[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: '91 200 TQW K&N Filter
>From "Meron" <email@example.com>
At 08:19 2/22/97 +0000, you wrote:
> >In fact, the Audi filter's pleats were so closely
>>packed and distorted that a large center area of each pleat had moved up
>>against its neighbor far enough to limit the useful breathing area down to
>>about 50% of the intended surface area. For an engine that passes a lot of
>>air at full boost, this is not good.
>For a turbo filter you not need to worry too much, the turbo will suck all
>the air it needs from your filter....
Hmm.. I'ts my impression I want to have good clean air no matter what kind
of engine I'm running. In fact, because of the high demand of a turbo
engine, it is even more sensitive to dirty air than a not so stressed unit
naturally aspirated. Air passes through the air cleaner in both type of
engines, and must be just as clean in both cases. It seems that ANY dirt is
unwelcome when encountered down stream of the air cleaner.
I spent quite a while back on Prodigy watching the discussions about AMZOIL
air cleaners, K&N and paper filters on various automotive discussion boards.
One fellow, in an effort to convince a heavy equipment company operating in
very dusty conditions to lower costs by using servicable air elements
conducted some tests to convince them that the reusable ones were more
economical. But the test backfired. All the reusable filters let too many
silicates (read dust) through the elements. The paper ones that had to be
replaced weekly, on the other hand didn't. I've always wondered about that.
Now I know.
As an ex-motorcycle dealer, I sold and serviced K&N filters for
lots of racers. They work very well for such activities where speed is of
the most importance. A little dirt doesn't matter in the overall scheme of
things when the engines are rebuilt more for performance matters than wear.
Thank you very much for your reply.
>it is far more important to have a good filter, clean, on a naturally