How does a RamFX foam airfilter element compare with K&N or the stock paper element?
Air Filter Element comparisons?
- Thread starter Litespeeds
- Start date
Being foam, it allows more air and dust particles to flow through per inch sq. The K&N gets your butterfly all gunky and who knows what else. The stock parer, cleanest filtration of all flows more than enough air for the engine with minor mods. But I assume as the paper filter gets dirty its performance degrades like most except the foam. I think the foam stays cleaner longer for obvious reasons.
Thought this might give you some insite. I found it on the rennlist.com fourm for Porsches but cant get the url for some reason on the thread??.. I cut and pasted instead.
"I've seen this thread (and started it occasionally) on a variety of different lists/forums. To the person who doesn't really think about it much (just the average Joe on the street) - most would probably have the impression that a K&N does help. For those who've looked into it, the camp is split (at least from what I've seen previously) between those who vigorously stand up and fight for K&N and those who say it's a scam on an order slightly less than Duralube. It doesn't seem that either camp has much ground to stand on (single vehicle tests for both improved airflow and wear) if you accept that K&N is going to use statistics in its favor (every company does - it's called 'marketing'). The few people that I think would have a good input are those in control of a large fleet of vehicles (UPS/FedEx, USPS, and the like) and it's one of those people that I was friends with that swayed my decision.
My friend (Dave) was the lead Maintenance ME for a strip-mining company - Lee Ranch Coal Company, out of Grants NM - (dirt roads, LOTS of dust... more than the average car will see for sure). Their vehicles needed replacement paper filters on average about once every 7~10 working days. Dave decided to test out K&N filters on a new set of 6 work trucks with the 7th running paper. All the vehicles were identical, purchased in a group order and presumably built the same day at the factory. The K&N's were properly cleaned and reoiled about as often as the paper filament was replaced (not quite, K&N's actually work better when slightly dirty and properly oiled). At 100k miles, all the vehicles were brought in for a through inspection and the 6 running K&N were due for an overbore due to cylinder scarring from dirt intake. The 7th was still within limits and was sent back out to resume its tasks. More money was spent on the 7th vehicle leading up to the 100k miles with the replacement filters - but it was well in the lead cost wise after the engine rebuilds not to mention the time that those vehicles were down and out of commission. They went back to paper filters shortly there after and never looked back.
So, in a Very harsh environment, there was definite increase in wear due to particles making it past the filter. Does this relate to the average Joe on the street who's looking to improve performance? Maybe - I'm not sure that anyone would notice before the engine needed to be torn down for other reasons (better than 300k miles). This sure as heck doesn't answer the question of more performance - but some people are unwilling to take the increased wear in return for possible performance gains.
I've seen a few studies that show a clean, freshly oiled K&N against a stock paper filter where the paper filter flows more initially (while filtering better) - but the flow decreases a bit faster than the K&N once particles are introduced. So the K&N gives a more consistent airflow over the term of the filter... but never claims peak airflow performance.
Draw from this what you will - personally, I still replace paper with K&N and just accept that I'm increasing engine wear. I also don't keep vehicles for more than 100k miles, so it's not an issue in my book. When I do end up with my garage of nice classics that I spent time rebuilding the engine and restoring - they'll most likely have paper OEM style air filters."
hope this might shed some light on the subject. I have found this question to be heatly debated.
"I've seen this thread (and started it occasionally) on a variety of different lists/forums. To the person who doesn't really think about it much (just the average Joe on the street) - most would probably have the impression that a K&N does help. For those who've looked into it, the camp is split (at least from what I've seen previously) between those who vigorously stand up and fight for K&N and those who say it's a scam on an order slightly less than Duralube. It doesn't seem that either camp has much ground to stand on (single vehicle tests for both improved airflow and wear) if you accept that K&N is going to use statistics in its favor (every company does - it's called 'marketing'). The few people that I think would have a good input are those in control of a large fleet of vehicles (UPS/FedEx, USPS, and the like) and it's one of those people that I was friends with that swayed my decision.
My friend (Dave) was the lead Maintenance ME for a strip-mining company - Lee Ranch Coal Company, out of Grants NM - (dirt roads, LOTS of dust... more than the average car will see for sure). Their vehicles needed replacement paper filters on average about once every 7~10 working days. Dave decided to test out K&N filters on a new set of 6 work trucks with the 7th running paper. All the vehicles were identical, purchased in a group order and presumably built the same day at the factory. The K&N's were properly cleaned and reoiled about as often as the paper filament was replaced (not quite, K&N's actually work better when slightly dirty and properly oiled). At 100k miles, all the vehicles were brought in for a through inspection and the 6 running K&N were due for an overbore due to cylinder scarring from dirt intake. The 7th was still within limits and was sent back out to resume its tasks. More money was spent on the 7th vehicle leading up to the 100k miles with the replacement filters - but it was well in the lead cost wise after the engine rebuilds not to mention the time that those vehicles were down and out of commission. They went back to paper filters shortly there after and never looked back.
So, in a Very harsh environment, there was definite increase in wear due to particles making it past the filter. Does this relate to the average Joe on the street who's looking to improve performance? Maybe - I'm not sure that anyone would notice before the engine needed to be torn down for other reasons (better than 300k miles). This sure as heck doesn't answer the question of more performance - but some people are unwilling to take the increased wear in return for possible performance gains.
I've seen a few studies that show a clean, freshly oiled K&N against a stock paper filter where the paper filter flows more initially (while filtering better) - but the flow decreases a bit faster than the K&N once particles are introduced. So the K&N gives a more consistent airflow over the term of the filter... but never claims peak airflow performance.
Draw from this what you will - personally, I still replace paper with K&N and just accept that I'm increasing engine wear. I also don't keep vehicles for more than 100k miles, so it's not an issue in my book. When I do end up with my garage of nice classics that I spent time rebuilding the engine and restoring - they'll most likely have paper OEM style air filters."
hope this might shed some light on the subject. I have found this question to be heatly debated.
Similar threads
