|
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 | +-----------------------------------------+ |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
Charles Lasitter <spoof@address.com> wrote in
news:flgi32lqfse3dui4t8bmuqleocoes3meo9@4ax.com: > 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. > WRT cold air intakes,they generate a lot more noise,and auto engineers are designing for a larger market that would not tolerate the extra noise. The same goes for low restriction exhaust systems. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
Charles Lasitter <spoof@address.com> wrote in
news:flgi32lqfse3dui4t8bmuqleocoes3meo9@4ax.com: > 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. > WRT cold air intakes,they generate a lot more noise,and auto engineers are designing for a larger market that would not tolerate the extra noise. The same goes for low restriction exhaust systems. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
Charles Lasitter <spoof@address.com> wrote in
news:o4og32t1c7p4t16sh0qmcptcpe9qfjjpoo@4ax.com: > 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 Here's a better one. http://home.usadatanet.net/%7Ejbploc...011/SPICER.htm A K&N filter will allow lots more dirt into your engine, grinding your rings, bores and bearings much more quickly. It will increase the amount of abrasive silica in your oil. It will gum up the IAC/EACV much more quickly. Any performance gains on a road-going Honda are likely to be measurable only with a dynamometer. Hondas, like most small-capacity 4-cylinder engines, do not have excessive intake restriction to begin with. > > The subject is not without controversy, but I'd love to see more > references to careful testing of the filtration and performance gains. See my link above. I would NEVER use a K&N on ANY Honda that I intended to make last for a long time. -- TeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
Charles Lasitter <spoof@address.com> wrote in
news:o4og32t1c7p4t16sh0qmcptcpe9qfjjpoo@4ax.com: > 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 Here's a better one. http://home.usadatanet.net/%7Ejbploc...011/SPICER.htm A K&N filter will allow lots more dirt into your engine, grinding your rings, bores and bearings much more quickly. It will increase the amount of abrasive silica in your oil. It will gum up the IAC/EACV much more quickly. Any performance gains on a road-going Honda are likely to be measurable only with a dynamometer. Hondas, like most small-capacity 4-cylinder engines, do not have excessive intake restriction to begin with. > > The subject is not without controversy, but I'd love to see more > references to careful testing of the filtration and performance gains. See my link above. I would NEVER use a K&N on ANY Honda that I intended to make last for a long time. -- TeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
On 10 Apr 2006 16:12:34 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:
> http://home.usadatanet.net/%7Ejbploc...011/SPICER.htm > A K&N filter will allow lots more dirt into your engine Everyone agrees that dirt in the oil is bad, and the URL you provided has information in the form of graphs, which is useful, but here's the question I have trouble with: Both had tests with ISO 5011 standards, and page I found used other standards for additional tests, and the results quoted there cast K&N in a more favorable light. So what are the key differences between the tests, and what is the rate of filtration that Honda sets as "good enough" for its engines? How does the factory issued filter perform? +-----------------------------------------+ | 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 10 Apr 2006 16:12:34 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:
> http://home.usadatanet.net/%7Ejbploc...011/SPICER.htm > A K&N filter will allow lots more dirt into your engine Everyone agrees that dirt in the oil is bad, and the URL you provided has information in the form of graphs, which is useful, but here's the question I have trouble with: Both had tests with ISO 5011 standards, and page I found used other standards for additional tests, and the results quoted there cast K&N in a more favorable light. So what are the key differences between the tests, and what is the rate of filtration that Honda sets as "good enough" for its engines? How does the factory issued filter perform? +-----------------------------------------+ | 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:
> On 10 Apr 2006 16:12:34 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote: > > >>http://home.usadatanet.net/%7Ejbploc...011/SPICER.htm > > > >>A K&N filter will allow lots more dirt into your engine > > > Everyone agrees that dirt in the oil is bad, and the URL you provided > has information in the form of graphs, which is useful, but here's the > question I have trouble with: > > Both had tests with ISO 5011 standards, and page I found used other > standards for additional tests, and the results quoted there cast K&N in > a more favorable light. > > So what are the key differences between the tests, and what is the rate > of filtration that Honda sets as "good enough" for its engines? How > does the factory issued filter perform? why don't you address the real point? hondas don't have restrictive intakes unlike say a 5.6L dodge whose ducting is narrower than a 1.5L civic. "cold air" is mostly unnecessary unless you're right at the top of the power band. and even then, in my experience, most people that consider themselves hot-shots off the lights change /way/ too early and /never/ get into a rev range where there could be any advantage. [not counting the stock system's advantages of resonance tuning of course.] i gun my [motor all stock] civic pretty hard, use the full rev range, and guess what, i can drag most riced civics up to about 60. why? because i have everything adjusted perfectly, /not/ because i ponce about with a stupid air intake that i don't need. save your money - use oem filtration and enjoy both better mid-range performance and longer engine life. |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
