From: "Ted Lin" To: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com Subject: [80] K & N filter Date sent: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 05:37:11 PST Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com Hi guys, I have used K&N filter for about 15 months, and this is the first time that I am cleaning and re-oiling after about 15,000 miles (K&N suggests clean it every $40-50K miles. I am very surpised to find out that it is very clean. I do drive contry road to mid-PA every month for about 500 miles round trip, and the rest of the mileages are usually in the city. The cleaning kit is very nice, completely wash out the oil and dirt, but not too much after 15 months. It is designed well, but I am little worried. Either this filter is not filtering, or PA air is too clean (most Pittburgh chimney has two 2 colors, the up wind side is darker). Due to a bad experience with a burned motor, I am think about going back to the paper filter. What's your opinion about these air filter ? ted From: "Ted Lin" To: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com Subject: Re: [80] K & N filter Date sent: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:35:29 PST Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com > >HOw bad of a filtering difference does the KN make? How harmful is it? That's a $50m question. The particle went thru the oiled gauze is certainly fine, but certainly coarser than the paper. But the paper is just too restrictive, and clogged too fast. Funny thing is, K&N actually suggests to let the dust build up to increase the filtering ability. I guess if you have a fresh oiled gauze, it is too coarse. Now, is these fine dirt bad enough to cause long term problem ? I guess for an average 7-10 year life cycle of US design, it really does not matter. Will I still have this 94 LC 5 years from now ? probably not. Cost wise, it is about the same, but it really not an issue. It does give you performance uphill in Pgh, PA (I still have 2 more new stock paper filters, and I am not using them). The K&N is actually more convenient, in my driving style, you clean and oil it once a year. I guess my engineering mind still could not give you an answer. Ted From: "Jon Held" To: <80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com> Subject: RE: [80] K & N filter Date sent: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:05:24 -0500 Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com > What's your opinion about these air filter ? Ted, I posted this a while ago...have a look. The combo of the K&N air filter and the Borla exhaust does make a difference. A small difference, but it's there. I've gone back to stock air filters because of my own test results. The K&N product simply lets more dirt through. I use my 80 as a daily driver, and the test was simple. Put a smear of Vasaline on the upper part of the intake where it bends at a 90 above the filter. Being a young guy, you should have some lying around somewhere. Drive for a month with a fresly cleaned and oiled K&N and a month with a new stock filter. Draw your own conclusion based on how long you intend to keep the original motor. JH From: "Mick Barson" To: <80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com> Subject: Re: [80] K & N filter Date sent: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:18:43 +0800 Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com G'day Ted, I use the K&N, and have cleaned it twice since using it, both at around 5k, both times it was dirty, and that was just normal day to day usage. No Outback Trips :-(( So it appears to be working. I have no firm opinion on foam Vs paper, I simply used foam for the cost factor, and I do clean it regularly so I don't see any problems. What cleaning kit? I just use 2 icecream containers, one with mineral turps, other with filter oil. BUT On this subject, Does anybody know how the RYCO paper air filters compare with genuine, (I have noticed the general consensus on Oil filters is to stick with Toyota) I saw the Ryco air for around $24 in Marlows the other week. Cheers Mick (West Aussie) 97' 1HD-FT Auto, ickbar@southwest.com.au http://www.southwest.com.au/~ickbar ICQ#39756961 From: "Maximilian Neumayer" To: <80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com> Subject: RE: [80] K & N filter Date sent: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:23:40 -0600 Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com Ted, You may want to consider the AMSOIL oiled foam filter. I just got one for the 80 and I am replacing a K&N with it. According to AMSOIL propaganda, it has airflow equivalent to K&N and filtration equivalent to paper. It certainly appears beefier and better constructed than the K&N filter. For a 1994, the AMSOIL part # is S1143 and goes for around $33.00. Not affiliated. Regards, Max Neumayer 1994 FZJ 80 Additional AMSOIL Propaganda: Jim Bigley, author of The Diesel Page Website, put the AMSOIL Two-stage Air Filter to side-by-side testing with two other popular air filters. Bigley tested a K&N #1690 oiled gauze performance filter, an AC A644C paper filter with an oiled foam wrap and the AMSOIL TS-52. All three filters were tested as received. "I'm impressed," Bigley told independent AMSOIL Dealer Don Peters of Idaho. Bigley collected a road dust sample and treated it to pulverizing and grain sorting processes used in geological sample preparation. He tested each filter with a mixture of road dust grain sizes: four ounces with grain size smaller than 0.0049 inches, one ounce with grain size between 0.0049 inches and 0.0082 inches, and less than one ounce with grain size between 0.0082 inches and 0.0098 inches. Bigley used a vacuum assembly, rated at 540 CFM, to pull air through the airbag. To test filtering efficiency, he coated three 4" X 4" ceramic plates with a very sticky tack oil and placed the plates inside the airbox on top of the fan cage so they could trap the particles that passed through the filter. He photographed each plate after test end. Bigley reports, "K&N came in dead last in this test as expected. I expected the AC filter to do the best in the filtering efficiency test, but it came in just slightly (emphasis Bigley's) ahead of the K&N. Before testing the AC I didn't think anything could get through it, especially with (its) oiled foam wrap. The AMSOIL filter surprised me by winning this contest by a big margin. The advertising claim on the AMSOIL box which says, 'Proven Best for Removing Airborne Dirt' is no idle claim." In his conclusion, Bigley reports, "From a filtering efficiency standpoint, the AMSOIL oiled foam filter element will protect your engine better than the other two style filters tested. No doubt about it." From: "Ted Lin" To: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com Subject: Re: [80] Coolant/heater hose problem/New topic - A nice foam filter Date sent: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:01:14 PDT Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com > >Hello Ted: > I too had the little hose below the intake manifold burst. I was going > 80 >miles per down the road and did not see things fast enough. It baked the head >gasket and it was down several days, rounding up parts and tearing down the >head. Cost for me about $ 200 USD, a few days of hard work and loss of some >compression, went from 175 in all cylinders to 165 to 160 in all. So I baked >more than the head gasket. I recommend getting the neoprene hose(fuel line) to >replace this little hose. I did let the list know about 6 weeks ago. Later >Robear > Hi, Thanks for all replied to my Yellow Stone National Park TLC preparation mail. I would like to inform the list about a new air filter that I just got yesterday. I have waited for about 4 weeks to get it from the local Amsoil dealer (someone on the list pointed this product to me). I can immediately feel the power increase from this filter (I am sure it is much less restrictive than the stock paper filter, and is definitely better than K&N filter that I was using before - now I can get rid of it - any taker around Pittsburgh ?) When I found out about this product, I contacted the local dealer (a private individual whose job is a grocery store manager, I picked up the filter at his store). It was special made foam filter, pre-oiled, and it is slightly larger than the stock paper filter in diameter (nice design). The foam is about 1" thick, and can be washed and re-oiled. I was scheduled to go to the local Toyo dealer for the value adjustment job before memorial weekend to take care of this "small hammer" pining sound. After I put this filter in, the small pinging sound when going uphill is completely gone - or at least I don't hear it any more. I am not sure why, but I guess the ECM processor must like the new increase air flow, and advanced the timing somehow. I will try to reset the ECM and see what happen. So far, I am very pleased with this foam filter, and from the literature, it seems to be doing the filtration as well as the stock paper one. As far as the belts go, I changed them last year before we went on summer vacation, just because the stock belt broke (one of the twin belt) about a month before we left. Ted From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" To: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com Date sent: Tue, 30 May 2000 17:08:22 +0100 Subject: [80] Amsoil air filters for TLC *diesels*? Copies to: dtlc@helios.net Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com Hi guys, Remember the posting below [80-series folks], about Amsoil filters being better than K&N? Sadly the part number Maximilian mentions is for a gasoline, while the recommendation further down talks only about diesels in general....I talked to Amsoil HQ and their UK distributor, but neither had any TLC diesels listed in their books.... So, the big question is: has anyone seen a stocknumber or cross-reference for a unit that fits? Alternatively, the UK-guy asked me to send him a stock filter, seems they are not unwilling to expand the range of models....I can order a single unit, and it will then become part of their order-system....wish all manufacturers were so easy....8-)) PS George: I believe you have a strong opinion on details of upper and lower shape/ring of that filter, to make it airtight, with some aftermarket units being better than others (K&N, FinerFilter?)