| Pages: 1 | ||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Hi guys, Here it is Swamp, Sorry but this is not going to make anyone happy most of all the Tymer(Donaldson) users. I'm new here but I am an Engineer, and X Top alk drag racer. I also was an Engineer at Super Flow a few years ago and have a lot experience in flow numbers and particulate count. So I set up my SF1200 flow bench to do a flow test on the filters in question here. I bought a Donaldson, an AFE blue, AFE Green, and a K&N filter. All these fliters will fit or is run as an open air intake system. The K&N was also a conical type filter. I have to note that K&N stated that there filter must be sealed with their K&N Filter sealing grease, Part number 11285-1. I set this test up to measure two qualitive values, Air flow CFM and Particulate count. All measurements were taken at 28" of water on a SF1200 Flow bench(which is equal to 14lbs of boost) with the same intake runner, post filter. All particulate measurements were take 6" post filter and the intake runner was cleaned after each measurment. No results could be obtain for particulate counts below 5.0 micron, as all filters were off the scale. We used a .5 micron HEPA filter as a calibration filter. The particulate counter is a laser HP. All filters were oiled to manfactures spec, except Donldson. The K&N used the sealant grease as specified. Filter Test preasure flow/CFM Particount<15.0 Donaldson @28" water 1557 CFM 11X10^5 K&N @28" water 1596 CFM 10.1X10^5 AFE BL @28" water 1656 CFM 9.4X10^5 AFE Gr @28" water 1466 CFM 8.3X10^5 In summary: It is my opion that all these filters flow more air than a 444 CID aspirated engine can use. There for I see no real advantage of one filter over any other in air flow. How ever I see a real advantage of the AFE green filter over all, to filter smaller particulates than any other filter, at a small if note unnoticeable loss in air flow excpt in the most exstream engines. I tribute the higher particulate count of the Donldson filter to it paper construction. Please feel free to shoot holes in this test, It is not gods word but, one engineers, one off test.  |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
What model number air filters are you testing? The early PSD AFE air box unit I have has a blue filter in it not a green one. Also, how does the stock factory element with or without air box do in this type of testing so we have a base line to compare to? One of the complaints about the reusable type element is the pinholeing of the media after just 2-3 washings and a little aging. Can you try this and see if the filtration abilities remains the same/decreases/increases? |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
As an Engineer, you should know to test a product in a manner that addresses the concern. Your test makes about as much sense to me as if I complained about low fuel mileage and you did a tow test. It's good information but, it still ignores the major concern. I don't recall anyone saying that the K&N doesn't filter, I have a couple in my garage. It's been stated that the K&N doesn't hold up well after being washed and re-oiled over time. Also, trying to make sure that the K&N stayed sealed in the stock air box over time. The Tymar setup is simple, does a good job of filtering, and is almost fool proof as it applies to getting it to seal properly. Even obtaining a slight "technical" advantage is useless to me if it's not consistent or repeatable. I can replace the Donaldson, snug it up, and know that I'm getting a good seal with more than adequate filtration. Having a filter that is letting through unfiltered air mile after mile and not knowing about it? It is headed for the trash can in my book. Your flow test is good news for me. It proves that the Tymar setup is in the hunt when it comes to flow and still has all of the stated advantages. I love it! I do appreciate the information. 
