Mustang GT and K&N air charger

"Michael Johnson" >

> An example is that corn will deplete the top soil of nitrogen and soybeans
> put nitrogen back into the soil. This is why these two crops are rotated
> when and were possible. The trouble is that corn is more in demand and
> generates more product per acre so they need to supplement with fertilizer
> in order to plan corn year after year.

Actually soybeans are more profitable than corn for many farmers at the
current prices. Soybeans are pushing $10. Good farmers can easily make 50 bu
per acre, for a $500 acre gross income. Corn is around $2.50. 200 bu per
acre corn will all generate a gross income of $500 per acre. However, corn
is much more expensive to raise. The fertilizer cost for corn is two or
three times that for soybeans. On the other hand, you cannot continually
plant soybeans to the same field year after year. There are numerous
diseases that affect soybeans that build up in the soil if you continually
plant soybeans to the same field. Corn on the other hand is very disease
resistant, so it can be planted to the same field repeatedly. Cotton also is
relatively disease resistant and can be planted to the same field in back to
back years (but it is even more expensive to raise than corn). A good
rotation would be soybeans, corn, cotton, soybeans. Unfortunately cotton
prices are weak at the moment, so a lot of people are doing
corn-soybeans-corn-soybean rotations. If the profitability balance shifts
towards corn, then a more desirable rotation would be
corn-corn-soybean-corn-corn-soybeans. Personally I am decreasing my corn
acreage this year by 30% and am replacing it with soybeans. I also am
increasing my peanut acreage this year. The weak dollar might be bad for
people buying imported goods, but it is a godsend for farmers. The current
moderate price levels for farm commodities has more to do with the weak
dollar than with corn being diverted to ethanol production.

> The Midwest enjoys a thick blanket of top soil that developed over the
> eons but it is being reduced much faster than it is being replaced in
> heavily farmed areas. I agree that there are ways to farm that can slow
> this process down substantially but these methods usually result in lower
> yields and most farmers won't use them for this reason.
>
>>>>> to fill our tanks and at the same time increase the cost of food
>>>>> substantially.
>>
>>>> No it won't. It'll promote farming, which in turn will keep our top
>>>> soil from being paved over/ruined. To cut your food costs, just cut
>>>> out the convenience -- i.e. eating out, packaged meals, etc.
>>
>>> It has already increased food prices world wide. The UN's food budget
>>> is going through the roof because of the demand of biofuels.
>>
>> That's only because production (farming) hasn't caught up with the new
>> demand. Just add more farms, or switch to other crops for
>> biofuels.
>
> This is where I have the problem. More planting means more fertilizer,
> more erosion etc. Even then biofuels won't make much of a dent in our oil
> import volumes or in meeting our energy needs. There is already an impact
> on food prices and biofuels is in its infancy.

At this point the impact of ethanol on food prices is trivial. The weak
dollar and increases foreign demand has more to do with higher prices than
ethanol production. Although somewhere around 25% of US corn is used in
ethanol production, this does not translate into a 25% increase in demand
for corn. After the corn is used to produce ethanol, the dried mash is a
very high quality animal feed. This mash offsets almost as much corn as is
consumed to make ethanol. The net effect on the animal feed supply (most
corn is used as animal feed) is probably less than 5%. If you are really
worried about global food supplies, you should cut out meat consumption. It
takes somewhere around 3 lbs of corn to produce 1 pound of cow. If the US
cut meat production by 50%, we would be awash in corn.

> It isn't only us here in the USA that will be affected. We feed a large
> part of the world and if we divert our food resources for energy
> production there will be even more starving people in the poor areas than
> there are today. If you think countries will fight over oil resources
> what do you think they will do for food?

There is more than adequate food in the world to feed everyone alive today.
The problem is economics. We have plenty of extra capacity in the US, but
unless you are going to organize a better distribution system, and figure
out how to pay for the food, people will continue to starve. Exporting food
from the US to poor countries is not the answer. These people need stable
goverments and the tools to produce their own food. I recently read an
article criticizing US farmers for producing commodities at too low a price.
For much of the world it is cheaper to buy commodities like cotton from the
US than to invest in growing them at home.

