air filtration
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
air filtration
I have read that using a K&N air filter (oiled media) will render the factory warranty on the turbocharger void. Is this just for K&N filters or for all after-market filters? If just for K&N's, then what makes them worse than AFE for instance? <br><br>If this is for ALL after-market filtration, I don't understand how DC can get away with that. The race trucks used for off-road racing are sure not using stock air filters and they seem to keep on running in much harsher environments than most trucks in normal use on the highways. <br><br>A little explanation is in order on this issue.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
Re:air filtration
commtrd writes:<br> <br>> If this is for ALL after-market filtration, I don't understand <br>> how DC can get away with that. The race trucks used for <br>> off-road racing are sure not using stock air filters and they <br>> seem to keep on running in much harsher environments <br>> than most trucks in normal use on the highways. <br><br>Just K&N types. Oiled media, low restriction, and despite the hype, low filtration. Yep, I said it. Try to find an SAE test that shows the filtration compared to paper. You can see limited tests on the K&N page, and they claim Federal law prohibits the mfg from voiding warantee from use of aftermarket unless the mfg provides it's own filters free of charge.<br><br>Fact: The K&N's let more thru during the initial period after cleanin. (97% VS 99%)<br><br>Fact: K&N admits their filter does a better job of larger particles then small. But never gives specifics <br><br>Fact: You will never see specific micron ratings in K&N advertisments. They dance around it, but I've searched many times, and there is never an efficiency & Micron comparison to paper. Just allusions.<br><br>Others have done tests:<br>http://www.barneymc.com/toy_root/tec...e/air_fltr.htm<br><br>Their results are not encouraging. Wouldn't you think if it offered significant advantages that commercial trucking would use them? Or even the Mfg's in at least high end perf cars?<br><br>So why do the offroad racers use them? Other racing? Because engine life is never an issue. IE: It's secondary to performance! The engines are rebuilt between races anyway. So they will put up with the long term wear a K&N allows. <br><br>This is the same reason Indy cars don't use fancy oil. In fact two that I know of use the cheapest Shell oil made. Wear is simply not an issue.<br><br>Also, there have been multiple dyno tests showing that not all vehicles show increased HP with K&N. Unless your valves and fueling can match the increased airflow, then you won't see an advantage. And other vehicles clearly had restrictive airflow, so K&N's did help. Just depends on what is the constraint.<br><br>There are some advantages to a K&N offroad. They don't clog like paper does. Some of this is that they will hold more dirt before a restriction occurs.<br><br>I'll not use them in any vehicle that I expect to see more than 25k miles on an engine. Cummins warantees our engines to 100k, and they routinely last far longer. If they say don't use oiled cotton filters because they let too much particulates in, then I'm believing them. Besides, my truck makes 305 HP with the stock filter!<br><br>Have fun!<br><br>Alan
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re:air filtration
Couple of other "facts":
1. Cummins spec for air filtration is 96% - K&N meets that spec
2. The stock air filter as supplied by DC will NOT survive any decent aftermarket HP increases without sucking the filter minder WAY down and/or collapsing the element itself - that means you MUST use SOMETHING aftermarket to do a better job and pass more air, and chances WHATEVER you use WILL void DC and Cummins warranty, just like a K&N might...
My truck will make 300 hp on the stock filter too - IF I don't mind resetting the filter minder after each time I pull a steep grade, or replace the element every few thousand miles when it gets the least bit dirty...
Been there - done that!
3. I used a K&N on my '91 for nearly 120,000 miles, with NO problems, or signs of dirt in the intake or on turbo blades, and I have several oil analysis results clearly showing silicon (dirt) content at 3 ppm after 5000 miles on Rotella T 15/40 ,- I'll compare those results with ANY air filter, any time...
1. Cummins spec for air filtration is 96% - K&N meets that spec
2. The stock air filter as supplied by DC will NOT survive any decent aftermarket HP increases without sucking the filter minder WAY down and/or collapsing the element itself - that means you MUST use SOMETHING aftermarket to do a better job and pass more air, and chances WHATEVER you use WILL void DC and Cummins warranty, just like a K&N might...
