Mustang GT and K&N air charger

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> C. E. White wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Here is a cold hard fact..... gas mileage deceases as an air filter
>>> becomes more restricted. If you plotted mileage verses the degree of
>>> filter restriction the resulting line would not be linear. Under light
>>> clogging there is little impact but as the filter efficiency decreases
>>> substantially so does mileage. You are confining you argument to the
>>> small zone where the air filter is still operating with a high
>>> efficiency. Even there, a trivial reduction in mileage is still a
>>> reduction. As the filter gets progressively dirtier the effect it has
>>> on mileage is further magnified.
>>
>> For a modern fuel injected engine, if the filter becomes so restrictive
>> that it will effect the fuel economy, you will get a check engine light.
>> If the check engine light is not on, the changes are trivial enough for
>> the PCM to compensate for.
>>
>> But I am not arguing that a highly restricted air filter won't affect
>> fuel economy. I am only arguing that a properly service air filter won't
>> affect fuel economy to a significant degree (meaning measurable) and that
>> a K&N will not provide a fuel economy advantage for a modern fuel
>> injected engine compared to a properly serviced paper element. The
>> difference between a clean K&N filter and a new paper filter is trivial.
>> Both become more restrictive as they accumulate contaminants. Whether a
>> particularly dirty K&N is more restrictive than a given paper filter is
>> impossible to know. But even K&N acknowledges that a dirty K&N is more
>> restrictive than a new paper element.
>
> Logic dictates that if a dirty filter causes a reduction in fuel mileage
> then the degree to which it is clogged determines the degree of the
> mileage reduction. The mileage reduction doesn't materialize at a defined
> point near the end of a filter's life span. The reduction starts to occur
> the minute the new filter is used and gets progressively worse.

You are simply wrong. Why is the restriction imposed by an air filter in
reasonable condition any different that the far more significant restriction
imposed by the throttle plate? You seem to believe that "normal" air filters
are very restrictive - they aren't. You seem to think that a reasonably well
maintained air filter will force the throttle to be much further open to
maintain a given speed - this is not true. You seem to think that the TPS is
a very precise device that can reliably detect minor changes in the throttle
position - this is not true. You seem to think that the PCM cannot adjust
the fuel trim to compensate for minor changes in the air filter, sensor
drift, altitude, etc. - it can. If I blind fold you and ask you to suck on a
pipe, will you be able to tell where I am pinching the pipe? Your PCM can't
tell the difference between the air filter restriction and the throttle
plate restriction. If you are running in closed loop mode, the PCM will
adjust the A/F ratio to the proper level. If things are so out of whack that
the PCM can't properly adjust the A/F ratio, the check engine light will be
on. The engine doesn't run in closed loop mode sometimes (wide open
throttle, transient conditions, cold engine), however, the PCM includes fuel
trim offsets learned during closed loop operation to compensate for changes
during non-closed loop operation. Even if the TPS is affected enough so the
change in signal is out of the noise range, the fuel trim will compensate.
In the real world, a very dirty air filter might reduce maximum power, but
as long as it is not so dirty as to turn on the check engine light, the
effect on fuel economy will be trivial. An air filter maintained per the
vehicle manufacturers recommendation is not likely to ever become so
contaminated as to effect fuel economy by a measurable amount.

Think of the intake tract as a complete system. The amount of air that
enters the engine is controlled by the cumulative restriction (air intake,
air filter, piping, throttle plate, intake manifold, valves). The amount of
fuel added to the air is regulated by the PCM. When it decides more air is
being inducted, it increases the on time for the injectors. It determines
the amount of air being inducted based on a number of factors, but mostly it
uses the MAF when under steady state operation (there are limp modes that
allow operation without the MAF). It adjusts the injector on time based on
the response of the O2 sensors. The A/F ratio is tightly controlled. The PCM
learns of changes over time and makes the necessary adjustments to maintain
the proper A/F ratio. Why do you believe the PCM can't compensate for
changes in the air filter? And if you agree it can adjust for changes in the
A/F ratio, why would a restrictive air filter change the fuel economy.

Ed

C. E. White wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Here is a cold hard fact..... gas mileage deceases as an air filter
>>>> becomes more restricted. If you plotted mileage verses the degree of
>>>> filter restriction the resulting line would not be linear. Under light
>>>> clogging there is little impact but as the filter efficiency decreases
>>>> substantially so does mileage. You are confining you argument to the
>>>> small zone where the air filter is still operating with a high
>>>> efficiency. Even there, a trivial reduction in mileage is still a
>>>> reduction. As the filter gets progressively dirtier the effect it has
>>>> on mileage is further magnified.
>>> For a modern fuel injected engine, if the filter becomes so restrictive
>>> that it will effect the fuel economy, you will get a check engine light.
>>> If the check engine light is not on, the changes are trivial enough for
>>> the PCM to compensate for.
>>>
>>> But I am not arguing that a highly restricted air filter won't affect
>>> fuel economy. I am only arguing that a properly service air filter won't
>>> affect fuel economy to a significant degree (meaning measurable) and that
>>> a K&N will not provide a fuel economy advantage for a modern fuel
>>> injected engine compared to a properly serviced paper element. The
>>> difference between a clean K&N filter and a new paper filter is trivial.
>>> Both become more restrictive as they accumulate contaminants. Whether a
>>> particularly dirty K&N is more restrictive than a given paper filter is
>>> impossible to know. But even K&N acknowledges that a dirty K&N is more
>>> restrictive than a new paper element.
>> Logic dictates that if a dirty filter causes a reduction in fuel mileage
>> then the degree to which it is clogged determines the degree of the
>> mileage reduction. The mileage reduction doesn't materialize at a defined
>> point near the end of a filter's life span. The reduction starts to occur
>> the minute the new filter is used and gets progressively worse.
>
> You are simply wrong. Why is the restriction imposed by an air filter in
> reasonable condition any different that the far more significant restriction
> imposed by the throttle plate?

