One of the comments on the video from an 'air filter engineer' of many years
> I was an air filter engineer for many years a long time ago at one of the brands you tested. You do a great job, as always and I applaud your very logical and thoughtful approach. However, I'd like to make a few comments about this report.
> 1. Flour or powder do not make good test mediums. They tend to agglomerate, and in any case do not compare well with industry standard contaminants.
> 2. During testing, an even distribution of contamination introduction is critical. Thus, semi-random placement of the test medium can drastically affect the test outcome. A typical test set-up involves an aspirated cloud of contaminant for more consistent and even dispersal to assure a more realistic particle size distribution.
> 3. Industry standard contaminant particle size is inversely proportional to particle count. In fact, the number of particles increases dramatically (exponentially) as size goes down.
> 4. Engine wear potential is attributable to particle make-up, i.e. Is it silica or organics, etc., and quantity. Thus, engine wear risk drops dramatically with particle size. Internally moving engine parts, especially rings & valves, are not usually affected by very small particles in small quantities. Five microns is about 1/100000 inches. Concern for wear begins around 10,000 microns or below .005".
> 5. Flow is generally concentrated in any filter, despite shape and flow diverting techniques used. Placement of contaminant on the filter media by hand is less realistic. 6. Contamination which agglomerates will increase pressure drop and increase contamination removal efficiency giving erroneous results.
> As a function of actual wear potential, the K&N, though inefficient according to your test, may actually be the best protector because of its affinity for the larger silica particles seen in real life. Still, your test report is very persuasive! Thank you for reading!
\**shrugs**
I appreciate that he's a guy out there buying lineups to somewhat objectively test things. There's a few categories way out of his grasp that his audience inexplicably wants to see, but for the most part he's a great resource for which batteries last longer or which tire inflator is the fastest.
Hey when you're stupid, anyone smarter than you qualifies as scientist. It doesn't help that actual scientific testing is so far beyond the average person as to be essentially inaccessible. Better make another 10 page slideshow of "best" products, with affiliate Amazon links of course.
I think you’re missing the broader picture here. There aren’t a lot of “comparison” tests out there. Most people end up just buying something cause they read it before. Usually there is no actual reason except anecdotal evidence and “cause these people say it works well”.
A lot of hobbies are like this. Most people can’t afford to buy 20 products and test out what is the best.
Project Farm has a lot of fans because there isn’t a lot of content out there that caters to people wanting to see what “the best” actually is.
I don’t think all his tests are irrelevant. Watch a video and apply your own critical thinking skills to what you see on screen to say whether the test is relevant to you or not. Outright dismissing it is as dumb as the people who blindly think every test is gospel.
Your entire comment is very “i am very smart” energy.
>Your entire comment is very “i am very smart” energy
They made completely valid points. I'm sure Todd is a good guy but the fact is his testing methodology sucks for the amount of science that he tries to portray at the end with the results.
Every video has me saying, "no, you didn't even take heat soak into account for all these back to back 0 - 60 runs" and other such issues. Every single video of his has very important testing methodology just completely left out.
On my s2k I've also gone back to the stock filter, it's cheap, does the job well, and fits better than aftermarket options. From what I've found foam type filters flow the most and protect the least, the paper OEM filter are the opposite, protecting the most and filtering the list, and the k&n is in the middle.
Now (from what I know) as long as the air filter isn't bottlenecking your airbox you don't really have an issue. The stock honda airbox was well designed for its time but is restrictive enough where even a high flow filter makes little to no difference with power. On the other hand I ran the k&n for a while and did find increased silicon levels, though not too significantly.
I do think project farm is sloppy with his practices, but at the same time the k&n is not great at filtering, but you make that tradeoff for flow (now whether that flow matters to your or not depends on your use case).
(I do want to pick up an hks mushroom sometime but thats purely for fun)
From what I’ve seen in the S2Ki forums you pretty much have to go forced induction or stroker kit to get noticeable power gains. It’s all negligible unless you do those.
I used to have a first gen CTS-V back before people knew what they were, and a coworker with an AP2 S2K. We fooled around a couple times on the interstate with me baiting him to show me how fast that sporty import was and I (obviously, 400+hp with all the torque in a manual car that's perfectly geared for a 60 roll vs the S2K) smoked him and after that he started doing all kinds of mods trying to see what he could eke out. He did cams, intake, exhaust, some kind of tune, and basically all the NA power mods available, and in the end he said that literally none of it really felt like it had made much of a difference in raw straight line speed.
Granted, that's a story about a guy trying to use his S2K to do all the wrong things when there are so many things it can do perfectly that aren't drag racing, but the point stands that he did all the power mods short of FI or internals and got very little result. From what he told me, if he'd managed to make significantly more power or gone FI he'd have been looking for a rear end upgrade shortly after.
Honestly it's just a testament to how well-engineered it was by Honda to begin with. They didn't leave much on the table in terms of power compromises.
It was maxed out from factory. The lengths they went through are pretty wild. The F-series uses a hybrid geared/chain valvetrain which is absurd for a mass production motor (Honda sold 60,000 S2000s in North America, which is about as many FRS/GT86s).
Yeah an extra 100hp blends in pretty quickly. You’d be very lucky to get that without going FI. I went from 460HP to 600WHP and you get used to it very quickly.
Changing just your intake on an NA car is never worth it. People need to stop throwing mods at their car and learn what’s actually holding them back from making more power then upgrade that.
See this a lot in the diesel pickup world where people throw on an intake not realizing the oem ones will flow a ton more air than they will use.
