Offroad-Express

wildplumdx wrote:whoops i got that wrong 8.7 is worse than 9.4! oh well it ran alot cooler got lower EGT readings too, for the price of using more diesel

If your pod filter made a difference, then your original system must be clogged.
I run a vacuum gauge on the downstream side of my filter, if it reads a slight vacuum then you know it's all sealed up and filtering properly.
No vacuum means you've got a leak.
High vacuum means you've got a blocked filter.

The problem with pod filters is none of them filter worth a damn. Ricers can get away with it, but on a 4wd they can kill your engine in a very short space of time.

I've never bothered with any diesel miracle goo. Never had any problems that I thought one would solve.

If your pod filter made a difference, then your original system must be clogged.
I run a vacuum gauge on the downstream side of my filter, if it reads a slight vacuum then you know it's all sealed up and filtering properly.
No vacuum means you've got a leak.
High vacuum means you've got a blocked filter.

The problem with pod filters is none of them filter worth a damn. Ricers can get away with it, but on a 4wd they can kill your engine in a very short space of time.

I've never bothered with any diesel miracle goo. Never had any problems that I thought one would solve. [/quote]

KiwiBacon, The paper airfilter on mine was only put on as a temporary measure until I put the Finer Filter cartridge on. The paper element one was only a week old when I put the Finer fiter one on and still the difference was noticeable. It is well known especially at the Nissan Franchised service center that I used that the 92-95 Diesel Auto Terranos had two problems
1 A cooling system that wasn't up to the Job
2 an air supply that was badly positioned and also undersize so engine was starving for air
Even people that have fitted a snorkel have also noticed improvements to the power of the engine for exactly the same reason (air being forced through the filter was supplying more air to the engine).
when you compared the two filters under a low powered microscope the holes in the elements were about the same size but in the Finer Filter there was a lot more of them.
To give an idea of the improvement with the finer filter I could run quite happily all the way up the bombays in overdrive at 100kmph which even with a new paper element I just simply couldn't do.
On top of this was quite a significant cost saving as the last paper element was $48 but probably dearer than that now, the Finer Filter was $125 with two sleeves supplied I had the FF on the vehicle until I recently sold it (6 years) washed and changed sleeves every month. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out it was pretty good value for money.
I honestly don't know how increased airflow is going to kill an engine?

Fourbyfour wrote:I honestly don't know how increased airflow is going to kill an engine?

It's not the increased airflow, it's the poor filtration that is a result of the filter media these companies use in their pod filters.
There are very good reasons why pretty much all the offroad machinery in the world is outfitted with paper element filters.

Plus if needed you can give a paper filter a few good wacks on the ground to bang out heavy amounts of soil etc.

Think Of the sticky mess a properly oiled pod filter would become when faced with tons of dust.

BTW. Pre-filters are available from truck parts stores. Cannot remember the name of the company but it starts with a D but their old model was a clear plastic bowl looking thing which sat on the top of your snorkel and filled up with dust before it reached your filter.

Their new model is self-emptying (for lack of a better term) and flows a whole lot more.

Actually.. here it is

http://www.donaldson.com/en/engine/supp ... 000207.pdf

flyingbrick wrote:Plus if needed you can give a paper filter a few good wacks on the ground to bang out heavy amounts of soil etc.

Think Of the sticky mess a properly oiled pod filter would become when faced with tons of dust.

BTW. Pre-filters are available from truck parts stores. Cannot remember the name of the company but it starts with a D but their old model was a clear plastic bowl looking thing which sat on the top of your snorkel and filled up with dust before it reached your filter.

Their new model is self-emptying (for lack of a better term) and flows a whole lot more.

Actually.. here it is

http://www.donaldson.com/en/engine/supp ... 000207.pdf

Actually independant tests on these pod filters were conducted by 4wd magazine in australia and the tests were conducted in the outback (definitely the dustiest place on earth) they actually found that filtration was actually better than paper filters mainly because of the oil .Sure changing them can get messy but if you carry a spare sleevelike I do it is no problem to do it at the side of the road, Quite a number of the trucking companies up this way are running synthetic air filters these days with no problems. The fleet of tugs in the company that I belong to have all switched to synthetics as they had been plagued with exhaust from the gen set making there way into the air intakes of the main engines. A replacement air filter for one of these vessels is $3,500 and remember there are two engines. If these style of filters are so bad why are Cat , GM, Cummins & volvo openly not only recommending them but are actually installing them on new engines.
Your Statement seems to go against most of the posts here, most people have found these filters to be an asset to their vehicle, But just keep using those paper filters I am sure the filter companies will love you for it.

