 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / April 2005K & N Filter --- worth it??
An open question -- Replies invited. If one wanted to determine how improved breathing would be reflected in their vehicles performance and fuel mileage couldn't it be determined by simply removing the existing air filter for the time required to use up one tank of gasoline. Then check the mileage, put the existing filter back in or go to the auto parts store and buy a K&N filter. Old_Timer Um, is this for real? > An open question -- Replies invited. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Old_Timer Maybe we could throw sand down the hole and see how well the oil really works. > Um, is this for real? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Old_Timer >Maybe we could throw sand down the hole and see how well the oil really >works. Are you suggesting that running with no air filter for the length of time to burn one tank of gas, perhaps only one week, would result in major damage to the engine? Didn't some automobiles manufactured many years ago come from the factory with no air filter. Perhaps my memory is faulty but I do not remember the Model A Ford as having an air filter. While I certainly do not recommend that the air filter be permanently or long term left out I do not believe that any significant damage would be suffered by the engine for running a one week period with no air filter especially if the driving for that period was on paved roads and not on dirt trails. As for the oil filters I recall clearly that many years ago an oil filter was an after market add on. Old_Timer > Um, is this for real? CLICK! Like old times... > > An open question -- Replies invited. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > Old_Timer >> Um, is this for real? > >CLICK! > >Like old times... and im curious steve, why does this post out of all the ones in the last week or two draw you out? bored? lookin for some one to step on? >> > An open question -- Replies invited. >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > >> > Old_Timer > >> Um, is this for real? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > last week or two draw you out? bored? lookin for some one to step > on? Why of all the posts I have made in the past few weeks, did you go for this one? Killfile not working? Damn if Budd isnt right about some of you...no sense of humor...and you cant tell when someones been around..ya just troll at will.. Now..in all seriousness, if ya dont like it, killfile it and be done. Im not here to make you happy, be your friend, or post a damn thing you like. > >> > An open question -- Replies invited. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> > > >> > Old_Timer >> >> Um, is this for real? >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Now..in all seriousness, if ya dont like it, killfile it and be done. Im not >here to make you happy, be your friend, or post a damn thing you like. whoa. came in here with "both barrells loaded" huh? lol. ok, you are a tuff guy. im scared now. >> >> > An open question -- Replies invited. >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> > >> >> > Old_Timer > >> >> Um, is this for real? > >> > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > whoa. came in here with "both barrells loaded" huh? lol. ok, you > are a tuff guy. im scared now. WTF are you talking about? One, I never left...second, you act like this was the first post I have ever made in here... You always spin this hard when confronted with someone that might prove to be right? Wait..dont answer that....nothings ever changed with you....of COURSE you do. Now..put that on the end of your torque wrench and click on it.. (there is a joke there, but I doubt you can tell...mr serious about everything) > >> >> > An open question -- Replies invited. > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> >> > > >> >> > Old_Timer >> >> >> Um, is this for real? >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >(there is a joke there, but I doubt you can tell...mr serious about >everything) oh yeah, i remember that one. anyway, been fun playin with you but its bed time for me. >> >> >> > An open question -- Replies invited. >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Old_Timer not worth it.. completely useless, I have one in my truck and if it didnt make the sparkplug chages easier, it would be out of there and the OEM intake back in there. > An open question -- Replies invited. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Old_Timer > An open question -- Replies invited. Closed answer.. Google it. > If one wanted to determine how improved breathing would be reflected > in their vehicles performance and fuel mileage couldn't it be > determined by simply removing the existing air filter for the time > required to use up one tank of gasoline. Then check the mileage, put > the existing filter back in or go to the auto parts store and buy a > K&N filter. Joke, or troll...right? > Old_Timer <snip> Uh-Oh... ;-) Jeff I'm sorry to just barge in as a newbie to this group, but I own a 2001 Dakota R/T, and as long as I've owned it, I've never tried to figure out my mileage or tried to tune some performance out of it until, I dropped my K&N air filter into it. Wow! I'm never going back to paper filters ever again! AIRAID offers a similar filter with a longer lifespan for some reason. I still couldn't care less what the mileage is, but now, I'm goin for a throttle body spacer, cat-back exhaust and I'm gonna find how to pimp my 'puter. Picked out the 20's I'd like it to roll on too! Good luck on finding your STATS though. ZOOM! ZOOM! > An open question -- Replies invited. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Old_Timer > I'm sorry to just barge in as a newbie to this group, but I own a 2001 > Dakota R/T, and as long as I've owned it, I've never tried to figure [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > like it to roll on too! Good luck on finding your STATS though. ZOOM! > ZOOM! I hope you enjoy your K&N filter. Many here have entered heated debates over the question of reduced engine life and performance gains. It's up to you to decide if the K&N is right for YOU. Here we go again! >> I'm sorry to just barge in as a newbie to this group, but I own a 2001 >> Dakota R/T, and as long as I've owned it, I've never tried to figure [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Here we go again! yep. game on! i agree with you though, up to each individual to spend their money the way they want. for me, it wouldn't be k&n, but then i would probably just spend it on something that someone else would think was stupid. kind of the balance of things i guess. >>> I'm sorry to just barge in as a newbie to this group, but I own a 2001 >>> Dakota R/T, and as long as I've owned it, I've never tried to figure [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > probably just spend it on something that someone else would think was > stupid. kind of the balance of things i guess. Come on