My truck will make 300 hp on the stock filter too - IF I don't mind resetting the filter minder after each time I pull a steep grade, or replace the element every few thousand miles when it gets the least bit dirty...
Been there - done that!
3. I used a K&N on my '91 for nearly 120,000 miles, with NO problems, or signs of dirt in the intake or on turbo blades, and I have several oil analysis results clearly showing silicon (dirt) content at 3 ppm after 5000 miles on Rotella T 15/40 ,- I'll compare those results with ANY air filter, any time...
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
Re:air filtration
Gary writes:<br>> 1. Cummins spec for air filtration is 96% - K&N meets that <br>> spec<br><br>My only concern is that K&N does not provide detail on which particles it filtered. IE: the test has a mix of particles. They are quite vague anytime they start talking about micron size.<br><br>> 2. The stock air filter as supplied by DC will NOT survive <br>> any decent aftermarket HP increases without sucking the <br><br>I've not seen this, but I have an factory HO. I've not confirmed it, but I've read they reduced the air restrictions as part of the change. (Don't know if it's all 2003's, or just the HO)<br><br>> My truck will make 300 hp on the stock filter too - IF I <br>> don't mind resetting the filter minder after each time I pull <br><br>Mine's stock 305 (HO), so I'd assume they have accounted for the filter issues. I have not heard of an HO owner having to reset the filterminder.<br><br>> 3. I used a K&N on my '91 for nearly 120,000 miles, with <br>> NO problems, or signs of dirt in the intake or on turbo <br>> blades, and I have several oil analysis results clearly <br>> showing silicon (dirt) content at 3 ppm after 5000 miles on <br>> Rotella T 15/40<br><br>If you are comfortable with the performance, then go for it! The tests are the most important thing to consider. That said, you are less than 1/3 into typical cummins durability. I hope your good results continue.<br><br>Here's what makes me cautious: Cummins has extended the oil change cycles far beyond what conventional wisdom considers safe. This implies they tested the impact, and found no negative. Some of this is the CI-4 oil standard, which is significantly improved. <br><br>But it also indicates that Cummins is not bashful about pushing the envelope a bit. If they are "aggresive" on the oil changes, then why would it make sense to be so conservative on the air filters unless they found a problem?<br><br>Think about it, they make their own filters, why not make a premium oiled filter that offers advantages? They probably stood to lose far more filter revenue on the longer oil change cycle than they ever will see due to K&N sales impact on air filters!<br><br>Have fun!<br><br>Alan
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
From: RALEIGH NC
Re:air filtration
[quote author=pinzgauer link=board=20;threadid=14840;start=0#139403 date=1053228402]<br>Gary writes:<br><br>(((I've not seen this, but I have an factory HO. I've not confirmed it, but I've read they reduced the air restrictions as part of the change. (Don't know if it's all 2003's, or just the HO)))))<br><br>There has been a lot of talk on the site about this on early 03 HO'S<br><br><br>(((((Mine's stock 305 (HO), so I'd assume they have accounted for the filter issues. I have not heard of an HO owner having to reset the filterminder.))))))<br><br>Still a problem tow a load on a big hill and see what happens to it.<br>My dealer that sells K&N told me I can replace the stock filter 2-3k miles or use K&N!!!<br><br>I have used K&N for over 15+ years and have had nothing but GOOD luck out of them.<br><br>As for others useing them ?? Last Dodge show I went to maybe 15-20 cars and truck with them and they are all Dodge owned!!<br>Ford and others have all been using them! Check out the Cobra at your local dealer Its blue but has K&N stamped on it!!<br><br>I have seen the stats on the filter micron rating but because I only speek fact and don't have the info with me that will come later.<br><br>I personaly like K&N It sounds like you don't so there is no reason for me to push on because if you don't like them then you don't have to use them.<br> <br>I would like to hear from anyone that has had a problem using K&N or has had warranty problems from them please.<br>When they get the filter for the 03's mine will have one in it.<br>Remember this is MY 2Cents<br>Jon<br><br><br><br>[/quote]
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere between a rock and hard place.
