Life of a NAPA 6637

[Sodbuster Jr.]

Just kind of wondering what kind of life those of you running the 6637 filter get. I usually get about 20,000 miles, but I am constantly on dirt roads and in the fields.

 

[dietoremain]

I change mine about that often as well in the most, i am in dirt often too. not really dirt roads constantly.. but driveways n yards and such.

 

[BigAlsPSD]

I would say those miles are decent. That's around when I want to change mine anyway.

Are you running a prefilter cover?

 

[Sodbuster Jr.]

I would say those miles are decent. That's around when I want to change mine anyway.

Are you running a prefilter cover?

No I am not running a prefilter cover. I would really like one though if its going to help get more mileage out of those filters.

 

[Paul@CP_Trucks]

Mike,

The sock will def help get more life from the 6637 filter. I have some here I could send with your scan gauge

 

[Sodbuster Jr.]

Mike,

The sock will def help get more life from the 6637 filter. I have some here I could send with your scan gauge

I'll have to think about that one Paul. Its very tempting especially with the price of these filters.

 

[woodduck97]

The sock looks very nice on them and fits awesome.

 

[DP-TunerTech]

Just for reference, have any of you looked at the actual CFM of that filter and compared it to a stock filter? If so, do you remember the cfm of the NAPA 6637 filter that you saw? I have found some numbers but would like to see what others have found as far as cfm and where the info was obtained. Thanks

 

[Sodbuster Jr.]

Just for reference, have any of you looked at the actual CFM of that filter and compared it to a stock filter? If so, do you remember the cfm of the NAPA 6637 filter that you saw? I have found some numbers but would like to see what others have found as far as cfm and where the info was obtained. Thanks

I use a Wix, which is made by Donaldson, and the website says 425. Not sure if thats correct, but I would assume so.

 

[Arisley]

I got about 60K out of the last filter. Looked fine when I changed it, right Paul.

 

[ParkerFly]

Mine has about 50k on it and really looks fine. I have a pre-filter on it to catch the chunks though, so I'm sure that makes a difference.
I remember Bean saying they had a truck that had one on it that was totally black and looked completely clogged, but taking it off made 0 hp difference on the dyno, so apparently these things flow pretty well even when they look ready to change.

 

[Stroker f-250]

I got about 60K out of the last filter. Looked fine when I changed it, right Paul.

Did you have a sock for it or did you run just strait filter?

 

[DP-TunerTech]

I use a Wix, which is made by Donaldson, and the website says 425. Not sure if thats correct, but I would assume so.

Yes 425 is what I found also and that is what concerns me. 425 is very low and looking at stock flow numbers, the 425 cfm is even more disturbing. Thanks for verifying that as 425 is what I had also.

The 6637 and the Wix version 46637 show to flow at 425 cfm while the stock Wix replacement 46728 and Napa stock replacement 6728 flow at 640 cfm:jawdrop: So this means the stock replacement design by Wix and Napa actually flow 215 cfm more than the 6637.

This is info from Wix and Napa not from me nor my opinion. I have links if anyone needs them.

 

[CGMKCM]

Yes 425 is what I found also and that is what concerns me. 425 is very low and looking at stock flow numbers, the 425 cfm is even more disturbing. Thanks for verifying that as 425 is what I had also.

The 6637 and the Wix version 46637 show to flow at 425 cfm while the stock Wix replacement 46728 and Napa stock replacement 6728 flow at 640 cfm:jawdrop: So this means the stock replacement design by Wix and Napa actually flow 215 cfm more than the 6637.

This is info from Wix and Napa not from me nor my opinion. I have links if anyone needs them.

I have wondered about the accuracy of the flow numbers on the 6637.

In my case I have an H2e turbo that is capable of flowing 900cfm and a filter that is rated to flow 50% less than the turbo. It works great but based on CFM numbers alone, it shouldn't.

There are folks making 450-500 hp using this filter and bigger turbos, how is that possible?:shrug:

 

[DP-TunerTech]

I have wondered about the accuracy of the flow numbers on the 6637.

In my case I have an H2e turbo that is capable of flowing 900cfm and a filter that is rated to flow 50% less than the turbo. It works great but based on CFM numbers alone, it shouldn't.