Charles Lasitter wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2006 16:12:34 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote: > > >>http://home.usadatanet.net/%7Ejbploc...011/SPICER.htm > > > >>A K&N filter will allow lots more dirt into your engine > > > Everyone agrees that dirt in the oil is bad, and the URL you provided > has information in the form of graphs, which is useful, but here's the > question I have trouble with: > > Both had tests with ISO 5011 standards, and page I found used other > standards for additional tests, and the results quoted there cast K&N in > a more favorable light. > > So what are the key differences between the tests, and what is the rate > of filtration that Honda sets as "good enough" for its engines? How > does the factory issued filter perform? why don't you address the real point? hondas don't have restrictive intakes unlike say a 5.6L dodge whose ducting is narrower than a 1.5L civic. "cold air" is mostly unnecessary unless you're right at the top of the power band. and even then, in my experience, most people that consider themselves hot-shots off the lights change /way/ too early and /never/ get into a rev range where there could be any advantage. [not counting the stock system's advantages of resonance tuning of course.] i gun my [motor all stock] civic pretty hard, use the full rev range, and guess what, i can drag most riced civics up to about 60. why? because i have everything adjusted perfectly, /not/ because i ponce about with a stupid air intake that i don't need. save your money - use oem filtration and enjoy both better mid-range performance and longer engine life. |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
"TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns97A17C35323DFtegger@207.14.113.17... > > Any performance gains on a road-going Honda are likely to be measurable > only with a dynamometer. Hondas, like most small-capacity 4-cylinder > engines, do not have excessive intake restriction to begin with. > Of course, any gasoline engine running at less than wide-open throttle has intake restriction, regardless of the air intake or filter... it's called a throttle plate. Any benefit of intake or exhaust mods can only be felt at full throttle and high rpms. I've never understood the attraction myself. Mike |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
"TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns97A17C35323DFtegger@207.14.113.17... > > Any performance gains on a road-going Honda are likely to be measurable > only with a dynamometer. Hondas, like most small-capacity 4-cylinder > engines, do not have excessive intake restriction to begin with. > Of course, any gasoline engine running at less than wide-open throttle has intake restriction, regardless of the air intake or filter... it's called a throttle plate. Any benefit of intake or exhaust mods can only be felt at full throttle and high rpms. I've never understood the attraction myself. Mike |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
news:Lo6dna2GL_5hv6bZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > Charles Lasitter wrote: >> On 10 Apr 2006 16:12:34 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote: >> >> >>>http://home.usadatanet.net/%7Ejbploc...011/SPICER.htm >> >> >> >>>A K&N filter will allow lots more dirt into your engine >> >> >> Everyone agrees that dirt in the oil is bad, and the URL you provided >> has information in the form of graphs, which is useful, but here's the >> question I have trouble with: >> >> Both had tests with ISO 5011 standards, and page I found used other >> standards for additional tests, and the results quoted there cast K&N in >> a more favorable light. >> >> So what are the key differences between the tests, and what is the rate >> of filtration that Honda sets as "good enough" for its engines? How >> does the factory issued filter perform? > > why don't you address the real point? hondas don't have restrictive > intakes I guess you never have removed the intake on one.They are restrictive AND suck hot underhood air.The intake makes all sorts of turns,has a resonator tank,and the final duct to the throttle body is corrugated,not smooth. > unlike say a 5.6L dodge whose ducting is narrower than a 1.5L > civic. "cold air" is mostly unnecessary unless you're right at the top > of the power band. Again,not true.I got much better low-end performance on my 94 Integra GSR,with a $60 chinese CAI off Ebay.It's filter is as good as the OEM filter.IIRC,they use the same material. You could feel the difference in performance. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
