|
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:46:49 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>> 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? With the throttle body open further, the ECU is also injecting more gas. The less restrictive filter allows more air to pass. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:46:49 -0400, Bill Putney wrote: > >>> 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? > > > With the throttle body open further, the ECU is also injecting more gas. No. The ECU is closing the loop by providing the right amount of gas for the volume of air to satisfy the O2 sensor(s). It doesn't care *why* the air flow is what it is - i.e., what combination of throttle body opening and air filter restriction caused it, only that it is what it is. > The less restrictive filter allows more air to pass. Which is only a factor at WOT. For less than WOT conditions, total restriction is throttle body plus filter. The total is all that matters, not how it's proportioned between the two. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:59:59 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
> hachiroku wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:46:49 -0400, Bill Putney wrote: >> >>>> 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? >> >> >> With the throttle body open further, the ECU is also injecting more gas. > > No. The ECU is closing the loop by providing the right amount of gas for > the volume of air to satisfy the O2 sensor(s). It doesn't care *why* the > air flow is what it is - i.e., what combination of throttle body opening > and air filter restriction caused it, only that it is what it is. > >> The less restrictive filter allows more air to pass. > > Which is only a factor at WOT. For less than WOT conditions, total > restriction is throttle body plus filter. The total is all that matters, > not how it's proportioned between the two. Yes, I had forgotten that. Perhaps it's the velocity of the air, but you'd think the vaves would restrict that, too. All I know is, after adding the CAI, the mileage went up! Unlike our friend jim beam, I'm not wasting a lot of time figuring why, I just know it worked! ;) |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:15:25 +0000, Kevin wrote:
> hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in news:ocD2k.63$Jj1.5@trndny02: > >> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 10:47:35 -0400, Bill Putney wrote: >> >>> Hachiroku ããã㯠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 Gee, I knew what it felt like before changing the oil, and after. Based on what it felt like from one end of the driveway to the other, I could tell right as soon as I shifted into reverse it was doing better, since it didn't feel like the rear end was shaking off the car. I would guess since I lived with it for a week, I would have a better idea of the difference in the feel than you... |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:56:07 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:46:49 -0400, Bill Putney wrote: > >>> 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? > > >With the throttle body open further, the ECU is also injecting more gas. > >The less restrictive filter allows more air to pass. With a closed loop system (and ALL OBD2 systems run closed loop when at operating temp and below roughly 75-80% throttle) the mass airflow sensor or Manifold Absolute Pressure sensoe and the O2 sensors fine tune the system so the throttle position sensor does NOT have the final say on injection quantity. The ONLY time a restricted air filter can affect mileage is if it is so plugged it cannot provide adequate airflow for half throttle operation or if you are running over aprox 80% throttle setting. Will a restricted (restrictive) air filter or intake affect power? DSefinitely. Will it affect mileage? NOPE. Now, a cold air intake (or fresh air intake)? It WILL affect power, for sure, and CAN affect mileage as well. However any INCREASE in mileage would be extremely small. If you use the extra power, you will pay for it in mileage. The extra power comes from higher air density (colder air) allowing more fuel to be burned. > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:56:56 -0400, wrote:
> Will a restricted (restrictive) air filter or intake affect power? > DSefinitely. Will it affect mileage? NOPE. > > Now, a cold air intake (or fresh air intake)? It WILL affect power, for > sure, and CAN affect mileage as well. However any INCREASE in mileage > would be extremely small. If you use the extra power, you will pay for it > in mileage. The extra power comes from higher air density (colder air) > allowing more fuel to be burned. Now, this was on a Tercel with a whopping 1.5L, 108 HP engine. What I noticed was a better throttle response off the line (it certainly didn't turn it into a fire-breating monster! But you could feel the difference) and the increase in gas mileage. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 03:14:02 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:56:56 -0400, wrote: > >> Will a restricted (restrictive) air filter or intake affect power? >> DSefinitely. Will it affect mileage? NOPE. >> >> Now, a cold air intake (or fresh air intake)? It WILL affect power, for >> sure, and CAN affect mileage as well. However any INCREASE in mileage >> would be extremely small. If you use the extra power, you will pay for it >> in mileage. The extra power comes from higher air density (colder air) >> allowing more fuel to be burned. > > >Now, this was on a Tercel with a whopping 1.5L, 108 HP engine. What year? EFI or feedback carb? On a feedback carb system it made a lot more difference. > >What I noticed was a better throttle response off the line (it certainly >didn't turn it into a fire-breating monster! But you could feel the >difference) and the increase in gas mileage. > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Bill Putney wrote in message <6ai0kvF37k2jlU1@mid.individual.net>... >Don't Taze Me, Bro! 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. > >I see that thing about running low on fuel damaging fuel pumps posted >all over the internet, but personally I think that's total b.s. > >All the critical parts in the fuel pump - bearings (bushings), armature, >brushes/commutator, pumping elements (vanes, rotors, or rollers) - are >constantly bathed in the fuel as it flows thru the pump. That >lubricates and cools the parts regardless of fuel level in the tank. > >With regulator bypass pumping/circulation that modern cars have, there >is full volume of fuel going thru the pump at all times it is running >regardless of engine demand. The only effect of low fuel in the tank is >a slight temperature rise of the volume of fuel in the tank (due to same >electrical power dissipated in the pump being absorbed by less mass of >fuel), and that rise will be very small - power used by fuel pump is >small - temperature rise of the fuel in the tank and the tank itself >will be very small - lots of mass compared to the power being dissipated. > >*BUT* - again - the fuel is constantly flowing thru and around all >internal components of the pump whenever it is running providing cooling >(unless you actually run out and the engine stops - but that is a >different scenario altogether, and even then, the pump will still be >full of fuel at that point with a full column of fuel from its lowest >end to the fuel rail - only the pickup will be filled with air, and >there won't be any flow - and most cars turn the pump off when the >computer senses that the engine is no longer running). > >If anyone wants to argue this, be sure of your facts beforehand - I used >to design automotive fuel pump components. > >Bill Putney >(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >address with the letter 'x') My LPG fueled cars keep the fuel pump going ALL the time. Loaned a car to my penniless son for sometime and he only put LPG in it. Ran out of fuel and cooked the pump. My Mitsubishi van broke a fule lead 150 km from a town. I didn't realize fuel pump kept running and cooked another bloody pump. Keep some fuel in it. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Norman Webb wrote:
> Bill Putney wrote in message <6ai0kvF37k2jlU1@mid.individual.net>... >> Don't Taze Me, Bro! 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. >> I see that thing about running low on fuel damaging fuel pumps posted >> all over the internet, but personally I think that's total b.s. >> >> All the critical parts in the fuel pump - bearings (bushings), armature, >> brushes/commutator, pumping elements (vanes, rotors, or rollers) - are >> constantly bathed in the fuel as it flows thru the pump. That >> lubricates and cools the parts regardless of fuel level in the tank. >> >> With regulator bypass pumping/circulation that modern cars have, there >> is full volume of fuel going thru the pump at all times it is running >> regardless of engine demand. The only effect of low fuel in the tank is >> a slight temperature rise of the volume of fuel in the tank (due to same >> electrical power dissipated in the pump being absorbed by less mass of >> fuel), and that rise will be very small - power used by fuel pump is >> small - temperature rise of the fuel in the tank and the tank itself >> will be very small - lots of mass compared to the power being dissipated. >> >> *BUT* - again - the fuel is constantly flowing thru and around all >> internal components of the pump whenever it is running providing cooling >> (unless you actually run out and the engine stops - but that is a >> different scenario altogether, and even then, the pump will still be >> full of fuel at that point with a full column of fuel from its lowest >> end to the fuel rail - only the pickup will be filled with air, and >> there won't be any flow - and most cars turn the pump off when the >> computer senses that the engine is no longer running). >> >> If anyone wants to argue this, be sure of your facts beforehand - I used >> to design automotive fuel pump components. >> >> Bill Putney >> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >> address with the letter 'x') > > > My LPG fueled cars keep the fuel pump going ALL the time. Loaned a car to my > penniless son for sometime and he only put LPG in it. Ran out of fuel and > cooked the pump. > > My Mitsubishi van broke a fule lead 150 km from a town. I didn't realize > fuel pump kept running and cooked another bloody pump. > > Keep some fuel in it. er, why would anyone leave the ignition in the "run" position after the fuel's gone and the vehicle's stopped? because that's the only condition under which you could theoretically "cook" a pump. /and/ that's assuming the engine computer doesn't turn the pump off for you, which pretty much /any/ engine computer would do btw. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:56:56 -0400, wrote: > >> Will a restricted (restrictive) air filter or intake affect power? >> DSefinitely. Will it affect mileage? NOPE. >> >> Now, a cold air intake (or fresh air intake)? It WILL affect power, for >> sure, and CAN affect mileage as well. However any INCREASE in mileage >> would be extremely small. If you use the extra power, you will pay for it >> in mileage. The extra power comes from higher air density (colder air) >> allowing more fuel to be burned. > > > Now, this was on a Tercel with a whopping 1.5L, 108 HP engine. er, actually, the tercel has an output of 93hp, not 108. > > What I noticed was a better throttle response off the line (it certainly > didn't turn it into a fire-breating monster! But you could feel the > difference) and the increase in gas mileage. bullshit. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:42:53 -0700, jim beam > <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > >> 1. the pores remain the same size, regardless of oil content. that >> defines particle size. >> > > Except there is NO straight path for the dirt to follow, and as it > "negatiates the turns" the dirt DOES get caught on the oily fibers. > > The best air filter yet is still the old oil bath type - where the > ironcurls soaked in oil trapped the dirt. NOTHING filters better than > a properly serviced oil bath cleaner. >> 2. oil filters let though more dirt as the flow rate increases. that's >> why paper filters are used so much these days - filtration remains the >> same regardless of flow rate. >> > > No, the reason oil bath cleaners are no longer used boils down to > expense. The labour required to properly service them and the expense > of disposing of the "toxic waste" produced by that service. sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it. paper is better for the reasons stated. >>> Their recommendation was 12 months or >>> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you, >>> every 6,000 miles...) >>> >>> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than >>> the stock air box. >> that's not quantitative. > > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:59:59 -0400, Bill Putney wrote: > >> hachiroku wrote: >>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 18:46:49 -0400, Bill Putney wrote: >>> >>>>> 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? >>> >>> With the throttle body open further, the ECU is also injecting more gas. >> No. The ECU is closing the loop by providing the right amount of gas for >> the volume of air to satisfy the O2 sensor(s). It doesn't care *why* the >> air flow is what it is - i.e., what combination of throttle body opening >> and air filter restriction caused it, only that it is what it is. >> >>> The less restrictive filter allows more air to pass. >> Which is only a factor at WOT. For less than WOT conditions, total >> restriction is throttle body plus filter. The total is all that matters, >> not how it's proportioned between the two. > > > Yes, I had forgotten that. > > Perhaps it's the velocity of the air, but you'd think the vaves would > restrict that, too. > > All I know is, after adding the CAI, the mileage went up! > Unlike our friend jim beam, I'm not wasting a lot of time figuring why, I > just know it worked! ;) you just spent your weekend arguing with people that know a lot better than you, and this is all you have to say? time you went back to your old schools and burned them down - they seriously failed you. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:29:26 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> What I noticed was a better throttle response off the line (it certainly >> didn't turn it into a fire-breating monster! But you could feel the >> difference) and the increase in gas mileage. > > bullshit. What is it with people (especially *YOU*) telling ME what I experienced and didn't experience?!?! Listen, BOZO, *I* had the ing car, *I* put the intake in it, and *I* was driving it! If I recall correctly, *YOU* were nowhere to be seen! What a ing moron. |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 00:20:51 -0400, wrote:
>>Now, this was on a Tercel with a whopping 1.5L, 108 HP engine. > > What year? EFI or feedback carb? > > On a feedback carb system it made a lot more difference. '95 EFI. Sold it for $1200 to buy my Supra. Of course, the week after I sold it gas went up a dime (that was 2004...) |
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:51:53 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> All I know is, after adding the CAI, the mileage went up! Unlike our >> friend jim beam, I'm not wasting a lot of time figuring why, I just know >> it worked! ;) > > you just spent your weekend arguing with people that know a lot better > than you, and this is all you have to say? time you went back to your old > schools and burned them down - they seriously failed you. And you keep coming back and arguing with me, Dipweed. I think *I* know better what my car did than you do. I hate these 'experts' that think things can't work if *THEY* say so. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:09 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands