Intake filtration ,?101?

[Clb]

Looks like the spectre( however its spelled) thread is due for a spring cleaning!
Rather than the admin. Weeding thru that thread, here is a new start.


POWRSMOKE has been gracious enough to shed some light ( and honest tech) on the subject!

In as much as we have all heard the 2 sided argument on ocg filters go on and on, jim can shed some light on this!
In as much as I have k-n's in most of my junk, ( before I found the debate over this) I'm i terested in saving my gear from dirt.

 

[Clb]

Saved for editing in.

 

[sjwelds]

Subscribed. Carry on as you wish.

(P.S.) Great idea. Thanks

 

[icanfixall]

Why don't some of you guys check out the S&B web site. I had them custom make me 2 filters to replace the Banks cone filter I had that really never was much good. I ran it for maybe 140,000 miles on my old engine. The Banks filter was a single ply material where the S&B is a 2 ply material. Its a far superior filtration in my eyes. You actually weigh the filter when you add oli to it. This filter can get too much oil and thats as bad as not enough oil. Thier web site allows you to design what you want. They make it for you. Now how can you beat that.

 

[PwrSmoke]

OK I moved all this stuff to a new post and cleaned it up a little. All I had time to do, as I'm on a big deadline. From here, ask specific questions and I'll answer as best I can.

Oiled Cotten Gauze vs Cellulose ("Paper") vs Synthetic


Oil cotton gauze filter come with many brand names, K&N being the most well-known. K&N is still the leader of that pack, and the originator. There are a lot of low-cost knockoffs. Beware. The only thing with lower filtering efficiency than a one or two-ply oiled cotton gauze filter is a cheap-ass, china-made oiled cotton gauze filter.

Oiled cotton gauze is a leftover from the days in the '60s and early '70s when extremely restrictive oil bath and waxed paper air filters (usually too small for the application anyway) could cost you 10-15 hp. In those days, the best filters were in the 93-95% efficiency range and the oiled cotton gauze (OCG) filters could match that and deliver better airflow besides. But everyday filter technology moved on and not only did efficiency improve but so did airflow. And the OE realized the lost potential when making air filters an afterthought so they starting designing better intake systems and using the new filter media more effectively. Today the average filter media can do 97 percent and up into the 99% range (initial... all filter's efficiency improve as they load up). The newer media also allows for much better airflow and most systems now have more than enough airflow to make rated power. the average overage in capacity is around 20 percent so the engine can make rated power with a dirty filter... for a while at least.

And along the way, OCG filters have stayed largely the same. Most are still one or two ply gauze (each ply adds a little to efficiency while decreasing airflow. 2-ply is a good compromise for a street rig in a clean environment). One ply is only to stop the engine from ingesting small birds. Some of K&N's HD truck and off-road applications are 3-ply and have very good efficiency. Airflow is still good but not AS good. In a universal filter, where you are essentially not restricted in size by a filter housing, you increase the filter area to compensate for the increased restriction of the more efficient media. So more of a more efficient (and restrictive) will equal to less of a less restrictive and less efficient media.

What IDIoit has seen, I have also seen and so have others. Dirt passing by an OCG filter. I can't comment on the Spectre brand, but some of the cheap-ass OCG filters are one-ply. I have seen a test of one of these from Australia and the efficiency was appallingly bad... IIRC it was 75%. Some of these internet "deals" are also knockoffs... not the genuine brand name. Buyer beware! My old BUM-V (a diesel Blazer with a Hummer body on it) had a Banks kit on it with the standard Banks OCG filter in it. I also saw dust in the intake. Now the BUM-V literally lived in the dirt so that was a rough environment for a two-ply OCG, but I wasn't going to sand blast my engine to death. I found a used filter housing from a 600 ci turbo diesel tractor that used a huge polyester media filter that was like 20 inches long and 10 inches in diameter. Per square inch of media, it was was way more restrictive than the OCG but it had about 20 times more media. Though it was a replaceable element (about $110!) it was also cleanable with soap and water. Problem solved and I ran that filter several years, never cleaned it (though I dumped the trap at the cyclonic unit a couple times) and the restriction never indicated above zero.

