My dad, who owns a 35-ft Bounder with Chevy triton has been bugging me to put in a k and n air filter. The motorhome crowd swears by them, claims all up to 5 mpg increase in gas mileage. Bit the bullit, found a place that sells them over the counter close by. paid the $45 for the filter for my Durango, and did a LOOOONG trip up the east coast through the mountains. Avaraged 1.5-2 MPG increase over the mileage I've been getting. May not be much, but with gas prices what they are, every little bit helps.
Quote from: cruiserpopMy dad, who owns a 35-ft Bounder with Chevy triton has been bugging me to put in a k and n air filter. The motorhome crowd swears by them, claims all up to 5 mpg increase in gas mileage. Bit the bullit, found a place that sells them over the counter close by. paid the $45 for the filter for my Durango, and did a LOOOONG trip up the east coast through the mountains. Avaraged 1.5-2 MPG increase over the mileage I've been getting. May not be much, but with gas prices what they are, every little bit helps.
Interesting. What kind of a store sells them? We have something like Pep Boys and Camper World, would wonder if they would have any information.
Fly
I purcahsed mine at a local auto parts store. Pep Boys should have it, but I'm sure Camping world would charge a lot more for them than anyone else (if they carried them).
David
got mine at advanced auto parts locally. check the k and n website.
The K&N filters are not an RV item. You can get them at most auto parts stores. You need to be cleaned and re-oiled (not over oiled) to work correctly.")
Glad somebody had some real-world gains. I took mine out. I couldn't really tell a difference, performance or gas-mileage or otherwise.
Larry
I believe the best way to improve your gas mileage is probably to slow down. I won't go into all the details, but I kept very close watch on my mileage on my long trip (4800 miles) in July. I kept notes on all sorts of variables like speed, gas grade, towing vs not towing, AC vs no AC, hills vs flat, and so on. The biggest improvement seemed to me to be consistently related to my speed. Slowing down even 3 or 4 miles per hour made a measurable difference.
I had one too and could not tell much of a difference at all. Plus, these types of filters need to be cleaned periodically and then re-oiled. If you you put too much oil on them, it can screw up certain sensors in certain vehicles. there are alot of things people say you can do to increase mileage, power, torque, etc. The best thing to do is research, I was always taught that dual exhaust and bigger exhaust pipes help the engine "Breathe". This is for the most part true, however, in doing this you lose Low end torque by decreasing the engines back pressure, which is a pretty vital part needed for towing. Research it before you run out and do something you will end up removing later.
Now just think for a moment. The BIG 3 needs to increase gas milage in ALL their vehicles but they DON'T change to this air filter. Gee, I wonder why ? ? ?
Quote from: Billy BobNow just think for a moment. The BIG 3 needs to increase gas milage in ALL their vehicles but they DON'T change to this air filter. Gee, I wonder why ? ? ?
They make money selling replacement air filters. It's sufficiently lucrative that my car has two air filters - one for the car and one for the cabin. :confused: That air aways used to be clean enough to breath, why does it need a filter now?
I agree with your sentiment, though; there is a lot of junk sold out there that will "dramatically improve" gas mileage at little cost that the auto makers don't touch because there's no scientific evidence that they do anything but separate the gullible from some of their money.
Austin
I have to disagree, the big three have no intentions of really improving milage or they could very easily. Computers control everything on a vehicle now, and with adjusting fuel delivery and spart timing, they could make them all get great milage. For example, there are several companies that produce "super" cars by retuning computers and freeing up air flow. They can almost double the tourqe and horsepower AND improve fuel economy at the same time. The auto-makers are influenced by the millions made by the oil industry.
Here's a few factoids on the subject:
There have been over 50 sutudies done on the K&N filters. At least two by RV magazines, multiple ones by car performance magazines, not to mention several comsumer advocate zines.
None of them reported increased mileage that could not be contributed to simply replacing a dirty air filter with a clean one of any type. Any testing done using first a clean Paper element filter and then a K&N type oiled filter showed no gain or lose of mileage. The participants did in over 50% of the subjects reports a "perceived" increase in power. But it could not be verified by dyno results and was reported as most likely caused by the fact the K&N filter was unsilenced compared to a stock paper filter. In other words, "it sounded more powerful".
Remember why the K&N filter ws originally developed. Way back when off road racers where having propblems with plugging paper filter elements. Even stacking three elements would block from the dust common on off road courses. K&N sovled their problems, but by allowing larger openings in the elements.
Larger micron filtration means larger particles go through the filter. With race engines that commonly get completely rebuilt after each race the small amounts of larger particles that enter do little to reduce performance over the course of a race.
BUT, for me the most damning information, that is supplied by K&N themselves about the so called "refusal of warranty claims by manufacturers" says that while they will write a letter to the company/dealer, and that's their limit of involvement and they list as their "Warranty" they are NOT responsible for any damage done by their filters and their warranty is STRICTLY limited to repairing or replacing their filter.
So if you are off road racings your vehicle, intend to rebuild the engine on an accelerated schedule, and/or monitor your oil for unusual particle concentrations of forgein matter by all means add a K&N.
I have and do use K&N air filters. I doubted them for a long time with the understanding that you can get better performance with no air filter but the lack of an air filter allows contaminants into the engine. What a swap off huh?
I stopped doubting them when they produced filtration capacities and performance ratings rated against other filters. My gains have been less in the MPG improvements and more in throttle response. Air does not flow into an engine, it is sucked into the engine. Sucking air into an engine uses HP. If it is easier to suck air into the engine, you lose less HP and you might possibly feel a quicker response to pressing on the acccelerator pedal and/or better mileage.
First hand use and/or endorsement or lack of it is the best way to judge a product. Dynos' test for peak HP and torque but not engine rpm acceleration times.
As far as warranty replacement........ I know of many products that will refund you the cost of the product but will not warranty the application you are using the product on. Many motor oils do so. Why should they warranty the end product when you have the Moss-Magnusson Warranty Act. This Act basically states that you can use aftermarket parts on your vehicle and the original equipment manufacturer cannot void your warranty without proving that the aftermarket product caused the failure.