Re:air filtration
[quote author=Gary - KJ6Q link=board=20;threadid=14840;start=0#139385 date=1053224534]<br>Couple of other "facts":<br><br>1. Cummins spec for air filtration is 96% - K&N meets that spec<br><br>[/quote]<br><br>That doesn't sound right. I believe the K&N will meet that, but a paper pleat filter is more like 99+%
Is this normal?
Trending Topics
Banned
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,358
Likes: 0
From: FL
Re:air filtration
CumminsLuke posted that DC was denying warranty on turbos for some users with the K&N. His family owns a dealership so he has first hand experience with warranty claims. PM him if you want more info.<br>I pull a trailer with stock filter, stock airbox (bottom has a 4" hole cut in it) my filter minder does not move, 15k still original filter. Fuel mileage is not dropping so it is not plugged. FWIW
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
From: Logan, Utah
Re:air filtration
I'm with Gary-KJ6Q on this one. My previously bone stock 2003 HO would pull the filter minder to 33% EVERY time I hit 2500 RPM with the engine, even with a new Mopar paper filter.<br><br>I am playing with dino oil change intervals so I am doing an oil analysis at every change. Last oil change I put in a drop in AFE air filter. I am about 2,500 miles from my next oil change and I will post my silicon numbers, I suspect that I will see similar results to Gary's.<br><br>My MOPAR cold air induction kit on my previous ride (1998 Durango) came with a K & N cone filter, so Dodge can't be that worried about them, at least for gassers.<br><br>Luke has stated that warranty claims have been denied for turbos on trucks with K & N or similar filters, but he has not stated why. I wish he would. What is the failure mode that is indicated by oil on the blades? How will they prevent oil from getting on the blades when they change over to EGR next year? How is the failure mode from oil on the blades caused by EGR different from the failure mode from oil that came from an over oiled air filter? What if I don't over oil my air filter and I have no oil on the turbine blades, is my potential turbo related claim still deniable?<br><br>If DC denies a warranty claim because of my air filter, I am fine with that IF they can explain to me how my air filter caused the problem. I have documented oil analysis results on a paper filter, and will soon have them on an AFE. You can debate until the cows come home about what any particular filter will or will not filter out, but the proof is in what is getting INTO the engine.<br><br>Any vehicle with a few miles on it will have oil residue on A LOT of parts. I can't wait to hear exactly what that harms on turbine blades. Can anyone tell me? <br><br>BTW the only modification to my previously bone stock truck is the AFE drop in.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re:air filtration
For info on K&N filters, and the test metods and results, you can go here to check out their "Facts" section"<br><br>www.knfilters.com<br><br>Here's a small blurb from that section:<br><br>"Most people believe that all air filters function on a go/no go basis where dirt particles that are larger than the openings in the filter media are trapped while particles that are smaller than the openings can pass right through. A dry paper air filter does function in this manner. That’s why paper filters are so restrictive to air flow. The openings in this type of filter have to be very small to filter efficiently.<br><br>The oiled cotton media used in the K&N air filter functions in an entirely different manner. There are scientific principles that determine how an air filter removes dirt particles from the air stream. The first of these principles is known as interception, which applies to dirt particles traveling with the air stream. Air flow will always take the shortest path and as the air is forced to flow around the filter’s fibers some of the particles will contact the sides of the fibers and be captured. These particles are then held in place by the oil or tacking agent in the fiber.<br><br>Another principle is known as impaction, which mostly affects larger or heavier dirt particles. Impaction occurs when the inertia or momentum of the particle causes it to deviate from the flow path. In other words the heavy particles do not follow the air stream around the filter’s fibers but instead they run straight into the fibers and are captured.