The engine doesn't matter. They could have used a blower in a lab.

 

[Tachyon]

What you guys don't seem to understand is that a better flowing filter is just as important to mom's grocery getter as it is to a race car. Less restriction and better flow on any car means a more efficient air-pump (ie engine). That efficiency can be used to reach greater horsepower yes, but it also means better fuel economy when you're driving normally.

 

[RayVoy]

@Tachyon I think we understand the airflow thing, Ted and I both wrenched and owned old Chevy's, we know about airflow, the old Stromberg had small wire mesh screens on the top of their velocity stacks.

I think the vid had some good info; but most of what I saw didn't test the filters, they tested the filter housings.

Take a double snorkel can and run a test with one hole covered and your testing the airflow of the can, remove the tape, your still testing the can, invert the cover, your still testing the can.

The other thing that makes me say "apples to oranges" is the statement in the vid about airflow from the sides does not flow as well as straight ( Stromberg velocity stacks) in airflow. Look at your throttle body, it's straight in.
That config wasn't tested.

I didn't want to take this thread into an argument; but, I saw nothing that tested the filter setups that are used on today's engines.

I agree there is a lot of great info for the hotrodder building a car with an old school config. That guy can learn a lot when it comes to filter can design and placement

I still say it's a good vid, good find.

 

[xPosTech]

It's very easy to test the flow rates of filters; you don't need to measure the horsepower of an engine to do it. You don't even need to measure the whole filter. Flow through an open tube compared to a filter in the tube will give you the flow drop per square inch of filter.

The only way to increase the flow through a filter (of the same area) is to open the spaces where air can flow. ie allow larger particulates through the filter. That's no bueno. Who wants to let larger bits of silica or whatever into there engine? The only way to efficiently remove particulates of the same size while increasing flow is by increasing the area of the filter. Hence the large surface area with accordion folds to get the larger area into a smaller space.

K&N even goes so far as to say their filters become more efficient at trapping particulates the longer they are used without cleaning. They say their filter traps more at 50K miles than when cleaned, oiled and installed. That's because the particulates it traps over time reduces the spaces air can flow through.

The 55 chevy I mentioned used an archaic inertial oil bath filter. There was no filter media. The air flowed down toward a 1/2 inch or so of oil in the bottom and made a 180° turn back up and then another 180° down into the air horn. The idea was that any particulates, having mass, tended to go straight into the oil when they met the first 180° turn while the clean (Ha!) air made the 180° turn toward the intake. The filter was about a foot high and about 10 inches in diameter. We did pull it off to race and to get the open intake sound. That's why I had that burned spot on the hood.

If you think the air filter was a POS, IT CAME STOCK WITHOUT AN OIL FILTER!!

Ted

 

[Tachyon]

So because it doesn't apply to your setup it's not relevant. You do realize that other people exist right?

 

[RayVoy]

So, if that was directed at me, the answer is, "of course I do".

I believe you'll see where I said that.

I also thanked you for finding and posting.

Every time a video gets posted, there will be opinions.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, just posting my opinion. And, that is my opinion of the data; not, in any way, an opinion of you, or the thread.

 

[xPosTech]

And I feel the same way Ray does. His opinion that the testing was of the filter housings and not the filters is the same as mine. That was why I just rambled on about air filters. I have a habit of doing that; sorry if it upset you.

And thanks for the video.

Ted

 

[Tachyon]

Posting this because I'm really sick of people posting uninformed anti K&N propaganda with no basis in facts.

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/20142-k-n-air-filter-test/

Bolt On Horsepower In An Afternoon
Okay, this is a test we’ve done time and again, and each time we do it, we’re amazed by the results. It’s a simple deal, really; we get a K&N air-filter assembly and bolt it on to the vehicle de jour, strap it to a chassis dyno, and ogle the resultant printout reporting a big power gain at the tires. We’ll cut to the chase and tell you that bolting K&N’s FIPK air-breather assembly in place of the stock piece on a ’99 Dakota R/T gave us a net gain of 10 hp at the rear wheels. That’s 10 hp and still smog legal in every state, for nothing more than about 20 minutes worth of work....​

 

[squatchy]

Ok so you're a homer for k&n. Congrats. If its what you want then buy it and use it. Don't get pissy if someone doesn't agree 100% with you. The video was just Freiburger doing what he gets paid to do, all the tested were k&n, fram, no name, and non filtered stuff on a built and tuned motor. Didn't see anything for aem, afe, spectre, airaid, volant, delco, anything like that. The article from hotrod you posted mearly posts a single run hp gain from an intake. If you want to worry about silly facts post things like black bear performances non bias here are the numbers results from all a selection of major kits http://blackbearperformance.com/IntakeTestResults_2016.asp that gives you more than just a peak hp number.

 

[xPosTech]

Besides letting in more air it's letting in more particulates. There's no other way for it to let in more air. That's why K&N says it becomes more efficient at filtering the dirtier it gets.

I'm not saying it doesn't improve performance. The FIPK has a larger filter than the stock air box and a smoother flow than the stock intake tube. The larger filter flows more air. The real comparison is with a stock airbox K&N filter and the stock filter. This also flows better but the K&N will have to pass more particulates than the stock filter. It's simple physics.

The largest restriction in the intake whether stock or aftermarket is the throttle plate. At anything except WFO the filter becomes moot. I don't run my truck WFO long enough to justify the cost or more frequent MAF and Throttle Body cleaning the K&N requires.

http://www.gmtruckclub.com/forum/threads/what-do-cold-air-intakes-really-do.146280/

Thanks for the video.

Ted

 

[RoofHopper]

More airflow does not automatically mean you will allow more particulate through the filter. A good example of this is in commercial building air filters. We can increase airflow and filter longevity by increasing the mils(thickness) of the air filter and using oil impregnated materials. You can filter at a higher MERV rate which refers to the size off the particles that said filter is capable of capturing. The higher the MERV rating the smaller the particles you can capture. But because of the thicker material you can capture more particulate over a longer period of time between servicing. Sounds counterintuitive I know, but facts are facts and the fact is I can capture more dirt over a longer period and maintain the same static pressure drop(flow) across a high efficiency filter than I can a standard paper or fiberglass filter. As stated previously airflow is airflow so these principles carry over seamlessly to the automotive world. That being said I do prefer a dry type high efficiency filter for my vehicles as I don't want to worry about over oiling a filter and having it end up caked to my MAF sensor. I'm a fan of AFE