Excessive dirt could also be from a defective or poorly cleaned filter. Defective is one thing but cleaning is an important topic. OCG filters are fragile to poor cleaning. Water pressure or compressed air blasts the fibers out of place and leaves holes. I have a SWRI test of OCG filters that shows how you can lose 25% efficiency by improper cleaning of OCG filters but its also showed that even when you cleaned one properly, you lost a couple percent when you did. Efficiency is only about 50% if you don't oil it properly.

And people clean their OCG filters way to often. Remember when I said above that filter increase efficiency as they load up? OCG especially! They literally have to be caked with dirt a quarter inch deep before airflow is negatively effected and that "cake" (and this is the official term for it) actually becomes part of the media and helps to improve efficiency. So let 'em get good and dirty before cleaning. Better yet, install a filter restriction gauge and don't touch it until the gauge indicates it's time. That way, you can benefit from the increase in efficiency without a cost in power and you aren't risking the filter by cleaning excessively.

If you have an OCG filter, the quick way to increase efficiency is to run an oiled foam sock on top of the element. You can pull that off and clean it as often as your "air filter insecurity" ( <: < ) dictates! It take some mental readjustment to go strictly by the filter restriction gauge. ANY TYPE OF FILTER IS BEST LEFT ALONE UNTIL IT'S TIME TO CLEAN OR REPLACE as indicated by restriction. You can mung up the sealing aspects of an air filter by R&R-ing it too much for inspections.

I am not pulling any of this out of my ass, either. I have written extensively on air filtration and had the honor of talking with the people who design and build air filters. I will be starting on another story soon and will be getting a refresher course on this. One of the major filter mfrs test labs is nearby and I will go in there again.

To learn more and for pics go here: http://www.trailerlife.com/rv-traile...ir-filtration/

What filters do I like? Anything stock or replacement with a lofted "synthetic" media is good (the fuzzy looking ones) for both efficiency and airflow. I really like the AEM dry media. It starts out nearly 100 % efficient but is cleanable and not particularly fragile. Airflow is average but better than a cheap paper filter. For myself, I will sacrifice a few upper end hp to avoid ingesting dirt.

RE "Paper" Filters: How about definitions :

1) It's not "paper" it's a cellulose material that is more accurately called cellulose fiber. Cellulose filters are made up of cellulose fibers, usually from wood pulp. A cellulose filter uses a resin treatment to bind the fibers into a rigid structure after it's pleated and then it's potted to the seals with a type of glue. They are very durable in that form. There are many other products made from cellulose or wood pulp. Certain paints have wood pulp in them: are they "paper?" Chewing gum has cellulose in it... is that "paper?" How about ice cream, which has cellulose ("I'd like two scoops of chocolate paper, please?"). Some sponges are made of cellulose and cigarette filters may be mostly cellulose. Cellulose filters have been called "paper" since they first came out in the '50s and when filter media did more closely match the visual of "paper" than it does now. The term has held on since. It's a common colloquialism and I am more or less tilting at windmills trying to change common usage. The only reason I make such a pedantic distinction here is that in the context of these types of discussions, "paper" is used as a disparagement. It's "only" paper! I underwent a "conversion" on this after seeing how cellulose media has evolved over the years, how well it's engineered and so on. There is a LOT of technology that goes into that remarkable product. There are pro and cons to it, of course, but a brand name cellulose air filter packs a lot of value and efficiency into a relatively inexpensive package. I won't argue about the term unless it's used as a disparagement. I am the cellulose air filter Don Quixote, I guess ( : < ).

