RV Trip Planning Discussions

Go Back   iRV2 Forums > POWER TRAIN GARAGE FORUMS > Duramax Engine Forum
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-10-2008, 07:02 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Appalachian Campers
Coastal Campers
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Bern,NC
Posts: 2,032
My goal here is to make sure guys know what they are getting into when they consider changing the intake of their DMax. At the bottom of this post I have include the only independent, scientific, extensive test of DMax air filters that I know of.

I want to emphasize that there has been a lot of dyno testing over the last few years to see if there are any HP gains with an intake for the DMax. The tests repeatedly show no significant"”if any at all"”increase in HP regardless of the intake system or filter used. Perhaps at power levels in excess of 500 RWHP"”and most likely running a bigger turbo–there would be an HP increase.

What is controversial is whether or not turbo spool up time is improved with an aftermarket intake. The problem is there is no real way to test for that and seat-of-the-pants is not a reliable indicator. The aftermarket intakes do increase turbo noise, and some take that to be an increase in responsiveness. However we don't know for sure. Also, if someone does the exhaust and intake at the same time, then there is no way to know which caused what "feels"¯ to be an improvement.

Another controversial area is the claimed increase in fuel mileage an aftermarket intake supposedly provides. It is very hard to verify small improvements in mpg, especially over a couple tanks of fuel. Again, if someone does the exhaust and intake at the same time, then there is no way to know which caused the improvement.

I installed a K&N Aircharger (the 2002 version of the FIPK) on my 2002 the day after I got it. My mileage constantly improved with the truck for around 18,000 miles. Somewhere around that time I learned of the massive amount of dirt the K&N can let into a DMax so I went to an Amsoil air filter in a swiss-cheesed airbox. My mileage did not change, though the turbo was quieter. When I saw the results of Spicer's test I changed back to a stock Delco paper air filter. My mileage did not change then either. This has been verified over many tanks of fuel calculated by hand.

Most aftermarket intakes do seal off under hood air. For a couple months I monitored my intake air temps and I found a direct correlation between EGT and outside air temps (OAT). The hotter the OAT the higher the EGT. I installed a TX Christopher Cold Air Intake kit, which is a rubber gasket that seals off the stock airbox, and it did keep the intake air cooler. So I think we can say an aftermarket intake will help lower EGTs by sealing off hot, under hood air.

WARNING"”OPINION!! Given there is no HP increase and the MPG and turbo response improvements are questionable, I don't think an aftermarket intake allows any more air into an engine equipped with a stock turbo. If it doesn't allow any more air into the engine it is worthless.

What we do know"”and what the test below shows"”is that the aftermarket air filters do pass more dirt than the stock AC Delco filter.

The question you need to ask is: Is it worth risking more dirt into my engine for no HP gain and questionable gains in MPG and turbo response? That is a personal decision. Perhaps you do not drive in dusty conditions and for you ANY air filter would filter adequately. Regardless, don't be mad when my Delco paper filtered DMax"”running it's "Kennedy Race Tune"¯"”blows by you, your noisy turbo notwithstanding.....

Here is the air filter test Spicer reported on a couple years ago. This is basically a cut and paste of what is posted at: http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm

NOTE: The pretty color graphs didn't post"”I'll have to work on that later. However, the graphs are available at the link.

The Story behind the test:

First of all, many thanks to Arlen Spicer and Ken at Testand for organizing and facilitating the test. Arlen is a professional Firefighter who also operates a small tree service on the side. The tree service is the reason he owns a diesel truck. This study was the result of nearly a year of work by Arlen to get accurate independent data on air filters for the GM Duramax Diesel. Arlen originally set out to build his own Filter Test Stand so that he could perform accurate, repeatable and independent measurements on the various filters available for the Duramax. Arlen questioned the claims made by aftermarket filter manufacturers that their filters were superior to the conventional OEM style paper filters. After spending many months, hours and a considerable amount of his own money, he learned first hand how difficult it was to perform an accurate air filter test. He found it was difficult to maintain all the necessary controls to insure an accurate measurement. It was at this juncture that Arlen received a call from Ken at Testand offering to perform the ISO 5011 test free of charge. Ken found Arlen's idea for an independent comparison study very interesting and offered to do the ISO 5011 testing using one of Testand's industrial Filter Test Machines. Arlen posted the news in an internet forum and immediately the offers by forum members to purchase and send filters for the test started rolling in. Some members purchased and donated filters and others made contributions to cover the expenses and the cost of shipping the filters to Teststand. It was truly a team effort. The end result is the top quality data presented in this report. The following is a quote from a post in the forum.

