Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

hachiroku wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:18:23 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> Who gives a ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> you, evidently.
>
>
> Not really.
>
>

the way you keep biting contradicts that.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

"hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
news:TOl3k.272$ul.155@trndny08...
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:03:47 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>
>>> I know I managed to get >4 MPG more after I changed the filter.
>>
>> There is only one reason why this should be true for a modern fuel
>> injected engine - it was so restrictive it limited your power. Otherwise
>> it should have no effect on fuel economy (compared to a properly serviced
>> paper filter). As long as you are talking about a properly serviced air
>> filter, the air filter restriction is no different than the throttle
>> plate
>> restriction as far as the engine electronics are concerned. If the air
>> filter is so screwed up it could effect your fuel economy, it should also
>> trigger the check engine light.
>
> Man, you should know I'm pretty up on my maintenance. The paper filter was
> about 6 months old when I did the swap.
>
> And no change in the MIL.
>
>
>
>>
>> When people claim unbelievable fuel economy improvements for air filters,
>> I usually assume it is due to poor data collection, poor maintenance of
>> the old filter, a change in driving habits (possibly triggered by more
>> noise associated with open cone filters), or just wishful thinking.
>
>
> I keep a book in my cars showing oil changes, mintenance (air filters,
> etc) and every time I fill up. Prior to switching the air filter over I
> was getting 38-40 MPG, and after ~44/45. And I didn't let my foot up at
> all! You should know *THAT* by now, too!

Well I can't explain it. I also can't see how changing the filter should
have affected the fuel economy by a measurable amount. Did you reset the PCM
when you installed the filter? I suppose it is possible that oil from the
filter coated the MAF and screwed up the information provided by the MAF to
the PCM, but even in this case the PCM should have been able to cmpensate
and return the A/F to the correct value (and if it couldn't, it should turn
on the CEL). Another possible explanation is that you actually decreased the
performance of the engine, limiting your ability to burn gas (I think it is
possible you are confusing increases noise with increased performance). A
properly functioning PCM should easily be able to compensate for minor
changes in an air filter. You didn't change tires around the same time you
changed the filter by any chance? Or maybe the fuel formulation in your area
changed? I just can't come up with a rational explanation for a 10% increase
in fuel economy related to just changing the air filter. If you are not at
WOT, the air filter isn't a significant source of inlet restriction unless
it is practically plugged up and in this case, you'd have bigger problems.

Ed

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

hachiroku wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:30:20 -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.
>>>
>>>
>> maybe that's part of your problem if you think i'm arguing with you. you
>> keep bullshitting, and i simply enjoy correcting your inevitable mistakes!
>
> I never bullshit, Jackass. If I say I did something and it did this, then
> it did.

1. you do.

2. you're wrong.



>
>>
>>> I think *I* know better what my car did than you do.
>> what you think and what is real are not the same. like someone watching a
>> monochrome tv tube claiming that it shows full color, what you're claiming
>> is simply impossible.
>
> Um, book in the glove box? Increase from 38 MPG to 44 MPG? What part
> aren't you quite getting here?

the bit where you're claiming the impossible.


>
> Do you have any real world experience doing anything at all, or are you
> just Mr Know-It-All?
>
>

nope - we don't have cars on planet bulldetector. i just take your
effluent and fling it back at you. real simple to stop if you don't
like it though - if you don't produce it, it won't come back at you.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

hachiroku wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 21:18:55 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> you're demonstrating that there's a world of difference between what
>> someone says on a newsgroup and reality.
>>
>> bottom line, you're bullshitting, either on purpose or because you're
>> mistaken. technically of course, it's also possible that you could be the
>> new einstein with a new paradigm in combustion chemistry and
>> thermodynamics, but somehow, based on your contribution history and the
>> lack of documentation for your claim, i doubt that.
>
>
> It could also be that you have your head up your ass and haven't the first
> clue of what you're talking about.
>
> Come back when you get some real experience, along with data. I kept a log
> in the car of fuel economy, and it clearly went up after changing the
> filter and the intake.
>
> You don't believe it, fine. Why don't you go try one and get back to us
> with your findings?
>
> Until then, feel free to STFU...
>
>


whoops, busted - no cars here on planet bulldetector. but you're giving
me /so/ much ammo, even i can hit you from here in the dark smelly
wastes of interstellar space.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

"hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
news:gQl3k.273$ul.157@trndny08...
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:14:23 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>
>> Look back at your log book
>> - does the fuel economy decrease measurably between cleanings of the
>> oiled
>> gauze filter?
>
>
> Nope. Stayed a steady 43-45 MPG.

Don't you think that is unusual, assuming that changing the air filter was
the readon for a large increase in fuel economy? If reducing the air filter
restriction could increase fuel economy by 10%, don't you think you should
see the fuel economy decrease as the filter accumulates dirt and the filter
restriction increases? I know you said your filter was not a K&N, but I
assume it is similar. K&Ns own data shows a substantial increase in the
filter restricition as it accumulates dirt. K&N shows a dirty K&N filter to
be more restricitive than a clean paper filter. It seems to me you can't get
a 10% increase in fuel economy by changing to a less restricitive filter and
not also get a measurable decrease in fuel economy as that filter loads up
with dirt.