The throttle plate is an anticipated restriction for the computer. This
is why the TPS is their to communicate its position to the computer and
adjust the engine's operating parameters according to the program code.

> You seem to believe that "normal" air filters
> are very restrictive - they aren't. You seem to think that a reasonably well
> maintained air filter will force the throttle to be much further open to
> maintain a given speed - this is not true.

You seem to think putting words in my mouth means they are my words.
Quote me where I have said normal air filters are very restrictive. In
fact, I have said the opposite. This whole discussion between you and I
is whether an air filter negatively impacts mileage as it gets
progressively dirtier. You say it doesn't and I say it does.

> You seem to think that the TPS is
> a very precise device that can reliably detect minor changes in the throttle
> position - this is not true. You seem to think that the PCM cannot adjust
> the fuel trim to compensate for minor changes in the air filter, sensor
> drift, altitude, etc. - it can.

..... and you seem to think mileage doesn't get progressively worse as
the air filter captures more dirt but then you say a dirty filter will
negatively impact gas mileage. You can't have it both ways. According
to your argument the computer should compensate no matter how dirty the
filter is and mileage should remain the same. Why can't the computer
compensate for an extremely dirty filter?

> If I blind fold you and ask you to suck on a
> pipe, will you be able to tell where I am pinching the pipe? Your PCM can't
> tell the difference between the air filter restriction and the throttle
> plate restriction.

First the computer does even see the throttle plate as a restriction.
It is an air flow control device. This is why it has a TPS on it so it
can predict engine operating conditions like engine load, throttle plate
acceleration etc.

> If you are running in closed loop mode, the PCM will
> adjust the A/F ratio to the proper level. If things are so out of whack that
> the PCM can't properly adjust the A/F ratio, the check engine light will be
> on. The engine doesn't run in closed loop mode sometimes (wide open
> throttle, transient conditions, cold engine), however, the PCM includes fuel
> trim offsets learned during closed loop operation to compensate for changes
> during non-closed loop operation. Even if the TPS is affected enough so the
> change in signal is out of the noise range, the fuel trim will compensate.
> In the real world, a very dirty air filter might reduce maximum power, but
> as long as it is not so dirty as to turn on the check engine light, the
> effect on fuel economy will be trivial. An air filter maintained per the
> vehicle manufacturers recommendation is not likely to ever become so
> contaminated as to effect fuel economy by a measurable amount.
> Think of the intake tract as a complete system. The amount of air that
> enters the engine is controlled by the cumulative restriction (air intake,
> air filter, piping, throttle plate, intake manifold, valves). The amount of
> fuel added to the air is regulated by the PCM. When it decides more air is
> being inducted, it increases the on time for the injectors. It determines
> the amount of air being inducted based on a number of factors, but mostly it
> uses the MAF when under steady state operation (there are limp modes that
> allow operation without the MAF). It adjusts the injector on time based on
> the response of the O2 sensors. The A/F ratio is tightly controlled. The PCM
> learns of changes over time and makes the necessary adjustments to maintain
> the proper A/F ratio. Why do you believe the PCM can't compensate for
> changes in the air filter? And if you agree it can adjust for changes in the
> A/F ratio, why would a restrictive air filter change the fuel economy.

All this doesn't explain why a dirty filter causes a mileage reduction.
Are you saying a dirty filter gets the same mileage as a pristine
filter? If they don't then when exactly does the mileage drop occur.
When is the "magic moment" the mileage drops? Why does the mileage drop
at that point?

On Jan 16, 8:32 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:

> >>>> That's because the overall specific energy of E10 is less than pure
> >>>> gasoline. This is why going to biofuels is a horrible idea, IMO. We
> >>>> use up our top soil

> >>> Using proper farming techniques, top soil will last forever.
>
> >> It just won't stay in the same place. Erosion from farms is far worse
> >> than from land development activities.

> > Erosion doesn't happen with proper farming techniques.

> The trouble is that 99% of farmers don't use those techniques and if
> they did the impact of crop yields would be substantial.

So they go for the short term profits and ruin the topsoil. Then have
to turn around and "fix" the soil with chemical fertilizers.

> >> Top soil can be depleted to the point it can't grow much which is why farmers so much
> >> fertilizer to their land.

I guess composting/mulching doesn't work on a large scale.

> > No and no.

> > Again, using proper farming techniques top soil won't be depleted.

> > Farmers use fertilizer much the same way people use vitamin pills.
> > Farmers abuse the soil and then rely on the "quick fix", just like
> > people eat wrong and then relay on the "quick fix" of vitamin
> > pills.

