Mustang GT and K&N air charger

> wrote in message
...
> 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

I agree completely, but I think we approach it wrong. Instead of conserving
oil we should be using it as fast as possible. The quicker we burn it up
the sooner we will be forced to find an alternative. All happens when we
conserve is to pay more tomorrow for the same thing we could have bought for
less today.

Ironrod wrote:
> Not until it reaches the point where it can no longer flow enough air to
> meet the engine's needs.
>

Ok who and what part of that kludge of text are you replying to???
Havn't you been here long enough to catch on??

>
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> So you claim a dirty filter doesn't reduce mileage?
>>
>> Ironrod wrote:
>>> I knew this was hopeless when he made the absurd assertion that you get
> more
>>> horsepower (which he incorrectly associates with fuel economy) just by
>>> changing the exhaust.
>>>
>>> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
>>> news:47a2312a$1@kcnews01...
>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Haven't we beat this to death between us? I was replying to WF
>>>>> because you and I are never going to agree on this issue.
>>>> We beat it to death long ago. I just can't turn away. You clearly
>>>> don't understand how modern feedback fuel injection systems work and
>>>> because of this you are drawing bad conclusions. Foolishly, I hope I
>>>> can make a subtle change in my arguments so that you can understand
>>>> that unless you are at wide open throttle, the restriction of the air
>>>> filter is largely irrelevant as far as the performance of the engine
>>>> is concerned. Except at WOT, the throttle plate is the final
>>>> adjustment to the air flow rate. If you increase the restriction in
>>>> another part of the intake tract, you can open the throttle a little
>>>> more to get the same overall flow restriction. This doesn't effect
>>>> fuel economy because the PCM has the ability to correct the A/F ratio
>>>> based on the output of the O2 sensors (as long as the restriction is
>>>> not so gross as to set the malfunction indicator). The system is
>>>> designed to be able to compensate for changes like increasing air
>>>> filter restriction, drift in the response of the various sensors,
>>>> altitude, etc. Compared to other changes over time, a minor increase
>>>> in the flow restriction related to the air filter is trivial. Until
>>>> you understand this, you'll continue to draw the wrong conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>


--
"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

Ironrod wrote:
> "WindsorFox" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ironrod wrote:
>>> I knew this was hopeless when he made the absurd assertion that you get
> more
>>> horsepower (which he incorrectly associates with fuel economy) just by
>>> changing the exhaust.
>> My truck did and I can actually feel the difference in my Mustang
>> between 6" pipes off the mufflers and pipes that go all the way out the
>> back.
>>
>> --
>> "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
>
> I made a similar mistake myself, I replaced the stock 2.25" pipes with 2.5".
> In a flat out drag race they could be said to be an improvement. In real
> world part throttle driving I discovered that I had lost a lot of low end
> torque, this really became apparent when driving along I 80 going to Reno
> NV. I found myself constantly downshifting on hills that previously the car
> could climb with no effort. (This blows the hell out of your mileage by the
> way.) It wasn't until I replaced the 2.5" mufflers with 2.25" that I
> regained that lost bottom end.
>
>
>

Well I never saw anything like that. But I changed intake cam and
heads shortly after on the Mustang. On my truck I went to an over all
less restrictive exhaust and with the Volant air breather gained a bit.
I estimate about 18HP give or take, but on the 04-06 modle there was a
very poorly designed Y pipe. Of course it's obvious that the Titans do
not start off with what Nissan says they do in the first place, much to
the dismay of many a Hemi owner.

--
"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

I can't claim to be totally blameless but he top posted so I top posted.


"WindsorFox" > wrote in message
...
> Ironrod wrote:
> > Not until it reaches the point where it can no longer flow enough air to
> > meet the engine's needs.
> >
>
> Ok who and what part of that kludge of text are you replying to???
> Havn't you been here long enough to catch on??