news:Lo6dna2GL_5hv6bZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > Charles Lasitter wrote: >> On 10 Apr 2006 16:12:34 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote: >> >> >>>http://home.usadatanet.net/%7Ejbploc...011/SPICER.htm >> >> >> >>>A K&N filter will allow lots more dirt into your engine >> >> >> Everyone agrees that dirt in the oil is bad, and the URL you provided >> has information in the form of graphs, which is useful, but here's the >> question I have trouble with: >> >> Both had tests with ISO 5011 standards, and page I found used other >> standards for additional tests, and the results quoted there cast K&N in >> a more favorable light. >> >> So what are the key differences between the tests, and what is the rate >> of filtration that Honda sets as "good enough" for its engines? How >> does the factory issued filter perform? > > why don't you address the real point? hondas don't have restrictive > intakes I guess you never have removed the intake on one.They are restrictive AND suck hot underhood air.The intake makes all sorts of turns,has a resonator tank,and the final duct to the throttle body is corrugated,not smooth. > unlike say a 5.6L dodge whose ducting is narrower than a 1.5L > civic. "cold air" is mostly unnecessary unless you're right at the top > of the power band. Again,not true.I got much better low-end performance on my 94 Integra GSR,with a $60 chinese CAI off Ebay.It's filter is as good as the OEM filter.IIRC,they use the same material. You could feel the difference in performance. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
news:Lo6dna2GL_5hv6bZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > Charles Lasitter wrote: >> On 10 Apr 2006 16:12:34 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote: >> >> >>>http://home.usadatanet.net/%7Ejbploc...011/SPICER.htm >> >> >> >>>A K&N filter will allow lots more dirt into your engine >> >> >> Everyone agrees that dirt in the oil is bad, and the URL you provided >> has information in the form of graphs, which is useful, but here's the >> question I have trouble with: >> >> Both had tests with ISO 5011 standards, and page I found used other >> standards for additional tests, and the results quoted there cast K&N in >> a more favorable light. >> >> So what are the key differences between the tests, and what is the rate >> of filtration that Honda sets as "good enough" for its engines? How >> does the factory issued filter perform? > > why don't you address the real point? hondas don't have restrictive > intakes unlike say a 5.6L dodge whose ducting is narrower than a 1.5L > civic. "cold air" is mostly unnecessary unless you're right at the top > of the power band. to add to my previous post;Honda Tuning Magazine flowbench and dynoTESTED CAIs and short ram intakes and documented the power and torque gains. With a benchmark test of the OEM system to compare against. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
news:Lo6dna2GL_5hv6bZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t: > Charles Lasitter wrote: >> On 10 Apr 2006 16:12:34 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote: >> >> >>>http://home.usadatanet.net/%7Ejbploc...011/SPICER.htm >> >> >> >>>A K&N filter will allow lots more dirt into your engine >> >> >> Everyone agrees that dirt in the oil is bad, and the URL you provided >> has information in the form of graphs, which is useful, but here's the >> question I have trouble with: >> >> Both had tests with ISO 5011 standards, and page I found used other >> standards for additional tests, and the results quoted there cast K&N in >> a more favorable light. >> >> So what are the key differences between the tests, and what is the rate >> of filtration that Honda sets as "good enough" for its engines? How >> does the factory issued filter perform? > > why don't you address the real point? hondas don't have restrictive > intakes unlike say a 5.6L dodge whose ducting is narrower than a 1.5L > civic. "cold air" is mostly unnecessary unless you're right at the top > of the power band. to add to my previous post;Honda Tuning Magazine flowbench and dynoTESTED CAIs and short ram intakes and documented the power and torque gains. With a benchmark test of the OEM system to compare against. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:cPWdnZVMScgavqbZRVn-tg@sedona.net: > "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message > news:Xns97A17C35323DFtegger@207.14.113.17... >> >> Any performance gains on a road-going Honda are likely to be >> measurable only with a dynamometer. Hondas, like most small-capacity >> 4-cylinder engines, do not have excessive intake restriction to begin >> with. >> > > Of course, any gasoline engine running at less than wide-open throttle > has intake restriction, regardless of the air intake or filter... it's > called a throttle plate. Any benefit of intake or exhaust mods can > only be felt at full throttle and high rpms. I've never understood the > attraction myself. > > Mike > > altering the length of the intake alters the HP and torque at any given RPM,and ingesting colder air allows the ECU to add more fuel,making more power,regardless of what RPM. Honda Tuning Magazine's dyno test graphs showed that,in their intake systems testing a couple of years ago. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:cPWdnZVMScgavqbZRVn-tg@sedona.net: > "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message > news:Xns97A17C35323DFtegger@207.14.113.17... >> >> Any performance gains on a road-going Honda are likely to be >> measurable only with a dynamometer. Hondas, like most small-capacity >> 4-cylinder engines, do not have excessive intake restriction to begin >> with. >> > > Of course, any gasoline engine running at less than wide-open throttle > has intake restriction, regardless of the air intake or filter... it's > called a throttle plate. Any benefit of intake or exhaust mods can > only be felt at full throttle and high rpms. I've never understood the > attraction myself. > > Mike > > altering the length of the intake alters the HP and torque at any given RPM,and ingesting colder air allows the ECU to add more fuel,making more power,regardless of what RPM. Honda Tuning Magazine's dyno test graphs showed that,in their intake systems testing a couple of years ago. