Mustang GT and K&N air charger

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
>I think we will have to agree to disagree.
>
> Ed White wrote:
>><snip>

I was really looking forward to you picking out the mileages were the air
filter was changed...

Ed

Ed White wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I think we will have to agree to disagree.
>>
>> Ed White wrote:
>>> <snip>
>
> I was really looking forward to you picking out the mileages were the air
> filter was changed...

I never said the variation in mileage was great over the recommended
life span of the filter. Only that there is variation. There are many
other things that can effect mileage more so your numbers don't show
anything unless you let the filter get very dirty. Even the time of
year you buy gas affects mileage more than many things can. I can go
through an refute every point you made but I've already done it so what
is the use of doing it again? We have beat the horse, it is dead and
now it is starting to look like hamburger.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> Ed White wrote:
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I think we will have to agree to disagree.
>>>
>>> Ed White wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>
>> I was really looking forward to you picking out the mileages were the air
>> filter was changed...
>
> I never said the variation in mileage was great over the recommended life
> span of the filter. Only that there is variation. There are many other
> things that can effect mileage more so your numbers don't show anything
> unless you let the filter get very dirty. Even the time of year you buy
> gas affects mileage more than many things can. I can go through an refute
> every point you made but I've already done it so what is the use of doing
> it again? We have beat the horse, it is dead and now it is starting to
> look like hamburger.

I guess you are right, it is just a shame to see someone who can't grasp
basic facts. All of your arguments seemed to depend on large variations in
air filter restriction. A K&N provides a trivial improvement, certainly down
in the noise range as far as the PCM of a modern fuel injected engine is
concerned. Even K&N admits that a dirty K&N won't flow as well as a clean
paper filter (see http://www.fuelinjection.net/kne/kne_test.htm ). You can't
seem to grasp the idea that for any sort of reasonable air filter
restriction, the source of the total intake restriction (filter, plumbing,
throttle, valves) is all that matters. If the air filter is a little more
restrictive, then the throttle is just a little more open and the total air
flow is the same. You seem to hang your whole argument on the throttle
position sensor. I completely refuted this claim by providing you with the
reference values for a Mustang TPS. No other sensor will even be slightly
affected.

Good luck.

Ed

Ed White wrote:
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ed White wrote:
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I think we will have to agree to disagree.
>>>>
>>>> Ed White wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>> I was really looking forward to you picking out the mileages were the air
>>> filter was changed...
>> I never said the variation in mileage was great over the recommended life
>> span of the filter. Only that there is variation. There are many other
>> things that can effect mileage more so your numbers don't show anything
>> unless you let the filter get very dirty. Even the time of year you buy
>> gas affects mileage more than many things can. I can go through an refute
>> every point you made but I've already done it so what is the use of doing
>> it again? We have beat the horse, it is dead and now it is starting to
>> look like hamburger.
>
> I guess you are right, it is just a shame to see someone who can't grasp
> basic facts. All of your arguments seemed to depend on large variations in
> air filter restriction. A K&N provides a trivial improvement, certainly down
> in the noise range as far as the PCM of a modern fuel injected engine is
> concerned. Even K&N admits that a dirty K&N won't flow as well as a clean
> paper filter (see http://www.fuelinjection.net/kne/kne_test.htm ). You can't
> seem to grasp the idea that for any sort of reasonable air filter
> restriction, the source of the total intake restriction (filter, plumbing,
> throttle, valves) is all that matters. If the air filter is a little more
> restrictive, then the throttle is just a little more open and the total air
> flow is the same. You seem to hang your whole argument on the throttle
> position sensor. I completely refuted this claim by providing you with the
> reference values for a Mustang TPS. No other sensor will even be slightly
> affected.

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.

On Jan 12, 1:41*pm, mrsunshine > wrote:
> 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!

Wow, what a response K&N causes! Bottom line, there's no way, no how
that a panel air filter that fits a stock air box will add 15hp...even
with the Mustang marginally sized filter box (which is identical to
V6's). If any filter safely added 15hp, every car manufacturer in the
world would use it!

The proof is in the pudding, so check out the excellent "Cold Score"
article on the subject in 5.0 Mustang & Super Fords Magazine at
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/tec...ons/index.html

Engines are essentially an air pump. The more air in & out, the more
fuel that can be ignited...and the more fuel, the more power. That is
the scientific fact that K&N hangs on. However for a filter to
determine the power output means it for one, the stock filter is the
weakest link in the intake system (now wouldn't that be a silly
engineering decision with all that goes into a modern engine?) and
that increased air flow will automatically increase fuel demanded by
the engine (while a carburettor would siphon more gas with increased
air flow, this just isn't the case with today's computer controlled
fuel-injected engines.)

