Air intake mods? Which one?

Will Honea wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:08:16 UTC Bernd Felsche
> > wrote:
>
> > "Nom" > writes:
> >
> > >Lets say his car requires X air to travel at 70mph. It also needs Y fuel.
> >
> > >No matter what you do with the intake system, it STILL needs X air, and it
> > >STILL needs Y fuel !
> >
> > No. Not if there are reduced losses to breathe in the air in the
> > first place. "Pumping losses" are reduced. That means that the
> > enmgine doesn't have to work as hard for the required power output
> > at the crankshaft to make the car move at the same speed.
> >
> > i.e. it becomes more efficient.
> >
> > >Even if the throttle plate is only open 1%, the same amount of air
> > >X is entering the engine (otherwise you'd be going faster or slower
> > >than 70mph), and hence the same amount of fuel Y is being injected
> > >(otherwise he'd be running rich or lean).
> >
> > Incorrect. The restrictions ahead of the throttle plate have
> > measureable effect on the amount of air that passes through the
> > throttle for a given opening.
>
> Aren't we talking mousefarts in a hurricane here??
>
> --
> Will Honea >

--
Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Will Honea wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:08:16 UTC Bernd Felsche
> > wrote:
>
> > "Nom" > writes:
> > >Even if the throttle plate is only open 1%, the same amount of air
> > >X is entering the engine (otherwise you'd be going faster or slower
> > >than 70mph), and hence the same amount of fuel Y is being injected
> > >(otherwise he'd be running rich or lean).
> >
> > Incorrect. The restrictions ahead of the throttle plate have
> > measureable effect on the amount of air that passes through the
> > throttle for a given opening.
>
> Aren't we talking mousefarts in a hurricane here??

The best way to demonstrate it would be for you to have to turn a crank
(tied to a fan or compressor) by hand just to try to move the amount of
air that an engine pulls thru it (without any load of the vehicle weight
and acceleration applied) - first with low air flow resistance, then
with high air flow resistance. The energy loss is real, and can be more
significant than you realize. Even if the engine management computer
compensates and keeps the air-to-fuel ratio the same for the two
scenarios, whatever energy gets pulled out of the equation to move the
air against the resistance (vacuum on the intake side, pressure on the
exhaust side) is energy that, by definition, does not make it into the
drive train to accelerate the vehicle or maintain straight and level.

Here's another way to look at it: Ever try to do strenuous work or run
fast while wearing a dust mask that restricts air flow? An engine is no
different. It takes oxygen to produce the work, and if energy is
required just to pull the oxygen in, less work is turned into real work
from a given unit of fuel.

Perhaps someone here can qauintify it, or point us to a web site that
does.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Will Honea wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:08:16 UTC Bernd Felsche
> > wrote:
>
> > "Nom" > writes:
> > >Even if the throttle plate is only open 1%, the same amount of air
> > >X is entering the engine (otherwise you'd be going faster or slower
> > >than 70mph), and hence the same amount of fuel Y is being injected
> > >(otherwise he'd be running rich or lean).
> >
> > Incorrect. The restrictions ahead of the throttle plate have
> > measureable effect on the amount of air that passes through the
> > throttle for a given opening.
>
> Aren't we talking mousefarts in a hurricane here??

The best way to demonstrate it would be for you to have to turn a crank
(tied to a fan or compressor) by hand just to try to move the amount of
air that an engine pulls thru it (without any load of the vehicle weight
and acceleration applied) - first with low air flow resistance, then
with high air flow resistance. The energy loss is real, and can be more
significant than you realize. Even if the engine management computer
compensates and keeps the air-to-fuel ratio the same for the two
scenarios, whatever energy gets pulled out of the equation to move the
air against the resistance (vacuum on the intake side, pressure on the
exhaust side) is energy that, by definition, does not make it into the
drive train to accelerate the vehicle or maintain straight and level.

Here's another way to look at it: Ever try to do strenuous work or run
fast while wearing a dust mask that restricts air flow? An engine is no
different. It takes oxygen to produce the work, and if energy is
required just to pull the oxygen in, less work is turned into real work
from a given unit of fuel.

Perhaps someone here can qauintify it, or point us to a web site that
does.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

"Will Honea" > writes:

>On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:08:16 UTC Bernd Felsche
> wrote:

>> "Nom" > writes:
>>
>> >Lets say his car requires X air to travel at 70mph. It also needs Y fuel.
>>
>> >No matter what you do with the intake system, it STILL needs X
>> >air, and it STILL needs Y fuel !

>> No. Not if there are reduced losses to breathe in the air in the
>> first place. "Pumping losses" are reduced. That means that the
>> enmgine doesn't have to work as hard for the required power output
>> at the crankshaft to make the car move at the same speed.

>> i.e. it becomes more efficient.

>> >Even if the throttle plate is only open 1%, the same amount of air
>> >X is entering the engine (otherwise you'd be going faster or slower
>> >than 70mph), and hence the same amount of fuel Y is being injected
>> >(otherwise he'd be running rich or lean).

>> Incorrect. The restrictions ahead of the throttle plate have
>> measureable effect on the amount of air that passes through the
>> throttle for a given opening.

>Aren't we talking mousefarts in a hurricane here??

No. More like bovine flatulence in a stiff breeze. 1% to maybe 2%
for a filter change from clogged-bad to free-breathing and clean.
Measureable.

