You are currently viewing our community as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Member Supported community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Engine & DrivetrainDiscussions about the engine and drivetrain of your vehicle.
This is a discussion thread titled "Tundra Air Filter Test", within the Engine & Drivetrain forum, part of the Technical & Vehicle Assistance Forums category.
I have done the same, 7500 to 9500 changes and doing great. When Mobil 1 first came on the seen in 82' they claimed a 12000 mile oil change ! just watch the filter intervils.
JH
Quote:
Originally posted by KLS Mobil 1 oils meet the European specs ACEA A3-02 & A5-02 for extended oil drain intervals. They don't talk about that in the U. S., because none of the auto makers do extended ODI. Why?...probably because the public is still believing JiffyLube that you need to change your oil @ 3000 miles. Well, you don't, unless you think JiffyLube and their owner, Pennzoil-Quaker St. Co. (soon to be Shell) needs more profit.
Originally posted by nhparrot No there are no plans to test with offroad driving. Final test planned is with a K&N filter. No I did not notice any mileage differences.
Were there any conclusive results with the Amsoil Oiled Foam Air Filter yet?
To add my $.02 to this thread. When my 2003 Tundra V8 had 5000 miles on it I switched to Mobil 1. I do my own oil changes.
I feel synthetics are better at lubricating especially in the hot climate of central California valleys.
I also took the advice of the gentlemen elsewhere on this board that the most popular oil filters may not be protecting our engines the way they should. SO ... I am now using K&N or Mobil 1 oil filters.
ALSO ... I am putting K&N air filters in my Tundra and my wife's Maxima. Thank you.
flipping thru the service manual, i noticed that the engine computer can adjust fuel trim to 20%.
manufacturers tend to make air/fuel maps leaner in the lower rpm range(for emissions/mileage), just right for the midrange(for power) and rich in the upper range(for safety).
users report the k&n losing bottom power but gaining on top. the k&n leans the bottom rpm range, even further. giving even worse than stock power, but maybe better fuel mileage. while leaning the rich upper rpm range to give an air/fuel ratio for better power. the stock computer can't enrich the bottom quite enough.
so i'm guessing, that any filters that increase flow more than 20% are going to give lousy overall performance with the stock engine computer. the computer cannot readjust the air/fuel ratio enough to match the increased flow.
on the lexus v8s, all aftermarket air filter systems gave poor overall performance. except for one, which included an ecu to compensate for the increased flow. (swiftracing.com)
so if you're gonna get the higher flowing k&n or whatever, you'll probably need to get your air/fuel ratios remapped. otherwise you'll experience that low end power loss.
in any case, i'm probably going to get a multi-layer foam type of air filter. the foam type filters better than cotton gauze, while giving better flow than paper. if the foam type is good enough for dirt bike use, then it's good enough for me.
Originally posted by Johnnyrcp I have done the same, 7500 to 9500 changes and doing great. When Mobil 1 first came on the seen in 82' they claimed a 12000 mile oil change ! just watch the filter intervils.
JH
Hate to show my age but Mobil 1 came out way before '82 . In fall of '77 I put Mobil 1 into my '68 Dodge Charger RT. It didn't stay in there to long because the motor had way to many miles on it but I was having a problem with the rocker arms not oiling good enough and Mobil 1 cleaned it right up.
"Mobil 1 synthetic oil was launched in Europe and Japan in 1973, and in North America a year later. Initially available only in an SAE 5W-20 viscosity grade, the Mobil 1 line expanded during the next decade and it quickly became the world's leading synthetic motor oil."
I've used both a drop in K&N and the full intake kit off-road on my tacoma and they both filter like crap in dusty conditions, even with the a dry charger or foam cover. I had to clean my air flow sensor after every off-road trip. I now use a drop in UNI foam filter and after 8 months and several trips off-road its worked perfect. The MAS and air tube are spotless. I just ordered a foam cone filter from uni to try on my K&N kit. If works as good as the drop in, the kit will stay on this time. If you want to test both filters take them off-road. A friend had his tacoma air box half filled with mud and none of it got past the Amsoil foam filter. Paper or guaze would have not done the same. I do still have a K&N on my tundra but thats because I don't off-road it, on road its fine.
One thing I see from this test is that each sampling the numbers go down until he reaches the amsoil filter test.
