k&n apollo induction?

[jop]

anyone used this system?

http://www.knfilters.com/universal/apollo.htm

my paj is missing the factory air box, so i am considering using this before a snorkel.

[Gwagensteve]

There is lots and lots of good tech on here about the "benefits" of K&N filters.

Steve.

[jop]

oh thanks for that???
what about the apollo system?

[dumbdunce]

the best thing you can do is go to a wrecker and replace the factory system, then use a factory or factyory equivalent fibre element filter.

foam filters aren't worth a pinch of goat poo. They have little or no performance benefit, they do not filter more efficiently, and they are not cheaper in the long or short run.

search is your friend, seek and ye shall find.

[jop]

ah the outerlimits answer to everything - search noob

my question is about the apollo induction system, has anyone used it?

[dumbdunce]

since "the apollo system' is designed to connect to a worthless foam filter, the advice you have recieved is valid and useful to you. don't waste your money; the best thing you can do to prolong the life of your engine is to use the factory filter setup. You are obviously not interested in performace gains as you intend to install a snorkel, and if you are going to buy an off the shelf snorkel, it also will be designed to fit to the factory air box. why make it difficult for yourself?

if you just want some flexible tubing, clark rubber will probably have something to suit your needs.

[jop]

the k&n filter is a fibre filter, i'm connecting it to a stainless snorkel, with a precleaner head on it

[ausyota]

Hold the K&N up to the light and you will see why they flow so well
You may as well scrunch up some fly wire and shove in your intake as a filter.
My Lux had one on the Commodore V6 in it when I bought it, also had the dust trail up the intake pipe behind it to match.
I gave it the flick quick smart for an air box from a Surf with a stock paper ellement in it. Didnt notice any difference what so ever in performance just a reduction in intake noise.

[Gwagensteve]

jop,

I was trying to avoid kicking off another K&N thread, there are already enough. Actual tech rather than marketing-speak indicates K&N filters are not suitable for off road conditions or any application where you need to filter the air as well as a stock paper filter.

Race engines, track cars and urban road use are probably valid applications for a K&N, off road use is not.

If a K&N is used in a stock filter housing, at least the design of the stock housing can work to prevent some debris reaching the filter, I am thinking of cyclone style housings like hilux and landcruiser, that use centrifugal force to move particle away from the filer.

That apollo system with simply bombard the filter with everything that comes through the snorkel. It would have to be the worst possible application for a K&N from a filtering efficiency point of view.

as already said, fit a factory airbox and paper filter. With a precleaner (I assume you mean a Donaldson top spin?) on the snorkel you will have excellent filtration. A precleaner has an excellent flow on effect, which is that you don't have to open your air filter box as often. Every time you open you air filter box, you shorten the life of the engine.

PS That apollo system looks like it might not seal very well for water crossings. My guess is it is designed for road cars.

Steve.

[-Scott-]

There's paper filters, and there's paper filters.

Following previous threads on this subject I replaced my K&N with a paper filter before a trip across the Simpson - the paper filter let more dust through than the K&N ever did. After 1 day there was a film of dust on both sides of the element.

[jop]

thanks Steve, thats the sort of feedback i was after, i will continue the airbox search

[Gwagensteve]

There's paper filters, and there's paper filters.

Following previous threads on this subject I replaced my K&N with a paper filter before a trip across the Simpson - the paper filter let more dust through than the K&N ever did. After 1 day there was a film of dust on both sides of the element.

Was it a genuine filter?

Some of the production tolerances on aftermarket paper filters can be out of spec and result in a too loose/too tight filter. Obviously, too loose is worse than too tight, but an oversize filter can result in an unsealed airbox, significant if you are doing deep water.

I would be surprised if a genuine element passed dust.

Steve.

[WRXZook]

I can't find the report at the moment to give the exact details.... but a mining company was convinced to try the k&n style air filters because they were interested in reducing their $40,000 per month replacement cost of oem air filters. (This was before the current boom) They fitted an oem paper element filter to one bank of a v10? engine and the k&n type filter to the other bank and ran the truck for xhours and dismantled the engine to measure wear. They quickly decided that the cost of replacing oem filters was much better value compared to the servicing of the other type and the significantly decreased engine life.

When I started working, oil bath air filters were all the go

[dumbdunce]

There's paper filters, and there's paper filters.

Following previous threads on this subject I replaced my K&N with a paper filter before a trip across the Simpson - the paper filter let more dust through than the K&N ever did. After 1 day there was a film of dust on both sides of the element.

did you perform a control simpson crossing with the K&N to form a valid comparison?

[dumbdunce]

I would be surprised if a genuine element passed dust.

x eleventy.

[dogbreath_48]

I used to run a unifilter (came with the car) in the std airbox. The main problem IMO was that once the oily foam had dust on it, the filter effectiveness decreased (no sticky oil left to catch the dust). In the case of the paper filter, the more crap blocking up the filter, the more effective the filtration (at the cost of flow, of course).

I'd rather a filter that started to flow poorly when loaded than started to pass dust when loaded.

When i went to the stock paper filter i actually believe the car drove better.

As for replacement costs - my Toyota filter can we washed quite effectively (as per instructions) - but does anyone know how long until it should be replaced outright?

I'd say the apollo system isn't really designed to seal 100% around the filter, it's more of a duct by the looks of it.

-Stu

[twinnie]

you didn't say if it was a petrol or diesel?

and regarding the uni filter ram pods (i have my own thread about them) mine shook it's self to bits.

so if you go for a ram pod keep it on a good bracket.

but like most people here i'll say that an exposed filter is not good practice. have a good look at a bobcat, or any bit of earthworks machinery.

if you have the 3.0 petrol v6 with valve seals that don't last like they should then you'd have to realy consider what a bit more dust will do.

Matt

[ISUZUROVER]

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/showthread.php?t=44524

When I get a spare minute I will finish and post the efficiency - but the K&N doesn't look good so far.

Oh and filtration efficiency is inversely proportional to fibre diameter. The cellulose fibres used to make a "paper" / OEM filter aren't ideal, but they are MUCH smaller than the big fat cotton fibres used in a K&N.

[dumbdunce]

...filtration efficiency is inversely proportional to fibre diameter...

surely there's more to it than that? fine fibres can be loosely packed, providing large voids; the thickness of the media mat for a given fibre size and packing density must also have some impact?


looking forward to the efficiency figures.

[ISUZUROVER]

...filtration efficiency is inversely proportional to fibre diameter...

surely there's more to it than that? fine fibres can be loosely packed, providing large voids; the thickness of the media mat for a given fibre size and packing density must also have some impact?


looking forward to the efficiency figures.

Yes of course Brian - that is just one of the factors which affect filter efficiency. Some more are:

Filtration efficiency is also:
Directly proportional to filter thickness and packing density (1-porosity).

I should have said, if thickness and packing density are kept constant, filtration efficiency is inversely proportional to fibre diameter.

Velocity also plays a role - lower velocities are better to collect small particles, higher velocities better for large, but very high velocities can cause particle bounce - where the particles bounce off the fibres the strike, and can bounce all the way through the filter. (filters aren't sieves).