When to replace a reusable air filter in a superduty truck?

Bedlam wrote:
Most of my friends that have off-road vehicles feel that K&N has a better marketing department than engineering. I tend to agree and have seen the remnants in the intake track by using poor filters or filters that do not seal well. I know the 6.0 PSD used a Donaldson filter design, but not sure if the filter was similar in the 7.3 PSD.

BTW: My off-road toys use an oiled dual layer foam filter with prefilter outer sock and get changed/cleaned every couple of days of use in dusty environments. I use the same off-road setup on my DW's road scooter and only clean the filter annually. Where you drive verses how often sometimes makes a bigger difference in filter maintenance.

Go with the Moose or No Toil foam filters on your off road toys, and be sure it has a rubber grommet for the bolt. Here are the test results.: http://haroldbawlzangya.com/air-filter-test/

mudfuel07 wrote:



Wow, sorry you got your panties in a wad over my take on the matter. Guess what, you get to do what you want to and I'll do what I want. Members like you who are condescending are one of the main reasons I never post over here. I will take the "opinion" of someone I trust personally as well as others who have extensive experience with the 6.0. Fish, mine is stock as well and I see no need to change anything on it.

Panties in a wad? Hmm let's see. The OP asked about when to replace a reusable aftermarket air filter on his truck. He said nothing about a stock unit in his question or title of the topic yet you felt obliged to tell him your "opinion" of aftermarket filters versus stock filters. Why? Why would you feel the need to piss in his Cheerios like that when it is not even the topic unless his question got your panties in a wad? Is him having an intake affecting you in someway that we don't know about? If not, then why go your of your way to piss in his sandbox?

Then I commented saying "I would love to see the data you have that you are basing this on.". Is that condescending? No. All I said was I would love to see the data you had to be able to say "the stock one is good up to about 500 hp". Nothing more yet you got pissy about it. So who has their panties in a wad?

Re-useable filters have charted performance values that are no longer valid after the first day of its installed life. It can never be cleaned to obtain the same performance as when new, one of the many factoids these manufacturers will not tell you. Often, it needs to be cleaned when the oem counterpart would be at only 10% of its useful life. There is PLENTY of factual data to back up all the "forum" anecdotal chatter. Time to unsubscribe to this, yet another pissing match around one of the biggest DIY cons in placebo psychology.

A little reading about the 6.0 and stock air filters.

I used to have some links with stock air boxes and performance builds on the dyno, but they were years ago and long gone now.

ShinerBock wrote:

mudfuel07 wrote:

The only data that I have to back this up is what I listen to and read. Most of the forums that I'm on state this, so with the 6.0 being so picky anyway, why would I waste my money on it? I also talked to my mechanic, he has no dog in the fight since I change all my filters and fluids myself, and said unless I was really going to increase the HP, the stock filter was my best bet. Agree with me or not, I don't a have reason to waste the money on something like that.

And how do you know what the people are saying is true? People make assumptions and opinions every day in forums and try to pass them off as facts without any way to back them up. What testing did your mechanic do? What air flow rates did he test and what aftermarket intakes did he test them on? Did he use the ISO 5011 test? If he did, was it with a sectional cutout of the filter or the whole filter. I know filter size alone make a huge difference in EGTs and efficiency for diesels from the testing we done with Fleetguard(a Cummins company) when I was at Cummins. So what dyno charts did he show you that proved they make no power, increase efficiency, or improve EGTs?

Then there is this statement "I don't a have reason to waste the money on something like that". Was that what the OP was asking? No. he was not asking for opinion on whether people think they are good or not, he was asking when to replace a reusable air filter in a superduty truck. Since you do not like aftermarket filter then why did you grace us with your opinion? However, since you did grace us with your opinion I would like to know what data you have to back up your "the stock one is good up to about 500 hp" claim or that it does not make a difference. If it is true and legitimate then I will agree with you, but if it not then I will just chalk it up as an opinion. Afterall, do you really expect me to believe everything said on the internet without data backing it up especially forum posts?

Wow, sorry you got your panties in a wad over my take on the matter. Guess what, you get to do what you want to and I'll do what I want. Members like you who are condescending are one of the main reasons I never post over here. I will take the "opinion" of someone I trust personally as well as others who have extensive experience with the 6.0. Fish, mine is stock as well and I see no need to change anything on it.

jerseyjim wrote:
DAVE H M :

Air filters are cheap. Oil filters are cheap. Engines and rebuilds are expensive.

