amsoil "nanofiber" air filters
amsoil "nanofiber" air filters
01-22-2010, 08:41 PM
#1
I'm giving one a shot and I'll let y'all know how it goes. Mine is the EaAU3090.
http://www.amsoil.com/StoreFront/eaa.aspx
![[Image: EaAU3090.jpg]](http://jason.pepas.com/images/EaAU3090.jpg)
amsoil makes a line of "nanofiber" air filters which supposedly filter fairly well and are washable.
I'm giving one a shot and I'll let y'all know how it goes. Mine is the EaAU3090.
http://www.amsoil.com/StoreFront/eaa.aspx
01-23-2010, 10:17 AM
#2
(01-22-2010, 08:41 PM)cell washable
= junk.
A decent paper filter costs about $20/year. There is no benefit to buying "washable" filters, especially because they allow so much dirt to pass through. I'd MUCH rather throw in a new filter one a year than have to remove and wash a "filter" every 3-6 months.
Look at the tiny surface area! Even if it filters better than K&N, its going to plug up and become restrictive very quickly. A paper filter has easily 20x the working surface.
This post was last modified: 01-23-2010, 10:26 AM by ForcedInduction.
Attached Files
Image(s)
ForcedInduction
01-23-2010, 10:17 AM
#2
(01-22-2010, 08:41 PM)cell washable
= junk.
A decent paper filter costs about $20/year. There is no benefit to buying "washable" filters, especially because they allow so much dirt to pass through. I'd MUCH rather throw in a new filter one a year than have to remove and wash a "filter" every 3-6 months.
Look at the tiny surface area! Even if it filters better than K&N, its going to plug up and become restrictive very quickly. A paper filter has easily 20x the working surface.
Attached Files
Image(s)
01-23-2010, 10:34 AM
#3
I've been contemplating using a modified form of this filter in a '85 Cali box.
Amsoil claims better efficiency.
Amsoil claims better holding capacity.
.
Gota love Mercedes Diesels!
.
DeliveryValve
01-23-2010, 10:34 AM #3I've been looking at this filter for a while. Their marketing material has me sold on it. But I would still like to see some independent tests.
I've been contemplating using a modified form of this filter in a '85 Cali box.
Amsoil claims better efficiency.
Amsoil claims better holding capacity.
.
Gota love Mercedes Diesels!
.
01-23-2010, 10:39 AM
#4
ForcedInduction
01-23-2010, 10:39 AM
#4
Its a rip-off of the material used by Donaldson in their Powercore filters. The big difference is the PC filters have more like 100x the surface area of that cone.
01-23-2010, 11:50 AM
#5
(01-23-2010, 10:39 AM)ForcedInduction Its a rip-off of the material used by Donaldson in their Powercore filters. The big difference is the PC filters have more like 100x the surface area of that cone.
They do make filters that fits in a stock box, not just a cone.
Even if it is a rip off, certainly you'll agree that it could potentially be better then a regular cellulose filter?
.
DeliveryValve
01-23-2010, 11:50 AM #5(01-23-2010, 10:39 AM)ForcedInduction Its a rip-off of the material used by Donaldson in their Powercore filters. The big difference is the PC filters have more like 100x the surface area of that cone.
They do make filters that fits in a stock box, not just a cone.
Even if it is a rip off, certainly you'll agree that it could potentially be better then a regular cellulose filter?
.
01-23-2010, 06:22 PM
#7
(01-23-2010, 11:50 AM)DeliveryValve certainly you'll agree that it could potentially be better then a regular cellulose filter?
If they multiply the surface area a few times.
ForcedInduction
01-23-2010, 06:22 PM
#7
(01-23-2010, 11:50 AM)DeliveryValve certainly you'll agree that it could potentially be better then a regular cellulose filter?
If they multiply the surface area a few times.
Users browsing this thread:
8 Guest(s)
8 Guest(s)
Users browsing this thread:
8 Guest(s)
8 Guest(s)