Compare/contrast Air Filter Elements

[andym]

I have a 2003 PT Turbo. I've been thinking of going to a "performance" air filter element. I have seen rave revues of the K&N filter, but I am also curious about the Fram AirHog and Chryslers P5007524 performance air filter element. I don't suppose anyone has tried all 3, but I would be interested in hearing from anyone who has tried the Airhog or the Chrysler air filters. All other things being equal, I would prefer a filter that allows some of the roar noise out when I step on it (yes, I have already removed the white silencer from the box).
Andy

[CREWZIN]

The FRAM Air Hog is brand new to the aftermarket world. Haven't heard anyone using it yet...not even sure if they make one for the PT. [:I] I think all the aftermarket filters "allows some of the noise out" when you step on it....even the "drop in" K&N makes more noise...so I've read.

[quicksilverdon]

My $.02 - let's face it, Chrysler doesn't make "their" filter - someone else does - would be good to know who makes it & get direct from them. Fram USED to have a good reputation years ago, but of late have been turning out crap. K&N has a sterling reputation that seems to me well deserved. All of that is subjective - I, too, would like to see a comparion test, but don't know of any. [:I]

[SDTurbo]

I could be wrong, but I'm 99.9% sure that the Chrysler one is a K&N.

[Sci-Fi]

Believe it or not, the jury is still out on the benefits of using a "performance filter". Paper vs cotton gauze vs foam air filters is a debate that has been going on for years. The paper guys state, isn't an air filters job to remove as many particles as possible BEFORE it gets into your engine?, and any performance improvements from other filter designs are so minor you won't notice them anyways. The cotton gauze camp states their filters flow better than paper and "filter up to 99% of paper" and is reusable. And the foam fans state, if cotton gauze filters so good then why do those companies offer foam pre-filters as extra cost options?, then you might as well buy a foam filter and get the extra filtration and increased air flow and is also reusable. Many criticize that reusable filters work well in some applications but not in others, so consistency/repeatable results is in question. But why are there so many TSB's warning about the use of cotton gauze and foam filters that need or use tactified oil that may migrated and collect on and damage your mass air sensor? For example:

quote:The following is a memo from GM stating the use of rechargeable air filters may cause transmission shift problems, engine driveability problems & SES Light On problems (throwing codes). It also states these problems will NOT be covered under warranty. Yes, in part of the memo, it states "excessively oiled" filters. But for the most part, it reads any use of this type of filter & these issues won't be covered.

quote:
SERVICE - ALL BUICK, CADILLAC, CHEVROLET, GMC TRUCK, ISUZU, OLDSMOBILE, PONTIAC AND HUMMER DEALERS


Subject: A/T Shift, Engine Driveability Concerns or SES Light On as a Result of the Installation of an Aftermarket Reusable, Excessively Oiled Air Filter -- 2004 and Prior Cars and Lt Duty Trucks and 2003-2004 HUMMER H2
Message #: VSS20040056

Corporate Bulletin Number 04-07-30-013 will be available in SI on March 18, 2004.

Automatic Transmission Shift, Engine Driveability Concerns or Service Engine Soon (SES)
Light On as a Result of the Installation of an Aftermarket Reusable, Excessively Oiled Air Filter

Models: 2004 and All Prior Cars and Light Duty Trucks
2003-2004 HUMMER H2

DO THIS
First, Inspect the vehicle for a reusable aftermarket excessively oiled air filter

DON'T DO THIS
DO NOT repair under warranty if concerns result from the use of a reusable aftermarket oiled air filter.

The installation of an aftermarket reusable, oiled air filter may result in:

1. Service Engine Soon (SES) Light On

2. Transmission shift concerns, slipping and damaged clutch(es) or band(s)

3. Engine driveability concerns, poor acceleration from a stop, limited engine RPM range

The oil that is used on these air filter elements may be transferred onto the Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor causing contamination of the sensor. As a result, the Grams per Second (GPS) signal from the MAF may be low and any or all of the concerns listed above may occur.

When servicing a vehicle with any of these concerns, be sure to check for the presence of an aftermarket reusable, excessively oiled air filter. The MAF, GPS reading should be compared to a like vehicle with a OEM air box and filter under the same driving conditions to verify the concern.

Transmission or engine driveability concerns that are the result of the installation of an aftermarket reusable, excessively oiled air filter are not considered to be warrantable repair items.

Then there was one person that actually had his entire stock air box flow tested and found that the air filter had no effect on the air flow and any restrictions were because of the OEM airbox design.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/...;f=15;t=000215

Can go here and read or search posts:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/...ubb=forum;f=15

Air filter

[Big Al]

quote:Originally posted by Sci-Fi
But why are there so many TSB's warning about the use of cotton gauze and foam filters that need or use tactified oil that may migrated and collect on and damage your mass air sensor?

First the PT does not have a mass-air sensor. We have a speed-density system, which is immune to this.

The oil does not damage the mass-air sensor as much as it causes an inaccurate reading. Periodic cleaning of the sensor element will resolve this.

[rszappa1]

Fram Air HOG does not currentyly make one for the PT.

[Konkeler]

It doesn't really matter. A Air-Filter isn't going to make a real big difference in the first place.

I got a K&N just because I've bought them before. I don't think I really noticed any kind of a difference.