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message news:Xns97A1F3CF4D460jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83.. . > "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in > news:cPWdnZVMScgavqbZRVn-tg@sedona.net: > >> "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message >> news:Xns97A17C35323DFtegger@207.14.113.17... >>> >>> Any performance gains on a road-going Honda are likely to be >>> measurable only with a dynamometer. Hondas, like most small-capacity >>> 4-cylinder engines, do not have excessive intake restriction to begin >>> with. >>> >> >> Of course, any gasoline engine running at less than wide-open throttle >> has intake restriction, regardless of the air intake or filter... it's >> called a throttle plate. Any benefit of intake or exhaust mods can >> only be felt at full throttle and high rpms. I've never understood the >> attraction myself. >> >> Mike >> >> > > altering the length of the intake alters the HP and torque at any given > RPM,and ingesting colder air allows the ECU to add more fuel,making more > power,regardless of what RPM. > Honda Tuning Magazine's dyno test graphs showed that,in their intake > systems testing a couple of years ago. > > -- > Jim Yanik > jyanik > at > kua.net You're missing the point of the OP - he wants a little more power and a little better economy. If "colder air allows the ECU to add more fuel" he's going to lose MPG, not gain. The point of whether or not he gets more HP out of a CAI is moot. Doug |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message news:Xns97A1F3CF4D460jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83.. . > "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in > news:cPWdnZVMScgavqbZRVn-tg@sedona.net: > >> "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message >> news:Xns97A17C35323DFtegger@207.14.113.17... >>> >>> Any performance gains on a road-going Honda are likely to be >>> measurable only with a dynamometer. Hondas, like most small-capacity >>> 4-cylinder engines, do not have excessive intake restriction to begin >>> with. >>> >> >> Of course, any gasoline engine running at less than wide-open throttle >> has intake restriction, regardless of the air intake or filter... it's >> called a throttle plate. Any benefit of intake or exhaust mods can >> only be felt at full throttle and high rpms. I've never understood the >> attraction myself. >> >> Mike >> >> > > altering the length of the intake alters the HP and torque at any given > RPM,and ingesting colder air allows the ECU to add more fuel,making more > power,regardless of what RPM. > Honda Tuning Magazine's dyno test graphs showed that,in their intake > systems testing a couple of years ago. > > -- > Jim Yanik > jyanik > at > kua.net You're missing the point of the OP - he wants a little more power and a little better economy. If "colder air allows the ECU to add more fuel" he's going to lose MPG, not gain. The point of whether or not he gets more HP out of a CAI is moot. Doug |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:31:07 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> i gun my [motor all stock] civic pretty hard, use the full rev > range, and guess what, i can drag most riced civics up to about > 60. why? because i have everything adjusted perfectly, /not/ > because i ponce about with a stupid air intake that i don't need. > save your money - use oem filtration and enjoy both better > mid-range performance and longer engine life. In addition to the advertising hype there are obviously different opinions on the issue of filters and CAIs, and this exchange of views is almost exactly what I was hoping for. I'm really not expecting any of these mods to pay for themselves in terms of fuel economy, and I am not interested in HP gains that are so small they can be measured on a dyno but not felt. The factory setup is almost always going to be best for the largest number of drivers, and I appreciate your comments. One thing I find curious is the absence of CAI listings for '05 2.4L Accords. I was just out trying to follow the air inlet path, and it seems to end just forward of the drivers front wheelwell. It's shielded, no doubt to protect against water ingestion, but it seems that this location would normally provide it with a source for (relatively) cold air. +-----------------------------------------+ | 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 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:31:07 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> i gun my [motor all stock] civic pretty hard, use the full rev > range, and guess what, i can drag most riced civics up to about > 60. why? because i have everything adjusted perfectly, /not/ > because i ponce about with a stupid air intake that i don't need. > save your money - use oem filtration and enjoy both better > mid-range performance and longer engine life. In addition to the advertising hype there are obviously different opinions on the issue of filters and CAIs, and this exchange of views is almost exactly what I was hoping for. I'm really not expecting any of these mods to pay for themselves in terms of fuel economy, and I am not interested in HP gains that are so small they can be measured on a dyno but not felt. The factory setup is almost always going to be best for the largest number of drivers, and I appreciate your comments. One thing I find curious is the absence of CAI listings for '05 2.4L Accords. I was just out trying to follow the air inlet path, and it seems to end just forward of the drivers front wheelwell. It's shielded, no doubt to protect against water ingestion, but it seems that this location would normally provide it with a source for (relatively) cold air. +-----------------------------------------+ | 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?
