[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Your mail could not be delivered because of the following reason:
----- Transcript of session follows -----
Executing: /usr/bin/uux - -gI ncrhub4!rmail (columbiasc.attgis.com!david.moxley)
uux failed ( -1 )
server "/usr/bin/uux" failed - unknown mailer error 1
----- Unsent message follows -----
>From quattro Tue 31 Jan 12:30 PM 1995 remote from swiss.ans.net
Received: by swiss.ans.net id AA10825
(5.67b/IDA-1.4.4 for quattro-outgoing); Tue, 31 Jan 1995 12:31:13 -0500
Date: Tue, Jan 31, 1995 12:30 PM
From: atlantic.nos.noaa.gov!bchambers ("Barton P. Chambers")
Subject: FWD> K&N Filters Concern (fwd)
Dear Fellow Quattroheads,
Many folks here have extolled the (alleged) virtues of K&N filters; I
have remained silent (Hard to believe, I know) until now (sounds of thousands
of disappointed Quattro fans sighing in exasperation).
This has been pretty well thrashed out over on P'philes, with the consensus
being that the improvements in performance to be obtained from filters
comes from increased air flow. That increase can only be obtained at the
*cost* of reduced filtration and increased wear. This <forward> is another
datum point on the issue:
------------ Forwarded Message begins here ------------
From: email@example.com (Dave Darling)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 17:02:55 -0600
Subject: FWD> K&N Filters Concern
This came from the Volvo list by way of the Honda list.
I believe that a number of philers use K&N filters, so this would
be of interest...
This is *not* intended to be flame-bait! Just an FYI
about *one* company's testing of these filters.
>Subject: K&N Filters Concern
>I picked up the following on one of the general automotive
>bb services. I sent an email to the author asking permission
>to copy it here and he said ok.
>Basically what he is reporting is that in the commercial
>vehicle company he works in they found much higher wear in
>K&N filter equipped engines.
>I'm certainly not trying to start a flame war, and don't
>have any big personal opinion visa-vis K&N filters, but
>I thought that this point of view might be worthwhile
>as I know many Volvo owners use and or consider using
>Subj: K & N filters
> To: John M. Saturday, January 21, 1995 5:14:10 PM
>From: George Morrison
>John: If I wrote "subjective" I meant "objective".. I was
>responsible for evaluating re-usable air filters
>for a major construction/mining company that had
>hundreds of vehicles ranging from large earthmovers
>to pick-up trucks and salesmen's cars. This study
>was embarked upon due to the fact that we were
>spending upwards of $30,000 a MONTH on paper air
>filters. Using them one time then throwing them
>away.. I inititated the study in that I was convinced
>that a K&N type filter or oiled foam would save us
>many dollars per year in filter savings, man hour savings,
>and of course engines as these would filter
>dirt better than paper. (yes, I had read the K&N ads and was
>Representative test units were chosen to give us a
>broad spectrum from cars right through large front
>end loaders. With each unit we had a long history
>of oil analysis records so that changes would be
>Unfortunately, for me, every single unit having
>alternative re-usable air cleaners showed an immediate
>large jump in silicon (dirt) levels with corresponding
>major increases in wear metals. In one extreme
>case, a unit with a primary and secondary air cleaner,
>the secondary (small paper element) clogged
>before even one day's test run could be completed.
>This particular unit had a Cummins V-12 engine
>that had paper/paper one one bank and K&N/paper on
>the other bank; two completely independent
>induction systems. The conditions were EXACTLY
>duplicated for each bank yet the K&N allowed so
>much dirt to pass through that the small filter became
>clogged before lunch. The same outcome occured
>with oiled foams on this unit.
>We discontinued the tests on the large pieces almost
>immediately but continued with service trucks,
>formen's vehicles, and my own company car. Analysis
>results continued showing markedly increased
>wear rates for all the vehicles, mine included.
>Test concluded, switched back to paper/glass and all
>vehicles showed reduction back to near original levels
>of both wear metals and dirt. I continued with
>the K&N on my company car out of stubborness and at
>85,000 miles the Chevy 305 V-8 wheezed its
>last breath. The top end was sanded badly; bottom
>end was just fine. End of test.
>I must stress that EVERYONE involved in this test
>was hoping that alternative filters would work as
>everyone was sick about pulling out a perfectly good
>$85 air cleaner and throwing 4 of them away
>each week per machine...
>So, I strongly suggest that depending upon an
>individual's long term plan for their vehicles they simply
>run an oil analysis at least once to see that the
>K&N or whatever alternative air filter is indeed working
>IN THAT APPLICATION... It depends on a person's priorities.
>If you want performance then indeed the K&N is the
>way to go but at what cost???
>And no, I do not work for a paper or glass air
>filter manufacturing company nor do I have any affiliation
>with anything directly or indirectly that could
>benefit George Morrison as a result..
"No cones, no cones..." ____--/~|___\_____. _____
( _ _ > |_____|___|__/____|_
Dave Darling ~' `~~~~~~~~~~~' `~ _____| | |
firstname.lastname@example.org `~' `~'
------------ Forwarded Message ends here ------------
'77 Feline Varmint, Felix, Gray
'86 Carrera Cabriolet, Indischrot
'87 Syncro (Stealth Quattro) Alpenweiss