> 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 much of this demand could be reduced if we'd get away from so damn
much crappy high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in everything.

> and generates more product per acre so they need to supplement
> with fertilizer in order to plan corn year after year. 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.

What about the organic market? Aren't many of these guys doing it the
right way and enjoying booming sales?

> >>>> 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.

Seems we always do stuff on the cheap and then end up paying for it
more than once. Let me explain. We over fertilize/pesticide and use
poor crop rotation that ruins our soil to get cheap grain, then the
grain that's produced is ruined when we turn it into garbage (HFCS)
and "enriched" wheat flour, and these products are put in foods that
end up ruining our health. Nice.

> 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. 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?
>
> >>http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10167
>
> >>>> I would rather eat for a reasonable cost than fill up my tank
>
> >>> Remember to add in to your calculations the cost of you/us to keep the
> >>> Middle East stable.
>
> >> ... or to keep a nuke from going off on the Mall of Washington, DC.
>
> > You don't stop terrorism with war. War causes terrorism.

> Do you think the Islamic extremists will stop trying to kill us if we
> sit in the Lotus position and start singing Kum Ba Yah? I don't think
> they will.

What are you talking about?

I say treat terrorism incidents like a crime, not a war.

> We are talking about people that think "Honor Killings" are
> perfectly acceptable. They chop off hands and feet for stealing. They
> stone people to death for adultery. They treat women like slaves. Do
> you really think they can be reasoned with? They push the Islamic
> religion like the Soviet Union pushed communism. They are like the Borg
> from Star Trek. If you don't convert to their belief system then you
> need to be killed.

Are there any parallels here with our views of native Americans a few
hundred years ago?

> >>>> with something that gives me less mileage, for about the same
> >>>> cost, than evil old 100% gasoline.

> >>> We have to cut our dependence on oil. (We've needed to since the
> >>> 70's.) The demand for/cost of oil is only going to intensify in the
> >>> future with so many counties becoming industrialized. And with this
> >>> increased demand there's going to be added pressure to control the
> >>> spicket. This means at some point a couple/few of the big boys -- US,
> >>> China, Russia, India, or some other nuclear country -- is going to get
> >>> into a fight and the results won't be pretty.

> >> IMO, we are heading in the right direction. It is just too slow for my
> >> liking. China and India has eight times our population and just think
> >> how much oil they will consume if they develop even half as much as we
> >> have today. We have no option but to change. The funny thing is I
> >> think the general population in the USA wants it and is ready for it but
> >> our government can't get their **** together to make it happen.

> > Agreed.

> >> Countries can't fight each other anymore.

> > Can't or won't?

> Won't or can't the result is the same. Interests of countries today are
> no longer bound by national borders.

Yes, with can't and won't the results is the same, but don't think for
a minute countries can't or won't duke it out in the future over oil,
water, land, etc. As the world population grows so will demand for
resources, and when there isn't enough to go around for everyone...

> >> Their will be no winners,
> >> only losers. It is one of the benefits of a global economy. If China
> >> blows us up who will buy their cheap goods and where will they get
> >> wheat, corn etc. to feed 1.5 billion people?

> > But if two counties begin fighting over the [oil] spicket because they
> > can't get enough to power their cars, heat their homes and run their
> > factories will cooler heads prevail?

> Nuclear capable countries will fight each other over food before oil.

You might want to add drinking water to the list.

> I
> think many in this country, including the government, know the end is
> near for obtaining cheap oil. Hybrids are the first step in getting
> plug-in cars to the consumer and when that happens and those cars have a
> decent range we will see the dominoes fall real quick on the internal
> combustion engine.

It's fuel will come from new/different sources, and the timing/valves
will operate more efficiently but I think the internal combustion
engine is going to be around for a while.

> >> IMO, terrorism is a much
> >> bigger threat than war between nations.

> > I think terrorism will be the new low-level war technique. Just pay a
> > guy to strap on a bomb to get your nation's point a cross. Make sure
> > all the tracks are covered, later deny any involvement and then sit
> > back and reap the fallout.

> The problem with a nation making war is they have something to lose.
> There is territory, infrastructure, population etc. that can be
> destroyed or taken. Terrorists are nomads that have very little to lose
> and are willing to die for their cause. It is also something that will
> never go away. Fighting it is like playing an unending game of
> Whack-A-Mole.

Which is why we should be treating it like a crime and not a war.

Patrick

wrote:
> On Jan 16, 8:32 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>
>>>>>> That's because the overall specific energy of E10 is less than pure
>>>>>> gasoline. This is why going to biofuels is a horrible idea, IMO. We
>>>>>> use up our top soil
>
>>>>> Using proper farming techniques, top soil will last forever.
>>>> It just won't stay in the same place. Erosion from farms is far worse
>>>> than from land development activities.
>
>>> Erosion doesn't happen with proper farming techniques.
>
>> The trouble is that 99% of farmers don't use those techniques and if
>> they did the impact of crop yields would be substantial.
>
> So they go for the short term profits and ruin the topsoil. Then have
> to turn around and "fix" the soil with chemical fertilizers.

