best air filter

M

MarkTurbo

Well-Known Member
Bloody thing is already jinxed :doh: I've had a fair few problems over the years but i just keep fixing it and telling myself that one day there will be nothing left to go wrong with it :lol:

I must have way too much patience :der:
 
johnsy

johnsy

Active Member
stumo said:
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

you should be on the stage.

I'll quote you something you posted earlier....



and in my opinion you don't know jack shit about what dirt will do to an engine, so, you're opinions mean 'shit' to me.
Click to expand...

Round up, round up 'THE RESIDENT GOBSHITE' has something to say!

hows it going you fugly, bold cnut?
 
johnsy

johnsy

Active Member
MarkTurbo said:
Bloody thing is already jinxed :doh: I've had a fair few problems over the years but i just keep fixing it and telling myself that one day there will be nothing left to go wrong with it :lol:

I must have way too much patience :der:
Click to expand...
good to hear your blitz aint killed your engine every time you turn it over
 
PobodY

PobodY

Moderators
Staff member
Fast Guy said:
This is an old review which says you can have your cake and eat it. I don't know if/how much things have moved on since it was done.

http://www.mkiv.com/techarticles/filters_test/2/
Click to expand...
I've said it before, but I've got issues with the pseudo-scientific testing they did in this. - The principle is sound enough, but it's like Mythbusters; just pretending to be scientific whilst being entertaining doesn't actually make it so.

I have no vested interest in the results, obviously I thought a K&N was best despite what the results say.

My main issue is that the kind of power increases they recorded are not significantly different; that's the kind of variation you get between subsequent runs anyway. At best it should say that there is no real difference in performance increase between any of them. - If you think about it, on a 100bhp engine you're saying it's 1% better than the others... obviously on a 300bhp engine you're talking about 1/3%; can you really measure that repeatedly?

My second issue is that they haven't actually measured the change in flow despite talking about it; anyone who's done the vacuuming will know that it keeps on sucking whether there's something stuck in the end of the wand or not... it's just not sucking very hard.
It seems like they've made the assumption that increased power is from better flow (which goes back to my main issue).

The filtration test I can't argue with. It does show that the A'Pexi gives the best filtration. However, the manufacturers of the oiled filters will tell you that their filter gets better with use (as the pores get smaller from trapped dust already caught); I'm pretty sure K&N tell you not to clean the filter too frequently for this reason.
So that makes me ask "what would this test be like if you repeated it on filters that have been in-use for a couple of years?".

Anyway, that's the main reason that I think the surface area (i.e. biggest filter) is the most important factor. - If there was a massive A'Pexi on the market I'd find it hard to argue against that.
 
PobodY

PobodY

Moderators
Staff member
Spikey said:
And if K&N is the best (So they Claim) How many ppl actually Re-Oil them every year?
Click to expand...
I do. When I do the oil etc the filter comes off and gets cleaned with the K&N detergent, then re-sprayed with the red K&N oil.

I did try using Daz before because Fubar Andy said it would go really clean...
 
M

Makaveli_se7en

Member
PobodY said:
I've said it before, but I've got issues with the pseudo-scientific testing they did in this. - The principle is sound enough, but it's like Mythbusters; just pretending to be scientific whilst being entertaining doesn't actually make it so.

I have no vested interest in the results, obviously I thought a K&N was best despite what the results say.

My main issue is that the kind of power increases they recorded are not significantly different; that's the kind of variation you get between subsequent runs anyway. At best it should say that there is no real difference in performance increase between any of them. - If you think about it, on a 100bhp engine you're saying it's 1% better than the others... obviously on a 300bhp engine you're talking about 1/3%; can you really measure that repeatedly?

My second issue is that they haven't actually measured the change in flow despite talking about it; anyone who's done the vacuuming will know that it keeps on sucking whether there's something stuck in the end of the wand or not... it's just not sucking very hard.
It seems like they've made the assumption that increased power is from better flow (which goes back to my main issue).

The filtration test I can't argue with. It does show that the A'Pexi gives the best filtration. However, the manufacturers of the oiled filters will tell you that their filter gets better with use (as the pores get smaller from trapped dust already caught); I'm pretty sure K&N tell you not to clean the filter too frequently for this reason.
So that makes me ask "what would this test be like if you repeated it on filters that have been in-use for a couple of years?".

Anyway, that's the main reason that I think the surface area (i.e. biggest filter) is the most important factor. - If there was a massive A'Pexi on the market I'd find it hard to argue against that.
Click to expand...
Your comments are pretty much applicable to every test I've ever seen published in the motoring press. Never seen any form of MSA or measurement capability analysis. I'm pretty sure that sample sizes of 1 can not be proved to statistically significant differences regardless of the measuremnet system as there is no indication of part to part variation and the subsequent performance distributions within the population.
 
PobodY

PobodY

Moderators
Staff member
I'm glad to think that my rant wasn't complete garbage. - I suppose it's that I know I'd be crucified for publishing results like that. It's not completely valueless, but it requires people to think a little about what the data really says, and how they interpret it... and all it really says is "an uprated air filter gives you a quantifiable power increase" (as you could look at the data as a batch set of four samples).

I don't want to discourage people from taking a scientific approach to testing things. It's really just making sure that you don't confuse correlation with causality (which is something you see all the time in the media).
 
P

pulsarboby

Guest
im just gonna agree with everyone as im nice like that:lol:



Is this some sort of appreciation society for people whjo've swallowed a thesaurus?
Click to expand...

ive spotted it, its 'for' as it should be 4
 
D

dave_gtir

New Member
space isnt really important to me my battery is already in the boot!

so im best of witht he biggest K&N i can get yeh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top