I found this on another site and thougt it was interesting....

Here's what Dan Montegari of Precision Diesel Services says about advanced FLOW engineering's Pro-GUARD 7 filter media:

HIGH FLOW AIR INTAKE SYSTEMS

WHO IS THE BEST & WHY!

We received many letters asking which high flow air intake system to use. We decided to test a number of manufacturers’ systems to determine which system was superior. We tested each system and found systems manufactured by AFE (Advanced Flow Engineering) were the best by far.

Diesel engines use seven times more air than gasoline engines of equivalent size so clean cool air is a must for extended engine life, better fuel economy and additional power. A higher flow of intake air coupled with a high flow exhaust system allows for more power, a better fuel economy, extended engine life and reduced exhaust temperatures. On the other hand ingested dirt through the air intake system becomes Silicon in the engine oil, which is a harsh cutting agent and can damage your engine quickly.

We tested three very popular systems. I will not mention the names of the other systems as a courtesy but I will explain what problems we found with them. We evaluated the systems by a number of criteria, filtration protection, flow, and design, easy of installation and cost. Almost in the beginning of the tests we realized in most instances a new intake system was necessary to achieve our goals. We needed a kit that used mostly outside air and not hot engine compartment air. We decided to use systems designed to use mostly outside air.

Two manufacturers claimed their systems delivered cleaner air at a higher flow but this was far from the truth. We did not believe any of the manufacturers’ claims and tested each system by operating the vehicle 3,000 miles and performing an engine oil analysis to determine Silicon levels in the engine oil. The vehicle we used has an engine oil analysis performed at every oil change so we had a Silicon number of three (3) to base our tests on.

The first manufacturer’s system was fairly easy to install but we had problems with the oil used to coat the filter also coated the Mass Air Flow Sensor causing a service engine lamp to come on. I called the manufacturer but they had no explanation as to why this should happen but they had this complaint before. Through the three thousand mile test I had to clean the sensor three times to stop the service engine lamp from coming on. When the oil analysis results came back, it was discouraging with Silicon levels at eleven (11). I almost could not believe the result so we changed the oil and filter and repeated the test. The results were almost the same eliminating this manufacturer quickly. I contacted the manufacturer to discuss the results and they were not helpful and basically said, “what you see is what you get”!

We installed the second manufacturer’s system again changing the engine oil and operating the vehicle for three thousand miles. The first problem we encountered was the service engine lamp coming on and I thought the oil they used was coating the sensor again. I removed the sensor and found some oil on it which I cleaned off and reinstalled the sensor. Within ten miles the lamp was on again. I removed the sensor but there was no coating of oil on it. I then placed our scan tool on the engine and quickly discovered the airflow rate was too high for the sensor. I then realized the manufacturer had moved the position of the sensor into a higher airflow and velocity position trying to squeak a little more power from their system. I continued the test having to deal with the service engine lamp throughout the test period. The engine oil analysis gave a Silicon reading of eight (8 and along with the engine lamp problem did not give the manufacturer high mark but I felt if I discussed the problems with them maybe we could overcome them. I placed four calls to the manufacturer and I am still waiting for a call back! This surely eliminated this manufacturer.

The third manufacturer we tested was AFE (Advanced Flow Engineering). We used their Magnum Force air intake system. We operated the vehicle for 3000 miles and when the oil analysis came back it was promising with a Silicon reading of five (5). While five was the best Silicon result we had, it was not good enough. I called AFE and was pleasantly surprised when I discovered they were truly concerned. I spoke with a Mr. Paul Hardley who suggested I try their Pro-Guard 7 media they were about to release. He explained the new Pro-Guard 7 media was five layers of progressively finer mesh medical grade cotton gauze with micro fibers that attract smaller and smaller particles as air passes through. Combined with the five layers of medical [gauze] media, there are two layers of non-woven synthetic polyester fabric with random porosity. The filter media is sandwiched between two layers of aluminum wire mesh. He agreed to send two Pro-Guard 7 filters for a new test. I installed the Pro-Guard 7 filter, changed the engine oil and operated the vehicle for three thousand miles. The engine oil analysis was excellent with a Silicon reading of below three (3). Finally we found an air intake system that gave us a higher flow rate and better filtration. The AFE Magnum Force air intake system is a well designed system, easily installed and uses about 90% outside air. The filter is cleanable and the oil used to coat the filter is patented because it is formulated not to affect the airflow sensor.

