Mustang GT and K&N air charger

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

To start with I have 70,000 miles of detailed records that say it does.


>
>>> 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?

Again, I have 70,000 miles of detailed records that say it does.

>
>>> 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

It has nothing to do with wide open throttle! My car gained 2 miles per
gallon from a simple filter element change, and like saw WOT for a total of
5 or 10 of those 70,000 miles.

> less (for a stock engine). At part throttle operation, the pressure drop

It was a bone stock engine.

> 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

BULL****!

> 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

I'm sure it did by 20,000 - 70,000 miles at 70+ miles a day.


> 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

I am saying you are WRONG, My detailed records show the exact opposite to be
true...



> 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
>

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
news:3gdqj.3496$eD3.667@trndny05...

>> 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.

> I am saying you are WRONG, My detailed records show the exact opposite to
> be true...

I am not wrong, at least in the general case. So why do you think there is a
difference? What is your explantion? Do you think your PCM wasn't able to
maintain the correct A/F ratio? Without seeing your data, and knowing what
was changed, I can't say you are right or wrong for your specific situation.
However, I keep records on all my vehicles, and I've never seen any
indication in a change in fuel mileage related to changing air filters.
Consumer Reports recently tested fuel economy "myths" and came to the same
conclusion - dirty air filters (and I am talking about normally dirty
filters, not some widly plugged filter) don't measurably effect fuel
economy. The operating mode of modern fuel injection system is designed to
handle changes in vehicle operating parameters and adjust the A/F ratio to
the proper range (as determined by the vehicle manufacturer). If the system
can't maintain the proper A/F ratio, then it should set the check engine
light. If the A/F ratio is in the proper range, and assuming the vehicle is
being operated in the same manner, the fuel economy should not change. If
you are claiming that just changing the air filter significantly affected
your fuel economy, then I would suspect that either something was wrong with
your car, or that you changed your driving style.

Ed

During the 70's I had a Yamaha RD-350 which I installed K+N filters on(yes
kids they made filters back then for cycles mainly).I went from 105 main
jets to 165 mains with just this change.It absolutely would not run on top
end with the new filters on and stock jets,so I have to surmise sometimes
stock airboxes dont flow so well.....
"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:478cb602$1@kcnews01...
>
> "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.
>
> > 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
>
>

scott and barb wrote:
> During the 70's I had a Yamaha RD-350 which I installed K+N filters on(yes
> kids they made filters back then for cycles mainly).I went from 105 main
> jets to 165 mains with just this change.It absolutely would not run on top
> end with the new filters on and stock jets,so I have to surmise sometimes
> stock airboxes dont flow so well.....
> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> news:478cb602$1@kcnews01...
>> "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.
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>

The stock RD boxes were very restrictive and I had to replace the small
jets with bigger ones (can't remember the sizes) also.
I used two paper cone filters though, not K&N.
That was my second Yamaha "Road Death"

--
Tropic Green Y2K Mustang GT
W/bits & pieces
http://tinyurl.com/2uqoat

"scott and barb" .> wrote in message
...
> During the 70's I had a Yamaha RD-350 which I installed K+N filters on(yes
> kids they made filters back then for cycles mainly).I went from 105 main
> jets to 165 mains with just this change.It absolutely would not run on top
> end with the new filters on and stock jets,so I have to surmise sometimes
> stock airboxes dont flow so well.....

Carbureted two stroke - not what I am talking about. Intake restrictions can
definitely effect fuel economy of a carbureted engine, and when you are
dealing with two strokes...who knows - they are extremely sensitive to
changes to the air path.

Ed

In case you are intersted, you can see my fuel economy records at
http://home.mindspring.com/~cewhite3/.

Ed

"Ed White" > wrote in message
...
>
> "scott and barb" .> wrote in message
> ...
>> During the 70's I had a Yamaha RD-350 which I installed K+N filters
>> on(yes
>> kids they made filters back then for cycles mainly).I went from 105 main
>> jets to 165 mains with just this change.It absolutely would not run on
>> top
>> end with the new filters on and stock jets,so I have to surmise sometimes
>> stock airboxes dont flow so well.....
>
> Carbureted two stroke - not what I am talking about. Intake restrictions
> can definitely effect fuel economy of a carbureted engine, and when you
> are dealing with two strokes...who knows - they are extremely sensitive to
> changes to the air path.
>
> Ed
>

Evidently so is a four stroke dual intake runner 4 valve per cylinder
computer controlled EFI engine...

"My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
news:EHxqj.3545$eD3.2349@trndny05...

> Evidently so is a four stroke dual intake runner 4 valve per
> cylinder computer controlled EFI engine...

There is no reason that it should be. In fact, if the feedback system
is functioning as designed there should be very little change in the
A/F ratio no matter what you do to the intake. If the PCM can't
maintain the proper A/F ratio, then it should set the check engine
light.

Ed

I know all that, reminiscing and pointing out an example of intake flow
obstruction.My example was wrong I believe it 190 mains for the RD (high 13
second quarter mile, fastest 60 to zero deceleration times of the era)
"Ed White" > wrote in message
...
>
> "scott and barb" .> wrote in message
> ...
> > During the 70's I had a Yamaha RD-350 which I installed K+N filters
on(yes
> > kids they made filters back then for cycles mainly).I went from 105 main
> > jets to 165 mains with just this change.It absolutely would not run on
top
> > end with the new filters on and stock jets,so I have to surmise
sometimes
> > stock airboxes dont flow so well.....
>
> Carbureted two stroke - not what I am talking about. Intake restrictions
can
> definitely effect fuel economy of a carbureted engine, and when you are
> dealing with two strokes...who knows - they are extremely sensitive to
> changes to the air path.
>
> Ed
>
>

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
news:47ab010f$1@kcnews01...
>
> "My Name Is Nobody" > wrote in message
> news:EHxqj.3545$eD3.2349@trndny05...
>
>> Evidently so is a four stroke dual intake runner 4 valve per cylinder
>> computer controlled EFI engine...
>
> There is no reason that it should be. In fact, if the feedback system is
> functioning as designed there should be very little change in the A/F
> ratio no matter what you do to the intake. If the PCM can't maintain the
> proper A/F ratio, then it should set the check engine light.
>
> Ed

BULL****!

I've posted three different links to documented dyno tuning of new FORD cars
with simple new air intake systems, that exceed the PCM's ability to
properly adjust the air fuel ratio without changing the programming. There
are many many more links showing the same. If indeed these peoples
information (dyno charts with A/F ratios) indicating a filter changing DOES
cause the PCM to run the air fuel ratio TOO LEAN, is held up against your
undocumented insistences that the PCM can maintain the proper A/F ratio,
seems like you are wrong.