It would seem to me as though many of those contaminants are coming from inside the engine block, and as time goes on they reduce.
Look at the huge difference between samplings of stock OEM copper and silicon, between the 2 different test periods.
I am now running a TRD filter, and although its too soon to tell, I will assume the data ( from TRD) is correct....ie better filtration, and improved performance.
I wonder if the samplings were done in reverse order, what the numbers would be.
My tractor, field brush mower, etc. use a foam over filter [some dipped in motor oil and squeezed out, some not] over the paper element filter. In teh case of the Toy OE paper filter for off road use, seems you could place a thin foam filter over the paper element, take it off after the dusty ride, etc. What i used to do is keep a slightly used OE paper filter for off-road use, put the clean[er] OE filter back on after the ride. Change the engine oil of course, on a sooner rather than later basis.
The Hornet OE Toy paper filter gets changed every 10K miles because we live off a dirt very dusty county road. Change the oil filter every 6K miles, an oil change every 3K miles.
Originally posted by bloodypulp flipping thru the service manual, i noticed that the engine computer can adjust fuel trim to 20%.
<snip>
so i'm guessing, that any filters that increase flow more than 20% are going to give lousy overall performance with the stock engine computer. the computer cannot readjust the air/fuel ratio enough to match the increased flow.
<snip>
so if you're gonna get the higher flowing k&n or whatever, you'll probably need to get your air/fuel ratios remapped. otherwise you'll experience that low end power loss.
I hate to tell you, but there is NO WAY a K&N filter is going to increase flow 20 %! (Unless the other filter is clogged.)
That said, my own measurements comparing airflow differences between the stock OEM paper filter and TRD drop-in gauze (which I bet is identical to a K&N drop-in) shows almost an immeasurable difference. The testing was done both by measuring the MAF voltage with a data-recording DVM (digital voltmeter) and playing back the measurements (4,800 data points!) and using an OBD II scan tool (Auto Xray) monitoring Air Flow. The difference on the DVM was .01 volts. The OBD II scan tool was also hundreths of a kg/hr flow. The only time the difference appeared was in 1st gear, full-throttle, around 5,000 rpm. Below that speed and in higher gears at the same RPM there was no difference.
For the better filtration, negligable airflow difference, and ease of servicing I'm sticking with the Toyota OEM element. One of the things that makes the Toyota element flow well for a paper filter is the large surface area -- more & deeper pleats than the TRD/K&N and a larger filter "face" (the TRD/K&N gasket area reduces the "face" size on their filters). Just because in SOME applications the K&N flows better than paper doesn't mean EVERY application -- not all paper filters are created equally.
My $0.02.
FWIW, I'm not totally sold on the testing methodology either, but it's consistent with the other independent tests I've seen comparing K&N to Paper to Foam. The only issue I have with NHParrot's test is there could be other sources of oil contamination besides intake air, so it's not totally conclusive. But it's probably pretty close. I've also seen independent tests of oil filters that show the Mobil 1 filters are NOT the best. In fact WIX is among the best of those tested (the "new" AC filter & Purolator were also very good, Mobil 1 & Motorcraft were mid-pack, and Fram was the worst). I suspect because of the proprietary "felt-like" material the Toyota "Lexus/Japanese" filters would even outperform the Wix.
Toyota engineers vehicles like few other automakers, it stands to reason that their OEM service & maintenance parts are engineered to the same high standards. I see no reason to second-guess those engineers. An example of the attention to detail are the turn-signal & wiper-stalks. Do you know the effort and tactile feedback they provide was carefully designed in (unlike the sloppy operation you find in many others)? How about the fact that when they are in the "off" positions the base of the stalk is shaped to perfectly seal the switch opening so that dirt and contaminates can't enter? There is no "black hole" or cheesy sliding "filler" piece where the stalks enter the column like you find on most other automakers vehicles. And that's just the turn signal and wiper controls...
When are the results with the K&N filter going to be posted? These topics are great. They just go back and forth making it hard for me to pick the best one to use.
Forum Rules
Searching for an answer to your Tundra or other Toyota question? search HERE!
Got a question 'bout TS.com site policy? click HERE!
Ready to create a new thread? WATCH THIS VIDEO FIRST.
That was finished. I misplaced the results ( I need to get another copy), but they were worse (silicon wise) then the earlier run. If I remember correctly, on the retest the number was something like 15.
Mobil 1