Exactly, but in their defense they need to do it in order to be
profitable. No-till also uses heavy doses of weed killer so it isn't
without issues too. Also, corn doesn't do as well as some other crops
under no-till methods. I don't see much no-till on farms in Virginia or
in Indiana. I'm not sure why this is so but my guess is it isn't
economically viable for some reason.

>>>> Top soil can be depleted to the point it can't grow much which is why farmers so much
>>>> fertilizer to their land.
>
> I guess composting/mulching doesn't work on a large scale.

Many farmers use manure on fields when and where they can. There are
also many farms where I live that use treated sludge from sewage
treatment plants. Most farmers leave the plant material aside from the
seed portion in the fields. Some exceptions are dairy farmers that use
the entire corn plant and store it in huge silos. Crop rotations work
but there is so much corn grown every year that rotating all the land
planted with corn isn't possible.

>>> No and no.
>
>>> Again, using proper farming techniques top soil won't be depleted.
>
>>> Farmers use fertilizer much the same way people use vitamin pills.
>>> Farmers abuse the soil and then rely on the "quick fix", just like
>>> people eat wrong and then relay on the "quick fix" of vitamin
>>> pills.
>
>> 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 much of this demand could be reduced if we'd get away from so damn
> much crappy high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in everything.

We are addicted to corn in multitudes of ways. Corn syrup is just one
of them. I really don't eat much sugar anymore but it is a cheap
sweetener and keeps food costs down.

>> and generates more product per acre so they need to supplement
>> with fertilizer in order to plan corn year after year. 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.
>
> What about the organic market? Aren't many of these guys doing it the
> right way and enjoying booming sales?

Organic foods are selling well but they are expensive. I don't think
most of us would settle for higher food prices to go organic. I'm also
not sold that organic food is that much better than regular food. I
think much of it is marketing hype to get us to pay more for an apple.

>>>>>> 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.
>
> Seems we always do stuff on the cheap and then end up paying for it
> more than once. Let me explain. We over fertilize/pesticide and use
> poor crop rotation that ruins our soil to get cheap grain, then the
> grain that's produced is ruined when we turn it into garbage (HFCS)
> and "enriched" wheat flour, and these products are put in foods that
> end up ruining our health. Nice.

There are trade-offs to everything. Before we started processing foods
there were many other food related diseases etc. that killed many
people. Milk is a good example. Before pasteurization became common
place in the 1930s milk caused sickness on a regular basis. IMO, much
of the food production and delivery systems we have in place are
striking a good balance for providing us quality products at reasonable
prices. Just 100 years ago eating bad food and suffering sickness or
death from it was not that uncommon. Today it is a rarity to hear about
food related deaths or even illnesses. Especially, considering he
population today compared to then.

>> 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. 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?
>>
>>>> http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=10167
>>>>>> I would rather eat for a reasonable cost than fill up my tank
>>>>> Remember to add in to your calculations the cost of you/us to keep the
>>>>> Middle East stable.
>>>> ... or to keep a nuke from going off on the Mall of Washington, DC.
>>> You don't stop terrorism with war. War causes terrorism.
>
>> Do you think the Islamic extremists will stop trying to kill us if we
>> sit in the Lotus position and start singing Kum Ba Yah? I don't think
>> they will.
>
> What are you talking about?
>
> I say treat terrorism incidents like a crime, not a war.

Do you think the Taliban would have handed over Osama after 9-11? If
they wouldn't then what should we do? Let him continue killing us? We
fought WWII over Pearl Harbor and more people were killed on 9-11. IMO,
we are not dealing with your average garden variety criminals. We are
dealing with people that want to kill us on a mass scale. Reasoning
with them is like Sara Conner trying to reason with a Terminator.
Waiting for extradition of terrorists from Afghanistan while they plot
to fly planes into the Sears Tower isn't my idea of protecting anyone.

>> We are talking about people that think "Honor Killings" are
>> perfectly acceptable. They chop off hands and feet for stealing. They
>> stone people to death for adultery. They treat women like slaves. Do
>> you really think they can be reasoned with? They push the Islamic
>> religion like the Soviet Union pushed communism. They are like the Borg
>> from Star Trek. If you don't convert to their belief system then you
>> need to be killed.
>
> Are there any parallels here with our views of native Americans a few
> hundred years ago?

Dragging history into the debate does nothing to keep them from killing
us. Go back far enough and every group of people on the planet have
killed people and taken land from someone else. It is the nature of
human beings. If you are saying that we are as bad as the terrorists
then we don't have much to discuss on the matter because that is just a
patently untrue in TODAY'S world. What happened in the past is in the
past and every race has skeletons in their closets.

