Power Driven Diesel Air Filter Restrictive?

[NebraskaFan]

I bought the fittings from Summit Racing out of NV for under 75$ . I reused to mushroom cap and u clamp to remove it from the side and access the panel.View attachment 819262

That looks great! Hard to argue with the price.

 

[Menaces Nemesis]

I had the same issues with the 9" Power Driven Diesel "Dust Bowl" filter that others have. I removed the spring-loaded dome in the bottom of the canister to accomodate the 9-incher, so that wasn't causing the problem. My filter gauge never gave any vacuum/restriction reading with stock filters, I only blew the stock filters out about once a year/3-5,000 miles, and I never had to watch my EGT's as closely as I had to with the PDD filter. Additionally, I get an oil analysis done before every oil change, never had one come back with a particulate problem with the stock filter (or the PDD). Filter gauge didn't read much with the PDD filter, just 7-8 inches of vac, but I had a reduction in power, higher EGT's when climbing the grade west of Denver, and an increase in smoke. Last time I blew out the PDD filter was just 80 miles before it started showing some draw on the gauge again. Most of my driving is in the burbs and on the highway, very little that would be considered truly dusty or smoggy. Looked like the PDD media wasn't allowing particles to shed-off, but dirt was caking and holding onto the media instead. I never applied any kind of treatment to the PDD filter, but I wonder if the media has some kind of oil on it from the PDD factory that causes the loading/caking. I've since pop-riveted the spring dome back in the bottom of the canister and gone back to the stock filter. No more vacuum readings, less smoke, less EGT's, and a little more power with the stock filter.

 

[NebraskaFan]

I had the same issues with the 9" Power Driven Diesel "Dust Bowl" filter that others have. I removed the spring-loaded dome in the bottom of the canister to accomodate the 9-incher, so that wasn't causing the problem. My filter gauge never gave any vacuum/restriction reading with stock filters, I only blew the stock filters out about once a year/3-5,000 miles, and I never had to watch my EGT's as closely as I had to with the PDD filter. Gauge didn't read much with the PDD filter, just 7-8 inches of vac, but I had a reduction in power, higher EGT's when climbing the grade west of Denver, and an increase in smoke. Last time I blew out the PDD filter was just 80 miles before it started showing some draw on the gauge again. Most of my driving is in the burbs and on the highway, very little that would be considered truly dusty or smoggy. Looked like the PDD media wasn't allowing any particles to shed-off, but dirt was caking and holding onto the media instead. I never applied any kind of treatment to the PDD filter, but I wonder if the media has some kind of oil on it from the PDD factory that causes the loading/caking. I've since pop-riveted the spring dome back in the bottom of the canister and gone back to the stock filter. No more vacuum readings, less smoke, less EGT's, and a little more power with the stock filter.
View attachment 820317View attachment 820316

Well eff this sounds like my exact issue.. wish I hadn't cut apart my filter housing bottom.. That is exactly what my filter looks like on the outside. I'm glad you chimed in before i bought the 9" version, thank you! I'm considering trying another aftermarket type filter, but idk for sure after this experience.

You guys have any thoughts on this one? Not really a fan of it requiring re-oiling eventually.

AFE Replacement Air-Filter 72-90020 (Pro-Guard 7 Media)

Check out the deal on AFE Replacement Air-Filter 72-90020 (Pro-Guard 7 Media) at XDP

www.xtremediesel.com

I'm having a heck of a time finding anything that matches the surface area of the stock filter.

 

[Menaces Nemesis]

Well eff this sounds like my exact issue.. wish I hadn't cut apart my filter housing bottom.. That is exactly what my filter looks like on the outside. I'm glad you chimed in before i bought the 9" version, thank you! I'm considering trying another aftermarket type filter, but idk for sure after this experience.

You guys have any thoughts on this one? Not really a fan of it requiring re-oiling eventually.

