CAI mpg increase.
#1
12-21-2011 | 01:35 PM
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 71
From: Katy, tx
CAI mpg increase.
Was kinda wondering what kind of mpg people are getting on the 1.8's. A while back I made my own CAI by adding a 3" cone filter on the elbow cominig off the MAF. When I changed to that I picked up about 2 mpg. Then just to mess around I put a 4 inch Greddy filter (i know thats way to big) I lost a crap load of low end power which was expected, but I filled up on 89 octane, with that combo my mpg went up to 4 mpg to around 32mpg. Im going to change back to a 3" cause 4 is way to big. But i must say as far as mpg the car loves the 4".
#3
12-27-2011 | 12:08 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,912
From: Peoria AZ
"Then just to mess around I put a 4 inch Greddy filter (i know thats way to big) "
Just out of curiosity, how is it that you KNOW it is way too big.
It is an air intake. There is no rpm tuning per say that can be done due to Street driving variables. Most intakes on newer cars are designed to induce cool outside air at the throttle body one way or another. Most factory systems of the past never bothered with it, plumbing restrictions and cost effectivity were not worth the design effort. Most new cars along with meeting cool air requirements also do consider design efforts to get engines to run quieter so you do not get air sucking sounds, Most air intake systems that do actually give dyno proven hp power and effeciency increases, that is as applied to a given engine under given conditions not advertised as UP TO, take into account restrictions of the air flow, filter size and expected operating RPMS under drivng conditions.
For a small aprx. 2 liter engine running at WOT the odds are that air flow requirement is about the same as a vintage in line I6 engine running a carburator. The same make and model of the same car with performance oriented V8 probably had the need for 4 x's the air flow and at it's best never had as good of a low restriction factory intake system that had better and cooler air management. AS far as filter size, the objective of a filter is to stop dirt from getting into the engine. Some forms of racing had air filters that looked like spare tires sitting on the hood. Versions of todays off road truck series have huge filters systems running piping through to the engine mounted in the bed of the truck. So how is it on a slightly smaller than 2 liter street driven saturn is an air filter declared too big?
I can gain or loose more than two miles a gallon of gasoline just the way I drive my Saturn and on my Town and Country I can and have changed fuel mileage from 11mpg to 24 mpg just by driving differences.
I dunno, I have built more than a few engines and if I am going to build one on a budget and I have, the biggest bang for a buck considered street driving and smog compliance which I have to deal with, Camshafts selection is number 1 with fuel management, carburator or F.I. with for me anyways, carburetor gives more for less money then F.I. but with enough money you can not beat F.I., Intake manifold next, with dual exahust next or a huge big single on a small in line engine. But headers and air intake plumbing last on my effectivity per dollar expenditures.
If you are running an automatic a mild lock up torque converter with matching transmission is a good bet, about 2200 rpm and if a standard then a 5 speed.
But you need matching gear ratio's in the transmission.
Most of those things require some work to get them installed, but the pay back is measurable performance.
Donno, but that is my experiance for what it is worth.
But, as Stroker McGurk:
http://www.hotrod.com/thehistoryof/h...artoon_series/
used to say;
You can't beat cubic money!
Just out of curiosity, how is it that you KNOW it is way too big.
It is an air intake. There is no rpm tuning per say that can be done due to Street driving variables. Most intakes on newer cars are designed to induce cool outside air at the throttle body one way or another. Most factory systems of the past never bothered with it, plumbing restrictions and cost effectivity were not worth the design effort. Most new cars along with meeting cool air requirements also do consider design efforts to get engines to run quieter so you do not get air sucking sounds, Most air intake systems that do actually give dyno proven hp power and effeciency increases, that is as applied to a given engine under given conditions not advertised as UP TO, take into account restrictions of the air flow, filter size and expected operating RPMS under drivng conditions.
For a small aprx. 2 liter engine running at WOT the odds are that air flow requirement is about the same as a vintage in line I6 engine running a carburator. The same make and model of the same car with performance oriented V8 probably had the need for 4 x's the air flow and at it's best never had as good of a low restriction factory intake system that had better and cooler air management. AS far as filter size, the objective of a filter is to stop dirt from getting into the engine. Some forms of racing had air filters that looked like spare tires sitting on the hood. Versions of todays off road truck series have huge filters systems running piping through to the engine mounted in the bed of the truck. So how is it on a slightly smaller than 2 liter street driven saturn is an air filter declared too big?
I can gain or loose more than two miles a gallon of gasoline just the way I drive my Saturn and on my Town and Country I can and have changed fuel mileage from 11mpg to 24 mpg just by driving differences.
I dunno, I have built more than a few engines and if I am going to build one on a budget and I have, the biggest bang for a buck considered street driving and smog compliance which I have to deal with, Camshafts selection is number 1 with fuel management, carburator or F.I. with for me anyways, carburetor gives more for less money then F.I. but with enough money you can not beat F.I., Intake manifold next, with dual exahust next or a huge big single on a small in line engine. But headers and air intake plumbing last on my effectivity per dollar expenditures.
If you are running an automatic a mild lock up torque converter with matching transmission is a good bet, about 2200 rpm and if a standard then a 5 speed.
But you need matching gear ratio's in the transmission.
Most of those things require some work to get them installed, but the pay back is measurable performance.
Donno, but that is my experiance for what it is worth.
But, as Stroker McGurk:
http://www.hotrod.com/thehistoryof/h...artoon_series/
used to say;
You can't beat cubic money!
#4
12-27-2011 | 12:40 PM
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 71
From: Katy, tx
The filter that I took off the car was a new fram filter. I asked them to change it when I got the car. I drove 5 tanks of gas on 87 oct. I averaged out the 5 tanks and the car was getting 27.2mpg. Then I changed to a 3 inch cone style filter and drove 5 tanks of gas driving the same as with the stock filter. With that combination the car was getting 29.4 mpg.
#5
12-27-2011 | 12:57 PM
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 71
From: Katy, tx
"Then just to mess around I put a 4 inch Greddy filter (i know thats way to big) "
Just out of curiosity, how is it that you KNOW it is way too big.
