Tom O'Malley wrote:
>
> Trevor...is this the article you were looking for?
Yes it is, thanks Tom!
I copy the rest here for the list...
> Cheers!
> Tom O'Malley
> '74, '77 Spits <with *paper* air filters> :-)
>
> >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 but 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..
> >
> >******************************************************************
--
Trevor Boicey
Ottawa, Canada
tboicey@brit.ca
http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
|