Quote from: lwbflI have to disagree, the big three have no intentions of really improving milage or they could very easily. Computers control everything on a vehicle now, and with adjusting fuel delivery and spart timing, they could make them all get great milage. For example, there are several companies that produce "super" cars by retuning computers and freeing up air flow. They can almost double the tourqe and horsepower AND improve fuel economy at the same time. The auto-makers are influenced by the millions made by the oil industry.
Boy, I don't know where you are getting your info...... I worked as service manager for a large Chevy Dealership in Los Angeles for many years. My involvement with the manufacturer proves to
"ME", without a doubt, that GM and all other auto manufacturers spend millions on research and development to produce a car that is balanced in performance, economy, style and compliance with government regulations. If the manufacturers are marketing a particular model car to be competitive in fuel economy, you can rest assured that they are doing everything possible to out-do all of the competitors. If they don't, they simply won't sell many of that model car.
The automotive market place is intensely competitive. Mileage is a huge concern with the consumer and if the manufacturers feel that they can sell more cars by unleashing known technology, trust me, they will do it.
The auto manufacturers don't care any more about the oil companies then the oil companies care about the auto manufacturers. The oil companies will sell all the oil that they can pull out of the ground, regardless of what the auto manufacturers do. Any idea of collusion between the two are pure fantasy IMHO. The auto manufacturers make their money by selling cars, not oil.
As far as these KN air filters are concerned, they have been around for many-many years. They have recently started marketing to the driving public as being a fuel saving and performance add-on for passenger cars, light trucks and RVs. Their claims are down right non-sense IMO. The fact is, you will definitely void the warranty on your vehicle by tampering with the intake system on your car. In fact, in California (and many other states), it is illegal to tamper with the intake system because by doing so, you are tampering with your emission system.
The ONLY way that you could increase performance/mileage by altering your intake is by increasing the effective fuel to air ratio in a manner that would FORCE more air down the intake. This is commonly done by adding a supercharger or turbo-charger. The cost of doing that would far out-way the potential savings in fuel. In fact, even by adding these devises, you will only increase mileage under extreme conditions like racing or pulling up mountains at high RPM. You would see little to no savings or performance or economy increase under normal driving conditions.
As stated earlier, you can increase you mileage by simply replacing a dirty air filter. When the air filter gets dirty, it changes the air/fuel ratio and decreases efficiency. The computer in the car can compensate for a small amount of restricted air flow. After that, it's like driving your car with a a bag over the air filter. I also agree with the fact that the vehicle "Sounds" more powerful because you can hear the un-muffled intake. It's an illusion, my friend, just an illusion. The manufacturers design the air filters so that they are not that noisy for a reason.
The idea of a custom air filter giving you a performance or fuel economy benefit is such non-sense that I feel silly spending so much time disputing it. There-in lies the problem......... So do many others!
Quote from: waveryThe fact is, you will definitely void the warranty on your vehicle by tampering with the intake system on your car. In fact, in California (and many other states), it is illegal to tamper with the intake system because by doing so, you are tampering with your emission system.
That statement is not based upon fact but an opinion.
CARB approved modifications will not void any emissions related tests and it is not ILLEGAL to tamper with the intake system any more than it is to do so with the exhaust. I have affixed CARB stickers to many vehicles for aftermarket items. CARB=California Air Resources Board
Quote from: waveryThe idea of a custom air filter giving you a performance or fuel economy benefit is such non-sense that I feel silly spending so much time disputing it. There-in lies the problem......... So do many others!
And yet the topic got you to respond....Interesting....
My reasoning stands and I did not see where you have supported your point based upon personal experience. Manufacturers typically design for the masses and won't spend additional funds for the gains that some of us have actually gained. Sometimes the increase in tooling costs to optimize the performance is not justified as acceptable. They are looking for a certain % markup and trying to compete with other manufacturers at the same time.
1988 Chevrolet Sprint. EPA 60 mpg highway
2006 Honda Insight Hybrid EPA 66 mpg highway
Looks kinda like someone dropped the ball if that is all we have gained in 18 years, huh?
cruiserpop calculated his gains and they were not perceived.
So you actually believe that non-economy vehicles get the best balance of power and MPG from the factory? Why then can I re-program the computer and get more power and more MPG? I agree that the economy car's get the most for that reason, but there is no reason a full size truck should have 300hp and get 17mpg from the factory. If you think there is no link between the manufatures and the oil industry then you should look alittle deeper into the subject. No offence, but being a service manager has nothing to do with the design of the vehicles and thier programming.
Quote from: lwbflSo you actually believe that non-economy vehicles get the best balance of power and MPG from the factory? Why then can I re-program the computer and get more power and more MPG?
Because you probably don't, atleast not both. Even if you do, that doesn't mean the next guy will even if he does exactly the same thing; he probably won't either.
QuoteI agree that the economy car's get the most for that reason, but there is no reason a full size truck should have 300hp and get 17mpg from the factory.
It's called thermodynamics. There are physical laws in the world that even GM can't break.
QuoteIf you think there is no link between the manufatures and the oil industry then you should look alittle deeper into the subject. No offence, but being a service manager has nothing to do with the design of the vehicles and thier programming.
You might look into the fuel-efficiency based fleet taxes the auto manufacturers pay.
Austin
Quote from: lwbflSo you actually believe that non-economy vehicles get the best balance of power and MPG from the factory? Why then can I re-program the computer and get more power and more MPG? I agree that the economy car's get the most for that reason, but there is no reason a full size truck should have 300hp and get 17mpg from the factory. If you think there is no link between the manufatures and the oil industry then you should look alittle deeper into the subject. No offence, but being a service manager has nothing to do with the design of the vehicles and thier programming.
I'm not offended. You just obviously have little or no knowledge of the industry. That is completely understandable, if you've never worked in the industry.
Dealership Service Managers are the eyes & ears of the manufacturer. I was highly trained on all aspects of vehicle design & programming.
