Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

(aside from the obvious tips on driving slower ...)

I've read a number of posts suggesting that a low restriction
cotton-gauze filter can marginally increase fuel economy and power.
I've heard other speak in favor of mods like cold air intake, headers,
cat-back exhaust providing marginal benefit.

Assuming that the maintenance is all kosher and the proper driving
techniques are in place, what mods (in the few hundred dollar range)
would hold some promise of delivering improved fuel economy for an '05
Accord LX i4 M5?
+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+

Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

Charles Lasitter wrote:

> Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?

Perhaps, but then you might shorten the engine's life span since you could
be reducing the filtering capacity of the intake system. If I remember
correctly, there have been some posts on this newsgroup of people stating
that their engines have starting to burn oil after driving around with these
"low restriction" intake systems for a while.

Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

Charles Lasitter wrote:

> Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?

Perhaps, but then you might shorten the engine's life span since you could
be reducing the filtering capacity of the intake system. If I remember
correctly, there have been some posts on this newsgroup of people stating
that their engines have starting to burn oil after driving around with these
"low restriction" intake systems for a while.

Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

"Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote in message news:443837E9.8E40DDC5@spam.now...
>
> Perhaps, but then you might shorten the engine's life span since you could
> be reducing the filtering capacity of the intake system. If I remember
> correctly, there have been some posts on this newsgroup of people stating
> that their engines have starting to burn oil after driving around with
> these
> "low restriction" intake systems for a while.

That could be one of the reasons every time I am behind one of the garbage
can muffler equipped cars, that I either smell the odour of burning oil or
am at a loss as to where the road is due to the cloud of oil smoke in front
of me.

Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

"Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote in message news:443837E9.8E40DDC5@spam.now...
>
> Perhaps, but then you might shorten the engine's life span since you could
> be reducing the filtering capacity of the intake system. If I remember
> correctly, there have been some posts on this newsgroup of people stating
> that their engines have starting to burn oil after driving around with
> these
> "low restriction" intake systems for a while.

That could be one of the reasons every time I am behind one of the garbage
can muffler equipped cars, that I either smell the odour of burning oil or
am at a loss as to where the road is due to the cloud of oil smoke in front
of me.

Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 15:23:37 -0700, Eric <say.no@spam.now> wrote:

> Perhaps, but then you might shorten the engine's life span since you could
> be reducing the filtering capacity of the intake system.

I'm not having that much luck finding empiracle data on this topic,
but this test of K&N filters was a start:

http://tinyurl.com/2jucn

The subject is not without controversy, but I'd love to see more
references to careful testing of the filtration and performance gains.
+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+

Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

On Sat, 08 Apr 2006 15:23:37 -0700, Eric <say.no@spam.now> wrote:

> Perhaps, but then you might shorten the engine's life span since you could
> be reducing the filtering capacity of the intake system.

I'm not having that much luck finding empiracle data on this topic,
but this test of K&N filters was a start:

http://tinyurl.com/2jucn

The subject is not without controversy, but I'd love to see more
references to careful testing of the filtration and performance gains.
+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+

Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
news:HfXZf.35135$K11.1881@clgrps12...
>
> "Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote in message
> news:443837E9.8E40DDC5@spam.now...
>>
>> Perhaps, but then you might shorten the engine's life span since you
>> could
>> be reducing the filtering capacity of the intake system. If I remember
>> correctly, there have been some posts on this newsgroup of people stating
>> that their engines have starting to burn oil after driving around with
>> these
>> "low restriction" intake systems for a while.
>
> That could be one of the reasons every time I am behind one of the garbage
> can muffler equipped cars, that I either smell the odour of burning oil or
> am at a loss as to where the road is due to the cloud of oil smoke in
> front of me.
>

We use the endearing term "Honda Turds"....

Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
news:HfXZf.35135$K11.1881@clgrps12...
>
> "Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote in message
> news:443837E9.8E40DDC5@spam.now...
>>
>> Perhaps, but then you might shorten the engine's life span since you
>> could
>> be reducing the filtering capacity of the intake system. If I remember
>> correctly, there have been some posts on this newsgroup of people stating
>> that their engines have starting to burn oil after driving around with
>> these
>> "low restriction" intake systems for a while.
>
> That could be one of the reasons every time I am behind one of the garbage
> can muffler equipped cars, that I either smell the odour of burning oil or
> am at a loss as to where the road is due to the cloud of oil smoke in
> front of me.
>

We use the endearing term "Honda Turds"....

Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

"Charles Lasitter" <spoof@address.com> wrote in message
news:pi3g329asb4l0qnjqe5hnoemk3klvro7q6@4ax.com...
> (aside from the obvious tips on driving slower ...)
>
> I've read a number of posts suggesting that a low restriction
> cotton-gauze filter can marginally increase fuel economy and power.
> I've heard other speak in favor of mods like cold air intake, headers,
> cat-back exhaust providing marginal benefit.
>
> Assuming that the maintenance is all kosher and the proper driving
> techniques are in place, what mods (in the few hundred dollar range)
> would hold some promise of delivering improved fuel economy for an '05
> Accord LX i4 M5?
> +-----------------------------------------+
> | Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
> | 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
> | cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
> +-----------------------------------------+

Cold air intake can help increase HP - but also uses more fuel to do it.
Unless the efficiency of the engine has magically improved, you need to put
more energy (gasoline) in to get more energy (HP) out. When you consider
that the engine in your '05 has been finely tuned to give you the best
balance of power, economy and driveability, it's hard to imagine that any
aftermarket bolt-on can do it better. My 2 cents worth.

Doug

Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

"Charles Lasitter" <spoof@address.com> wrote in message
news:pi3g329asb4l0qnjqe5hnoemk3klvro7q6@4ax.com...
> (aside from the obvious tips on driving slower ...)
>
> I've read a number of posts suggesting that a low restriction
> cotton-gauze filter can marginally increase fuel economy and power.
> I've heard other speak in favor of mods like cold air intake, headers,
> cat-back exhaust providing marginal benefit.
>
> Assuming that the maintenance is all kosher and the proper driving
> techniques are in place, what mods (in the few hundred dollar range)
> would hold some promise of delivering improved fuel economy for an '05
> Accord LX i4 M5?
> +-----------------------------------------+
> | Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
> | 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
> | cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
> +-----------------------------------------+

Cold air intake can help increase HP - but also uses more fuel to do it.
Unless the efficiency of the engine has magically improved, you need to put
more energy (gasoline) in to get more energy (HP) out. When you consider
that the engine in your '05 has been finely tuned to give you the best
balance of power, economy and driveability, it's hard to imagine that any
aftermarket bolt-on can do it better. My 2 cents worth.

Doug

Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Wh8_f.9270$%m4.7732@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m...
>
> We use the endearing term "Honda Turds"....

Fortunately, it's not only Honda products that have this problem.

Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

"L Alpert" <alpertl@xxsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Wh8_f.9270$%m4.7732@newssvr33.news.prodigy.co m...
>
> We use the endearing term "Honda Turds"....

Fortunately, it's not only Honda products that have this problem.

Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 10:21:37 -0400, "doug" <NOSPAM@SPAMFREE.com> wrote:

> When you consider that the engine in your '05 has been finely
> tuned to give you the best balance of power, economy and
> driveability, it's hard to imagine that any aftermarket bolt-on
> can do it better. My 2 cents worth.

I think you're largely correct, but it's worth bearing in mind that they
are engineering the car for the needs of a mass audience and doing so at
the lowest possible cost.

So in theory, at least, if you were willing to spend hundreds more on
the exhause system, or the air intake system, or another wad on the
suspension system, you might get a car more to your liking in terms of
specific aspects of performance or handling.

If a selective investment gives me a little better fuel economy, or a
little better performance at the same MPG, I'll take that as a win. At
least until I win the lottery, and then I'll forget about all the
tweaking, and just pop for a Beemer 550i.
+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+

Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
 

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 10:21:37 -0400, "doug" <NOSPAM@SPAMFREE.com> wrote:

> When you consider that the engine in your '05 has been finely
> tuned to give you the best balance of power, economy and
> driveability, it's hard to imagine that any aftermarket bolt-on
> can do it better. My 2 cents worth.

I think you're largely correct, but it's worth bearing in mind that they
are engineering the car for the needs of a mass audience and doing so at
the lowest possible cost.

So in theory, at least, if you were willing to spend hundreds more on
the exhause system, or the air intake system, or another wad on the
suspension system, you might get a car more to your liking in terms of
specific aspects of performance or handling.

If a selective investment gives me a little better fuel economy, or a
little better performance at the same MPG, I'll take that as a win. At
least until I win the lottery, and then I'll forget about all the
tweaking, and just pop for a Beemer 550i.
+-----------------------------------------+
| Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping |
| 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St |
| cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 |
+-----------------------------------------+