Well, I did start my post stating that if no hard data is available, then it is safe to assume they are the same. Obviously they are not same unless they both used the exact same material. The assumption is being made for the simple reason of arriving to a quick conclusion without having to run tests in a test lab. Somehow, I have a feeling their air permeability is very close, so that variable should be negligible. If you have any data on K&N and Lloydz filters air permeability, please don't be shy, share it with us.
CR, nope, I don't have any data to share. I did some reading up on this a few minutes ago at K&N's site, but couldn't find any mention of, say, average hole size, that sort of thing.
K&N lists some flow percentages in these two charts:
I also read these K&N pages, which discuss flow rates in general, and describe some more tests:
That last page includes the following assertion:
Anyone can flow more air. The trick is to flow more air safely. In our opinion we hit the sweet spot – an optimal blend of high air flow, filtration efficiency, durability and dust capacity.
The Lloydz page for "XC/XR Hi-Flow Air Filter" is:
That's where it states:
Lloydz' XC/XR air filter will deliver 30% larger filter area and almost 40% more airflow over Stage 1 Filter.
Now, I'm not intending to knock the Lloydz filter. I've ridden to Lloyd's shop, chatted with him, and in the Spring I'm probably going to have him re-map my XCT. I was just saying that - to me, and I'm no engineer, dyno operator, etc., and never was one - the assumption and comparison seemed a little too, um, assuming, too pat. I have no idea which is better, more economical, easier to deal with, better for engine longevity, and so forth. Or the average filtration-hole size.