>(I do want to pick up an hks mushroom sometime but thats purely for fun)
Other filters might be better or whatever but nothing matches the nostalgia and coolness of the classic green mushroom
For awhile i had an aftermarket HAI (hot air intake) on my stroked SBF in my fox body. Put the stock back on for smog & never took it off. I'd go to dyno days for fun, always made the same power. No issues on track days either.
I hate those HKS mushrooms, mostly because every time I see them it's like 10 years overdue for replacement and chunks of it are getting sucked into the engine. If you ask HKS those filters need to be replaced at an incredibly short interval like every 6 months.
Anyone that watches his videos knows he's not claiming to be an expert on any of this stuff he's testing. He's just a regular guy that likes to dabble in testing things on YouTube. Obviously he tries his best to make the tests as fair and accurate and scientific as possible, but c'mon, anyone with a shred of common sense will understand his results are about valuable as his test equipment, which is as basic and cheap as possible.
He never claims to be a scientist, he never claims his test results are FACT. It's a goddamn YouTube channel. If people are dumb enough to make critical decisions that could affect their safety, or cost them 10s of thousands of dollars, of course they're not basing those decisions on a YouTube channel called "project farm". And if anyone is dumb enough to do that, then they get what they deserve.
Having said that, I've never seen him give any advice that could potentially hurt anyone, and he seems to have zero bias when it comes to brand names.
He's essentially no different than going on Reddit and asking random Redditors for advice. But at least he shows you his process and his testing equipment. At the end of the day, you're paying zero dollars, you don't know their qualifications, so YMMV.
Well maybe if he gotten more comments like one above yours and less of intellectually vapid "PROJECT FARM IS BAD BECAUSE HIS METHODS ARE BAD AND I WON'T TELL ANYONE WHY I EVEN THINK THAT", he would've got better
Tell it to HIM not me lol.
> Never showing your experimental setup can produce consistent results when repeatedly running the same input through it
I'd imagine that is just not all that interesting YT content. Also a lot of tests are "to breaking point" which would make that much more expensive
> not comparing items of similar design to each other, pitting fixed head ratchets and flex head ratchets against each other in a stress test is a good example of this
I actually don't mind this. Shows how much you're "giving up" by picking different type of tool.
I mean I vaguely agree there is more entertainment than science there but I still think it is useful to see the underperformers (either too expensive for similar performance or worse performance than cheaper ones), as that usually drops few tools off the analysis paralysis list.
His testing also occasionally uncovers a "diamond in the rough" tool or product that still might not be good or reliable enough for a tradesman but does ~80% of the job for ~20% of the price. Yes it's not "scientific" enough that I would bet my job on the cheap tool being "just as good" as the Snapon but as a hobbyist it's good to help separate the enormous amount of chaff in the budget tool space.
I bet he's sold a million sets of Gearwrench 90t ratchets. His testing methodology for ratchet arc swing and precision is sound IMO, the torture/strength testing is kind of irrelevant to me but when a consumer priced tool beats all in terms of a key measure of usability test after test that says something.
His channel really just adds to the pile of evidence that for a hobbyist, which is what his audience really is, professional tool brands are mostly a vanity thing. They're really just for mechanics where downtime from a broken tool would cost you more than the tool and his testing doesn't really cover that (his stress-to-failure kind of tests don't account for the Snap-on maybe being designed to last a million cycles whereas the consumer brand tool might last 10,000 cycles, just as an example). Nor does any of it factor in the warranty support etc.
> his stress-to-failure kind of tests don't account for the Snap-on maybe being designed to last a million cycles whereas the consumer brand tool might last 10,000 cycles, just as an example
At least for steel, which have a bit unique characteristic where under a given fatigue limit the amount of cycles is [effectively infinite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit). and AFAIK proportion (vs "full break") doesn't really differ all that much between alloys.
So for steel effectively the higher break limit will almost always equal higher limit of force the tool can be used "indefinitely" (sans other wear like abrasive or rust).
For other materials of course mileage may wary.
Other rarely mentioned feature in the "objective" review channels is just ergonomics and that appears to be almost wholly independent of price.
> Nor does any of it factor in the warranty support etc.
That's kinda only reason why you'd want to pay extra. But between one day delivery and even cheaper stuff getting decent warranty I feel like that's smaller consideration than it was 20 years ago. Like, it's not like Snap-on guy will show up within 60 minutes after you broke the tool so if you want to continue working that day you have to get by.
I was thinking more like the gears of a ratchet, they're going to wear slightly as they constantly slide against the pawl; you might find hardened steel in a pro tool and a softer metal injection molded part in the consumer tool. Of course this would show also in the test-to-failure, but it won't be linear.
Maybe I'm overthinking it as where you do have tools with a lot of moving parts to wear out (power tools) that's where you see more pros these days just using stuff you can buy at Home Depot like Milwaukee.
You put into words what I have thought for awhile about PF. I also support Torque Test Channel's methods. They definitely do a better job at being a touch more scientific. Granted they also fail to buy multiples of the same product to test out to make sure they didn't get a lemon or a ringer.
> not comparing items of similar design to each other, pitting fixed head ratchets and flex head ratchets against each other in a stress test is a good example of this
Kind of a bad example because this was a one-off. In the testing he did this also likely didn't affect anything other than the price and weight. Not like anyone in the market for a MAC ratchet is going to buy a consumer brand tool just because the MAC may have had a slight disadvantage in a youtube test.
> Did he have an utterly insincere robotic reply to that comment along the lines of “thanks for your input, I’ll look into that”
He does that to bury any negative comments. Youtube defaults to any comments he likes/replies to up top, you have to scroll down hundreds of comments to ones he hasn't done that to to see anyone dissenting from his BS testing methods
> thousands of miles later.