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
There is no doubt the K&N does a good job of filtering when properly oiled but what about after running it 5000 miles between cleanings? You run a K&N down a dusty country road, pulling 10-15 boost and several miles after your last cleaning and I guarantee you will find traces of dust past your filter. I prefer the idiot proof filter. JMHO Kelly |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Given the data you provided, I personally would be concerned with how well the K&N worked after being cleaned by someone that isn't necessarily "clinical" in their procedures. The average guy in his garage on a Saturday might not get it as clean/oiled as someone with your engineering background, so their results could be very different. Personally, I'd prefer to have a new filter going on every time I change. Thanks for the information. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Here we go again. Wasn't this beat to death a year or two ago? Search the archives. Lots of hard data, mixed with opinions and agendas. what are Tymar users supposed to be unhappy about? Price, simplicity, or reliability? |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
iv been around big earth moving equipment all my life and i have never seen anything that resembles the stock set up in most cars and trucks.every filter i have ever changed as been a paper filter.i do know that caterpillar and johndeer do have alot of engineers working for them and i dont think with as much research goes into it that they would put a filter on a million dollar machine that didnt work.i cant think of any enviroment harder on a filter than an excavation site,dust,wide open throttle all day,rain,big turbos trying to suck every thing it can.this is what convinced me that the "tymar setup"was a good one. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
CH, Quote: By "off the scale" do you mean that the filters tested could not filter out particles smaller than 5 microns? Quote: I gather that the HEPA filter was installed downstream of the test filter on the outlet of the flow bench (so it did not affect flow values) and 100% of the air from the test filter was then re-filtered, and then the particles trapped by the HEPA were measured? Or was the laser measuring the air itself, not the particles on the HEPA filter? What did you use for the particles in the air? Normal air, or is there a special test dust for this kind of thing? If anyone has a used/washed/used/washed, etc., etc., K&N send it to CH for additional testing. (If you don't get any offers, I'll pull my K&N and wash it a few times and send it to you.) |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
first of all.... thanks for your testing and info. i'm underwater when it comes to understanding the numbers of your testing.... so could you give me a ballpark idea of how the differences in particount is going to effect the normal longivity of our engines? in other words will i get 50,000 or more engine life miles using a afe green instead of a donaldson? |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
I suppose it would have been better had the results from testing where more condusive to under hood temperatures, the odd raindrop getting by, air velocity developed similar to under the hood etc. Julyer, comes up with a good point, in whether longevity of our Powerstrokes would be gained from using a different filter media? I too find it hard to figure this out by the given figures! All I know is when I look down the throat of the 4" elbow, it's clean as a whistle, every time I check for possible residue getting by the filter! I have to say my Donaldson/Fleetgard filters seem to be keeping me happy so far! Dale... |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
This is another test that I thought was interesting. Notice how the paer filement Baldwin did in the test. Click me. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
I only have personal experience with both K&N (cold air intake system claimed to be for off road purposes)and the Tymar. I thought all was going good with the K&N then I pulled off the filter and looked inside the intake tube and found quite a bit of dust. That wasn't impressive. I switched to the Tymar haven't found any dust yet, also I've got less black smoke (which personally I'm happy about) and more boost. To me that means more air flow. So I see it as better filtering and better air flow. My experience hasn't been bad news at all so far. Not any fancy testing just on the road reality. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Good test articale, Bean, normally paper out of teh box does do better than cotton or foam, people like K&N calim taht after it is dirty it still flows better than teh same stock filter, and that it last longer etc, etc. I can now hear teh sucking sound at 30+ psi coming from teh filter, I want / need something that is good and solid and replaceable, I have K&N 's on engines taht cost twice as much as the truck, but for day to day durabilty I'll take teh Donaldson over all of them. Craig |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
I guess my only comment is...what size particular will cause damage to the engine or turbo? I imagine you can allow a certain size particular to get through without damage to the engine or turbo...what size is that?