....this raises the question whether it would be better to send Amsoil the best brand available, for physical dimensions. Any comments, thoughts or ponderings? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx From: "Maximilian Neumayer" To: <80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com> Subject: RE: [80] K & N filter Date sent: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:23:40 -0600 Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com Ted, You may want to consider the AMSOIL oiled foam filter. I just got one for the 80 and I am replacing a K&N with it. According to AMSOIL propaganda, it has airflow equivalent to K&N and filtration equivalent to paper. It certainly appears beefier and better constructed than the K&N filter. For a 1994, the AMSOIL part # is S1143 and goes for around $33.00. Not affiliated. Regards, Max Neumayer 1994 FZJ 80 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Additional AMSOIL Propaganda: Jim Bigley, author of The Diesel Page Website, put the AMSOIL Two-stage Air Filter to side-by-side testing with two other popular air filters. Bigley tested a K&N #1690 oiled gauze performance filter, an AC A644C paper filter with an oiled foam wrap and the AMSOIL TS-52. All three filters were tested as received. "I'm impressed," Bigley told independent AMSOIL Dealer Don Peters of Idaho. Bigley collected a road dust sample and treated it to pulverizing and grain sorting processes used in geological sample preparation. He tested each filter with a mixture of road dust grain sizes: four ounces with grain size smaller than 0.0049 inches, one ounce with grain size between 0.0049 inches and 0.0082 inches, and less than one ounce with grain size between 0.0082 inches and 0.0098 inches. Bigley used a vacuum assembly, rated at 540 CFM, to pull air through the airbag. To test filtering efficiency, he coated three 4" X 4" ceramic plates with a very sticky tack oil and placed the plates inside the airbox on top of the fan cage so they could trap the particles that passed through the filter. He photographed each plate after test end. Bigley reports, "K&N came in dead last in this test as expected. I expected the AC filter to do the best in the filtering efficiency test, but it came in just slightly (emphasis Bigley's) ahead of the K&N. Before testing the AC I didn't think anything could get through it, especially with (its) oiled foam wrap. The AMSOIL filter surprised me by winning this contest by a big margin. The advertising claim on the AMSOIL box which says, 'Proven Best for Removing Airborne Dirt' is no idle claim." In his conclusion, Bigley reports, "From a filtering efficiency standpoint, the AMSOIL oiled foam filter element will protect your engine better than the other two style filters tested. No doubt about it." -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] From: "Ted Lin" To: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com Subject: Re: [80] Amsoil air filters for TLC *diesels*? Date sent: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 09:18:21 PDT Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com >From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" >Reply-To: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com >To: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com >CC: dtlc@helios.net >Subject: [80] Amsoil air filters for TLC *diesels*? >Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 17:08:22 +0100 > >Hi guys, > >Remember the posting below [80-series folks], about Amsoil filters >being better than K&N? Sadly the part number Maximilian mentions is >for a gasoline, while the recommendation further down talks only >about diesels in general....I talked to Amsoil HQ and their UK >distributor, but neither had any TLC diesels listed in their >books.... > >So, the big question is: has anyone seen a stocknumber or >cross-reference for a unit that fits? > >Alternatively, the UK-guy asked me to send him a stock filter, seems >they are not unwilling to expand the range of models....I can >order a single unit, and it will then become part of their >order-system....wish all manufacturers were so easy....8-)) > >PS George: I believe you have a strong opinion on details of upper >and lower shape/ring of that filter, to make it airtight, with some >aftermarket units being better than others (K&N, FinerFilter?)