| a061444 |
I changed my air filter to the much better True Flow brand. It is a open cell foam type that cleans the air intake much better with better flow.
I did notice a bit better acceleration from a stop. Gas mileage is still under review. |
|
|
| a061444 |
| You need to use a very long and slender type of screw driver. I just taped some extensions to mine. |
|
|
| Fabvsix |
| Mind telling us where you got it ? Web site etc........? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Fabvsix |
| Their web site sucks ! What method did you use or find effective to collarborate with them ? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Warzau |
quote:
Originally posted by Fabvsix
Their web site sucks ! What method did you use or find effective to collarborate with them ? :rolleyes:
I don't understand, can you elaborate.:confused: |
|
|
| DaleB |
It is essentially the same as the Amsoil air filter element still not made for the MDX. But in terms of the quality of construction, the Amsoil looks like junk. Had one on a older car.
I replaced the K&N with the True Flow, I believe it will have similar flow characteristics (not that it is very significant) but able to handle much more contamination and more effectively.
Both filters beat stock paper filters in terms of negligible change in air flow as the filters load up with dirt. They are permanent with a 40K mile cleaning. |
|
|
| Oh_My_Baby |
quote:
Originally posted by DaleB
It is essentially the same as the Amsoil air filter element still not made for the MDX. But in terms of the quality of construction, the Amsoil looks like junk. Had one on a older car.
Both filters beat stock paper filters in terms of negligible change in air flow as the filters load up with dirt. They are permanent with a 40K mile cleaning.
You mean, not available for MDX yet and
Permanent: you wash and reuse instead of new replacement? |
|
|
| DaleB |
| Yes, like the K&N and Amsoil filters. |
|
|
| Rick_James |
.....SO did the true flow filter give any better results versus the stock or K&N filter in the X??
ThankZ |
|
|
| Rick_James |
.....SO did the true flow filter give any better results versus the stock or K&N filter in the X??
ThankZ |
|
|
| Rick_James |
.....SO did the true flow filter give any better results versus the stock or K&N filter in the X??
ThankZ |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by Rick_James
.....SO did the true flow filter give any better results versus the stock or K&N filter in the X??
ThankZ
The only real advantage of K&N and others, is long filter life, and the performance fall off is small compared to a how fast a paper filter can clog.
Roughly, I would say cleaning intervals for a K&N or TF, would be about the same as 2 or 3 paper filter replacements. |
|
|
| gdot |
quote:
Originally posted by Rick_James
.....SO did the true flow filter give any better results versus the stock or K&N filter in the X??
ThankZ
When I put in my Trueflow, I felt a slight SOP increase in HP and noticed I averaged ~1 mpg more than with the stock filter. |
|
|
| mdxforever |
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm (scroll down to the bottom of the page for test results)
Very few people realize that higher flow filters increase flow by compromising on the filtration. That is no extraordinary feat. Had I known what I know now I would have never put a K&N in the accord. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by mdxforever
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm (scroll down to the bottom of the page for test results)
Very few people realize that higher flow filters increase flow by compromising on the filtration. That is no extraordinary feat. Had I known what I know now I would have never put a K&N in the accord.
Well, bob IS the oil guy..so he should know about everything else too. I don't know how good his tests are since such tests have no real standard other than what folks want to assign to them.
While I think TF is a better solution, K&N has been around for over 30 years and I don't think it's a bad product.
My 82 Celica had a K&N for a good 80% of it's life when I sold it at 143,000 miles and the engine still ran like new, and never lost a drop of oil between changes.
So until I read of factual horror stories, I think a lot of the fear is based on supposition.
But even at that, I'd rather err on the side of caution, especially if I see something come along I recognize as a better alternative. |
|
|
| mdxforever |
quote:
Well, bob IS the oil guy..so he should know about everything else too. I don't know how good his tests are since such tests have no real standard other than what folks want to assign to them.
Dale, I am not attacking you but you probably did not read the article in its entirity and/or are not upto speed on the subject of air filter performances. Bob himself did not do the tests. Another member did them and they are posted on the bitog site. I dont know what you think about bitog but I feel that if the tests were so seriously flawed that they would not be posted on bitog.
You might not find horror stories but the fact that the K&N allowed 6.4g of dirt instead of 3.2g by another filter with decent flow might be of consequence ultimately. Maybe your engine would have run 200,000 instead of 180 or 190,000. And at that point its a personal preference depending on what your goal is for using a particular filter. If sacrificing a little life of your engine is not important to you I would actually encourage you to use a K&N!! I personally might not use it and thats all and exactly what I said in my post.
