Yep, I remember that post. It wasn't a study, but a story. It had no real
data and no analysis. In addition, the way it was written was obviously
biased against K&N for whatever reason.
Anyway, the modern K&N fiters use oiled cotton, not foam. They seem to be
widely accepted. Other than that one story, I've never heard of any
evidence against using them.
Chris
>From: Gary McCormick <svgkm@halley.ca.essd.northgrum.com>
>To: Chris Robertson <ckrobertson@hotmail.com>
>CC: ronday@home.com, Fred_Katz@ci.sf.ca.us, datsun-roadsters@autox.team.net
>Subject: Re: Carb stack socks
>Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:50:21 -0700
>
>I used to use them, too on racing motorcycle engines that were torn down
>and rebuilt
>frequently, but for long-term use they have been shown to pass an
>unacceptable amount of
>the finer, engine-grinding size of crud that a racing engine can tolerate
>for its short
>span between rebuilds but a street engine is best off without.
>
>This issue has come up on the list a number of times in the last few years,
>and I remember
>one list member citing a study that was conducted by a company he had
>worked for on their
>fleet of trucks. Oil analysis showed that the oiled foam filters passed an
>unacceptable
>amount of particulate matter and they went back to conventional filters.
>
>gary
>
>Chris Robertson wrote:
>
> > What do you mean well known? K&N's are the choice of many racers as
>well as
> > turbo/supercharger manufacturers. What is the reasoning, or evidence?
> > Would really like to know as I use them!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris
> >
> > >K&Ns are well-known to pass as much crud as air... better to have a
>nice
> > >airbox around
> > >both carb mouths with room for the stacks and a good, high-quality
>filter
> > >around the whole
> > >deal.
> > >
> > >Gary McCormick
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
_________________________________________________________________
|