Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
#166
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:40:21 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> lack of comprehension. projection of own inadequacy. get help.
>>>
>>> You can't even remember what you said 5 posts ago,,,
>> au contraire, that's /your/ problem. and worse, you can't even use google.
>
> Sure I can. Why would I have to?
>
>
so you don't make mistakes like not reading something pertinent to the
article? or claiming someone said something when they didn't? checking
facts? you know, little stuff like that.
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:40:21 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> lack of comprehension. projection of own inadequacy. get help.
>>>
>>> You can't even remember what you said 5 posts ago,,,
>> au contraire, that's /your/ problem. and worse, you can't even use google.
>
> Sure I can. Why would I have to?
>
>
so you don't make mistakes like not reading something pertinent to the
article? or claiming someone said something when they didn't? checking
facts? you know, little stuff like that.
#167
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:40:36 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> you'll never have a chance of fixing a problem if you don't realize you
>>>> have one. you have a problem. go fix it.
>>>
>>> I'm trying, but you keep coming back for more...
>>>
>>>
>> no, i'm serious. you need to work with a professional.
>
> I am a professional. There's a name for it.
eh? you need to see a mental health professional. preferably one
skilled in helping the educationally subnormal.
> Are you now using a body
> hammer with a sharp point on it?
>
>
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:40:36 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> you'll never have a chance of fixing a problem if you don't realize you
>>>> have one. you have a problem. go fix it.
>>>
>>> I'm trying, but you keep coming back for more...
>>>
>>>
>> no, i'm serious. you need to work with a professional.
>
> I am a professional. There's a name for it.
eh? you need to see a mental health professional. preferably one
skilled in helping the educationally subnormal.
> Are you now using a body
> hammer with a sharp point on it?
>
>
#168
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:36:15 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> no, i'm serious. you need to work with a professional.
>>
>> I am a professional. There's a name for it.
>
> eh? you need to see a mental health professional. preferably one skilled
> in helping the educationally subnormal.
I'm trying to help one. But he keeps bludgeoning himself with a blunt
hammer.
>>> no, i'm serious. you need to work with a professional.
>>
>> I am a professional. There's a name for it.
>
> eh? you need to see a mental health professional. preferably one skilled
> in helping the educationally subnormal.
I'm trying to help one. But he keeps bludgeoning himself with a blunt
hammer.
#169
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:34:20 -0700, jim beam wrote:
> hachiroku wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:40:21 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>>> lack of comprehension. projection of own inadequacy. get help.
>>>>
>>>> You can't even remember what you said 5 posts ago,,,
>>> au contraire, that's /your/ problem. and worse, you can't even use
>>> google.
>>
>> Sure I can. Why would I have to?
>>
>>
>>
> so you don't make mistakes like not reading something pertinent to the
> article? or claiming someone said something when they didn't? checking
> facts? you know, little stuff like that.
Don't have to. I'm dealing with someone who disregards the recommendations
in his Owner's Manual.
> hachiroku wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:40:21 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>>> lack of comprehension. projection of own inadequacy. get help.
>>>>
>>>> You can't even remember what you said 5 posts ago,,,
>>> au contraire, that's /your/ problem. and worse, you can't even use
>>> google.
>>
>> Sure I can. Why would I have to?
>>
>>
>>
> so you don't make mistakes like not reading something pertinent to the
> article? or claiming someone said something when they didn't? checking
> facts? you know, little stuff like that.
Don't have to. I'm dealing with someone who disregards the recommendations
in his Owner's Manual.
#170
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:32:02 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier
>>> than the stock air box.
>>>
>>>
>> Most cars used an oil-bath air cleaner up until about 1955. It was a
>> round tank with a "U" profile. A matching, inverted tank was inserted
>> in the first tank. The first tank held about a pint of engine oil and
>> the second tank was packed with steel wool. The air made two 180 degree
>> shifts in direction which helped to drop the dust and dirt into the oil.
>> Vibration would splash the oil up on the steel wool which also helped
>> filter the air.
>>
>> The filter system worked great
>
> actually, they don't work very well.
Read the first sentance of the quoted section.
>>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier
>>> than the stock air box.