and fess up so we can really know how stupid you are.. <VBG> Myself, I want a 4" model 500 or maybe a Kimber. Now if I really wanted to get serious.. Armalite .50 BMG Denny > >>> I'm sorry to just barge in as a newbie to this group, but I own a 2001 > >>> Dakota R/T, and as long as I've owned it, I've never tried to figure [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Denny What you WANT, is a Desert Eagle 44, Tiger. NOW ya talkin.:) If you REALLY want an Armalite 50 cheap, I know where there is one....:) I found a new hobby thats almost as much fun....but its getting expensive too...Im on my first week of bow ownership... Bow was given to me, along with a really nice set of sights. I bought a LimbSaver isobar, a nice Cobra release, some decent arrows, a target, band, wax, etc...and have about $200 in it total...most of it in arrows. Im hooked...and halfway decent for my 3rd day total of practice...Luck let me Robin Hood one today....its going on the wall..:) Altho....now I want a new, wicked, super fast bow...this ones GREAT for hunting....a PSE Team Fitzgerald dual cam. >> >>> I'm sorry to just barge in as a newbie to this group, but I own a >> >>> 2001 [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > NOW ya talkin.:) > If you REALLY want an Armalite 50 cheap, I know where there is one....:) Now that would probably be the stupidest thing I've ever did...but damn it would be fun.....how much?? Denny To you mechanics, hobbiest and general do-it-yourselfers out there, I'll admit I've driven the sh.t out of every vehicle I've ever owned 'cause I don't know anything above and beyond the basics. I probably put at least 5 kids through school for what I've paid out in repairs and maintenance.You shoulda seen what I did to my poor 450 Powerstroke 7.3 turbo diesel; even with 10,000 lbs on the back, I'd make her fly! But you know what is so cool? When one of you offers to do that upgrade or tweak for me and your eyes just light up when I say: "Is cash OK?" I am the fool who is your bread and butter. K&N, well is it the best thing? ... If you want to hand your vehicle down to your kids, probably not. But $35 gave my ride, after 4 years of abuse, a breath of fresh air. In this day and age they really don't build them to last anyway. Disposable almost like BIC's. They want me to now go for a HEMI ; can't they see, this 5.9L ain't dead yet? >> I'm sorry to just barge in as a newbie to this group, but I own a 2001 >> Dakota R/T, and as long as I've owned it, I've never tried to figure [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Here we go again! > I'm sorry to just barge in as a newbie to this group, but I own a 2001 > Dakota R/T, and as long as I've owned it, I've never tried to figure out [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pimp my 'puter. Picked out the 20's I'd like it to roll on too! Good luck > on finding your STATS though. ZOOM! ZOOM! P.T. Barnum was right....... ;^) Mike >> An open question -- Replies invited. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> Old_Timer > > I'm sorry to just barge in as a newbie to this group, but I own a 2001 > > Dakota R/T, and as long as I've owned it, I've never tried to figure out [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ;^) > Mike But its been more than a minute since the last one......:) > >> An open question -- Replies invited. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >> > >> Old_Timer as a starting point: 3% / 2 % = 150% > I'm sorry to just barge in as a newbie to this group, but I own a 2001 > Dakota R/T, and as long as I've owned it, I've never tried to figure out my [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > > Old_Timer LOL, here comes the BS fuzzy math again.  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > as a starting point: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > > > > > Old_Timer nothing 'fuzzy' about it you might want to pull out the 4th grade math book (the one with Dick and Jane and Spot on it) and do some reading then ask yourself, is this a true statement: 0.03 / 0.02 = 1.5 yes or no > LOL, here comes the BS fuzzy math again. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > > > > > > > Old_Timer > nothing 'fuzzy' about it > > you might want to pull out the 4th grade math book (the one with Dick and > Jane and Spot on it) and do some reading From what I am reading from you here, I can see that Dick and Jane is about as far as you got in your education. > then ask yourself, is this a true statement: > > 0.03 / 0.02 = 1.5 > > yes or no Sure it does but the real question is what does .03 and .02 stand for on their own and the answer is nothing at all. And if they stand for nothing as is, what in the hell does the 1.5 you get by dividing them stand for? I think that you will find the answer is the same as the last one, nothing. For this reason alone, it either shows a failure in your logic or that you are a graduate in the GWB fuzzy math academy. Your calculation is nothing more than a percentage of a percentage and when you do that, you lose just about all valid meaning. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > nothing 'fuzzy' about it > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > more than a percentage of a percentage and when you do that, you lose just > about all valid meaning. for the momory-impaired, such as yourself, '0.03' stands for amount of dirt ( 3 %) allowed to pass by a K&N, and '0.02' (2%) is the amount passed by an OEM filter therefore, a K&N pases 150 % ,or '50 % more' dirt than an OEM get up to speed, will ya ? > > > nothing 'fuzzy' about it > > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > get up to speed, will ya ? Once again, your logic fails. As I said, you are taking a percentage of percentages which has no valid meaning in itself. Then on top of that, your wording is wrong. If we were to use your logic, it would let in 150% AS MUCH dirt as a paper filter, not MORE than a paper one. If it was 150% MORE, then it would be allowing 2 .5 times the dirt as paper and this is not true. It lets in up to 1.5 times as much dirt but when you look at how little dirt the paper element lets in, 1.5 times just about nothing is still just about nothing. Any way that you want to look at it, from a valid baseline, the K&N will allow up to 1% more dirt in than a high quality paper filter, big deal. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >>>>nothing 'fuzzy' about it >>>> [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > baseline, the K&N will allow up to 1% more dirt in than a high quality paper > filter, big deal. not trying to start a new argument here but, why use it then if it isn't any different than a paper one? > not trying to start a new argument here but, why use it then if it isn't > any different than a paper one? Arguments here are not unusual and actually bring some life into the group. There are some difference between them and it is up to the individual to determine what is more valuable. The K&N has better flow capability which may or may not improve HP and mileage depending on how restrictive the OEM filter is compared to engine need (this varies from vehicle to vehicle) It is also reusable which can lower the cost of ownership over the life of the vehicle. The paper filter has a lower initial cost but the constant need to replace them can increase the overall cost. The paper filter is also slightly better than the K&N at filtering dirt out and in vehicles with properly designed air intakes are more than sufficient for the air requirements of the engine. I guess that sometimes the choice is nothing more than the Bling factor. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> > > nothing 'fuzzy' about it >> > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >baseline, the K&N will allow up to 1% more dirt in than a high quality paper >filter, big deal. FWIW, I fully understand TransSurgeon's math and logic, it is correct. How you choose to interpret and apply it is up to you. I can hardly believe you are arguing about it... You are showing either ignorance or a closed mind when you say a "percentage of a percentage" is meaningless. How about a fraction of a fraction, or a decimal divided by a decimal. A percentage is simply a fraction where the denominator is 100, and as such can be divided, multiplied, added and subtracted. If the paper element allows 2% and the K&N 3% The K&N will allow 50% more dirt than the paper. If the paper element allows "N" amount of dirt to pass, the K&N will allow (N x 1.5) or 150% when compared to the *total* allowed by the paper element. What could be simpler? DJ > >> > > nothing 'fuzzy' about it > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > What could be simpler? nothing could be simpler it's just so much fun to watch BoneHeaD spin in circles > >> > > nothing 'fuzzy' about it > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > How you choose to interpret and apply it is up to you. I can hardly > believe you are arguing about it... I am arguing about it because it is a load of sh.t. While the math may be "correct", it does not provide a valid representation of the truth. > You are showing either ignorance or a closed mind when you say a > "percentage of a percentage" is meaningless. How about a fraction of a > fraction, or a decimal divided by a decimal. A percentage is simply a > fraction where the denominator is 100, and as such can be divided, > multiplied, added and subtracted. Hahahahahahahahahaha, you are joking, right?!?!?!?! A decimal and a fraction are simple numeric values and have no meaning on their own. When attached to a standard unit of measure or quantity then they have a clear meaning on their own. Because they are actual values, further mathematical function can be performed on them with no loss of meaning. A percent is a CALCULATED relationship between two of these quantities and has no definitive or clear meaning without knowing the values it was calculated from and using them in further calculations simply further abstracts what the numbers actually stand for so your comparison is about as invalid as Gary's. > If the paper element allows 2% and the K&N 3% > The K&N will allow 50% more dirt than the paper. > If the paper element allows "N" amount of dirt to pass, the K&N will > allow (N x 1.5) or 150% when compared to the *total* allowed by the > paper element. Because it is a meaningless value. Who really cares about this relationship? It's only real purpose is to distort the reality of how much more actual dirt the K&N filter lets in. > What could be simpler? How about the clear truth as in the paper filter is 1% better and both are within factory spec. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > >> > > nothing 'fuzzy' about it > > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > the numbers actually stand for so your comparison is about as invalid as > Gary's. Jesus Christ, you are one dense person It's been stated, over and over, that 'a K&N allows 3% of the dirt to pass', and 'an OEM allows 2% of the dirt to pass' get with the program, will ya ? or keep showing your ignorance, that's funnier > > If the paper element allows 2% and the K&N 3% > > The K&N will allow 50% more dirt than the paper. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > relationship? It's only real purpose is to distort the reality of how much > more actual dirt the K&N filter lets in. 50 % more, Einstein > > What could be simpler? > > How about the clear truth as in the paper filter is 1% better and both are > within factory spec. you're just too easy.................. > > > >> > > nothing 'fuzzy' about it > > > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > Jesus Christ, you are one dense person Sorry Gary, but that would be you. > It's been stated, over and over, that 'a K&N allows 3% of the dirt to pass', > and 'an OEM allows 2% of the dirt to pass' That is right and as by the total volume of dirt alloud to pass, the Kand N allows 1% more, any possible way that you try to spin it. > get with the program, will ya ? I did. When are you going to start? > or keep showing your ignorance, that's funnier Sorry Gary, but the only ignorant one here is you. > > > If the paper element allows 2% and the K&N 3% > > > The K&N will allow 50% more dirt than the paper. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 50 % more, Einstein Yes, but 50% more of what you moron!!!!! Your calculation is based on the efficiency of the paper filter and if your paper filter was 100% efficient then your calculation would be mathematicall impossible which makes it meaningless, pretty much as it is now. > > > What could be simpler? > > > > How about the clear truth as in the paper filter is 1% better and both are > > within factory spec. > > you're just too easy.................. Keep telling yourself that. Maybe someday you may actually beleive it. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > > nothing 'fuzzy' about it > > > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > baseline, the K&N will allow up to 1% more dirt in than a high quality paper > filter, big deal. yes, and that '1 %' is 50 per cent more > > > > > nothing 'fuzzy' about it > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > yes, and that '1 %' is 50 per cent more LOL, yes, but it is still fuzzy math because there is no way to know if this huge difference is because the K&N is really bad or that the paper filter is really good. You want it to make the K&N sound horrible when in fact it is damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) and still within factory spec.. BTW, now you are saying 50% more when befor it was 150% more. Make up your mind or at least get your english correct. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > > > > nothing 'fuzzy' about it > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > really good. You want it to make the K&N sound horrible when in fact it is > damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) wrong, Einstein it passes 50% more dirt than an OEM (0.03 / 0.02 = 1.50) > and still within > factory spec.. BTW, now you are saying 50% more when befor it was 150% > more. Make up your mind or at least get your english correct. you know, when I have to re-phrase it so even you can understand it, then it's time for you to admit you're in over your head " therefore, a K&N passes 150 % as much as ,or '50 % more' dirt than an OEM" reduced to semantic flames, are you ? you're really TOO easy........................ > > > > > > > nothing 'fuzzy' about it > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > wrong, Einstein Nope. Paper filter at 2% K&N at 3%. 3 - 2 still equals 1 the last time I checked it out. > it passes 50% more dirt than an OEM > > (0.03 / 0.02 = 1.50) So what? It still only passes 1% more dirt in total volume than the OEM any way that you try to spin it. > > and still within > > factory spec.. BTW, now you are saying 50% more when befor it was 150% > > more. Make up your mind or at least get your english correct. > > you know, when I have to re-phrase it so even you can understand it, then > it's time for you to admit you're in over your head It is not a matter of re-phrasing it, it is more of a matter of stating it correctly. There really is a big difference between 50% more and 150% more, like a 100% difference. It really seems like with so many other times, the one over his head happens to be you. BTW, where exactly is that clockspring???? > " therefore, a K&N passes 150 % as much as ,or '50 % more' dirt than an OEM" While true, it is still meaningless unless you know exactly how much the OEM passes thru and once you realize that an OEM lets just about nothing thru, 150% of just about nothing is still just about nothing. > reduced to semantic flames, are you ? perhaps ypu should look up the definition of semantics before you fire up your accusations. This is not a matter of semantics becuaes what you said is simply WRONG. Face up to it for a change. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > > > > > > nothing 'fuzzy' about it > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > Nope. Paper filter at 2% K&N at 3%. 3 - 2 still equals 1 the last time I > checked it out. 3-2 = 1 3 % - 2 % = 1 % learn to handle percentages before you make an even larger a.s of yourself (if that's possible) > > it passes 50% more dirt than an OEM > > > > (0.03 / 0.02 = 1.50) > > So what? It still only passes 1% more dirt in total volume than the OEM any > way that you try to spin it. who mentioned 'total volume' ? I was talking about relative filtering ability but that's probably beyond your comprehension > > > and still within > > > factory spec.. BTW, now you are saying 50% more when befor it was 150% [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > one over his head happens to be you. BTW, where exactly is that > clockspring???? it depends on the vehicle > > " therefore, a K&N passes 150 % as much as ,or '50 % more' dirt than an > OEM" > > While true, it is still meaningless unless you know exactly how much the OEM > passes thru and once you realize that an OEM lets just about nothing thru, > 150% of just about nothing is still just about nothing. Jesus F Christ must I repeat, yet again, the numbers that this is based upon ? > > reduced to semantic flames, are you ? > > perhaps ypu should look up the definition of semantics before you fire up > your accusations. This is not a matter of semantics becuaes what you said > is simply WRONG. Face up to it for a change. tell me what is incorrect about 3 % / 2 % = 150 % go ahead, Fermat, have at it > > > > damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 3-2 = 1 Like I said. > 3 % - 2 % = 1 % EXACTLY!!! Which means that the K&N is 1% less effective than the OEM like I repeatedly said. > learn to handle percentages before you make an even larger a.s of yourself > (if that's possible) LOL, sorry Gary, but it is you that needs to learn how to accurately use percentages rather that the distorted fuzzy math way you currently do. > > > it passes 50% more dirt than an OEM > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > who mentioned 'total volume' ? The numbers you are basing your distorted calculations on ARE based on total volume. What you are comming up with is meaningless BS. > I was talking about relative filtering ability I understand that but when you are talking about high effeciency, the number that you come up with is a distorted value that really means nothing. > but that's probably beyond your comprehension No, I have a full comprehension on how you are trying to distort the actual capabilities of the K&N with your fuzzy math. Perhaps you need to comprehend the definition of fuzzy math although I believe that you are fully aware of its meaning. > > > > and still within > > > > factory spec.. BTW, now you are saying 50% more when befor it was [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Jesus F Christ Taking the lords name in vain is a sin you know. > must I repeat, yet again, the numbers that this is based upon ? The numbers that it is based upon are already percentages that at least have some valid nmeaning. What you are calculating has no real value. > > > reduced to semantic flames, are you ? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > go ahead, Fermat, have at it That is not what is incorrect. What was incorrect was that you said the K&N allowed 150% MORE dirt into the engine which is completely incorrect. While this was fun for a while, now it is getting tiresome so feel free to believe what you will. While the K&N is slightly less efficient at capturing dirt than an OEM filter, it does have less restriction to airflow and provided that both filters are within factory specs, it is up to the owner of the vehicle to determine which property is more desirable. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >>>>>damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 130 lines] > that both filters are within factory specs, it is up to the owner of the > vehicle to determine which property is more desirable. T Bone, think of it in simpler terms disregard the percentages let's say for argument sake that a K&N filter lets in 3 pieces of dirt Let's say the regular air filter lets in 2 the difference between the amount each lets in is 1.5 pieces of dirt 2 X 1.5 = 3 1.5 pieces of dirt = 50% of the total dirt allowed by the K&N more than the paper filter so the K&N filter does not allow 1% more dirt but 50% more...does this make sense now? > >>>>>damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] > so the K&N filter does not allow 1% more dirt but 50% more...does this > make sense now? You are arguing apples and oranges. It lets in 50% more than THE OTHER FILTER and 1% more in TOTAL VOLUME. I really don't give a damn what it lets in compared to the other filter unless the other filter is compatible with it in all other properties.AND I know what the other filter is letting in My only real concern is what it passes in total volume and if that amount is within the engines filter specifications. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >>>>>>>damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 192 lines] > My only real concern is what it passes in total volume and if that amount is > within the engines filter specifications. kewl, gotcha. Its those damn fuckin metric calculators, I bet he got hold of :))) Those things screw everything up dale > LOL, sorry Gary, but it is you that needs to learn how to accurately use > percentages rather that the distorted fuzzy math way you currently do. [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > that both filters are within factory specs, it is up to the owner of the > vehicle to determine which property is more desirable. LOL SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Its those damn fuckin metric calculators, I bet he got hold of :))) > Those things screw everything up [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > that both filters are within factory specs, it is up to the owner of the > > vehicle to determine which property is more desirable. > So what? It still only passes 1% more dirt in total volume than the OEM any > way that you try to spin it. Nope. If an OEM allows 1000 grams of dirt through after a certain amount of time, how much would the K&N? Just 1% meaning 1010 grams? It allows 50% more through, not 1%. Your baseline for comparison is incorrectly the total amount of dirt rather than the amount allowed through. The point of all this is that the K&N's are crap. If you like em, then use em. If you don't, then why the whining? > > So what? It still only passes 1% more dirt in total volume than the OEM any > > way that you try to spin it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > through. The point of all this is that the K&N's are crap. If you like > em, then use em. If you don't, then why the whining? Sorry Miles, but you got either your math or logic all wrong here. The one percent is in relation to the total volume, not what the OEM blocks. If the OEM blocked passed 1000 grams at 2% then it faced a total of 50,000 grams in your given period of time. If the K&N was 1% less efficient IOW 3%, it would pass 1500 grams during the same period of time. Like I said over and over and over and over.... there is nothing wrong with Gary's math as far as math goes, it is just fuzzy in the fact that it make the K&N seem much worse than it really is like in HOLY CRAP, 50% worse. I do have one but I doubt that I will buy another. I guess that depends on what vehicle I get next and how efficient the stock air filtration system is. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Sorry Miles, but you got either your math or logic all wrong here. The one > percent is in relation to the total volume, not what the OEM blocks. If the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > doubt that I will buy another. I guess that depends on what vehicle I get > next and how efficient the stock air filtration system is. 1500 vs 1000 is significant. The fuzzy math is trying to base it on a total amount. The only thing I care about is how much got into my engine. Not how much didn't. Comparing two cars, the one with a K&N will have 50% more dirt in it than the other. I don't care how much they were exposed to. > > Sorry Miles, but you got either your math or logic all wrong here. The one > > percent is in relation to the total volume, not what the OEM blocks. If the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 1500 vs 1000 is significant. The fuzzy math is trying to base it on a > total amount. You do know that these numbers are ridicules, right? I assumed that you used 1000 grams for mathamatical simplicity since 1000 grams is a hell of a lot of dirt, never mind 1500. It would probably be more like 1 gram or .1 gram and in that case 1.5 grams or .15 grams suddenly doesn't seem so bad. If the factory spec for the engine allows for 2.5 or .25, either filter would do. > The only thing I care about is how much got into my > engine. Not how much didn't. Comparing two cars, the one with a K&N > will have 50% more dirt in it than the other. I don't care how much > they were exposed to. In all honesty Miles, I know that in the past hat we have gone round and round on some rather idiotic topics but this makes no sense to me. How can you not care how much was blocked? If you don't know the total volume involved, then the amount that gets through is meaningless and even if 1 is 50% more efficient than the other, if they are both within spec then who cares. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > How can > you not care how much was blocked? If you don't know the total volume > involved, then the amount that gets through is meaningless This statement makes no sense. I can easily do oil tests on a car with and without a K&N and see the difference. I do not need to know how much was blocked to be able to compare the effectiveness of the filters. The oil tests will show the difference. > > How can > > you not care how much was blocked? If you don't know the total volume [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > much was blocked to be able to compare the effectiveness of the filters. > The oil tests will show the difference. Unless both vehicles were driven to exactly the same places at exactly the same time, that test would reveal nothing. But even still, unless one filter is letting in a damaging amount of dirt, does it really matter if one lets in a little more? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > But even still, unless one > filter is letting in a damaging amount of dirt, does it really matter if one > lets in a little more? I've seen first hand how much dirt K&N's let through. And yes, properly maintained. Here in AZ we have very very fine dust. K&N's are horrible for filtering it. They let through alot more than just a little. I've seen it too many times. > > But even still, unless one > > filter is letting in a damaging amount of dirt, does it really matter if one [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for filtering it. They let through alot more than just a little. > I've seen it too many times. Then in your area a K&N would be a bad choice. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Then in your area a K&N would be a bad choice. Yep. Because it allows too much dirt through. > > Then in your area a K&N would be a bad choice. > > Yep. Because it allows too much dirt through. 50 % more than an OEM (BFG) >> > > > > > > nothing 'fuzzy' about it >> > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] >one over his head happens to be you. BTW, where exactly is that >clockspring???? look, this isn't even a big deal. but................. if 100 particles try to reach your engine, the paper filter stops 98 of them and the k&n stops 97. 2 get thru for paper, 3 for k&n. if 1000 particles try to reach your engine, the paper filter stops 980 of them and the k&n stops 970. 