"doug" <NOSPAM@SPAMFREE.com> wrote in
news:45udnZEjjatiMKbZ4p2dnA@comcast.com: > > "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message > news:Xns97A1F3CF4D460jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83.. . >> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in >> news:cPWdnZVMScgavqbZRVn-tg@sedona.net: >> >>> "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message >>> news:Xns97A17C35323DFtegger@207.14.113.17... >>>> >>>> Any performance gains on a road-going Honda are likely to be >>>> measurable only with a dynamometer. Hondas, like most >>>> small-capacity 4-cylinder engines, do not have excessive intake >>>> restriction to begin with. >>>> >>> >>> Of course, any gasoline engine running at less than wide-open >>> throttle has intake restriction, regardless of the air intake or >>> filter... it's called a throttle plate. Any benefit of intake or >>> exhaust mods can only be felt at full throttle and high rpms. I've >>> never understood the attraction myself. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >> >> altering the length of the intake alters the HP and torque at any >> given RPM,and ingesting colder air allows the ECU to add more >> fuel,making more power,regardless of what RPM. >> Honda Tuning Magazine's dyno test graphs showed that,in their intake >> systems testing a couple of years ago. >> >> -- >> Jim Yanik >> jyanik >> at >> kua.net > > You're missing the point of the OP - he wants a little more power and > a little better economy. If "colder air allows the ECU to add more > fuel" he's going to lose MPG, not gain. The point of whether or not he > gets more HP out of a CAI is moot. > > Doug > > > You don't get increased power AND increased fuel economy at the same time. However,having more power output at a given throttle opening,you can back off on the throttle and use less fuel and not suffer a performance loss(from original). With the added benefit of having more power available when wanted. IMO,driving -style- is more influential on fuel economy,gentler starts and coasting when possible do more for fuel economy than any mods. Sure,he could strip out excess weight like insulation,unused seats,clean out the trunk,no spare tire,but that's impractical.(and unwise) -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
"doug" <NOSPAM@SPAMFREE.com> wrote in
news:45udnZEjjatiMKbZ4p2dnA@comcast.com: > > "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message > news:Xns97A1F3CF4D460jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.83.. . >> "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in >> news:cPWdnZVMScgavqbZRVn-tg@sedona.net: >> >>> "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message >>> news:Xns97A17C35323DFtegger@207.14.113.17... >>>> >>>> Any performance gains on a road-going Honda are likely to be >>>> measurable only with a dynamometer. Hondas, like most >>>> small-capacity 4-cylinder engines, do not have excessive intake >>>> restriction to begin with. >>>> >>> >>> Of course, any gasoline engine running at less than wide-open >>> throttle has intake restriction, regardless of the air intake or >>> filter... it's called a throttle plate. Any benefit of intake or >>> exhaust mods can only be felt at full throttle and high rpms. I've >>> never understood the attraction myself. >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >> >> altering the length of the intake alters the HP and torque at any >> given RPM,and ingesting colder air allows the ECU to add more >> fuel,making more power,regardless of what RPM. >> Honda Tuning Magazine's dyno test graphs showed that,in their intake >> systems testing a couple of years ago. >> >> -- >> Jim Yanik >> jyanik >> at >> kua.net > > You're missing the point of the OP - he wants a little more power and > a little better economy. If "colder air allows the ECU to add more > fuel" he's going to lose MPG, not gain. The point of whether or not he > gets more HP out of a CAI is moot. > > Doug > > > You don't get increased power AND increased fuel economy at the same time. However,having more power output at a given throttle opening,you can back off on the throttle and use less fuel and not suffer a performance loss(from original). With the added benefit of having more power available when wanted. IMO,driving -style- is more influential on fuel economy,gentler starts and coasting when possible do more for fuel economy than any mods. Sure,he could strip out excess weight like insulation,unused seats,clean out the trunk,no spare tire,but that's impractical.(and unwise) -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
Charles Lasitter <spoof@address.com> wrote in