It is an air intake. There is no rpm tuning per say that can be done due to Street driving variables. Most intakes on newer cars are designed to induce cool outside air at the throttle body one way or another. Most factory systems of the past never bothered with it, plumbing restrictions and cost effectivity were not worth the design effort. Most new cars along with meeting cool air requirements also do consider design efforts to get engines to run quieter so you do not get air sucking sounds, Most air intake systems that do actually give dyno proven hp power and effeciency increases, that is as applied to a given engine under given conditions not advertised as UP TO, take into account restrictions of the air flow, filter size and expected operating RPMS under drivng conditions.
For a small aprx. 2 liter engine running at WOT the odds are that air flow requirement is about the same as a vintage in line I6 engine running a carburator. The same make and model of the same car with performance oriented V8 probably had the need for 4 x's the air flow and at it's best never had as good of a low restriction factory intake system that had better and cooler air management. AS far as filter size, the objective of a filter is to stop dirt from getting into the engine. Some forms of racing had air filters that looked like spare tires sitting on the hood. Versions of todays off road truck series have huge filters systems running piping through to the engine mounted in the bed of the truck. So how is it on a slightly smaller than 2 liter street driven saturn is an air filter declared too big?
I can gain or loose more than two miles a gallon of gasoline just the way I drive my Saturn and on my Town and Country I can and have changed fuel mileage from 11mpg to 24 mpg just by driving differences.
I dunno, I have built more than a few engines and if I am going to build one on a budget and I have, the biggest bang for a buck considered street driving and smog compliance which I have to deal with, Camshafts selection is number 1 with fuel management, carburator or F.I. with for me anyways, carburetor gives more for less money then F.I. but with enough money you can not beat F.I., Intake manifold next, with dual exahust next or a huge big single on a small in line engine. But headers and air intake plumbing last on my effectivity per dollar expenditures.
If you are running an automatic a mild lock up torque converter with matching transmission is a good bet, about 2200 rpm and if a standard then a 5 speed.
But you need matching gear ratio's in the transmission.
Most of those things require some work to get them installed, but the pay back is measurable performance.
Donno, but that is my experiance for what it is worth.
But, as Stroker McGurk:
http://www.hotrod.com/thehistoryof/h...artoon_series/
used to say;
You can't beat cubic money!
Just out of curiosity, how is it that you KNOW it is way too big.
It is an air intake. There is no rpm tuning per say that can be done due to Street driving variables. Most intakes on newer cars are designed to induce cool outside air at the throttle body one way or another. Most factory systems of the past never bothered with it, plumbing restrictions and cost effectivity were not worth the design effort. Most new cars along with meeting cool air requirements also do consider design efforts to get engines to run quieter so you do not get air sucking sounds, Most air intake systems that do actually give dyno proven hp power and effeciency increases, that is as applied to a given engine under given conditions not advertised as UP TO, take into account restrictions of the air flow, filter size and expected operating RPMS under drivng conditions.
For a small aprx. 2 liter engine running at WOT the odds are that air flow requirement is about the same as a vintage in line I6 engine running a carburator. The same make and model of the same car with performance oriented V8 probably had the need for 4 x's the air flow and at it's best never had as good of a low restriction factory intake system that had better and cooler air management. AS far as filter size, the objective of a filter is to stop dirt from getting into the engine. Some forms of racing had air filters that looked like spare tires sitting on the hood. Versions of todays off road truck series have huge filters systems running piping through to the engine mounted in the bed of the truck. So how is it on a slightly smaller than 2 liter street driven saturn is an air filter declared too big?
I can gain or loose more than two miles a gallon of gasoline just the way I drive my Saturn and on my Town and Country I can and have changed fuel mileage from 11mpg to 24 mpg just by driving differences.
I dunno, I have built more than a few engines and if I am going to build one on a budget and I have, the biggest bang for a buck considered street driving and smog compliance which I have to deal with, Camshafts selection is number 1 with fuel management, carburator or F.I. with for me anyways, carburetor gives more for less money then F.I. but with enough money you can not beat F.I., Intake manifold next, with dual exahust next or a huge big single on a small in line engine. But headers and air intake plumbing last on my effectivity per dollar expenditures.
If you are running an automatic a mild lock up torque converter with matching transmission is a good bet, about 2200 rpm and if a standard then a 5 speed.
But you need matching gear ratio's in the transmission.
Most of those things require some work to get them installed, but the pay back is measurable performance.
Donno, but that is my experiance for what it is worth.
But, as Stroker McGurk:
http://www.hotrod.com/thehistoryof/h...artoon_series/
used to say;
You can't beat cubic money!
#6
12-28-2011 | 11:10 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,912
From: Peoria AZ
Quote
With me being around and also building engines I understand what your saying. But you kinda took it way over the top. I was simply asking what mpg other people were getting.
Unquote
Sorry, no offense intended, way over the top? Not really, just a skeptic. I have yet to see a generic aftermarket performance enhancing device universally advertised as “Up To” some claim or another actually be much benefit in normal driving circumstances making it worth the money spent to buy and install what ever it is.
Frankly with little differences in application.
In general any benefit immediately available was by in large traceable to something was wrong in the first place and installing what ever it was corrected the basic problem and the installation either looked way too kool or made go fast noises or some combination of both thus the improvement was claimed to be a direct result of the “new” thingy rather than the repair of what is broken.
Most, but not all, but most performance enhancing parts address the operating limits of an engine and are very rarely visible until that limit is reached. On a street driven car, those limits are rarely reached. In a pure racing environment they are reached and exceeded routinely in a well defined and generally measured manner.
I like most back yard builders depend on the seat of the pants dyno, a subjective manner of determining an improvement based in part on the predetermined expectation.