>>>>>> with something that gives me less mileage, for about the same
>>>>>> cost, than evil old 100% gasoline.
>
>>>>> We have to cut our dependence on oil. (We've needed to since the
>>>>> 70's.) The demand for/cost of oil is only going to intensify in the
>>>>> future with so many counties becoming industrialized. And with this
>>>>> increased demand there's going to be added pressure to control the
>>>>> spicket. This means at some point a couple/few of the big boys -- US,
>>>>> China, Russia, India, or some other nuclear country -- is going to get
>>>>> into a fight and the results won't be pretty.
>
>>>> IMO, we are heading in the right direction. It is just too slow for my
>>>> liking. China and India has eight times our population and just think
>>>> how much oil they will consume if they develop even half as much as we
>>>> have today. We have no option but to change. The funny thing is I
>>>> think the general population in the USA wants it and is ready for it but
>>>> our government can't get their **** together to make it happen.
>
>>> Agreed.
>
>>>> Countries can't fight each other anymore.
>
>>> Can't or won't?
>
>> Won't or can't the result is the same. Interests of countries today are
>> no longer bound by national borders.
>
> Yes, with can't and won't the results is the same, but don't think for
> a minute countries can't or won't duke it out in the future over oil,
> water, land, etc. As the world population grows so will demand for
> resources, and when there isn't enough to go around for everyone...

There is no "duking it out" anymore. There is mutual annihilation.
China can't live without us. We buy their manufacturing capability and
they buy our technology and food. The same goes for India and many
other countries. We can't keep six billion people alive and fight each
other at the same time. The time has passed for large countries to
fight war between each other. Do you think we would have invaded Iraq
if they had nuclear weapons?

>>>> Their will be no winners,
>>>> only losers. It is one of the benefits of a global economy. If China
>>>> blows us up who will buy their cheap goods and where will they get
>>>> wheat, corn etc. to feed 1.5 billion people?
>
>>> But if two counties begin fighting over the [oil] spicket because they
>>> can't get enough to power their cars, heat their homes and run their
>>> factories will cooler heads prevail?
>
>> Nuclear capable countries will fight each other over food before oil.
>
> You might want to add drinking water to the list.

Shipping water from the USA to China on a mass scale will never happen.
It is cheaper to run desalinization plants than to fight a war over
water. Most of the world has plenty of water. Even the places that
have little still get on with life. The USA has plenty of water. We
just chose to live in places that don't have it, like the deserts of the
Southwest.

>> I
>> think many in this country, including the government, know the end is
>> near for obtaining cheap oil. Hybrids are the first step in getting
>> plug-in cars to the consumer and when that happens and those cars have a
>> decent range we will see the dominoes fall real quick on the internal
>> combustion engine.
>
> It's fuel will come from new/different sources, and the timing/valves
> will operate more efficiently but I think the internal combustion
> engine is going to be around for a while.

It might but I think the only thing keeping full blown electric plug-ins
is battery technology. This problem will be cracked soon. When it is
look for the electric flood gates to open.

>>>> IMO, terrorism is a much
>>>> bigger threat than war between nations.
>
>>> I think terrorism will be the new low-level war technique. Just pay a
>>> guy to strap on a bomb to get your nation's point a cross. Make sure
>>> all the tracks are covered, later deny any involvement and then sit
>>> back and reap the fallout.
>
>> The problem with a nation making war is they have something to lose.
>> There is territory, infrastructure, population etc. that can be
>> destroyed or taken. Terrorists are nomads that have very little to lose
>> and are willing to die for their cause. It is also something that will
>> never go away. Fighting it is like playing an unending game of
>> Whack-A-Mole.
>
> Which is why we should be treating it like a crime and not a war.

Treating it like a crime takes too long to get results and put the enemy
on the defensive. The last thing I want to see is our national security
put in the hands of liberal judges. I trust the military with that
responsibility much more than any other entity.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> WindsorFox-{SS}- wrote:
> > Michael Johnson wrote:
> >> C. E. White wrote:
> >>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> >>> news > >>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> While this was certainly true with carbureted engines, there is no
> >>> reason to think this is the case for modern fuel injected engines.
> >>> For carbureted engines, a clogged air filter acts like a choke and
> >>> enriches the mixture because of the effect on air pressure in front
> >>> of the throttle plates. This reduces the fuel economy. In a modern
> >>> fuel injected engine, the mixture is not influenced in this way. The
> >>> amount of fuel injected is determined based on the MAF sensor and
> >>> other sensors. These sensors can't tell the difference between a
> >>> restriction to the flow related to the air filter and a restriction
> >>> to the flow related to the throttle plates. There is no difference as
> >>> far as the computer is concerned between the restriction of the air
> >>> filter and the restriction of the throttle plates. The engine speed /
> >>> power output is determined by the total intake restriction (intake
> >>> tract plus throttle opening). The only thing a slightly restricted
> >>> air filter does on a modern engine is require you to open the
> >>> throttle a slight amount more and reduce the maximum power output.
> >>> The effect on fuel economy for a modern engine is minimal. I won't
> >>> claim it is zero, but I doubt you would be able to tell the
> >>> difference unless the filter was absurdly restrictive.
> >>
> >> A dirty filter will lower gas mileage on EFI engines too. Instead of
> >> going into a long rebuttal I'll just provide a few links to some
> >> credible web sites.
> >
> > Yes but I'd bet that by "dirty filter" they mean clogged. I can see
> > Ed's point here but there is probably a point at which the clog becomes
> > so bad the electronics can not compensate. I once bought a 1977
> > Thunderbird for $50. It would not start, the guy and 4 friends tried to
> > get it started to get it home. When I went to get it I had a battery,
> > some gas and tools. It was full of gas, I cranked, smelled gas and
> > popped the hood. Took off the air breather and put it in the trunk,
> > started it and drove home to all their amazement. Three months and $500
> > later I sold it for $4500. It had 267K miles on it. The buyer was still
> > driving it 4 years later. P
>
> Clogged or mildly dirty, it is all variants of the same thing. That is
> a restriction to air flow.