I can't claim to be totally blameless but he top posted so I top posted.
>
> >
> > "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> So you claim a dirty filter doesn't reduce mileage?
> >>
> >> Ironrod wrote:
> >>> I knew this was hopeless when he made the absurd assertion that you
get
> > more
> >>> horsepower (which he incorrectly associates with fuel economy) just by
> >>> changing the exhaust.
> >>>
> >>> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> >>> news:47a2312a$1@kcnews01...
> >>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>> Haven't we beat this to death between us? I was replying to WF
> >>>>> because you and I are never going to agree on this issue.
> >>>> We beat it to death long ago. I just can't turn away. You clearly
> >>>> don't understand how modern feedback fuel injection systems work and
> >>>> because of this you are drawing bad conclusions. Foolishly, I hope I
> >>>> can make a subtle change in my arguments so that you can understand
> >>>> that unless you are at wide open throttle, the restriction of the air
> >>>> filter is largely irrelevant as far as the performance of the engine
> >>>> is concerned. Except at WOT, the throttle plate is the final
> >>>> adjustment to the air flow rate. If you increase the restriction in
> >>>> another part of the intake tract, you can open the throttle a little
> >>>> more to get the same overall flow restriction. This doesn't effect
> >>>> fuel economy because the PCM has the ability to correct the A/F ratio
> >>>> based on the output of the O2 sensors (as long as the restriction is
> >>>> not so gross as to set the malfunction indicator). The system is
> >>>> designed to be able to compensate for changes like increasing air
> >>>> filter restriction, drift in the response of the various sensors,
> >>>> altitude, etc. Compared to other changes over time, a minor increase
> >>>> in the flow restriction related to the air filter is trivial. Until
> >>>> you understand this, you'll continue to draw the wrong conclusion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ed
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "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

"Ironrod" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ironrod wrote:
>> > "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> C. E. White wrote:
>> >>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >>>
>> >>>> Haven't we beat this to death between us? I was replying to WF
>> >>>> because you and I are never going to agree on this issue.
>> >>> We beat it to death long ago. I just can't turn away. You clearly
>> >>> don't understand how modern feedback fuel injection systems work and
>> >>> because of this you are drawing bad conclusions. Foolishly, I hope I
>> >>> can make a subtle change in my arguments so that you can understand
>> >>> that unless you are at wide open throttle, the restriction of the air
>> >>> filter is largely irrelevant as far as the performance of the engine
>> >>> is concerned. Except at WOT, the throttle plate is the final
>> >>> adjustment to the air flow rate. If you increase the restriction in
>> >>> another part of the intake tract, you can open the throttle a little
>> >>> more to get the same overall flow restriction. This doesn't effect
>> >>> fuel economy because the PCM has the ability to correct the A/F ratio
>> >>> based on the output of the O2 sensors (as long as the restriction is
>> >>> not so gross as to set the malfunction indicator). The system is
>> >>> designed to be able to compensate for changes like increasing air
>> >>> filter restriction, drift in the response of the various sensors,
>> >>> altitude, etc. Compared to other changes over time, a minor increase
>> >>> in the flow restriction related to the air filter is trivial. Until
>> >>> you understand this, you'll continue to draw the wrong conclusion.
>> >> Ed, let it go. Mileage doesn't drop from a dirty filter at some
> magical
>> >> point. It is a gradual reduction that gets progressively more
>> >> noticeable as the filter collects more dirt.
>> >
>> > That's not true, there is a knee point in the curve. As long as the
> filter
>> > is capable of delivering more air than the engine is capable of
> demanding
>> > then the percentage of blockage is not a factor. Once the blockage
> exceeds
>> > a certain amount then you will experience a power roll off as you
> approach
>> > WOT. As far as mileage is concerned there should be little or no
> change,
>> > (at cruising speeds) as the fuel mixture is relatively constant because
> of
>> > the electronics.
>>
>> The air filter is a restriction to air flow under ALL CONDITIONS. This
>> is an undeniable fact. As it gets dirty is becomes a larger and larger
>> restriction. This restriction affects performance under all conditions.
>> How much varies with the conditions and the efficiency of the filter.
>> An engine is an air pump. Anytime the pump can move more air it makes
>> more power and becomes more efficient.
>
> Approach it this way, imagine walking down a hallway 10 foot square with
> its
> sides converging. As you move towards the end the corridor gets narrower
> until you can no longer pass. Now as long as you remain in the portion of
> the hallway that is as large or larger than you are, you can run back and
> forth at whatever speed you feel like. It won't be until you reach the
> point where your start rubbing up against the walls that your forward
> progress will be slowed. So goes the Air Filter, as it becomes dirtier
> the
> walls close in, so to speak, but still you can move about freely. It
> won't
> be until after the walls have narrowed to the point that you can no longer
> walk upright that your movement is significantly impeded.
>
>
Your example assumes that the clean filter provides ZERO restriction, that
just isn't so.

"Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
...