Roller Rockers on a push rod engine have a measurable expectation of results based on cam shaft profile and rpm. And when pushed to that level work. Are expensive to install and largely unless actually driven under those conditions cause premature valve train failure due to lifter problems, cam shaft wear, excessive weight on the valve train and the pressures needed due to extra weight of the components caused by increased valve spring tension. All of which does nothing for normal driving and probably has a negative impact because now mores law has taken over, more cam does not mean better drivability, so drivability can go down the toilet. Not to mention if the rest of the engine is not modified to take advantage of more and better valve lift at extreme rpm, the engine is rpm limited by other area’s and will rarely run in the range of benefit one can get from the change over.
Which pretty much says, a well built Flat Tappet V8 with an aggressive but streatable cam shaft profile, the right intake system and exhaust and an ignitions system that will deliver spark at the rpm’s the engine can run at can and will out perform the engine with roller rockers, but little else to back them up with.
But the are Kool and Expensive.
All of the above is both arguable and subject to opinion.
My point is one of questionable results based on installing a round tube with a cone filter on a small displacement engine that when installed eliminates the factory designed fresh air input to the engine and replaces it with hot under hood air. A known way to decrease the efficiency of an engine.
The assumption is that replacing the factory designed intake system provides you with something more efficient.
I don’t see the truth in that.
My Saturn is bone stock. I would like another 15 hp for it. I do not see 15 hp in bolt on additions to the cosmetic appearance of the engine nor do I see replacing an air cleaner that is arguably large enough to not cause a restriction to the air flow that the engine can run at on the street in normal driving and does supply fresh outside air, a known performance improving method with one the supplies hot under hood air.
As to air need, flow or usage. That is dictated by the size of the motor and the rpm it runs at. An engine is an air pump. It can by itself pump X amount of air at a given rpm. The limitation is not the size of the are filter, but the restrictions with in the air filter system. And if they are large enough, they do not factor in to the equations.
Engine can not have too much air by changing the filter to bigger. Engines are regularly supercharged or turb-blown which either method increases the air available to the engine and to utilize the increased air other modifications have to be made to it to gain a maximum benefit.
Most of my building has been small I6 or I4 engines and with those the limits defined by the factory designed intake and exhaust have rarely made any difference in the measurable performance or that sensed by the seat of the pants unless there has been first a measurable problem with how the engine ran or a serious and observable restriction in either the intake air path or the exhaust.
At street driven performance levels.
Chassis Dyno work or Drag strip measurable time differences on small displacement engine modifications to an engine that was actually in good shape in the first place has been insignificant on intake and exhaust changes including hi-flow catalytic converters and larger exhaust.
Are there a place in the automotive world for these changes? Yes! But generally under extreme conditions and/or some seriously expensive modifications that also take into account something more than an isolated case such as drag strip times.
I have for example, achieved a measurable increase in both performance and economy by replacing a 178cfm 2 bbl carburetor with a fuel injection system capable of flowing the equivalent amount of air of upwards of 500 cfm.
The engine was under carbureted. It dropped dead at 3800 rpm.
With the installation of the Port Injection system it now ran to end of cam shaft limits, about 5500 rpms.
But at what cost?
About $3300.00 for the F.I. system. Something I could have done with a 4bbl carb at about $300.00 worth of parts.
But did not.
And on top of that, the F.I. program operation required me to have a 2200 rpm stall torqueconverter to actually work correctly. An animal of a whole different caliber.
So over the top? Maybe, but a skeptic yes.
My Saturn as stated is a 94, bone stock in good shape. I like it, it is quick. The best feature is the programmable automatic transmission with a sport and economy setting which controls what gear it is in and when.
I have scared the hell out of new mustangs with it. In sport mode.
Where does it fall on it’s face? Climbing 7% grades at freeway speeds of 75mph on cruis-control. It does not have the power to maintain speed under those conditions.
Fuel mileage, regularly 33mpg on the open road. Low 20’s somewhere in mixed city traffic. Depending on how I drive it.
My only other experience was a friends 99 5 speed car regularly got 45mpg + making the same trip I get 33 on.
Don’t know why. I guess I did not think my 33mpg was out of line with reality.
I just personally question the advantage of a metal tube that looks nice. If it works for you, than I am wrong. And admit it. I am a skeptic.
But a 2mpg increase if fuel economy can be achieved by changing driving habits too. These things and cat back exhaust systems some how do not ring well with my way of thinking. So sorry, no offence intended nor meant. If I question the expenditure, that is o.k., I can, so can you. You ought to see some of mine.
With me being around and also building engines I understand what your saying. But you kinda took it way over the top. I was simply asking what mpg other people were getting.
Unquote
Sorry, no offense intended, way over the top? Not really, just a skeptic. I have yet to see a generic aftermarket performance enhancing device universally advertised as “Up To” some claim or another actually be much benefit in normal driving circumstances making it worth the money spent to buy and install what ever it is.
Frankly with little differences in application.
In general any benefit immediately available was by in large traceable to something was wrong in the first place and installing what ever it was corrected the basic problem and the installation either looked way too kool or made go fast noises or some combination of both thus the improvement was claimed to be a direct result of the “new” thingy rather than the repair of what is broken.
Most, but not all, but most performance enhancing parts address the operating limits of an engine and are very rarely visible until that limit is reached. On a street driven car, those limits are rarely reached. In a pure racing environment they are reached and exceeded routinely in a well defined and generally measured manner.
I like most back yard builders depend on the seat of the pants dyno, a subjective manner of determining an improvement based in part on the predetermined expectation.
Roller Rockers on a push rod engine have a measurable expectation of results based on cam shaft profile and rpm. And when pushed to that level work. Are expensive to install and largely unless actually driven under those conditions cause premature valve train failure due to lifter problems, cam shaft wear, excessive weight on the valve train and the pressures needed due to extra weight of the components caused by increased valve spring tension. All of which does nothing for normal driving and probably has a negative impact because now mores law has taken over, more cam does not mean better drivability, so drivability can go down the toilet. Not to mention if the rest of the engine is not modified to take advantage of more and better valve lift at extreme rpm, the engine is rpm limited by other area’s and will rarely run in the range of benefit one can get from the change over.