(Arlen) SPICER wrote,
"Now that I am not doing the tests and my objectivity is not necessary, let me explain my motivation. The reason I started this crusade was that I was seeing people spend a lot of money on aftermarket filters based on the word of a salesperson or based on the misleading, incomplete or outright deceiving information printed on boxes and in sales literature. Gentlemen and Ladies, Marketing and the lure of profit is VERY POWERFUL! It is amazing how many people believe that better airflow = more power! Unless you have modifications out the wazoo, a more porous filter will just dirty your oil! Some will say " I have used aftermarket brand X for XXX # years with no problems. The PROBLEM is you spent a chunk of ching on a product that not only DID NOT increase your horsepower, but also let in a lot of dirt while doing it! Now how much is a lot? ANY MORE THAN NECESSARY is TOO MUCH!

Others are persuaded by the claims of aftermarket manufacturers that their filters filter dirt "better than any other filter on the market." Sounds very enticing. To small timers like you and me, spending $1500 to test a filter sounds like a lot. But if you were a filter manufacturer and you believed your filter could filter dirt better than any other media on the market, wouldn't you want to prove it? Guess what. Test your filter vs. the OE paper. It will cost you $3000 and for that price you will have the data that you can use in your advertisements. Your investment will be returned a thousand fold! EASIER than shooting fish in a barrel! So why don't these manufacturers do this? Hmmm? Probably not because they would feel guilty about taking more market share.

Now I am not saying that ALL aftermarket filters are useless. A paper filter does not do well if directly wetted or muddy. It may collapse. This is why many off-road filters are foam. It is a compromise between filtering efficiency and protection from a collapsed filter. Now how many of our trucks collapse their filters from mud and water? However, if a filter is using "better airflow" as their marketing tool, remember this....Does it flow better? At very high airflow volumes, probably. BUT, Our trucks CAN'T flow that much air unless super-modified, so what is the point? The stock filter will flow MORE THAN ENOUGH AIR to give you ALL THE HORSEPOWER the engine has to give. And this remains true until the filter is dirty enough to trip the air filter life indicator. At that point performance will decline somewhat. Replace the filter and get on with it.

Hopefully the results of this test will do 2 things. Shed some light on the misleading marketing claims of some aftermarket manufacturers and/or give us new insight on products already on the market that are superior to our OE filter. I stand for truth and will eat my words publicly if my statements prove wrong. I appreciate all of the help and support that you members have offered in this project. It would simply be impossible without your help. A huge thanks to Ken at Testand for his willingness to take on this project. I would be spinning my wheels from here to eternity without his help... SPICER"¯

Our thanks to Arlen and Ken for making the test happen and providing the valuable test results for the benefit of all.


Sept 2004



SCOPE:
This report presents the results of an ISO 5011 test of several air filters designed for the GM Duramax Diesel. The test was independently performed under controlled conditions using a $285,000 machine at Testand Corp of Rhode Island (manufacturer of the machine). Arlen Spicer, a GM Duramax Diesel owner/enthusiast organized the test. Ken an employee of Testand offered to perform the tests at no charge. (These tests typically cost approx $1700.00 per filter). Ken, also a Diesel enthusiast and owner of a Ford Power Stroke Diesel, shared Arlen's interest in performing an accurate unbiased test of different types and brands of diesel engine air filters. The filters used in the test were purchased retail and donated by Arlen and other individual Duramax Diesel owners. The detailed reports from the test have been compiled and are presented in the following pages. The final pages of this report present the interesting story how and why Arlen organized the test.

ISO 5011 Test:
The ISO 5011 Standard (formerly SAE J726) defines a precise filter test using precision measurements under controlled conditions. Temperature & humidity of the test dust and air used in the test are strictly monitored and controlled. As Arlen learned in attempting his own tests, there are many variables that can adversely affect filter test results. A small temperature change or a small change in humidity can cause the mass of a paper filter to change by several grams. To obtain an accurate measure of filter efficiency, it's critical to know the EXACT amount of test dust being fed into the filter during the test. By following the ISO 5011 standard, a filter tested in Germany can be compared directly compared to another filter tested 5 years later in Rhode Island. The ISO 5011 filter test data for each filter is contained in two test reports; Capacity-Efficiency and Flow Restriction.

