Ford Power Stroke Nation banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
99' F350
Joined
·
50 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I have a K&N Cone filter that is like new but i have not yet put it on, a lot of people on here seem to give K&N a bad name, will i be ok to go ahead and put it in or should i go with the NAPA 6637?? Thanks for any input
 

·
"Smoke A Lil Smoke"
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
Put it on only if you don't like your truck!
 

·
owner/president
Joined
·
2,768 Posts
How about the AFE #24-40035(NAPA look alike).Its better than both of those.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
745 Posts
Well this is what i understand as the problem with the K&N. It is not the K&N filter its self it is the K&N dropin which does not seal to the factory box very well. I ran a Summit racing cone filter which was 9" long by about 6" with a clamp on style 4" inlet. I did not see any dirt or dust in the intake tube. The Summit racing Filter is a K&N for about $20.00 less. It even came in the K&N box.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,569 Posts
Well this is what i understand as the problem with the K&N. It is not the K&N filter its self it is the K&N dropin which does not seal to the factory box very well. I ran a Summit racing cone filter which was 9" long by about 6" with a clamp on style 4" inlet. I did not see any dirt or dust in the intake tube. The Summit racing Filter is a K&N for about $20.00 less. It even came in the K&N box.
:whs:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,810 Posts
No its any K&N.

Lots of good info...

Sorry for the late response. OBSWIZ asked me to comment on a few threads, this being one of them, a while ago and I’m just getting around to it. However, on a new computer (yea!… sort of… depends if you like Vista).

Anyway, I don’t monitor all the different forums anymore, but am always willing to comment if anyone would like to link me to the conversation you are having. Since I am a bit late, I’ll respond to the posts as they appear and hopefully it won’t be too confusing.

quote:
“have a used AIS…couldn’t find a filter for it…got a FIPKI K&N system cheap…should I put a tymar on or put the AIS back on??? I was thinking of mounting a tymar to the K&N tube…what do you guys think”

The K&N element should probably be avoided in turbo-charged applications. The initial filtration efficiency is not high enough to protect the compressor impeller.

The phrase “mounting a tymar” sounds kind of like Tymar is a filter. The filter we use is a Donaldson B085011 and Tymar is a company name. Tymar Performance makes all sorts of items, one of them being the open element intake kits.

That said, the element we use would not fit on the end of a K&N FIPK system. I guess you could technically modify things to get it in, but you wouldn’t have minimal radial clearance around the filter, which should be considered very important to providing low restriction air to the turbo. Without supplying minimal radial clearance, you won’t get the positive benefits the open element system should create.

The AIS will provide excellent filtration efficiency, but will not improve overall restriction or allow much additional air flow in the configuration that Ford uses. The Tymar Intake will provide excellent filtration efficiency as well as decrease restriction to the turbo and add significant air flow.

quote:
“Tymar is going to give you better flow but AIS is going to give you unmatched filtration…the AIS plus it will last a LONG time, like 60K miles…”

Although the AIS will give better filtration efficiency, you are only talking about 1/10 of a percent over the filter Tymar Performance Intakes use at initial filtration efficiencies. Not enough of a difference to really differentiate between the two.

For the longevity, you have to start talking about restriction ranges in both stock and aftermarket applications and how dirt will affect them. AIS has a larger capacity, but not across the restriction ranges once installed on the truck. Because of the configuration you are not lowering restriction significant over stock levels, but you are receiving better filtration compared to the stock intake.

The Tymar Intake will allow lower restriction levels and lasts approximately 15K miles in a restriction range LOWER than stock. If you want to go with longevity of filter, you can continue using the same filter and will simply not experience the positive benefits of lower than stock restriction levels.

We supplied the intake systems for Granite Construction and used them as a severe duty use test. They were rebuilding Power Stroke engines at approximately 60K miles because of the fine silt in the mining beds. After changing to our system they were using the same filters with 28K mile change out intervals and only experiencing 32”h2o of restriction (yellow on your stock restriction gauges) and they eliminated the necessity of engine rebuilds and were selling the used trucks with over 180K miles on them.

quote:
“I'm using a tymar because it's cheap to setup and offers good filtration.”

Although I agree with you, your listed intake is The K&N element should probably be avoided in turbo-charged applications. The initial filtration efficiency is not high enough to protect the compressor impeller.

quote:
“…be sure your Tymar-type filter includes the PowerCore filter media and not some lesser media material.”

Although the PowerCore ® media is far superior to most other media, there is not a PowerCore media filter available for use as an open element. They are inserts for intake boxes and are not configure for use as filter alone applications.

The filter media is not the main attraction, but the filter configuration. It is NOT true that you cannot get the same filtration efficiencies or flow rates from other Donaldson products. It will just simply have to be larger. The PowerCore configuration allows for compact applications that have flow rates and filtration efficiencies of filters much larger. So it is the compactness of the element and not that the media processes some magical qualities.

quote:
“IMO, the FIPK tube with the heat shield and the Donaldson (aka #6637) filter combination is hard to beat for the money.”


I would probably respectfully disagree. The problem is the thickness of the stacked gauze media will not allow for a high pleat count and severely restricts the available surface area. A typical RD-1460 that is used in a FIPK system only has about 44 pleats. The Donaldson we use is not only a larger filter overall, but the thinner media allows for 202 pleats, leaving us over 5 times the surface area to pull from. This is why we can outflow and out filter a re-usable element as long as minimum radial clearance is maintained.

The problem with heat shields and routing air through intake boxes is that whenever you direct air flow, you increase restriction. Low restriction is the goal, so using a filter that has the ability to flow large masses of air and then enclosing it in a box yields very poor results. Heat shields do literally nothing. Air flow under the hood is dynamic and not static. It is moving all the time. Hot air will move right around a heat shield at the same temperature and be ingested and the only thing you have caused is turbulence.

Aside from impeding minimal radial clearance and isolation of engine vibration, a serious cause for concern is placing the filter, especially a 6637 element, under a rain drip channel for the hood. Beyond the ambient moisture that will cause restriction as it is absorbed into the non-hydrophobic media, you will be directing water towards the filter anytime the rain drip channel flows more rain than it can hold or spills over the retainer during left turns.

I’ll try to check back in and address further comments in the days to come and can hopefully shed some light on why we do what we do using the configuration we did.

Peace to all, enjoy those rigs!
__________________
Hydroscopic means it absorbs water. Hydrophobic is water resistant. Easy to remember because "phobic" comes from phobia, meaning to be scared of or to repel.

Anyway, both of those filters are hydrophobic. The 085046 filter is for high humidity applications. This has little to do with the hydrophobic capabilities and deals with micro biotic growth since constant high humidity, think of boats that are always in the water moored to a dock, will have greater abilities for mold and such to develop on them.

It should be noted that the 085046 filter is a LOT more expensive and there is no air flow or hydrophobic benefit over the 085011.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top