Bruce Chang wrote:
> Performance mods can increase your fuel economy.. If the engine can
> use what it has more efficiently, then you'll get better gas mileage.
> In other words, if you can get more power out of the same amount of
> fuel, then you're likely to get better gas mileage.

Agreed.

However, the air-filters he's referring to, are designed to let more air
into the engine. The only possible byproduct of this, is that more fuel is
injected too !
They aren't an "efficiency" mod - they're simply a mod to let the engine
cram more mixture in

Douglas Payne wrote:
> "james" <jcac27@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:9947a7f1.0403181153.b4588b7@posting.google.com...
>
>>> Is this actually a serious post ?
>>
>> Hey Nom you dipsh*t...
>
> <snip>
>
>> You want ME to
>> get personal you stupid sh*t?
> <snip>
>> "Use your head?" F-YOU
>
> <snip>
>
>> I'm not that dumb.
>
> <snip>
>
>> PS-Nom let me know if you want skiing, fishing, kayaking,
>> windsurfing, history, science lessons... Guarantee you dont know
>> squat about at least one if any.
>
> This *IS* some bizarre American Idol spin off, Nom *IS* the new Simon
> Cowell (in at least that he said some stuff that is generally true
> but some big fat jessies take offence at) and I claim my five pounds.

That was terrible.

Absolutely terrible.

Why have you even bothered to turn up ?

james wrote:
> Hey Nom you dipsh*t...
>
> If you look on any of the websites for any of these air intake mods
> youll see claims that they increase your fuel economy. If I knew as
> much about cars as you aparently do, than I wouldnt be asking the
> question. There are hundreds of things in this world I know about
> that you have no clue. Posts like yours make my blood boil. If you
> knew everything, then you'd also know how to effectively communicate
> with your fellow humans and also how to take your anger out in places
> other than an information board. Where would we be if everyone in the
> world who knew something worth teaching to others had your attitude.
> Also that last crack about my car was uncalled for. You want ME to
> get personal you stupid sh*t?
>
> "Use your head?" F-YOU
>
> Not to mention the fact that if you search for air intake mods many
> people will say that they increase MPG so its not like I was pulling
> that out of thin air, it's at least a relatively popular opinion, so
> I'm not that dumb.
>
> James

That was an excellent rant - well done Sir.

Bear in mind that this is simply a Newsgroup. There's not much point in
getting angry at the posters you don't like

> PS-Nom let me know if you want skiing, fishing, kayaking, windsurfing,
> history, science lessons... Guarantee you dont know squat about at
> least one if any.

I'm quite good at skiing actually, and I've got "reasonable" science
knowledge.
However, you're right with the rest - I know nothing whatsoever about
"fishing, kayaking, windsurfing, history"

"Nom" <Nom@Somewhere.Somewhere> wrote in message
news:c3ecnn030oi@enews3.newsguy.com...
> Bruce Chang wrote:
> > Performance mods can increase your fuel economy.. If the engine can
> > use what it has more efficiently, then you'll get better gas mileage.
> > In other words, if you can get more power out of the same amount of
> > fuel, then you're likely to get better gas mileage.
>
> Agreed.
>
> However, the air-filters he's referring to, are designed to let more air
> into the engine. The only possible byproduct of this, is that more fuel is
> injected too !
> They aren't an "efficiency" mod - they're simply a mod to let the engine
> cram more mixture in

But if the mixture isn't needed (I'll have to assume his power requirements
for steady state driving have stayed the same) then *efficiency* has
increased.

Simply put, the throttle plate won't have to open as far for a giving speed.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 13:23:57 UTC "Stephen Bigelow"
<sbigelowPOV@rogers.com> wrote:

>
> "Nom" <Nom@Somewhere.Somewhere> wrote in message
> news:c3ecnn030oi@enews3.newsguy.com...
> > Bruce Chang wrote:
> > > Performance mods can increase your fuel economy.. If the engine can
> > > use what it has more efficiently, then you'll get better gas mileage.
> > > In other words, if you can get more power out of the same amount of
> > > fuel, then you're likely to get better gas mileage.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > However, the air-filters he's referring to, are designed to let more air
> > into the engine. The only possible byproduct of this, is that more fuel is
> > injected too !
> > They aren't an "efficiency" mod - they're simply a mod to let the engine
> > cram more mixture in
>
> But if the mixture isn't needed (I'll have to assume his power requirements
> for steady state driving have stayed the same) then *efficiency* has
> increased.
>
> Simply put, the throttle plate won't have to open as far for a giving speed.

Somehow, this discussion seems to be missing the point. The computer
is going to try to achieve a specific air-fuel ratio - not matter HOW
the air gets there. Power output depends on just how much air/fuel
there is in the cynlider when the mix burns. Assume the computer uses
the temperature and manifold pressure (I still feel that mass air flow
works a bit better, but that's another argument) to fire the injector
to get a perfect mixture. You step on the throttle, MAP goes up, fuel
increases, total mass of fuel/air sucked into the cylinder increases,
Viola! more oomph when the mixture ignites so you accelerate. Doesn't
matter how the air got in, just that it got there.