Capacity and Efficiency:
The Capacity and Efficiency test report presents the test results of feeding an initially clean filter with PTI Course Test Dust (dirt) at a constant rate and airflow. The course test dust has a specific distribution of particle sizes ranging from less than 2.5 microns to greater than 80 microns (see table below). Every filter is initially tested at 350 CFM and the Initial Restriction or differential pressure across the filter is recorded in IN-H20 (Inches of Water). The filter is then tested by feeding test dust at a nominal rate of 9.8 grams per minute with a constant airflow of 350 CFM. The test is continued until the flow restriction exceeds the Initial Restriction + 10 IN-H20. At this point the test is terminated and the amount dust passed through the filter - Accumulative Gain - is measured. Dirt passing through the filter is captured in the Test Station's Post Filter. The exact amount of dirt passed is determined by measuring the before and after weight of the Post Filter. Similarly, the amount of dirt retained by the Filter under test - Accumulative Capacity – is measured by taking the difference between the before and after weights of the Filter. From these results the overall % Efficiency of the filter is calculated. This test also indicates how long a Filter will last before replacement is required (or cleaning for reusable filters).

Flow Restriction:
This report presents flow restriction of a clean filter resulting from an increasing airflow. The differential pressure restriction across the filter is reported in inches of water (IN H2O) versus Air Flow in cubic feet per minute CFM.

Data from these reports has been compiled and presented in the following bar graphs, Plots and data tables.

Filter Efficiency:
Filter efficiency is a measure of the filters overall ability to capture dirt.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 600x422 pixels and 36KB in size.


Accumulative Capacity:
"Accumulative Capacity"¯ is a measure of dirt holding/loading capacity before reaching the maximum restriction limit - Initial Restriction + 10 IN-H20.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 614x397 pixels and 35KB in size.


Accumulative Gain:
"Accumulative Gain" is the total amount of dirt that passed through the filter during the test.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 600x403 pixels and 34KB in size.


(Note: The Purolator was reported to have a seal malfunction during the test and passed more dirt than it would have with a good seal.)

Initial Restriction:
Initial Restriction is the Filter under test's resistance to flow at 350 CFM.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 619x419 pixels and 35KB in size.


Dirt Passed Versus Total Test Time

This graph shows each the duration of each filter's test versus dirt passed (Accumulative Gain).
(Note: The Purolator was reported to have a seal malfunction during the test and passed more dirt than it would have with a good seal.)

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 733x491 pixels and 41KB in size.


In the chart above it's important to note the different test durations for each filter. The AC Delco filter test ran for 60 minutes before exceeding the restriction limit while the AMSOIL and K&N tests each ran for 20 and 24 minutes respectively before reaching max restriction. In 60 minutes the AC Filter accumulated 574gms of dirt and passed only 0.4gms. After only 24 minutes the K&N had accumulated 221gms of dirt but passed 7.0gms. Compared to the AC, the K&N "plugged up"¯ nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt. See the data tables for a complete summary of these comparisons.

Dust Loading:
The dust loading curves show graphically how each filter responded to a constant 9.8 gms/min dust flow before reaching the maximum restriction limit.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 681x459 pixels and 39KB in size.


It's interesting to note the shape of these Dust Loading Curves. The AC and Baldwin filters each had near linear responses until reaching maximum restriction. Restriction for these filters increased at a constant rate versus the 9.8 gms/min dust feed rate. The other filters, most notably the oiled reusable types, had an exponential loading response before reaching maximum restriction. These filters had a lower initial restriction, but they became exponentially more restrictive under a constant flow of dirt. Also notice the length of the curves as it shows the relative test time for each filter (time to max restriction).

Restriction to Flow:
The Restriction to Flow curves graphically show how each "clean"¯ filter responded to a steadily increasing flow of air up to 350 CFM.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 681x461 pixels and 36KB in size.


The Flow Restriction response curves for each filter have the same basic shape. However, note how the AC Filter, which passed the smallest amount of dirt and had the highest dirt capacity and efficiency, also had the highest relative restriction to flow. The less efficient filters correspondingly had less restriction to flow. This illustrates the apparent trade-offs between optimizing a filter for dirt capturing ability and maximum airflow.


Test Data Tables:
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 566x560 pixels and 79KB in size.


Test Data Tables:
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 571x561 pixels and 69KB in size.



Test Data Tables:
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 658x600 pixels and 94KB in size.


Test Data Tables:
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 536x600 pixels and 77KB in size.


Test Data Tables:
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 534x600 pixels and 76KB in size.


Test Data Tables:


To be consistent with common industry practice all filters were tested using PTI Course Test Dust. Course dust is more commonly used since it will produce higher % efficiency numbers.