> The air filter is a restriction to air flow under ALL CONDITIONS.
> This is an undeniable fact. As it gets dirty is becomes a larger
> and larger restriction. This restriction affects performance under
> all conditions. How much varies with the conditions and the
> efficiency of the filter. An engine is an air pump. Anytime the
> pump can move more air it makes more power and becomes more
> efficient.

You keep saying "more efficient." In what way is it more efficient. I
agree that a restrictive air filter can limit maximum power (by
limiting MAXIMUM air flow). I do not agree that it will affect fuel
economy to a measurable degree as long as it is not grossly
restrictive (i.e., it has been serviced properly per the manufacturers
design intent).

You just can't seen to get your arms around the idea that for a modern
fuel injected engine the restriction imposed by the air filter is no
different than the restriction imposed by the throttle plate. The
entire intake tract restriction is what matters, not just the air
filter. You also seem to have an exaggerated idea of how restrictive
air filters may be when properly service. We are talking about
differences of a few tenths of a PSI at the maximum flow rate. At
cruise, the difference in restriction is trivial. Until you understand
this, you will continue to draw bad conclusions. Modern feedback
controlled EFI engines are easily able to adjust to compensate for all
sorts of changes over time - changes in altitude and sensor drift
being the most significant. When it comes to correcting the A/F ratio
because of changes over time, the change in air filter restriction
over time is so trivial it is below the noise range for other factors.

Ed

I have given my views and opinions over and over again in this thread.
All I am doing now is repeating myself. I went through it with Ed and I
don't have the time or inclination to do it all over again with someone
else. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it there. I'd still have
a beer with you or Ed even though we strongly disagree on this topic.

Ironrod wrote:
> Not until it reaches the point where it can no longer flow enough air to
> meet the engine's needs.
>
>
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> So you claim a dirty filter doesn't reduce mileage?
>>
>> Ironrod wrote:
>>> I knew this was hopeless when he made the absurd assertion that you get
> more
>>> horsepower (which he incorrectly associates with fuel economy) just by
>>> changing the exhaust.
>>>
>>> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
>>> news:47a2312a$1@kcnews01...
>>>> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Haven't we beat this to death between us? I was replying to WF
>>>>> because you and I are never going to agree on this issue.
>>>> We beat it to death long ago. I just can't turn away. You clearly
>>>> don't understand how modern feedback fuel injection systems work and
>>>> because of this you are drawing bad conclusions. Foolishly, I hope I
>>>> can make a subtle change in my arguments so that you can understand
>>>> that unless you are at wide open throttle, the restriction of the air
>>>> filter is largely irrelevant as far as the performance of the engine
>>>> is concerned. Except at WOT, the throttle plate is the final
>>>> adjustment to the air flow rate. If you increase the restriction in
>>>> another part of the intake tract, you can open the throttle a little
>>>> more to get the same overall flow restriction. This doesn't effect
>>>> fuel economy because the PCM has the ability to correct the A/F ratio
>>>> based on the output of the O2 sensors (as long as the restriction is
>>>> not so gross as to set the malfunction indicator). The system is
>>>> designed to be able to compensate for changes like increasing air
>>>> filter restriction, drift in the response of the various sensors,
>>>> altitude, etc. Compared to other changes over time, a minor increase
>>>> in the flow restriction related to the air filter is trivial. Until
>>>> you understand this, you'll continue to draw the wrong conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> Ed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
>

Michael Johnson wrote:
> I have given my views and opinions over and over again in this thread.
> All I am doing now is repeating myself. I went through it with Ed and I
> don't have the time or inclination to do it all over again with someone
> else. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it there. I'd still have
> a beer with you or Ed even though we strongly disagree on this topic.
>


Hey LQQK!! PenisPill spammers are arrested....
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02...pharmacy_bust/

--
"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

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:47a85992$1@kcnews01...
>
> "Michael Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> The air filter is a restriction to air flow under ALL CONDITIONS. This is
>> an undeniable fact. As it gets dirty is becomes a larger and larger
>> restriction. This restriction affects performance under all conditions.
>> How much varies with the conditions and the efficiency of the filter. An
>> engine is an air pump. Anytime the pump can move more air it makes more
>> power and becomes more efficient.
>
> You keep saying "more efficient." In what way is it more efficient. I
> agree that a restrictive air filter can limit maximum power (by limiting
> MAXIMUM air flow). I do not agree that it will affect fuel economy to a
> measurable degree as long as it is not grossly restrictive (i.e., it has
> been serviced properly per the manufacturers design intent).
>
> You just can't seen to get your arms around the idea that for a modern
> fuel injected engine the restriction imposed by the air filter is no
> different than the restriction imposed by the throttle plate. The

You just don't get it Ed, certainly it's not different, but it is in
addition to the throttle plate. It is an additional restriction! All
filters cause a flow restriction, regardless of their flow capacities!