Which pretty much says, a well built Flat Tappet V8 with an aggressive but streatable cam shaft profile, the right intake system and exhaust and an ignitions system that will deliver spark at the rpm’s the engine can run at can and will out perform the engine with roller rockers, but little else to back them up with.
But the are Kool and Expensive.
All of the above is both arguable and subject to opinion.
My point is one of questionable results based on installing a round tube with a cone filter on a small displacement engine that when installed eliminates the factory designed fresh air input to the engine and replaces it with hot under hood air. A known way to decrease the efficiency of an engine.
The assumption is that replacing the factory designed intake system provides you with something more efficient.
I don’t see the truth in that.
My Saturn is bone stock. I would like another 15 hp for it. I do not see 15 hp in bolt on additions to the cosmetic appearance of the engine nor do I see replacing an air cleaner that is arguably large enough to not cause a restriction to the air flow that the engine can run at on the street in normal driving and does supply fresh outside air, a known performance improving method with one the supplies hot under hood air.
As to air need, flow or usage. That is dictated by the size of the motor and the rpm it runs at. An engine is an air pump. It can by itself pump X amount of air at a given rpm. The limitation is not the size of the are filter, but the restrictions with in the air filter system. And if they are large enough, they do not factor in to the equations.
Engine can not have too much air by changing the filter to bigger. Engines are regularly supercharged or turb-blown which either method increases the air available to the engine and to utilize the increased air other modifications have to be made to it to gain a maximum benefit.
Most of my building has been small I6 or I4 engines and with those the limits defined by the factory designed intake and exhaust have rarely made any difference in the measurable performance or that sensed by the seat of the pants unless there has been first a measurable problem with how the engine ran or a serious and observable restriction in either the intake air path or the exhaust.
At street driven performance levels.
Chassis Dyno work or Drag strip measurable time differences on small displacement engine modifications to an engine that was actually in good shape in the first place has been insignificant on intake and exhaust changes including hi-flow catalytic converters and larger exhaust.
Are there a place in the automotive world for these changes? Yes! But generally under extreme conditions and/or some seriously expensive modifications that also take into account something more than an isolated case such as drag strip times.
I have for example, achieved a measurable increase in both performance and economy by replacing a 178cfm 2 bbl carburetor with a fuel injection system capable of flowing the equivalent amount of air of upwards of 500 cfm.
The engine was under carbureted. It dropped dead at 3800 rpm.
With the installation of the Port Injection system it now ran to end of cam shaft limits, about 5500 rpms.
But at what cost?
About $3300.00 for the F.I. system. Something I could have done with a 4bbl carb at about $300.00 worth of parts.
But did not.
And on top of that, the F.I. program operation required me to have a 2200 rpm stall torqueconverter to actually work correctly. An animal of a whole different caliber.
So over the top? Maybe, but a skeptic yes.
My Saturn as stated is a 94, bone stock in good shape. I like it, it is quick. The best feature is the programmable automatic transmission with a sport and economy setting which controls what gear it is in and when.
I have scared the hell out of new mustangs with it. In sport mode.
Where does it fall on it’s face? Climbing 7% grades at freeway speeds of 75mph on cruis-control. It does not have the power to maintain speed under those conditions.
Fuel mileage, regularly 33mpg on the open road. Low 20’s somewhere in mixed city traffic. Depending on how I drive it.
My only other experience was a friends 99 5 speed car regularly got 45mpg + making the same trip I get 33 on.
Don’t know why. I guess I did not think my 33mpg was out of line with reality.
I just personally question the advantage of a metal tube that looks nice. If it works for you, than I am wrong. And admit it. I am a skeptic.
But a 2mpg increase if fuel economy can be achieved by changing driving habits too. These things and cat back exhaust systems some how do not ring well with my way of thinking. So sorry, no offence intended nor meant. If I question the expenditure, that is o.k., I can, so can you. You ought to see some of mine.
#7
12-28-2011 | 02:52 PM
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 71
From: Katy, tx
Quote
With me being around and also building engines I understand what your saying. But you kinda took it way over the top. I was simply asking what mpg other people were getting.
Unquote
Sorry, no offense intended, way over the top? Not really, just a skeptic. I have yet to see a generic aftermarket performance enhancing device universally advertised as “Up To” some claim or another actually be much benefit in normal driving circumstances making it worth the money spent to buy and install what ever it is.
Frankly with little differences in application.
In general any benefit immediately available was by in large traceable to something was wrong in the first place and installing what ever it was corrected the basic problem and the installation either looked way too kool or made go fast noises or some combination of both thus the improvement was claimed to be a direct result of the “new” thingy rather than the repair of what is broken.
Most, but not all, but most performance enhancing parts address the operating limits of an engine and are very rarely visible until that limit is reached. On a street driven car, those limits are rarely reached. In a pure racing environment they are reached and exceeded routinely in a well defined and generally measured manner.
I like most back yard builders depend on the seat of the pants dyno, a subjective manner of determining an improvement based in part on the predetermined expectation.
Roller Rockers on a push rod engine have a measurable expectation of results based on cam shaft profile and rpm. And when pushed to that level work. Are expensive to install and largely unless actually driven under those conditions cause premature valve train failure due to lifter problems, cam shaft wear, excessive weight on the valve train and the pressures needed due to extra weight of the components caused by increased valve spring tension. All of which does nothing for normal driving and probably has a negative impact because now mores law has taken over, more cam does not mean better drivability, so drivability can go down the toilet. Not to mention if the rest of the engine is not modified to take advantage of more and better valve lift at extreme rpm, the engine is rpm limited by other area’s and will rarely run in the range of benefit one can get from the change over.
Which pretty much says, a well built Flat Tappet V8 with an aggressive but streatable cam shaft profile, the right intake system and exhaust and an ignitions system that will deliver spark at the rpm’s the engine can run at can and will out perform the engine with roller rockers, but little else to back them up with.
But the are Kool and Expensive.
All of the above is both arguable and subject to opinion.
