wow! that one was worth reading. i think that K&N = GOOD. I don't believe
the negative points of this article, i think thatr after 30 years, they
have to b good.
----------
> From: Jon Steiger <steiger@ait.fredonia.edu>
> To: dakota@ait.fredonia.edu
> Subject:
> Date: Monday, February 10, 1997 12:17 PM
>
>
>
> At 12:38 PM 2/10/97 -0800, Karl Kromer wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >Has anyone heard any other bad stories, or is this guy just posting
spam?
> >
>
> I saw that post myself couple of years ago. I'd like to get a K&N, I've
> heard good things about them, but I have this sense of uncertainty after
> reading that guy's post. I too would like to get a definitive answer
about
> this.
>
> I just dug around at www.dejanews.com for a few minutes and came up
> with the following, which may or may not help:
>
> ---------------8<--------------------------------
> I beleive this is the text of the message that Karl was referring to
which
> paints K&N in an unfavorable light:
>
>
> >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 butFrom null@ait.fredonia.edu Tue Feb 11 08:14:40 1997
Received: from oak.ait.fredonia.edu (oak.ait.fredonia.edu [141.238.20.4]) by sseg.ait.fredonia.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA01252 for <dakota-a@sseg.ait.fredonia.edu>; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:14:39 -0500
Received: from [204.127.131.34] by oak.ait.fredonia.edu (NTList 3.02.10) id da011859; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 08:06:22 +0000
Received: from default ([207.146.36.129]) by mtigwc02.worldnet.att.net
(post.office MTA v2.0 0613 ) with ESMTP id AAA27815
for <dakota@ait.fredonia.edu>; Mon, 10 Feb 1997 19:59:59 +0000
From: <DesignTech@worldnet.att.net>
To: "Dakota Mailing List" <dakota@ait.fredonia.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 15:00:03 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <19970210195957.AAA27815@default>
Reply-to: dakota@ait.fredonia.edu
Error-to: steiger@ait.fredonia.edu
X-ListInfo: The Dakota Mailing List
X-UnsubscribeInfo: To unsubscribe, send mail to listserv@ait.fredonia.edu and put "leave dakota" in the body of the message.
X-ListMember: dakota-a@sseg.ait.fredonia.edu [dakota@ait.fredonia.edu]
i am trying out this new address to see if i get returned mail..
i hope not guys!
> >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..
>
> ---------------8<--------------------------------
> Here's K&N's response to that posting:
>
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: K&N Air "Filters"??? K&N Reply to Mining Story
> From: Norm Dang <norm.dang@hydro.on.ca>
> Date: 1996/11/25
> Message-Id: <3299E693.5B5B@hydro.on.ca>
> References: <19961121154900.KAA10102@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> <32952F21.5D50@cris.com> <01bbd9d6$51a028a0$4d0ec1d0@jsmiga.viptx.net>
> <3298203E.1E09@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-Ascii
> Organization: Ontario Hydro Clarkson SCC
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: alt.autos.camaro.firebird
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
>
>
>
> Hi,
> The mining story has been around at least once before. Here is the reply
> that somebody (I have xxx'd the name) says that K&N sent. Please refer
> to Dejanews for the full original posting.
> Norm
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Article 6 of 85
>
> Subject: K&N Filter test data
> From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> Date: 1995/08/23
> Message-Id: <41e5t5$fh2@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
> To: ---------------------
>
> The following memo is from K&N. It was sent to a friend by
> K&N's internal sales director along with a polite informative
> cover letter that I have not included.
>
> I have no connections with K&N and present this information
> without comment or permission from K&N, but since it is
> addressed to "To Whom It May Concern", why not?
> -------------------------------------------------------
> To Whom It May Concern, especially Mr. George Morrison who has
> taken K&N to task with some very undocumented accusations.
>
> GM Comment: We were spending upwards of $30,000.00 a month on
> paper air filters using them one time and then tossing them
> away.
>
> Question: What was the total number of paper air filters used
> each month and how long was the service life for each paper
> element?
>
> GM Comment: "... reusable air cleaners showed an immediate
> large jump in silicon (dirt) levels... etc.
>
> Question: What is a large jump: What was the PPM count before
> the "reusable air filter" and what was the PPM after
> installation and use? What was the PPM with the foam and what
> was the PPM with the K&N?
>
> There are allowable limits and without the facts it is
> impossible to comment.
>
> However Regarding the silicone levels K&N has recorded over six
> years running, oil analysis from two Southern California
> transit authorities. This includes some 800 large diesel buses
> and 200 "Dial A Ride" gasoline vans. Oil samples were taken
> every 60 days and did not exactly match the changing or service
> of the air filter element! All air filters were serviced at
> 25" of water restriction. When running with paper air filters
> we did notice an increase of silicone as the element grew dirty
> some as high as 25 PPM. When the K&N elements were
> installed we noticed a drop to more acceptable levels (6 12
> PPM) at the next oil sample test. Not once have we recorded
> any abnormally high silicone counts with the K&N elements.
> Average mileage per vehicle is 50,000 miles per year, 50,000
> miles times 1,000 vehicles equals 50 million miles a year. Not
> one engine has suffered damage during this time while using K&N
> air filters. K&N did save the two transit authorities a lot of
> fuel, reduced their labor to change out the paper air filters
> (one K&N would last the same life as 3 paper elements) plus
> hundreds of thousands of dollars purchasing new paper elements.