2) I will caution you not to present advertising materials as "evidence" of much of anything. You know, or should know, that an honest manufacturer is going to put it's best foot forward and present what will be, at best, a biased or incomplete account. At worst, they distort, grossly exaggerate, fabricate results and get sued, as Spectre apparently did. Now K&N is a great company, with whom I have had many dealings over the years. They have the balls to present all their test data openly, even though some of it is open for critical debate from guys like me. Their engineering lab is second to none. I've been there, I know and I have been in regular contact with their engineers since the '90s. Their products are well built and engineered. They know their stuff! My only criticism is that they have built their foundation on a technology that I think is optimally less suited for an everyday vehicle than a race car. It's debatable, I admit, because the 2-ply K&N filter media does fit into "industry standards" for efficiency, but at the low end of it. If only everything they made was 3-ply and highly efficient... I'd shut up. The efficiency issue is really only a major point in situations where the vehicle is used in a challenging, dusty environment. Personally, given that the air filter is the door to outside contamination getting into my engine, I prefer to have that door opened to the least degree possible. I am willing to sacrifice a few CFM at the upper end in that .5% (optimistically, I am now an old guy) of the time I am at WOT, versus the 99.5% of the time my engine is sucking in dirty air. If I need a performance, high CFM filter, I adapt to as large a high efficiency element as needed (or that fill fit) so I can have MORE clean air. The simple efficiency solution to the OCG efficiency issue is use the foam sock!

3) RE Banks and K&N: I know the very earliest Banks kits used a K&N. By the late '90s and into the 2000s they were not. I asked and was categorically told they were NOT made by K&N but they wouldn't tell me who did. I have no clue who is doing it for them now. In any case, all the OCG filter on Banks kits I have seen, appeared to me to be at the K&N quality level, so Banks likely specs a robust filter from whoever makes them. As OCG filters go, they meet a high standard of quality. In some cases, the available space for a filter dictated an OCG filter to meet airflow needs. The OCG has one of the highest per-inch-of media flow rates out there and if performance is your primary goal, it's one of the best media out there. Just not anywhere near the most efficient at filtering dirt.

4) Your attachment makes my case. Take note of the initial and final efficiency of 97.35% on COARSE dust. You would drop 3-5% of that on a fine dust test and it is the opinion of many engineers in the field that the fine test is a more accurate and useful test than coarse. They presented a case that put me in their ballpark. The other notable thing in that 1999 test (there are newer test examples out there): take note of how the filtration improves between the initial test and the final. The initial test is a fairly fresh filter. It used to be a perfectly new filter. Now, the latest protocols have a certain amount of test dust applied before the initial reading is taken. That 1999 test is likely the old method. The final efficiency it taken at the filter's maximum restriction, listed at 10" of water. If you go back to that chart I posted, you can see in plain terms how much less dust that change represents. This applies to ANY air filter.

You must be registered for see images attach

Originally Posted by jay22day

You must be registered for see images attach

I

5) ANY restricted filter will pull dirt thru if it's neglected long enough. In fact, the OCG filter is more prone to this than paper and it will happen at a much lower restriction. Does anyone remember the Cummins Tech Bulletin about OCG filters, pull thru on turbo diesel and warranty denials? In any case, the occurrence of pull thru is a maintenance one, not of design. It only happens in extreme cases where a filter is quickly loaded (a Sahara desert dericho, for example) and the operator isn't clued in, or with extreme neglect over time. In any case, the answer is a restriction gauge (just google Filter Minder) that the operator actually looks at once in a while, or frequently as conditions dictate. I knew some guys when I worked for Land Rover who had many African expeditions under their belts. One story I heard was about having to change air filters every 100 miles or so!

6) OCG filters can be very fragile if not carefully cleaned. In fact, a decent quality cellulose filter is a bit more tolerant of compressed air than an OCG element. OCG use wire mesh because they HAVE to use wire mesh to support the element. They are essentially sheets of cotton gauze matting sandwiched between two layers of wire. I have seen them built back when (at K&N in California) and taken a couple apart. Without the wire, the gauze pretty much falls apart.

7) "Quality" in a filter takes in many elements, the first being the sealing surfaces. Do they fit well and properly into the housing? Do the seals remain pliable after heat aging and exposure to under hood chemicals? After that, the media comes into play. Just because a filter uses wire mesh (because it has to), that doesn't automatically make OCG a better filter. I do know that K&N uses the absolute best materials in their seals. Why? Because they are "lifetime" filters. They may have to endure 10-20 years of service being removed repeatedly and lots of heat aging. One engineer at a replacement filter manufacturer told me in interviews that they worked around a five to eight year lifespan for the sealing media on their standard line of filters.. with a bit of a safety factor. The premium lines of filter MAY use correspondingly better materials. For most people, the air filter is replaced within that period, however I have seen filter that lasted much longer and were OK. The most vulnerable elements are the ones with a material like a foam for the seal, like a panel filter. They don't really fall apart but they get hard and may not seal well in the housing. This becomes an issue mostly when the filter is repeatedly removed and replaced for inspection. If left along, they are generally OK.

