DNA Filters

zimtuff

Nitrous
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
1,063
Location
Perth Western Australia
Ride
2008 Trimuph Rocket
I saw an add for DNA filters recently and they claimed to have filters that have a higher flow rate. They also had a filter to replace the stock R3 filter , so I sent off an email to the australian distributor and asked them just how much of an improvement I could expect over the stock paper filter( I think DNA's are cotton) . I was a bit sceptical and after 3 weeks I gave up ,but today they sent me the results of the test and it shows a 21% better air flow. I know the triple filters or the Ramair filters maybe better ,but for those who want to keep it close to stock this maybe an option.
I dont know how much benefit it will give with the under the seat location of the air intake

http://www.dnafilters.com/ They have a list of importers to each country under "Importers" in the index

test results
https://webmail.iprimus.com.au/file...NBOX&uid=46470&auth=BEAC4OV0I0SWIMA4&partid=2
 
The Thread title sounds like you wanted to cleanse the Gene pool ;-)
 
I'd be a little skeptical of the 21% claim and total filtration. Flow is dependent on the differential pressure across the filter. To capture the same size of particulate as the stock filter (say 2 microns) and improve flow means you have to increase the surface area of capture. You can improve a filter to flow 90% more air and it will only capture flying birds and boulders, everything else ends up in the engine. So make sure you aren't buying a porch door screen for your intake.
 

Wise words there Mr splitter of Atoms.
 
If you bothered to look at their site ,DNA are claiming all their filters have between 20% to 80% more surface area over the stock filter. They are also claiming a filtering efficiency of 98% or better but I do not know how smaller particle they can filter out.
Whats the surface area on the small K&N triples?.
I havent seen any results from their smaller filters , but the K&N filters available for cars and trucks have a woeful record on filtration and airflow when independently tested. But people keep using them.
 

Here's the test data for K & N: http://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/TB-2204.pdf

You can compare to the other filter but they will come out pretty much the same. Cotton gauze when oiled is very efficient at trapping dust due the oil's 'stickiness.' As the filter loads and greater restiction occurs you can lose air flow. To prevent the loss too quickly adding surface area increases the amount of dirt it will hold without restricting air flow significantly. The standard test is done at 1.5 inches WC (Water Column). The number you want to see is the total flow rate at 1.5". Most engines don't flow that much air so the filter loads slowly. K & N uses a 10 micron dust particle as the smallest size in their test dust.
 
I think that with the stock intake plumbing the filter is not the biggest restriction so there really is nothing to gain powerwise. This has been shown on a dyno. The triple filer set up removes that restriction and that is why they make more power ( assuming the fuelling is optimised to take advantage of the higher flow)
 

Yes, it does... huge difference in power... especially with Carpenter's porting wizardry ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Air filters and rain
2 3
Replies
24
Views
2K
mexican
oiling ramair filters?
2
Replies
10
Views
9K
sonny
Purolator oil filters good or bad
2
Replies
17
Views
6K
1olbull
ramair/triple filters effect on bottom end power delivery?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Gregger
Under bear claw filters
2 3 4
Replies
36
Views
5K
Tal
Menu
Log in
Register