There are numerous aftermarket filters for most things including pod filters which is just a name for a filter style. When pod filter is mentioned most people think of K & N which some tests have recorded poor results, but like everything optimum performance comes from correct use (not pulling the proverbial of any of the tests, just a statement of fact). 'Green Filters' also make pod style filters, they have finer filtration than some and much better air flow, but of course require proper use. Virtually all WRC cars use 'Green Filters'.

Fourbyfour wrote:Actually independant tests on these pod filters were conducted by 4wd magazine in australia and the tests were conducted in the outback (definitely the dustiest place on earth) they actually found that filtration was actually better than paper filters mainly because of the oil .

Colour me sceptical, but I can't see a 4wd magazine having the necessary equipment or expertise to scientifically test a range of air filters.
I know an Australian process engineer who works in filtration and tests filters for a living, he has nothing good to say about aftermarket foam or oiled cotton filters and he has the data to back it up.

Here's a study performed to the ISO standards on duramax filters:
http://duramax-diesel.com/spicer/index.htm
Here're some of the australian results:
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/technical-cha ... nally.html

Bottom line, it's your engine so treat it how you will. But I've already had one rebuild due to a crappy air-cleaner, that was 50,000km after the engine was rebuilt. I don't like repeating the process.

Can you show me a new engine which is factory fitted with on these aftermarket filters? I have yet to seen one.

I assumed the magazine had their tests performed by an independant party. Of course the magazine won't have the necessary equipment or expertise to perform them. They just need to be able to interpret the results or have someone explain them. Pretty easy really. Be aware of so called independant studies performed by specific companies which are actually filter manufacturers as theres almost always a high level of bias ie it might be for a certain filter or against another type of filter.
When i ran performance street cars the pod style filters and foam mushroom filters resulted in noticable power gains however on road there is very little dirt compared to the enviroment we put our trucks in. This where the paper filter seemed to come into its own for service life alone. I've also had nothing but problems with K&N filters ie mass airflow meter issues because somthing in the filter (not oil) was clogging the engine management sensors in the intake system.

Anyways this thread is about diesel fuel additives....
I found some of those additives ie the crc injector clean one seems to resemble kerosene...I mean i suppose theres other stuff in it but yeah does kerosene on its own help at all??

The tests were actually undertaken by one of Australia's Government departments which I forget the name of, but it was some thing like our old DSIR They also had help from Road Transport and the 4wd Magazine themselves so one would think that all the players would have an unbiased view on the tests.
With the differnt additives I have noticed that some even have a strong acetone type smell to them, I am not sure if it is acetone but if it is God help anyone that put that in a diesel as the previous poster said some smell of kerosine a bit like some of the old guys saying they used to put a small quantity of petrol in their diesel to make it burn better and I know of one individual who used to swear by it.

Fourbyfour wrote:The tests were actually undertaken by one of Australia's Government departments which I forget the name of, but it was some thing like our old DSIR They also had help from Road Transport and the 4wd Magazine themselves so one would think that all the players would have an unbiased view on the tests.

I'm a little confused here.
If the tests were done properly then they'll be done in a lab under strictly controlled conditions.
Yet this test was claimed to be undertaken in the outback by a govt department?

Two claims on the same test which directly contradict each other.

KiwiBacon wrote:

Fourbyfour wrote:The tests were actually undertaken by one of Australia's Government departments which I forget the name of, but it was some thing like our old DSIR They also had help from Road Transport and the 4wd Magazine themselves so one would think that all the players would have an unbiased view on the tests.

I'm a little confused here.
If the tests were done properly then they'll be done in a lab under strictly controlled conditions.
Yet this test was claimed to be undertaken in the outback by a govt department?

Two claims on the same test which directly contradict each other.