8) The other quality aspect is the media and that usually comes down to the efficiency and flow rate per inch of media. It then becomes a simple cost choice. There is some fantastic filter media out there, most of it made by specialty companies and not the company that manufactures the filter, from straight cellulose to cellulose/synthetic blends to pure synthetic and the price increases at each step. From there, it's how they are applied. Some filters have a great, very efficient media and brag about efficiency as a result, but they have too little of it... few pleats. Both factors result in lower flow and a short life cycle because the filter gets restricted much more quickly due to less media. Many manufacturers offer a premium line of filters, which might have the same actual media as in the cheaper choice, but they have more of it (sometimes significantly more) and maybe also have a better seal material. The construction methods are usually pretty constant and generally similar with all manufactures. A brand name company usually has a constant level of materials and construction readily visible to a purchaser. The OE designs the air box, so the replacement filter mfr. has to generally match what the OE did, but often the aftermarket will give you a few extra pleats.

9) As I said before, OCG filter have much lower efficiency than a a cellulose filter or many of dry filter of various types. If you live in the city, in a clean area, good enough might be good enough. You are taking in more dirt but with little dirt in the air, it doesnt matter much. Any maybe you are making a conscious choice to place flow over efficiency. As long as you make that choice with forethought, knowing the pros and cons, fine. If you are easily sucked in by advertising, do your homework if you live in a place where there is dust in the air. The problem is you will find it hard to find efficiency info on some of the aftermarket performance filters. That is by design in some cases because the efficiency is so poor. Also, if you do see a rating, find out if it's a coarse or fine test. If it doesn't say, it's likely coarse. A filter that can do 98-99% on coarse will only do 95-97% on fine. The fine dust challenges the filter more.

10) Again, the cost of a highly efficient filter might be airflow or service life. This is more an issue with an element in the stock housing. In a performance or custom setting, just increase the filter size to as big as you have room for... problem solved.

11) In a quick look to find an advertised efficiency of Spectre filters in general, I couldn't . I found a lot of complaints and one big lawsuit, the finding below;

"In a Spectre Performance lawsuit lodged by a competitor, it was alleged that the company made false claims concerning its air filters and intake systems, specifically the products’ fuel economy, air flow, filtration, horsepower capabilities and approval from the California Air Resource Board (CARB). A jury in the lawsuit found that the company had falsely advertised its air filters and intake systems, and in Dec. 2011, a federal court released a final judgment and permanent injunction affirming that the company had indeed misrepresented the efficiency, performance, and benefits of these products.In its opinion, the court held that Spectre Performance falsely represented the fuel economy of its air filters and intake systems, which were designed to "save gas" and provided with packaging expressing that efficient air filters can provide "up to 10% better fuel economy," resulting in fuel savings for the consumer. The court found that not only were these claims misrepresented, but expressed that research revealed that air filters have little to no effect on a car's fuel economy. The federal court also addressed claims by Spectre regarding the independent laboratory testing of its Speed By Spectre hpR filters, which were advertised as having been "proven to filter 99.6% of particles." The court found that the company did not select an air filter from a production run for these tests, and instead used a specially designed test filter, providing no basis to find that any of the filters actually sold to consumers would have the same efficiency as the test sample. Furthermore, the court found that a "Dyno Gains" graph used by the company on its product packaging falsely indicated that replacing a car's filter with a Speed by Spectre hpR filter would result in a 35% increase in horsepower."

 

[IDIoit]

results of a cheap ass 2 week old, oiled OCG filter.
spend your low buck money wisely
or spend alot of money fixing your truck.

this is the turbo hat that sits on the intake.

You must be registered for see images attach