One noticeable problem with Foam Filters is the oil
doesn't hold well with the Foam and therein having a tendency to settle with gravity or
get released into the airstream.
Bunk. This would be a problem with any oil-impregnated filter--gauze or foam--using too much oil, or the wrong type of oil. Never been a problem for me.
Another problem with Foam is
they lack the ability to Straighten the airflow decreasing the amount of Turbulence
entering the air stream.
I don't see why this would be the case. Seems to me that any filter would perform the same in this regard.
my
intact tract and MAF never show signs of dirt whatsoever.
Neither do mine, so I guess the anecdotal evidence available to us cannot be generalized.
Of course, your personal experience trumps mine. I've had the ITG on my car for about 2 years, and I'm thoroughly satisfied with it. I have a K&N OEM replacement in my Windstar, of all things, and I love it, too, but have not had it long enough to have to clean it. So, I can't really compare.
AFE 14" Round 3" tall Filter tested at 1.5" H20 830 cfm compared to the same sized Foam
Filter which will remain anonymous flowed only 423 cfm.
Is that 14" circumference and 3" tall? As I said, I don't doubt that the gauze-type filters flow better per unit area, which is why a foam filter would have to be larger to obtain the same flow rate. How much larger remains a question in my mind, but it's also why I recommended gauze-type filters for the OEM airbox. I would guess that my ITG is more like 24" around and 8" high, offering something like 4 times the surface. Even allowing that the AFE and others like it are "corrugated" to provide more filter area, I'd say the airflow is going to be close in a situation comparing these two actual applications. Wish we had some real data.
And finally, here's some marketing literature...which of course, should be read with that in mind.
ITG Web Page trying to sell you on the idea of why foam is better! Caution! 