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Nice testing. I would like to point out for those that say the K&N will pinhole after 3 or 4 washings that if you reuse and wash the K&N once then replace it it is still cheaper or about the same price as buying the Donaldson filter to replace it each time. Foam filteres are the best filtering media but they are generally more restrictive. It would be interesteing to see the results of the K&N's filtering ability after a few cleanings. They really aren't that hard to clean as everyone makes them out to be. You just use the K&N filter cleaner and wash them NOT useing high pressure water or air. Then evenly oil them, let the oil soak in for a few minutes and make sure it is uniform then touch up the oil if needed. Also I would like to note that it seems most are compareing a factory replacement K&N as far as not sealing wich is known the factory air box leaves much to be desired as for sealing and that includes the factory air filter not just the K&N. Also it would be nice to know the part numbers for the filters so that we know what filters were tested and can aquire them if wanted. I have a K*N filter that I am going to install in an open element setup and see just what kind of dust/dirt gets in the intace tract. Also the Donaldson filter is made for light or medeum dust conditions. Not heavy dust conditions. I'm not trying to say one filter is better than the other here just pointing out some stuff. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Hey, CH!!!! With all due respect sir, maybe a title for your thread like "Some Intersting Flow Numbers for Different Filters", or something similar, could have been a better choice of words? There's a little bit of history of folks doing verbal warfare over this subject here, and that kind stirred the pot (again). Anyway, sorry, I don't mean to criticize here. I just wanna learn, and will say thanks for putting out the results you found. Like you alluded to, is one test like this an accurate way to come to a conclusion? Seems like doing it a few times (realizing you may not have the time to do that, or whatever) would give more of an average. And like Jonathan (Swamp Donkey) asked, what was used, and how was it used, to determine how small of particles these filters can reliably block out? Were the flow rates only clean air flowing through the filters, with no dust? My main concern, I'd guess, is which filter the best? Which filter down to the smallest micron/particulate rating, and still flw (clean) air? And how will the reuseable filters do that after a few washings/cleanings? Personally, I don't see this as "Bad News" for TYMAR owners, any more than I see an "advantage", from only one test, for the other filters. Flow rates aside, one reason a lot of folks have switched from the stock airbox to the open element (TYMAR, K&N, Homemades, and whatever else) was to eliminate the problems from the stock airbox not sealing well. If you yourself, believe, that all these filters flow more than enough for the majority of our engines, I can't see that we TYMAR users have any worries? I don't feel I have to defend my choice of the TYMAR, and know that it's a giant step above the stock setup. I'm not certain, in a 7400 lb. truck, that I'd feel the extra power from the little airflow increase your test say the other filters have over the Donaldson. And CH, again, please don't take this as attack on you, your testing, & your findings. Just a discussion among folks with common interests. The tiltle of this thread may have ruffled a few feathers (out here in Sandy)at first, but I'm past that. And again, I do wanna thank you for doing these tests, posting on this, and for discussion it will inevitably draw out. Finallly, Quote:Amen to that!!! I was just reading Phillipians before your thread, and saw nothing in there about how "the Wicked use Donaldsons".  
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
I agree Big_Fig. The title of his post let's you know his position before the results are even presented. Then, to read his testing, the results gave me the opposite feeling about my choice of the Tymar. I'm glad that he reinforced confidence in my decision. I appreciated his input and still don't understand the post heading. It was worth a chuckle though! With a title like that, I thought that maybe Donaldson had quit making the filter we use! Now that would be something to be upset about.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
I have used the factory paper air cleaner, K+N, Western Diesel foam and now the Tymar in my 95. All of them produced excellent results on my oil analysis. But the only way to find out how good the air filter is doing it's job is to have a particle count done on your oil analysis. So until I get that done, I will leave the Tymar and it has been in the vehicle over a year. On my 01 I have used the factory paper and the Conical Western Diesel Foam and now the Tymar. All my analysis have been excellent. I am going to get an analysis and Particle Count from AvLube in 1000 miles. Probably take me 2 months with the weather to get that many miles, as I am a home body in the winter. (Fishing Excepted) In either vehicle the SOP has been the same on any filter. But until I get the particle count, then the Tymar will remain on both vehicles. Never any dirt in the intake tube.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Zilard250 -- I appreciate your efforts in testing. It is a time consuming process. It is nice to see restriction values using the proper measure also. et al -- To defend the titel of his thread for a second, I think it was not an intentional slam, but simply because the Donaldson tested with the highest particulate count. Settle in guys, grab some coffee, these threads can get long.... quote: Paul Crowl ”Here we go again. Wasn't this beat to death a year or two ago?“ It comes up about once or twice a year. Keeping up with the borads and stopping the rumors will decrease its frequency, but I probably get more tired than most of responding to these since I do it off-forum about 10 times more frequently than on-forum. I know your feeling though. quote: Paul Crowl ” Search the archives. Lots of hard data, mixed with opinions and agendas.“ True statement. But, I think sticking to reportable and verifiable testing will keep the opinions and agendas down. I usually disclaimer most of my responses to these threads saying that I am not the “Donaldson Guy” and if I can find a better filter I will start using it. But my main concern is repeatable “fool proof” performance, which means proper filtration with low restriction. quote: gtspowerstroke ”...if you reuse and wash the K&N once then replace it it is still cheaper or about the same price as buying the Donaldson filter to replace it...