Triumphrat

AceT100

On what planet did you hear this?

K&N have the best reputation in the world, and have had for almost 30 years...I think you need to check your sources dude.

__________________
...................

uzidzit

they probably flow just a little less, but they do seem to trap more stuff, more surface area coated with oil. They have been a little easier to clean for me, and never seem to go dry as fast as the k&N I have used. when they go dry they lean out the mixture.

I have been in very dusty places and there was always less fine dust in the airboxes with the uni.

the uni is also a lot easier to oil, if you miss a pleat on the k&n it will let all the crud in the world trough

(oh yea and the uni is half the price)

__________________
"Peter, It seems like you have been missing a lot of work recently, well Bob I wouldn't say that I've been missing it"
ENOUGH, go out and ride!

Pokeyjoe

Now be nice or I won't share. Earth, btw.

Are you familiar with "Bob the Oil Guy"? Well, he tested some air filters and K&N didn't fair too well. High flow, but lots of dirt got through, too.

Link with test results.

In all honesty, if you are looking for a good filter, use the stock paper one.

__________________
*
John

Some people are like Slinkies. They're really good for nothing. But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

Gob-ny-geay

PokeyJoe,

Hmmm... sincerely not trying to be difficult, but I'm not so sure about these results. I admire the guy for his fortitude in running these tests, more than most of us would care to do, but...

1.) K&N did flow more air than the others, correct?

2.) The filtering tests were done while driving the same car, assumably on the same route, obviously at different times. That said, isn't this a variable, i.e., one day could be "dustier" than the previous? This skews the test somewhat. It might have been better to do this in a lab controlled atmosphere.

3.) I'm not so sure about the oiled filter elements Vs. non-oiled, and whether or not that eventually "colors" the secondary filters darker. I would think that it does. Remember that this moistening of dirt is the slick sell ingredient behind all these magical Vacuum Cleaners (Rainbow, etc.) wet dirt shows up better than dry dirt.

4.) Lastly, if a filter "flows" more air through itself, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the additional dirt leaked through - as all the filters tested experienced - would be at the same increased ratio?

Nice test, admirable effort by the guy. But where I come from (earth as well!) you gotta obviously beat the Champ, not just tie him, for the Crown.

What are your thoughts?

__________________
Bob

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".

"Ecurie Sportive" - For the love of the sport.

wenzel850

I run K&N's in both my cars and bikes. I've never had a dirt related engine failure.

The 1 time I had a Uni on my bike, it broke in 2 during the middle of an enduro. That was the last Uni I've ever owned.

__________________
Quentin

"01-20-2009 I can't wait"

AceT100

Never heard of him, but a 'reasonably cheap water manometer' used for testing compared with THISI know whose results I'd go by..

__________________
...................

Pokeyjoe

Fine. I only posted Bob's test because he did explain the rationale (more air = more dirt), however, there are many more independent tests on the internet (not K&N's obviously biased tests) to substantiate his results.

The bottom line is that performance (more flow) comes with a price (more dirt). Is it enough to make a difference? Maybe not. Your bike. Your call. Just trying to provide a bit of an education here.

__________________
*
John

Some people are like Slinkies. They're really good for nothing. But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

physicsmonkey

I was really curious about flow rates, but appreciate the consideration of filtration and longevity of filter oil on the element. I had totally missed those points.

Thanks

patsears