Other intake changes such as removing intake resonators can have a
bigger effect; especially at lower engine speeds. I noticed and
measured about 10% reduction in fuel consumption at low speed in top
gear, as well as the ability to climb some hills without having to
change down. i.e. the low-end torque increased.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"Will Honea" > writes:

>On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:08:16 UTC Bernd Felsche
> wrote:

>> "Nom" > writes:
>>
>> >Lets say his car requires X air to travel at 70mph. It also needs Y fuel.
>>
>> >No matter what you do with the intake system, it STILL needs X
>> >air, and it STILL needs Y fuel !

>> No. Not if there are reduced losses to breathe in the air in the
>> first place. "Pumping losses" are reduced. That means that the
>> enmgine doesn't have to work as hard for the required power output
>> at the crankshaft to make the car move at the same speed.

>> i.e. it becomes more efficient.

>> >Even if the throttle plate is only open 1%, the same amount of air
>> >X is entering the engine (otherwise you'd be going faster or slower
>> >than 70mph), and hence the same amount of fuel Y is being injected
>> >(otherwise he'd be running rich or lean).

>> Incorrect. The restrictions ahead of the throttle plate have
>> measureable effect on the amount of air that passes through the
>> throttle for a given opening.

>Aren't we talking mousefarts in a hurricane here??

No. More like bovine flatulence in a stiff breeze. 1% to maybe 2%
for a filter change from clogged-bad to free-breathing and clean.
Measureable.

Other intake changes such as removing intake resonators can have a
bigger effect; especially at lower engine speeds. I noticed and
measured about 10% reduction in fuel consumption at low speed in top
gear, as well as the ability to climb some hills without having to
change down. i.e. the low-end torque increased.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

1. Gas prices here vary as much as .10 cents/litre over the week, and vary
from station to station. If your prices also vary, you can effectively
increase your mileage by almost 15% ... well, reduce the cost, sorta the
same thing ... by shopping around and filling up at opportune times.
2. My opinion, a properly, or even slightly overinflated touring type tire
is a requirement for optimum mileage.
3. Take it easy on the acceleration and highway speed. There is a
considerable saving at 50/55 mph vs say 60/70 mph ... especially with a
jeep/truck.
4. Make sure the vehicle is in good tune, do the scheduled preventive
maintenance ... defective sensors for example can increase fuel consumption
considerably.
5. Forgo a few of those "just driving around" trips ... go for a walk, leave
the jeep in the laneway once in a while.
6. And start recording your fuel purchases ... that'll get you thinking "big
picture" as in ... yeah ... let's go for a bike ride today ... and ... hmmm
.... saved a lot this month, ok ... let's take that trip ... we earned it.
7. Forget the add ons ...

"james" > wrote in message
m...
> Question for all you auto buffs. Ive got a 95 Jeep grand cherokee.
> It has come to my attention that it might be possible to increase Fuel
> Economy by adding one of these mods from ebay. Can you give me your
> opinion on the following:
> 1) can you use one of these "performance modules" in conjunction with
> an air intake device?
> 2)There are a bunch of K&N air intakes, Imitation K&N intakes, this
> "vortex" device, this "tornado" device among others. I am interested
> in increasiing my MPG but not interested in paying upwards of 150 for
> a K&N. Can anyone recommend one of the imitation ones such as this
> one
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...m=2467691 696
> or the vortex which are both considerably less, but seem to have a
> similar design? Any input?
> 3)Are there any other relatively inexpensive ways to get more milage
> for my gas? I dont feel like getting stung as badly by these gas
> prices.
>
> Thanks alot,
> James

1. Gas prices here vary as much as .10 cents/litre over the week, and vary
from station to station. If your prices also vary, you can effectively
increase your mileage by almost 15% ... well, reduce the cost, sorta the
same thing ... by shopping around and filling up at opportune times.
2. My opinion, a properly, or even slightly overinflated touring type tire
is a requirement for optimum mileage.
3. Take it easy on the acceleration and highway speed. There is a
considerable saving at 50/55 mph vs say 60/70 mph ... especially with a
jeep/truck.
4. Make sure the vehicle is in good tune, do the scheduled preventive
maintenance ... defective sensors for example can increase fuel consumption
considerably.
5. Forgo a few of those "just driving around" trips ... go for a walk, leave
the jeep in the laneway once in a while.
6. And start recording your fuel purchases ... that'll get you thinking "big
picture" as in ... yeah ... let's go for a bike ride today ... and ... hmmm
.... saved a lot this month, ok ... let's take that trip ... we earned it.
7. Forget the add ons ...

"james" > wrote in message
m...
> Question for all you auto buffs. Ive got a 95 Jeep grand cherokee.
> It has come to my attention that it might be possible to increase Fuel
> Economy by adding one of these mods from ebay. Can you give me your
> opinion on the following:
> 1) can you use one of these "performance modules" in conjunction with
> an air intake device?
> 2)There are a bunch of K&N air intakes, Imitation K&N intakes, this
> "vortex" device, this "tornado" device among others. I am interested
> in increasiing my MPG but not interested in paying upwards of 150 for
> a K&N. Can anyone recommend one of the imitation ones such as this
> one
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...m=2467691 696
> or the vortex which are both considerably less, but seem to have a
> similar design? Any input?
> 3)Are there any other relatively inexpensive ways to get more milage
> for my gas? I dont feel like getting stung as badly by these gas
> prices.
>
> Thanks alot,
> James