Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?

Except there is NO straight path for the dirt to follow, and as it
"negatiates the turns" the dirt DOES get caught on the oily fibers.

The best air filter yet is still the old oil bath type - where the
ironcurls soaked in oil trapped the dirt. NOTHING filters better than
a properly serviced oil bath cleaner.

No, the reason oil bath cleaners are no longer used boils down to
expense. The labour required to properly service them and the expense
of disposing of the "toxic waste" produced by that service.

 

Me too, actually. I'll even go up to the driver and ask him if he's filling
the tanks that hold what I want.

 

actually, they don't work very well. they permit a broad spectrum of
particle sizes and filtration rates decrease as flow rates increase.
that's why paper is used today - absolute control over particle size and
constant filter effectiveness across the full flow rate band.

 

that's non-quantitative. but you won't care if science means nothing.

 

but so do 4-strokes!!!

no, it's because it's cheap, and buyers [you] evidently don't know any
better.

and oil soaked foam is not an effective filter. i have a book with some
particle throughput vs. flow rate tables in it somewhere. particle size
and volumes increase with flow rate. that's bad. i might scan it when
i get back from vacation. or you could use google. [!]

eh? "have a look" is not quantitative. or preventative.

that's right, science means nothing!!!

 

so you don't make mistakes like not reading something pertinent to the
article? or claiming someone said something when they didn't? checking
facts? you know, little stuff like that.

 

eh? you need to see a mental health professional. preferably one
skilled in helping the educationally subnormal.

 

I'm trying to help one. But he keeps bludgeoning himself with a blunt
hammer.

 

Don't have to. I'm dealing with someone who disregards the recommendations
in his Owner's Manual.

 

Read the first sentance of the quoted section.

 

Let's see...science says more dirt will pass with one of these filters.

Inspections say no more than the stock filter get through.

Common sense says, the few particles that do get through are extremely
fine, and will most likely burn up and/or get discharged through the
exhaust valves without doing any damage.

Probably less damage than 12,000 mile oil is doing.

 

Not at all. Science is great. I hear they're working on brain transplants.
I'd take a look into it if I were you...

 

On our news tonight they interviewed an overly heavy chap who said he
only put about $25 of fuel in his truck. He said that was so if the
truck failed he wouldn't waste so much gas. >
They didn't get his (must be a trash gas eater) into the video.

 

There is only one pro for the K&N: Initial restriction. Every other
parametric is a con for the K&N - including it's relative inability to
catch the dirt right out of the box and oiled - worst out of 9 filters
tested. So keeping an eye on it didn't make it any better.

All I'm saying is that if people think they are getting any benefit out
of a K&N *OTHER* *THAN* lower restriction, then they are fooling
themselves. And the lower restriction is only initially - once it
catches more than 150 gms of dirt, its restriction goes thru the roof
and far surpasses that of paper filters with much more dirt already
trapped. And a lot more dirt will have been let thru into the engine by
the K&N by that point. I don't tell anyone not to use K&N - I just say
look at the truth, not the hype, and if you decide that less restriction
is a high priority and preventing dirt from going into the engine (and
cleaning it often won't change that) is a low priority for you, then, by
all means use it. Your decision will not be made out of ignorance and hype.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

So which do you believe? Both can't be true.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

I didn't use a K&N filter, I used a different one, that came with the
intake. Same principle. Maybe it was a better filter.

I know I managed to get >4 MPG more after I changed the filter.

 

I have a tendancy to trust my eyes more than what someone tells me.

Someone told me Mobil 1 synthetic gear lube was better then mineral oil of
the same weight. I drained the Mobil 1 out of the diff, filled it with
Valvoline mineral oil (and the GM additive) and could feel the difference
in 10 feet...

 

I would argue you just weren`t checking it as close before the filter
change, because unless you had a problem, on a FI eng that can`t happen.
There is no scientific way that your milage could increase that much
unless you had a previous problem. KB

 

now your just being stupid. KB

 

Question: From the engine's standpoint, how is a less restrictive filter
with throttle body plate at a certain position any different than a more
restrictive filter with the throttle body open a little more? The
result in either case is the same amount of total restriction and air
delivery, and the fuel delivery at the injectors will be metered to
match the air volume, and the power output will be the same (the
computer won't know *why* the air volume is what it is, only that it is
what it is). The only difference will be at WOT where you will be able
to produce more power with the less restrictive filter, same as if the
throttle body were bigger with the more restrictive air filter.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')