Don't be TOO hasty.... as far a AMSOIL and their products are concerned, I think they make very good products, and the results appear to speak for themselves in that link.... however, as "quantified" in the editorial, the configuration on the vehicle was not necessarily focused at compensation for increased air-flow. If you have an increase in airflow due to a reduction in restriction, then you would very possibly lose horsepower AND potentially risk running lean, even to the point of damage or excessive heating... if the AMSOIL filter is a "better screen", with more restrictive "pores", then it would stand to reason that the setup described would not run so lean, thereby netting a higher horsepower result. On the OTHER hand, if the setup had been on a different vehicle that more effectively compensated for the increased airflow, or started out as a RICH factory ratio, perhaps the final numbers would have been different. The MOST IMPORTANT numbers to present for this links arguments in MY opinion would be the following:
1) TOTAL CFM FLOW comparison of the two filters
2) EFFECTIVE PARTICULATE REMOVAL rating comparison of the two filters
#1 Would give the clear indication of which filter had the POTENTIAL for the highest horsepower gain if the air/fuel ratio were maintained equally well to compliment the CFM of flow respectively
#2 Would give the clear indication of which filter maintained a CLEANER flow of air
If ONE of the two provided the BETTER result in BOTH #1 & #2, then THAT would be an out-and-out winner of the comparison. If your objective was purely horsepower gain, you may not be so particular on having the MOST clean air, rather the MOST AIR period. Theoretically, you could have a filter that removed air particulate to the point of being HEPA certified for medical grade use, but that would not likely be your highest priority with a car. Additionally, there is very likely an optimum happy medium that you could find between air purity and air flow. If the K&N was not AS effective as the AMSOIL at particulate removal, but still screened contaminants as well or BETTER than OEM or other aftermarket filters, then perhaps the PARTICULATE FILTERING CAPABILITY is not such a big factor. If the ability of the vehicle to "compensate" for the improved airflow is limited, then perhaps the HIGHER PARTICULATE REMOVING element with adequately matched (as in restricted) airflow is the superior choice.
SUMMARY:
I respect the data and information that the link provided, and further appreciate the high quality of AMSOIL components. I also have had very positive results over the years using K&N filter products, along with a half-dozen others... Uni-Filter, HKS, aFe, etc... What I have found is that, as with MOST performance modifications, the key element (pun intended!
) in NET GAINS is contingent upon maintaining a delicate balance within the system that is affected by the modification being made, in this instance, the AIR/FUEL RATIO... a RELATIVE subject matter at best.
....besides, this fellow IS marketing his product... and his arguments are not air-tight enough to be rhetorically self-evident in outcome as I would like before aquiescing to his logic.
end dissertation
okay, so I drank a little too much coffee this morning?
-crisp
by Nyyankees3511 » Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:13 am 