You are being too simplistic, example a clean filter capable of delivering
1000 cfm new, but only 700 cfm dirty, is still quite adequate if the engine
only requires 500 cfm at max rpm to start with. Air resistance is an
exponential factor, it doesn't really come in to play until you get into the
upper limits of your overall air flow capability. Honestly, how much time
does your engine spend at 5000 rpm?

"Ironrod" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> WindsorFox-{SS}- wrote:
>> > Michael Johnson wrote:
>> >> C. E. White wrote:
>> >>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> >>> news >> >>>
>> >>>>> 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.
>> >>>
>> >>> While this was certainly true with carbureted engines, there is no
>> >>> reason to think this is the case for modern fuel injected engines.
>> >>> For carbureted engines, a clogged air filter acts like a choke and
>> >>> enriches the mixture because of the effect on air pressure in front
>> >>> of the throttle plates. This reduces the fuel economy. In a modern
>> >>> fuel injected engine, the mixture is not influenced in this way. The
>> >>> amount of fuel injected is determined based on the MAF sensor and
>> >>> other sensors. These sensors can't tell the difference between a
>> >>> restriction to the flow related to the air filter and a restriction
>> >>> to the flow related to the throttle plates. There is no difference as
>> >>> far as the computer is concerned between the restriction of the air
>> >>> filter and the restriction of the throttle plates. The engine speed /
>> >>> power output is determined by the total intake restriction (intake
>> >>> tract plus throttle opening). The only thing a slightly restricted
>> >>> air filter does on a modern engine is require you to open the
>> >>> throttle a slight amount more and reduce the maximum power output.
>> >>> The effect on fuel economy for a modern engine is minimal. I won't
>> >>> claim it is zero, but I doubt you would be able to tell the
>> >>> difference unless the filter was absurdly restrictive.
>> >>
>> >> A dirty filter will lower gas mileage on EFI engines too. Instead of
>> >> going into a long rebuttal I'll just provide a few links to some
>> >> credible web sites.
>> >
>> > Yes but I'd bet that by "dirty filter" they mean clogged. I can see
>> > Ed's point here but there is probably a point at which the clog becomes
>> > so bad the electronics can not compensate. I once bought a 1977
>> > Thunderbird for $50. It would not start, the guy and 4 friends tried to
>> > get it started to get it home. When I went to get it I had a battery,
>> > some gas and tools. It was full of gas, I cranked, smelled gas and
>> > popped the hood. Took off the air breather and put it in the trunk,
>> > started it and drove home to all their amazement. Three months and $500
>> > later I sold it for $4500. It had 267K miles on it. The buyer was still
>> > driving it 4 years later. P
>>
>> Clogged or mildly dirty, it is all variants of the same thing. That is
>> a restriction to air flow.
>
> You are being too simplistic, example a clean filter capable of delivering
> 1000 cfm new, but only 700 cfm dirty, is still quite adequate if the
> engine
> only requires 500 cfm at max rpm to start with. Air resistance is an
> exponential factor, it doesn't really come in to play until you get into
> the
> upper limits of your overall air flow capability. Honestly, how much time
> does your engine spend at 5000 rpm?

Nice theory, but it does not explain my documented 2 MPG fuel mileage
increase from a simple filter change, on a 1994 SHO commuter car that I CAN
SAFELY SAY NEVER HIT 5000 RPM while my wife drove it, 99.9% of it's miles.


>

Ironrod wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> WindsorFox-{SS}- wrote:
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>> C. E. White wrote:
>>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>>> news >>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> While this was certainly true with carbureted engines, there is no
>>>>> reason to think this is the case for modern fuel injected engines.
>>>>> For carbureted engines, a clogged air filter acts like a choke and
>>>>> enriches the mixture because of the effect on air pressure in front
>>>>> of the throttle plates. This reduces the fuel economy. In a modern
>>>>> fuel injected engine, the mixture is not influenced in this way. The
>>>>> amount of fuel injected is determined based on the MAF sensor and
>>>>> other sensors. These sensors can't tell the difference between a
>>>>> restriction to the flow related to the air filter and a restriction
>>>>> to the flow related to the throttle plates. There is no difference as
>>>>> far as the computer is concerned between the restriction of the air
>>>>> filter and the restriction of the throttle plates. The engine speed /
>>>>> power output is determined by the total intake restriction (intake
>>>>> tract plus throttle opening). The only thing a slightly restricted
>>>>> air filter does on a modern engine is require you to open the
>>>>> throttle a slight amount more and reduce the maximum power output.
>>>>> The effect on fuel economy for a modern engine is minimal. I won't
>>>>> claim it is zero, but I doubt you would be able to tell the
>>>>> difference unless the filter was absurdly restrictive.
>>>> A dirty filter will lower gas mileage on EFI engines too. Instead of
>>>> going into a long rebuttal I'll just provide a few links to some
>>>> credible web sites.
>>> Yes but I'd bet that by "dirty filter" they mean clogged. I can see
>>> Ed's point here but there is probably a point at which the clog becomes
>>> so bad the electronics can not compensate. I once bought a 1977
>>> Thunderbird for $50. It would not start, the guy and 4 friends tried to
>>> get it started to get it home. When I went to get it I had a battery,
>>> some gas and tools. It was full of gas, I cranked, smelled gas and
>>> popped the hood. Took off the air breather and put it in the trunk,
>>> started it and drove home to all their amazement. Three months and $500
>>> later I sold it for $4500. It had 267K miles on it. The buyer was still
>>> driving it 4 years later. P
>> Clogged or mildly dirty, it is all variants of the same thing. That is
>> a restriction to air flow.
>
> You are being too simplistic, example a clean filter capable of delivering
> 1000 cfm new, but only 700 cfm dirty, is still quite adequate if the engine
> only requires 500 cfm at max rpm to start with. Air resistance is an
> exponential factor, it doesn't really come in to play until you get into the
> upper limits of your overall air flow capability. Honestly, how much time
> does your engine spend at 5000 rpm?