Actually, I spent 4 years at General Motors Institute. I worked as a Factory Rep for a few years, then discovered that I could make a lot more $ as a Dealer Service Manager. While working as Service Manager, I spent hundreds of hours per year in factory training classes (more than most doctors). Dealer Service Managers have a tremendous amount of input to the factories pertaining to R&D and product reliabilty.
To think that a Service Manager "has nothing to do with the design of the vehicles and their programming" is like saying that a farmer has nothing to do with with the quality or production of the crops that he sends to market or a doctor (Human Service Technician) has no knowledge of the design or programing of the human body.
As for your question, "Why then can I re-program the computer and get more power and more MPG?". The manufacturer is well aware of the different tweaks that can be done to their computerized fuel injection systems. If you are talking about the various computer chips that are available for "Increased Performance", most are fraud. The ones that actually do increase performance do so by changing the timing and fuel mixture ratio at various RPMs and air pressure readings in the intake manifold. The manufacturer is restrained by emission laws (as I previously stated) and vehicle reliability, over time.
Don't you think that the manufacturer would prefer to add 20HP to their advertised specs by merely changing the programing on their computer? That's a no brainer and would cost little to nothing during manufacturing. It would obviously add $ to the sticker price of each vehicle (pure profit). Why would you think that there is an up-side to not put out the same computer chip as the "Performance" suppliers? Trust me, all of the manufacturers are well aware of what they can do to enhance the performance of each model. They have many more factors to consider than some guy that is putting out an aftermarket part and clearly states on their packaging that they are not responsible for any damage that the part may cause to the vehicle. Most of those parts are clearly marked, "For off-road applications only" to avoid local and federal laws.
The manufacturers carefully analyze every tiny detail that effects the extremely complicated product that they supply to the public. You would be amazed at the the number of people departments from design and engineering to financial and legal that are involved in every tiny nut, bolt and programming that goes into each individual part of every model.
When you added that chip to your vehicle, did you add 10% more cooling capacity to your cooling system? Did you install 10% tougher, pistons, rods, rod bearings, valves, valve springs and other high energy engine components? Did you re-design your transmission, final drive and wheels to handle 10% more HP? Of course you didn't. These are just a few of the things that the manufacturer must take into account when designing the over-all vehicle. The computer chip is nothing. It's all the ramifications of adding the additional HP that could add hundreds if not thousands to the sticker price. Have you ever wondered why High Performance factory vehicles cost so much? These are just a few of the reasons.
I hope that I have helped answer you question about, "Why then can I re-program the computer and get more power and more MPG?".
Quote from: SpeakEasyI believe the best way to improve your gas mileage is probably to slow down. I won't go into all the details, but I kept very close watch on my mileage on my long trip (4800 miles) in July. I kept notes on all sorts of variables like speed, gas grade, towing vs not towing, AC vs no AC, hills vs flat, and so on. The biggest improvement seemed to me to be consistently related to my speed. Slowing down even 3 or 4 miles per hour made a measurable difference.
I keep a log on my traveling, too, and have come up with the same conculsions.
Have an '02 GMC 1500 Sierra pick'em up, short wheel base, small V-8, automatic, 2 whl drive; Has one of those low profile (fiberglass) cargo bed covers.
As gas prices began to climb I began to experiment on my driving habits and speeds. Had to make a trip up to Raleigh, NC, and I topped the truck's fuel tank at Wilmington, NC, then got onto I-40, a direct x-way shot to where I needed to go for a distance of 125 miles+. Set the cruise at 55 and cruised on down the pike - whith everybody and their brother flying pass me! Got off I-40, topped the tank again, and I got a very surprising 23.7mpg. Not too shabby for a full sized, V-8 pick-up! My destination in Raleigh was only a quarter of a mile off I-40 so there was hardly any city driving. Finished my business and got right back on I-40 only this time I set the cruise according to RPM's; I set it at exactly 1500, which equates to about 62mph. When I got back to Wilmington, topped off the tank again and this time I got 22.2 mpg. But on another trip, all expressway, I did the same thing, only at different speeds. At 65mph it dropped to 20.8 mpg; and on the return trip at 70mph, it dropped again to 19.9mpg. All this, of course, was not towing the Starcraft and being loaded to the gunnels.
My previous GMC pick-up had the 4.3 V-6 (really liked this engine) and it would do better on gas mileage, especially around town, but would drop below the V-8 mileage while towing (and under load) by at least 1 1/2 to 2 mpg - the extra horse power wins the day when doing heavy labor!
Fly
As a graduate from Alfred State University in auto-mechanics one of the basic things you learn is you can't have it both ways. Either you give up mileage for more horsepower or you give up horsepower for better economy. The internal combustion engine will produce more horsepower in many different ways but the bottom line is the more air/gas mixture going thru the engine the faster you can go but you also use MUCH more fuel in doing so.
As posted here by several other WISE folks here, SLOWING down will produce better mileage and NO extra cost to you or your vehicle. That is why in the late 70's the Federal Government established the nation wide 55 mph on all federal financed roads. And you know what, it WORKED. Gas prices back then actually came down.
Bob
Quote from: Billy BobAs a graduate from Alfred State University in auto-mechanics one of the basic things you learn is you can't have it both ways. Either you give up mileage for more horsepower or you give up horsepower for better economy. The internal combustion engine will produce more horsepower in many different ways but the bottom line is the more air/gas mixture going thru the engine the faster you can go but you also use MUCH more fuel in doing so.
As posted here by several other WISE folks here, SLOWING down will produce better mileage and NO extra cost to you or your vehicle. That is why in the late 70's the Federal Government established the nation wide 55 mph on all federal financed roads. And you know what, it WORKED. Gas prices back then actually came down.
Bob
That's exactly correct.
Some of the people on this board probably don't even remember that the speed limit, nation wide, was 55MPH for many years. This did lower fuel consumption somewhat. However, it also increased the number of hours that each vehicle spent on the road each year. It was determined that the lower speeds were contributing to traffic congestion so severely that either more lanes had to be added to all heavily traveled highways (at tremendous cost) or they had to change the total number of hours each of millions of cars spent on the road. The dynamics are just like a river, in order to get X amount of water down-stream the water must either move faster or the river must increase in size.
As China consumes more and more oil by their increased factory production and resulting vastly increased auto ownership and usage, we may find ourselves in a major oil crisis in this country. I can remember people having to camp-out at gas stations and spend 4-8 hours in lines that streched for blocks only to have the station run out as the line progressed. Many people simply couldn't get to work or school. Trucks couldn't deliver goods to the stores. That was a pretty frightening time and it is rapidly approaching again. Also, remember, we only have about 1/3 of the gas stations that we had at that time. In those years, there were literaly 2-4 gas stations at nearly every major intersection.
As you well know, the Arabs would much rather sell their oil to China than the US. Our Middle East policies may end up causing a
LOT of changes in the way that we live our lives here in the US. I'm not saying that I disagree with our policies and don't mean to start a tirade there. I'm just saying that it
will have personal consequences on the way that we live (period).
I fully expect the speed limit to be dropped to 55MPH again in the near future. We are simply consuming more oil than we can produce or possibly obtain from foreign sources, over time, as competition for the product from other nations increase.
It is imperative that the US develop alternative sources of energy. President Bush (an oil man) has stated this on numerous occasions and the entire scientific and economic community has been stressing this. I fully expect that gas will exceed $5PG and if you have a gas guzzling vehicle you won't be able to give it away at that point. Trust me, all the mileage increasing products in the world are'nt going to make a dent in what is felt in your wallet, over time.
I respectfully agree to disagree with the idea that the oil and auto manufatures as well as the people who regulate these two, have no ties. Look where 80% of our top governing personnel came from (big oil). I also don't think that they have our best interest in mind, but profits. I don't have personal experience, but I have family that works for GM and Ford at manufaturing plants. I'm glad your not offended, as we are simply having discussion, not an argument.
Quote from: Billy BobAs a graduate from Alfred State University in auto-mechanics one of the basic things you learn is you can't have it both ways. Either you give up mileage for more horsepower or you give up horsepower for better economy. The internal combustion engine will produce more horsepower in many different ways but the bottom line is the more air/gas mixture going thru the engine the faster you can go but you also use MUCH more fuel in doing so.
As posted here by several other WISE folks here, SLOWING down will produce better mileage and NO extra cost to you or your vehicle. That is why in the late 70's the Federal Government established the nation wide 55 mph on all federal financed roads. And you know what, it WORKED. Gas prices back then actually came down.
Bob
With a solid background in automotives and a degree in Electromechanical Technology, I have to disagree.
The more air/gas was not what was stated. More efficient introduction of air is.
You seem to be saying that you cannot have engine A produce more HP and get better mileage than engine B. That is way too much of a blanket statement.
Just look at the cars and trucks available today and you will see that this reasoning is incorrect. A 4.8LChevy truck has more HP than an equivalent Dodge truck with a 5.2L and gets better mpg.
It boils down to efficiency not mpg per hp.
Slowing down increases mpg, agreed. Why? More so due to less aerodynamic drag and lower rolling resistance than vehicle engine rpm. The drag caused by the air is increased exponentially as speed increases.
None of that changes the fact that a more efficient combustion process will perform more efficiently at any speed.
I see alot of negative responses to this topic from people that have no real experience with the product mentioned. You have no credibility with those that have used the product and have seen gains. Your input is not based upon personal experience.
Don't forget the originator of this post HAS a K&N filter and he HAS CALCULATED a gain due to a more efficient method of introducing combustion air.
I have used the product in question and I have had gains. There are other filtration methods that use more surface area to get the same gains without the use of oil saturated filtration methods.
Most agree that if you change a dirty air filter you will improve the mpg's. Why would that help? Might it be that you have reduced the power required to pull the air into the intake from a clean filter vs a dirty one? Is that not the same reasoning for changing to a filter that reduces the power required to pull air into the intake vs a stock filter?
I think I see a direct relationship here?
Anyone else?
Quote from: chasd60I see alot of negative responses to this topic from people that have no real experience with the product mentioned. You have no credibility with those that have used the product and have seen gains. Your input is not based upon personal experience.
Don't forget the originator of this post HAS a K&N filter and he HAS CALCULATED a gain due to a more efficient method of introducing combustion air.
I have used the product in question and I have had gains. There are other filtration methods that use more surface area to get the same gains without the use of oil saturated filtration methods.
Most agree that if you change a dirty air filter you will improve the mpg's. Why would that help? Might it be that you have reduced the power required to pull the air into the intake from a clean filter vs a dirty one? Is that not the same reasoning for changing to a filter that reduces the power required to pull air into the intake vs a stock filter?
I think I see a direct relationship here?
Anyone else?
I can see your logic. The problem is, the vehicle is VERY carefully designed for the CFM that the stock filter allows through. Granted, removing the air filter completely will allow the intake to a slightly higher increase in CFM. However, under anything less than full throttle, the increase of HP from the almost imperceivable amount of additional available air would hardly be measurable. The fact is, changing the air pressure in the intake chamber will be overridden by the on-board computer to richen the fuel mixture to maximize combustion.
The air/fuel mixture is carefully monitored by the computer and it will remain constant at various throttle pressure. If you increase available air, the computer will introduce additional fuel to compensate. This may result in what is perceived to be a "Quicker throttle response" (especially with no load) but it does little for HP or fuel economy. The only exception would be at full throttle when vacuum reaches close to zero and
any additional air will increase HP because it will allow additional fuel to keep that optimum ratio (however, very slightly in this case). That is the advantage that superchargers give you. They will actually force air and develop a positive air pressure in the intake chamber. The result is an increase in HP as much as 25% (at full throttle) because the vehicle can then accept more fuel and maintain the same air/fuel ratio.