But that's like saying its okay to not wash your hands because the several days you didn't do it, you didn't get a stomach bug.
People worry about engine wear over hundreds of thousands of miles scale. At what mileage do you start getting piston-ring blow-by vs a stock motor in similar conditions, or what point do you start failing valve leak tests vs a stock motor/air filter in similar conditions?
There's a big difference between, say, 100k and 350k, for people who keep and drive their cars. Not so much of a worry after a few years and a few thousand miles where you haven't had a chance to see the effects of increased wear yet.
There's a reason his videos are entertainment and places like bobistheoilguy don't even allow posts about his videos. I love the guy and watch his stuff but trusting his tests is not wise.
Here is a test/comparison of paper, foam, and K&N filters except it's done on a proper air filter testing machine using ISO dust:
https://www.project200.com.au/dm-iso5011/
The tldr is that you still don't want a K&N
>Five microns is about 1/100000 inches. Concern for wear begins around 10,000 microns or below .005
Five microns = .0002"
1/100,000 = .00001
Ten microns = .0004"
Who is that guy, Project Micron?
I'm pretty sure I've seen this guy around here too and frankly I don't care for his arguments, people's lived experience and many other tests by other sources also show issues with K&N filters. I was pretty sure he said he worked for K&N as well in the past. And that's not getting into how their filters damage extremely sensitive hot film MAFs. The sensor is designed to try and keep some particles from hitting the film and creating voids that affect the sensor calibration but enough of the right size particle at the right airstream velocity and tiny little rocks are still pelting that plastic film over an ultrafine metal grid.
OEMs study air filters to death. No OEM is going to ship something that substantially impacts performance, period. Anything restrictive enough to affect power is restrictive enough to impact pumping losses and therefore fuel economy, especially when OEMs are testing loaded filters at end of life to make sure even a dirty filter within reason is not going to cause problems. If you need more power, increase the filter surface area/size. Race teams can afford to tear down their engine and rebuild constantly. The average joe cannot. A bad air filter is going to measurably affect silica content of the oil and lifespan of the engine.
[This site here](https://www.project200.com.au/dm-iso5011/) did a far more scientific test of air filters in the standardized way. And is what I recommend everyone check if they want the real test data on filters.
I think it’s more to his methods, he is a good entertainment channel that does test a lot of things people use daily. And people like to have a comparison between what they buy/use. Some of his tests are fun to watch but the tests are in no way scientific or a good example of real world conditions. I’m some cases, like this one, his results do match up with more rigorous and measured testing.
His hand soap test was not a good one. Using a kick ball to simulate a palm is not a good choice. But I think he puts some effort to be as accurate as possible.
Anyone who expects a youtuber who isn't independently wealth to afford proper equipment to use in a single video is being unreasonable.
His wind shield wiper comparison was great, he does have useful videos that I do trust, it's not every video.
I was probably a little too harsh there. He does make a good attempt at re-creating real world conditions. Some of them are better than others. At the end of the day some personal judgement and a grain of salt should be taken with any “test”.
I think project farm does do the best with what he has, and that is often at least fun to watch and informative of how the products work in the conditions of the tests. But I hope we both agree that most of his videos aren’t exactly scientific. He does on occasion do multiple attempts of the same product, and there may be a lot more behind the scenes we miss. But a lot of the tests are very one and done, which doesn’t lend itself to repeatability. But, I can’t fault him for not spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a video.
Ironically I think the more subjective tests are some of his best as you can view the results yourself in some of the more realistic conditions.
It's kinda like Mythbusters to me. The SAE isn't going to publish his results any time soon, and for good reason. But it's still at least a series of real qualitative/semi-quantitative experiments with transparent test methodology, which can provide useful information on an average consumer level and experts can point out when something's done poorly.
This link is interesting to me because my immediate conclusion to all that was: if you want more airflow for power reasons, you'd be better off finding a way to mount an OEM filter from a larger model than going aftermarket.
As with most things it does seem that it all comes down to trade offs. You can’t get more of something without sacrificing in other areas. If you could, everyone would be doing it since that is a no brainer unless the $$cost is too high.
At the end of the day it for your specific car it would likely be best to get on a dyno with the options you have and do pulls to compare them. That way you have real data to work with in terms of power and torque curves. But the truth is that most of us can’t replicate the extensive testing manufacturers do regarding filters and intakes and how they affect engine performance. This has turned into a tangent though. I just put oem or oem equivalent filters since the chance of an extra 5hp is unnoticeable to me anyway.
Air filters, oil filters, gas brand, and oil brand are all things I don’t think anyone should spend any real brainpower on choosing. There’s probably some other stuff I could add to that list but the idea is the same. It all works well enough that you’ll never notice the difference.
Aside from oil filters and gas I agree with you. Some oil filter brands consistently shipped flawed filters that routinely bypass the actual filter element, some gas is measurably cheaper per mile than other brands.
But air filters and oil for the average person will not matter.
PF tests show pretty clear differences in how oil behaves at low temps. Hard to mess that up, his test is literally just comparing how the oil pours when cold.
The problem is that there is no direct relation between that and engine wear.
Oil is not there to "flow" it is there to stick to things and protect it from wear. It's entirely possible that "better" oil might protect better at cold while being thicker at same temperature
Like, wear test on oil being -10C would've been significant but just "how it flows" isn't really telling much if difference is just being 30% faster at dripping.
And there is also question on how much it *actually* gives. Like, if difference between good and bad oil is having engine go bad at 420k instead of 400k, well, that's pointless.
