K & N's
Posted: Mon May 05, 2008 11:17 am
Mark, & List,
I put K & N's on both my 'merican cars and noted no change in performance or in gas mileage (I keep diligent records). . . .
Stan
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Mark Sabbann <arcola@visi.com (arcola@visi.com)> wrote:
I put K & N's on both my 'merican cars and noted no change in performance or in gas mileage (I keep diligent records). . . .
Stan
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Mark Sabbann <arcola@visi.com (arcola@visi.com)> wrote:
Post generated using Mail2Forum via email.356 Listers/Forumsters,
Check out this webpage on intake filtration. It's from K&N and no doubt includes some bias, but it provides a good technical overview. Specifically check out the Paper vs. K&N section. According to K&N, one reason paper filters are 'worse' than the K&N cotton is that natural humidity swells the fibers and restricts airflow. Yet, when the K&N filter traps dirt it improves the filtration. In both cases, there is added restriction yet one is better than the other.(?) One advantage of cotton over paper is the re-useability. Not trying to flame anyone, add fuel to a carb fire, or force bad puns down anyone's throat, just wanted to share the article. Maybe it will clear the air a bit.
http://www.knfilters.com/filter_facts.htm#PAPER
------------------------
Mark Sabbann
1965 C Coupe 219327
Champagne Yellow