The 350CI Chevy engine today is basically the same engine that was used in the 60s & 70s. In the 70s those vehicles were getting less than 20MPG. Today, they are getting 25-30% better. Why is that? Did they change the laws of physics? Did they install better breathing air filters? No to both. #1 contributer is a better weight to HP ratio (they build the cars lighter). #2, they have introduced computerized fuel injection technology. They have a better ability to monitor and control the air/fuel mixture under a variety of conditions. They couldn't do that with carburetor cars. The biggest loss of efficiency was the inability to control that ratio under differing conditions. That's it. It's just as simple but complicated as that.
Now, there are engines that use that air/fuel ratio more effectively to produce more HP per CI of engine. It usually is accomplished by better intake & exhaust valve systems that allow the engines to run more efficiently at higher RPMs. This combined with even lighter cars, accomplish a better weight to HP ratio.
THAT is the ratio that really counts. If you want to get better MPG, you are far better off lightening your load than adding an expensive air filter that does nothing but allow more engine noise to come through.
As was stated before, you are simply talking about laws of physics here. There is an optimum air/fuel ratio for every vehicle and it varies very slightly with the size of the engine and the load put on it. You cannot add more air and make more HP without adding the amount of fuel to maintain that optimum ratio. The idea that it takes "HP" to suck air into the engine just isn't viable. Your optimum fuel economy is achieved when the vacuum pressure in the intake manifold is at it's highest. The idea of adding more air into the intake would effectively decrease the vacuum.
IMO, the science behind these filters just doesn't wash. IMHO, it's all effective merchandising and the "Sound" that the filter allows through that gives the consumer the impression of power. After-all, no one wants to believe that they wasted their money buying one of these set-ups.
MY Z-71 had a drop in K&N when I bought the truck. I wouldn't spend the money on a K&N, but I do like the fact that I don't have to keep buying the paper filters. No problem to wash it with a hose and spray some oil on it as instructed. I like to tinker with my stuff anyway. I disagree with the allowing more air in will not increase power. Does the injection system not monitor the air flow and adjust the fuel to this variable? I know the old MAS systems did. Also, if we were talking about carberated engines, it would be much different.
Quote from: lwbflMY Z-71 had a drop in K&N when I bought the truck. I wouldn't spend the money on a K&N, but I do like the fact that I don't have to keep buying the paper filters. No problem to wash it with a hose and spray some oil on it as instructed. I like to tinker with my stuff anyway. I disagree with the allowing more air in will not increase power. Does the injection system not monitor the air flow and adjust the fuel to this variable? I know the old MAS systems did. Also, if we were talking about carberated engines, it would be much different.
I hope that this may help some understand this better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-fuel_ratio
Every automobile and or truck does not have the perfect intake nor exhaust system. These systems were designed to be mass produced and some of them are much less efficient than others from the tubing that feeds the filters to the bends in the exhaust system. It is not unreasonable to believe that some vehicles will actually gain mpg and hp with these simple mods. Granted, the degree of gain will be directly related to the improvement in the new design over the original. I think it is unreasonable to believe that every system is actually the perfect design from the factory. You don't add more air to the system, you have a less restrictive path of delivery which definitely leads to quicker throttle response and sometimes increased fuel economy.
The stoich mixture is another can of worms in itself. The ratio of 14.7 to 1 is a trade off. Part of the fuel is burned in the combustion process and the rest blows the combustion kernel out and cools the exhaust valves. That is why a lean mixture is known to burn the valves. That is also why there is a catalytic converter. The computer adjusts the air/fuel ratio for a predetermined amount of pollution. The catalytic converter burns off the unburned fuel that cooled the exhaust valves.
I installed a bubbler in a float tank with gasoline and pulled air through the bubbler with engine vacuum directly into the intake. The gasoline vapors provided a very efficient fuel source. The vapors supplemented the liquid fuel source.
The O2 sensor sensed a lean mixture and added more liquid fuel to achieve that predetermined amount of pollution. I added an O2 sensor offset to fool the computer into measuring a lean mixture as a rich mixture and this caused the computer to send a signal to lean out the liquid fuel portion.
The increase in MPG's was about 20% and the exhaust was actually cleaner than the regular process.
Quote from: chasd60Every automobile and or truck does not have the perfect intake nor exhaust system. These systems were designed to be mass produced and some of them are much less efficient than others from the tubing that feeds the filters to the bends in the exhaust system. It is not unreasonable to believe that some vehicles will actually gain mpg and hp with these simple mods. Granted, the degree of gain will be directly related to the improvement in the new design over the original. I think it is unreasonable to believe that every system is actually the perfect design from the factory. You don't add more air to the system, you have a less restrictive path of delivery which definitely leads to quicker throttle response and sometimes increased fuel economy.
The stoich mixture is another can of worms in itself. The ratio of 14.7 to 1 is a trade off. Part of the fuel is burned in the combustion process and the rest blows the combustion kernel out and cools the exhaust valves. That is why a lean mixture is known to burn the valves. That is also why there is a catalytic converter. The computer adjusts the air/fuel ratio for a predetermined amount of pollution. The catalytic converter burns off the unburned fuel that cooled the exhaust valves.
I installed a bubbler in a float tank with gasoline and pulled air through the bubbler with engine vacuum directly into the intake. The gasoline vapors provided a very efficient fuel source. The vapors supplemented the liquid fuel source.
The O2 sensor sensed a lean mixture and added more liquid fuel to achieve that predetermined amount of pollution. I added an O2 sensor offset to fool the computer into measuring a lean mixture as a rich mixture and this caused the computer to send a signal to lean out the liquid fuel portion.
The increase in MPG's was about 20% and the exhaust was actually cleaner than the regular process.
Maybe I'm mis-reading you here but it sounds to me like you are saying that you used to blow 1 gallon of every 5 gallons of gas, out your exhaust pipe as unburned fuel. That seems pretty extreme but I suppose that it's possible.
