En gros c'est le seul test comparatif connu entre des filtres classiques papier, mousse ou performance genre KN, effectué selon un protocole défini par une norme ISO et SAE.
"... Compared to the AC, the K&N “plugged up” nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt ..."
" ... Un KN se colmate 3x plus vite qu'un AC et laisse passer 18x plus de poussières ..."
et en conclusion :
"Now I am not saying that ALL aftermarket filters are useless. A paper filter does not do well if directly wetted or muddy. It may collapse. This is why many off-road filters are foam. It is a compromise between filtering efficiency and protection from a collapsed filter. Now how many of our trucks collapse their filters from mud and water? However, if a filter is using "better airflow" as their marketing tool, remember this....Does it flow better? At very high airflow volumes, probably. BUT, Our trucks CAN'T flow that much air unless super-modified, so what is the point? The stock filter will flow MORE THAN ENOUGH AIR to give you ALL THE HORSEPOWER the engine has to give. And this remains true until the filter is dirty enough to trip the air filter life indicator. At that point performance will decline somewhat. Replace the filter and get on with it.
Hopefully the results of this test will do 2 things. Shed some light on the misleading marketing claims of some aftermarket manufacturers and/or give us new insight on products already on the market that are superior to our OE filter....”
En résumé, la seule utilité d'un filtre "non papier" est de supporter la boue ou l'humidité, car ceux-ci sont capables de donner plus que le débit nécessaire à tout moteur, avec une longévité de service et une qualité de filtration bien supérieure.
Voilà
: 
