A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Ford Mustang
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mustang GT and K&N air charger



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 15th 08, 08:23 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Michael Johnson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,039
Default Mustang GT and K&N air charger

Gill wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
>> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
>> news:OoQij.6492$6F6.2631@trndny09...
>>> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
>>> news:478b5998$1@kcnews01...
>>>> "mrsunshine" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> I would like to know if anyone has experience with the K&N 63 series
>>>>> aircharger system on a Mustang GT. Is the reported 15 hp boost
>>>>> there? More importantly, has anyone had challenges with their Ford
>>>>> warranty as a result of installing this item? Thanks!
>>>> See http://home.mindspring.com/~ed_white/id5.html for my opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>> While I agree K&N filters are a potentially dangerous and certainly a
>>> pain in the ass, this statement "Claims of greatly improved fuel
>>> mileage for K&N Filters are bogus." Is absolutely FALSE!
>>>
>>> I still have the mileage records of every fill up for a 1994 Taurus
>>> SHO that I bought new with 7 miles on it, to over 70,000 miles. This
>>> car was a daily driver commuter car that went 70 mostly freeway miles
>>> each weekday. The first 25,000 miles it consistently recorded 24.5
>>> MPG each fill up. A K&N air filter was installed into the stock air
>>> box, zero other changes. The fuel mileage took an immediate (and
>>> documented over 50,000 miles) jump up to 26.5 MPG, and stayed there.

>>
>> But why? Explain how the K&N could increase fuel economy on a fuel
>> injected engine. Except at WOT, the air filter restriction is trivial
>> compared to the throttle restriction. The MAF and other part of the FI
>> control system are measuring the mass of flow through the induction
>> tract, and they don't know whether the flow is restricted by the air
>> filter or the throttle plate. With an older carbureted engine, I can
>> see how a restricted air filter upsets the fuel air ratio and affects
>> gas mileage. This is not the case for modern fuel injected engines. I
>> don't know why your mileage jumped, but I suspect other factors are at
>> play.

>
> 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.

> I do however see a two mile per gallon decrease when using the now,
> "required by law in Oregon" E10. ****es me off!


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 to fill our tanks and at the same time increase the
cost of food substantially. I would rather eat for a reasonable cost
than fill up my tank with something that gives me less mileage, for
about the same cost, than evil old 100% gasoline.

>>> I personally would NEVER use a K&N oil bath air filter again. My
>>> preference is to filter my intake air as well as I possibly can and I
>>> don't think the K&N's do that as well as the stock paper filters....
>>> But throwing out a blanket statement that fuel mileage gains from
>>> their use are bogus, is simply bogus. You may or may not like K&N
>>> filters, I don't, but for crying out loud, don't post bull**** about
>>> them.

>>
>> I don't believe my opinion is BS. I don't see any reason to expect a
>> K&N filter to increase the fuel economy of a modern fuel injected
>> engine. Not even K&N makes the claim that their filters will increase
>> fuel mileage Go read K&N's carefully worded FAQ on this subject
>> (http://www.knfilters.com/faq.htm#1) - "we do not go so far as to make
>> a general claim that our air filters and intake systems will provide
>> an increase in mileage." K&N is willing to let you think their filters
>> might increase fuel mileage, but they are not so foolish as to claim
>> that they will.
>>
>> Ed
>>

>
>

Ads
  #12  
Old January 15th 08, 08:28 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Michael Johnson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,039
Default Mustang GT and K&N air charger

C. E. White wrote:
> "Gill" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>> I do however see a two mile per gallon decrease when using the now,
>> "required by law in Oregon" E10. ****es me off!

>
> Are you really seeing a 2 mpg decrease when using E10? Ethanol has
> about 85% as much energy as gasoline, so I would guess E10 has about
> 98.5% as much energy as plain old gas. Assuming the gas suppliers are
> keeping the octane the same (i.e., using the octane improvement
> related to ethanol to use lower octane gasoline for the other 90% of
> the blend), I would guess your mileage should only decrease by 4% at
> the most. A 2 mpg decrease on 25 mpg is an 8% decrease. This seems
> like an unreasonably high decrease for a modern fuel injected vehicle.
> Of course if you have an older carbureted vehicle, then the use of E10
> screws up everything and a larger decrease is certainly possible (and
> even likely).


