asanti

Sorry for the super late reply, but the part number is 21-2113DK. It's the same replacement filter used for the CAI AEM uses for the Cobalt SS/TC. By the looks of it it may fit in our airbox. Personally I'd rather have something that's reinforced, + is low maintenance w/ no oiling needed, but that's just me .

Later
Allex

mistermike

I'm going to remain skeptical on the dryflow filters until I see some filtering efficiency data. Even oiled filters have relatively poor efficiency until some dirt starts to accumulate. Oiling a cotton filter ain't exactly rocket science.

asanti

Go to AEM's site: www.aempower.com and look up the specs on the dryflow. Quite impressive, and I used them on my Neon for years. I had two because it beats the downtime you get everytime you clean + oil a filter since you have to:
1. wash+ clean the filter
2. let it dry out
3. re-oil without over-oiling
4. reinstall

Dryflow, all you have to do is wash, dry, + install. If you have 2, swap + go. (but that's just me lol)

mistermike

According to thier bench test, they have plenty of airflow. So does an open pipe. AEM says nothing about filtering efficiency. Generally speaking the higher the flow, the less they filter. I would not be surprised at all if those "filters" let in a ton of dirt. As a company, AEM have long proven themselves to be scumbags. I'll wait for an independent test.

Cleaning a KN filter is recommended at 50-100K intervals unless you are dirt track racing, so I can hardly call it a hardship. Cleaning more often is anal and accomplishes nothing.

XXL

This is almost complete. The real statement should include what I added in red.

Assuming a single unfiltered system as a baseline, if we toss on an ISO 14644-1-compliant Class 9 filter that has 100in2 of filtration area, you're going to get a very different throughput (both in terms of flow and "cleanliness") than in we stick a used tube sock over the inlet. Both are dry. While the sock may actually be very effective at capturing particulate matter down to 5 microns, we may find that it flows LESS and cleans LESS than the Class 9 filter, which captures down to 0.5 micron... and this is all because the filtration area is sufficiently large to overcome the reduced flow characteristics of trying to capture such small particles.

Just a hypothetical example to provide an explanation to the piece I added to mistermike's comment above. This is a vector calculation issue, not a scalar one, as mistermike's original comment might lead people to believe.

mistermike

Thanks for the touchup, XX (that's your first name, right?)

After doing some more research and reading this test
http://www.aempower.com/files/swri_d..._data_10-7.pdf
I must amend my previous impressions. It appears that this filter is quite efficient, perhaps on par with a disposable paper filter. However, the restriction is noticeably higher than the oiled cotton filters, perhaps also being on par with a disposable. The paper filters are conspicuous by their absence. There were only oiled cotton filters provided as controls in the test. It appears that the main attribute of these filters is cleanability as opposed to demonstrably lower restriction.

XXL

X. The second X is my middle name

asanti

OooooH! I set off an empirical debate on air filtration, yay!

XXL

Empirical...

mistermike

I'll see your Holy Roman and raise you...