for the guys that are into recreational oil changing...

Looks like this:
http://www.carburetion.com/weber/weberR2.asp

K&N makes all kinds of equipment but that's their 'classic'
style.
http://www.knfilters.com/universal/universal.htm

 

Try combining wheat that's been down for a couple weeks and rained on
2 or 3 times - - - - -

 

If I read your links right, it is a combination of things - mainly a
filter gets better in early part of usage from the bigger holes getting
blocked by dirt, and every time you mess with your filter, you run the
risk of accumulations of dust/dirt falling into the ducting downstream
of the filter barrier point.

I work in a mining area, and there's a 3/4 mile of dirt/gravel road I
travel into and out of my office every week day. Not nearly what
agricultural dust is like during your various plowing and harvesting
operations, but I do have to change air filter way more often than the
typical motorist.

I was getting ready to post a link to the Spicer air filter study, but
all the links I have appear to be inactive. Anybody have a working link
for that?

For reference, here are a couple of links that used to work in the past:
http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm

These links, in which the guy who did the study tells about interaction
with K&N over the study, are still good:
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55604
http://dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66536

 

uh, YOU were the one making a comparison with drugs.
the comment I made had nothing to do with process, only the result.
try to keep up.

Not poorly designed tests. They prove nothing. In fact, they often
lead to the wrong conclusions. Just like in this case.

that you make shit happen; that I can believe.


 you're the idiot that just

and how many papers in scientific journals have you published?

yeah, that's what I thought.

 

The OP claims that all passenger cars will run fine using a 10,000
mile oil change interval.

Your research indicates that both Toyota and Mopar techs consider that
to be bad advice since 10,000 miles is LONG past their normal
maintenance schedule.

Perhaps the OP should go back and reconsider the test before he goes
off half-cocked again. On the other hand, the OP really believes that
all accumulated observations are worthless compared with a
quantitative result from a single, poorly designed test. Well, all
observations other than his own.

 

Good post, IMHO, but I'm curious why you say this? <NB - a straight
question, not challenging you - always happy to learn something new>

TonyH

 

Webers! Wow, talk about a trip down memory lane - my old Porsche 911S
had twin 3-barreled Webers.

 

Of what? 4% is indeed 5% - 4%; however, 5% = 1% * 5 as well.

 

Read these references and decide for yourself -

http://www.filtercouncil.org/techdata/tsbs/89-3R3.html
http://www.tomorrowstechnician.com/Article/4991/component_connection_the_dirty_little_secrets_of_filters.aspx
http://www.donaldson.com/en/filtermedia/support/datalibrary/052024.pdf
- go to page 10 or so

 

Your information is obsolete.

Here is what the Donaldson article says on page 10.

****

 

As far as using K&Ns,

Well, not sayingthe filter is better or worse than OEM filters, but I
used K&N replacement filters (not the "universal" or "cone" type on
both Aerostars and the '88 New Yorker and my daughter's Neon and the
engines went over 240,000km with no wear issues. I used standard
factory type(ac delco, Fram, and Napa) filters on my Pontiac 3.8 and
it blew with 98,000km on it.
Virtually the same driving conditions and maintenance otherwise.

 

Oops! I *meant*:

Of what? 4% is indeed 5% - 1%; however, 5% = 1% * 5 as well.