>
> For the record, K&N does not manufacture or specify any of it's
> air filters for the mining or construction industry. We do on
> occasion rebuild some very large and strange air filters for a
> lot of our customers. Rebuild, means that we take a dirty
> paper air filter, disassemble it and by using the old end caps
> and wire baskets we will rebuild the filter using the K&N
> filter media. Upon delivering the "rebuild" to the customer,
> he is advised that we will not vouch for the application or
> proper sealing of the element into his air filter canister. We
> have no way of testing the seals of the gaskets. We suspect
> this is the type of K&N air filters which Mr. Johnson used in
> his test
>
> Evidently, Mr. Johnson was conducting his own evaluation, which
> is good, as we do it on some things we source out. However,
> had K&N been on site or directly involved with the test, I'm
> certain the test would have been more favorable for Mr. Johnson
> and K&N. First off, you do not want to mix one of the oil
> impingement air filters (K&N or Foam) in combination with
> paper, especially paper safety filters. Try this simple test
> yourself by spraying your paper air filter element with a very
> thin oil or WD 40, WOW! That combination will lock up an air
> filter very quick, plus you could damage the paper filter media
> I'm not surprised that Mr. Johnson's safety filter clogged, but
> I am pleased it went a full half day. I would have bet one
> hour at most If you fit a new paper safety filter with a new
> K&N or foam outer filter, just remember any excess oil and
> there will be excess oil, will be pulled off almost immediately
> into the safety filter and you have instant restriction.
>
> Instead of using an inner paper safety filter, why not
> incorporate a foam or polyester pre filter on the outside of
> the K&N element? This combination has proven to be extremely
> effective operating in very dusty desert conditions. Offroad
> racers, operating in desert sand and fine silt beds, will use
> an oiled foam wrap or pre filter on the outside of the K&N
> element. Once the wrap is clogged it can be replaced in just
> seconds. Baja racers will change foam wraps at each pit stop
> and never touch the K&N set up during the entire 1,000 mile
> race. For mud and heavy sand, we recommend the polyester
> Precharger wrap. This is a fine denier mesh (similar to panty
> hose) that will deflect the sand and mud. Being of a very
> slick material, the Precharger will cause the dirt to slide off
> and not pack into the K&N filter pleats. Also, the polyester
> can be changed rather quickly.
>
> What about efficiency of the filter or the filters ability
> to stop dirt? There are two acceptable tests used by the filter
> industry to verify the efficiency (actually just one test but
> with two grades of dust) SAE J726 F or C (fine or course dust).
> The exact mixture is detailed at the end of this report 100%
> efficiency is perfect but rare for any air filter that also
> allows enough air through for engine use. One major air filter
> manufacturer of paper elements has consistently advertised a
> 97% dirt free media filter for all its elements. This is very
> good, yet there are some others that claim 98 99%, but I have
> never seen one of their test reports. K&N has certified
> reports of 97.4% FINE for its four ply (four layers of cotton
> gauze) and 98.2% COURSE for the commercial 6 ply filters.
>
> Incidentally, the U. S. Army just completed a 30 cycle test of
> . . the K&N air filter for possible use on helicopters
> operating in dirty dusty desert conditions. The 30 cycle test
> consisted of air being pulled through the K&N filter at speeds
> required by the helicopter jet engine for full power. At the
> same time, dirt is induced into the air stream per the SAE J726
> C test procedures. When the restriction reached 25" of water,
> the filter was removed from the test chamber and serviced per
> K&N's instructions (washed re oiled). Again, the same element
> was tested and serviced over and over for 30 complete cycles.
> In the end the K&N was still operating with a 97% efficiency.
>
> In conclusion, K&N has been manufacturing and selling the
> washable reusable air filter for over 30 years. To date, we
> have not lost one engine because of the filter media being
> inferior.
>
> ---------------8<--------------------------------
>
> And here's a snippet from the rec.autos.chrysler FAQ:
>
> 37. Are K&N filters worth it?
>
> David Cooley reported on a magazine test of aftermarket air filters.
> The paper filters were respectable, but the K&N and Accell filters
> flowed almost 3 times as much air when dirty as clean paper filters
> of the same size. The K&N passed less particulate matter than the
> paper filter; as it got dirtier outside, they sprayed on a new coat
> of oil (without cleaning) and found it filtered even better.
>
> The maintainer notes that K&N filters change your engine sound,
> reduce the quantity of paper in landfills (rarely need replacement),
> and flow better when dirty. Other than that, you may not notice much
> difference unless you have a high-efficiency exhaust and performance
> engine. They pay for themselves, but don't expect a huge power boost.
> ---------------8<--------------------------------
>
> -Jon-
>
> Jon Steiger - Network Administrator for Academic Information
Technology
> .- steiger@ait.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/
-.
> | DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ
|
> | '96 Dodge Dakota SLT V8, '96 Kolb FireFly 447, '91 Yamaha FZR600R
|
>
`---------------------------------------------------------------------'
> - Unless otherwise stated, these opinions and views are my own. -
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:31 EDT