[sm=smiley2.gif]<----------note the winking eye

 

stay tuned for another episode of The Old and The Desperate.

 

Its odd that they didn't include OEM or common replacement elements like Purolator or Fram.

 

the article states tehy couldn't use a fram or the like becasue the testing was done with a 9x6" cone filter and Fram doesn't make one...so it wouldn't be a comparible test. Also they stated that the OEM filters are tested from the factory with coarse dirt particles and this test was using mostly fine particles and the oem filters would not be able to stand up to it at all. They also noted:

OEM filters fairly well but doesn't flow that well. Also, as it accumulates any dust, whatever flow it did have goes straight down the tubes. OEM filters are good only for vehicles that never see dirt. Not reusable, Not recleanable, and falls apart very quickly in water.

 

But the bottom line on this..Is if you change your oil more regularly when usingK&N type air filters, you most certainly will not have to worry about the dust that makes it by the filter bothering the engine.

 

I copied your report and sent it off to the Amsoil Tech Dept. and this was their response to it.


Thank you for contacting AMSOIL with your concerns.

In response to your inquiry, AMSOIL is following up with the editors of this publication. To better serve our dealers and customers, AMSOIL partnered with worldwide leaders in filtration to develop the Ea nanofiber air filter. The EaA filter offers higher efficiency and better airflow than foam, oil wetted gauze, and conventional cellulose filters. AMSOIL has conducted testing of our products at ISO certified laboratories including Southwest Research Institute and with our filter partner Donaldson Company. AMSOIL does not know where the data in the magazine was generated.

AMSOIL is promoting the new Ea air filters as more efficient filtering technology, with some advantages in air flow over cellulose filters and, in fact, over our former foam TS filter. If we went head to head with K&N we would most likely not flow quite as well, but better than cellulose filters. In fact, race teams state they see little or no airflow difference between the oil wetted gauze and the AMSOIL EaAU. The EaA filters offer less restriction than the foam filters, at 200 scfm the restriction is 0.8 inches of water, while the foam filter is 1.1 inches of water, the oil wetted gauze filter is 0.6 inches of water at the same volume of air flow.

Using SAE J726 (ISO5011) test protocol and employing a mixture of A2 Fine Test Dust and carbon black to simulate on highway driving conditions, the cumulative efficiency of AMSOIL Ea filters with the nanofiber media is 99.5%. Oil wetted gauze filters, when tested with course test dust, have an efficiency of 99.1% while the foam filter was 99.5%. This testing was conducted at Southwest Research Institute.

Thank you again for the opportunity to respond to your concerns. As always, please feel free to contact us again if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Richard Holappa, Jr.
Technical Product Manager: Filtration

In the second part of your first post, the pass through of dirt, I would say that your sock theroy falls way short.
[font=arial][/font

 

dude seriously, do you own amsoil stock, or borla? Anytime I say chit about any of them you feel the need to argue about it...I GET IT ,YOU LOVE BORLA AND AMSOIL......MOVE ON.


I didn't write the article, just copied it for members to read cause I though it was informative, sorry if it pissed in your amsoil cheerios. As far as the amsoil report they sent to you....NO DUH!!! I thought they would come out and say yea...they were right...our product really does blow.

as far as the test that AMSOIL used this is another passage from the article:

Basically, what they do is flow air through the filter from 1-120 microns in size. The ISO-5011 standard sets guidlines for the range and size of particles involved. The old testing standard was an SAEJ726, but this has been adopted by ISO and improves upon.

Maybe you should recontact Amsoil and tell tehm to try testing using the new standard, as the test they used to get the results they gave you is the OLD standard.

Reply to this any way you wish, but this will be my last post in the matter, I am tired of arguing with you just because you like a certain product.

 

K&N IS THE BEST AROUND

 

WOW. I was the one who first noticed that you seemed to come back (not me addressing you on any of the issues until I saw all your responses to mine) with a dig about what I posted. I am not arguing in the least? Just responding to my findings. It seems that you are the guy who has a chip on your shoulder about anything I post here. I only post fact and as with Amsoil, they don't do their own testing but farm it out to 2 companies. If you have a problem believing them....that is your problem not mine. I really don't think they are in business all this time selling BS?????

Maybe Jeep Magazine needs 2 companies to test for them? And just maybe that there is more to the Jeep test than Jeep wants you to know???? $$$$$$$

Now you are bringing up Borla..........I picked that you had something against my posts from the start when I first addressed you on it when jumping on the Borla issue. Why.......If everyone here is intitled to their own opinion why jump on me? I think it isn't the Borla or Amsoil issue....its just that you want me to just move on???? To me just because you don't like my opinion, you are trying to make me look bad as right after I posted about me bying an Amsoil air filter in another post, you come out with a post on they suck????

I see the real you in your posts. You need to get over other peoples opinions as I take yours with a grain of salt......

 

Well i like K&Nand SMA CATBACK SYSTEM