What is the best paper air filter?
Why go back to a paper filter, You dont even have to get your hands dirty cleaning one! The kit to clean the filter is cheaper comparitavely than replacing the filter over and over again.
TECH Addict
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,003
Likes: 0
From: Live Oak, FL - in the woods where the creatures lurk.
I ran a K&N for probably 90K miles. Got tired of having to clean/oil it and I use a paper filter now. Pop it out/pop it in, done. I don't think the K&N is so much cheaper if you have the FRA mod. I went through a lot of recharge kits.
If I could buy the oil separately now......
If I could buy the oil separately now......
By my testing the Purolator was marginally better than
the Fram or OEM, and not as good as the Donaldson.
Not that significant a difference between Fram and
Purolator, really.
the Fram or OEM, and not as good as the Donaldson.
Not that significant a difference between Fram and
Purolator, really.
Trending Topics
I've heard good things from Fram and Wix paper filters. I use the latter and don't have any complaints. I used to have a Holley Powershot filter, so I know what it is to have to recharge it on a regular basis. I'm much happier using the paper filters now.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
from what K&N says, you shouldn't have to clean it so regularly. I've used it for 20K miles, never cleaned it, and runs fine. I've had one in my truck for just as long, haven't recharged it yet, and had no problems or loss of power.
I have always use the fram myself. Recently I compared the fram and stp and the stp looked basically the same, but had larger holes in the aluminum grill covering the filter. They both had the same filter, only the aluminum holes in the stp looked less restrictive. The stp looked like it might flow a little better and was under $5. I'm sure the restriction difference between any paper filter is going to be insignificant though.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 34,631
Likes: 2,557
From: Schiller Park, ILL Member: #317
Another Fram user here.....
About this post, in your test, between Fram and OEM, which performed better? I'm guessing Fram???
Originally Posted by jimmyblue
By my testing the Purolator was marginally better than
the Fram or OEM, and not as good as the Donaldson.
Not that significant a difference between Fram and
Purolator, really.
the Fram or OEM, and not as good as the Donaldson.
Not that significant a difference between Fram and
Purolator, really.
Originally Posted by HorsePowerKing
paper filters suck in general leave the k&n.
There is almost no debate as to whether a paper filter filters better than cotton. Paper wins.
The debate is A) does K&N provide more HP via less restrictive airflow?
B) Does the increased wear via higher Silicon readings really matter for an engine service life of 100-150k?
Go fram.
After I read this link..
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm
I will never use K&N filters on anyhitng I care about again.
After I read this link..
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm
I will never use K&N filters on anyhitng I care about again.
I was under the assumption from what ive read that a k&n filter flows no better than a paper filter even debated it with my buddy who insisted i try his new holley powershot filter. I went from 13.22 to 13.06 then 13.00 after putting it in between runs. Needless to say my buddy broke my ***** about it but i was happy. Also went from 106 to 107.4 trap speed. Guess im a believer that they work now.
I agree to a point about driving error but i was basing it on my 60 fts which were all consistent 1.95s 1.94s and 1.92s on both 13.22 and 13.06 13.00 runs back to back so i dont think there was too much driver difference in this case. All being said even if it could have been a fluke i'd say it was good for a tenth which still surprised me.