There are folks making 450-500 hp using this filter and bigger turbos, how is that possible?:shrug:

I'm with you and hear what you are saying. I just keep getting the same numbers plus have any of you installed a filter minder on the 6637 and put it on a high hp tune and floored it and watched the filter minder?

 

[CGMKCM]

I'm with you and hear what you are saying. I just keep getting the same numbers plus have any of you installed a filter minder on the 6637 and put it on a high hp tune and floored it and watched the filter minder?

I don't run the filter minder on mine. Guzzle has a how to on adding the filter minder so I assume others are running the filter minder without any issues.

A year or so ago D.I. did a group buy on an AFE filter that was a little bigger then the 6637 and flowed a couple hundred more CFM. I think the AFE flowed 900 CFM. Maybe TARM will chime in, I think he researched this filter and the CFM issue.

 

[PStroked444]

Very interesting.....opcorn:

 

[dietoremain]

Tymar wouldnt have come out with it if it didnt flow enough.. but yes i've heard this more than once.

 

[DP-TunerTech]

Thanks for the input guys. I apologize for side tracking the post a little. I will move on. Just curious what others had experienced. Thanks.

 

[Tom S]

First, thanks to Keith and Mary at Diesel Performance Products for emailing me this link so I could answer your question...

The CFM value of any filter is given for a restriction amount. In other words, for X inches of water in a water column (or mercury in a water column) experienced, the filter will flow with X amount of cubic feet per minute. Most testing will not be done at the levels of intake volume that a PSD flows, especially when you start modifications. So, if you take the amount of restriction you have and apply it to the filter you will get how much it flows on the application.

The problem with measuring in that format is that different filters will cause different restriction amounts on the PSD. Even the style and design of the intake tract will have an impact on the restriction amount which can vary the boost responce. Since the PSD has a turbo and volume will vary if the compression (boost) is varied, cfm amount can vary. The second problem using flow testing is that the intake tract is generally not taken into consideration. Usually, you have a filter attached to the flow bench and it is not installed in the engine compartment -- sometimes they will have it installed in the intake box if the filter comes with one. But you really don't get a true measure of what it flows in the application until it is installed where it will be used.

For those reasons, I like to compare restriction readings when comparing filters while the filter is installed in the applicaiton because it will provide you with more realistic data to apply. One, it gives you readings using actual flow necessity. Two, it takes into consideration the intake system as well as the filter. Three, it gives you a number that is directly impacting the effeciency of the turbo since the lower the restriction number, the less the turbo must waste energy pulling air to it instead of using the same energy to create more boost.

Basically, two filters installed on the same application and one has a lower restriction reading: the lower restriction reading is more efficient and is allowing more flow -- actually flowing more than the other filter because it is allowing a higher compression rate (boost psi). Using inches of water (H2O) instead of inches of Mercury (Hg) is neceassary to get a proper measure. There has been much confusion over the unit of measure lately because they are both referred to as inches of water column. 13.6" H2O eqauls 1" Hg -- so you can see that "H2O will give you a much finer unit of measure.

You also need to look at the filtration efficiency when comparing filters. A less effective filter will usually allow more flow because it does not impede flow to catch the smaller particles. In race applications you will want an engine to last as long as the race lasts, but in performance applications you want the filters to meet at least the OEM required amounts (and hopefully above). Generally, two filters with the same media size (media size is not filter size. It is the actual size of the media in cubic feet that is used in the filter) and the filter that flows more will have a lower filtration efficiency.

To answer your question:
The 470 max reading you received from your source was 470 max at a certain restriction level. It lists the B085011 (Donaldson) at 280cfm @ 6"H2O, 400cfm @ 8" H2O, and 470cfm @ 10"H2O. The test vehicle (my truck) produced 26"H2O with the stock element, 23"H2O with a K&N, and 17"H2O with a B085011. Obviously, we are above the levels tested, but since in application testing showed a 1/3 less restricion value I would say that the B085011 is the better flowing filter.

This is partially why K&N can make a comment like "our filter can flow 1000cfm" (speaking of the 1460 conical) and not be lieing. But, at what restriction level would you be at? Your boost would be horribly compromised and I would expect to see a marked decrease in performance. Any filter can flow just about any cfm volume until it collapses, but always ask the restriction amount. And, make sure they are using the same unit of measure.

Hope that clears things up. If you need more info, call or email me...
Dale

http://www.thedieselstop.com/archiv...87&page=40&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1.htm