Ed

"Gill" > wrote in message
. ..
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>
>>> Exactly, I don't believe an air filter will change mileage. The auto
>>> makers would be on it and so would the rest of this small world.
>>
>> Ever notice that an engine running with a dirty filter sees a drop in gas
>> mileage? The same principle applies to an OEM filter verses a filter
>> that flows better (i.e. a K&N etc.). There are two things that can
>> happen when air flow through an engine is made more efficient. One is an
>> increase in horsepower and the second is an increase in mileage.
>> Sometimes both can happen simultaneously. If you don't believe me then
>> take your air filter and clog it up and run your car for a tank of gas
>> then put in a new one and see whats happens to your gas mileage and power
>> output. I'll bet the farm that they both will see a substantial increase
>> when a clean filter is installed.
>
> One of these days, the next time I have access to a flow bench at work, I
> may have to do some "all things equal side by side testing" of an OEM and
> K&N type filter. At a normal driving speed air flow.
>
> I must say though, adding the power pipe with a larger K&N than I had
> before, and mounting it in the fender sure helped clear some of the black
> smoke I had coming from the exhaust at WOT.

See:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm
http://neptune.spacebears.com/cars/racing/rd990702.html

Ed

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...

>> Oh come on, man. You know that the age of the web site does not
>> indicate the age of the content. So again, I ask: Do you have any
>> URLs for tests done with modern engines?
>
> Do you have any? Feel free to make an effort. It's not my job to do your
> homework to support your claims. I gave you my links now you give me
> yours.

Try
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...-406/index.htm
or http://tinyurl.com/2erwzm . This is a reprint of a Consumer Report
article. Here is the relevant portion -

"IMPORTANT DRIVING TIPS THAT HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON FUEL ECONOMY
.....

"Keep your air filter clean. According to our tests, driving with a dirty
air filter in modern engines doesn't have a significant impact on fuel
economy, as it did with older engines. While fuel economy didn't change,
however, power output did. Both cars accelerated much more slowly with a
dirty air cleaner. We drove both vehicles with their air cleaners restricted
and found little difference in gas mileage with either engine. That's
because modern engines use computers to precisely control the air/fuel
ratio, depending on the amount of air coming in through the filter. Reducing
airflow, therefore, caused the engines to automatically reduce the amount of
fuel being used."

Ed

Ed White wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" >
>
>> An example is that corn will deplete the top soil of nitrogen and soybeans
>> put nitrogen back into the soil. This is why these two crops are rotated
>> when and were possible. The trouble is that corn is more in demand and
>> generates more product per acre so they need to supplement with fertilizer
>> in order to plan corn year after year.
>
> Actually soybeans are more profitable than corn for many farmers at the
> current prices. Soybeans are pushing $10. Good farmers can easily make 50 bu
> per acre, for a $500 acre gross income. Corn is around $2.50. 200 bu per
> acre corn will all generate a gross income of $500 per acre. However, corn
> is much more expensive to raise. The fertilizer cost for corn is two or
> three times that for soybeans. On the other hand, you cannot continually
> plant soybeans to the same field year after year. There are numerous
> diseases that affect soybeans that build up in the soil if you continually
> plant soybeans to the same field. Corn on the other hand is very disease
> resistant, so it can be planted to the same field repeatedly. Cotton also is
> relatively disease resistant and can be planted to the same field in back to
> back years (but it is even more expensive to raise than corn). A good
> rotation would be soybeans, corn, cotton, soybeans. Unfortunately cotton
> prices are weak at the moment, so a lot of people are doing
> corn-soybeans-corn-soybean rotations. If the profitability balance shifts
> towards corn, then a more desirable rotation would be
> corn-corn-soybean-corn-corn-soybeans. Personally I am decreasing my corn
> acreage this year by 30% and am replacing it with soybeans. I also am
> increasing my peanut acreage this year. The weak dollar might be bad for
> people buying imported goods, but it is a godsend for farmers. The current
> moderate price levels for farm commodities has more to do with the weak
> dollar than with corn being diverted to ethanol production.

Crops fall under the laws of supply and demand too. Soybeans are a big
component of what gets planted in the Midwest. Corn is king but
soybeans are the queen. The weak dollar is good for many
people/industries here in the USA. A lower dollar value is about the
only way many manufacturing jobs will stay within our borders.