Your motor, your money. My motor, my money.

I agree. Simple statements but true. It comes down to that old Fram filter ad...where the mechanic says...you can pay me a little now (change your filter)...or a lot later (change your engine).

Old-Biscuit wrote:


So test data is not what you really wanted

I'll just stick with my 10"W x 11"L x 3"D stock filter

.


No, it is data none the less and it confirmed what we already know that stock filters filter more per section, but are more restrictive. Although it did nothing to prove the "stock one is good up to about 500 hp" comment that I first responded to.

I would also wager that the "throw it away and use a stock filter" or the "I just use a stock filter" comments was not what the OP was asking or wanted either since the topic and his question had nothing to do with the stock filter.

ShinerBock wrote:

Old-Biscuit wrote:
Here you go.........

Read it, study it and then go buy a stock filter

LINK

Yes, I have read that test done many years ago many times. However, as was stated in the original document, they only tested a sectional cut out of each filter and the big difference between stock filters and aftermarket filters are is size.

What that tests also proves is that yes, stock paper filters do have higher ability to capture dirt, higher dirt capacity, and lowest dirt passing through, but that they are also more restrictive per sectional cut out than the aftermarket. This has been known for years which is why it is a give and take on filter efficiency over filter restriction. The question is, how much dirt is allowable and will not have any effect on your engine versus how much will hurt it. If you can increase flow while still being within safe levels of silicon on your UOA then what is the problem?

There is the other thing that the test does not test, which is size of the filter which will make a big difference since most aftermarket intakes are considerably larger than stock ones. As stated in my last post, increasing the size of the filter increases available flow, it increases the filters holding capacity, and helps lower EGTs among other things. Take the second to the last chart where it talks about dust loading. Filters like the AFE Pro-Guard 7 did considerably well when stacked up against the other paper filters when it comes to its ability to capture dirt and how much diest allowed to pass through in a section. It also at higher flow rates per section. However, most Pro-Guard 7 is more than twice as large as a stock filter in many applications increasing its overall dirt holding ability and sectional dirt holding ability since the pressure is more spread out over the whole filter instead of a smaller square.

So test data is not what you really wanted

I'll just stick with my 10"W x 11"L x 3"D stock filter

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

mudfuel07 wrote:
If it's a diesel, I would throw it away and use a stock filter. On the 6.0's, the stock one is good up to about 500 hp and filters better than any aftermarket one.

I would love to see the data you have that you are basing this on.

I agree with mudfuel. The Donaldson air filter can support that hp and it's capable of holding a lot of particles. This filters IMO are second to none.

I know about Donaldson Powercore filters very well and even know the Donaldson rep for Texas who is lives in Houston very well. I also know that the Powercore filter was developed for the Abrams M1A1 tank during the first Iraq war due the tanks having to stop every three hours to change air filters because the sand was clogging them. The Powercore filter extended that interval three fold.

However, that is NOT what I was asking. I was asking what kind of solid data that he has that can back up his "the stock one is good up to about 500 hp" claim. Afterall, why say it if you don't have any way to back it up besides what some mechanic, who more than likely does not have data to back up his assumptions either, says?

I don't post opinion here and try to pass it off as fact, which is why I asked what data he had to back up his statement. If he presented it and had legitimate data to back up his statement then I will say okay, but if he doesn't then it is just baseless assumption and opinion.

Understand your point but I'm passing along what some well respected fte members were reporting on their tuned trucks. For the record My 6.0 was stock so I have no direct experience.

GoPackGo wrote:
" I also know that the Powercore filter was developed for the Abraham A1 "

I'm sorry but I can't let this pass. It's Abrams M1A1 Tank (now A2). Named after General Creighton Abrams. Among other accomplishments, he served under General Patton and the tank battalion he commanded broke through to relieve the siege of Bastogne in Dec, 1944. We need to get his name right.

Sorry, my phones auto correct kicked in. I usually go back and correct those mistakes in edits, but I was writing another post.

Edit: And yes, I do know who General Abrams is just as much as I know who Chesty Puller is. I do love history especially military history.