<br><br>The most important principle for our use is diffusion, which deals with the laws of physics that govern the motion of very small dirt particles. Small particles are highly affected by the forces in the air stream. Forces such as velocity changes, pressure changes, turbulence caused by other particles and interaction with the air molecules cause these very small particles to become random and chaotic. As a result, these particles do not follow the air stream and their erratic motion causes them to collide with the filter’s fibers. This phenomenon enables an air filter to capture dirt particles that are much smaller than the openings in the media. In addition, the way that dirt collects or loads on the K&N filter is very different. A paper filter exhibits "surface loading" which means dust collects only on the surface of the media. In contrast, K&N filters exhibit "depth loading". The multiple layers of cotton fibers provide many levels of dust retention. This characteristic allows the K&N filter to hold significantly more dirt per square inch of media than the average paper filter. Utilizing these scientific principles, K&N has been able to design an air filter that is very free flowing while also being highly efficient at removing dirt from the air.<br><br>Independent Laboratory Test Results<br><br>In order to verify our filters maintain filtration levels necessary to protect your engine, we test our filtering media through independent laboratories. The testing procedure used is the SAE J726 air filter test procedure established by the Society of Automotive Engineers (These are the folks who are supposed to know everything). <br><br>We have included a detailed example of test results using the SAE J726 procedure. These results are for two individual air filters that each demonstrated among the highest overall filtration level we have achieved with our media."<br><br>This isn't offered as any particular advertisement for K&N - like the fella said back up above, you are free to make up your own mind and choose a product YOU are comfortable with - I only provide this info to counter the claim of low efficiency of the K&N, as well as the statement that they don't apply an accepted standard in their testing...<br><br>Moderators - feel free to modify or remove this post if it doesn't meet board guidelines. <br><br><br>
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
Re:air filtration
Hello all,<br><br>We are probably beating this one to death, but the K&N data on their website supports my original comments:<br><br>1) K&N has never posted side by side comparison with Brand X filters with regard to their SAE test performance or micron sizes.<br><br>2) They stress high flow, and dance somewhat around the filtration issue. IE: They have found a balance many are comfortable with, good flow with surprisingly good filtration. But they never state parity with paper filters on filtration.<br><br>Let's look at their wording:<br><br>> We have included a detailed example of test results using <br>> the SAE J726 procedure. <br><br>Hmm, no comparison to brand X filter, the leading competitors, etc. Just that they used a standard test gave the results. Hmm, 97% sounds pretty good. But wait...<br><br>> "These results are for two individual air filters that each <br>> demonstrated among the highest overall filtration level we <br>> have achieved with our media."<br><br>Hmm, the best they have achieved with their media. This implies to be that their other filters did not do as well. Why not state: "K&N filters filter 97%-99% in the SAE XYZ test". Seems pretty simple, but I've never seen that type of statement. Until the last 12 months, there was no test info of any kind on the K&N site, I know, because I looked! <br><br>I'd probably feel more comfortable if I knew the filter for the Cummins applications were 97% minimum. Or even they stated that they meet the OEM specifications for that particular application, which is the approach Fleetguard uses.<br><br>> I only provide this info to counter the claim of low <br>> efficiency of the K&N, as well as the statement that they <br>> don't apply an accepted standard in their testing...<br><br>No, what I said was: "Try to find an SAE test that shows the filtration compared to paper." <br><br>And there is not one! At least provided by K&N. <br><br>Nor do they post micron size & percentages. Again, they allude to it, but never post results. Just the percentages of grit size used in the test. This in itself is not bad.... fleetguard does not post them for all their products either.<br><br>OK, we've beaten this one into the ground! If your comfortable with the K&N's, then use them. Myself, I'm not going to second guess cummin's position on this. It's just not worth it to me.<br><br>Have fun!<br><br>Alan
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re:air filtration
Alan, you're right - we ARE beating it to death, and you seem to be making demands for comparison testing from K&N that you can't provide from any competing paper filter maker - as long as they each use a standard SAE test, which in itself specifies types and sizes of contaminents, and THEN clearly state what the results were, what more can a reasonable person expect from ANY manufacturer? Why should K&N be held to any greater burden of "proof" than Fram or Fleetguard, or any other maker - what testing method do THEY use on their filters, and why should we trust them any more than K&N?