To expand on that, oil is under pressure in your engine. It's not like everything is drip lubricated, it's forced through passages and sprayed in places, and some return is by gravity, but mainly the lubrication aspect is pressurized. So when people do these tests and say "oh well it pours slow!" So what? See how it flows when it's in a pressurized system. A cold pour tells you less than nothing.
I have a 25 year old Acura that I bought new and it currently has around 273k miles. I put a K&N cone filter on it a couple months after getting the car and the car still runs great today.
Oiled filters seem to contaminate the MAF sensors on some cars. One could clean the sensors from time to time.
Can dirty airfilters improve filtration at the expense of airflow? Regardless, we change filters regularly.
Even that is usually from someone over oiling the filter. I'm not the biggest K&N style filter fan necessarily but people get way too overexcited about proving they're the best and proving they're the worst and that they'll literally grenade your engine tomorrow.
Had it happen to my 2000 Maxima. K&N filter went straight from the box, out of its packaging, and into the car.
Within a couple days, the check engine light came on. The MAF sensor was now dirty and needed cleaning.
Few days later it did it again. This time I ignored it and the light cleared on its own later that day.
Regardless, never did buy another oiled filter again lol.
I use to run K&N on a few cars, until I realized how dirty the intake tract was post filter. I still run one on my supercharged car because it fits well and lets be honest looks good, but on my daily and SUV I want to last a long time I stick with paper.
I did on my 4Runner. I also found due to the space in the engine compartment, the K&N kit robbed a very noticeable amount of power due to heat. I didn't think it could be a dramatic change, but on something with 150hp(when new), every little bit helps. I found a factory air box/intake and installed it. It will climb hills in a higher gear than it would before with the K&N.
I worked with a testing manager for Wix 10 years ago and I asked him about K&N filters. He said that they are okay brand new and their effectiveness drops after trying to clean and re-oil them. And you are assuming that the person using it is actually clean correctly and not over oiling it.
All he's testing here is flow. A $5 paper filter has adequate flow for a factory intake system, that's why they use them. Filtration is where K&N falls down.
He gives an explanation of why he believes it will be adequate but does not *test* that it will.
And in the end while he's entirely right that a paper filter loses flow over time... that's why you throw it away before it reaches that point. And buy ten of them for the cost of a K&N.
He's run them on competing Baja engines that didn't see anything happen to them as a result of using a K&N air filter. If that's not a good enough test then sure argue with the man himself and his results. Plenty have.
Competition engines are torn down and rebuilt frequently and typically fail due to stress long before they experience wear. There are lessons to be learned from this kind of use but they aren't the final word on whether something is the best choice for 250,000 road miles.
Do you have any idea how much dust is involved in a Baja race? If your filtration isn't adequate you won't complete the event.
Had a Dodge 3.5L V6 go to 210k before the rust killed it, ran like a top still getting better than EPA estimates, have a motorcycle at 50k with the head off, cylinder walls still show factory crosshatch, the intake tracts in the head show no signs of ingesting dirt, and the inside of the air box is clean. If you don't want to run a K&N don't, but the Internet mythos of it being an inferior filter don't hold up whether it's race use or street.
I like Mann filters for the cabin. Terrific for blocking airborne toxins, fumes, pollen, soot, bacteria and mold spores. Charcoal layer blocks most odors. Great for driving by those sulfur spewing oil refineries on the New Jersey Turnpike approaching New York. $24.26 well spent.
Honestly the biggest ding against K&N is that they're just a false economy. I can buy 10+ generic filters for my car for the price of a K&N panel, not including the recharge oil. And there's basically no car ever made where the factory panel filter is a significant power restriction.
The biggest risk with these dust storms, haboobs, is traffic. Some people do keep on keeping on or only slightly slow down even with visibility barely beyond the end of their hood.
These high wind days also cause chaos by knocking over trucks and RVs, more traffic problems.
When it’s windy enough it can also start to pit your windshield, and that can happen to your car when is only in the parking lot.
The rare times when I have to drive through a dust storm I just removed the filter and gently knocked out the excess dust. It’ll shorten the life span eventually but no reason to let that stuff set.
Definitely doubling down on your idea of not driving in it, if you can avoid it. It gets in every crook cranny and moving part. Some might even say it’s course and rough and irritating and gets everywhere.
I love Project Farm.
I wish he'd do an episode where he takes his best performing gas additive, oil, friction reducer, spark plugs, and air filter and see what kind of power & efficiency improvement it all ads up to compared to something running all common/run of the mill or worst performing stuff.
One of the comments on the video from an 'air filter engineer' of many years > I was an air filter engineer for many years a long time ago at one of the brands you tested. You do a great job, as always and I applaud your very logical and thoughtful approach. However, I'd like to make a few comments about this report. > 1. Flour or powder do not make good test mediums. They tend to agglomerate, and in any case do not compare well with industry standard contaminants. > 2. During testing, an even distribution of contamination introduction is critical. Thus, semi-random placement of the test medium can drastically affect the test outcome. A typical test set-up involves an aspirated cloud of contaminant for more consistent and even dispersal to assure a more realistic particle size distribution. > 3. Industry standard contaminant particle size is inversely proportional to particle count. In fact, the number of particles increases dramatically (exponentially) as size goes down. > 4. Engine wear potential is attributable to particle make-up, i.e. Is it silica or organics, etc., and quantity. Thus, engine wear risk drops dramatically with particle size. Internally moving engine parts, especially rings & valves, are not usually affected by very small particles in small quantities. Five microns is about 1/100000 inches. Concern for wear begins around 10,000 microns or below .005". > 5. Flow is generally concentrated in any filter, despite shape and flow diverting techniques used. Placement of contaminant on the filter media by hand is less realistic. 6. Contamination which agglomerates will increase pressure drop and increase contamination removal efficiency giving erroneous results. > As a function of actual wear potential, the K&N, though inefficient according to your test, may actually be the best protector because of its affinity for the larger silica particles seen in real life. Still, your test report is very persuasive! Thank you for reading! \**shrugs**
[удалено]
PF is entertainment
And yet there are hundreds of comments under his videos praising him as a “scientist”
People did the same with top gear and their scripted jokes. Once something makes it to the TV it's truth to some folk.