AFE Replacement Air-Filter 72-90020 (Pro-Guard 7 Media)

Check out the deal on AFE Replacement Air-Filter 72-90020 (Pro-Guard 7 Media) at XDP

www.xtremediesel.com

I'm having a heck of a time finding anything that matches the surface area of the stock filter.

I bought the PDD filter believing I was buying a modern product which just HAD to be better than a decades-old design... right? We've heard lotsa times that sometimes the old stuff is best. In hindsight, having no problems with the stock filter, being able to blow-out or wash the stock filter many times over, I've learned a lesson and I'll be sticking to the stock filter from now on, which, if I properly care for it, I might never need to replace. Big Mike's, Oshkosh, Eastern, Boyce, and Eriks Military Surplus all list the stock air filters as being currently in-inventory. From now on, anytime someone offers a whiz-bang air filter for my truck, I'm just gonna walk on by.

 

[NebraskaFan]

I bought the PDD filter believing I was buying a modern product which just HAD to be better than a decades-old design... right? We've heard lotsa times that sometimes the old stuff is best. In hindsight, having no problems with the stock filter, being able to blow-out or wash the stock filter many times over, I've learned a lesson and I'll be sticking to the stock filter from now on, which, if I properly care for it, I might never need to replace. Big Mike's and Eriks Military Surplus both list the stock filters as being currently in-inventory. From now on, anytime someone offers a whiz-bang air filter for my truck, I'm just gonna walk on by.

Yeah, i gotta say I'm a little shocked this "modern" filter meant for much much high HP trucks is inadequate compared to the old filter.. I mean PDD even told me it was rated for about 800 cfm which is twice the stock filter. Perhaps our trucks are just more sensitive to restriction. It would probably be wise of me to just go back to stock, but I did a number on the spring bottom in mine getting it out. I guess I'll have to see if i can repair it.

 

[V8srfun]

This is just a theory but the multi has a extremely inefficient turbo that is only there to add just enough air to clean the exhaust up a little bit. Where as most other engines have a efficient turbo that must be controlled by a waste gate or it would produce boost levels that would be catastrophic. This difference in turbo design is in my opinion the difference here on one hand you have a turbo that is giving all it has all the time and on the other you have a turbo that can make up for a slight inlet restriction by not bleeding as much exhaust out the waste gate.

 

[NebraskaFan]

This is just a theory but the multi has a extremely inefficient turbo that is only there to add just enough air to clean the exhaust up a little bit. Where as most other engines have a efficient turbo that must be controlled by a waste gate or it would produce boost levels that would be catastrophic. This difference in turbo design is in my opinion the difference here on one hand you have a turbo that is giving all it has all the time and on the other you have a turbo that can make up for a slight inlet restriction by not bleeding as much exhaust out the waste gate.

Yeah this is exactly what i was thinking actually, seems to be the most logical explanation.

 

[Menaces Nemesis]

This is just a theory but the multi has a extremely inefficient turbo that is only there to add just enough air to clean the exhaust up a little bit. Where as most other engines have a efficient turbo that must be controlled by a waste gate or it would produce boost levels that would be catastrophic. This difference in turbo design is in my opinion the difference here on one hand you have a turbo that is giving all it has all the time and on the other you have a turbo that can make up for a slight inlet restriction by not bleeding as much exhaust out the waste gate.

If that were the case, if the PDD filter itself was not at fault, then we should see the stock filter clogging up just as quickly (or faster), raising canister vacuum and EGT's like the PPD filter. If the modern "efficient" tubo is drawing in that much more air, then it would also draw in that much more dirt along with the air, most likely imbedding/adhering the dirt to the media with even more force due to the increased draw. Remember the PDD is touted as a modern marvel filter with supposed superior synthetic media, there's no excuse for it's flow rate to be outperformed in short order by a 410 CFM rated old-fashioned filter. PDD filters are too expensive too shrug off the poor performance we've experienced. My belief is that the PDD Dustbowl filter might work wonderfully when it goes straight from the box to the dyno, and maybe they can claim high filtration efficiency out of the box too, but whatever they did to get that high filtration efficiency is causing the filter to clog way too quick in our real-world application.