That's the purpose of an SAE standard test, to specifically SPECIFY the sizes of contaminents to be used, and how the test is to be conducted - these guys can't simply pick and choose the sizes of dirt to use, or they'd ALL use stuff the size of marbles and make great efficiency claims! ;D ;D
Don't demand something by way of comparison data from K&N that you don't also demand from Fleetguard or other competing makers - it's unreasonable. Does Fleetguard give comparison data of their paper filters against oiled types? Why not - and why wouldn't you expect them to? There's simply no NEED for such comparison - that's what the SAE standard is for, IT is the comparison!
And K&N *DOES* show 2 separate independent lab test results, the pointers on their website are right under the paragraphs I cut and pasted up above - go look again if you don't believe me.
Here's one:
http://www.knfilters.com/images/factstab1.gif
And here's another:
http://www.knfilters.com/images/factstab2.gif
Anyway, we've pretty well covered it all, and I'm done... ;D ;D ;D
That's the purpose of an SAE standard test, to specifically SPECIFY the sizes of contaminents to be used, and how the test is to be conducted - these guys can't simply pick and choose the sizes of dirt to use, or they'd ALL use stuff the size of marbles and make great efficiency claims! ;D ;D
Don't demand something by way of comparison data from K&N that you don't also demand from Fleetguard or other competing makers - it's unreasonable. Does Fleetguard give comparison data of their paper filters against oiled types? Why not - and why wouldn't you expect them to? There's simply no NEED for such comparison - that's what the SAE standard is for, IT is the comparison!
And K&N *DOES* show 2 separate independent lab test results, the pointers on their website are right under the paragraphs I cut and pasted up above - go look again if you don't believe me.
Here's one:
http://www.knfilters.com/images/factstab1.gif
And here's another:
http://www.knfilters.com/images/factstab2.gif
Anyway, we've pretty well covered it all, and I'm done... ;D ;D ;D
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
Re:air filtration
Gary writes:<br><br>> Alan, you're right - we ARE beating it to death, and you <br>> seem to be making demands for comparison testing from <br>> K&N that you can't provide from any competing paper filter <br>> maker - as long as they each use a standard SAE test, <br>> which in itself specifies types and sizes of contaminents, <br>> and THEN clearly state what the results were, what more <br>> can a reasonable person expect from ANY manufacturer? <br><br>You would be absolutely right if it were not for one small point..... Cummins specifically mentioned the K&N as not advised or "authorized" due to insufficient particle filtration.<br><br>And the thread started with "how can this be..... offroad racers use them, they must be good...."<br><br>Unfortunately the SAE Air filter standard specifies only a testing method intended to normalize the results. It does not specify a "pass/fail" level. So in itself just doing the test using the standard proves nothing. It's the results, and specifically, comparative results that matter. I suspect over time we will see the test move beyond testing methods to standards similar to the oils, where they "pass or fail".<br><br>For what it is worth... amsoil does publish comparative results under the SAE test for it's filter and 4 competitors. Guess what, the Fram had a 99.4% efficiency VS the K&N 94.9%. No surprise.... K&N has never promised they filter as fine as paper. Only more flow, and can hold more dirt without restriction. Results are interesting: <br><br>http://advancedlubetech.com/Products/Tests%201.pdf<br><br>Fram mentions comparative results using the SAE test ("leading oiled filter mfg" on it's site, etc. I don't care for either, I'll probably stick with fleetguard.<br><br>Consumer reports has also done comparative tests, but not on the K&N. As bad as Fram oil filters tested, the air filters did pretty well for filtration.<br><br>> Why should K&N be held to any greater burden of "proof" <br>> than Fram or Fleetguard, or any other maker - what <br>> testing method do THEY use on their filters, and why <br>> should we trust them any more than K&N?<br><br>Simply because Cummins does not support the use of the oiled fabric filters, presumably for a reason. Never do they say to only use their brand, nor do they specify oil filters. (Which are really far more variable. I have cut apart used oil filters, and there is a difference. Hint: I'll never buy another orange one!)