Attached Thumbnails





__________________
Blaine J. Painter

2002 2500 HD Dmax/Allison CC SB 4x4, Magnaflow, Kennedy Race Tune, Kennedy Boost Valve, Kennedy Lift pump, Nicktane, Isspro Gauges, BD Manifold; Suncoast Stage IV, 1057 Convertor, Xfer case brace, Allison deep pan; ARE shell, nerfs, Tuff Country 4" Lift w/RS-9000Xs, Realift T-bar Relocators, Cognito Pittman/idler supports, Frontier front end replacement, BFG AT/315/75R16s, 4.10 gears, SD tie rod sleeves, poly bushings, upper a-arm bump stops
Offline

afp1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to afp1
Find More Posts by afp1
Add afp1 to Your Buddy List

11-27-2006, 06:46 PM § #2
RickDLance
Diesel Fanatic




Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oak Grove, MO.
Posts: 15,454

RickDLance's Garage

General discussion concerning this can be found here;

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=115399

Please feel free to voice your opinion. Thanks!
__________________

2005 Chevrolet 2500HD 4x4 (test vehicle)
2005 Chevrolet 2500HD 4x4 Stock
2004 Chevrolet 3500HD 2x4 LLY
2003 Chevrolet 3500HD 4x4 LLY


Over 1 million miles on my 7 Duramaxes!!


Please support our site vendors!! Check them out by clicking here;
Get to know Our Vendors!


It's a great day to smile, Please send that through your keyboard!



Thanks for the support my Friends!
Online

RickDLance
View Public Profile
Send a private message to RickDLance
Find More Posts by RickDLance
Add RickDLance to Your Buddy List




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (1 members and 0 guests)
bearnc1


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Download .txt Version
Email this Page
Subscribe to this Thread

Search this Thread

Word(s):


Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump
User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Site Information Introductions & New Trucks Forum Operations Testing Forum GM Diesel Engines Duramax Fourth Generation: 2007.5+ (LMM) Duramax Third Generation: 2006-2007.5 (LBZ & LLY) Duramax Second Generation: 2004.5-2005 (LLY) Duramax First Generation: 2001-2004 (LB7) 4.5L Duramax (Upcoming) 6.5L Diesel Engine 4L80/85E Transmissions 6.2L Diesel Engine GM Trucks Drivetrain Suspension & Steering Wheels & Tires Interior Exterior Electrical 3500 Dually Trucks Medium Duty Trucks GM Transmissions Allison OEM Allison Aftermarket ZF-6 OEM ZF-6 Aftermarket 4L80/85E Transmissions Power & Performance Fourth Generation Duramax Electronics Third Generation Duramax Electronics Second Generation Duramax Electronics First Generation Duramax Electronics Custom Tuning Software EFILive Tuning Software HP Tuners Tuning Software Fuel System, Air, Exhaust, & Emissions Upgrades Propane, Nitrous, & Water Meth Other Performance Discussion Competition Competition Results Drag Racing Sled Pulling Bench Racing Articles & Useful Information Do It Yourself, Useful Articles, & Product Reviews Maintenance & Fluids Official GM Information VIN Check Requests New Vehicle Information Other Vehicles GM Gassers Any Other Vehicles Other Topics Truck Uses Shop Talk Member Rigs Spotted Nicktane Filter Questions Off Topic Politics & Religion Market Place For Sale Closed "For Sale" Ads Wanted Closed "Wanted" Ads Member Feedback Events, Rallies, & Regional Discussion Club Forums Club Details ALCAN Diesel Place Chapter Buckeye Oil Burners CNY Diesel Club CT Smoke DelMarVa Diesel Club Diesel Day Dreams Europe Georgia Diesel Owners Club Gulf Coast Rebels INDP Idaho Turbo Diesels Kansas Chapter DP Club Louisiana Black Smoke Rollers Michigan Oil Burners Minnesota/Western Wisconsin DP Club Montana DP Member Club NC Dmax's Nor-Cal Diesel Place Club Northeastern Ohio Diesel Crew Northern Nevada Cup Cake Crew OK Diesel Truck Club Ontario Diesel Place Chapter Pacific Iron Mountain Truck Club SoCal Black Smoke The Florida Diesel Truck Club TN Diesel Place Club National Northwest Southwest North Central South Central Great Lakes Northeast Mid-Atlantic Southeast Canada Vendors Supporting Vendors Limited Vendors Vendor Info & Specials Comments




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:56 PM.


Contact Us - Diesel Place - Archive - Top


Copyright © 2003
__________________

diandtom is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-10-2008, 07:02 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Appalachian Campers
Coastal Campers
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Bern,NC
Posts: 2,032
My goal here is to make sure guys know what they are getting into when they consider changing the intake of their DMax. At the bottom of this post I have include the only independent, scientific, extensive test of DMax air filters that I know of.