news:adan321ji8rps081d3o471j5hmhtr4jb0g@4ax.com: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:31:07 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote: > >> i gun my [motor all stock] civic pretty hard, use the full rev >> range, and guess what, i can drag most riced civics up to about >> 60. why? because i have everything adjusted perfectly, /not/ >> because i ponce about with a stupid air intake that i don't need. >> save your money - use oem filtration and enjoy both better >> mid-range performance and longer engine life. > > In addition to the advertising hype there are obviously different > opinions on the issue of filters and CAIs, and this exchange of views is > almost exactly what I was hoping for. > > I'm really not expecting any of these mods to pay for themselves in > terms of fuel economy, and I am not interested in HP gains that are so > small they can be measured on a dyno but not felt. Honda Tuning Magazine's tests got 20 hp gains on an RSX with the CAIs,5-7 hp with short rams.I could definitely feel the gain on my GSR after the CAI was put in. IMO,a short ram was not worth the trouble or cost. > > The factory setup is almost always going to be best for the largest > number of drivers, and I appreciate your comments. > > One thing I find curious is the absence of CAI listings for '05 2.4L > Accords. I was just out trying to follow the air inlet path, and it > seems to end just forward of the drivers front wheelwell. Like in my Integra,you may find that the intake curves UP into the top of the fender and back into the engine compartment,along with a resonator tank in that wheelwell area.The Type-R difference is that the pipe ends at the top inside of the fender,not reentering the engine compartment.The length of the intake piping increases low-end torque,I've read. > > It's shielded, no doubt to protect against water ingestion, but it seems > that this location would normally provide it with a source for > (relatively) cold air. Not when the pipe loops back into the engine compartment.(like my Integra) One Integra modder had a diagram of the Integra intake plumbing on their website,and a copy of the Type-R's intake,too. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
Charles Lasitter <spoof@address.com> wrote in
news:adan321ji8rps081d3o471j5hmhtr4jb0g@4ax.com: > On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:31:07 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote: > >> i gun my [motor all stock] civic pretty hard, use the full rev >> range, and guess what, i can drag most riced civics up to about >> 60. why? because i have everything adjusted perfectly, /not/ >> because i ponce about with a stupid air intake that i don't need. >> save your money - use oem filtration and enjoy both better >> mid-range performance and longer engine life. > > In addition to the advertising hype there are obviously different > opinions on the issue of filters and CAIs, and this exchange of views is > almost exactly what I was hoping for. > > I'm really not expecting any of these mods to pay for themselves in > terms of fuel economy, and I am not interested in HP gains that are so > small they can be measured on a dyno but not felt. Honda Tuning Magazine's tests got 20 hp gains on an RSX with the CAIs,5-7 hp with short rams.I could definitely feel the gain on my GSR after the CAI was put in. IMO,a short ram was not worth the trouble or cost. > > The factory setup is almost always going to be best for the largest > number of drivers, and I appreciate your comments. > > One thing I find curious is the absence of CAI listings for '05 2.4L > Accords. I was just out trying to follow the air inlet path, and it > seems to end just forward of the drivers front wheelwell. Like in my Integra,you may find that the intake curves UP into the top of the fender and back into the engine compartment,along with a resonator tank in that wheelwell area.The Type-R difference is that the pipe ends at the top inside of the fender,not reentering the engine compartment.The length of the intake piping increases low-end torque,I've read. > > It's shielded, no doubt to protect against water ingestion, but it seems > that this location would normally provide it with a source for > (relatively) cold air. Not when the pipe loops back into the engine compartment.(like my Integra) One Integra modder had a diagram of the Integra intake plumbing on their website,and a copy of the Type-R's intake,too. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
Re: Lower restriction filter / cold air intake = better MPG?
On 11 Apr 2006 16:31:14 GMT, Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
> and coasting when possible ... for fuel economy This is another topic I'm interested in, so I'm starting another thread on it. +-----------------------------------------+ | Charles Lasitter | Mailing/Shipping | | 401/728-1987 | 14 Cooke St | | cl+at+ncdm+dot+com | Pawtucket RI 02860 | +-----------------------------------------+ |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:34 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands