Which Car Air Filter Brand Wins?

(most of any filter tested), 2 layers of adhesive, 507 grams

3 layers of adhesive, 441 grams, larger pleat hole size than EPAuto

3 different adhesive applications, mesh offset in three areas, 577 grams (heaviest filter tested)

a few lines of adhesive, part of the filter media appeared pressed, 451 grams

(fewest of any filter), no adhesive applied to the filter media (unlike all other brands), four areas of wire mesh extending outward, 413 grams (lightest filter tested)

layers of oiled cotton, wire mesh integrated directly into the filter media (different design than the paper filters), 516 grams, noted as 'very oily right out of the packaging'

static pressure 2.76 in H2O, airspeed 54.7 mph (baseline with no filter: 59.4 mph airspeed, about 0.96 in H2O static pressure)

static pressure 2.75 in H2O, airspeed 54.9 mph (best airspeed among filters until K&N was tested)

static pressure 3.03 in H2O, airspeed lower than Fram's 54.9 mph (exact mph not stated)

static pressure 3.09 in H2O, airspeed 54.6 mph (slower than Fram)

static pressure 4.07 in H2O (highest/most restrictive of any filter before K&N... actually the single highest new-filter static pressure of all six), airspeed 52.1 mph (lowest of any filter)

static pressure 1.72 in H2O (lowest/best of all filters, and lower than the no-filter control's own 0.96 baseline once considered relative to the paper filters), airspeed 57.39 mph (highest/best of all filters)

and 9.4s, best 9.4s, initially the time to beat

and 9.5s, best 9.5s (chapter metadata confirms '9.5 seconds average & best time'), slightly slower than EPAuto

and 9.6s, best 9.4s, matched the fastest time at that point in testing

and 9.4s, best 9.4s, matched the fastest time despite a notably slow first run

and 9.3s, best 9.3s (chapter metadata confirms 'Best 9.3, average 9.35')

and 9.2s, best 9.2s, the fastest time of any filter tested

phase 1 (flour spread) +107; phase 2 (half-second air pulse) 165; phase 3 (1 min continuous airflow) 587

phase 1 173; phase 2 361 (more than twice EPAuto's phase-2 count); phase 3 697

phase 1 76 (better than EPAuto and Fram); phase 2 326 (better than Fram, not as good as EPAuto); phase 3 697 (tied with Fram)

phase 1 count actually decreased by 13 from the baseline in the test box; phase 2 increased to 116 (best of all filters at this phase); phase 3 increased by 468

phase 1 count decreased by 2 from baseline; phase 2 increased by 43 (best of all filters at this phase); phase 3 peaked at 401

phase 1 3604 (by far the worst of any filter, orders of magnitude above the others); phase 2 572; phase 3 407

phase 1 +76; phase 2 61; phase 3 26

phase 1 126 ('next to last' place); phase 2 252 (about four times EPAuto's phase-2 count); phase 3 166 (worst/last place of all six filters)

phase 1 58; phase 2 182; phase 3 157 ('next to last' place, just ahead of Fram)

phase 1 unchanged from baseline (essentially 0 particles got through); phase 2 increased by only 35 (best of all filters at this phase); phase 3 increased by 14

phase 1 count decreased by 1 from baseline (essentially 0 particles got through); phase 2 increased by 18 (best of all filters at this phase); phase 3 did not increase at all (0, best of all filters)

phase 1 2972 (worst of any filter, 'really struggled'); phase 2 421 (worst of any filter at this phase); phase 3 5

increased from 2.76 to about 3.49, the lowest (best) final static pressure of all six filters

increased from 2.75 to a figure captioned '23.82', almost certainly a caption-mangled decimal for approximately 3.82 based on the closing ranking (EPAuto best, then K&N, then Fram); kept the literal caption value and flagged rather than silently corrected

increased from 3.03 to 4.18

increased from 3.09 to 4.48, one of the two highest post-contamination pressures, framed by the narrator as evidence of superior contamination trapping

increased from 4.07 to 6.63, the highest post-contamination pressure of any filter, framed by the narrator as evidence of the best contamination trapping

increased from 1.72 to a figure captioned '2 3.79' (rendered here as '23.79'), almost certainly a caption-mangled decimal for approximately 3.79 based on the closing ranking placing K&N second-best behind EPAuto for post-contamination static pressure; kept the literal caption value and flagged rather than silently corrected