I want to emphasize that there has been a lot of dyno testing over the last few years to see if there are any HP gains with an intake for the DMax. The tests repeatedly show no significant"”if any at all"”increase in HP regardless of the intake system or filter used. Perhaps at power levels in excess of 500 RWHP"”and most likely running a bigger turbo–there would be an HP increase.

What is controversial is whether or not turbo spool up time is improved with an aftermarket intake. The problem is there is no real way to test for that and seat-of-the-pants is not a reliable indicator. The aftermarket intakes do increase turbo noise, and some take that to be an increase in responsiveness. However we don't know for sure. Also, if someone does the exhaust and intake at the same time, then there is no way to know which caused what "feels"¯ to be an improvement.

Another controversial area is the claimed increase in fuel mileage an aftermarket intake supposedly provides. It is very hard to verify small improvements in mpg, especially over a couple tanks of fuel. Again, if someone does the exhaust and intake at the same time, then there is no way to know which caused the improvement.

I installed a K&N Aircharger (the 2002 version of the FIPK) on my 2002 the day after I got it. My mileage constantly improved with the truck for around 18,000 miles. Somewhere around that time I learned of the massive amount of dirt the K&N can let into a DMax so I went to an Amsoil air filter in a swiss-cheesed airbox. My mileage did not change, though the turbo was quieter. When I saw the results of Spicer's test I changed back to a stock Delco paper air filter. My mileage did not change then either. This has been verified over many tanks of fuel calculated by hand.

Most aftermarket intakes do seal off under hood air. For a couple months I monitored my intake air temps and I found a direct correlation between EGT and outside air temps (OAT). The hotter the OAT the higher the EGT. I installed a TX Christopher Cold Air Intake kit, which is a rubber gasket that seals off the stock airbox, and it did keep the intake air cooler. So I think we can say an aftermarket intake will help lower EGTs by sealing off hot, under hood air.

WARNING"”OPINION!! Given there is no HP increase and the MPG and turbo response improvements are questionable, I don't think an aftermarket intake allows any more air into an engine equipped with a stock turbo. If it doesn't allow any more air into the engine it is worthless.

What we do know"”and what the test below shows"”is that the aftermarket air filters do pass more dirt than the stock AC Delco filter.

The question you need to ask is: Is it worth risking more dirt into my engine for no HP gain and questionable gains in MPG and turbo response? That is a personal decision. Perhaps you do not drive in dusty conditions and for you ANY air filter would filter adequately. Regardless, don't be mad when my Delco paper filtered DMax"”running it's "Kennedy Race Tune"¯"”blows by you, your noisy turbo notwithstanding.....

Here is the air filter test Spicer reported on a couple years ago. This is basically a cut and paste of what is posted at: http://www.duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm

NOTE: The pretty color graphs didn't post"”I'll have to work on that later. However, the graphs are available at the link.

The Story behind the test:

First of all, many thanks to Arlen Spicer and Ken at Testand for organizing and facilitating the test. Arlen is a professional Firefighter who also operates a small tree service on the side. The tree service is the reason he owns a diesel truck. This study was the result of nearly a year of work by Arlen to get accurate independent data on air filters for the GM Duramax Diesel. Arlen originally set out to build his own Filter Test Stand so that he could perform accurate, repeatable and independent measurements on the various filters available for the Duramax. Arlen questioned the claims made by aftermarket filter manufacturers that their filters were superior to the conventional OEM style paper filters. After spending many months, hours and a considerable amount of his own money, he learned first hand how difficult it was to perform an accurate air filter test. He found it was difficult to maintain all the necessary controls to insure an accurate measurement. It was at this juncture that Arlen received a call from Ken at Testand offering to perform the ISO 5011 test free of charge. Ken found Arlen's idea for an independent comparison study very interesting and offered to do the ISO 5011 testing using one of Testand's industrial Filter Test Machines. Arlen posted the news in an internet forum and immediately the offers by forum members to purchase and send filters for the test started rolling in. Some members purchased and donated filters and others made contributions to cover the expenses and the cost of shipping the filters to Teststand. It was truly a team effort. The end result is the top quality data presented in this report. The following is a quote from a post in the forum.

(Arlen) SPICER wrote,
"Now that I am not doing the tests and my objectivity is not necessary, let me explain my motivation. The reason I started this crusade was that I was seeing people spend a lot of money on aftermarket filters based on the word of a salesperson or based on the misleading, incomplete or outright deceiving information printed on boxes and in sales literature. Gentlemen and Ladies, Marketing and the lure of profit is VERY POWERFUL! It is amazing how many people believe that better airflow = more power! Unless you have modifications out the wazoo, a more porous filter will just dirty your oil! Some will say " I have used aftermarket brand X for XXX # years with no problems. The PROBLEM is you spent a chunk of ching on a product that not only DID NOT increase your horsepower, but also let in a lot of dirt while doing it! Now how much is a lot? ANY MORE THAN NECESSARY is TOO MUCH!