>>>
>>>
>> Most cars used an oil-bath air cleaner up until about 1955. It was a
>> round tank with a "U" profile. A matching, inverted tank was inserted
>> in the first tank. The first tank held about a pint of engine oil and
>> the second tank was packed with steel wool. The air made two 180 degree
>> shifts in direction which helped to drop the dust and dirt into the oil.
>> Vibration would splash the oil up on the steel wool which also helped
>> filter the air.
>>
>> The filter system worked great
>
> actually, they don't work very well.
Read the first sentance of the quoted section.
#171
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:32:53 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> I work in a mining area with lots of dust. After I read that study, I
>>> went back to a good paper filter.
>>>
>>>
>> I didn't have that problem. I had read all the evidence pro and con and
>> kept a good eye on the filter. It never got really dirty.
>
> that's non-quantitative. but you won't care if science means nothing.
Let's see...science says more dirt will pass with one of these filters.
Inspections say no more than the stock filter get through.
Common sense says, the few particles that do get through are extremely
fine, and will most likely burn up and/or get discharged through the
exhaust valves without doing any damage.
Probably less damage than 12,000 mile oil is doing.
>>> I work in a mining area with lots of dust. After I read that study, I
>>> went back to a good paper filter.
>>>
>>>
>> I didn't have that problem. I had read all the evidence pro and con and
>> kept a good eye on the filter. It never got really dirty.
>
> that's non-quantitative. but you won't care if science means nothing.
Let's see...science says more dirt will pass with one of these filters.
Inspections say no more than the stock filter get through.
Common sense says, the few particles that do get through are extremely
fine, and will most likely burn up and/or get discharged through the
exhaust valves without doing any damage.
Probably less damage than 12,000 mile oil is doing.
#172
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:33:47 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> What do you think of someone who changes his oil every 12,000 miles
>> based on a couple of analysis?
>>
>> That guy's a fool...
>
> that's right, science means nothing!!!
Not at all. Science is great. I hear they're working on brain transplants.
I'd take a look into it if I were you...
>> What do you think of someone who changes his oil every 12,000 miles
>> based on a couple of analysis?
>>
>> That guy's a fool...
>
> that's right, science means nothing!!!
Not at all. Science is great. I hear they're working on brain transplants.
I'd take a look into it if I were you...
#173
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
In article <%HP0k.6360$%Z1.4068@trnddc05>,
"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N00One187@NoWhere.Com> wrote:
> Consider filling up your tank and not letting it drop below halfway, instead
> of keeping it on low and only putting in 2 gallons here and there...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361347,00.html
>
> Not because you could run out of gas and get stranded but because repeatedly
> running on low tends to ruin the fuel pump.
On our news tonight they interviewed an overly heavy chap who said he
only put about $25 of fuel in his truck. He said that was so if the
truck failed he wouldn't waste so much gas. >
They didn't get his (must be a trash gas eater) into the video.
"Don't Taze Me, Bro!" <N00One187@NoWhere.Com> wrote:
> Consider filling up your tank and not letting it drop below halfway, instead
> of keeping it on low and only putting in 2 gallons here and there...
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361347,00.html
>
> Not because you could run out of gas and get stranded but because repeatedly
> running on low tends to ruin the fuel pump.
On our news tonight they interviewed an overly heavy chap who said he
only put about $25 of fuel in his truck. He said that was so if the
truck failed he wouldn't waste so much gas. >
They didn't get his (must be a trash gas eater) into the video.
#174
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:11:58 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>> I work in a mining area with lots of dust. After I read that study, I
>> went back to a good paper filter.
>>
>
> I didn't have that problem. I had read all the evidence pro and con and
> kept a good eye on the filter. It never got really dirty.
There is only one pro for the K&N: Initial restriction. Every other
parametric is a con for the K&N - including it's relative inability to
catch the dirt right out of the box and oiled - worst out of 9 filters
tested. So keeping an eye on it didn't make it any better.
All I'm saying is that if people think they are getting any benefit out
of a K&N *OTHER* *THAN* lower restriction, then they are fooling
themselves. And the lower restriction is only initially - once it
catches more than 150 gms of dirt, its restriction goes thru the roof
and far surpasses that of paper filters with much more dirt already
trapped. And a lot more dirt will have been let thru into the engine by
the K&N by that point. I don't tell anyone not to use K&N - I just say
look at the truth, not the hype, and if you decide that less restriction
is a high priority and preventing dirt from going into the engine (and
cleaning it often won't change that) is a low priority for you, then, by
all means use it. Your decision will not be made out of ignorance and hype.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:11:58 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>> I work in a mining area with lots of dust. After I read that study, I
>> went back to a good paper filter.
