Have you ever tried to pour (conventional) motor oil from a can at -20? It is more like molasses than oil...and its higher viscosity does affect your engine at startup (hence one of the prime benefits of synthetic oil). How this might affect the "stickyness" of the filter oil is anybodys guess - who knows, it might even be more sticky when cold. But my work with inertial impactors in environmental sampling suggests that very cold temps might cause some of the particulate to bounce off rather than stick.

I have never heard that before, but that certainly doesnt make your point invalid. Its that kind of emperical data we need for such a discussion.

So if the particle bounces off you have completed the first task of a filter, blocking. The question now is capture. Does that particle pass thru or jam a hole? Which boils down to particle size vs filter opening size. I am assuming Green mentions 5 micron filtering as a marketing tool against K&N because K&N apparently refuses to make such a statement?

I like the handle "BigSwede", its the exact same handle my father uses on the CB. I guess that would make me "SwedeSon"?

Better yet, "SonOfSwede" <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I was always under the impresion that as a K&N got dirtier, it would filter more effeciently but also lower it's initial performance gain (the reason you buy it is for better air flow I assume). I have a K&N just because I won't have to buy another air filter again, I just usually clean it in the fall and sometimes on really dusty trail days, I'll beat some of the dust out of it.

so anyway, as the K&N gets dirtier, doesn't it filter better? (same thing for the green I think?) As opposed to standard filters that just get worse and much less efficient with time and then need to be thrown away.

<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" /> Peter

The top of this thread mentions that the Green uses the same cotton/oil technology as the K&N. Then there is some discussuion about the filter effectiveness. I haven't seen any user data for the Green so I was sharing what I've read about the K&N (because it uses the same technology). Sorry if you felt that was off topic.

I don't consider UOA an absolute indicator myself, but I do see it as one of the few quantitive indicators available. I'm not willing to trade a potential increase in performance for potential harm to my engine.

As you are probably aware, in the old days in Scandinavia (or even currently in Iceland) the surname changed with each generation. My great grandfathers name was Karl Swenson, so my Grandfathers name was Arvid Karlsson. This was changed to Carlson when he immigrated through Ellis Island, and the surname-changing practice stopped there. So you could be whatever your dad's first name is +"son"!

As I mentioned before, conventional filters filter more efficiently (in terms of particle capture) as they get dirty, but at the cost of reduced flow, eventually to the point where the filter has lost its utility.

To some degree, the same thing would happen to a K&N-type filter, but I would be also concerned that a large amount of dust on the filter would absorb much of the oil, and reduce the adhesion properties that the filter depends on. If there is enough oil to wick through and around the captured debris, then I think the filter would continue to operate effectively.

BTW is anybody here old enough to remember the old "oil bath"-type air filters found on some old small engines and even very old cars? It consisted of a pool of oil; incoming air was forced to make a 180 degree turn just above the oil. Much of the particulates in the air would carry forward and land in the oil. Another crude form of inertial impactor...

You know I'M that old.

LOL - Well, I guess I'm that old too...
When I first got it, my first car (a 6-volt, 1300cc `66 Bug) sure was.



[ON Topic]

So far, it appears that we have TWO first-hand accounts on the GREEN filter (One user & one observer). --- Both of these seem to indicate that the GREEN filter is of superior construction.

Without any concrete evidence about the filtration capabilities - as a consumer, would this materials/quality advantage alone justify the price difference?


The reason that IÆm leaning toward the GREEN is this:
The one and only time that I cleaned and ærechargedÆ my K&N, I took great care to follow the instructions, to-the-letter. - Nonetheless, I noticed that the gauze filter element suffered a slight bit of damage during the processà A small æthin spotÆ developed right in the middle of the filter, and necessitated that I attempt to repair it (Not very successfully, I might add). --- This was after ONE ærechargeÆà which left me wondering what things were going to look like in the future, after several such cleanings.

IÆm intrigued by the woven & multi-layer set-up of the GREEN, because I believe it would quite likely be more durable, particularly during the cleaning & recharging process. --- I have no facts upon which to base this opinion; just a gut armchair-mechanical-engineerÆs instinct.


Keep it rolling û This has been very informative! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" />


Cheers! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />
Smiley
(or maybe > J.R. Davidson <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/coolg.gif" alt="" /> )

DadsSon?
GrandDadsSonSon? (Starting to sound Japanese....does that make it Isuzu related?)
Sorry, way off topic but couldn't resist.

In particularly dusty conditions the cotton/oil type filter manufacturers recommend adding some oil w/o cleaning to prevent just what you discribe. I have even done what Peter mentioned on very dusty outtings, plus added a little oil.

I had an oilbath filter on my first vehicle ever, a 69 VW Karmann Ghia ! No I'm not that old, we found it in '80. After tearing apart the case my father and I were amazed at how little damage there was to the seals and bearings, relatively speaking for a vehicle that had a frozen engine and tranny while sitting in a garage for almost 5 years.