The government tests were conducted in the lab and 4wd mag also compared these results to what they had found on a typical 1200 mile test in outback conditions with various vehicles both of these results basically came to the same conclusions.The practical test was done to show drivers what they could expect under various conditions.

Fourbyfour wrote:The government tests were conducted in the lab and 4wd mag also compared these results to what they had found on a typical 1200 mile test in outback conditions with various vehicles both of these results basically came to the same conclusions.The practical test was done to show drivers what they could expect under various conditions.

Do you have a link to these results?
The claims that oiled cotton filters filter better than paper contradicts every other test result, including both the ones I have linked up and the one that vvega linked to.

As far as I know none of those filters tested used oiled cotton the cheaper were the dual and triple thickness sponge rubber rubber type and going up to the more expensive using a dupont based product which is from the same family as kevlar and mylar these were about $150australian more but still afordable to the average driver when you consider they are able to be washed and reused.

the thickness dosent change the micron size of the substrant and thats whats important

vvega wrote:the thickness dosent change the micron size of the substrant and thats whats important

If you read my earlier post, micron size was exactly the same when examined by microscope as the paper filters, that was part of the tests conducted.

Fourbyfour wrote:

vvega wrote:the thickness dosent change the micron size of the substrant and thats whats important

If you read my earlier post, micron size was exactly the same when examined by microscope as the paper filters, that was part of the tests conducted.

Then why can I see daylight through the average pod filter but not through a paper element?

KiwiBacon wrote: I run a vacuum gauge on the downstream side of my filter, if it reads a slight vacuum then you know it's all sealed up and filtering properly.
No vacuum means you've got a leak.
High vacuum means you've got a blocked filter.

Just as a matter of interest... what sort of readings are you getting for sealed system, and blocked filter? What resolution gauge do you run and in what units?

Windsock wrote:

KiwiBacon wrote: I run a vacuum gauge on the downstream side of my filter, if it reads a slight vacuum then you know it's all sealed up and filtering properly.
No vacuum means you've got a leak.
High vacuum means you've got a blocked filter.

Just as a matter of interest... what sort of readings are you getting for sealed system, and blocked filter? What resolution gauge do you run and in what units?

The guage I've got is from a smaller donaldson filter which got broken. Donaldson call it "The Informer"
It has inches of water and kPa and locks onto the highest reading until reset.
If I reset it and take a drive in the usual manner (using all the engines torque and boost) it clicks up to 10 inches of water whic is the first notch. If I hold my hand over the intake then it pulls right through to the red at about 20 inches of water (5 notches in between).

My 10 inches of water is 2 kPa, roughly 2% of an atmosphere. Anyone who'd trade a 2kPa pressure drop (which is not 2% power btw) for a filter that doesn't filter needs their head read.
I've never had a blocked filter, I run a 100 series landcruiser element (denso) in my own housing design, the element is washable, but it's not oiled. The housing is cyclonic and throws all dust, leaves, insects etc to the outside of the housing where they go round and round till they get broken up and leave through a drain hole at the back.
In 8 years I've replaced the element once, it got accidentally damaged. Makes me laugh at all the filter cleaning and oiling I'm missing out on.

KiwiBacon wrote:

Windsock wrote:

KiwiBacon wrote: I run a vacuum gauge on the downstream side of my filter, if it reads a slight vacuum then you know it's all sealed up and filtering properly.
No vacuum means you've got a leak.
High vacuum means you've got a blocked filter.

Just as a matter of interest... what sort of readings are you getting for sealed system, and blocked filter? What resolution gauge do you run and in what units?

The guage I've got is from a smaller donaldson filter which got broken. Donaldson call it "The Informer"
It has inches of water and kPa and locks onto the highest reading until reset.
If I reset it and take a drive in the usual manner (using all the engines torque and boost) it clicks up to 10 inches of water whic is the first notch. If I hold my hand over the intake then it pulls right through to the red at about 20 inches of water (5 notches in between).

My 10 inches of water is 2 kPa, roughly 2% of an atmosphere. Anyone who'd trade a 2kPa pressure drop (which is not 2% power btw) for a filter that doesn't filter needs their head read.
I've never had a blocked filter, I run a 100 series landcruiser element (denso) in my own housing design, the element is washable, but it's not oiled. The housing is cyclonic and throws all dust, leaves, insects etc to the outside of the housing where they go round and round till they get broken up and leave through a drain hole at the back.
In 8 years I've replaced the element once, it got accidentally damaged. Makes me laugh at all the filter cleaning and oiling I'm missing out on.

