[darkdan]

Originally Posted by BigT

The only thing I will say about that test is that it marginalizes the difference in airflow, saying that it won't make a difference. While on the other hand it makes a big deal out of the difference in filtering performance. It points out that the K&N allowed 2.0 gms more dust than the Purolator, 2.6 more than the WIX, etc. However, it never really says if any of those numbers are high enough to cause a real difference in engine wear.

Having said that, I will say that the difference in flow was pretty small until higher volumes. So the argument that it isn't worth it makes sense.

A couple of the cheaper filters offered no better filtration than the K&N, and I have come across many filters with very poor gaskets/seals (as they found on the Purolator). I would venture to guess that the filters that a good number of people put in their cars are far worse than a K&N.

I guess I don't think it will make much of a difference performance wise, but I also don't think you are going to destroy your engine by using a K&N.

Well 60% of engine wear is caused by particles in the 5 micron to 25 micron range.