“ That is a slightly misleading comment and would depend on what you pay for the K&N and Donaldson and what your change out frequency would be, as well as what you use to determine your change out frequency. Using my prices, I can go about 3 Donaldson’s per K&N, but the Donaldson’s capacity is higher you would keep it in longer and it also offers lower restriction for the same flow. So, there are benefits past a time-oriented replacement cost analysis. If you replaced it based on a restriction based measure (how much dirt collected and how it reduces flow), you can reduce the total numbers of “D” filters you will use and end up extending the value past a one on one comparison. It would be fairly easy to get to a 5 or 6 to 1 change out frequency using comparable data. quote: gtspowerstroke ”Foam filteres are the best filtering media...“ Not true, and plenty of tests to back it up. K&N’s own internal testing show a 97.1% filtration efficiency at initial testing using SAE J726, PTI ISO 12130-1 A4 dust test, which is lower than the “D” paper media. quote: gtspowerstroke ”Foam filteres...are generally more restrictive.“ Just the opposite, for a much smaller area the foam filter will allow greater flow at initial flow rates. This does drop substantially once the filter starts to “pack up”. quote: gtspowerstroke ”...the Donaldson filter is made for light or medium[sp] dust conditions. Not heavy dust conditions.“ This is misleading comment made without specification. Donaldson lists the B085011 as a light dust filter, however you can purchase a radial seal housing and add an internal safety filter and it is rated for medium dust. I would bet anyone would admit that a two stage filtering system used in commercial applications would be a bit overkill for what we use our trucks for, even if you go off road. The heavy dust rated intake will have the primary filter, a safety filter, and then run through a secondary primary filter. The thing to keep in mind is that “D” uses a commercial rating system that is so far over an automotive use that the light commercial will generally be at, or better, than the automotive high. quote: gtspowerstroke ”They [K&N filters] really aren't that hard to clean as everyone makes them out to be “ I don’t think it is difficult, but I think the ability to achieve repeatable affects would be. Comments you made such as, ”...evenly oil them...“, and, ”...make sure it is uniform...“, end up being subjective terminology that may mean different things to different people. That is why there is somewhat of a consistency problem when you move away from the factory prepared filter for testing. Back to Zilard250... Thanks for including the how and what for us. However, I would have a few questions. Since the only efficiency test I have ratings for comes from the SAE J726 test, I am glad to see some testing above 240cfm. The J726 test tests particle size at 0.0004 g/ft^3 using a supplied weight vrs a captured weight to assign efficiencly. Formula = (1 - weight gain of absolute/ weight of dust fed) x 100, for the initial capacity after subjecting the dust over 30 min. Do you have the ability to introduce a fine particulate in a clean environment? Was the test you issued pre-cleaned environment subjected to measurable introduction of particles? Or, did you use ambient conditions? The only reason I ask is that non-controlled introduction may skew the results depending on the ability to control the total amount of particles or their sizes. The course test portion uses A4 test dust (0.028 g/ft^3) and the formula: (weight gain of element/ [weight gain of element - weight gain of absolute]) x 100, for the cumulative efficiency rating. If you are able to introduce measured particles, this might allow us to somewhat mimic the efficiency results at higher volumes. Just a thought... Lastly, I don’t think there is any question on whether the filters mentioned would be able to handle the flow of the PSD. However, the restriction rates would vary depending on demand flow. However, admittedly, this is difficult to reproduce without an on-application test. It should also be noted that capacity should come into play at some time, leaving cost analysis out of the picture for a while. If the flow rates are only for a brief initial rate, your application would deteriorate over time. Thanks for posting your results.... Dale |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
I've been sending my oil into Balckstone and then to Terry Dyson for analysis. After I had started sending them in, Dyson emailed me and asked what I was using for air filtration since my results were excellent. I then emailed him that I was using the Tymar with a Donaldson filter. That convinced me that I wa doing something right. I will continue to do so until oil analysis tells me different. You're going in the right direction. Find something verifiable that works for you and be happy.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Thank you for taking the time to test all of these and sharing the results with us. I feel like any open element filter even an old red shop rag would do a better job of filtration than the stock box set up. To me thats what the results of this test confirmed. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Sparky, I also send my analysis to Dyson for interpetation. And you are correct, I have had very low numbers with the Tymar in both vehicles. In fact, he had them run some test again because the numbers were so low. I am going to get a particle count on my 01, just to make sure everyting is good internally and because it is under warranty. Want any repairs to be on Ford if necessary. 
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
I've got the stock clamp holding a grey shop rag on my intake turbo hose right now!! Well,I needed to put something in the place of the stock air box while I wait for my Tymar to get here !! Edit:I don't drive my truck daily,it's sitting in my backyard dormant right now.... 