I get a little skeptical any time that someone tells me that they have conducted a fuel economy test on their car (I'm not talking about your scenario chasd60) . I keep very careful records of my fuel consumption every time that I fill my tank. We have been driving down to Fallbrook California from Beverly Hills every weekend for the last 6 weekends (we bought a house that we are fixing up to rent). It's 106 miles each way. I fill up before we leave and again when we return. I use the same station every time. My mileage is all over the place. It varies from 24-29.4 (almost a 20% variance) on my 2001 Chrysler Concorde. I always set the cruise on 75 and try to drive with no traffic. There are
always different contributing factors. IMO about the only way that you could truly tell if you are getting a 10% better mileage is to run the test on a dyno in a lab. Something as simple as a 5MPH breeze on the nose going one way and a 5MPH breeze from the rear going home could make a big difference in gas mileage. Driving at 75 with a 5MPH headwind will give you the same resistance as driving 80. Doing 75 with a tailwind of 5MPH will give you the resistance of 70. That 10MPH difference in wind resistance could easily make a 10% difference in gas mileage. There are other factors like barometric pressure, humidity and temperature that all come into play as well.
Okay. I'm telling you up front that I'm a female type person and don't understand 99% of the arguing I see on this board. The original question was about opinions on the K&N filter. My DH has a 1984 Diesel Suburban. He is a major gearhead and does most of our auto repairs himself. He purchased the K&N on recommendation from a diesel site he belongs to. He has been very impressed with the K&N and has recommended it to several friends who have subsequently bought diesels. He purchased his at NAPA auto parts.
Quote from: waveryMaybe I'm mis-reading you here but it sounds to me like you are saying that you used to blow 1 gallon of every 5 gallons of gas, out your exhaust pipe as unburned fuel. That seems pretty extreme but I suppose that it's possible.
I get a little skeptical any time that someone tells me that they have conducted a fuel economy test on their car (I'm not talking about your scenario chasd60) . I keep very careful records of my fuel consumption every time that I fill my tank. We have been driving down to Fallbrook California from Beverly Hills every weekend for the last 6 weekends (we bought a house that we are fixing up to rent). It's 106 miles each way. I fill up before we leave and again when we return. I use the same station every time. My mileage is all over the place. It varies from 24-29.4 (almost a 20% variance) on my 2001 Chrysler Concorde. I always set the cruise on 75 and try to drive with no traffic. There are always different contributing factors. IMO about the only way that you could truly tell if you are getting a 10% better mileage is to run the test on a dyno in a lab. Something as simple as a 5MPH breeze on the nose going one way and a 5MPH breeze from the rear going home could make a big difference in gas mileage. Driving at 75 with a 5MPH headwind will give you the same resistance as driving 80. Doing 75 with a tailwind of 5MPH will give you the resistance of 70. That 10MPH difference in wind resistance could easily make a 10% difference in gas mileage. There are other factors like barometric pressure, humidity and temperature that all come into play as well.
I drive 92 miles round trip going to and from work each day and the experiments were over a 6 month period and included seasonal changes in temperature. The vehicle was a 1996 Geo Metro with a 1.0L 3 cylinder made by Suzuki. Mileage increase was from 48mpg highway to 57mpg highway. It is sad to say that I owned a 93 Metro xFI that got 58-62mpg direct from the factory without any modifications. GM stopped selling the xFI in 1994 and stopped selling the Metro altogether around 2000 or so. A sidenote: A 4 cylinder Metro is no more fuel efficient than any other 4 cylinder.
I purchased a
ScanGuage to monitor other engine parameters but all fuel mileage was hand calculated. The ScanGuage gave me the info I needed to optimize the O2 sensor offset.
Interesting reading on the Eagle Research Site and where I got the info on the bubbler vapor system.
Here is the link to his philosophy on patents. Roam his site AFTER you read this.
Quote from: Camping CoxesOkay. I'm telling you up front that I'm a female type person and don't understand 99% of the arguing I see on this board. The original question was about opinions on the K&N filter. My DH has a 1984 Diesel Suburban. He is a major gearhead and does most of our auto repairs himself. He purchased the K&N on recommendation from a diesel site he belongs to. He has been very impressed with the K&N and has recommended it to several friends who have subsequently bought diesels. He purchased his at NAPA auto parts.
Just tell him to be careful not to over oil the filter. Too much oil and it can be drawn into the intake and mess with some of the sensors.
Put a K&N in the Tahoe earlier this year. It certainly didn't increase fuel mileage any - I keep meticulous records. And if the seat of the pants experience has any validity, I think the Tahoe actually downshifts more running the K&N over the regular paper filter.
My thought, save the money and just run a regular air filter, unless you go for all the other mods to clean up the airflow.
Quote from: waveryThe automotive market place is intensely competitive. Mileage is a huge concern with the consumer and if the manufacturers feel that they can sell more cars by unleashing known technology, trust me, they will do it.
The auto manufacturers don't care any more about the oil companies then the oil companies care about the auto manufacturers. The oil companies will sell all the oil that they can pull out of the ground, regardless of what the auto manufacturers do. Any idea of collusion between the two are pure fantasy IMHO. The auto manufacturers make their money by selling cars, not oil.
Have to disagree with you on some points. Automakers fight CAFE constantly, they've gotten to a point where the standards haven't gone up in years. By redesignating what a vehicle is, they drive through the weak standards that are there.
By designating car-based vehicles, like crossovers, minivans, and mini-SUVs as "light trucks", they put these up against their fuel sucking larger light trucks to meet the CAFE light truck average. By using GVWR, they exempt larger light trucks over that weight, from any type of fuel economy standards - hidden on the premise of - these are "working man" vehicles, and it would just hurt the "working man".
Automakers love trucks, because they offer all sorts of ways to skirt the CAFE requirements, make the most profit, and BIGGER IS BETTER.
All the "domestic" automakers, but especially Chrysler, push large engines for their vehicles. Chrysler took a great, but extremely inefficient engine (Hemi) and looks like they're trying to put it in everything, except the PT Cruiser and minivans.