 

[V8srfun]

If that were the case, if the PDD filter itself was not at fault, then we should see the stock filter clogging up just as quickly (or faster), raising canister vacuum and EGT's like the PPD filter. If the modern "efficient" tubo is drawing in that much more air, then it would also draw in that much more dirt along with the air, most likely imbedding/adhering the dirt to the media with even more force due to the increased draw. Remember the PDD is touted as a modern marvel filter with supposed superior synthetic media, there's no excuse for it's flow rate to be outperformed in short order by a 410 CFM rated old-fashioned filter. PDD filters are too expensive too shrug off the poor performance we've experienced. My belief is that the PDD Dustbowl filter might work wonderfully when it goes straight from the box to the dyno, and maybe they can claim high filtration efficiency out of the box too, but whatever they did to get that high filtration efficiency is causing the filter to clog way too quick in our real-world application.

I understand your point but I don’t totally agree.if these filters were the problem that they are being made out to be here then others applications would also have issues. Knowing how easy it is to have a turbo over boost in other applications I truly believe that it is the outlying factor in this situation. These turbos were designed to not have a waste gate which means the turbine housing is so oversized for the engine compared to the turbine wheel that it can not over boost within normal operating conditions.

but the truth is that we are all just speculating at this point because we don’t have enough information. We know that these filters are effective on other engines and we don’t have any data with a multi that had a appropriate turbo swap and this filter.

 

[NebraskaFan]

If that were the case, if the PDD filter itself was not at fault, then we should see the stock filter clogging up just as quickly (or faster), raising canister vacuum and EGT's like the PPD filter. If the modern "efficient" tubo is drawing in that much more air, then it would also draw in that much more dirt along with the air, most likely imbedding/adhering the dirt to the media with even more force due to the increased draw. Remember the PDD is touted as a modern marvel filter with supposed superior synthetic media, there's no excuse for it's flow rate to be outperformed in short order by a 410 CFM rated old-fashioned filter. PDD filters are too expensive too shrug off the poor performance we've experienced. My belief is that the PDD Dustbowl filter might work wonderfully when it goes straight from the box to the dyno, and maybe they can claim high filtration efficiency out of the box too, but whatever they did to get that high filtration efficiency is causing the filter to clog way too quick in our real-world application.

I'm going to guess that the old filters work because of the surface area, they have a lot more than the PDD. The extra surface area should allow it to catch a lot more particulate before it plugs up. At least that's all i can think of.. If i had to guess a PDD filter exactly the same size as the stocker would work. I do also think the turbo efficiency makes sense.. maybe this is a good excuse to try a modern turbo lol

The theory that a modern turbo is less affected by the restriction is pretty well backed up by jeepsinker using the 7" on his cummins swap and not having any issues.

At any rate, I think we can at least conclude that these filters do not play well with the stock engine. Hopefully i can find a way to use it on something different.

 

[Jeepsinker]

I'm sorry to see so many have had poor results with this on my advice. I've still not had any issues yet from mine, but it is a different engine. I figured a filter with a higher flow rate couldn't possibly be a problem just because the engine was different. After all, they are just giant air pumps, right. But then again the multifuel is finicky about a lot of things that don't bother other types of engines.
I'm sorry guys.

 

[Menaces Nemesis]

I'm sorry to see so many have had poor results with this on my advice. I've still not had any issues yet from mine, but it is a different engine. I figured a filter with a higher flow rate couldn't possibly be a problem just because the engine was different. After all, they are just giant air pumps, right. But then again the multifuel is finicky about a lot of things that don't bother other types of engines.
I'm sorry guys.

Garrett, I don't believe you'd ever knowingly steer folks the wrong way. You and your advice have done a massive amount of good for this community. You were trying to offer us what you honestly believed was a better alternative. I don't fault you one bit brother. No worries.