Rick Edited by sandtoys (11/23/03 03:44 PM) |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
With two drag cars, a year and a half old daughter, side jobs and a wife - I don't have time to spare trying this or that, the donaldson - set it and forget it. Well for a year anyway, then just whip on a new one. No washing or oiling. As a side note I do use K&Ns on both cars, just to straighten out the air and keep bugs off the air bleeds.
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
Quote: Although I don't send my Blackstone reports to Terry Dyson, here is a quote from my last oil analysis. "Silicon, at 3 ppm, shows good air filtration, while insolubles, at 0.1%, are very low and show great oil filtration". I agree with Sparkydm...until proven otherwise it [the Tymar] seems to work well for me. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
To the original poster how about testing the stock air box in with this group using the same set up. I would be very interested to see the results of that. Tom |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Great info but I bet it consumes a lot of effort and time. I appreciate the time and info you provide. I am old school though and plenty of PSD's out there with over 300,000 miles on factory filters. I am a firm believer if you maintain and change filters accordingly you can achieve maximum life on what Ford provides us, as long as it is functional. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
quote: FishAlaska "Great info but I bet it consumes a lot of effort and time." A big double "Amen" to that. That is why I hesitate in asking for specific changes to be made and then request another round of testing. Or, for that matter, even bringing up the questions on the testing method. All too often it sounds as if the effort of posting results is unappreciated. However, understanding the testing method and taking considerations to make sure that the tests are providing good information to base conclusions from is profitable. A wise man once told me that all the data in the world is useless unless you know the right question to ask. For instance, something I was thinking about last night was the fact that testing the filters in an open configuration shows the ability of the filters, but some of them come with systems that place the filter in a box, seal it against the hood, or otherwise dictate how air must flow to it. In essence, this increases restriction and the ability of the filter may or may not be used. Again, I am far from critisizing the results of your test, and I know that in application testing would be necessary to answer some of these questions, but I bring these points up to hopefully shed some light on how many considerations you have to employ when making a decision on which intake system you decide is best for your truck. The issue of what restriction is caused by installing the filters is obviously not part of the efficiency test stated above, but will play a factor in a final decision. Thanks for posting your results, and for the time, thought, and effort it took to produce them. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
As far as K&N's developing pinholes after multiple washings, I don't agree. THEY HAVE PINHOLES STRAIGHT OUT OF THE BOX!! I have had four (one in wifes Honda, one in Honda quad, and two in my PSD - stock replacement and RD-1460 open element) and they all had pinholes from the day I got them. TYMAR aka Donaldson for my PSD, end of story. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
OK I couldn't stand it I had to say something. I was one of the original guys to argue about these filters. I bought a K&N and ran it for a couple of weeks until I noticed a 1/4 inch gap at the top of the filter. This was allowing unfiltered air to enter my engine. Right then and there I did an open element setup with a baldwin PA2818 and I haven't looked back. This filter is for a much larger engine than mine and they are ran in fleet applications so I know they are good. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Since Dale brought this up and I had not looked at it from this point of view I would like to say thank you to the original poster who tested the filters. It is always very interesting to see data like that. I would be still curious to see what the stock air box does. And no I am not giving up my Tymar. Thanks Tom |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Great Info Zilard250 But I'll stick with what I have, I'm one of the guys that found dust in the intake and pinholes in the filter after only 6mos. and after 1yr with the tymar setup its still clean as a whistle!! And as far as the post title being offensive Naaaa the only thing that upset me was the spelling of Tymar!!!!! Jeff |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
I know it's a bunch of work to do these tests and I'll join the many who appreciate the numbers. However, I have a stack of old filters (various brands) sitting upstairs in the shop that would probably outnumber the posts in this thread. IMO, for the buck the Tymar Donaldson gives me the best results and a clean compressor wheel every time.... 