Others are persuaded by the claims of aftermarket manufacturers that their filters filter dirt "better than any other filter on the market." Sounds very enticing. To small timers like you and me, spending $1500 to test a filter sounds like a lot. But if you were a filter manufacturer and you believed your filter could filter dirt better than any other media on the market, wouldn't you want to prove it? Guess what. Test your filter vs. the OE paper. It will cost you $3000 and for that price you will have the data that you can use in your advertisements. Your investment will be returned a thousand fold! EASIER than shooting fish in a barrel! So why don't these manufacturers do this? Hmmm? Probably not because they would feel guilty about taking more market share.

Now I am not saying that ALL aftermarket filters are useless. A paper filter does not do well if directly wetted or muddy. It may collapse. This is why many off-road filters are foam. It is a compromise between filtering efficiency and protection from a collapsed filter. Now how many of our trucks collapse their filters from mud and water? However, if a filter is using "better airflow" as their marketing tool, remember this....Does it flow better? At very high airflow volumes, probably. BUT, Our trucks CAN'T flow that much air unless super-modified, so what is the point? The stock filter will flow MORE THAN ENOUGH AIR to give you ALL THE HORSEPOWER the engine has to give. And this remains true until the filter is dirty enough to trip the air filter life indicator. At that point performance will decline somewhat. Replace the filter and get on with it.

Hopefully the results of this test will do 2 things. Shed some light on the misleading marketing claims of some aftermarket manufacturers and/or give us new insight on products already on the market that are superior to our OE filter. I stand for truth and will eat my words publicly if my statements prove wrong. I appreciate all of the help and support that you members have offered in this project. It would simply be impossible without your help. A huge thanks to Ken at Testand for his willingness to take on this project. I would be spinning my wheels from here to eternity without his help... SPICER"¯

Our thanks to Arlen and Ken for making the test happen and providing the valuable test results for the benefit of all.


Sept 2004



SCOPE:
This report presents the results of an ISO 5011 test of several air filters designed for the GM Duramax Diesel. The test was independently performed under controlled conditions using a $285,000 machine at Testand Corp of Rhode Island (manufacturer of the machine). Arlen Spicer, a GM Duramax Diesel owner/enthusiast organized the test. Ken an employee of Testand offered to perform the tests at no charge. (These tests typically cost approx $1700.00 per filter). Ken, also a Diesel enthusiast and owner of a Ford Power Stroke Diesel, shared Arlen's interest in performing an accurate unbiased test of different types and brands of diesel engine air filters. The filters used in the test were purchased retail and donated by Arlen and other individual Duramax Diesel owners. The detailed reports from the test have been compiled and are presented in the following pages. The final pages of this report present the interesting story how and why Arlen organized the test.

ISO 5011 Test:
The ISO 5011 Standard (formerly SAE J726) defines a precise filter test using precision measurements under controlled conditions. Temperature & humidity of the test dust and air used in the test are strictly monitored and controlled. As Arlen learned in attempting his own tests, there are many variables that can adversely affect filter test results. A small temperature change or a small change in humidity can cause the mass of a paper filter to change by several grams. To obtain an accurate measure of filter efficiency, it's critical to know the EXACT amount of test dust being fed into the filter during the test. By following the ISO 5011 standard, a filter tested in Germany can be compared directly compared to another filter tested 5 years later in Rhode Island. The ISO 5011 filter test data for each filter is contained in two test reports; Capacity-Efficiency and Flow Restriction.

Capacity and Efficiency:
The Capacity and Efficiency test report presents the test results of feeding an initially clean filter with PTI Course Test Dust (dirt) at a constant rate and airflow. The course test dust has a specific distribution of particle sizes ranging from less than 2.5 microns to greater than 80 microns (see table below). Every filter is initially tested at 350 CFM and the Initial Restriction or differential pressure across the filter is recorded in IN-H20 (Inches of Water). The filter is then tested by feeding test dust at a nominal rate of 9.8 grams per minute with a constant airflow of 350 CFM. The test is continued until the flow restriction exceeds the Initial Restriction + 10 IN-H20. At this point the test is terminated and the amount dust passed through the filter - Accumulative Gain - is measured. Dirt passing through the filter is captured in the Test Station's Post Filter. The exact amount of dirt passed is determined by measuring the before and after weight of the Post Filter. Similarly, the amount of dirt retained by the Filter under test - Accumulative Capacity – is measured by taking the difference between the before and after weights of the Filter. From these results the overall % Efficiency of the filter is calculated. This test also indicates how long a Filter will last before replacement is required (or cleaning for reusable filters).

