Mark Craig

Scotty,

Can you tell me why you get different results than Testand Corp in RI that does nothing but test filters for a living. This includes any kind of filter you want to imagine not just filters for our trucks. Filters for industry like electronic board production where MICRO size particles will spoil thousands of dollars of production?

I used to sell Uni single and 2 stage filters for a number of years, we used to get less dirt past them than anything out there at that time. We loved them as they were the best available then. Now the PG7 is available and per the tests by Testand and such they actually stop more dirt.

Maybe we can make a friendly result out of this. Send one of your 2 stage to Testand Corp and let them test it against the same set of paramteres they used for all these other filters, then one of us will be right and the other wrong and there will be no he said or she said etc. The members will know what the real deal is or isn't. Understand I am not after you or your filters, the question was:

"Cold Air Intake Systems
What brand of intake offers the best flow/HP gains...any ideas?"



cquestad,

You are correct the PG7 is a PITA to clean, but it does clean if you want to take the time to do it. I have also found it's a lot easier to not let it get REALLLLY nasty, then they clean up pretty well. My 1st one I let go waaaay to long, took a bunch of time. They never really look as clean as the first time you remove it from the package as the yellow sort of turns a darker color, but they will come clean.

Mark @ DPPI

Hoss

CHALLENGE!!!!!!

Hehehe......

Hoss sitting at his computer playing 'dueling banjos'.....

Scotty

Its not just me that is getting the 'different' results. Its several individuals who have done oil analysis that are reporting to me that they are getting excellent filtration results as per their results and comments from the different companies testing their oil.

Was this test done with the J726 test standard?

The results I am getting and what you are reporting are what concerns me.

If, in the real world the results are what we are seeing and getting reports of, then what would this bench test merit towards the results of these filters in the real world environments.

Keep in mind too...these folks are in several different areas all over North America and beyond using the two stage UNI filter.

I feel confident that the level of silicon that is in the oil is what is important to the individual driving down the road.

I should also add that my 98 Ram encountered a reading of 19 PPM while using a panel k&n filter. I tossed the filter when I really should've tossed the air box, which I did when I designed my air intake. I have never seen a reading over 7PPM on any of my other trucks and that was with afe, k&n and UNI filters. I had a fleetguard that netted 12 PPM on a 96...it was the factory air box that was distorted.

In addition to this, I am now driving number 25 of the Cummins' Rams I have owned.

The 90-93 Rams all clocked over 250,000 miles with aftermarket filters once they became available. The 90 had over 400,000 miles on it and never had the engine opened up. None of them got more then a valve adjustment.

The 94-96 Rams all had k&n brand bricks and all had excellent oil results and all where sold with well over 180,000 to 270,000 miles. There was never any indication of a problem with these engines and they worked hard towing heavy.

With numbers like this, I struggle getting my head wrapped around the test you posted. Why do we get such good results then?

At any rate, if I had some odd ball numbers or scary reports, I would address it fast. And we all know the internet is where we would see the problems and the concerns first. Afterall, anything bad that a person encounters firsthand will be on the net. I think I might call the folks at UNI and let them handle this direct since they are the manufacturer.

Scotty

cquestad

Where is Testand Corp's results of the two stage?

I personally liked the PG&...till I had to clean it. It never worked that great again...either too oiled and crappy flow...or too little oil and dust in the track.

There are lots of real world tests that are IMHO more accurate than a mocked up flow test in a lab. The fact that I have had ZERO dust/dirt in my intake (where I coat on of my rubber 90's with a thin film of grease to observe) with repeated easier cleanings and less restriction (observed on my relocated vacuum gauge and in the form of EGT's) tells me all I need to know. I had all of the above with the PG7 for about 10k...then no more.

Mark,

Is there a reason why the use of oiled gauze never ventures offroad on motorcycles?

I subject my bikes to insane amounts of dust and have yet to have anything pass a two stage oiled foam UNI. Bikes are really easy to monitor dust (grease on the intake boot again) as well as performance.

IA_James

I have a UNI 2 stage on my dirt bike and I have yet to observe any dirt in the intake on it when properly oiled and sealed. I use Bel-Ray Waterproof grease to seal the base, and K&N filter oil, and even riding in sand dunes don't see even a speck of anything foreign past the filter. The K&N oil is kind of thin for this application, and I always wind up with a little in the airbox, if there was any dirt in there, it would show up. When I break down and get an aftermarket filter to go with my homemade "mo turbo whistle tube" it'll probably be a UNI. TwinAir makes a good filter too, but I don't think they make a filter suitable for our application.

Scotty

Probably for the very same reason Kent at KORE declined to use my intake in Baja when I had oiled gauze filters. Now that I have foam filters, we are looking at having them on his truck with the shaker intake later this year.

Scotty

502502

wow,

I do admit all technical facts on both filters are over my head...