Ed

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:20:09 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>> Better throttle response, or more noise? I sometimes think the two are
>> related. It is possible throttle response was improved but it seems
>> unlikely. To be honest, I am not even sure what improved throttle response
>> means.
>
>
> From a dead stop. You could feel the difference. Any lag that had been
> there before was gone. I was surprised. I mean, obviously, with a 1.5
> liter "F" engine I wasn't expecting a fire-breathing monster, but starts
> from a dead stop were quicker on the uptake.
>
> It also had a small but noticeable effect on passing at speed, >50-60 MPH.

so, given that efi controls the engine management, and the throttle is a
much more significant restriction on air intake than any but the most
seriously clogged filter, how exactly can that be happening? oh, and
you need to account for the air being hotter and therefore less dense
[!] inside the engine compartment where this new air intake of your
resides. thanks.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:14:23 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>
>> Look back at your log book
>> - does the fuel economy decrease measurably between cleanings of the oiled
>> gauze filter?
>
>
> Nope. Stayed a steady 43-45 MPG.

rubbish. tank to tank, fuel economy on any car varies much more widely
than that.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:03:47 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>
>>> I know I managed to get >4 MPG more after I changed the filter.
>> There is only one reason why this should be true for a modern fuel
>> injected engine - it was so restrictive it limited your power. Otherwise
>> it should have no effect on fuel economy (compared to a properly serviced
>> paper filter). As long as you are talking about a properly serviced air
>> filter, the air filter restriction is no different than the throttle plate
>> restriction as far as the engine electronics are concerned. If the air
>> filter is so screwed up it could effect your fuel economy, it should also
>> trigger the check engine light.
>
> Man, you should know I'm pretty up on my maintenance. The paper filter was
> about 6 months old when I did the swap.
>
> And no change in the MIL.
>
>
>
>> When people claim unbelievable fuel economy improvements for air filters,
>> I usually assume it is due to poor data collection, poor maintenance of
>> the old filter, a change in driving habits (possibly triggered by more
>> noise associated with open cone filters), or just wishful thinking.
>
>
> I keep a book in my cars showing oil changes, mintenance (air filters,
> etc) and every time I fill up. Prior to switching the air filter over I
> was getting 38-40 MPG, and after ~44/45. And I didn't let my foot up at
> all! You should know *THAT* by now, too!
>
>

b.s.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:10:51 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>> I keep a book in my cars showing oil changes, mintenance (air filters,
>> etc) and every time I fill up. Prior to switching the air filter over I
>> was getting 38-40 MPG, and after ~44/45. And I didn't let my foot up at
>> all! You should know *THAT* by now, too!
>>
>>
>>
> I'm an !

He's an , what an !

> I'm an !

He's the world's biggest !

> I'm an and proud of it!

Yeah, we can tell...

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:10:16 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> hachiroku wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:14:23 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>> Look back at your log book
>>> - does the fuel economy decrease measurably between cleanings of the
>>> oiled gauze filter?
>>
>>
>> Nope. Stayed a steady 43-45 MPG.
>
> I'm an !

He's an , what an !

> I'm an !

He's the world's biggest !

> I'm an and proud of it!

And you prove it daily.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:07:48 -0400, Ed White wrote:

>> Nope. Stayed a steady 43-45 MPG.
>
> Don't you think that is unusual, assuming that changing the air filter was
> the readon for a large increase in fuel economy? If reducing the air
> filter restriction could increase fuel economy by 10%, don't you think you
> should see the fuel economy decrease as the filter accumulates dirt and
> the filter restriction increases? I know you said your filter was not a
> K&N, but I assume it is similar. K&Ns own data shows a substantial
> increase in the filter restricition as it accumulates dirt.


I never let it accumulate dirt. I cleaned it by vacuuming it and also
cleaned and re-oiled it every other oil change. I was worried about dirt
getting into the engine, too, so I doubled the maintenance.

In the winter the mileage would fall off to about 40, but that was it.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:09:26 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>> From a dead stop. You could feel the difference. Any lag that had been
>> there before was gone. I was surprised. I mean, obviously, with a 1.5
>> liter "F" engine I wasn't expecting a fire-breathing monster, but starts
>> from a dead stop were quicker on the uptake.
>>
>> It also had a small but noticeable effect on passing at speed, >50-60
>> MPH.
>
> so, given that efi controls the engine management, and the throttle is a
> much more significant restriction on air intake than any but the most
> seriously clogged filter, how exactly can that be happening?


Easy, it did. You're in the Honda group, right? Don't you ever talk to any
of the guys that modify their Hondas? They're all over the place.

Oh, forget it. You're a keyboard Know-It-All, and don't actually talk to
real people.

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:07:04 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>> It could also be that you have your head up your ass and haven't the
>> first clue of what you're talking about.
>>
>> Come back when you get some real experience, along with data. I kept a
>> log in the car of fuel economy, and it clearly went up after changing
>> the filter and the intake.
>>
>> You don't believe it, fine. Why don't you go try one and get back to us
>> with your findings?
>>
>> Until then, feel free to STFU...
>>
>>
>>
>
> whoops, busted - no cars here on planet bulldetector. but you're giving
> me /so/ much ammo, even i can hit you from here in the dark smelly wastes
> of interstellar space.


I'm beginning to think you don't even know what a car is...

Why don't you actually go *DO* something and then let us know how it works
for you?

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

hachiroku wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:10:16 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> hachiroku wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:14:23 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>>>
>>>> Look back at your log book
>>>> - does the fuel economy decrease measurably between cleanings of the
>>>> oiled gauze filter?
>>>
>>> Nope. Stayed a steady 43-45 MPG.
>> I'm an !
>
> He's an , what an !
>
>> I'm an !
>
> He's the world's biggest !
>
>> I'm an and proud of it!
>
> And you prove it daily.
>
>
>

hmmm, bullshit and misquotes. and you wonder why people don't take you
seriously!

Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
 

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:04:41 -0700, jim beam wrote:

>> Do you have any real world experience doing anything at all, or are you
>> just Mr Know-It-All?
>>
>>
>>
> nope - we don't have cars on planet bulldetector.

I believe it. That's why you're such a moron.