My point is one of questionable results based on installing a round tube with a cone filter on a small displacement engine that when installed eliminates the factory designed fresh air input to the engine and replaces it with hot under hood air. A known way to decrease the efficiency of an engine.
The assumption is that replacing the factory designed intake system provides you with something more efficient.
I don’t see the truth in that.
My Saturn is bone stock. I would like another 15 hp for it. I do not see 15 hp in bolt on additions to the cosmetic appearance of the engine nor do I see replacing an air cleaner that is arguably large enough to not cause a restriction to the air flow that the engine can run at on the street in normal driving and does supply fresh outside air, a known performance improving method with one the supplies hot under hood air.
As to air need, flow or usage. That is dictated by the size of the motor and the rpm it runs at. An engine is an air pump. It can by itself pump X amount of air at a given rpm. The limitation is not the size of the are filter, but the restrictions with in the air filter system. And if they are large enough, they do not factor in to the equations.
Engine can not have too much air by changing the filter to bigger. Engines are regularly supercharged or turb-blown which either method increases the air available to the engine and to utilize the increased air other modifications have to be made to it to gain a maximum benefit.
Most of my building has been small I6 or I4 engines and with those the limits defined by the factory designed intake and exhaust have rarely made any difference in the measurable performance or that sensed by the seat of the pants unless there has been first a measurable problem with how the engine ran or a serious and observable restriction in either the intake air path or the exhaust.
At street driven performance levels.
Chassis Dyno work or Drag strip measurable time differences on small displacement engine modifications to an engine that was actually in good shape in the first place has been insignificant on intake and exhaust changes including hi-flow catalytic converters and larger exhaust.
Are there a place in the automotive world for these changes? Yes! But generally under extreme conditions and/or some seriously expensive modifications that also take into account something more than an isolated case such as drag strip times.
I have for example, achieved a measurable increase in both performance and economy by replacing a 178cfm 2 bbl carburetor with a fuel injection system capable of flowing the equivalent amount of air of upwards of 500 cfm.
The engine was under carbureted. It dropped dead at 3800 rpm.
With the installation of the Port Injection system it now ran to end of cam shaft limits, about 5500 rpms.
But at what cost?
About $3300.00 for the F.I. system. Something I could have done with a 4bbl carb at about $300.00 worth of parts.
But did not.
And on top of that, the F.I. program operation required me to have a 2200 rpm stall torqueconverter to actually work correctly. An animal of a whole different caliber.
So over the top? Maybe, but a skeptic yes.
My Saturn as stated is a 94, bone stock in good shape. I like it, it is quick. The best feature is the programmable automatic transmission with a sport and economy setting which controls what gear it is in and when.
I have scared the hell out of new mustangs with it. In sport mode.
Where does it fall on it’s face? Climbing 7% grades at freeway speeds of 75mph on cruis-control. It does not have the power to maintain speed under those conditions.
Fuel mileage, regularly 33mpg on the open road. Low 20’s somewhere in mixed city traffic. Depending on how I drive it.
My only other experience was a friends 99 5 speed car regularly got 45mpg + making the same trip I get 33 on.
Don’t know why. I guess I did not think my 33mpg was out of line with reality.
I just personally question the advantage of a metal tube that looks nice. If it works for you, than I am wrong. And admit it. I am a skeptic.
But a 2mpg increase if fuel economy can be achieved by changing driving habits too. These things and cat back exhaust systems some how do not ring well with my way of thinking. So sorry, no offence intended nor meant. If I question the expenditure, that is o.k., I can, so can you. You ought to see some of mine.
With me being around and also building engines I understand what your saying. But you kinda took it way over the top. I was simply asking what mpg other people were getting.
Unquote
Sorry, no offense intended, way over the top? Not really, just a skeptic. I have yet to see a generic aftermarket performance enhancing device universally advertised as “Up To” some claim or another actually be much benefit in normal driving circumstances making it worth the money spent to buy and install what ever it is.
Frankly with little differences in application.
In general any benefit immediately available was by in large traceable to something was wrong in the first place and installing what ever it was corrected the basic problem and the installation either looked way too kool or made go fast noises or some combination of both thus the improvement was claimed to be a direct result of the “new” thingy rather than the repair of what is broken.
Most, but not all, but most performance enhancing parts address the operating limits of an engine and are very rarely visible until that limit is reached. On a street driven car, those limits are rarely reached. In a pure racing environment they are reached and exceeded routinely in a well defined and generally measured manner.
I like most back yard builders depend on the seat of the pants dyno, a subjective manner of determining an improvement based in part on the predetermined expectation.
Roller Rockers on a push rod engine have a measurable expectation of results based on cam shaft profile and rpm. And when pushed to that level work. Are expensive to install and largely unless actually driven under those conditions cause premature valve train failure due to lifter problems, cam shaft wear, excessive weight on the valve train and the pressures needed due to extra weight of the components caused by increased valve spring tension. All of which does nothing for normal driving and probably has a negative impact because now mores law has taken over, more cam does not mean better drivability, so drivability can go down the toilet. Not to mention if the rest of the engine is not modified to take advantage of more and better valve lift at extreme rpm, the engine is rpm limited by other area’s and will rarely run in the range of benefit one can get from the change over.
Which pretty much says, a well built Flat Tappet V8 with an aggressive but streatable cam shaft profile, the right intake system and exhaust and an ignitions system that will deliver spark at the rpm’s the engine can run at can and will out perform the engine with roller rockers, but little else to back them up with.
But the are Kool and Expensive.
All of the above is both arguable and subject to opinion.
My point is one of questionable results based on installing a round tube with a cone filter on a small displacement engine that when installed eliminates the factory designed fresh air input to the engine and replaces it with hot under hood air. A known way to decrease the efficiency of an engine.
The assumption is that replacing the factory designed intake system provides you with something more efficient.
I don’t see the truth in that.
My Saturn is bone stock. I would like another 15 hp for it. I do not see 15 hp in bolt on additions to the cosmetic appearance of the engine nor do I see replacing an air cleaner that is arguably large enough to not cause a restriction to the air flow that the engine can run at on the street in normal driving and does supply fresh outside air, a known performance improving method with one the supplies hot under hood air.