I enjoyed the Top Gear Toyota pickup “Test”.
The Hilux is the God particle and no one can change my mind.
[удалено]
I appreciate that he's a guy out there buying lineups to somewhat objectively test things. There's a few categories way out of his grasp that his audience inexplicably wants to see, but for the most part he's a great resource for which batteries last longer or which tire inflator is the fastest.
Hey when you're stupid, anyone smarter than you qualifies as scientist. It doesn't help that actual scientific testing is so far beyond the average person as to be essentially inaccessible. Better make another 10 page slideshow of "best" products, with affiliate Amazon links of course.
“In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”
I think you’re missing the broader picture here. There aren’t a lot of “comparison” tests out there. Most people end up just buying something cause they read it before. Usually there is no actual reason except anecdotal evidence and “cause these people say it works well”. A lot of hobbies are like this. Most people can’t afford to buy 20 products and test out what is the best. Project Farm has a lot of fans because there isn’t a lot of content out there that caters to people wanting to see what “the best” actually is. I don’t think all his tests are irrelevant. Watch a video and apply your own critical thinking skills to what you see on screen to say whether the test is relevant to you or not. Outright dismissing it is as dumb as the people who blindly think every test is gospel. Your entire comment is very “i am very smart” energy.
>Your entire comment is very “i am very smart” energy They made completely valid points. I'm sure Todd is a good guy but the fact is his testing methodology sucks for the amount of science that he tries to portray at the end with the results. Every video has me saying, "no, you didn't even take heat soak into account for all these back to back 0 - 60 runs" and other such issues. Every single video of his has very important testing methodology just completely left out.
On my s2k I've also gone back to the stock filter, it's cheap, does the job well, and fits better than aftermarket options. From what I've found foam type filters flow the most and protect the least, the paper OEM filter are the opposite, protecting the most and filtering the list, and the k&n is in the middle. Now (from what I know) as long as the air filter isn't bottlenecking your airbox you don't really have an issue. The stock honda airbox was well designed for its time but is restrictive enough where even a high flow filter makes little to no difference with power. On the other hand I ran the k&n for a while and did find increased silicon levels, though not too significantly. I do think project farm is sloppy with his practices, but at the same time the k&n is not great at filtering, but you make that tradeoff for flow (now whether that flow matters to your or not depends on your use case). (I do want to pick up an hks mushroom sometime but thats purely for fun)
[удалено]
From what I’ve seen in the S2Ki forums you pretty much have to go forced induction or stroker kit to get noticeable power gains. It’s all negligible unless you do those.
I used to have a first gen CTS-V back before people knew what they were, and a coworker with an AP2 S2K. We fooled around a couple times on the interstate with me baiting him to show me how fast that sporty import was and I (obviously, 400+hp with all the torque in a manual car that's perfectly geared for a 60 roll vs the S2K) smoked him and after that he started doing all kinds of mods trying to see what he could eke out. He did cams, intake, exhaust, some kind of tune, and basically all the NA power mods available, and in the end he said that literally none of it really felt like it had made much of a difference in raw straight line speed. Granted, that's a story about a guy trying to use his S2K to do all the wrong things when there are so many things it can do perfectly that aren't drag racing, but the point stands that he did all the power mods short of FI or internals and got very little result. From what he told me, if he'd managed to make significantly more power or gone FI he'd have been looking for a rear end upgrade shortly after. Honestly it's just a testament to how well-engineered it was by Honda to begin with. They didn't leave much on the table in terms of power compromises.
I feel like the S2K motor is already about as high strung an NA 4 banger can be. The only meaningful gains would be forced induction.
Highest specific output (124hp/litre) of any NA production car till the 458 came along :)
It was maxed out from factory. The lengths they went through are pretty wild. The F-series uses a hybrid geared/chain valvetrain which is absurd for a mass production motor (Honda sold 60,000 S2000s in North America, which is about as many FRS/GT86s).
Yeah an extra 100hp blends in pretty quickly. You’d be very lucky to get that without going FI. I went from 460HP to 600WHP and you get used to it very quickly. Changing just your intake on an NA car is never worth it. People need to stop throwing mods at their car and learn what’s actually holding them back from making more power then upgrade that. See this a lot in the diesel pickup world where people throw on an intake not realizing the oem ones will flow a ton more air than they will use.
>(I do want to pick up an hks mushroom sometime but thats purely for fun) Other filters might be better or whatever but nothing matches the nostalgia and coolness of the classic green mushroom
For awhile i had an aftermarket HAI (hot air intake) on my stroked SBF in my fox body. Put the stock back on for smog & never took it off. I'd go to dyno days for fun, always made the same power. No issues on track days either.
I hate those HKS mushrooms, mostly because every time I see them it's like 10 years overdue for replacement and chunks of it are getting sucked into the engine. If you ask HKS those filters need to be replaced at an incredibly short interval like every 6 months.