All the "Japanese" companies now have V-8s in their full size trucks and SUVs, and actually get worse fuel economy than the "domestic" brands on some models.
Even with the large increase in the price of fuel, people continue to buy the bigger engine, they'll buy the V-6 over the 4, because it "almost" gets the same fuel economy. There is no denying, that often, especially in larger vehicles, that the larger engine actually gets better fuel mileage. Not so in most cars though.
The American public, in general, wants better fuel economy AS LONG AS THEY'RE NOT INCONVENIENCED! We don't want to drive at the speed limit or below. Lots of people drive their kids to the bus stop or to the school, or idle waiting for the school bus. Etc., Etc.. Since I believe the vast majority only ever check their fuel economy on their annual trip to the beach, they have no clue and simply fill up the tank when it shows E. They could be pouring the gasoline out of a fuel return line, and never know it. My commute requires close to 20 gallons of premium every 4 days, I guarantee I can tell you whether the fuel economy is there. There's some hybrids out there, but most people have V6 powered somethings, or large SUVs/Trucks.
So, yes, fuel economy is kinda important to the consumer, but we like power! We will figure ways to justify the more powerful option. Our government needs to increase the fuel standards for ALL vehicles immediately, and fine heavily for not meeting the standards. I personally believe that trucks and cars should be required to eventually get the same CAFE mileage, and that the "light truck" loophole be closed for what are obviously non-trucks.
This has been a very interesting subject and I've meade some notes for future reference. But I want y'all to know as a result that I've went down to MrGoodWrench's Parts Department and bought a new air intake filter for my '02 GMC pick'em-up (4.8 V-8).
Now to install the thing!
Fly
Quote from: wynotHave to disagree with you on some points. Automakers fight CAFE constantly, they've gotten to a point where the standards haven't gone up in years. By redesignating what a vehicle is, they drive through the weak standards that are there.
By designating car-based vehicles, like crossovers, minivans, and mini-SUVs as "light trucks", they put these up against their fuel sucking larger light trucks to meet the CAFE light truck average. By using GVWR, they exempt larger light trucks over that weight, from any type of fuel economy standards - hidden on the premise of - these are "working man" vehicles, and it would just hurt the "working man".
Automakers love trucks, because they offer all sorts of ways to skirt the CAFE requirements, make the most profit, and BIGGER IS BETTER.
All the "domestic" automakers, but especially Chrysler, push large engines for their vehicles. Chrysler took a great, but extremely inefficient engine (Hemi) and looks like they're trying to put it in everything, except the PT Cruiser and minivans.
All the "Japanese" companies now have V-8s in their full size trucks and SUVs, and actually get worse fuel economy than the "domestic" brands on some models.
Even with the large increase in the price of fuel, people continue to buy the bigger engine, they'll buy the V-6 over the 4, because it "almost" gets the same fuel economy. There is no denying, that often, especially in larger vehicles, that the larger engine actually gets better fuel mileage. Not so in most cars though.
So, yes, fuel economy is kinda important to the consumer, but we like power! We will figure ways to justify the more powerful option. Our government needs to increase the fuel standards for ALL vehicles immediately, and fine heavily for not meeting the standards. I personally believe that trucks and cars should be required to eventually get the same CAFE mileage, and that the "light truck" loophole be closed for what are obviously non-trucks.
You are correct to a certain extent. Where I differ in opinion is that I know (first hand) that the manufacturers are consumer driven. The way that you present it seems that you feel that the consumer is manufacturer driven.
The manufacturer builds what the consumer buys, it's not the other way around. You hear a lot of consumer groups making noise like they want the manufacturers to build smaller, more efficient vehicles. Unlike the media and politicians, the manufacturers don't listen to to the rhetoric from loud minority activists. They look at sales and analyze actual demand. If Chrysler stopped building "Big" and built smaller because of all the rhetoric, the consumer would not change their buying habits because of what Chrysler is building, they would simply buy
what they want from Ford or GM if they still supply it. Where would that leave Chrysler? Out of business....that's where.
If company "A" sells colored balloons and some group is bashing red balloons because they claim that cause anger in infants but 75% of company A's demand is for red balloons, what will company A build? If they say, "I'm not building red balloons because of public opinion or possible liability", guess what........company A's competitor will quickly fill consumers demand. A few months after that, all company A's employees will be in the unemployment line.
It's all about the great American capitalistic society. It's supply and demand, demand and supply. Consumers drive the market. They decide what is built in this country, not the manufacturers.
You made this statement, "Automakers love trucks, because they offer all sorts of ways to skirt the CAFE requirements, make the most profit, and BIGGER IS BETTER."
I disagree, Automakers love big trucks because they sell. Pure and simple. If the consumer stopped buying those things, the automakers wouldn't love them much, would they. Like you also said, "yes, fuel economy is kinda important to the consumer, but we like power!"
I have heard this debate about building SUVs on truck frames to avoid regulations for years. Does anyone expect the manufacturer to build an SUV on a passenger car frame and call it a passenger car? IMHO, the government needs to change the regulations (as you stated) to include SUVs and light truck that are used for recreational use. Why don't they? Same reason.....consumers won't stand for it because
they will have to pay more for the vehicle.
The problem is the consumer, not the manufacturer as some people like to say. If the regulations were changed, all manufacturers would have to abide by them and it would not leave someone with a competitive edge. It's all about demand and competition. The manufacturers build SUVs and other heavy, powerful, gas guzzling vehicles because that is what the public demands.
Besides, the mileage on these vehicles has greatly improved over the years. I remember having a '80 Chevy Suburban that got 11MPG not matter what I did or how I drove. My friend has a 2006 Suburban and it gets 14-18MPG. That's a pretty dramatic improvement in anybodies book.
The bottom line is, "It's all about the money". What is profitable to sell is what is built. If the consumer won't buy it, the manufacturers won't build it, "It's all about the money".
Quote from: flyfishermanThis has been a very interesting subject and I've meade some notes for future reference. But I want y'all to know as a result that I've went down to MrGoodWrench's Parts Department and bought a new air intake filter for my '02 GMC pick'em-up (4.8 V-8).