Today's Mustangs have elaborrate computer controls that need to be
reprogrammed (i.e. a new "chip") in order to take advantage of added
air flow. Otherwise increased air flow will simply "lean out" the
critical air-fuel ratio. That isn't good. Lean AF ratio can harm the
engine, and likely REDUCE power.

Furthermore, increased airflow through an indentically sized filter
DEMANDS larger spaces in its mesh. Larger spaces means larger
particles. Do you really want larger particles in your engine? It is
far better to enlarge the filter's surface area (& retain the same
level of filtration) to pass more air.

There's a reason Ford's SVT engineers went with a CAI to generate the
added 15hp for the Shelby GT's & the upcoming '08 Bullitt. Don't
believe the hype...and that includes the fanboys & haters too.

Michael Johnson wrote:

> Ed White wrote:
>
>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Ed White wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> I think we will have to agree to disagree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ed White wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> I was really looking forward to you picking out the mileages were
>>>> the air filter was changed...
>>>
>>> I never said the variation in mileage was great over the recommended
>>> life span of the filter. Only that there is variation. There are
>>> many other things that can effect mileage more so your numbers don't
>>> show anything unless you let the filter get very dirty. Even the
>>> time of year you buy gas affects mileage more than many things can.
>>> I can go through an refute every point you made but I've already done
>>> it so what is the use of doing it again? We have beat the horse, it
>>> is dead and now it is starting to look like hamburger.
>>
>>
>> I guess you are right, it is just a shame to see someone who can't
>> grasp basic facts. All of your arguments seemed to depend on large
>> variations in air filter restriction. A K&N provides a trivial
>> improvement, certainly down in the noise range as far as the PCM of a
>> modern fuel injected engine is concerned. Even K&N admits that a dirty
>> K&N won't flow as well as a clean paper filter (see
>> http://www.fuelinjection.net/kne/kne_test.htm ). You can't seem to
>> grasp the idea that for any sort of reasonable air filter restriction,
>> the source of the total intake restriction (filter, plumbing,
>> throttle, valves) is all that matters. If the air filter is a little
>> more restrictive, then the throttle is just a little more open and the
>> total air flow is the same. You seem to hang your whole argument on
>> the throttle position sensor. I completely refuted this claim by
>> providing you with the reference values for a Mustang TPS. No other
>> sensor will even be slightly affected.
>
>
> 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.

Maybe so, but repeating the same claim over and over does not impress me
as much as seeing results of testing on a modern FIE engine would. Do you
have a URL for such a test report? The URL you gave earlier did not
contain any test data; only dogmatic statements.
--
Cheers, Bob

Bob Willard wrote:
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>
>> Ed White wrote:
>>
>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Ed White wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we will have to agree to disagree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed White wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was really looking forward to you picking out the mileages were
>>>>> the air filter was changed...
>>>>
>>>> I never said the variation in mileage was great over the recommended
>>>> life span of the filter. Only that there is variation. There are
>>>> many other things that can effect mileage more so your numbers don't
>>>> show anything unless you let the filter get very dirty. Even the
>>>> time of year you buy gas affects mileage more than many things can.
>>>> I can go through an refute every point you made but I've already
>>>> done it so what is the use of doing it again? We have beat the
>>>> horse, it is dead and now it is starting to look like hamburger.
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess you are right, it is just a shame to see someone who can't
>>> grasp basic facts. All of your arguments seemed to depend on large
>>> variations in air filter restriction. A K&N provides a trivial
>>> improvement, certainly down in the noise range as far as the PCM of a
>>> modern fuel injected engine is concerned. Even K&N admits that a
>>> dirty K&N won't flow as well as a clean paper filter (see
>>> http://www.fuelinjection.net/kne/kne_test.htm ). You can't seem to
>>> grasp the idea that for any sort of reasonable air filter
>>> restriction, the source of the total intake restriction (filter,
>>> plumbing, throttle, valves) is all that matters. If the air filter is
>>> a little more restrictive, then the throttle is just a little more
>>> open and the total air flow is the same. You seem to hang your whole
>>> argument on the throttle position sensor. I completely refuted this
>>> claim by providing you with the reference values for a Mustang TPS.
>>> No other sensor will even be slightly affected.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Maybe so, but repeating the same claim over and over does not impress me
> as much as seeing results of testing on a modern FIE engine would. Do you
> have a URL for such a test report? The URL you gave earlier did not
> contain any test data; only dogmatic statements.