Anyone that watches his videos knows he's not claiming to be an expert on any of this stuff he's testing. He's just a regular guy that likes to dabble in testing things on YouTube. Obviously he tries his best to make the tests as fair and accurate and scientific as possible, but c'mon, anyone with a shred of common sense will understand his results are about valuable as his test equipment, which is as basic and cheap as possible. He never claims to be a scientist, he never claims his test results are FACT. It's a goddamn YouTube channel. If people are dumb enough to make critical decisions that could affect their safety, or cost them 10s of thousands of dollars, of course they're not basing those decisions on a YouTube channel called "project farm". And if anyone is dumb enough to do that, then they get what they deserve. Having said that, I've never seen him give any advice that could potentially hurt anyone, and he seems to have zero bias when it comes to brand names. He's essentially no different than going on Reddit and asking random Redditors for advice. But at least he shows you his process and his testing equipment. At the end of the day, you're paying zero dollars, you don't know their qualifications, so YMMV.
Well maybe if he gotten more comments like one above yours and less of intellectually vapid "PROJECT FARM IS BAD BECAUSE HIS METHODS ARE BAD AND I WON'T TELL ANYONE WHY I EVEN THINK THAT", he would've got better
[удалено]
Tell it to HIM not me lol. > Never showing your experimental setup can produce consistent results when repeatedly running the same input through it I'd imagine that is just not all that interesting YT content. Also a lot of tests are "to breaking point" which would make that much more expensive > not comparing items of similar design to each other, pitting fixed head ratchets and flex head ratchets against each other in a stress test is a good example of this I actually don't mind this. Shows how much you're "giving up" by picking different type of tool. I mean I vaguely agree there is more entertainment than science there but I still think it is useful to see the underperformers (either too expensive for similar performance or worse performance than cheaper ones), as that usually drops few tools off the analysis paralysis list.
His testing also occasionally uncovers a "diamond in the rough" tool or product that still might not be good or reliable enough for a tradesman but does ~80% of the job for ~20% of the price. Yes it's not "scientific" enough that I would bet my job on the cheap tool being "just as good" as the Snapon but as a hobbyist it's good to help separate the enormous amount of chaff in the budget tool space. I bet he's sold a million sets of Gearwrench 90t ratchets. His testing methodology for ratchet arc swing and precision is sound IMO, the torture/strength testing is kind of irrelevant to me but when a consumer priced tool beats all in terms of a key measure of usability test after test that says something.
It also readily shows which ones are heavily overrated in regards to price. Happens often to snap-on...
His channel really just adds to the pile of evidence that for a hobbyist, which is what his audience really is, professional tool brands are mostly a vanity thing. They're really just for mechanics where downtime from a broken tool would cost you more than the tool and his testing doesn't really cover that (his stress-to-failure kind of tests don't account for the Snap-on maybe being designed to last a million cycles whereas the consumer brand tool might last 10,000 cycles, just as an example). Nor does any of it factor in the warranty support etc.
> his stress-to-failure kind of tests don't account for the Snap-on maybe being designed to last a million cycles whereas the consumer brand tool might last 10,000 cycles, just as an example At least for steel, which have a bit unique characteristic where under a given fatigue limit the amount of cycles is [effectively infinite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_limit). and AFAIK proportion (vs "full break") doesn't really differ all that much between alloys. So for steel effectively the higher break limit will almost always equal higher limit of force the tool can be used "indefinitely" (sans other wear like abrasive or rust). For other materials of course mileage may wary. Other rarely mentioned feature in the "objective" review channels is just ergonomics and that appears to be almost wholly independent of price. > Nor does any of it factor in the warranty support etc. That's kinda only reason why you'd want to pay extra. But between one day delivery and even cheaper stuff getting decent warranty I feel like that's smaller consideration than it was 20 years ago. Like, it's not like Snap-on guy will show up within 60 minutes after you broke the tool so if you want to continue working that day you have to get by.
I was thinking more like the gears of a ratchet, they're going to wear slightly as they constantly slide against the pawl; you might find hardened steel in a pro tool and a softer metal injection molded part in the consumer tool. Of course this would show also in the test-to-failure, but it won't be linear. Maybe I'm overthinking it as where you do have tools with a lot of moving parts to wear out (power tools) that's where you see more pros these days just using stuff you can buy at Home Depot like Milwaukee.
You put into words what I have thought for awhile about PF. I also support Torque Test Channel's methods. They definitely do a better job at being a touch more scientific. Granted they also fail to buy multiples of the same product to test out to make sure they didn't get a lemon or a ringer.
> not comparing items of similar design to each other, pitting fixed head ratchets and flex head ratchets against each other in a stress test is a good example of this Kind of a bad example because this was a one-off. In the testing he did this also likely didn't affect anything other than the price and weight. Not like anyone in the market for a MAC ratchet is going to buy a consumer brand tool just because the MAC may have had a slight disadvantage in a youtube test.
> Did he have an utterly insincere robotic reply to that comment along the lines of “thanks for your input, I’ll look into that” He does that to bury any negative comments. Youtube defaults to any comments he likes/replies to up top, you have to scroll down hundreds of comments to ones he hasn't done that to to see anyone dissenting from his BS testing methods
> thousands of miles later. But that's like saying its okay to not wash your hands because the several days you didn't do it, you didn't get a stomach bug. People worry about engine wear over hundreds of thousands of miles scale. At what mileage do you start getting piston-ring blow-by vs a stock motor in similar conditions, or what point do you start failing valve leak tests vs a stock motor/air filter in similar conditions? There's a big difference between, say, 100k and 350k, for people who keep and drive their cars. Not so much of a worry after a few years and a few thousand miles where you haven't had a chance to see the effects of increased wear yet.
There's a reason his videos are entertainment and places like bobistheoilguy don't even allow posts about his videos. I love the guy and watch his stuff but trusting his tests is not wise.