>> The Midwest enjoys a thick blanket of top soil that developed over the
>> eons but it is being reduced much faster than it is being replaced in
>> heavily farmed areas. I agree that there are ways to farm that can slow
>> this process down substantially but these methods usually result in lower
>> yields and most farmers won't use them for this reason.
>>
>>>>>> to fill our tanks and at the same time increase the cost of food
>>>>>> substantially.
>>>>> No it won't. It'll promote farming, which in turn will keep our top
>>>>> soil from being paved over/ruined. To cut your food costs, just cut
>>>>> out the convenience -- i.e. eating out, packaged meals, etc.
>>>> It has already increased food prices world wide. The UN's food budget
>>>> is going through the roof because of the demand of biofuels.
>>> That's only because production (farming) hasn't caught up with the new
>>> demand. Just add more farms, or switch to other crops for
>>> biofuels.
>> This is where I have the problem. More planting means more fertilizer,
>> more erosion etc. Even then biofuels won't make much of a dent in our oil
>> import volumes or in meeting our energy needs. There is already an impact
>> on food prices and biofuels is in its infancy.
>
> At this point the impact of ethanol on food prices is trivial. The weak
> dollar and increases foreign demand has more to do with higher prices than
> ethanol production. Although somewhere around 25% of US corn is used in
> ethanol production, this does not translate into a 25% increase in demand
> for corn. After the corn is used to produce ethanol, the dried mash is a
> very high quality animal feed. This mash offsets almost as much corn as is
> consumed to make ethanol. The net effect on the animal feed supply (most
> corn is used as animal feed) is probably less than 5%. If you are really
> worried about global food supplies, you should cut out meat consumption. It
> takes somewhere around 3 lbs of corn to produce 1 pound of cow. If the US
> cut meat production by 50%, we would be awash in corn.

As I mentioned in another post, it is a standard of living issue and in
this country giving up meat is like taking away the air we breath. I
watched a Modern Marvels show about corn and I was amazed at all the
products that require corn. It is in many things that most people would
never guess.

>> It isn't only us here in the USA that will be affected. We feed a large
>> part of the world and if we divert our food resources for energy
>> production there will be even more starving people in the poor areas than
>> there are today. If you think countries will fight over oil resources
>> what do you think they will do for food?
>
> There is more than adequate food in the world to feed everyone alive today.
> The problem is economics. We have plenty of extra capacity in the US, but
> unless you are going to organize a better distribution system, and figure
> out how to pay for the food, people will continue to starve. Exporting food
> from the US to poor countries is not the answer. These people need stable
> goverments and the tools to produce their own food. I recently read an
> article criticizing US farmers for producing commodities at too low a price.
> For much of the world it is cheaper to buy commodities like cotton from the
> US than to invest in growing them at home.

Farming has become an industry just like many others in that small
volume producers aren't competitive anymore. Economy of scale is now
applied to farming like many other manufacturing sectors.

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Ed White wrote:
><snip>

Ed White wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> Oh come on, man. You know that the age of the web site does not
>>> indicate the age of the content. So again, I ask: Do you have any
>>> URLs for tests done with modern engines?
>> Do you have any? Feel free to make an effort. It's not my job to do your
>> homework to support your claims. I gave you my links now you give me
>> yours.
>
> Try
> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...-406/index.htm
> or http://tinyurl.com/2erwzm . This is a reprint of a Consumer Report
> article. Here is the relevant portion -
>
> "IMPORTANT DRIVING TIPS THAT HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON FUEL ECONOMY
> ....
>
> "Keep your air filter clean. According to our tests, driving with a dirty
> air filter in modern engines doesn't have a significant impact on fuel
> economy, as it did with older engines. While fuel economy didn't change,
> however, power output did. Both cars accelerated much more slowly with a
> dirty air cleaner. We drove both vehicles with their air cleaners restricted
> and found little difference in gas mileage with either engine. That's
> because modern engines use computers to precisely control the air/fuel
> ratio, depending on the amount of air coming in through the filter. Reducing
> airflow, therefore, caused the engines to automatically reduce the amount of
> fuel being used."

Notice the part where is states "driving with a dirty air filter in
modern engines doesn't have a significant impact on fuel economy"? This
means it did have an impact on fuel economy. What we don't know is
their definition of "a dirty air filter" and "a significant impact".
Maybe what they consider insignificant to them isn't insignificant to
someone else. They are actually confirming that a dirty air filter does
impact gas mileage. Had they used a filter with enough dirt in it then
they would have seen a substantial impact on mileage.