....this >raises the question whether it would be better to send Amsoil the >best brand available, for physical dimensions. > >Any comments, thoughts or ponderings? > >xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >From: "Maximilian Neumayer" >To: <80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com> >Subject: RE: [80] K & N filter >Date sent: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:23:40 -0600 >Send reply to: 80_series@sgiblab.sgi.com > > >Ted, > >You may want to consider the AMSOIL oiled foam filter. I just got one for the >80 and I am replacing a K&N with it. According to AMSOIL propaganda, it has >airflow equivalent to K&N and filtration equivalent to paper. It certainly >appears beefier and better constructed than the K&N filter. For a 1994, the >AMSOIL part # is S1143 and goes for around $33.00. Not affiliated. > >Regards, >Max Neumayer >1994 FZJ 80 > >xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Additional AMSOIL Propaganda: >Jim Bigley, author of The Diesel Page Website, put the AMSOIL Two-stage Air >Filter to side-by-side testing with two other popular air filters. Bigley >tested a K&N #1690 oiled gauze performance filter, an AC A644C paper filter >with an oiled foam wrap and the AMSOIL TS-52. All three filters were tested as >received. > >"I'm impressed," Bigley told independent AMSOIL Dealer Don Peters of Idaho. > >Bigley collected a road dust sample and treated it to pulverizing and grain >sorting processes used in geological sample preparation. He tested each filter >with a mixture of road dust grain sizes: four ounces with grain size smaller >than 0.0049 inches, one ounce with grain size between 0.0049 inches and 0.0082 >inches, and less than one ounce with grain size between 0.0082 inches and >0.0098 inches. > >Bigley used a vacuum assembly, rated at 540 CFM, to pull air through the >airbag. To test filtering efficiency, he coated three 4" X 4" ceramic >plates >with a very sticky tack oil and placed the plates inside the airbox on top of >the fan cage so they could trap the particles that passed through the filter. >He photographed each plate after test end. > >Bigley reports, "K&N came in dead last in this test as expected. I expected the >AC filter to do the best in the filtering efficiency test, but it came in just >slightly (emphasis Bigley's) ahead of the K&N. Before testing the AC I didn't >think anything could get through it, especially with (its) oiled foam wrap. The >AMSOIL filter surprised me by winning this contest by a big margin. The >advertising claim on the AMSOIL box which says, 'Proven Best for Removing >Airborne Dirt' is no idle claim." > >In his conclusion, Bigley reports, "From a filtering efficiency standpoint, the >AMSOIL oiled foam filter element will protect your engine better than the other >two style filters tested. No doubt about it." > Hi, I did ordered the Amsoil filter from a local distributor (all Amsoil distributors work for themself. In Pittsburgh, this guy is a grocery store manager. You pay the local tax instead of the shipping cost). I replaced my K&N filter with this Amsoil, and I really like it. It seems to be special made version, little bigger than the stock paper filter (unlike the K&N has a smaller diameter, less flow area) I really feel the difference, especially when going uphill. I like this Amsoil design, but they don't make the 2-stage for LC. It is a very thick foam (about 1" thick), and the 2-stage is just a coarser layer outside (I also ordered one for my wife's Explorer which is a 2 stage). Now I have this K&N unused, any one in Pittsburgh area interested ? I already gave all my paper filters to my neighbors. Ted To: <80scool@yahoogroups.com> From: "James Yatras" Date sent: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:16:38 +1000 Subject: Re: [80] Snorkels with oiled filters? Send reply to: 80scool@yahoogroups.com There is also an article which factually measures the air-pressure drop against an foam-oil filter vrs a standard paper filter. http://www.safari4x4.com.au/80scool/tech/filters.html Not necessarily directed at this thread, but as an observation, but the fact to opinion ratio has dropped somewhat of late resulting in an increase in the signal to noise ratio. Cheers James Y. Brisbane HDJ80 To: <80scool@yahoogroups.com> Copies to: <90scool@yahoogroups.com> From: "George Couyant" Date sent: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:24:33 +1100 Subject: Re: [80] Re: Snorkels with oiled filters? Send reply to: 80scool@yahoogroups.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "John MacDonald" > I have yet to see a test that includes the three most imoprtant John have a look at http://www.safari4x4.com.au/80scool/tech/filters.html I ran pressure drop tests some time ago. The single most important issue with foam filters is maintenance and their ability to seal at the edges of the foam. As the filter becomes more congested with dust, the foam material begins to "walk" in its base. The edges have been known to pull back, effectively opening a channel for unfiltered air to enter the engine. This is the one and only reason why the 4wd industry frowns upon foam filters. No one wants to deal with a customer with a dusted engine. They tend to become irrational..... As a filter, they are great. They just need to be maintained regularly - a good deal more frequently than paper elements. Cheers gc '97 HDJ80 - Melbourne Oz To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com From: John MacDonald Date sent: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:14:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [80] Re: Snorkels with oiled filters? Send reply to: 80scool@yahoogroups.com 03/19/2002 5:24:33 Afternon, "George Couyant" wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John MacDonald" > >> I have yet to see a test that includes the three most imoprtant > >John have a look at http://www.safari4x4.com.au/80scool/tech/filters.html > >I ran pressure drop tests some time ago. Thanks George. I've seen your work before and although I don't deny that your results are accurate, they mean little to someone searching for the "best" filter (no offense intended, I'm a big fan of the quality of your cruiser work). You tested pressure drop as a function of filter type. This is _one_ variable (at one very specific set of conditions) that is *not* independant of efficiency and time. How do you know that the finer filter wasn't letting in twice the dirt ? or that if you had run the test for an extra 20 minutes, the FF press. drop wouldn't have increased to 10" H20? I'm looking for pressure drop and filtration efficiency as a function of time, over some filter life (foam or paper, you choose). I would then look at the total dirt trapped (or passed through), and the nominal pressure drop, over equivalent time periods. As filters clog, pressure drop will increase, but most importantly, it will increase differently for the different filters, so measuring at one time yields very little light on the issue. Similarily, someone might report better filtration at one instance of filter life (typically new) but over time it could still let more particles through due to a different "ageing" process (It could filter 99.9% of particles until 70% clogged then let everything else through). My point is that since these three variables are _not_ independent, measuring one independantly doesn't mean much. Again, I don't mean to discredit your work, it seems like a well thought out experiment and you don't draw any overly-encompassing conclusions, but I have three considerations when looking at filters: pressure drop, filtration efficiency, and time before replacement. Unfortunately for empirical experimenters, they are highly dependant on one another, making them rather difficult to run. cheers, John MacDonald To: 80scool@yahoogroups.com From: KincaidDJ@aol.com Date sent: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 03:01:07 EST Subject: Re: [80] Re: Snorkels with oiled filters? Send reply to: 80scool@yahoogroups.com << The single most important issue with foam filters is maintenance and their ability to seal at the edges of the foam. As the filter becomes more congested with dust, the foam material begins to "walk" in its base. The edges have been known to pull back, effectively opening a channel for unfiltered air to enter the engine. This is the one and only reason why the 4wd industry frowns upon foam filters. No one wants to deal with a customer with a dusted engine. They tend to become irrational.....As a filter, they are great. They just need to be maintained regularly - a good deal more frequently than paper elements.>> I was amazed the first time I saw the filter in my 80. I could have sworn they yanked it out of the Case MX 220 four wheel drive ag tractor I'm used to driving (except that thing costs almost $200,000 US fully equipped). The point here is that almost every tractor I've driven has paper filters. (I've driven more different types and brands of tractors than cars) Much less maintenance and much less mess. Granted, you're supposed to empty the reservoir daily by pinching the base (similar to the 80 but with a rubber squeeze base rather than a snap on system) and blow out filter residue with indirect compressed air every few weeks. These tractors are subjected to thousands of operating hours under brown-out dust storm conditions, usually during discing and tillage operations in semi-dry soils. The dry filters work great and require little maintenance with the diesels, showing very little or no problems with silt or gunk buildup in the air intakes. George said that the oiled filters "walk" and loose their seal when subjected to heavy dust buildup, which is a daily hassle in agriculture, but they are maintained daily which prevents potential problems. Most 80's on the other hand, are checked every 3000 miles (at best) during the oil change, which can be a problem if left unchecked after a heavy dusty drive with a few thousand before the next checkup. With this in mind, I can't understand why the oiled systems remain so attractive with the additional maintenance required (as compared to dry filters). I would think that the marginal benefits would not be worth the increased maintenance and potential for damage due to seal failure. I do have to say that I rarely see oiled systems as they have all but been eliminated from most agricultural tractors, and they aren't common in stock US vehicles, and as such I have little experience to recommend or discount them. I can only speak of the ease of paper filter maintenance and reliability, and the durability they show under extreme circumstances. David Kincaid 92 FJ 80