k & n air filters
Posted: Fri Aug 11, 2000 9:32 am
The following post was on a Mercedes ML List I belong to. Thought it might
be of interest here also.
Subj: K & N filters
> To: John M. Saturday, January 21, 1995 5:14:10 PM >From: George Morrison > >John: If I wrote "subjective" I meant "objective".. I was >responsible for evaluating re-usable air filters >for a major construction/mining company that had >hundreds of vehicles ranging from large earthmovers >to pick-up trucks and salesmen's cars. This study >was embarked upon due to the fact that we were >spending upwards of $30,000 a MONTH on paper air >filters. Using them one time then throwing them >away.. I inititated the study in that I was convinced >that a K&N type filter or oiled foam would save us >many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour savings, >and of course engines as these would filter >dirt better than paper. (yes, I had read the K&N ads and was >a believer) > >Representative test units were chosen to give us a >broad spectrum from cars right through large front >end loaders. With each unit we had a long history >of oil analysis records so that changes would be >trackable. > >Unfortunately, for me, every single unit having >alternative re-usable air cleaners showed an immediate >large jump in silicon (dirt) levels with corresponding >major increases in wear metals. In one extreme >case, a unit with a primary and secondary air cleaner, >the secondary (small paper element) clogged >before even one day's test run could be completed. >This particular unit had a Cummins V-12 engine >that had paper/paper one one bank and K&N/paper on >the other bank; two completely independent >induction systems. The conditions were EXACTLY >duplicated for each bank yet the K&N allowed so >much dirt to pass through that the small filter became >clogged before lunch. The same outcome occured >with oiled foams on this unit. > >We discontinued the tests on the large pieces almost >immediately but continued with service trucks, >formen's vehicles, and my own company car. Analysis >results continued showing markedly increased >wear rates for all the vehicles, mine included. >Test concluded, switched back to paper/glass and all >vehicles showed reduction back to near original levels >of both wear metals and dirt. I continued with >the K&N on my company car out of stubborness and at >85,000 miles the Chevy 305 V-8 wheezed its >last breath. The top end was sanded badly; bottom >end was just fine. End of test. > >I must stress that EVERYONE involved in this test >was hoping that alternative filters would work as >everyone was sick about pulling out a perfectly good >$85 air cleaner and throwing 4 of them away >each week per machine... > >So, I strongly suggest that depending upon an >individual's long term plan for their vehicles they simply >run an oil analysis at least once to see that the >K&N or whatever alternative air filter is indeed working >IN THAT APPLICATION... It depends on a person's priorities. >If you want performance then indeed the K&N is the >way to go but at what cost??? > >And no, I do not work for a paper or glass air >filter manufacturing company nor do I have any affiliation >with anything directly or indirectly that could >benefit George Morrison as a result.. >