<br><br>> There's simply no NEED for such comparison - that's what <br>> the SAE standard is for, IT is the comparison!<br><br>If only it was that easy. It's a standard *testing method* covering procedures, conditions, equipment, and report format. But no "pass/fail", good/better/best, etc like the oil standards do.<br><br>For one mfg to name another and go uncontested by the lawyers, you pretty much have to have done your homework to make it objective and repeatable. (Which the test largely does). You should have seen what happened when individuals started cutting apart oil filters and posting the results on the internet! "Cease and desist" letters! <br><br>The oil filter explorations really opened my eyes and made me look into this type of thing. I'm an engineer, and try to look past the hype and find hard data. That's hard to do with K&N on the filtration front. Lot's of comparative data on the flow and loading, however.<br><br>My guess is that if Cummins did not have a "smoking gun" in the form of test results that K&N would have forced removal of the reference from the web site. Who knows, that may happen anyway! <br><br>I used a K&N happily on a sports car where the benefit of improved airflow more than offset any risk to the engine. On my diesel, which has to last me for many years, I'm not chancing it! Risk/reward type thing. I've seen one independent reference that when the HO was dyno tested they only gained 2 hp from removal of the filter and air box lid. I may explore opening the air box some as others have posted about.<br><br>OK, thanks for the dialog. We can go back to the normal "what kind of mileage do you see" discussions. My immediate concern? I'm waiting for the paint problems to start. Mine was listed as an impacted VIN, yet DC has not indicated how/when mine will be tested. It was supposed to have been caught at the dealer! Anyway, I'm staying way stock until past that hurtle. <br><br>Have fun,<br><br>Alan<br>km4ba<br>
on it's site, etc. I don't care for either, I'll probably stick with fleetguard.<br><br>Consumer reports has also done comparative tests, but not on the K&N. As bad as Fram oil filters tested, the air filters did pretty well for filtration.<br><br>> Why should K&N be held to any greater burden of "proof" <br>> than Fram or Fleetguard, or any other maker - what <br>> testing method do THEY use on their filters, and why <br>> should we trust them any more than K&N?<br><br>Simply because Cummins does not support the use of the oiled fabric filters, presumably for a reason. Never do they say to only use their brand, nor do they specify oil filters. (Which are really far more variable. I have cut apart used oil filters, and there is a difference. Hint: I'll never buy another orange one!)<br><br>> There's simply no NEED for such comparison - that's what <br>> the SAE standard is for, IT is the comparison!<br><br>If only it was that easy. It's a standard *testing method* covering procedures, conditions, equipment, and report format. But no "pass/fail", good/better/best, etc like the oil standards do.<br><br>For one mfg to name another and go uncontested by the lawyers, you pretty much have to have done your homework to make it objective and repeatable. (Which the test largely does). You should have seen what happened when individuals started cutting apart oil filters and posting the results on the internet! "Cease and desist" letters! <br><br>The oil filter explorations really opened my eyes and made me look into this type of thing. I'm an engineer, and try to look past the hype and find hard data. That's hard to do with K&N on the filtration front. Lot's of comparative data on the flow and loading, however.<br><br>My guess is that if Cummins did not have a "smoking gun" in the form of test results that K&N would have forced removal of the reference from the web site. Who knows, that may happen anyway! <br><br>I used a K&N happily on a sports car where the benefit of improved airflow more than offset any risk to the engine. On my diesel, which has to last me for many years, I'm not chancing it! Risk/reward type thing. I've seen one independent reference that when the HO was dyno tested they only gained 2 hp from removal of the filter and air box lid. I may explore opening the air box some as others have posted about.<br><br>OK, thanks for the dialog. We can go back to the normal "what kind of mileage do you see" discussions. My immediate concern? I'm waiting for the paint problems to start. Mine was listed as an impacted VIN, yet DC has not indicated how/when mine will be tested. It was supposed to have been caught at the dealer! Anyway, I'm staying way stock until past that hurtle. <br><br>Have fun,<br><br>Alan<br>km4ba<br>