Another positive factor of the high flow system was the fuel economy increased about ˝ MPG in mixed driving and 1 MPG during highway tests. The filter media used by AFE will not collapse if it gets wet or subject to high boost pressures. They also offer pre-filters for most of their applications for very dusty or dirty operating conditions. We carry a full line of AFE products with Pro-GUARD 7 media. If you order an AFE system from another source, make sure it has a Pro-GUARD 7 media.

A very important factor in this test was the manufacturer was willing to discuss problems with their products and help to overcome them. My hat is off to Paul Hardley and all the people at AFE!

Dan Montegari
President
Precision Diesel Services

This why we ONLY sell Pro Guard 7 systems!!!

Mark @ DPPI

 

It's obvious they didn't test the Tymar intake or the AIS from Ford. Neither of those systems use oiled elements.

 

Well put, johnsdiesel.

 

Also, they were testing on a gas engine, our diesels dont have mass air flow sensors.

 

Not correct. The Duramax has a MAF sensor.
So does the 6.0L Powerstroke.

 

That is correct because "our diesels" refers to the 7.3 PSD. We are in the 7.3 PSD forum, aren't we? At least it should refer to the 7.3 PSD if it's in this forum.

 

It sounds like a commercial for the system they are selling. Why not name all the ones they tested?

What about this testing for silicone levels in the engine oil, as a measure of air filter effectiveness? I never heard of such.

 

Well, I guess it is a 7.3 forum! DOH!

Jmorton wrote that the test *must* have been done on a gasoline, not a diesel engine.

That's not evidence that the tests were done on a gasser, because some diesels *do* have MAF sensors.

That's what was meant.

If the tests were done on a Duramax or 6.0L PSD, the general results would seem to be applicable to *our* 7.3s and even Dodge Cummins diesels.

The test was between three different brands of oiled air filters. The Tymar was not tested. The Fram paper filter was not tested. The AIS was not tested, either. Exactly what he wrote.

It's pretty easy to guess that the three oil media filters tested were the K&N and the Amsoil, besides the AFE. Unless there's another brand in common use. The guy is saying that out of the three brands tested, he felt the AFE was the best of the bunch and he stated his reasons why. We can all take it or leave it, but the discussion is certainly relavent to this forum, MAF sensors or not.

And since this is a 7.3L forum, I think I should point out that the possible issue with oil contamination of a MAF sensor is not a concern to *our* diesels, only those diesels that do have MAF sensors.

There were no comparisons made of filtration effectiveness with the Tymar or any other type of air filter.

Get the idea?

 

Just jokin' with ya!

 

Mark Craig (Mark @ DPPI) conducted the test, so it most likely was a 6.0L PSD.

I would speculate that the systems tested (besides the AFE) were the K&N FIPK, and most likely the Western Diesel ram air II.

 

The reason that checked for silicone is because that is an indication that dust particles are getting past/through the filter.

I would like to see them do a comparison with the Tymar.

I thought the information was good regardless, since it shows that there is an oiled filter that is decent.

 

So would I.

The information is good, but a bit misleading. It says "high flow air intake systems; who is the best and why." This doesn't include a single paper filter high flow intake and if you only browse the information you might not know it only includes oiled elements. There is no way a non-paper filter will do a better job filtering than a paper filter.

 

johndiesel,
I disagree, my oil analysis with a Hastings Paper Media filter the silicone reading was a 6. Which was higher that what they received with an oiled media.

I recently installed an Amsoil two stage filter. I am performing an oil analysis in another 2k miles. I will post the results for comparison. Obviously, if the silicone reading is higher than the paper media the filter goes into the trash.

 

BS!

I don't know that one can trust anything said if the guy can't even handle simple physics.

Boost is boost, displacement is displacement. A supercharged (or turbocharged) 444 CI gas engine that runs 6000 RPM is going to take twice the air of a 444 CI diesel that runs only 3000 RPM at the same boost.

Sounds like blatant misinformation to try to confuse non-technical people into buying from them.

Just my opinion

 

There is no way that any oiled type filter will get close to the 99.9% filtration claimed by Donalson for its filters. Follow this logic. K&N, for example, claims to increase air flow with its drop in filters, which are made from the same material used in their intake systems. The only way to increase air flow over the same surface area is to decrease restriction. The only way to decrease restriction over the same surface area is to decrease filtration. I would love to hear anyone dispute this logic. That's why intakes like the Tymar, AIS, and other similar systems are so popular. They don't sacrifice filtration and decrease the restriction by adding a larger surface area.

Let's not turn this into another heated air intake debate, there are plenty of old threads on the subject. My initial post was simply to point out that two of the most popular air intakes for the PSD were not included in the testing.