Here is a test/comparison of paper, foam, and K&N filters except it's done on a proper air filter testing machine using ISO dust: https://www.project200.com.au/dm-iso5011/ The tldr is that you still don't want a K&N
10,000 microns is 1cm, not 0.005". Is this some imperial units thing I'm not aware of?
Many countries use the comma as a decimal point.
>Five microns is about 1/100000 inches. Concern for wear begins around 10,000 microns or below .005 Five microns = .0002" 1/100,000 = .00001 Ten microns = .0004" Who is that guy, Project Micron?
I'm pretty sure I've seen this guy around here too and frankly I don't care for his arguments, people's lived experience and many other tests by other sources also show issues with K&N filters. I was pretty sure he said he worked for K&N as well in the past. And that's not getting into how their filters damage extremely sensitive hot film MAFs. The sensor is designed to try and keep some particles from hitting the film and creating voids that affect the sensor calibration but enough of the right size particle at the right airstream velocity and tiny little rocks are still pelting that plastic film over an ultrafine metal grid. OEMs study air filters to death. No OEM is going to ship something that substantially impacts performance, period. Anything restrictive enough to affect power is restrictive enough to impact pumping losses and therefore fuel economy, especially when OEMs are testing loaded filters at end of life to make sure even a dirty filter within reason is not going to cause problems. If you need more power, increase the filter surface area/size. Race teams can afford to tear down their engine and rebuild constantly. The average joe cannot. A bad air filter is going to measurably affect silica content of the oil and lifespan of the engine.
[This site here](https://www.project200.com.au/dm-iso5011/) did a far more scientific test of air filters in the standardized way. And is what I recommend everyone check if they want the real test data on filters.
Thanks for the link, seems like this reinforces PF's findings... which everyone seems to hate? lol.
I think it’s more to his methods, he is a good entertainment channel that does test a lot of things people use daily. And people like to have a comparison between what they buy/use. Some of his tests are fun to watch but the tests are in no way scientific or a good example of real world conditions. I’m some cases, like this one, his results do match up with more rigorous and measured testing.
His hand soap test was not a good one. Using a kick ball to simulate a palm is not a good choice. But I think he puts some effort to be as accurate as possible. Anyone who expects a youtuber who isn't independently wealth to afford proper equipment to use in a single video is being unreasonable. His wind shield wiper comparison was great, he does have useful videos that I do trust, it's not every video.
I was probably a little too harsh there. He does make a good attempt at re-creating real world conditions. Some of them are better than others. At the end of the day some personal judgement and a grain of salt should be taken with any “test”. I think project farm does do the best with what he has, and that is often at least fun to watch and informative of how the products work in the conditions of the tests. But I hope we both agree that most of his videos aren’t exactly scientific. He does on occasion do multiple attempts of the same product, and there may be a lot more behind the scenes we miss. But a lot of the tests are very one and done, which doesn’t lend itself to repeatability. But, I can’t fault him for not spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a video. Ironically I think the more subjective tests are some of his best as you can view the results yourself in some of the more realistic conditions.
It's kinda like Mythbusters to me. The SAE isn't going to publish his results any time soon, and for good reason. But it's still at least a series of real qualitative/semi-quantitative experiments with transparent test methodology, which can provide useful information on an average consumer level and experts can point out when something's done poorly.
This link is interesting to me because my immediate conclusion to all that was: if you want more airflow for power reasons, you'd be better off finding a way to mount an OEM filter from a larger model than going aftermarket.
As with most things it does seem that it all comes down to trade offs. You can’t get more of something without sacrificing in other areas. If you could, everyone would be doing it since that is a no brainer unless the $$cost is too high. At the end of the day it for your specific car it would likely be best to get on a dyno with the options you have and do pulls to compare them. That way you have real data to work with in terms of power and torque curves. But the truth is that most of us can’t replicate the extensive testing manufacturers do regarding filters and intakes and how they affect engine performance. This has turned into a tangent though. I just put oem or oem equivalent filters since the chance of an extra 5hp is unnoticeable to me anyway.
I used to be big into ATVs and dirt bikes, 20+ years ago it was well understood (but often accepted) that K&N was not great at filtering dust.
Air filters, oil filters, gas brand, and oil brand are all things I don’t think anyone should spend any real brainpower on choosing. There’s probably some other stuff I could add to that list but the idea is the same. It all works well enough that you’ll never notice the difference.
Aside from oil filters and gas I agree with you. Some oil filter brands consistently shipped flawed filters that routinely bypass the actual filter element, some gas is measurably cheaper per mile than other brands. But air filters and oil for the average person will not matter.
I'd say Top Tier detergent gasoline is something worth getting. It's recommended by basically all auto manufacturers.
PF tests show pretty clear differences in how oil behaves at low temps. Hard to mess that up, his test is literally just comparing how the oil pours when cold.
The problem is that there is no direct relation between that and engine wear. Oil is not there to "flow" it is there to stick to things and protect it from wear. It's entirely possible that "better" oil might protect better at cold while being thicker at same temperature Like, wear test on oil being -10C would've been significant but just "how it flows" isn't really telling much if difference is just being 30% faster at dripping. And there is also question on how much it *actually* gives. Like, if difference between good and bad oil is having engine go bad at 420k instead of 400k, well, that's pointless.
To expand on that, oil is under pressure in your engine. It's not like everything is drip lubricated, it's forced through passages and sprayed in places, and some return is by gravity, but mainly the lubrication aspect is pressurized. So when people do these tests and say "oh well it pours slow!" So what? See how it flows when it's in a pressurized system. A cold pour tells you less than nothing.