As to air need, flow or usage. That is dictated by the size of the motor and the rpm it runs at. An engine is an air pump. It can by itself pump X amount of air at a given rpm. The limitation is not the size of the are filter, but the restrictions with in the air filter system. And if they are large enough, they do not factor in to the equations.
Engine can not have too much air by changing the filter to bigger. Engines are regularly supercharged or turb-blown which either method increases the air available to the engine and to utilize the increased air other modifications have to be made to it to gain a maximum benefit.
Most of my building has been small I6 or I4 engines and with those the limits defined by the factory designed intake and exhaust have rarely made any difference in the measurable performance or that sensed by the seat of the pants unless there has been first a measurable problem with how the engine ran or a serious and observable restriction in either the intake air path or the exhaust.
At street driven performance levels.
Chassis Dyno work or Drag strip measurable time differences on small displacement engine modifications to an engine that was actually in good shape in the first place has been insignificant on intake and exhaust changes including hi-flow catalytic converters and larger exhaust.
Are there a place in the automotive world for these changes? Yes! But generally under extreme conditions and/or some seriously expensive modifications that also take into account something more than an isolated case such as drag strip times.
I have for example, achieved a measurable increase in both performance and economy by replacing a 178cfm 2 bbl carburetor with a fuel injection system capable of flowing the equivalent amount of air of upwards of 500 cfm.
The engine was under carbureted. It dropped dead at 3800 rpm.
With the installation of the Port Injection system it now ran to end of cam shaft limits, about 5500 rpms.
But at what cost?
About $3300.00 for the F.I. system. Something I could have done with a 4bbl carb at about $300.00 worth of parts.
But did not.
And on top of that, the F.I. program operation required me to have a 2200 rpm stall torqueconverter to actually work correctly. An animal of a whole different caliber.
So over the top? Maybe, but a skeptic yes.
My Saturn as stated is a 94, bone stock in good shape. I like it, it is quick. The best feature is the programmable automatic transmission with a sport and economy setting which controls what gear it is in and when.
I have scared the hell out of new mustangs with it. In sport mode.
Where does it fall on it’s face? Climbing 7% grades at freeway speeds of 75mph on cruis-control. It does not have the power to maintain speed under those conditions.
Fuel mileage, regularly 33mpg on the open road. Low 20’s somewhere in mixed city traffic. Depending on how I drive it.
My only other experience was a friends 99 5 speed car regularly got 45mpg + making the same trip I get 33 on.
Don’t know why. I guess I did not think my 33mpg was out of line with reality.
I just personally question the advantage of a metal tube that looks nice. If it works for you, than I am wrong. And admit it. I am a skeptic.
But a 2mpg increase if fuel economy can be achieved by changing driving habits too. These things and cat back exhaust systems some how do not ring well with my way of thinking. So sorry, no offence intended nor meant. If I question the expenditure, that is o.k., I can, so can you. You ought to see some of mine.
#8
12-28-2011 | 02:53 PM
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 71
From: Katy, tx
I agree with everything you said. Your a very inteligent person. I was skeptical myself. But I drove 5 tanks with one filter and 5 with the other and that's what it averaged out to, those were the numbers that came up. I enjoy your knowledge about cars. I almost wanna write more to see what you respond with.
#9
12-28-2011 | 07:55 PM
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 71
From: Katy, tx
Quote
With me being around and also building engines I understand what your saying. But you kinda took it way over the top. I was simply asking what mpg other people were getting.
Unquote
Sorry, no offense intended, way over the top? Not really, just a skeptic. I have yet to see a generic aftermarket performance enhancing device universally advertised as “Up To” some claim or another actually be much benefit in normal driving circumstances making it worth the money spent to buy and install what ever it is.
Frankly with little differences in application.
In general any benefit immediately available was by in large traceable to something was wrong in the first place and installing what ever it was corrected the basic problem and the installation either looked way too kool or made go fast noises or some combination of both thus the improvement was claimed to be a direct result of the “new” thingy rather than the repair of what is broken.
Most, but not all, but most performance enhancing parts address the operating limits of an engine and are very rarely visible until that limit is reached. On a street driven car, those limits are rarely reached. In a pure racing environment they are reached and exceeded routinely in a well defined and generally measured manner.
I like most back yard builders depend on the seat of the pants dyno, a subjective manner of determining an improvement based in part on the predetermined expectation.
Roller Rockers on a push rod engine have a measurable expectation of results based on cam shaft profile and rpm. And when pushed to that level work. Are expensive to install and largely unless actually driven under those conditions cause premature valve train failure due to lifter problems, cam shaft wear, excessive weight on the valve train and the pressures needed due to extra weight of the components caused by increased valve spring tension. All of which does nothing for normal driving and probably has a negative impact because now mores law has taken over, more cam does not mean better drivability, so drivability can go down the toilet. Not to mention if the rest of the engine is not modified to take advantage of more and better valve lift at extreme rpm, the engine is rpm limited by other area’s and will rarely run in the range of benefit one can get from the change over.
Which pretty much says, a well built Flat Tappet V8 with an aggressive but streatable cam shaft profile, the right intake system and exhaust and an ignitions system that will deliver spark at the rpm’s the engine can run at can and will out perform the engine with roller rockers, but little else to back them up with.
But the are Kool and Expensive.
All of the above is both arguable and subject to opinion.
My point is one of questionable results based on installing a round tube with a cone filter on a small displacement engine that when installed eliminates the factory designed fresh air input to the engine and replaces it with hot under hood air. A known way to decrease the efficiency of an engine.
The assumption is that replacing the factory designed intake system provides you with something more efficient.
I don’t see the truth in that.
My Saturn is bone stock. I would like another 15 hp for it. I do not see 15 hp in bolt on additions to the cosmetic appearance of the engine nor do I see replacing an air cleaner that is arguably large enough to not cause a restriction to the air flow that the engine can run at on the street in normal driving and does supply fresh outside air, a known performance improving method with one the supplies hot under hood air.
