Stage I vs II?
snowracer69,
There are more differences than you might see at first glance. The stage II comes with a roto moulded intake tube made from a polymer that's approx 1/4 inch thick, thats the main reason it is considered quieter than a stage I as most of the noise is created between the filter and the turbo inlet, the thick ploymer tube absorbs the noise for the most part. It is also much larger than the stage I filter and flows a lot more to boot. The filter istelf is also larger on a stage II and that not only flows more air it doesn't cause the air to have to work as hard to get thru the filter which makes it quieter. The Stage II also has a lid that keeps more of the air comming in via an outside source and that gets you cooler and denser air for a lower egt potential. It's more expensive but it's got a lot going for it as well. Here is some test dat on the Pro Guard 7 filter that might interest you as well, it's the reason we only keep Pro Guard 7 here at DPPI:
Test1:
Posts: 302 The following is the complete test results. In order of rank from BEST performance to WORST in the categories of FILTERING EFFICIENCY, FLOW RESTRICTION, DIRT HOLDING CAPACITY and TOTAL DIRT PASSING THE FILTER DURING TEST.
SPICER wrote:
In the order of filtering efficiency the results are:
FILTER % Efficiency
AC Delco OE 99. 93%
Baldwin 99. 72%
No name filter (made for gas engine, 1/3 less pleats) 99. 32%
AFE ProGuard 7 (73-10062), panel filter 99. 23%
WIX/Napa 99. 03%
Purolator 98. 73%
Amsoil, new style 98. 63%
UNI 97. 93%
K&N 96. 80%
Additionally, these 2 were tested using FINE test dust. The K&N was cleaned and retested, the AFE was the conical version:
K&N 89. 85%
AFE Conical 92. 33%
FLOW RESTRICTION FROM BEST TO WORST:
FILTER RESTRICTION in Inches H2O
K&N 4. 54
Mystery bargain filter 4. 78
AFE Pro Guard 7 Panel 4. 99
Purolator 5. 05
WIX/Napa 5. 06
UNI 5. 40
Baldwin 5. 71
Amsoil 5. 88
AC Delco 6. 23
DIRT HOLDING CAPACITY From best to worst. This is the AMOUNT OF DIRT it took to create an ADDITIONAL 10 inches of water restriction. AC Delco 573. 898 grams
WIX/Napa 447. 366
Purolator 388. 659
Baldwin 388. 154
UNI 374. 638
Mystery bargain 350. 402
AFE Pro Guard 7 232. 516
K&N 211. 58
Amsoil 196. 323
TOTAL DIRT PASSING THE FILTER DURING THE TEST. This is how much dirt your engine will take in if you use the filter for the duration that would cause the filter to become "dirty" enough to need replacement or cleaning. The "Dirt Passing The Filter" is the dirt collected by the "Post Filter" during the test.
FILTER DIRT IN GRAMS PASSED
AC Delco 0. 4 g
Baldwin 1. 1g
AFE Pro Guard 7 1. 8g
Mystery Bargain 2. 4g
Amsoil 2. 7g
WIX/Napa 4. 4g
Purolator 5. 0g
K&N 6. 0g
UNI 7. 9g
Note: The Purolator was reported to have a seal malfunction during the test and passed more dirt than it would have with a good seal.
Interesting. SPICER
__________________
"03 2500 HD, Kennedy Mega Filter, STOCK PAPER AIR FILTER, Oilguard Bypass, Primrose, Baldwin Oil Filter, ARE Camper Shell, Line X Liner, Westin Nerf Bars.
User Is Offline
Test number 2:
Here's what Dan Montegari of Precision Diesel Services says about advanced FLOW engineering's Pro-GUARD 7 filter media:
HIGH FLOW AIR INTAKE SYSTEMS
WHO IS THE BEST & WHY!
We received many letters asking which high flow air intake system to use. We decided to test a number of manufacturers’ systems to determine which system was superior. We tested each system and found systems manufactured by AFE (Advanced Flow Engineering) were the best by far.
Diesel engines use seven times more air than gasoline engines of equivalent size so clean cool air is a must for extended engine life, better fuel economy and additional power. A higher flow of intake air coupled with a high flow exhaust system allows for more power, a better fuel economy, extended engine life and reduced exhaust temperatures. On the other hand ingested dirt through the air intake system becomes Silicon in the engine oil, which is a harsh cutting agent and can damage your engine quickly.