20 get thru for paper, 30 for k&n. now, i was never a math major but i think that means that the paper filter stops 1% more of the particles. as far as particles getting thru, it is what is left but you can construe that to say that 50% more particles get thru the k&n than the paper iif you want to. but it is only 1% more of the total particles that have tried to get thru. just thought i'd point that out. not that anyone gives a sh.t. i mean, this just gets in the middle of good fight i think? >> " therefore, a K&N passes 150 % as much as ,or '50 % more' dirt than an >OEM" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >your accusations. This is not a matter of semantics becuaes what you said >is simply WRONG. Face up to it for a change. Now paper filters at 2%, lets say there's 100 dirt particles, 98 will be stopped and 2 will pass through the filter. K&N at 3%, with 100 dirt particles, 97 will be stopped and 3 will pass through the filter. Tbone is right, what's the big deal, 98-97=1 or 3-2=1 dale > Nope. Paper filter at 2% K&N at 3%. 3 - 2 still equals 1 the last time I > checked it out. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > your accusations. This is not a matter of semantics becuaes what you said > is simply WRONG. Face up to it for a change. > Now paper filters at 2%, lets say there's 100 dirt particles, 98 will be > stopped and 2 will pass through the filter. > K&N at 3%, with 100 dirt particles, 97 will be stopped and 3 will pass > through the filter. > Tbone is right, what's the big deal, 98-97=1 or 3-2=1 Because I don't care about the dirt that didn't get through. I look at the dirt that did. > > Now paper filters at 2%, lets say there's 100 dirt particles, 98 will be > > stopped and 2 will pass through the filter. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Because I don't care about the dirt that didn't get through. I look at > the dirt that did. You can't really have one without the other. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > "miles" <nospam@noemail.com> wrote in message >>Because I don't care about the dirt that didn't get through. I look at >>the dirt that did. > > You can't really have one without the other. What hurts an engine? Dirt that got through, or dirt that didn't? Forget about this 3 vs 2 thing for just a minute TBone. Lets take a car with an OEM filter through some dusty driving conditions. Lets also take a car through the same area at the same time with a K&N filter. Now lets do an oil test on both. The car with the K&N will have 50% more. The 3 vs. 2 thing you are hung up on means nothing. > > "miles" <nospam@noemail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What hurts an engine? Dirt that got through, or dirt that didn't? Possibly some of the dirt that gets thru but that is completely dependent on the amount and type of dirt the filter comes in contact with. > Forget about this 3 vs 2 thing for just a minute TBone. Lets take a car > with an OEM filter through some dusty driving conditions. Lets also > take a car through the same area at the same time with a K&N filter. > Now lets do an oil test on both. The car with the K&N will have 50% > more. The 3 vs. 2 thing you are hung up on means nothing. That is not always true but even if we say that it is, what matters is if it is enough to actually damage the engine and with the extreme efficiency of the paper filter, I doubt that either would allow enough if maintained regularly. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) and still within > factory spec.. Depends on which spec. you're talking about. For my engine, the manufacturer specs. a filter with 99.5% first-pass efficiency. There's only a couple of aftermarket filters that can meet that spec., and K&N isn't one of them. > > damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) and still within > > factory spec.. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a couple of aftermarket filters that can meet that spec., and K&N isn't one > of them. And neither are most paper ones at that unrealistic level. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> > damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) and still >> > within [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And neither are most paper ones at that unrealistic level. <sigh>..... I guess I will have to throw my .02 in here as well. First of all, the math isn't fuzzy, it's correct although you may not like the outcome, the numbers ARE correct. Secondly, I have seen nowhere in print where the K&N filter meets manufacturers specs.... period. In fact, D/C, Cummins and GM all caution against using a K&N type filter because of poor filtration. It seems that D/C, Cummins and the General both think that the 1% is meaningful enough to caution their owners against their use. Finally, the 99.5% spec Tom alluded to is very much real world. Paper filters ARE that efficient! For everyone's interest and edification, please follow the below URL for more info. Interestingly, you will see that the K&N efficiency vs a stock AC Delco paper filter is much more that the 1% T-Bone alludes to. Also, look at the loading factor. http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm Although, the test was primarily a direct comparison of the AC Delco vs the K&N, the comparison is valid for virtually all OEM filters. Now, y'all can argue all you want about "fuzzy" math, 150%... 50%... etc., but I know math and the math Gary used ain't fuzzy. I also know that if you spend your money on a K&N filter, you are wasting it.... but hey.... it's your money and your engine...... think about it! Mike >>> > damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) and still >>> > within [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Mike One more bit of info... here are some microscopic shots of a K&N vs a paper filter and a paper shop towel... looks like the shop towel was a better filter than the K&N. http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000338 Enjoy! Mike > >>> > damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) and still > >>> > within [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > filter and a paper shop towel... looks like the shop towel was a better > filter than the K&N. LOL, I would say that a paper towel is probably better than most paper filters as well since it was never designed with air flow in mind and blocks just about everything, including the air itself. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >>> > damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) and still >>> > within [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >First of all, the math isn't fuzzy, it's correct although you may not like >the outcome, the numbers ARE correct. they aren't mike because the original comparison was how many particles get thru based on how many particles try to get thru. you guys are talking apples and oranges. that is how facts can be said to say whatever you want them to. anyway, my point is only about the math, not the k&n. the k&n is crap no matter what it does or does not do. >Secondly, I have seen nowhere in print where the K&N filter meets >manufacturers specs.... period. In fact, D/C, Cummins and GM all caution >against using a K&N type filter because of poor filtration. It seems that >D/C, Cummins and the General both think that the 1% is meaningful enough to >caution their owners against their use. that is the germane point mike. even dc and cummins say to stay away from k&n. there is a reason for that. it has been posted before but the point is, even the folks that make the engine say to avoid k&n. i think it would be a good idea to listen to them. >Finally, the 99.5% spec Tom alluded to is very much real world. Paper >filters ARE that efficient! they are. they do a good job and when they are used up you can throw them away and put a new one in. nothing could be more simple. unless you enjoy cleaning grease off a sponge and putting it in your engine. >For everyone's interest and edification, please follow the below URL for >more info. Interestingly, you will see that the K&N efficiency vs a stock [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Mike > >> > damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) and still > >> > within [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > First of all, the math isn't fuzzy, it's correct although you may not like > the outcome, the numbers ARE correct. Sorry Mike, but while the math may be correct and I never said otherwise, it is still fuzzy for no other reason than it make one filter to be much worse than the other and that is not always true.. > Secondly, I have seen nowhere in print where the K&N filter meets > manufacturers specs.... period. In fact, D/C, Cummins and GM all caution > against using a K&N type filter because of poor filtration. Really, please point me to some links. Most of the compalints I see are in regard to them not being oiled properly (over oiled) and the oil messing up sensors. > It seems that > D/C, Cummins and the General both think that the 1% is meaningful enough to > caution their owners against their use. Funny then how DC, Ford, and Chevy dealerships have sold them as performance upgrades. > Finally, the 99.5% spec Tom alluded to is very much real world. Paper > filters ARE that efficient! Some are but most are not as seen in the link that you provided. > For everyone's interest and edification, please follow the below URL for > more info. Interestingly, you will see that the K&N efficiency vs a stock > AC Delco paper filter is much more that the 1% T-Bone alludes to. Also, > look at the loading factor. Sorry Mike, but I have to stop you there. The one percent that you accuse me of alluding to was from Gary or did you forget the basis of the calculation that started all of this crap. 3% / 2% = 150% and the more accurate 3% - 2% = 1%. > http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm I think that you may want to do a little research on this data before you present it as absolute fact. I did a little search on dogpile with the search being "Ken at Testand" and got multiple pages of results on all kinds of tests. It seems that Ken test all kinds of things for free and even Alvin is mentioned in many of these as well about all kinds of filters as well as the Ionic breeze. I don't recall that particular device being uised to filter the air for the Duramax but I could be wrong. > Although, the test was primarily a direct comparison of the AC Delco vs the > K&N, the comparison is valid for virtually all OEM filters. Perhaps you could answer a simple question based on these results. If all of the filters have the same surface area, how could a media trapping filter (the K&N) flow less air while allowing more dirt to pass and still plug up faster while containing less dirt than a surface blocking paper one (the AC Delco). How come Ken never gives his last name. > Now, y'all can argue all you want about "fuzzy" math, 150%... 50%... etc., > but I know math and the math Gary used ain't fuzzy. I also know that if you > spend your money on a K&N filter, you are wasting it.... but hey.... it's > your money and your engine...... think about it! As theguy said, you are arguing apples and oranges. While the K&N may be 50% less efficient than the OEM, it still only lets in 1% more dirt than the OEM by volume and that is the number that really counts. As for peoples choice as to buy it or not, that is up to them. I have one and it has caused my engine no harm in 100,000 miles but I doubt that I will buy another one. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > of tests. It seems that Ken test all kinds of things for free and even > Alvin is mentioned in many of these as well about all kinds of filters as > well as the Ionic breeze. I don't recall that particular device being > uised > to filter the air for the Duramax but I could be wrong. So you're disbelieving his test results because he tests a lot of things? 'Fuzzy logic' indeed... > > of tests. It seems that Ken test all kinds of things for free and even > > Alvin is mentioned in many of these as well about all kinds of filters as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So you're disbelieving his test results because he tests a lot of things? > 'Fuzzy logic' indeed... No, because it always seems to be for free by Ken after a call from Ken and why would Alvin be a part of any of it (besides the Duramax one). It seems more like a scam to me and the data just doesn't make any sense. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> >> > damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) and still >> >> > within [quoted text clipped - 97 lines] > caused my engine no harm in 100,000 miles but I doubt that I will buy > another one. <sigh>... what's the use? Mike > as a starting point: > > 3% / 2 % = 150% I still say 3% is only 1% more than 2%. ;^) > > as a starting point: > > > > 3% / 2 % = 150% > > I still say 3% is only 1% more than 2%. ;^) That is because it is. He never got past 2nd grade math or even first grade logic when you look at this. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > as a starting point: > > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That is because it is. He never got past 2nd grade math or even first grade > logic when you look at this. math is not your strong point, is it ? > > > > as a starting point: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > math is not your strong point, is it ? Obviously more so than yours. The numbers that you are using are already percentages so multiplying the result by 100 makes the result a percentage of a percentage which is at best fuzzy meaningless math and at worst, a complete failure in comprehension and meaningful logic. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > as a starting point: > > > > 3% / 2 % = 150% > > I still say 3% is only 1% more than 2%. ;^) 0.03 / 0.02 = 1.5 think about it > > > as a starting point: > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > think about it This is meaningless math because those numbers stand for nothing at all. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> > > as a starting point: >> > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >This is meaningless math because those numbers stand for nothing at all. What you need to do is measure number of "bits" of dirt getting through. If .03% of 1,000,000 pits pass through the filter,300 bits got through. If the stock filter only allowed .02% to pass, 200 bits got through., so yes, the K&N (if that is what is being compared) passed half again as much, or 50% more dirt than the stock filter. Put a different way, the stock filter is 33% better. - Assuming the numbers are correct - which I doubt. >>> as a starting point: >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > think about it I didn't intend to stir it up again, it was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek reminder. At least it's in a K&N thread again. I believe we agreed to disagree on this one the last time around. TranSurgeon wrote: > as a starting point: > > 3% / 2 % = 150% >I still say 3% is only 1% more than 2%. ;^) Your still wrong. Look at the equation another way: 2 *X = 3 X would equal 1.5, or 2 x 150%=3 try both of these on your calculator and you will see that TranSurgeon was right all along. They are both right. It is just a matter of which one reflects the truth more. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > TranSurgeon wrote: > > as a starting point: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > try both of these on your calculator and you will see that > TranSurgeon was right all along. > They are both right. It is just a matter of which one reflects the truth > more. It depends on what you use for your baseline. I measure the amount of dirt in my engine and use that as the baseline. Your assumption that this isn't the truth is false. > > They are both right. It is just a matter of which one reflects the truth > > more. > > It depends on what you use for your baseline. I measure the amount of > dirt in my engine and use that as the baseline. Your assumption that > this isn't the truth is false. Now I see that it is your logic that is failing you. Both of them show the total amount of dirt that enters the engine or rather, the percentage of volume that gets by. The difference is that the 3% is baselined on the total volume of dirt (what you claim that you want to know) while the 150% is baselined on the efficiency of the other filter which really means nothing.. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Now I see that it is your logic that is failing you. Both of them show the > total amount of dirt that enters the engine or rather, the percentage of > volume that gets by. The difference is that the 3% is baselined on the > total volume of dirt (what you claim that you want to know) while the 150% > is baselined on the efficiency of the other filter which really means > nothing.. No, I don't want to know the total volume of dirt. I want to know how much is in my engine over a set amount of time. I don't have an easy for to measure how much dirt I drive through. But I can run tests on oil and find out how much dirt is in my engine. Thats what I compare, thats my baseline. It is very common to compare two items by using one of them as a baseline for comparison. You are hung up on this 3 vs. 2 thing. I'm not. My concern is amount of oil in my engine so thats what I'll use as my baseline and it is certainly the truth. > > Now I see that it is your logic that is failing you. Both of them show the > > total amount of dirt that enters the engine or rather, the percentage of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No, I don't want to know the total volume of dirt. I want to know how > much is in my engine over a set amount of time. That is what I'm talking about Miles. > I don't have an easy > for to measure how much dirt I drive through. But I can run tests on > oil and find out how much dirt is in my engine. Thats what I compare, > thats my baseline. I guess that where you live that may be required but I have yet to ever do that and have yet to have an engine fail prematurely. > It is very common to compare two items by using one of them as a > baseline for comparison. You are hung up on this 3 vs. 2 thing. I'm > not. My concern is amount of oil in my engine so thats what I'll use as > my baseline and it is certainly the truth. How does the filter determine the amount of oil in your engine? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > TranSurgeon wrote: >> as a starting point: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > try both of these on your calculator and you will see that > TranSurgeon was right all along. 3% is 1% more than 2%. Prove it on your own calculator. 0.02 + 0.01 = 0.03 3 is 50% more than 2, but 3% is only 1% more than 2%. See the difference? A percent is an expression of "per 100". Saying that 3% is 50% more than 2% is just as wrong as saying that three cents is fifty cents more than two cents. > 3% is 1% more than 2%. Prove it on your own calculator. 0.02 + 0.01 = 0.03 > 3 is 50% more than 2, but 3% is only 1% more than 2%. See the difference? > A percent is an expression of "per 100". Saying that 3% is 50% more than 2% > is just as wrong as saying that three cents is fifty cents more than two > cents. You have 2 cents and I have 3 cents. I certainly do have 50% more than you. You're trying to compare the two based on total pennies neither one of us has. I don't care about pennies or dust that I don't have or isn't in my engine. >> 3% is 1% more than 2%. Prove it on your own calculator. 0.02 + 0.01 >> = 0.03 3 is 50% more than 2, but 3% is only 1% more than 2%. See the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > neither one of us has. I don't care about pennies or dust that I > don't have or isn't in my engine. My entire point in this discussion is the usage of the "%" symbol. I don't have a K&N and have no interest in defending the product's reputation. I don't really care about the pennies either. 3 is 50% more than 2. I've never claimed otherwise. 3% is 1% more than 2%. 3% is NOT 50% more than 2%. 52% is 50% more than 2%. Notice where the "%" symbol is (and is not) used. That is the only point I am arguing. > > TranSurgeon wrote: > >> as a starting point: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > 3% is 1% more than 2%. Prove it on your own calculator. 0.02 + 0.01 = 0.03 nope while 0.02 + 0.01 = 0.03, the phrase 'more than' implies that the larger is divided by the smaller, to give a ratio not fuzzy math, fuzzy definitions > 3 is 50% more than 2, but 3% is only 1% more than 2%. See the difference? wrong again 3 is 50% more than 2....so far so good now divide the 3 by 100 to get 3 % and the 2 by 100 to get 2 % since you have divided both by hte same number, the ratio remains the same > A percent is an expression of "per 100". Saying that 3% is 50% more than 2% > is just as wrong as saying that three cents is fifty cents more than two > cents. that makes three wrongs "just as |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message