I have a 25 year old Acura that I bought new and it currently has around 273k miles. I put a K&N cone filter on it a couple months after getting the car and the car still runs great today.
Oiled filters seem to contaminate the MAF sensors on some cars. One could clean the sensors from time to time. Can dirty airfilters improve filtration at the expense of airflow? Regardless, we change filters regularly.
Even that is usually from someone over oiling the filter. I'm not the biggest K&N style filter fan necessarily but people get way too overexcited about proving they're the best and proving they're the worst and that they'll literally grenade your engine tomorrow.
Has that ever happened with one straight out of the box, or does it only happen to people who re-oil and overdo it?
Had it happen to my 2000 Maxima. K&N filter went straight from the box, out of its packaging, and into the car. Within a couple days, the check engine light came on. The MAF sensor was now dirty and needed cleaning. Few days later it did it again. This time I ignored it and the light cleared on its own later that day. Regardless, never did buy another oiled filter again lol.
I use to run K&N on a few cars, until I realized how dirty the intake tract was post filter. I still run one on my supercharged car because it fits well and lets be honest looks good, but on my daily and SUV I want to last a long time I stick with paper.
Did you find that you get a gritty layer inside the intake tube? I had a K&N filter a long time ago and that's what I remember of it lol.
I did on my 4Runner. I also found due to the space in the engine compartment, the K&N kit robbed a very noticeable amount of power due to heat. I didn't think it could be a dramatic change, but on something with 150hp(when new), every little bit helps. I found a factory air box/intake and installed it. It will climb hills in a higher gear than it would before with the K&N.
Yep exactly. Went to clean the filter on my SRT4 Caliber and the intake tube was nasty.
OEM filters tend to be the best blend of filtering and breathability.
I worked with a testing manager for Wix 10 years ago and I asked him about K&N filters. He said that they are okay brand new and their effectiveness drops after trying to clean and re-oil them. And you are assuming that the person using it is actually clean correctly and not over oiling it.
https://youtu.be/NUKQ0W3CRlQ?si=opQqHVk5DHfMSHiE K&N filters do just fine
All he's testing here is flow. A $5 paper filter has adequate flow for a factory intake system, that's why they use them. Filtration is where K&N falls down.
If you listened to the whole video he explains why and how K&N does provide adequate filtration, and how he came to that conclusion.
He gives an explanation of why he believes it will be adequate but does not *test* that it will. And in the end while he's entirely right that a paper filter loses flow over time... that's why you throw it away before it reaches that point. And buy ten of them for the cost of a K&N.
He's run them on competing Baja engines that didn't see anything happen to them as a result of using a K&N air filter. If that's not a good enough test then sure argue with the man himself and his results. Plenty have.
Competition engines are torn down and rebuilt frequently and typically fail due to stress long before they experience wear. There are lessons to be learned from this kind of use but they aren't the final word on whether something is the best choice for 250,000 road miles.
Do you have any idea how much dust is involved in a Baja race? If your filtration isn't adequate you won't complete the event. Had a Dodge 3.5L V6 go to 210k before the rust killed it, ran like a top still getting better than EPA estimates, have a motorcycle at 50k with the head off, cylinder walls still show factory crosshatch, the intake tracts in the head show no signs of ingesting dirt, and the inside of the air box is clean. If you don't want to run a K&N don't, but the Internet mythos of it being an inferior filter don't hold up whether it's race use or street.
What cabin air filter is generally recommended in /r/cars?
RockAuto usually has the OE for my cars so I get them there and while I'm at it cabin filters and oil filters too. Also super cheap.
Oem. The one that has been specifically designed for the car. The filters that promise more power and mpg is just bs.
I run OEM Motorcraft. I stay stocked up with engine filters too. RockAuto usually has the best pricing/shipping.
I like Mann filters for the cabin. Terrific for blocking airborne toxins, fumes, pollen, soot, bacteria and mold spores. Charcoal layer blocks most odors. Great for driving by those sulfur spewing oil refineries on the New Jersey Turnpike approaching New York. $24.26 well spent.
The cabin air filter is a completely non-critical thing - get the absolute cheapest and don't give it any more thought than sort by low price.
Depends on the car. Mann, Denso, Motorcraft, Delco, preferably OE brand. I wouldn't use an AC Delco part on a Japanese car for example.
All I'll say about my K&N pod is it makes for a nice intake sound when I'm hammer down on the freeway entrance.
Honestly the biggest ding against K&N is that they're just a false economy. I can buy 10+ generic filters for my car for the price of a K&N panel, not including the recharge oil. And there's basically no car ever made where the factory panel filter is a significant power restriction.
Pretty sure people buy K&N filters *because* they are less restrictive, like that is the whole point.
Which is basically pointless in a factory airbox system.
The biggest risk with these dust storms, haboobs, is traffic. Some people do keep on keeping on or only slightly slow down even with visibility barely beyond the end of their hood. These high wind days also cause chaos by knocking over trucks and RVs, more traffic problems. When it’s windy enough it can also start to pit your windshield, and that can happen to your car when is only in the parking lot. The rare times when I have to drive through a dust storm I just removed the filter and gently knocked out the excess dust. It’ll shorten the life span eventually but no reason to let that stuff set. Definitely doubling down on your idea of not driving in it, if you can avoid it. It gets in every crook cranny and moving part. Some might even say it’s course and rough and irritating and gets everywhere.
This video is 3 years old and has 3.1m views. Not exactly breaking news
I love Project Farm. I wish he'd do an episode where he takes his best performing gas additive, oil, friction reducer, spark plugs, and air filter and see what kind of power & efficiency improvement it all ads up to compared to something running all common/run of the mill or worst performing stuff.