Date:         Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:15:18 -0800
Reply-To:     Bill Davidson <wdavidson@THEGRID.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Bill Davidson <wdavidson@THEGRID.NET>
Subject:      Re: K&N filter
Comments: To: Stuart MacMillan <macmillan@HOME.COM>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Stuart,

Now that's some useful data that can help a guy make an intelligent
decision!

If you turn up a comparative with paper filters that would be even better.

Thanks for your efforts... the whole list benefits from a post like this...

Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stuart MacMillan" <macmillan@HOME.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: K&N filter


> It will take some research to find the original tests mentioned in this
> post, but here is what you are looking for.  I'll see what I can find on
> paper element testing.
>
> http://syclone.missouri.edu/archives/syty/9601/msg00134.html
>
> Bill Davidson wrote:
> >
> > Please, I'd love to believe the K&N is both higher perfomance AND better
at
> > filtering out smaller particles than paper filters.... If someone has
actual
> > data to support that PLEASE post it to the list.
> >
> > Bill Davidson
>
> --
> Stuart MacMillan
> Seattle
>
> '84 Vanagon Westfalia w/2.1
> '65 MGB (Daily driver since 1969)
> '74 MGB GT (Restoring sloooowly)
>
> Assisting on Restoration (and spending OPM):
> '72 MGB GT (Daughter's)
> '64 MGB (Son's)
>
> Stripped and gone but their parts live on:
> '68 MGB, '73 MGB, '67 MGB GT
>