Go find one yourself if it is that important to you. It isn't my job to
do your research. Find me a reference that says a dirty air filter
doesn't cause ANY DROP in gas mileage.

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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
>

Ed, you are speculating on theory alone, where is your data on this? You
are mistaken on this issue. There are volumes of data proving that improved
air flow increases horsepower and fuel mileage in modern fuel injected
automobiles. Do a simple web search the data is overwhelming. How the hell
do you think a multi-billion dollar aftermarket industry consistently sells
millions of air flow improvement parts? They can't all be snake oil...

My documented 2 mile per gallon fuel mileage increase was absolutely
attributable to improved air flow from the K&N air filter, Your skepticism
does not alter that. It is a known fact that most early Ford EFI mid 80's
to late 90's cars indeed suffered from restricted intake air flow. As to
carbureted engines, I have run K&N air filters on 302, 351, 429 and 460
carbureted engines, and never documented a fuel mileage increase. I have
documented fuel mileage records for all of my vehicles. I keep track of
each tank full of fuel for each vehicle I own in a small log book in the
glove box, I have done so since my second car as a teenager. My mileage and
maintenance records are NOT speculation.

"Bob Willard" > wrote in message
...
> Michael Johnson wrote:
>
>> Bob Willard wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> None of those sites listed states that the effect of a dirty air filter
>>> on gas mileage applies to FI engines with MAF sensors. It seems rather
>>> likely
>>> to me that those sites are merely repeating what was true with
>>> carburated
>>> engines as still being true, without retesting or even remodeling.
>>
>>
>> These web sites were developed after EFI was common place. The .gov site
>> is from the US Dept. of Energy and is very current. The Edmunds site is
>> also very current. The last one is put up by the State of Massachusetts.
>> These aren't old out of date web sites. Do a Google search and you'll
>> have weeks of reading that tells you that dirty air filters decrease gas
>> mileage on ALL cars.
>>
> 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?
>
> --
> Cheers, Bob

Christ Bob,
Can you find a site that says dirty air filters DON'T decrease mileage?

"Ed White" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.

For how many tanks full of gas? Where is their test criteria?
This one reference to some unknown so far undocumented clean versus dirty
filter comparison is meaningless without more information.



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
>

Besides, the 3.0 liter SHO engines heads flowed more CFM of air per cylinder
than the two barrel 5.8 (351) liter Cleveland V-8. The stock airflow system
was simply inadequate, if the stock air flow exceeds the engines
requirement, your position could look reasonable. When it does not (as with
SHO), the engines maximum EFFICIENCY can not be achieved, no matter what the
engine management system does. Think racing restrictor plates here. The
stock filter in my case with the SHO was a physical restriction to maximum
efficiency.

ED, you are off the mark on this one.

Here are a few links of Dyno documented air flow improvements with resulting
efficiency increases on MAF EFI engines. Note all current stock engine
management systems cannot adjust for improved airflow.

The first step was to get some base horsepower numbers. Our first dyno run
with the car netted 455.4 horsepower and 433.2 lb-ft torque. According to
Adam, this falls right in line with several other tests he has done with
stock GT500's. Next up was installing the K&N kit. Installation was very
simple, and the K&N intake bolts into the stock location and fits nicely
under the strut tower brace as claimed. With the new intake installed, we
put the car back on the dyno to get the new numbers. The result? 483.5
horsepower and 453.6 lb-ft torque, a gain of 28.1 horsepower and 20.4 lb-ft
torque.
http://musclecarnews.tenmagazines.co...ticle&aid=3684

Turns out, we should be more trusting. You see, the air filter we inspected
the first time looked fine because the delamination problem isn't visible.
SVT Engineering Manager Bill Woebkenberg later explained that the problem
isn't obvious because it doesn't occur until there's significant flow
through the filter, which causes its pleats to flutter. According to
Woebkenberg, the affected filters create an unequal distribution of air
through the engine's mass airflow meter. This causes the meter to tell the
engine control computer that too much air is reaching the engine, which
causes conservative fuel and spark delivery and reduces power. But what
about the 16-hp difference? AIR FLOW!
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=118839

Dyno testing the 2005 GT has shown that the computer is so sensitive to
airflow changes that a computer modification is necessary in order to
control the air/fuel ratio at the proper level. Installing this air intake
assembly on a 2005 GT without any tuning will result in a leaner-than-ideal
14:1 air/fuel ratio. While certainly not lean enough to cause engine
durability concerns, it is leaner than what is desired for optimum
performance. Even when replacing the air filter ONLY to a higher flow
assembly, the air/fuel ratio leans out at an alarming rate.
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/revie...hp/product/394