Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherokee30D
I don't believe that Dyno testing is the best way to compare air filters as it does not replica 'real life' situations.
On the dyno, the fan is usually at a constant speed and the temperature does not alter, whereas in a real life situation, the faster you drive the more airflow is created and the colder the air gets, meaning that the less restrictive filter will perform better.
Kind of makes sense to me
Cheers, Craig
|
Hi Craig, looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Some final comments though, if a "performance" filter is installed in a standard airbox and the actual power produced goes down from a standard paper element the filter is more restrictive. No positive pressure generated by driving around will improve this result.
Dyno testing produces real, repeatable (minor changes due to atmospheric conditions, temp etc...) results, if they didn't they wouldn't be as widely used as they are.
The 4WD Action testing engaged a NATA testing lab to test the actual performance of the filter media. As you can see the K&N filter passed more dust than the paper elements. While not much worse than the paper elements it is worse at keeping dust out of you engine. This test also showed that there was no significant difference in performance between all of the filters, they didn't provide a graph of the test results which is a little disappointing though.
Quote:
AIR FILTER PARTICLE TEST
AIR FILTER PARTICLES / M³ @ 5 microns
Uni Filter 2349.8
Terrain Tamer 4081.3
Genuine Toyota 4664.3
K&N 4982.3
Duration: 1 min
Pass Value: Less than 29,000 p/m³ |
I don't believe that oiled filters do MAF sensors much good long term, another reason not to use them IMHO. If you are happy with these types of filters that's fine, just make sure you are aware of the possible pitfalls and limitations.
I look at it this way, it they were the best way to go a number of manufacturers would use them as standard equipment.