So I plan on buying both setups below and flip a coin

1) PG7 AFE w/ torq tube
2) UAP-908 - 2stage w/ COOL blue tube

Seriouslly, I do not encounter too many dusty situations, but still want the best for my truck

Are both CFM numbers available on both filters?

signed,
slightly confused

ON EDIT found this thread about the test:
http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthr...04/Main/353698

AK RAM

Well, I can say without a doubt that I have given AFE two attempts with their PG7 filter and I have been rather disappointed both times.

The AFE filter we talk about in this thread: https://www.dieseltruckresource.com/...threadid=42436, never gave me better than 14 ppm silicone levels on my oil analysis and everyone had me convinced that I just had a bum filter with some kind of defect. Folks were posting that they were using the same filter and seeing silicone levels in the 3 to 4 ppm range. When I went to a BHAF, my silicone levels dropped to 4 ppm on the next oil change. That was nice. Then, I put these twin turbos on and I didn't have enough room left for the BHAF so I had to go back to an AFE filter until I could figure something out. I put on a big AFE PG7 with their pre-filter, hoping that would help some, and let'r rip. I took an oil sample at only 2000 miles with the new AFE on and my silicone was back up to 12 ppm, with the pre-filter! I think all the people saying they were getting 3 to 4 ppm silicone levels with the AFE are driving around in a pressurized bubble. This AFE may flow well, but its filtration really sucks.

It would be nice to try one of Scotty's Uni setups for an oil change interval and see where my silicone landed. Scotty needs to build a big o'l twins version of his Scotty III that doesn't require decapitating your hood. (hint...hint)

whooptide

ok....i give....what do silicone levels in the oil have to do with the air filter filtration or lack thereof?........maybe a dumb question, but i gotta start somewhere......i too run a uni 2 stage air filter on my dirtbike, which i ride primarily in the high desert. a true test of dust filtration for sure and i can honestly say that when i remove that sucker, the air box is nice and clean inside.....i hope this thread lives a bit longer, i am looking at an air intake and am leaning towards the scotty III.........

Scotty

silicon is dirt, that which gets into the engine oil from the air filter and intake, primarlily.

After speaking with Cummins on this quite some time ago, I was told, off the record, if the silicon levels are within the limits and there is no visible 'dust' in the intake track...its good.

Reason for being told off the record...because they own Fleetguard.

Scotty

Car_nut57

We offer the UAP-908 cone filter as a replacement for the aFe stage one which is also the filter used in Scotty's shacker. If you want to give one a try and see what your silicone numbers are let me know. We are running one of the UAP-908 filters on my wife's Excursion diesel used mainly to tow horses through the dirt, 60K on this oil and the silicone is 8ppm, before using a cotton filter the Silicone was 16ppm. For those who are wondering, we don't change oil anymore because of the Premo oil bypass system, but if we were I think the silicone would be even lower using the UNI filter. These filters work great for filtering and performance.

Mark Craig

AK RAM,

Well there you go, I have gotten for 2 years a PPM of 1-3 with PG7. I wonder if you have a leak somewhere else? Sometimes they are impossible to find. I had a 7.3 that got terrible reports with a UNI 2 stage, finally found a tiny split in the intake accordion hose. Replaced it and the nunbers dropped next time around.

Mark @ DPPI

Mark Craig

cquestad,

They didn't have one for the test that's why I figured Scotty would want to send one to the same company and run it through the same tetsts, then there would be no question what was doing what.

Unfortunatley for the owners there are a zillion 4 layer gauze filters on dirt bikes out there. They will pay the price eventually. The PG7 isn't a 4 layer gauze though, it's 5 layers of increasingly tighter weave gauze and then 2 layers of non woven poly. The test at Testand tells the tale it was nearly as good as a stock AC Delco paper filter. It was off by 1/2 of 1% if I remember correctly. I wish they had had 2 stage UNI there, then we would know the deal for sure. You will always get your best test results for dirt and flow in a lab as all the parameters are the same. Not that real world data isn't good it is, but you have installation issues, humidity and such that make a pretty big variable.

Mark @ DPPI

Mark @ DPPI

cquestad

Mark...I agree. ALL of the tests...real world and lab are very important.

The lab does not always match the real world conditions an individual may experience...and the real world conditions vary so much that they may not provide a consistant test platform from one filter to the next.

But...

There is always pressure on the testing agency from the individual who paid for the test. Bias...it exists. Also...tests can be choosen that shows the strngths of any prouct...and tests avoided that show their flaws. The final hurdle...the test data does not have to be released to the public if it shows flaws!

I am not trying to be arguementative...but I am unbiased (since it is my money either way...and I have already spent it on several options) and trust my real world experiences.

Another set of tests...filter housings included on a dodge truck would be the best!

RadRam

I run a PG7 with an intake and run my truck on gravel roads - oilpatch - very dusty - muddy - The PG7 is a real PITA. to try to keep clean even with a prefilter,always dust in the intake - not mutch, but there.
Have a Scotty 3 & a cool blue hose on the way, hopefully this system be be better.