Fiat 124 Spider Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Based on the post I've been reading, this question is probably for Greg. Just curious as to why the filter element in the V4 intake by EC doesn't need to be oiled like other cotton mesh filters. If it doesn't require oiling, would oiling it reduce airflow considerably? I want to trap as many particles as possible. I also want to keep my engine warrant valid. My V4 should arrive this week with an oil catch can to follow. Please advise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,358 Posts
Welcome aboard @dasblakely What do you got? Curious minds man!!!

Aloha!
@Greg da mans got a Question for ya!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jetlag and Greg

·
Vendor
Joined
·
3,657 Posts
Certain types of filter elements don't need oil. It's really that simple. For example, paper or synthetic elements don't need it. Cotton based elements typically do use oil of some sort. As an example, the Sprint filter is the best out there and it doesn't use oil, it uses synthetic fibers. It's here: https://shopeurocompulsion.net/coll...-air-filter-eurocompulsion-v4-1-intake-system .

The filter used in the 124's V4 does not need oil. Do not oil it, it's not that type of filter.

Greg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,964 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,964 Posts
If you will type catch can install on the search window, it will show 2-3 different threads on it.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,023 Posts
Greg really knows what he's talking about when it comes to filters here. Synthetic filters are a game changer in the filtration industry. They have a high contaminant holding capacity and unrivaled filtration efficiency. AMSOIL has been using that technology for years. During a GMTruckCentral.com study that was done with fine dust, AMSOIL's synthetic filter media far surpassed even the best cellulose filters, while the K&N oiled filter performed terribly.

http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/air-filter-study.html

I would expect the same results out of other synthetic media filters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
549 Posts
http://www.gmtruckcentral.com/articles/air-filter-study.html

I would expect the same results out of other synthetic media filters.
Now I am assuming that car filter technology is the same as HVAC filter tech. And with that being said, I would prefer an oiled filter media like BMC provide over a washable dry media. Yes, I read that article with some interest – but in my very humble opinion it’s a wee bit flawed as it seems not to include a study on the long term filtration and air flow resistance over time. This is where dry media filters are often deficient compared to oiled media. And using a uniformly sized test dust is very limiting. The HVAC industry a “mixed” dust is used to simulate the expected atmospheric conditions. This study only rates the various filters against a 5 micron dust

The reason I like the BMC is that as an oiled type that relies on impingement for the entrapment of finer particles whereas a dry media replies on finer airways for entrapment. The prime advantage is that its pressure drop does not degrade over time as fast as dry media does. Less pressure drop = more flow = more power !!

And all things being equal you should clean an oiled filter far less than a washable dry medium filter (the BMC panel filter in my A5oo has been cleaned once in 7 years). When you wash a dry filter it losses some its dust efficiency and will degrade over time, they do not last forever. TBH probably better to completely replace a dry filter than wash it and expect the same as new performance

This has been gnawing at me for a while with my V4 intake – so much so I even looked at replacing the canister with a BMC – either the CDA or the OTA. Not possible as the connections are different sizes. How grand would it be if EC did a specific BMC hose kit (a hint and a wink) ??

(BMC are the filtration experts in the automotive world – supplying many of the world’s leading motorsports teams. There is a reason why they do not do dry media)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,023 Posts
Now I am assuming that car filter technology is the same as HVAC filter tech. And with that being said, I would prefer an oiled filter media like BMC provide over a washable dry media. Yes, I read that article with some interest – but in my very humble opinion it’s a wee bit flawed as it seems not to include a study on the long term filtration and air flow resistance over time. This is where dry media filters are often deficient compared to oiled media. And using a uniformly sized test dust is very limiting. The HVAC industry a “mixed” dust is used to simulate the expected atmospheric conditions. This study only rates the various filters against a 5 micron dust

The reason I like the BMC is that as an oiled type that relies on impingement for the entrapment of finer particles whereas a dry media replies on finer airways for entrapment. The prime advantage is that its pressure drop does not degrade over time as fast as dry media does. Less pressure drop = more flow = more power !!

And all things being equal you should clean an oiled filter far less than a washable dry medium filter (the BMC panel filter in my A5oo has been cleaned once in 7 years). When you wash a dry filter it losses some its dust efficiency and will degrade over time, they do not last forever. TBH probably better to completely replace a dry filter than wash it and expect the same as new performance

This has been gnawing at me for a while with my V4 intake – so much so I even looked at replacing the canister with a BMC – either the CDA or the OTA. Not possible as the connections are different sizes. How grand would it be if EC did a specific BMC hose kit (a hint and a wink) ??

(BMC are the filtration experts in the automotive world – supplying many of the world’s leading motorsports teams. There is a reason why they do not do dry media)
I don't mean to be rude but you're dead wrong on this. During the Spicer test, they demonstrated that oiled K&N filters actually clogged to restriction with only 1/3 the amount of dirt it took to produce the same restriction on a cellulose filter. The only other filters that performed as poorly or worse were the AFE oiled filter and the AMSOIL oiled filter, long ago when AMSOIL used to make oiled filters. AMSOIL wised up and moved to synthetic filtration media. To make matters worse, the K&N filter passed 17.5x more dust than the OEM cellulose filter!

