|
cheap performance mods
I would never use a drop in K&N as they reduce the surface area by having less folds but still let more air through. :rolleyes: The problem with this is that they let more dust through with it as the only why to get more air flow is by increasing the surface area if you still want to filter down to the same micron level.
The form filters have the same problem as you have to get the oil saturation just right becuse to little you suck dust and too much the fuel economy dives. Believe me I have tried. :mad:
There are many tests on the web showing how bad the K&N are so dont just take my word for it.
Here is one that was posted on JU;
K&N re-tested...
Are "Performance" Air Filters a Good Idea?
The following information was taken from a posting by Jim Conforti (AKA the Land Shark). Jim is a well known tuner in BMW circles. His web site is the Bonneville Motor Werks. The testing was done on a BMW air filter but the concepts should apply to all manufacturers.
Comparing Stock to Performance Air Filters
First, a "prologue". This was a scientific test, not one done by filter manufacturer X to show that their filters are better than manufacturer Y. The test results are pretty irrefutable as the test lab tests and designs filters where "screw ups" are absolutely NOT allowable (I can't say any more for security. Think "Glow in the Dark").
OK, with that in mind, onward.
A scientific test was done on TEST filters where air was loaded with ACCTD (some standardized "test dust" called AC Coarse Test Dust) and sucked through the TEST filter then through an analysis membrane.
From the Quantity of dust injected and the amount that gets thru the TEST filter and is then captured on the analysis membrane we can calculate the efficiency of the TEST filter in Question.
First, the filters:
BMW Stock Filter, Eff. Area of Media: 8.4 sq ft.
K&N Replacement, Eff. Area of Media: 1.6 sq ft.
The filters are the SAME size. They both fit in the STOCK BMW M3 airbox. The difference is that the STOCK filter has 65 pleats 1.5" deep and the K&N only 29 pleats each 0.75" deep.
Now, remember this ratio: " 5.25:1". It's the ratio of the AREA of STOCK to K&N. It's very important and will come into play later.
The STOCK filter efficiency started at 93.4% at 0 loading and increased to 99.2% efficiency as the loading increased to a max tested of 38.8 gm/sq ft of dust.
The K&N filter efficiency started at 85.2% at 0 loading and increased to 98.1% at the max tested loading of 41.38 gm/sq ft.
Now, I hear you. "Jim, that's only a FEW PERCENT". But is it?
Let's look. If we had 100 grams of dust on a new BMW filter we would let thru a total of 6.6 grams of dust in. If we used the new K&N filter we get 14.8 grams of dust. Thats 224% (TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR PERCENT!!) more dust ingested initially, stock vs. "free flow" and this ratio is pretty much held. Somewhere between 200-300% more dirt gets "ingested" anywhere across loading equivalence.
The more INTERESTING thing is when you look at what happens to the DP or Differential Pressure at a constant airflow as you dirty both filters equally with time.
The test used a rate of 75gr of dust per 20 min. Here's where the AREA difference comes MAJORLY into play. See, even though the BMW filter flows a bit less at the SAME loading, it also LOADS UP 5.25 times SLOWER due to it's LARGER effective area. So what happens is that the K&N initially flows better, but as the dirt continues coming in, the K&N eventually flows WORSE while still letting MORE dirt in.
Now, does any of this additional dirt cause problems? I dunno. I suppose we could have a few people do some independent oil analyses on different motors using both K&Ns and Stock filters. Get enough of them, and you'd have a good statistical basis. For me though, it's simple: More DIRT = BAD.
The additional short-term airflow might make sense on a track car. IMHO, it doesn't for the street.
--
Just thought I'd liven things up abit
__________________
|
XJ Cherokee
HG Premier