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
For how many years have turbo charged farm tractors used a paper element type of filter??? These tractors are sucking so much sandy, dirty air that if you had a foam or gauze filter on there you wouldnt get any work done because youd be cleaning your filter the whole time. I guess its just what your opinion is, Do YOU want PAPER or PLASTIC?? For some reason paper is all i use. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Are you guys referring to the conical K&N or the one that goes in the stock air box? The one tested was a cone style that clamps to the intake tube. I've been running the same cone style K&N for a couple of years now. I clean and re-oil it every 6,000 miles. I also check the intake tube for any form of grit, dust, etc. I'm pretty anal about cleaning/oiling the K&N and also check in a light for pinholes. If I start to get any sign of grit or dirt in the intake tract, that filter will be gone. I also check the blades on the turbo about once a year, and they still look clean and new (no sharpening or wear from hitting particles large enough to do damage). Just my first hand experience with a cone style K&N. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Tymar replacement filter cross reference chart Enter Baldwin P/N PA2818 Click Baldwin search Click "x reference" Edited by hheynow (11/30/03 10:20 AM) |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
I have to run a fan test for work today so I will bring the filters that GTS Motorsports provided for some additional flow tests... I'll be testing the Donaldson, stock replacement, K&N stock replacement, and K&N open element. I no longer have the nut things that go on the top of the box so I will tape it shut or something.... Expect results later today. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
quote: strokin1 "...the only thing that upset me was the spelling of Tymar!" Did the spelling of Donaldson get at you any? (lol) hheynow "...cross reference chart." The thing to remember in cross referencing filters is that it only shows what will fit. What it will not do is allow you to look at the differences in the fitlers. For example, Donaldson has a cross reference for a Baldwin B164 oil filter. The B164 has a 3 micron oil efficiency and the Donaldson cross reference is something like 27 microns. Both have a 5/8"-18 inner thread size with an outer diameter of about 3.8" and a similar length, so they will both fit and seal against the same head, but the filtering material is very different. If you are going to use an open element, I would suggest using only a Donaldson or Baldwin filter. TexasAggie -- Are you going to test for flow only, or will you be creating an efficiency test as well? If you are testing for flow, are you going to use a cfm base, or restriction base test? Any chance of doing this on a truck to get the true rates instead of the filters ability? Are all the filters new, or do you know how many miles are on each? |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
All filters are new. I will hook them up to a normal fan test chamber (AMCA 210 standard) and suck air through them using a VFD controlled blower. I can test each of them at the same blower RPM and calculate airflow by using differential pressure across some nozzles. I can also run the blower at top speed and see how much air I can suck through each of them. I just need to see what happens when I hook themn up. They are all brand new filters - 3 supplied from GTS motorsports in the package and the Donaldson I purchased from you about 6 months ago as a spare. |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
OK, I promised that I would have some data by the end of today so I ran a few PRELIMINARY tests on both open element air filters. The reason that is is preliminary is that I didn't have the temperature transducer in place and there are some slight leaks in the chamber that we normally tape up but I don't have time to do.... I should be doing school work then but I'm a man of my word. Hopefully I can get to the "official" testing by next weekend. I don't know much about the laws so certain filter names have been changed to protect myself. This test was run at max speed of the blower in use. Filter A - The one that is used on the certain setup questioned in this thread. Filter B - The one that you oil periodically. Filter A - B CFM 647 - 670 (CFM) Vacuum 5.07 - 5 (inches of water) This shows slighly more airflow for filter B. Feel free to ask any questions.... |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
What seems to be eluding us in this conversation is that "WE" (who either use the TYMAR or our own fabbed unit" changed it for many reasons. 1. We were tired of having dirt get by with our stock air box not sealing properly. 2. We were noticing dirt getting through the K&N gause mesh. My PSD runs 28-30 PSI and it was fraying the filter(it was 4 years old). Not good!!!! 3. We were looking for that little power increase that was not going to hurt the pocket book. While there were other filter medias being tested, the main reason we went to the TYMAR type set up, is that the stock air box is junk!!!! It had to go and this was the only/best choice for better filtration. Nearly ZERO upkeep with low cost and wonderful filtration. We just need to keep in mind the true reasons we use the TYMAR. And they are your very own reasons, what ever they may be. LONG LIVE THE TYMAR!!!!!!!!!!!
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Ok, I'm ready for my first post. I've been reading about Tymar for quite a while and I've been convinced it's the way to go. Now the big question, where do I get one and about how much do they run? Thanks Lou |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Lou...The best way to get a Tymar air filtration system is to talk directly to Dale Isley at Tymar (509-922-8785). He can update you with the latest prices and all.
|
||||||||||
| Pages: 1 | ||||||||||
Bad news for Tymer(dDonldson) users
Re: Bad news for Tymer(dDonldson) users
Re: Bad news for Tymer(dDonldson) users