The uniform particle size was used to demonstrate deficiency specifically with fine particle filtration. K&N, the biggest name in oiled filters, will advertise all day long how they achieve 98% or 99% filtration efficiency, but conveniently omit the particle size they base that claim on.

The data on oiled wet gauze filters is damning. It tested both coarse and fine particle filtration and even provided breakdown of particle quantities.

The K&N oiled filter passes more dirt, both coarse and fine, and clogs to restriction in less time, resulting in a filter that needs to be serviced more often and performs a worse job of keeping contaminants out.

Review the test results for yourself:

http://www.billswebspace.com/AirFilterTest.htm

Also as interpreted by nicoclub:
http://nicoclub.com/archives/kn-vs-oem-filter.html

There is one sole benefit to oiled filters, and that's maximum horsepower on race engines where dust loading and service life are of absolutely no concern. As shown in the testing I just provided, K&N has the best initial restriction. The moment you start loading it up with dust though, that benefit is negated. Unless you're willing to clean it 3x as often as you'd replace an OEM filter and are willing to risk the long-term effects of passing more dust through a turbocharged engine, I'd recommend moving to a synthetic filter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
549 Posts
More interesting “reports” ….but these are based on an uniform test dust at 5 microns (or 5 thousandths of a millimetre). Not sure when talking particle protection on motors this is a realistic metric – as a counterpoint cigarette smoke is 2 microns, a red blood cell is 12. I know from the HVAC industry that being vague with test dust sizes is a way to muddy the waters with filters relative performance – “look this golf ball does not the pass the filter = it must 100% efficient !!”. Change the test dust and the results will be very different even relative to each other. Heck, these reports do not seem to normalise for filter surface area – maybe they did, but I cannot see any indication, but another common way to muddy the waters.

Hummm – we are talking about performance gains – yes ?? That is why we all change our intakes, yes ?? Then resistance is your enemy and the last graph seems to be saying the K&N has less resistance for a given flow. And no surprises at 5 microns the K&N sucks

Anyways – this is a side bar argument. All I wanted to say I would rather like a BMC filter element in my intake, it’s just a superior result. I believe Toby at EC also agreed
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
2,023 Posts
More interesting “reports” ….but these are based on an uniform test dust at 5 microns (or 5 thousandths of a millimetre). Not sure when talking particle protection on motors this is a realistic metric – as a counterpoint cigarette smoke is 2 microns, a red blood cell is 12. I know from the HVAC industry that being vague with test dust sizes is a way to muddy the waters with filters relative performance – “look this golf ball does not the pass the filter = it must 100% efficient !!”. Change the test dust and the results will be very different even relative to each other. Heck, these reports do not seem to normalise for filter surface area – maybe they did, but I cannot see any indication, but another common way to muddy the waters.

Hummm – we are talking about performance gains – yes ?? That is why we all change our intakes, yes ?? Then resistance is your enemy and the last graph seems to be saying the K&N has less resistance for a given flow. And no surprises at 5 microns the K&N sucks

Anyways – this is a side bar argument. All I wanted to say I would rather like a BMC filter element in my intake, it’s just a superior result. I believe Toby at EC also agreed
I don't see why the word "reports" had to be placed in quotes, as if to discredit them without any review. It is clear you didn't review them, or you would have realized these are not based on a uniform test dust at 5 microns, and are in fact ISO 5011 standardized tests on a machine that probably costs as much as your house. 5 microns was the first article. In the second article, I even told you that there was a breakdown of the particle sizes in the article, which go from "0-2.5" microns to 80+ microns. I simply started with the gm truck central article as the difference is far more severe when you only factor in fine particles. It is absolutely irrelevant what size a red blood cell is or anything else for that matter since we are protecting a turbine that spins at 200k RPM from turbo dusting, journal bearings on the crank, multiair valvetrain components, and turbo bearings. That's journal bearing surfaces, where oil film under load will be as small as 0.5 microns! Educate yourself on lubrication film thickness, especially that of journal bearings:

https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/987/it's-all-about-size
https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/126/journal-bearing-contamination

I review oil analysis reports on a weekly, sometimes daily basis, and routinely see elevated silicon levels in oil analysis where K&N filters are used. Silicon is abrasive. Your air filter is tasked with keeping it out of your engine. Unless you are building a dedicated track car where long term longevity is not a concern, I don't see why you'd voluntarily take the risk. You aren't saving yourself time, you are hardly saving yourself any money, and your performance gain only lasts as long as it takes for that filter to get loaded up with a little bit of dirt.

The K&N filter has the least resistance for a given rate of flow when freshly cleaned and not loaded with any dust. I agree that resistance is our enemy but there is a fine line between eliminating resistance and exposing the engine to harmful contamination. We shouldn't do anything to reduce restriction as then we'd just end up with no intake at all.

I'm not concerned with who agrees with me on this one, the data and the facts speak for themselves. This is standardized ISO 5011 testing. The testing was performed on a $285,000 machine at Testand Corp of Rhode Island, as was clearly stated in the article. The air filters tested were exactly the same size so nobody was trying to "muddy the waters" with some inexplicable agenda to make K&N air filters look bad. All of the oiled filters in that test performed poorly.

Someone out there spent a great deal of money to test a variety of filters in a controlled, standardized fashion, the results of which specifically address the points you mentioned in this thread, and you've wholly ignored it.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top