Michael Johnson wrote:
> Ed White wrote:
>
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> Oh come on, man. You know that the age of the web site does not
>>>> indicate the age of the content. So again, I ask: Do you have any
>>>> URLs for tests done with modern engines?
>>>
>>> Do you have any? Feel free to make an effort. It's not my job to do
>>> your homework to support your claims. I gave you my links now you
>>> give me yours.
>>
>>
>> Try
>> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...-406/index.htm
>> or http://tinyurl.com/2erwzm . This is a reprint of a Consumer Report
>> article. Here is the relevant portion -
>>
>> "IMPORTANT DRIVING TIPS THAT HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON FUEL ECONOMY
>> ....
>>
>> "Keep your air filter clean. According to our tests, driving with a
>> dirty air filter in modern engines doesn't have a significant impact
>> on fuel economy, as it did with older engines. While fuel economy
>> didn't change, however, power output did. Both cars accelerated much
>> more slowly with a dirty air cleaner. We drove both vehicles with
>> their air cleaners restricted and found little difference in gas
>> mileage with either engine. That's because modern engines use
>> computers to precisely control the air/fuel ratio, depending on the
>> amount of air coming in through the filter. Reducing airflow,
>> therefore, caused the engines to automatically reduce the amount of
>> fuel being used."
>
>
> Notice the part where is states "driving with a dirty air filter in
> modern engines doesn't have a significant impact on fuel economy"? This
> means it did have an impact on fuel economy. ...

You failed English 101. And Logic 101. That CR statement could well mean
that there was no measureable impact; i.e., either little or *none*.
--
Cheers, Bob

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> Ed White wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> Oh come on, man. You know that the age of the web site does not
>>>> indicate the age of the content. So again, I ask: Do you have any
>>>> URLs for tests done with modern engines?
>>> Do you have any? Feel free to make an effort. It's not my job to do
>>> your homework to support your claims. I gave you my links now you give
>>> me yours.
>>
>> Try
>> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...-406/index.htm
>> or http://tinyurl.com/2erwzm . This is a reprint of a Consumer Report
>> article. Here is the relevant portion -
>>
>> "IMPORTANT DRIVING TIPS THAT HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON FUEL ECONOMY
>> ....
>>
>> "Keep your air filter clean. According to our tests, driving with a dirty
>> air filter in modern engines doesn't have a significant impact on fuel
>> economy, as it did with older engines. While fuel economy didn't change,
>> however, power output did. Both cars accelerated much more slowly with a
>> dirty air cleaner. We drove both vehicles with their air cleaners
>> restricted and found little difference in gas mileage with either engine.
>> That's because modern engines use computers to precisely control the
>> air/fuel ratio, depending on the amount of air coming in through the
>> filter. Reducing airflow, therefore, caused the engines to automatically
>> reduce the amount of fuel being used."
>
> Notice the part where is states "driving with a dirty air filter in modern
> engines doesn't have a significant impact on fuel economy"? This means it
> did have an impact on fuel economy. What we don't know is their
> definition of "a dirty air filter" and "a significant impact". Maybe what
> they consider insignificant to them isn't insignificant to someone else.
> They are actually confirming that a dirty air filter does impact gas
> mileage. Had they used a filter with enough dirt in it then they would
> have seen a substantial impact on mileage.

GEEEEEEEEEZ - Nobody is claiming that sticking a potato in the intake won't
screw things up. This whole discussion got started because you objected to
my contention that a K&N air will not significantly improve the fuel economy
of a modern fuel injected engine. We are talking about a difference in
filter restriction of less than a tenth of a psi at wide open throttle. At a
steady state cruise the difference is even less (probably hundredths of a
psi). If you want to compared some hypothetical completely plugged filter to
a filter replaced at reasonable intervals, then I won't claim there isn't a
difference. But if we are just talking about filters operating in the normal
range of contamination one would expect to see for a properly maintained
engine, then the air filter is a not going to have a significant effect on
fuel econonmy. And I stand by my statement that ther is no reason to expect
a K&N air filter to provide a significant (= measurable) improvement in the
fuel economy of a modern fuel injected engine [compared to a reasonably well
maintained paper filter].

Ed

Ed

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...

> My guess is you have soil with a high sand content where no-till works
> better. In other areas the soil is more compact and the plant's root
> system has a much harder time propagating through the soil. In the
> Midwest and here in Virginia it is very rare to see a no-till field.
> Especially, on farms that require high production to be profitable. How
> is your yield on the no-till compared to conventional till? I know the
> cost to plant is supposed to lower but the rub is the yield is lower too.