Flow Restriction:
This report presents flow restriction of a clean filter resulting from an increasing airflow. The differential pressure restriction across the filter is reported in inches of water (IN H2O) versus Air Flow in cubic feet per minute CFM.

Data from these reports has been compiled and presented in the following bar graphs, Plots and data tables.

Filter Efficiency:
Filter efficiency is a measure of the filters overall ability to capture dirt.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 600x422 pixels and 36KB in size.


Accumulative Capacity:
"Accumulative Capacity"¯ is a measure of dirt holding/loading capacity before reaching the maximum restriction limit - Initial Restriction + 10 IN-H20.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 614x397 pixels and 35KB in size.


Accumulative Gain:
"Accumulative Gain" is the total amount of dirt that passed through the filter during the test.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 600x403 pixels and 34KB in size.


(Note: The Purolator was reported to have a seal malfunction during the test and passed more dirt than it would have with a good seal.)

Initial Restriction:
Initial Restriction is the Filter under test's resistance to flow at 350 CFM.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 619x419 pixels and 35KB in size.


Dirt Passed Versus Total Test Time

This graph shows each the duration of each filter's test versus dirt passed (Accumulative Gain).
(Note: The Purolator was reported to have a seal malfunction during the test and passed more dirt than it would have with a good seal.)

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 733x491 pixels and 41KB in size.


In the chart above it's important to note the different test durations for each filter. The AC Delco filter test ran for 60 minutes before exceeding the restriction limit while the AMSOIL and K&N tests each ran for 20 and 24 minutes respectively before reaching max restriction. In 60 minutes the AC Filter accumulated 574gms of dirt and passed only 0.4gms. After only 24 minutes the K&N had accumulated 221gms of dirt but passed 7.0gms. Compared to the AC, the K&N "plugged up"¯ nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt. See the data tables for a complete summary of these comparisons.

Dust Loading:
The dust loading curves show graphically how each filter responded to a constant 9.8 gms/min dust flow before reaching the maximum restriction limit.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 681x459 pixels and 39KB in size.


It's interesting to note the shape of these Dust Loading Curves. The AC and Baldwin filters each had near linear responses until reaching maximum restriction. Restriction for these filters increased at a constant rate versus the 9.8 gms/min dust feed rate. The other filters, most notably the oiled reusable types, had an exponential loading response before reaching maximum restriction. These filters had a lower initial restriction, but they became exponentially more restrictive under a constant flow of dirt. Also notice the length of the curves as it shows the relative test time for each filter (time to max restriction).

Restriction to Flow:
The Restriction to Flow curves graphically show how each "clean"¯ filter responded to a steadily increasing flow of air up to 350 CFM.

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 681x461 pixels and 36KB in size.


The Flow Restriction response curves for each filter have the same basic shape. However, note how the AC Filter, which passed the smallest amount of dirt and had the highest dirt capacity and efficiency, also had the highest relative restriction to flow. The less efficient filters correspondingly had less restriction to flow. This illustrates the apparent trade-offs between optimizing a filter for dirt capturing ability and maximum airflow.


Test Data Tables:
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 566x560 pixels and 79KB in size.


Test Data Tables:
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 571x561 pixels and 69KB in size.



Test Data Tables:
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 658x600 pixels and 94KB in size.


Test Data Tables:
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 536x600 pixels and 77KB in size.


Test Data Tables:
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is 534x600 pixels and 76KB in size.


Test Data Tables:


To be consistent with common industry practice all filters were tested using PTI Course Test Dust. Course dust is more commonly used since it will produce higher % efficiency numbers.