Are you saying a car gets the same mileage when a filter is new compared
to when it is dirty? Gas mileage decreases gradually over time and not
like dropping off a cliff. Here's another one to think about.... an
engine with a more efficient intake in front of the throttle body makes
more horsepower than with a stock setup. That power increase happens
across the rpm range. The engine making more power will get better
mileage because the engine is more efficient at making that power. What
difference does it make whether it is a more efficient intake or a clean
verses dirty filter that causes the increase in efficiency?

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message

> Are you saying a car gets the same mileage when a filter is new
> compared to when it is dirty? Gas mileage decreases gradually over
> time and not like dropping off a cliff. Here's another one to think
> about.... an engine with a more efficient intake in front of the
> throttle body makes more horsepower than with a stock setup. That
> power increase happens across the rpm range. The engine making more
> power will get better mileage because the engine is more efficient
> at making that power. What difference does it make whether it is a
> more efficient intake or a clean verses dirty filter that causes the
> increase in efficiency?

You just don't get it. Unless you are at wide open throttle, the
restriction of a normal air filter is irrelevant for a modern fuel
injected engine. Yes, certainly the engine may develop more power with
a clean air filter AT WIDE OPEN THROTTLE. This is not because the
engine it is more efficient, it is because you can draw more air into
the engine - more air equals more power. But unless the throttle is
wide open, the air filter is not the limiting factor. So unless you
are driving around with your foot on the floor most of the time, the
air filter restriction is not a significant factor in fuel economy.
And if you are driving around with your foot on the floor most of the
time, fuel economy is not something you care about.

You seem to think there is a huge difference in the pressure drop
across air filters - this isn't true. At a normal cruise you only need
less than 20 horsepower to go 65 mph. This is somewhere around 0.034
gallons of gasoline per minute (around 27 miles per gallon). This is
around 0.21 lbs of gasoline per minute. This amount of gasoline
requires around 2.9 lbs of air. This is about 26 cubic feet of air.
So, when cruising you can assume that your engine only needs about 26
cfm of air. Go look at the K&N web page. They compare filter
performance at 300 cfm - over ten times what is required to cruise.
And even at 300 cfm the difference in pressure drop between a clean
K&N and a clean paper filter is on the order of 0.03 PSI. At a 65
cruise the pressure drop across a normal filter is probably too low to
be measured without very sensitive equipment. There is a reason K&N
always rates the flow rate of there filters for a given pressure
drop, instead of giving you a pressure drop for a given flow rate - it
over hypes the difference in filters.

Discussing this subject with you is like watching a train wreck. You
know there is nothing you can do about it, but you just can't turn
away. I know you don't get it, I even understand why you don't get it,
but I can't seem to come up with the proper way of explaining things
to make you understand where your thinking is going wrong. You just
can't get your thoughts around the idea that for a modern feedback
controlled fuel injected engine, the PCM can adjust the fuel flow to
compensate for changes in the system. Does a dirty air filter flow
less air than a clean air filter, yes of course. Is the difference
significant as far as fuel economy is concerned - no, not for a
properly serviced air filter. We are talking about hundredths of a psi
difference in pressure drop at normal cruising speeds. This difference
is well within the adjustment range of any modern fuel injected
engine. Heck, changes in the air filter are not close to the most
significant factor that changes with time. Drift in the measuring
capabilities of the MAF and TPS are more significant than the change
in the pressure drop across the air filter. Until you understand that
unless you are at wide open throttle, the air pressure drop across the
air filter is trivial, you'll never understand why the pressure drop
across the air filter is not a significant factor in determining fuel
economy. An air filter dirty enough to significantly affect fuel
economy should also set a fault code in the PCM and turn on the check
engine light.

Ed

C. E. White wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>
>> Are you saying a car gets the same mileage when a filter is new
>> compared to when it is dirty? Gas mileage decreases gradually over
>> time and not like dropping off a cliff. Here's another one to think
>> about.... an engine with a more efficient intake in front of the
>> throttle body makes more horsepower than with a stock setup. That
>> power increase happens across the rpm range. The engine making more
>> power will get better mileage because the engine is more efficient
>> at making that power. What difference does it make whether it is a
>> more efficient intake or a clean verses dirty filter that causes the
>> increase in efficiency?
>
> You just don't get it. Unless you are at wide open throttle, the
> restriction of a normal air filter is irrelevant for a modern fuel
> injected engine.

I don't believe that. The computer may know to adjust the amount of
fuel based on the flow of air, but having to pull that air through a
stiffer restriction is still going to make the engine work harder. I
also think depending on how restricted the intake is it may cause some
of the electronics to not perform as efficiently as well.


--
"Yah know I hate it when forces gather in ma' fringe..." - Sheogorath

"Daytime television sucked 20 years ago,
and it still sucks today!" - Marc Bissonette

"WindsorFox" > wrote in message
...
> C. E. White wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Are you saying a car gets the same mileage when a filter is new
>>> compared to when it is dirty? Gas mileage decreases gradually
>>> over time and not like dropping off a cliff. Here's another one
>>> to think about.... an engine with a more efficient intake in front
>>> of the throttle body makes more horsepower than with a stock
>>> setup. That power increase happens across the rpm range. The
>>> engine making more power will get better mileage because the
>>> engine is more efficient at making that power. What difference
>>> does it make whether it is a more efficient intake or a clean
>>> verses dirty filter that causes the increase in efficiency?
>>
>> You just don't get it. Unless you are at wide open throttle, the
>> restriction of a normal air filter is irrelevant for a modern fuel
>> injected engine.
>
> I don't believe that. The computer may know to adjust the amount
> of fuel based on the flow of air, but having to pull that air
> through a stiffer restriction is still going to make the engine work
> harder. I also think depending on how restricted the intake is it
> may cause some of the electronics to not perform as efficiently as
> well.

Again, why do you believe this? Air flow into the engine is restricted
by the throttle plate at anything less than wide open throttle. To
achieve a particular level of power, you need a given amount of air.
The flow of air into the engine is restricted if you are trying to
develop anything but maximum power. Where in the intake this
restriction occurs is irrelevant. The pumping losses (this is what you
are talking about) are the same whether the restriction occurs at the
air filter or at the throttle plate. For any power level less than
maximum, a slightly more restricted air filter will just require a
slightly more open throttle to compensate. And the difference will be
tiny. You guys seem to have it in your mind that a normal air filter
is very restrictive. It isn't. We are talking about a difference in
restriction in the noise range (0.01 to 0.03 psi).

Which electronics do you thing will be affected? There are only two,
possibly three, sensors in front of or concurrent with the throttle
plate - the mass air flow sensor - MAF, throttle position sensor -
TPS, and possibly the intake air temperature sensor (these are often
combined with the MAF). The MAF is designed to measure the mass of air
flowing through the intake tract. The trivial differences in pressure
related to normal changes in air filter restriction are not going to
affect the MAF operation beyond what would be considered a normal
variation. The PCM can compensate for this based on feedback from the
O2 sensors. The TPS is a gross throttle position measurement device.
It is not highly accurate. Any minor changes in the position of the
TPS for a given power output caused by a slightly more restricted air
filter will be easily compensated for by the PCM based on feedback
from the O2 sensors.

Again, I am not talking about grossly contaminated air filters. I am
talking about filters serviced in a reasonable manner per the
manufacturer's recommendations. Any air filter so restrictive that the
PCM cannot adjust the A/F to compensate, should turn on the check
engine light. And to be clear, I am talking about differences
measurable by normal consumers. I wouldn't claim that there is no
difference at the level that could be measured under tightly
controlled laboratory conditions with precision equipment. I doubt
there is any significant difference even in that case, but given the
uncertainty of almost any complex system, I can't be absolutely sure
that there won't be minor differences down in what would be the noise
range for normal vehicle operation. Also, I am not claiming that a
restricted air filter will have no effect on performance. It certainly
can reduce maximum power. With the throttle wide open, other
restrictions in the intake tract are what limits the air flow. The
more air you can get into the engine the more power you can develop. A
K&N filter may provide more power, but in most cases the differences
will be trivial. For most cars, it is not the air filter that is the
most restrictive part of the system, it is the actual plumbing (intake
opening and connecting tubing). Air filters are usually sized to
provide minimal restrictions. K&N provides a means of calculating an
air filter size to minimize power loss due to air filter restrictions.
See http://www.knfilters.com/filter_facts.htm#SELECT.
K&N used to provide a filter factor for their filters and for paper
filters (they have dropped the paper filter number from the current
web page, but I recorded it). They claimed that their filters would
flow 6.02 cfm per square inch and that a paper filter would flow 4.38
cfm per square inch (they don't clue us in on as to the pressure drop
needed to achieve these flow rates). You should use the K&N method to
calculate the filter size needed for your engine. Then derate it by
73% (4.38/6.02). Compare the resulting filter size to the stock filter
for your engine. I'll wager you that your stock filter is at least one
and a half times the size this calculation suggest is required
(assuming it is stock). And the calculation is very conservative.
Working backwards through the K&N calculations for a 350 engine
turning at 5500 it can be shown that they are assuming an air flow of
560 cfm. This much air flow should be sufficient for a 450 hp engine.
So the K&N calculation is clearly for a very powerful engine - hardly
a normal production engine.