My take on it is that in the abscence of "real standards", that you refer to, such tests atleast provide some guidance/direction in the jungle. Who cares enough to spend time setting standards for testing such products ? Its only individuals or group of individuals like these and their inclination to find the real deal that throws some light on the subject. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by mdxforever
Dale, I am not attacking you but you probably did not read the article in its entirity and/or are not upto speed on the subject of air filter performances. Bob himself did not do the tests. Another member did them and they are posted on the bitog site. I dont know what you think about bitog but I feel that if the tests were so seriously flawed that they would not be posted on bitog.
You might not find horror stories but the fact that the K&N allowed 6.4g of dirt instead of 3.2g by another filter with decent flow might be of consequence ultimately. Maybe your engine would have run 200,000 instead of 180 or 190,000. And at that point its a personal preference depending on what your goal is for using a particular filter. If sacrificing a little life of your engine is not important to you I would actually encourage you to use a K&N!! I personally might not use it and thats all and exactly what I said in my post.
My take on it is that in the abscence of "real standards", that you refer to, such tests atleast provide some guidance/direction in the jungle. Who cares enough to spend time setting standards for testing such products ? Its only individuals or group of individuals like these and their inclination to find the real deal that throws some light on the subject.
It's been a while since I visited Bob's site. I know I read all the material before. I did not mean to be so flippant about the article. I've read similar things elsewhere, and they do make me wonder.
I still wonder why 3 cars I previously owned were all sold with 100K+ miles on them and no problems related to engine wear. Many well recognized speed shops have been using K&Ns for decades and still do. Many staffed with very competent engineers.
And for the street, not just track.
So, I can not relate my experience with my vehicles, to these other stories, or the tests that were performed.
That's what I wonder about.
Now, I have no allegiance to K&N or any other manufacturer except the one who keeps my retirement checks coming in.
And as I stated, I see True Flow as a logical alternative. I like the concept and the design better. So that's what I use now. |
|
|
| mdxforever |
quote:
Originally posted by DaleB
...such tests have no real standard other than what folks want to assign to them.
Here's your "standard" (ISO 5011) test...
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm
BTW, the new Amsoil Ea filters seem quite exciting. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by mdxforever
Here's your "standard" (ISO 5011) test...
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm
BTW, the new Amsoil Ea filters seem quite exciting.
Is this the standard used for the test you referenced? Not according to Bob.
And I thought this was the standard:
SAE J726
Obviously, there is a 'recognized' standard for air filters. I would expect no less.
And SEMA should ensure all aftermarket filters would meet that for production vehicles, or a statement they do not. But I could be wrong.
I hope the new Amsoil is better than what they have now. |
|
|
| mdxforever |
no this standard was not used in the original test, just wanted to post a test in which standards were used, yet note the results are pretty much in line with the one without.
Am not a standards expert but I think ISO 5011 was formerly known as SAE J726.
Nonetheless, I hope this will help people at both ends of the spectrum -
someone who wants raw flow and does not care about filtration at all
to
someone who wants ultimate filtration and doesnt care about flow at all. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by mdxforever
no this standard was not used in the original test, just wanted to post a test in which standards were used, yet note the results are pretty much in line with the one without.
Am not a standards expert but I think ISO 5011 was formerly known as SAE J726.
Nonetheless, I hope this will help people at both ends of the spectrum -
someone who wants raw flow and does not care about filtration at all
to
someone who wants ultimate filtration and doesnt care about flow at all.
Yes, you are right on the 'standard' it is now an ISO standard. I finally sat down and started to read this all the way through.
There are several things going on here. This is the most conclusive information so far, and is appreciated.
I can certainly understand more restriction less dirt. It is unfortunate though, as more dirt is captured, there is even more restriction on the best dirt filters (ie; AC and Baldwin).
I'm not surprised AC is at the top for a factory filter. Most of their filtration (and apparently batteries) products are very good.
Also, the poor capacity of the Amsoil (older foam model I presume) is a surprise. It has very high resistance to initial air flow considering it only does a middlin' job of capturing dirt.
Foam, in general has great capacity which is why it's use for off-roading events. Another eye-opener that Amsoil does fairly poorly there.
Their new Amsoil nanofiber does look interesting. Hopefully more updates on newer filters are coming.
K&N is no surprise, but gets me to think how bad is bad if they have been around all this time, with few complaints.
But the difference in HP does not seem to hold up to K&N's claims. Which doesn't surprise me.
If the test conclusions are correct, 'flow' is not that important to develop full HP. However, if I were to use a paper filter, I would consider changing it more often than recommended, even for severe service, only because it does load up quickly. I doubt I would go past 10K miles, which was the standard changeout on cars for decades. Now they claim as long as 30K. Just seems to long to me to keep a loaded up filter in my car.
Thanks again! |
|
|
|
