[quote author=HouRman link=topic=72164.msg1271355#msg1271355 date=1174061262]
I prefer the oiled CAI anyways. I'm pretty sure it filters better than dry and won't mess up your MAF unless you over oil it.
any evidence to support this claim? Not trying to be an ass, I'm genuinely interested as to whether this is documented anywhere, or whether its just personal opinion.
Anyways, Rubyred I think I didn't explain my post that well... I'm not saying that an oiled K&N or F2/Fujita is going to filter better than the AEM dryflow. I'm just saying that OILED filters have better filtration than Dry filters... (Like if I didn't oil my Fujita, it would obviously filter LESS than if it were oiled)
AEM's dryflow had to increase the amount of filter media thickness and make the filter larger, and still ended up with a filter that doesn't FLOW as well as an oiled filter. AEM simply had to compensate for not having oil which is only there to help with the filtration. Since Dryflows are not oiled, they need a finer mesh of filtration media since oil helps to "stick" to fine dust and particles. Because it uses a finer mesh, it's going to get clogged faster.
Due to the superior fine-dust filtering efficiency of the DRYFLOW Synthetic filter, it may require slightly more cleaning intervals than oiled filters depending on your driving conditions.
AEM is trying to play up the misconception that oiled cotton filters cause issues with MAF sensors. They try to scare people from using oiled cotton thereby creating a market for their new product. AEM also says that their filters flow better and provide more power but they don't.
You have to read very carefully at the AEM marketing...
"AEM's DRYFLOW Synthetic filter flows almost as well when it is dirty as it does when it is clean, and flows over twice as much air than is required for large displacement engines in vehicle applications covered by BRUTE FORCE intakes. Many of our competitors emphasize flow as a primary means of power production in intakes, stated Chief Engineer John Concialdi."
1) AEM filters provide more than enough air for your engine.
2) Reading between the lines, AEM filters don't flow as well.
Also, the stats promoting AEM are misleading:
The DRYFLOW Synthetic filter’s unique non-woven polyester filter media is independently-tested to deliver 98% initial filtration efficiency (up to 99.4% cumulative efficiency). Oiled filter initial efficiency is typically 90% to 95% efficient.
Why does Dryflow post their inital and cumulative efficiency and then state oiled filters are typically 90%-95%... K&N's cumulative efficiency is 97%... Anyways, I guess I'd agree with you if you said that the AIM dryflow filters more tiny particles than competitive oiled filters. However, it doesn't mean that OIL doesn't help filtration. Dirtbikes, R/C cars and all sorts of applications don't use dry air filters...
I guess you could say the dryflow will filter better because it has MORE filter media to compensate for the lack of oil.
The compromise for the AEM dryflow is it doesn't "flow" as well, or last as long between cleanings as oiled filters.
There is no way the AEM dryflow can have BETTER flow and BETTER filtration without oil... That would be a revolutionary filter. hehe
good info, makes me like my dry-flow even more to know that it has such good filtration efficiency, but it also makes me wanna get off my butt and go clean it (mine has been on there for 25k miles without being cleaned!)
A forum community dedicated to Mazda 3 and all Mazda vehicle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about MazdaSpeed performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!