I have some fields that have decent sand content, but for the most part I
farm heavy clay soils. My no-till soybeans have always done as well as
conventional beans. I have never tried no till corn, but would be willing to
try it if I had the equipment, The neighbor that no-tills cotton is getting
far better yields that other farmers got when the field was in conventional
tillage (it is a rented farm). It is very "tight" clay based soil. However,
cotton will put down some strong roots. Peopel in the area were amazed at
how will he did when he converted the farm to no till. I've only seen him
screw up once in the the ten years or so he has been no-tilling that
particualr farm One year he let the weeds get out of control in no-till
soybeans. It was a sorry looking mess. But then it was a dry year and the
chemicals to control the weeds were not effective. However, this is not
specifically a no-till problem It could have happened to anyone with drilled
beans. I don't see much feature to no-till peanuts, although people try
that. I think no-till corn is a possibility. I don't think compaction is
near the problem you think it is. Most farmer in my area don't actually
"beak" the land like in the old days by using a turn plow or a chisel plow.
Most of my neighbors just pull a disk arrow. This breaks up the top few
inches of soil, but compacts the lower levels. This is likely worse than
no-till as far as soil compaction is concerned.

> When I was growing up in Indiana there were many full time farmers that
> could make a living off of as little as a thousand tillable acres.
> Nowadays someone farming 1,000 acres would barely scratch out a living
> there. Farming became a corporate business a long time ago.

When I was young, I attended a 4H convention (circa 1969). I remember
another delegate standing up during a Q&A session and posing a question
something like - "How could a small farmer working a thousand acres or less
hope to survive?" At that time my Father was farming about 200 acres and was
making a decent living. I farm around 350 acres (I rent some land, and rent
some land out) and don't see any way to make a living doing it with
conventional field crops (corn, peanuts, soybeans, cotton). Every year I
consider just renting out my land, or turning it all into a big cow pasture
(cows are relatively profitable at the moment). Sooner or later it will
happen. I figure I am one big tractor repair bill away from retiring from
farming. I'd really like a new tractor, but it is hard to spend a $100,000
on one piece of equipment. I don't see myself farming long enough to pay it
off unless commodity prices increase to a reasonable level. With corn at $3
and soybeans at $10 I would consider upgrading equipment, but I doubt the
moderate prices will last.

Ed

Bob Willard wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>> Ed White wrote:
>>
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> Oh come on, man. You know that the age of the web site does not
>>>>> indicate the age of the content. So again, I ask: Do you have any
>>>>> URLs for tests done with modern engines?
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any? Feel free to make an effort. It's not my job to
>>>> do your homework to support your claims. I gave you my links now
>>>> you give me yours.
>>>
>>>
>>> Try
>>> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...-406/index.htm
>>> or http://tinyurl.com/2erwzm . This is a reprint of a Consumer Report
>>> article. Here is the relevant portion -
>>>
>>> "IMPORTANT DRIVING TIPS THAT HAVE LITTLE EFFECT ON FUEL ECONOMY
>>> ....
>>>
>>> "Keep your air filter clean. According to our tests, driving with a
>>> dirty air filter in modern engines doesn't have a significant impact
>>> on fuel economy, as it did with older engines. While fuel economy
>>> didn't change, however, power output did. Both cars accelerated much
>>> more slowly with a dirty air cleaner. We drove both vehicles with
>>> their air cleaners restricted and found little difference in gas
>>> mileage with either engine. That's because modern engines use
>>> computers to precisely control the air/fuel ratio, depending on the
>>> amount of air coming in through the filter. Reducing airflow,
>>> therefore, caused the engines to automatically reduce the amount of
>>> fuel being used."
>>
>>
>> Notice the part where is states "driving with a dirty air filter in
>> modern engines doesn't have a significant impact on fuel economy"?
>> This means it did have an impact on fuel economy. ...
>
> You failed English 101. And Logic 101. That CR statement could well mean
> that there was no measureable impact; i.e., either little or *none*.

If it had no impact then that is what they would have said. If it had
no measurable impact then that is what they would have said. I have
never stated what amount of impact the dirt would be on gas mileage as a
filter became dirty. Only that it would have a negative impact on
mileage that would become more noticeable over time as the filter
collected more dirt. The CR statement doesn't invalidate my statement
at all. It actually confirms it. Are you saying that CR is stating a
dirty filter has NO impact on fuel economy?