> entire intake tract restriction is what matters, not just the air

Exactly, and the entire intake system is an accumulative restriction, each
individual restriction has it's own distinct effect. Simple airflow
dynamics at work here.


> filter. You also seem to have an exaggerated idea of how restrictive air
> filters may be when properly service. We are talking about

EVERY SINGLE brand new clean air filter ADDS restriction to the system
regardless of it flow rate abilities.

> differences of a few tenths of a PSI at the maximum flow rate. At

Yet...

> cruise, the difference in restriction is trivial. Until you understand
> this, you will continue to draw bad conclusions. Modern feedback
> controlled EFI engines are easily able to adjust to compensate for all
> sorts of changes over time - changes in altitude and sensor drift being
> the most significant. When it comes to correcting the A/F ratio because of
> changes over time, the change in air filter restriction over time is so
> trivial it is below the noise range for other factors.
>
> Ed
>

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
news:629qj.3475$eD3.1942@trndny05...

>> You just can't seen to get your arms around the idea that for a modern
>> fuel injected engine the restriction imposed by the air filter is no
>> different than the restriction imposed by the throttle plate. The
>
> You just don't get it Ed, certainly it's not different, but it is in
> addition to the throttle plate. It is an additional restriction! All
> filters cause a flow restriction, regardless of their flow capacities!

I absolutely get it. Tell me why you think the filter restriction affects
fuel economy more than the throttle plate.

>> entire intake tract restriction is what matters, not just the air
>
> Exactly, and the entire intake system is an accumulative restriction, each
> individual restriction has it's own distinct effect. Simple airflow
> dynamics at work here.

And again, why do you seem to believe the restriction of a properly serviced
air filter has a significant effect on fuel economy?

>> filter. You also seem to have an exaggerated idea of how restrictive air
>> filters may be when properly service. We are talking about
>
> EVERY SINGLE brand new clean air filter ADDS restriction to the system
> regardless of it flow rate abilities.

Absolutely true, but the restriction is trivial as far as it's effects the
ability of the PCM to adjust the A/F Ratio. For a properly serviced air
filter the pressure drop across the filter at WOT will be around 0.5 psi or
less (for a stock engine). At part throttle operation, the pressure drop
across the filter is likely to be in the hundredths of a psi range. The only
time the small restriction of the air filter is going to be meaningful is
when the throttle is wide open. Even then, the air filter restriction is
likely to be less than a fraction of the total restriction from air intake
to cylinder. Assuming the engine is in good condition and the PCM has
completed a drive cycle so that it can learn the long term fuel trim, the
A/F Ratio will not be out of the acceptable range even when running in open
loop mode. PCMs incorporate long term fuel trim parameters to compensate for
changes in engine parameters (sensor drift, air filter restriction,
increased back pressure in the exhaust, increased flow from the PCV system,
etc). The long term fuel trim is learned when the car is running in closed
loop and is used to modify the original look-up table fuel delivery
parameters. While in closed loop mode, the A/F ratio is continually adjusted
based on the feedback from the O2 system. Closed loop mode is the primary
operating mode of the vehicle, and the only one that really matters as far
as average fuel economy is concerned. The time spent in open loop mode is
trivial for most street vehicles.

>> differences of a few tenths of a PSI at the maximum flow rate. At
>
> Yet...
>
>> cruise, the difference in restriction is trivial. Until you understand
>> this, you will continue to draw bad conclusions. Modern feedback
>> controlled EFI engines are easily able to adjust to compensate for all
>> sorts of changes over time - changes in altitude and sensor drift being
>> the most significant. When it comes to correcting the A/F ratio because
>> of changes over time, the change in air filter restriction over time is
>> so trivial it is below the noise range for other factors.
>>
>> Ed

One more time - I am not claiming that the filter restriction will not
reduce maximum air flow and therefore possibly reduce maximum power. I agree
that it may. I am only saying that a properly serviced air filter will not
have a measurable effect on fuel economy. The change in the restriction of
the air filter over time is an insignificant factor as far as the ability of
the PCM to properly adjust the A/F Ratio is concerned.

Ed