The only limitation on this is full throttle (WOT). If something in
the system (like the filter or the throttle body size) prevents the
cylinder from pulling in as much air as it possibly can then you gain
- but only at/near WOT. Anything less and the system could care less
as long as there is no limit on how much of the demanded air is
available. The only other factors are whether the injectors can
supply sufficient fuel to the mix (again, a WOT issue, not cruise) and
how the computer uses the TPS info to modify the fuel/air ratio. Even
if the TPS causes the computer to richen the mix, the O2 feedback will
in turn lean it so you are back where you started.

Of course, this all assumes that the computer is WAD and playing by
the rules and we all know how infallable computers are... Carbs
depend on air flow characteristics to get the mixture right so all
this intake stuff becomes important but it is much less so with
computer controlled FI.

--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>

Will Honea wrote:
>
> Somehow, this discussion seems to be missing the point. The computer
> is going to try to achieve a specific air-fuel ratio - not matter HOW
> the air gets there. Power output depends on just how much air/fuel
> there is in the cynlider when the mix burns. Assume the computer uses
> the temperature and manifold pressure (I still feel that mass air flow
> works a bit better, but that's another argument) to fire the injector
> to get a perfect mixture. You step on the throttle, MAP goes up, fuel
> increases, total mass of fuel/air sucked into the cylinder increases,
> Viola! more oomph when the mixture ignites so you accelerate.

A viola is a musical instrument. Voila (or more completely, voilá) is a
French exclamation). 8^)

> Doesn't matter how the air got in, just that it got there.

Not totally true. If the air flow is restricted, by the laws of
thermodynamics, it does take part of the energy that the engine produces
to pull the air in (product of volumetric flow rate and vacuum). So
truly there is less energy wasted in simply pulling the air in when
there is lower intake restriction. The rest of what you say is true,
i.e., the computer will close the loop to give the efficiency that the
engine is capable of (*BUT* less the energy wasted to pull the air in
which it has no way of recovering, according to the laws of
thermodynamics).

> The only limitation on this is full throttle (WOT). If something in
> the system (like the filter or the throttle body size) prevents the
> cylinder from pulling in as much air as it possibly can then you gain
> - but only at/near WOT. Anything less and the system could care less
> as long as there is no limit on how much of the demanded air is
> available.

Subject to the energy losses from pulling the air thru whatever
restriction is in the path to get inducted as stated above. Definitely
the differences (between restricted vs. less restricted intake) will be
greater at higher power demands (higher air flow demand) probably by a
square law, but the losses will be less with less restriction even in
lower power demand (lower air flow) situations.

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! =-----

Stephen Bigelow wrote:
> "Nom" <Nom@Somewhere.Somewhere> wrote in message
> news:c3ecnn030oi@enews3.newsguy.com...
>> Bruce Chang wrote:
>>> Performance mods can increase your fuel economy.. If the engine can
>>> use what it has more efficiently, then you'll get better gas
>>> mileage. In other words, if you can get more power out of the same
>>> amount of fuel, then you're likely to get better gas mileage.
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> However, the air-filters he's referring to, are designed to let more
>> air into the engine. The only possible byproduct of this, is that
>> more fuel is injected too !
>> They aren't an "efficiency" mod - they're simply a mod to let the
>> engine cram more mixture in
>
> But if the mixture isn't needed (I'll have to assume his power
> requirements for steady state driving have stayed the same) then
> *efficiency* has increased.

No it hasn't. Think about it.

> Simply put, the throttle plate won't have to open as far for a giving
> speed.

But that doesn't matter in the slightest !

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 !

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).

"Nom" <Nom@Somewhere.Somewhere> 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.
--
/"\ 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!

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:08:16 UTC Bernd Felsche
<bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:

> "Nom" <Nom@Somewhere.Somewhere> 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 <whonea@codenet.net>

Bernd Felsche wrote:

> i.e. it becomes more efficient.
>

This is true. If the efficiency is better. (More power) you are als able
to reduce consumption.
Turbo's and intercoolers are made to give more efficiency. So more
power, less consumption.
If an engine has a better efficiency.....Science of physics still rules
here.
Kind regards,
Erik-Jan.


--
http://www.fotograaf.com/trooper

Will Honea wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:08:16 UTC Bernd Felsche
> <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > "Nom" <Nom@Somewhere.Somewhere> 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 <whonea@codenet.net>

--
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
> <bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> > "Nom" <Nom@Somewhere.Somewhere> 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" <whonea@codenet.net> writes:

>On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:08:16 UTC Bernd Felsche
><bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:

>> "Nom" <Nom@Somewhere.Somewhere> 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" <jcac27@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9947a7f1.0403170815.6f6df25@posting.google.com...
> 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/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=38634&item=2467691696
> 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

Hi James,

There's some good advice in these replies but it has been my expensive experience that mods that do anything cost money!

I have been looking at a snorkel intake put out by British Atlantic - they make some gas saving claims but its worth a few dollars.