Obviously you are not in the 1%.
Once again - I'll state the obvious - YOU PROVIDE NO SCIENTIFIC FACTS to back up your claims of inferior filtration. The above article does not have ONE statement of actual wear measurements. Supposedly they tested? Using what standards? Excessive wear? I don't see any measurement of wear. MY CHEVY 305 WHEEZED ITS LAST BREATH AT 85,000 MILES? What kind of crackpot science is that? Did we do a full tear down and analysis of wear data? How often and what service was performed on the vehicle? How was it driven? etc. etc. etc.
If you want to talk about wear testing and filtration standards provide data from THE SOCIETY OF AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERS (SAE). Try to find tests results like the SAE J726 or other SCIENTIFIC MEANS OF MEASUREMENT AND CATEGORIZATION.
For those of you who may actually care about factual data try to look at the independent SAE results on the K&N website
K&N FACTS AND INDEPENDENT TEST RESULTS
Oh and for you Oliver Stone's who think the data is manipulated - prove them wrong and sue for false advertising via Class Action. They got the money, bet you can't take it since you won't find the smoking gun.
