that's strange.. i searched for a filter on that site for my 95 4unner.. it came up with this

http://www.afefilters.com/merchant2/..._Code=10-10019

my filter is a flat rectangle... not a circle

 

I'm running a K&N FIPK in mine, runs great. had a nice loud intake sound!

 

Back in my Jeeping days, this same debate used to rage over which air filter was the best. K&N had a lot of fans as did the reusable foam filters and the paper filters.

I bunch of us finally secured a strip of foam, double-stick tape in our intakes, shortly after the air filter and went on a run. It captured an amazing amount of that baby powder you describe.

The foam filters had the least past them, the paper filters came next and the most by far came from the gauze and oil filters. The guy who claimed more power by not running a filter at all could have started a small vegetable garden on his tape at the end of the run

Kids, don't try this at home, we are trained professionals... one guy didn't secure his tape and at the end of the run, it wasn't in his intake anymore... I can only think of one direction it would have gone... :cry:

 

thats strange l33t353 4runner cause i have a 95 also and mine is circular like the one you linked to

 

you can use the amsoil airfilter for the landcruser #162 for the 2003 4runner V8 fits like a glove.

 

What ever happened to the engine? Did he manage to somehow get the tape out? Update, please.... What would that do to an engine?

steve

 

I've been using a K&N drop-in filter for the past couple of months, and am pleased with the performance.

After searching around a bit, I ran across a PDF file from the Tennesse Tacoma club that pretty clearly shows that K&N beats AMSOIL in performance. Now, as far as filtering capability, I don't think the K&N stacks up, and I'd be more likely to use an AMSOIL in real dusty conditions. But for performance, the K&N seems to be the way to go. The Tacoma testing was done with the 3.4L V6, the same engine the majority of are probably using. The link to their file is:

http://www.tn-tacomas.com/mods/dyno/...l%20Graphs.pdf

This guy also had oil analysis performed after running his K&N, based on silica (sand) content, it looked fine. This data is on the same site as the link above.

I'd check it out. Its also interesting to see the advantages of doing the deck plate mode. I know alot of people talk about 7 hp gains, but this data lays out the effect pretty clearly. Anyways, just my .02's.

 

Shortly thereafter, he burned a valve badly, so we assumed that it was due to the tape getting sucked in and propping the valve open a bit. He was unable to find anything when he tore the top end down, other than the carnage that is a badly burned valve... the tape, it would appear was incinerated in the process...

 

Here is the oil analysis from someone running a K&N filter for close to 5,000 miles.

http://www.tn-tacomas.com/maintenanc...lAnalysis.html

Let the data speak for itself. I've seen that same tired AMSOIL graph trotted out time and time again. This data was obtained with a toyota-owner, run by someone without economic ties to the company who gave him the filter (to my knowledge anyways).

 

i have used k@n filters in many of my offroad trucks and quads i have found the the k@n filters do in fact let dirt pass though them i pulled engine apart after aprox 20hr on them and found traces of dirt in the intake and in the cylinder k@N do flow a lot better than any other filter out there but i would not install them on a anything that is driven in any dust areas at all strickly for on road use only stick with paper or better yet a foam filter.

 

I looked at the file you referenced and see that on the open deck There have been other dyno tests that show it the other way. I have some on my site, but they are all real close. In the end I will say that out of all the dyno comparisons I have seen some are better and some are not, but it is always close to the margine of error of the dyno, so as far as I am concerned the performance between K&N and AMSOIL are the same with no significant difference.

Then when you factor in filtering capability, and also factor in cost, the clear winner is AMSOIL and that and no other reason is why I run the AMSOIL filter in my vehicles.

Gadget

www.GadgetOnline.com

 

I consider the effectiveness of an air filter by the amount of dirt that it prevents from getting into my engine. In order to determine how much dirt (silicon) is getting into your engine you have to have your oil analyzed. If you analyze your oil, this is what you'll discover:

Stock Toyota paper filters are the best - period.
Amsoil dual foam air filter will come in a close second.
K&N will be a very distant third.

Another thing you'll find is that a good quality paper filter becomes even more efficient as it gets dirtier!!!

This may all be a mute point if one runs an additional by-pass oil filter that takes out all contaminates over 1 micron.

 

No Amsoil for the 2nd Gen, So K & N it is. No problems yet.:pat:

 

What is your source of info that is putting AMSOIL airfilter second? In every standarized test ever conducted it always shows better filtration then OEM type filters.

In all of the oil tests I have ever seen except one, where the person running the test says he suspects contamination, the AMSOIL filter tests cleaner.

What is it that you know that I don't. If the OEM filter is better I will switch back in a hot second. Let me know...

Gadget

www.GadgetOnline.com

 

I have run oil tests myself using both Amsoil dual foam and the stock Toyota filter. On 4 tests, (2 each) I showed Amsoil foam giving me 13 on Silicon and 11 on iron while Toyota paper gave me 10 Silicon and 9 iron. On the TundraSolutions board there has been a lot of testing going on and every test shows the Toyota paper performing the best. I'll give you their site: http://www.tundrasolutions.com/forum...0&pagenumber=1 There's just one thing to remember, if you use extended oil drain intervals the contaminates will continue to accumulate as you drive, so if you would test your oil at 3K one time and then test again at 6K, you could expect to see the numbers increase by close to 2X, everything else being equal. In the TS site you’ll read comments by George Morrison, who is a petroleum engineer. He also states that good paper will beat good cotton, foam etc every time. Reasoning being (besides testing) that if your air filter is allowing more airflow into your engine then it’s also allowing more dirt. Testing filters at zero mph will probably show cotton and foam to be superior at air flow and equal to paper for filtration but in real life driving down the road at 20 to 80 mph the paper will prevail in tests. You can contact George at AV Lubricants, Inc., their site is: http://www.avlube.com/

 

I never trust a graph without a scale. The difference could be .00001 if the intervals are .0000000001, that looks like something from an infomercial, not a lab test. No, I did not go to and read up on any of the links, I have a K&N and it works fine.

Lamm

 

The wrong air filter can screw-up an engine faster than anything else you can do to your vehicle. I will alway use the OEM filter that is designed and manufactured for the vehicle. In this case that is Toyota OEM. Also remember the dirtier the filter gets the better it filters until it gets too dirty and won't let the right amount of air through.

 

I hope their OEM oil filter is better than their OEM shocks. At least the shocks that were on the 2000 Runner. I switched to Amsoil for 35 bucks with extra oil. The engine likes it and you can tell.

 

OEM air filter here. Change it every 10k. Maybe one day I will switch over to Amsoil, but I dont want to mess with the airbox, so I dont think it will help much. SO I might just stick with OEM.

 

Does any one have hook ups for amsoil filter for a 2002 4runner? What exactly is the amsoil? Is it reusable like the K&N fipk. Do you re oil it like a K &N. Thats what I got but see the little holes in the filter like some of the members said.. How much are they for amsoil want to switch.Thanks in advance