Smart design- sounds similar to what the donaldson topspin pre-filter does which i linked to.

flyingbrick wrote:Smart design- sounds similar to what the donaldson topspin pre-filter does which i linked to.

Yeah I couldn't fit an off-the-shelf donaldson in the space I had, so I had to make my own.

Fourbyfour wrote:

vvega wrote:the thickness dosent change the micron size of the substrant and thats whats important

If you read my earlier post, micron size was exactly the same when examined by microscope as the paper filters, that was part of the tests conducted.

what was it

absolute or nominal

What is micron rating?

A measure of the pore size in the filter media. Expressed as either ‘Nominal’ or ‘Absolute’. Nominal Rating relates to the percentage of particles at a given size that a filter can capture ie. 10 microns at 90% means it will remove 90% of particles 10 microns in size. Absolute refers to the removal of all particles at a given micron size and larger ie. 20 micron absolute means 100% of particles 20 microns or greater will be captured.

The lower the micron rating, the greater the efficiency and hence the amount of dirt that is captured.

hop that elps

No one has discussed suface area yet, and you can't have a decent debate on airfilters with out bringing surface area into it!!!!!!

DieselBoy wrote:No one has discussed suface area yet, and you can't have a decent debate on airfilters with out bringing surface area into it!!!!!!

Show us your pleats.

KiwiBacon wrote:

DieselBoy wrote:No one has discussed suface area yet, and you can't have a decent debate on airfilters with out bringing surface area into it!!!!!!

Show us your pleats.

All that Pleaty Goodness

Tell you somethin though, for my 80 series cruiser i started out with the standard Repco replacement, then scored a washable paper element filter, and am currently running a K&N.

The standard paper filter was all good, but it was just standard right??? Had to be something else out there that was better

The washable filter was all good, apart from the fact it took ages to dry, and you were never sure you had given it a good enough clean as you wre only supposed to plunge it into a bucket of water a few times.

The K&N is ok, haven't cleaned it yet and its been in there for ages!!!! The K&N is alot smaller in diameter than standard and washable filters, so will no doubt block up quicker due to the reduced surface area available for filtration.

I used to run a foam "finer filter " on the Safari. The filter was a two part, with a removable outer sleve and then the main filter. I used Rock Oil Motor bike filter oil stuff on it. It filtered well, and flowed well, but man did that filter block up quickly, you had to give it the full clean at every 5000K oil change. Guess its due to the filter having significantly less surface area than the standard filter. Would expect it had alot less than half the available surface area of the paper filter.

Anyways....................

I have gone back to a standard replacement paper filter.

This is for two reasons the 1st being, it is a bit daunting seeing dust on the clean side on the inlet manifold hose. The 2nd is (and it is only a guess) is the oil is mucking up my air flow meter.

The dust is the one that bothered me, in very very dusty conditions last weekend (ie - can't see out the windscreen for dust & constant for prob 30 mins) i had dust on the clean side. This was using a 'finer filter' filter than was brand new, just out of the box. I got it very cheap when they went out of business last year.

I put it in to replace a k& n panel filter that came with the vehicle when I got it. I never saw any dust on the clean side with that filter but read enough to get rid of it. I think it filtered better than the finer filter.

1st thing I notice is the ryco replacement paper filter is heaps finer (not a hope of seeing through it) and it has bigger cleats leading to more surface area.

I have 3 questions
Why are they not up to the task when they come from the home of dust - oz?
Is a paper filter going to turn to custard when driving in heavy rain (I have a snorkel)?
Are these pre filters really that good at collecting dust and saving a new air filter every 10k km?

So what about the fact that a foam filter gets electrically charged by the airflow. The oil is there to trap the dust. So hole size is not the only filter type with a foam filter.

Using what a manufacturers reconmends as a guide for what is best is th biggest load of crap out there!!!!!!!!
A manuacturer is interest in one thing MONEY. How it can make more and how it can save more. A paper filter has limited life span and must be replaced regulary. Sure they work well, no question but the other filter types, foam in particular, do the same or better job and save you a fortune over the life of the vehicle. In most cases foam (or cotton) will last longer than the vehicle so this means less parts sales to the manufacturer. ie Nothing to do with protecting the engine.

