|
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 |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:50 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands