Found a cheap cone filter...$10 - Page 3 - GM Forum - Buick, Cadillac, Chev, Olds, GMC & Pontiac chat


Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning Talk about modifications, or anything else associated with performance enhancements. Have a new idea for performance/reliability? Post it here. No idea is stupid! (please use Detailing and Appearance for cosmetic ideas)

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-23-2003, 12:14 PM   #21
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
 
lght1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 215
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
lght1 is on a distinguished road
Default

Hi

You do realize we are talking about silicon..and not silicone dont you?

Silicon is a by product of heating silica..and that is not what you want in your engine. Just a teaspoon of dirt will ruin a 3406 Cat, imagine what it would do to out series l and ll'*?

Check it out..

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...efid=761571760

As for the cat engines being "improperly fitted"...I am not buying that. With K&N..there is always an exscuse.

You can use them if you want, but I will not, based on what I've learned through repeated used oil analysis on many different types of vehicles and conditions/regions.

They may be fine for the track..under somewhat limited controlled conditions where one can take advantage of the superior flow, but for day to day use, they dont cut it with me.
lght1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2003, 01:07 PM   #22
Senior Member
Posts like a Corvette
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,250
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
bmsgaffer86 is on a distinguished road
Default ok

So lght1 doesnt appreciate K&N performance, and cant get over his biased opinion. Thats his loss. It seems as tho hes the kind of person that wouldnt need/want the performance anyway. Lght1, please, no attacks on K&N esp in this forum (these are the K&N diehards, me included). Your "scientific tests" are disproving 30 or so yrs of reputable experience, which should tell you something. Either way, each to his own (us to K&N performance; you to your scientific paper)
bmsgaffer86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2003, 01:32 PM   #23
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
 
lght1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 215
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
lght1 is on a distinguished road
Default

Hi

This wasnt an "attack" on anything. All I did was question the ability of these filters to adequatly protect an engine.

If you wish to continue using these..it is your choice. I, however, siting "scentific", as you put it, lab tests see too much dirt entering the engine. It is based on these "scentific" tests, that I elect NOT to take the risks.

As for the little "performance" dig...I would love to achieve a few extra ponies...but NOT at the cost of engine longevity. This car is on the road to the tune of 55-60k a year for work purposes...and MUST run each and every day. Unlike some cars..it is not a plaything that only needs to get back and forth to the track on weekends.

I have to edit this, I didnt notice that your a teen.
lght1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2003, 01:48 PM   #24
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bloomington-Normal, IL 1997 SE
Posts: 3,734
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
macho_mike21 is on a distinguished road
Default

how would K&N be around for so long if they made a product that hurt your engine? Wouldnt racers stop using it once they noticed the bad side effects?
macho_mike21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2003, 02:40 PM   #25
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 359
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Kuhl is on a distinguished road
Default

There is nothign wrong with K&Ns. Ight... you arent simply questioning its ability you are telling us its ability is not sufficient, there was no questioning involved.

I still dont see how the silicon is floating around in the air...I mean there is dirt in the air but how much of it really is silicon? not much


I also pulled this off a board

> Blake Qualley
> [email protected]
>
> Blum, Richard wrote:
>
> > Dear sir,
> >
> > What you have posted is 100% false and misleading. It has been
> > around
> for
> > years and has no facts to back it up. Foremost, K&N does not make a
> filter
> > for a Cummins, V-12 or any earthmoving or mining equipment. That
> > immediately shows it is untrue.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > K&N Cumulative Efficiency: 99.05 %
> >
> > K&N Initial Pass Efficiency: 97.11 %
> >
> > OEM Paper Cumulative: 99.29 %
> >
> > OEM Paper Initial Pass: 96.47 %
> >
> > Holding the filter to the light is useless, pin holes are normal.
> > That
> is
> > what makes a K&N filter. There are actually dozens of microscopic
> fibers
> > that cross these holes that when treated with oil become somewhat
> > transparent but still capture and hold the very fine particles.
> > Spray
> WD-40
> > on a piece of paper and it will be transparent too. 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.
> >
> > 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 and Iraq because of maintenance problems with the
> original
> > paper design. Now we are on the new unmanned Predator plane being
> > used
> in
> > Afghanistan and Iraq. If they work in these conditions they will
> > work
> for
> > you. Links to the filtration tests are on our web site at
> > http://www.knfilters.com/images/factstab1.gif and
> > http://www.knfilters.com/images/factstab2.gif
> >
Kuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2003, 03:35 PM   #26
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
 
lght1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 215
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
lght1 is on a distinguished road
Default

Hi

Silicon is one of the most prevalent elements on this planet.

It is derived by heating silica...known as GRIT. :o


You can use them if you wish..but lab analysis point to accelerated wear. You cannot argue with the numbers.

As for any re-usuable filter, they are seldom custom made for a specific model application. When was the last time you saw a K&N cone ..made just for a 1997 Bonne and nothing else??

Until you can answer and explain away the UOA, there is nothing else to say on the subject.
lght1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2003, 04:08 PM   #27
Senior Member
Posts like a 4 Banger
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 131
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
NVSSEI is on a distinguished road
Default

But you see, I CAN argue with "lab" numbers.
I have seen the difference in engine teardown with the K&N and with several other filters. Like I've already said, I will not base my judgement on "lab tests". I will base my judgement on what I've actually seen and experienced.
What I'm trying to tell you is: I have seen the difference in engines, not lab tests and there is less wear using the K&N. I don't care what the lab tests say, I only care what I expect to see should I need to tear my engine down.
It seems you and I are at opposite ends of this argument and we are going nowhere with it. This will be my last post on this subject as it seems headed to a flame war if it doesn't stop. :(
NVSSEI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2003, 06:21 PM   #28
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 359
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Kuhl is on a distinguished road
Default

Ya K&N'* right now seem to be a matter of opinion. Nobody has been able to run a test of yet that satifies me. The ones that do run the tests seem to be using improper methods and cant really be called "lab test". The reviews I have read from the bigger companies give K&N the thumbs up, so I dunno. Do whatever the hell you want to do.
Kuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2003, 06:52 PM   #29
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,684
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
smellbird is on a distinguished road
Default

I'll stick with K&N. Have never heard any bad thing about them.Any filter regardless of brand name is going to filter dust, dirt whatever out of the air going into the engine. Any increase in an engines power will cause it to wear faster, ONLY if preventative maintenance is not done more regularily. K&N can charge more for their product because they are seen as the industry leader. K&N has been in the game for a long time, has many customers that keep going back to their product and will continue to produce the best air filter they can provide.
smellbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2003, 09:41 PM   #30
Senior Member
Posts like a Turbo
 
lght1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 215
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
lght1 is on a distinguished road
Default

Hi

I've based my choice on "lab tests" which have produced tangible data with which I can base my decision on.

In the trucking industry, these same "lab tests" are also used to determine what filters are used, when they are changed, what brand oil, and when it is changed. These "lab tests" are a tool by which one measures rates of wear within an engine. When one or more factors shows an unusual increase over the expected norm, than a root cause is sought, and corrections made.

I used to be a trucker myself, and have come to believe in the wisdom of "lab tests". You are free to base your choices on anecdotal observations, but I like hard numbers to hang my hat on.

No hard feelings.
lght1 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cone filter into gutted air box? PaulPool Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 11 06-05-2009 01:37 AM
Gut Airbox vs. Cone Filter CharlieJ Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 4 08-24-2008 09:25 PM
cone filter inside stock airbox (gutted) hvactech 2000-2005 6 12-24-2005 02:54 PM
Cheap, cheap Bonnie on ebay! vital49 Lounge 8 10-28-2004 08:42 AM
K&N Cone Filter #RC-3250 swartlkk Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning 5 04-30-2004 04:36 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:55 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.