As to air need, flow or usage. That is dictated by the size of the motor and the rpm it runs at. An engine is an air pump. It can by itself pump X amount of air at a given rpm. The limitation is not the size of the are filter, but the restrictions with in the air filter system. And if they are large enough, they do not factor in to the equations.
Engine can not have too much air by changing the filter to bigger. Engines are regularly supercharged or turb-blown which either method increases the air available to the engine and to utilize the increased air other modifications have to be made to it to gain a maximum benefit.
Most of my building has been small I6 or I4 engines and with those the limits defined by the factory designed intake and exhaust have rarely made any difference in the measurable performance or that sensed by the seat of the pants unless there has been first a measurable problem with how the engine ran or a serious and observable restriction in either the intake air path or the exhaust.
At street driven performance levels.
Chassis Dyno work or Drag strip measurable time differences on small displacement engine modifications to an engine that was actually in good shape in the first place has been insignificant on intake and exhaust changes including hi-flow catalytic converters and larger exhaust.
Are there a place in the automotive world for these changes? Yes! But generally under extreme conditions and/or some seriously expensive modifications that also take into account something more than an isolated case such as drag strip times.
I have for example, achieved a measurable increase in both performance and economy by replacing a 178cfm 2 bbl carburetor with a fuel injection system capable of flowing the equivalent amount of air of upwards of 500 cfm.
The engine was under carbureted. It dropped dead at 3800 rpm.
With the installation of the Port Injection system it now ran to end of cam shaft limits, about 5500 rpms.
But at what cost?
About $3300.00 for the F.I. system. Something I could have done with a 4bbl carb at about $300.00 worth of parts.
But did not.
And on top of that, the F.I. program operation required me to have a 2200 rpm stall torqueconverter to actually work correctly. An animal of a whole different caliber.
So over the top? Maybe, but a skeptic yes.
My Saturn as stated is a 94, bone stock in good shape. I like it, it is quick. The best feature is the programmable automatic transmission with a sport and economy setting which controls what gear it is in and when.
I have scared the hell out of new mustangs with it. In sport mode.
Where does it fall on it’s face? Climbing 7% grades at freeway speeds of 75mph on cruis-control. It does not have the power to maintain speed under those conditions.
Fuel mileage, regularly 33mpg on the open road. Low 20’s somewhere in mixed city traffic. Depending on how I drive it.
My only other experience was a friends 99 5 speed car regularly got 45mpg + making the same trip I get 33 on.
Don’t know why. I guess I did not think my 33mpg was out of line with reality.
I just personally question the advantage of a metal tube that looks nice. If it works for you, than I am wrong. And admit it. I am a skeptic.
But a 2mpg increase if fuel economy can be achieved by changing driving habits too. These things and cat back exhaust systems some how do not ring well with my way of thinking. So sorry, no offence intended nor meant. If I question the expenditure, that is o.k., I can, so can you. You ought to see some of mine.
With me being around and also building engines I understand what your saying. But you kinda took it way over the top. I was simply asking what mpg other people were getting.
Unquote
Sorry, no offense intended, way over the top? Not really, just a skeptic. I have yet to see a generic aftermarket performance enhancing device universally advertised as “Up To” some claim or another actually be much benefit in normal driving circumstances making it worth the money spent to buy and install what ever it is.
Frankly with little differences in application.
In general any benefit immediately available was by in large traceable to something was wrong in the first place and installing what ever it was corrected the basic problem and the installation either looked way too kool or made go fast noises or some combination of both thus the improvement was claimed to be a direct result of the “new” thingy rather than the repair of what is broken.
Most, but not all, but most performance enhancing parts address the operating limits of an engine and are very rarely visible until that limit is reached. On a street driven car, those limits are rarely reached. In a pure racing environment they are reached and exceeded routinely in a well defined and generally measured manner.
I like most back yard builders depend on the seat of the pants dyno, a subjective manner of determining an improvement based in part on the predetermined expectation.
Roller Rockers on a push rod engine have a measurable expectation of results based on cam shaft profile and rpm. And when pushed to that level work. Are expensive to install and largely unless actually driven under those conditions cause premature valve train failure due to lifter problems, cam shaft wear, excessive weight on the valve train and the pressures needed due to extra weight of the components caused by increased valve spring tension. All of which does nothing for normal driving and probably has a negative impact because now mores law has taken over, more cam does not mean better drivability, so drivability can go down the toilet. Not to mention if the rest of the engine is not modified to take advantage of more and better valve lift at extreme rpm, the engine is rpm limited by other area’s and will rarely run in the range of benefit one can get from the change over.
Which pretty much says, a well built Flat Tappet V8 with an aggressive but streatable cam shaft profile, the right intake system and exhaust and an ignitions system that will deliver spark at the rpm’s the engine can run at can and will out perform the engine with roller rockers, but little else to back them up with.
But the are Kool and Expensive.
All of the above is both arguable and subject to opinion.
My point is one of questionable results based on installing a round tube with a cone filter on a small displacement engine that when installed eliminates the factory designed fresh air input to the engine and replaces it with hot under hood air. A known way to decrease the efficiency of an engine.
The assumption is that replacing the factory designed intake system provides you with something more efficient.
I don’t see the truth in that.
My Saturn is bone stock. I would like another 15 hp for it. I do not see 15 hp in bolt on additions to the cosmetic appearance of the engine nor do I see replacing an air cleaner that is arguably large enough to not cause a restriction to the air flow that the engine can run at on the street in normal driving and does supply fresh outside air, a known performance improving method with one the supplies hot under hood air.
As to air need, flow or usage. That is dictated by the size of the motor and the rpm it runs at. An engine is an air pump. It can by itself pump X amount of air at a given rpm. The limitation is not the size of the are filter, but the restrictions with in the air filter system. And if they are large enough, they do not factor in to the equations.
Engine can not have too much air by changing the filter to bigger. Engines are regularly supercharged or turb-blown which either method increases the air available to the engine and to utilize the increased air other modifications have to be made to it to gain a maximum benefit.