Upon saying that I have a K&N filter but then my motor is really cheap and I wanted performance and don't expect to do more than a few 1000k a year in it anyway so who cares!

darinz wrote:So what about the fact that a foam filter gets electrically charged by the airflow. The oil is there to trap the dust. So hole size is not the only filter type with a foam filter.

Using what a manufacturers reconmends as a guide for what is best is th biggest load of crap out there!!!!!!!!
A manuacturer is interest in one thing MONEY. How it can make more and how it can save more. A paper filter has limited life span and must be replaced regulary. Sure they work well, no question but the other filter types, foam in particular, do the same or better job and save you a fortune over the life of the vehicle. In most cases foam (or cotton) will last longer than the vehicle so this means less parts sales to the manufacturer. ie Nothing to do with protecting the engine.

Upon saying that I have a K&N filter but then my motor is really cheap and I wanted performance and don't expect to do more than a few 1000k a year in it anyway so who cares!

Have you done any work around or with construction machinery?
Engines that have to live through a warranty which can extend up to 10,000hrs of working in extremely dusty conditions.

Do any of these engines use foam or cotton gauze filters?
Nope. Never have and never will. Your 5,000km wash and oil intervals is less than a typical working week (50 hours). High maintenance which you're paying through the nose for.

My current paper element filter is over 40,000km old. Haven't washed or cleaned it, but have shaken it a few times. Still in excellent condition. Think I've saved a fortune in oil and time to remove, clean and oil it too.

With a maximum recorded pressure drop of 2kPa I'm not missing out on any performance either.

darinz wrote:So what about the fact that a foam filter gets electrically charged by the airflow. The oil is there to trap the dust. So hole size is not the only filter type with a foam filter.

Using what a manufacturers reconmends as a guide for what is best is th biggest load of crap out there!!!!!!!!
A manuacturer is interest in one thing MONEY. How it can make more and how it can save more. A paper filter has limited life span and must be replaced regulary. Sure they work well, no question but the other filter types, foam in particular, do the same or better job and save you a fortune over the life of the vehicle. In most cases foam (or cotton) will last longer than the vehicle so this means less parts sales to the manufacturer. ie Nothing to do with protecting the engine.

Upon saying that I have a K&N filter but then my motor is really cheap and I wanted performance and don't expect to do more than a few 1000k a year in it anyway so who cares!

modern toyota ones are a furry paper like substance.. basically a paper cotton wieve ... as are the trd ones ... an in general they flow very well
+ paper filters dont work well when wet

KiwiBacon wrote:

darinz wrote:So what about the fact that a foam filter gets electrically charged by the airflow. The oil is there to trap the dust. So hole size is not the only filter type with a foam filter.

Using what a manufacturers reconmends as a guide for what is best is th biggest load of crap out there!!!!!!!!
A manuacturer is interest in one thing MONEY. How it can make more and how it can save more. A paper filter has limited life span and must be replaced regulary. Sure they work well, no question but the other filter types, foam in particular, do the same or better job and save you a fortune over the life of the vehicle. In most cases foam (or cotton) will last longer than the vehicle so this means less parts sales to the manufacturer. ie Nothing to do with protecting the engine.

Upon saying that I have a K&N filter but then my motor is really cheap and I wanted performance and don't expect to do more than a few 1000k a year in it anyway so who cares!

Have you done any work around or with construction machinery?
Engines that have to live through a warranty which can extend up to 10,000hrs of working in extremely dusty conditions.

Do any of these engines use foam or cotton gauze filters?
Nope. Never have and never will. Your 5,000km wash and oil intervals is less than a typical working week (50 hours). High maintenance which you're paying through the nose for.

My current paper element filter is over 40,000km old. Haven't washed or cleaned it, but have shaken it a few times. Still in excellent condition. Think I've saved a fortune in oil and time to remove, clean and oil it too.

With a maximum recorded pressure drop of 2kPa I'm not missing out on any performance either.

typically they have a cyclonic seperator in them .. so they dont really count... unless you put on a prefilter