We tested three very popular systems. I will not mention the names of the other systems as a courtesy but I will explain what problems we found with them. We evaluated the systems by a number of criteria, filtration protection, flow, and design, easy of installation and cost. Almost in the beginning of the tests we realized in most instances a new intake system was necessary to achieve our goals. We needed a kit that used mostly outside air and not hot engine compartment air. We decided to use systems designed to use mostly outside air.
Two manufacturers claimed their systems delivered cleaner air at a higher flow but this was far from the truth. We did not believe any of the manufacturers’ claims and tested each system by operating the vehicle 3,000 miles and performing an engine oil analysis to determine Silicon levels in the engine oil. The vehicle we used has an engine oil analysis performed at every oil change so we had a Silicon number of three (3) to base our tests on.
The first manufacturer’s system was fairly easy to install but we had problems with the oil used to coat the filter also coated the Mass Air Flow Sensor causing a service engine lamp to come on. I called the manufacturer but they had no explanation as to why this should happen but they had this complaint before. Through the three thousand mile test I had to clean the sensor three times to stop the service engine lamp from coming on. When the oil analysis results came back, it was discouraging with Silicon levels at eleven (11). I almost could not believe the result so we changed the oil and filter and repeated the test. The results were almost the same eliminating this manufacturer quickly. I contacted the manufacturer to discuss the results and they were not helpful and basically said, “what you see is what you get”!
We installed the second manufacturer’s system again changing the engine oil and operating the vehicle for three thousand miles. The first problem we encountered was the service engine lamp coming on and I thought the oil they used was coating the sensor again. I removed the sensor and found some oil on it which I cleaned off and reinstalled the sensor. Within ten miles the lamp was on again. I removed the sensor but there was no coating of oil on it. I then placed our scan tool on the engine and quickly discovered the airflow rate was too high for the sensor. I then realized the manufacturer had moved the position of the sensor into a higher airflow and velocity position trying to squeak a little more power from their system. I continued the test having to deal with the service engine lamp throughout the test period. The engine oil analysis gave a Silicon reading of eight (8 and along with the engine lamp problem did not give the manufacturer high mark but I felt if I discussed the problems with them maybe we could overcome them. I placed four calls to the manufacturer and I am still waiting for a call back! This surely eliminated this manufacturer.
The third manufacturer we tested was AFE (Advanced Flow Engineering). We used their Magnum Force air intake system. We operated the vehicle for 3000 miles and when the oil analysis came back it was promising with a Silicon reading of five (5). While five was the best Silicon result we had, it was not good enough. I called AFE and was pleasantly surprised when I discovered they were truly concerned. I spoke with a Mr. Paul Hardley who suggested I try their Pro-Guard 7 media they were about to release. He explained the new Pro-Guard 7 media was five layers of progressively finer mesh medical grade cotton gauze with micro fibers that attract smaller and smaller particles as air passes through. Combined with the five layers of medical [gauze] media, there are two layers of non-woven synthetic polyester fabric with random porosity. The filter media is sandwiched between two layers of aluminum wire mesh. He agreed to send two Pro-Guard 7 filters for a new test. I installed the Pro-Guard 7 filter, changed the engine oil and operated the vehicle for three thousand miles. The engine oil analysis was excellent with a Silicon reading of below three (3). Finally we found an air intake system that gave us a higher flow rate and better filtration. The AFE Magnum Force air intake system is a well designed system, easily installed and uses about 90% outside air. The filter is cleanable and the oil used to coat the filter is patented because it is formulated not to affect the airflow sensor.
Another positive factor of the high flow system was the fuel economy increased about ½ MPG in mixed driving and 1 MPG during highway tests. The filter media used by AFE will not collapse if it gets wet or subject to high boost pressures. They also offer pre-filters for most of their applications for very dusty or dirty operating conditions. We carry a full line of AFE products with Pro-GUARD 7 media. If you order an AFE system from another source, make sure it has a Pro-GUARD 7 media.
A very important factor in this test was the manufacturer was willing to discuss problems with their products and help to overcome them. My hat is off to Paul Hardley and all the people at AFE!
Dan Montegari
President
Precision Diesel Services
Mark @ DPPI
Attention: TDR Forum Junkies 