>>
>
> I didn't have that problem. I had read all the evidence pro and con and
> kept a good eye on the filter. It never got really dirty.
There is only one pro for the K&N: Initial restriction. Every other
parametric is a con for the K&N - including it's relative inability to
catch the dirt right out of the box and oiled - worst out of 9 filters
tested. So keeping an eye on it didn't make it any better.
All I'm saying is that if people think they are getting any benefit out
of a K&N *OTHER* *THAN* lower restriction, then they are fooling
themselves. And the lower restriction is only initially - once it
catches more than 150 gms of dirt, its restriction goes thru the roof
and far surpasses that of paper filters with much more dirt already
trapped. And a lot more dirt will have been let thru into the engine by
the K&N by that point. I don't tell anyone not to use K&N - I just say
look at the truth, not the hype, and if you decide that less restriction
is a high priority and preventing dirt from going into the engine (and
cleaning it often won't change that) is a low priority for you, then, by
all means use it. Your decision will not be made out of ignorance and hype.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#175
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
> Let's see...science says more dirt will pass with one of these filters.
>
> Inspections say no more than the stock filter get through...
So which do you believe? Both can't be true.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> Let's see...science says more dirt will pass with one of these filters.
>
> Inspections say no more than the stock filter get through...
So which do you believe? Both can't be true.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#176
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:36:31 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>> I didn't have that problem. I had read all the evidence pro and con and
>> kept a good eye on the filter. It never got really dirty.
>
> There is only one pro for the K&N: Initial restriction. Every other
> parametric is a con for the K&N - including it's relative inability to
> catch the dirt right out of the box and oiled - worst out of 9 filters
> tested. So keeping an eye on it didn't make it any better.
>
> All I'm saying is that if people think they are getting any benefit out of
> a K&N *OTHER* *THAN* lower restriction, then they are fooling themselves.
> And the lower restriction is only initially - once it catches more than
> 150 gms of dirt, its restriction goes thru the roof and far surpasses that
> of paper filters with much more dirt already trapped. And a lot more dirt
> will have been let thru into the engine by the K&N by that point. I don't
> tell anyone not to use K&N - I just say look at the truth, not the hype,
> and if you decide that less restriction is a high priority and preventing
> dirt from going into the engine (and cleaning it often won't change that)
> is a low priority for you, then, by all means use it. Your decision will
> not be made out of ignorance and hype.
I didn't use a K&N filter, I used a different one, that came with the
intake. Same principle. Maybe it was a better filter.
I know I managed to get >4 MPG more after I changed the filter.
>> I didn't have that problem. I had read all the evidence pro and con and
>> kept a good eye on the filter. It never got really dirty.
>
> There is only one pro for the K&N: Initial restriction. Every other
> parametric is a con for the K&N - including it's relative inability to
> catch the dirt right out of the box and oiled - worst out of 9 filters
> tested. So keeping an eye on it didn't make it any better.
>
> All I'm saying is that if people think they are getting any benefit out of
> a K&N *OTHER* *THAN* lower restriction, then they are fooling themselves.
> And the lower restriction is only initially - once it catches more than
> 150 gms of dirt, its restriction goes thru the roof and far surpasses that
> of paper filters with much more dirt already trapped. And a lot more dirt
> will have been let thru into the engine by the K&N by that point. I don't
> tell anyone not to use K&N - I just say look at the truth, not the hype,
> and if you decide that less restriction is a high priority and preventing
> dirt from going into the engine (and cleaning it often won't change that)
> is a low priority for you, then, by all means use it. Your decision will
> not be made out of ignorance and hype.
I didn't use a K&N filter, I used a different one, that came with the
intake. Same principle. Maybe it was a better filter.
I know I managed to get >4 MPG more after I changed the filter.
#177
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:47:35 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
> Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
>
>> Let's see...science says more dirt will pass with one of these filters.
>>
>> Inspections say no more than the stock filter get through...
>
> So which do you believe? Both can't be true.
I have a tendancy to trust my eyes more than what someone tells me.
