it looks like it lasts longer before it clogs up, holds more dirt, and may let slightly more dirt through than a cotton gauze type.

 

One reason it passed more dirt because they threw dirt at it for 44 minutes vs 20 minutes for the K&N. They almost used twice as much dirt on the UNI for 24 extra minutes. This is all based on how much dirt can be used before it clogs.

Data can be manipulated to say what you want. Most of that exercise seemed like an AC Delco commercial. If you changed the flow to 500 CFM who knows what all would have changed. If you ran them all for 20 minutes things would have been different too.

The bottom line is if you ran a foam filter and K&N for 6 months in the same conditions, before cleaning, the foam filter would pass less dirt.

According to their charts after 20 minutes the K&N passed 14.56 and the UNI passes 6.85 (less than half the dirt). The test went on for 24 more minutes before the UNI reached the restriction point and passed more dirt than the K&N.

 

I wish they had pictures. I'm trying to picture how these tests were conducted. Were they shoveling dirt onto these filters, blowing dirty air on them, and what do they consider clogged?

Was the K&N a cone filter, or a drop in replacement-type?

I usually read long bodies of text too fast, so maybe I missed valuealbe info.....

-edit- changed an and to an a

 

The tests were done to ISO/SAE standards on a $300,000 specialized machine. If this data doesn't do it for you, I don't know what will. Short of NASA doing it, it's just as good as it gets.

An AC/Delco commercial? That filter both filtered the best and flowed the worst. Sounds like standard OEM practice to me. It's very likely that had a Ford diesel been tested, the Motorcraft filter would have shown the same results -- flows least, but filters best.

TANSTAAFL

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

 

My point exactly. Pictures would have been nice of the Delco since it was so far superior to any other paper filter tested. Seems fishy to me.

The filtering abilities of a paper vs foam/gauze are a given. The flaw in the test in my opinion is going to the point of restriction. If I drove in a dirty environment I would probably change/clean my filter at every oil change. Most people have a standard they stick to and don't usually change it because they think one filter will hold up longer than another.

If they all had of been tested for 20 minutes the AC Delco would have still passed the least amount of dirt but you would have simulated consistant filter change intervals with the Bar Graph showing a totally different perspective on some of the filters.

 

I knew I liked you, Timay ... RIP Robert Heinlein

 

They all filter to an acceptable standard. We use the UNI and K&N in our aircraft at work so there isn't much to worry about. Lose an engine in the air and bad things happen quickly. Good info though.

 

"There's no such thing as a free lunch." A quote from James Baaken, a Ford Exec - and used in W. Edwards Deming's original writing of "Quality, Productivity, and Competitive Position" of which I have copy of. I met Baaken back in about 1984-5 when Ford was heavily involved in Statistical Process Control(SPC) and we were a client of W. Edwards Deming. As I was involved in SPC training and application at Ford Motor at that time, I was fortunate enough to meet Dr. Deming on sevaral occasions.

 

After studying the given data, I sorted the information based on these factors: First of all I eliminated the cotton and foam type filters, due to their less acceptable dirt and dust filtering abilities (important because thats why we buy air filters to begin with). Next I took out the AC delco due to its poor initial and total air flow results (thats a performance issue that all of us can aspire) Next, I considered the accessibility of the filter ( how easily can I buy these in my area), And finally I eliminated the "dirt Vs Time" test, only because of the nature of the Lightning enthusiast , being the type of "car guy" that wouldn't leave any filter in long enough as not to change it. With all of these factors I re-evaluated the test results and came up with 3 filters. They are the Purloator, Wix (napa) and the baldwin. All reputable companies with dealerships all near any of us. My results were as follows: Accum. dirt: Wix came in behind AC (which makes it #1) purolator #2 and baldwin 3rd. Acc. gain- Baldwin #1 Wix #2 and then Pur. Init. Resistance- Wix and Pur basically a dead tie for #1, then Baldwin. Dirt vs time (eliminated) Dust- Wix #1 Baldwin #2 then Purolator. Total Airflow resistance- Purolator #1 Wix #2 Balwin -last. After considering the results and agreeing what Tim said about the "trade-off" on filtering ability vs airflow, I would buy a Wix (napa) filter.It has all the qualities that are important to me. It had top marks accross the board (even with the high filtration A/C) with the exeption of the Acc Gain test,where Baldwin really shined, Even so it scored right in the middle in that test. Even if you stick in the hi-flowing cotton filters(K/N,AFE,UNI) It still faired very well. In conclusion we all would like the perfect filter that allows maximum air and filtration, but knowing it doesn't exist helps us to try and choose a "best of both worlds" decision. This one is mine.

 

I was talking to a Ford part manager yesterday and he told me that it was either Wix or Purolator that made the air and oil filters for Ford.

Guess OEM isn't a bad choice at all.

TB

 

maybe at near factory hp levels.

didn't suavy collapse a 12" cotton filter from the suction that dinner plate pulley made?

 

Really! He may have created the world's fastest vacuum cleaner

maybe a better choice will be 24" furnace screens available at any local Home Depots.

TB

 

Yea, hilarious. What did the guy do...totally block off the pleats in the filter???

 

i think it was more along the lines of a 16 lb. lower pulley.

 

Pulley?? More likle a wagon wheel