Attached Thumbnails





__________________
Blaine J. Painter

2002 2500 HD Dmax/Allison CC SB 4x4, Magnaflow, Kennedy Race Tune, Kennedy Boost Valve, Kennedy Lift pump, Nicktane, Isspro Gauges, BD Manifold; Suncoast Stage IV, 1057 Convertor, Xfer case brace, Allison deep pan; ARE shell, nerfs, Tuff Country 4" Lift w/RS-9000Xs, Realift T-bar Relocators, Cognito Pittman/idler supports, Frontier front end replacement, BFG AT/315/75R16s, 4.10 gears, SD tie rod sleeves, poly bushings, upper a-arm bump stops
Offline

afp1
View Public Profile
Send a private message to afp1
Find More Posts by afp1
Add afp1 to Your Buddy List

11-27-2006, 06:46 PM § #2
RickDLance
Diesel Fanatic




Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oak Grove, MO.
Posts: 15,454

RickDLance's Garage

General discussion concerning this can be found here;

http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=115399

Please feel free to voice your opinion. Thanks!
__________________

2005 Chevrolet 2500HD 4x4 (test vehicle)
2005 Chevrolet 2500HD 4x4 Stock
2004 Chevrolet 3500HD 2x4 LLY
2003 Chevrolet 3500HD 4x4 LLY


Over 1 million miles on my 7 Duramaxes!!


Please support our site vendors!! Check them out by clicking here;
Get to know Our Vendors!


It's a great day to smile, Please send that through your keyboard!



Thanks for the support my Friends!
Online

RickDLance
View Public Profile
Send a private message to RickDLance
Find More Posts by RickDLance
Add RickDLance to Your Buddy List




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (1 members and 0 guests)
bearnc1


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Download .txt Version
Email this Page
Subscribe to this Thread

Search this Thread

Word(s):


Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may post attachments
You may edit your posts vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump
User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Site Information Introductions & New Trucks Forum Operations Testing Forum GM Diesel Engines Duramax Fourth Generation: 2007.5+ (LMM) Duramax Third Generation: 2006-2007.5 (LBZ & LLY) Duramax Second Generation: 2004.5-2005 (LLY) Duramax First Generation: 2001-2004 (LB7) 4.5L Duramax (Upcoming) 6.5L Diesel Engine 4L80/85E Transmissions 6.2L Diesel Engine GM Trucks Drivetrain Suspension & Steering Wheels & Tires Interior Exterior Electrical 3500 Dually Trucks Medium Duty Trucks GM Transmissions Allison OEM Allison Aftermarket ZF-6 OEM ZF-6 Aftermarket 4L80/85E Transmissions Power & Performance Fourth Generation Duramax Electronics Third Generation Duramax Electronics Second Generation Duramax Electronics First Generation Duramax Electronics Custom Tuning Software EFILive Tuning Software HP Tuners Tuning Software Fuel System, Air, Exhaust, & Emissions Upgrades Propane, Nitrous, & Water Meth Other Performance Discussion Competition Competition Results Drag Racing Sled Pulling Bench Racing Articles & Useful Information Do It Yourself, Useful Articles, & Product Reviews Maintenance & Fluids Official GM Information VIN Check Requests New Vehicle Information Other Vehicles GM Gassers Any Other Vehicles Other Topics Truck Uses Shop Talk Member Rigs Spotted Nicktane Filter Questions Off Topic Politics & Religion Market Place For Sale Closed "For Sale" Ads Wanted Closed "Wanted" Ads Member Feedback Events, Rallies, & Regional Discussion Club Forums Club Details ALCAN Diesel Place Chapter Buckeye Oil Burners CNY Diesel Club CT Smoke DelMarVa Diesel Club Diesel Day Dreams Europe Georgia Diesel Owners Club Gulf Coast Rebels INDP Idaho Turbo Diesels Kansas Chapter DP Club Louisiana Black Smoke Rollers Michigan Oil Burners Minnesota/Western Wisconsin DP Club Montana DP Member Club NC Dmax's Nor-Cal Diesel Place Club Northeastern Ohio Diesel Crew Northern Nevada Cup Cake Crew OK Diesel Truck Club Ontario Diesel Place Chapter Pacific Iron Mountain Truck Club SoCal Black Smoke The Florida Diesel Truck Club TN Diesel Place Club National Northwest Southwest North Central South Central Great Lakes Northeast Mid-Atlantic Southeast Canada Vendors Supporting Vendors Limited Vendors Vendor Info & Specials Comments




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:56 PM.


Contact Us - Diesel Place - Archive - Top


Copyright © 2003
diandtom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


« Low ash fuel | EGTs »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reading latest posts ONLY footdoc Forum 101 | Announcements | Member Forum Concerns 7 06-06-2010 07:37 PM
Propane Level Reading Komvee Winnebago Industries Owner's Forum 9 08-18-2007 06:23 PM
Reading light george85643 5th Wheel Discussion 5 01-22-2007 01:20 PM
Thermostat isnt reading black n black RV Systems & Appliances 7 12-14-2006 12:34 PM
Guaranteed Interesting Reading ..... DriVer Workhorse and Chevrolet Chassis Motorhome Forum 8 08-01-2006 04:48 PM

» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.