Most of my building has been small I6 or I4 engines and with those the limits defined by the factory designed intake and exhaust have rarely made any difference in the measurable performance or that sensed by the seat of the pants unless there has been first a measurable problem with how the engine ran or a serious and observable restriction in either the intake air path or the exhaust.
At street driven performance levels.
Chassis Dyno work or Drag strip measurable time differences on small displacement engine modifications to an engine that was actually in good shape in the first place has been insignificant on intake and exhaust changes including hi-flow catalytic converters and larger exhaust.
Are there a place in the automotive world for these changes? Yes! But generally under extreme conditions and/or some seriously expensive modifications that also take into account something more than an isolated case such as drag strip times.
I have for example, achieved a measurable increase in both performance and economy by replacing a 178cfm 2 bbl carburetor with a fuel injection system capable of flowing the equivalent amount of air of upwards of 500 cfm.
The engine was under carbureted. It dropped dead at 3800 rpm.
With the installation of the Port Injection system it now ran to end of cam shaft limits, about 5500 rpms.
But at what cost?
About $3300.00 for the F.I. system. Something I could have done with a 4bbl carb at about $300.00 worth of parts.
But did not.
And on top of that, the F.I. program operation required me to have a 2200 rpm stall torqueconverter to actually work correctly. An animal of a whole different caliber.
So over the top? Maybe, but a skeptic yes.
My Saturn as stated is a 94, bone stock in good shape. I like it, it is quick. The best feature is the programmable automatic transmission with a sport and economy setting which controls what gear it is in and when.
I have scared the hell out of new mustangs with it. In sport mode.
Where does it fall on it’s face? Climbing 7% grades at freeway speeds of 75mph on cruis-control. It does not have the power to maintain speed under those conditions.
Fuel mileage, regularly 33mpg on the open road. Low 20’s somewhere in mixed city traffic. Depending on how I drive it.
My only other experience was a friends 99 5 speed car regularly got 45mpg + making the same trip I get 33 on.
Don’t know why. I guess I did not think my 33mpg was out of line with reality.
I just personally question the advantage of a metal tube that looks nice. If it works for you, than I am wrong. And admit it. I am a skeptic.
But a 2mpg increase if fuel economy can be achieved by changing driving habits too. These things and cat back exhaust systems some how do not ring well with my way of thinking. So sorry, no offence intended nor meant. If I question the expenditure, that is o.k., I can, so can you. You ought to see some of mine.
#10
12-29-2011 | 02:51 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,912
From: Peoria AZ
Quote
I was reading over your post again and something hit me. I guess I should have specified what exactly I put on my car. When you said, quote "The limitation is not the size of the are filter, but the restrictions with in the air filter system." un quote. It hit me, your exactly right. Anyway, I did not go out and buy a complete CAI system. All I did was take the stock filter and air box off, and add a 3 inch outlet cone filter. I left the stock snorkle on to funnel fresh air to the filter. So by doing that I made the air intake for efficient, than stock.
Unquote.
That at face value makes some sense then. My FI conversion on to what was a carbureted I6 left me with pretty much the same quandry, the lack of a fresh air source (with out making major modifiations which at the time were beyond my capability) was some what solved by re-routing the fresh air duct. The fresh air duct was coupled to the Carburetor Air Cleaner and installing the FI pretty much was handled by routing an aluminim tube with the Cone shaped filter. I re-routed the ducting and put a partial deflector pointed at the filter. I never did really like that approach and am thinking that now I have a welder, to make up an enclosure so only fresh air gets to the filter.
I am not sure it will do anything measurable but it will make me happy. Winters in Arizona can be equated to summers in places like up-state N.Y. and we have about 1/3 of the year with triple digit heat. I'd like to get something other than under hood air to it. But until recently have not figured out how. So the project has taken a back seat.
And seemed to remain there for quite awhile due a basic operational flaw with the Fuel Injection which turned out to be the Torque Converter. Go figure on that.
Right now I am about ready to install a Mercury Marine engine with a 700R4 into a 1976 Hornet Sportabout. I also am going to build a 4bbl carbureted I6 with a World Class T5 from a Turbo-4 T-bird to go into a Street Rod Roadster T-bucket. I have enough things to keep me busy.
Happy New Years.
I was reading over your post again and something hit me. I guess I should have specified what exactly I put on my car. When you said, quote "The limitation is not the size of the are filter, but the restrictions with in the air filter system." un quote. It hit me, your exactly right. Anyway, I did not go out and buy a complete CAI system. All I did was take the stock filter and air box off, and add a 3 inch outlet cone filter. I left the stock snorkle on to funnel fresh air to the filter. So by doing that I made the air intake for efficient, than stock.
Unquote.
That at face value makes some sense then. My FI conversion on to what was a carbureted I6 left me with pretty much the same quandry, the lack of a fresh air source (with out making major modifiations which at the time were beyond my capability) was some what solved by re-routing the fresh air duct. The fresh air duct was coupled to the Carburetor Air Cleaner and installing the FI pretty much was handled by routing an aluminim tube with the Cone shaped filter. I re-routed the ducting and put a partial deflector pointed at the filter. I never did really like that approach and am thinking that now I have a welder, to make up an enclosure so only fresh air gets to the filter.
I am not sure it will do anything measurable but it will make me happy. Winters in Arizona can be equated to summers in places like up-state N.Y. and we have about 1/3 of the year with triple digit heat. I'd like to get something other than under hood air to it. But until recently have not figured out how. So the project has taken a back seat.
And seemed to remain there for quite awhile due a basic operational flaw with the Fuel Injection which turned out to be the Torque Converter. Go figure on that.
Right now I am about ready to install a Mercury Marine engine with a 700R4 into a 1976 Hornet Sportabout. I also am going to build a 4bbl carbureted I6 with a World Class T5 from a Turbo-4 T-bird to go into a Street Rod Roadster T-bucket. I have enough things to keep me busy.
Happy New Years.