Someone told me Mobil 1 synthetic gear lube was better then mineral oil of
the same weight. I drained the Mobil 1 out of the diff, filled it with
Valvoline mineral oil (and the GM additive) and could feel the difference
in 10 feet...
> Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
>
>> Let's see...science says more dirt will pass with one of these filters.
>>
>> Inspections say no more than the stock filter get through...
>
> So which do you believe? Both can't be true.
I have a tendancy to trust my eyes more than what someone tells me.
Someone told me Mobil 1 synthetic gear lube was better then mineral oil of
the same weight. I drained the Mobil 1 out of the diff, filled it with
Valvoline mineral oil (and the GM additive) and could feel the difference
in 10 feet...
#178
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in news:BaD2k.62$Jj1.13@trndny02:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:36:31 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> I didn't have that problem. I had read all the evidence pro and con
>>> and kept a good eye on the filter. It never got really dirty.
>>
>> There is only one pro for the K&N: Initial restriction. Every other
>> parametric is a con for the K&N - including it's relative inability
>> to catch the dirt right out of the box and oiled - worst out of 9
>> filters tested. So keeping an eye on it didn't make it any better.
>>
>> All I'm saying is that if people think they are getting any benefit
>> out of a K&N *OTHER* *THAN* lower restriction, then they are fooling
>> themselves. And the lower restriction is only initially - once it
>> catches more than 150 gms of dirt, its restriction goes thru the roof
>> and far surpasses that of paper filters with much more dirt already
>> trapped. And a lot more dirt will have been let thru into the engine
>> by the K&N by that point. I don't tell anyone not to use K&N - I
>> just say look at the truth, not the hype, and if you decide that less
>> restriction is a high priority and preventing dirt from going into
>> the engine (and cleaning it often won't change that) is a low
>> priority for you, then, by all means use it. Your decision will not
>> be made out of ignorance and hype.
>
>
> I didn't use a K&N filter, I used a different one, that came with the
> intake. Same principle. Maybe it was a better filter.
>
> I know I managed to get >4 MPG more after I changed the filter.
>
>
>
I would argue you just weren`t checking it as close before the filter
change, because unless you had a problem, on a FI eng that can`t happen.
There is no scientific way that your milage could increase that much
unless you had a previous problem. KB
--
THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:36:31 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> I didn't have that problem. I had read all the evidence pro and con
>>> and kept a good eye on the filter. It never got really dirty.
>>
>> There is only one pro for the K&N: Initial restriction. Every other
>> parametric is a con for the K&N - including it's relative inability
>> to catch the dirt right out of the box and oiled - worst out of 9
>> filters tested. So keeping an eye on it didn't make it any better.
>>
>> All I'm saying is that if people think they are getting any benefit
>> out of a K&N *OTHER* *THAN* lower restriction, then they are fooling
>> themselves. And the lower restriction is only initially - once it
>> catches more than 150 gms of dirt, its restriction goes thru the roof
>> and far surpasses that of paper filters with much more dirt already
>> trapped. And a lot more dirt will have been let thru into the engine
>> by the K&N by that point. I don't tell anyone not to use K&N - I
>> just say look at the truth, not the hype, and if you decide that less
>> restriction is a high priority and preventing dirt from going into
>> the engine (and cleaning it often won't change that) is a low
>> priority for you, then, by all means use it. Your decision will not
>> be made out of ignorance and hype.
>
>
> I didn't use a K&N filter, I used a different one, that came with the
> intake. Same principle. Maybe it was a better filter.
>
> I know I managed to get >4 MPG more after I changed the filter.
>
>
>
I would argue you just weren`t checking it as close before the filter
change, because unless you had a problem, on a FI eng that can`t happen.
There is no scientific way that your milage could increase that much
unless you had a previous problem. KB
--
THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
#179
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in newscD2k.63$Jj1.5@trndny02:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:47:35 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
>>
>>> Let's see...science says more dirt will pass with one of these
>>> filters.
>>>
>>> Inspections say no more than the stock filter get through...
>>
>> So which do you believe? Both can't be true.
>
>
> I have a tendancy to trust my eyes more than what someone tells me.
>
> Someone told me Mobil 1 synthetic gear lube was better then mineral
> oil of the same weight. I drained the Mobil 1 out of the diff, filled
> it with Valvoline mineral oil (and the GM additive) and could feel the
> difference in 10 feet...