It could be the engine control electronics and programming that causes a
further reduction in mileage. Unless the engine is increasing the
ignition timing to take advantage of the higher octane rating of ethanol
it might reduce mileage even further. Also, I wonder if they use a
lower octane gasoline to mix with the alcohol to end up with 87 octane.
If that is the case then there is no benefit to be had from blending
in the ethanol, only a loss of specific energy when compared to 100%
gasoline.
  #13  
Old January 15th 08, 10:25 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
C. E. White[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Mustang GT and K&N air charger


"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.

Ed


  #14  
Old January 16th 08, 01:24 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Michael Johnson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,039
Default Mustang GT and K&N air charger

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.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/...4/article.html
http://tinyurl.com/2a9v2
http://tinyurl.com/2hyeyx
http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/doer/pub_info/dt.pdf

There are a huge number of sites stating that a dirty filter decreases
mileage. There is more than just a MAF reading that the computer uses
to determine the amount of fuel needed. Air density, throttle position,
air temperature etc. also come into play. Excessive opening of the
throttle plate on a fuel injected car also tells the computer the engine
is under a greater load which effects how much fuel is delivered to the
cylinders.

I'm not saying a K&N filter will give a noticeable improvement in gas
mileage over an OEM unit but with all things being equal the engine with
a more efficient filter will perform better. Do you think an engine
with a dirty air filter would pass an emissions test? If so then why not?
  #15  
Old January 16th 08, 01:43 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 565
Default Mustang GT and K&N air charger

On Jan 15, 1:23 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
> Gill 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

Patrick
  #16  
Old January 16th 08, 02:12 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Gill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Mustang GT and K&N air charger

C. E. White wrote:
> "Gill" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>> I do however see a two mile per gallon decrease when using the now,
>> "required by law in Oregon" E10. ****es me off!

>
> Are you really seeing a 2 mpg decrease when using E10? Ethanol has
> about 85% as much energy as gasoline, so I would guess E10 has about
> 98.5% as much energy as plain old gas. Assuming the gas suppliers are
> keeping the octane the same (i.e., using the octane improvement
> related to ethanol to use lower octane gasoline for the other 90% of
> the blend), I would guess your mileage should only decrease by 4% at
> the most. A 2 mpg decrease on 25 mpg is an 8% decrease. This seems
> like an unreasonably high decrease for a modern fuel injected vehicle.
> Of course if you have an older carbureted vehicle, then the use of E10
> screws up everything and a larger decrease is certainly possible (and
> even likely).
>
> Ed
>
>


My 97 Ranger was getting between 17-18mpg and now is around 16, so maybe
not quite 2mpg.
Could be winter oxygenated fuel too, I don't know?

--
Tropic Green Y2K Mustang GT
W/bits & pieces
http://tinyurl.com/2uqoat
  #17  
Old January 16th 08, 02:42 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Gill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Mustang GT and K&N air charger

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.

--
Tropic Green Y2K Mustang GT
W/bits & pieces
http://tinyurl.com/2uqoat
  #18  
Old January 16th 08, 04:05 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
WindsorFox-{SS}-[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Mustang GT and K&N air charger

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

--
"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
  #19  
Old January 16th 08, 04:47 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Michael Johnson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,039
Default Mustang GT and K&N air charger

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.
  #20  
Old January 16th 08, 05:00 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang
Michael Johnson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,039
Default Mustang GT and K&N air charger

wrote:
> On Jan 15, 1:23 pm, Michael Johnson > wrote:
>> Gill 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. Top soil can be depleted to the
point it can't grow much which is why farmers so much fertilizer to
their land.

>> 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.

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.

>> 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.

Countries can't fight each other anymore. 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? IMO, terrorism is a much
bigger threat than war between nations.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Repost for new a.b.p.a. members: 1971 Charger 1966 Charger (2001 WW@WD DCTC).jpg 199556 bytes HEMI-Powered @ [email protected] Auto Photos 0 February 28th 07 12:18 PM
New Charger vs New Mustang? mudpucket Chrysler 8 June 30th 06 09:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.