 

[NebraskaFan]

I'm sorry to see so many have had poor results with this on my advice. I've still not had any issues yet from mine, but it is a different engine. I figured a filter with a higher flow rate couldn't possibly be a problem just because the engine was different. After all, they are just giant air pumps, right. But then again the multifuel is finicky about a lot of things that don't bother other types of engines.
I'm sorry guys.

Definitely not your fault! It was worth the try and ultimately we aren't out that much. I'd have never predicted that a filter with almost twice the flow rating, and that is working well on a much more powerful engine, would do this. There was really no reason to assume this wouldn't have worked perfectly.

 

[Gypsyman]

I just got out of the diesel performance industry after 20 year of running my own shop and I can tell you first hand that aftermarket air filter are one of the most overrated products out there. On the other hand stock paper elements are one of the most underrated.

The only way to properly compare air filters is to know at what resistance level (inH20) that they were tested at. Take the factory Donaldson P117551 in our truck. 410 cfm rated but at what inch H20? Without that piece of information you can't make a fair comparison. Below are the spec's on a random Donaldson that I grabbed as an example...

Rated Flow LR 622 cfm (17.6 m³/min)
Rated Flow MR 731 cfm (20.7 m³/min)
Rated Flow HR 798 cfm (22.6 m³/min)

Restriction LR 5.98 inch H2O (152 mm H2O)
Restriction MR 7.99 inch H2O (203 mm H2O)
Restriction HR 10.00 inch H2O (254 mm H2O)

Note that this particular filter could be rated from 622 cfm all the way up to 798 cfm depending on the inH20 specified.

I took a ride in a friends M35A2 this weekend that was equipped with a clean Donaldson filter and gauges. I had some of the Fleetguard AF826's on the shelf for my truck so we swapped filters and ran the same route. Results? Zero discernable difference that I could see on his gauges but the Fleetguard is supposedly only rated at 284 cfm. The problem is that I don't know what inH20 spec was used to obtain these ratings. I do know from experience that Fleetguard underrates most of their filters. I'm guessing that many of the other manufacturers (Donaldson, Wix, Baldwin) most likely do too.

AFE, S&B, and Banks are all known for grossly overrating the flow of their filter when compared to real world applications.

 

[NebraskaFan]

I just got out of the diesel performance industry after 20 year of running my own shop and I can tell you first hand that aftermarket air filter are one of the most overrated products out there. On the other hand stock paper elements are one of the most underrated.

The only way to properly compare air filters is to know at what resistance level (inH20) that they were tested at. Take the factory Donaldson P117551 in our truck. 410 cfm rated but at what inch H20? Without that piece of information you can't make a fair comparison. Below are the spec's on a random Donaldson that I grabbed as an example...

Rated Flow LR 622 cfm (17.6 m³/min)
Rated Flow MR 731 cfm (20.7 m³/min)
Rated Flow HR 798 cfm (22.6 m³/min)

Restriction LR 5.98 inch H2O (152 mm H2O)
Restriction MR 7.99 inch H2O (203 mm H2O)
Restriction HR 10.00 inch H2O (254 mm H2O)

Note that this particular filter could be rated from 622 cfm all the way up to 798 cfm depending on the inH20 specified.

I took a ride in a friends M35A2 this weekend that was equipped with a clean Donaldson filter and gauges. I had some of the Fleetguard AF826's on the shelf for my truck so we swapped filters and ran the same route. Results? Zero discernable difference that I could see on his gauges but the Fleetguard is supposedly only rated at 284 cfm. The problem is that I don't know what inH20 spec was used to obtain these ratings. I do know from experience that Fleetguard underrates most of their filters. I'm guessing that many of the other manufacturers (Donaldson, Wix, Baldwin) most likely do too.

AFE, S&B, and Banks are all known for grossly overrating the flow of their filter when compared to real world applications.

I would say that you are spot on with your assessment. I have one of the wix filters (can't remember the number) that fits bit is smaller and rated for less. One of these days I'll clean up my old filter well, and compare boost/egts on it vs the wix vs the PDD. Should be an interesting test.