>
>
>
now your just being stupid. KB
--
THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:47:35 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>> Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
>>
>>> Let's see...science says more dirt will pass with one of these
>>> filters.
>>>
>>> Inspections say no more than the stock filter get through...
>>
>> So which do you believe? Both can't be true.
>
>
> I have a tendancy to trust my eyes more than what someone tells me.
>
> Someone told me Mobil 1 synthetic gear lube was better then mineral
> oil of the same weight. I drained the Mobil 1 out of the diff, filled
> it with Valvoline mineral oil (and the GM additive) and could feel the
> difference in 10 feet...
>
>
>
now your just being stupid. KB
--
THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
#180
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:36:31 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> I didn't have that problem. I had read all the evidence pro and con and
>>> kept a good eye on the filter. It never got really dirty.
>> There is only one pro for the K&N: Initial restriction. Every other
>> parametric is a con for the K&N - including it's relative inability to
>> catch the dirt right out of the box and oiled - worst out of 9 filters
>> tested. So keeping an eye on it didn't make it any better.
>>
>> All I'm saying is that if people think they are getting any benefit out of
>> a K&N *OTHER* *THAN* lower restriction, then they are fooling themselves.
>> And the lower restriction is only initially - once it catches more than
>> 150 gms of dirt, its restriction goes thru the roof and far surpasses that
>> of paper filters with much more dirt already trapped. And a lot more dirt
>> will have been let thru into the engine by the K&N by that point. I don't
>> tell anyone not to use K&N - I just say look at the truth, not the hype,
>> and if you decide that less restriction is a high priority and preventing
>> dirt from going into the engine (and cleaning it often won't change that)
>> is a low priority for you, then, by all means use it. Your decision will
>> not be made out of ignorance and hype.
>
>
> I didn't use a K&N filter, I used a different one, that came with the
> intake. Same principle. Maybe it was a better filter.
>
> I know I managed to get >4 MPG more after I changed the filter.
Question: From the engine's standpoint, how is a less restrictive filter
with throttle body plate at a certain position any different than a more
restrictive filter with the throttle body open a little more? The
result in either case is the same amount of total restriction and air
delivery, and the fuel delivery at the injectors will be metered to
match the air volume, and the power output will be the same (the
computer won't know *why* the air volume is what it is, only that it is
what it is). The only difference will be at WOT where you will be able
to produce more power with the less restrictive filter, same as if the
throttle body were bigger with the more restrictive air filter.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:36:31 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> I didn't have that problem. I had read all the evidence pro and con and
>>> kept a good eye on the filter. It never got really dirty.
>> There is only one pro for the K&N: Initial restriction. Every other
>> parametric is a con for the K&N - including it's relative inability to
>> catch the dirt right out of the box and oiled - worst out of 9 filters
>> tested. So keeping an eye on it didn't make it any better.
>>
>> All I'm saying is that if people think they are getting any benefit out of
>> a K&N *OTHER* *THAN* lower restriction, then they are fooling themselves.
>> And the lower restriction is only initially - once it catches more than
>> 150 gms of dirt, its restriction goes thru the roof and far surpasses that
>> of paper filters with much more dirt already trapped. And a lot more dirt
>> will have been let thru into the engine by the K&N by that point. I don't
>> tell anyone not to use K&N - I just say look at the truth, not the hype,
>> and if you decide that less restriction is a high priority and preventing
>> dirt from going into the engine (and cleaning it often won't change that)
>> is a low priority for you, then, by all means use it. Your decision will
>> not be made out of ignorance and hype.
>
>
> I didn't use a K&N filter, I used a different one, that came with the
> intake. Same principle. Maybe it was a better filter.
>
> I know I managed to get >4 MPG more after I changed the filter.
Question: From the engine's standpoint, how is a less restrictive filter
with throttle body plate at a certain position any different than a more
restrictive filter with the throttle body open a little more? The
result in either case is the same amount of total restriction and air
delivery, and the fuel delivery at the injectors will be metered to
match the air volume, and the power output will be the same (the
computer won't know *why* the air volume is what it is, only that it is
what it is). The only difference will be at WOT where you will be able
to produce more power with the less restrictive filter, same as if the
throttle body were bigger with the more restrictive air filter.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')