Now to install the thing!
Fly
Good move but next time, get it at K-Mart. They are about half (or less) than the dealer price. Sometimes, they even carry AC/Delco. However, the Fram filters are just as good. That way, you can buy 2 for the same price and change it twice as often :)
Quote from: waveryYou are correct to a certain extent. Where I differ in opinion is that I know (first hand) that the manufacturers are consumer driven. The way that you present it seems that you feel that the consumer is manufacturer driven.
The manufacturer builds what the consumer buys, it's not the other way around. You hear a lot of consumer groups making noise like they want the manufacturers to build smaller, more efficient vehicles. Unlike the media and politicians, the manufacturers don't listen to to the rhetoric from loud minority activists. They look at sales and analyze actual demand. If Chrysler stopped building "Big" and built smaller because of all the rhetoric, the consumer would not change their buying habits because of what Chrysler is building, they would simply buy from Ford or GM. Where would that leave Chrysler? Out of business....that's where.
Actually, I think we're disagreeing about the same side of the issue. Certainly, manufacturers are consumer driven - just ask the Big 3 as the market moved primarily to Asian brands because of 'perceived' quality and economy. If folks wanted smaller, more fuel efficient cars, even though "Detroit" has them (Compared to 1973 & 1974), in general, they didn't buy Cavaliers, Escorts, Focuses (Foci?), or Neons; they bought Corollas, Sentras, Elantras, etc.. So domestic brands put their emphasis on the larger cars and definitely into trucks - and right behind them came the Asian brands after the same markets, because that was what people were buying.
Quote from: waveryYou made this statement, "Automakers love trucks, because they offer all sorts of ways to skirt the CAFE requirements, make the most profit, and BIGGER IS BETTER."
I disagree, Automakers love big trucks because they sell. Pure and simple. If the consumer stopped buying those things, the automakers wouldn't love them much, would they. Like you also said, "yes, fuel economy is kinda important to the consumer, but we like power!"
I have this belief about the "Bubba-ing of America". I think a lot of Americans like to believe they have a need for a truck. They may never need the payload of a 3/4 ton truck, but they want to believe that they need that 4WD capability and ground clearance on their annual trip down the farm lane to the pick-yer-own strawberry patch. 'Round here, I have heard many transplants tell me that 4WD is needed because of winter - but you know, we got around just fine in the days of rear wheel drive and snow tires. I think that a lot of fellows want to wear their baseball cap and hang their arms out of the window looking down at non-truck people, as they head to their office job or soccer field.
Quote from: waveryI have heard this debate about building SUVs on truck frames to avoid regulations for years. Does anyone expect the manufacturer to build an SUV on a passenger car frame and call it a passenger car?
Hardly a debate, it's a fact. But they do build SUVs (and "trucks") on unitized, non-framed chassis - they're called crossover vehicles or minivans. Like Highlanders, CR-Vs, every FWD minivan, Equinox, Subaru Tribeca, the list goes on and on.
Quote from: waveryBesides, the mileage on these vehicles has greatly improved over the years. I remember having a '80 Chevy Suburban that got 11MPG not matter what I did or how I drove. My friend has a 2006 Suburban and it gets 14-18MPG. That's a pretty dramatic improvement in anybodies book.
Absolutely, we used to drive International Travelalls, and (true) Jeep Wagoneers. Our 72 Jeep would get 13 mpg - period. Don't even ask about the Travelalls. My Tahoe, which I guarantee weighs a good bit more than the Wagoneer, never gets that low, has a lot more power, and is a good bit safer. There is no denying that we are getting more power, more torque, more safety and fuel economy out of the same engine/vehicle than ever before. And that has created the monster...
Quote from: waveryGood move but next time, get it at K-Mart. They are about half (or less) than the dealer price. Sometimes, they even carry AC/Delco. However, the Fram filters are just as good. That way, you can buy 2 for the same price and change it twice as often :)
I have a hard time finding AC/Delco in K-Mart...and I figure that GM knows what they need, too many horror stories about Frams...
Quote from: wynotActually, I think we're disagreeing about the same side of the issue. Certainly, manufacturers are consumer driven - just ask the Big 3 as the market moved primarily to Asian brands because of 'perceived' quality and economy. If folks wanted smaller, more fuel efficient cars, even though "Detroit" has them (Compared to 1973 & 1974), in general, they didn't buy Cavaliers, Escorts, Focuses (Foci?), or Neons; they bought Corollas, Sentras, Elantras, etc.. So domestic brands put their emphasis on the larger cars and definitely into trucks - and right behind them came the Asian brands after the same markets, because that was what people were buying.
I have this belief about the "Bubba-ing of America". I think a lot of Americans like to believe they have a need for a truck. They may never need the payload of a 3/4 ton truck, but they want to believe that they need that 4WD capability and ground clearance on their annual trip down the farm lane to the pick-yer-own strawberry patch. 'Round here, I have heard many transplants tell me that 4WD is needed because of winter - but you know, we got around just fine in the days of rear wheel drive and snow tires. I think that a lot of fellows want to wear their baseball cap and hang their arms out of the window looking down at non-truck people, as they head to their office job or soccer field.
Hardly a debate, it's a fact. But they do build SUVs (and "trucks") on unitized, non-framed chassis - they're called crossover vehicles or minivans. Like Highlanders, CR-Vs, every FWD minivan, Equinox, Subaru Tribeca, the list goes on and on.
Absolutely, we used to drive International Travelalls, and (true) Jeep Wagoneers. Our 72 Jeep would get 13 mpg - period. Don't even ask about the Travelalls. My Tahoe, which I guarantee weighs a good bit more than the Wagoneer, never gets that low, has a lot more power, and is a good bit safer. There is no denying that we are getting more power, more torque, more safety and fuel economy out of the same engine/vehicle than ever before. And that has created the monster...
The real problem is that consumers speak from their brain (and they are quite intelligent). However, they buy from that pouch in the seat of their pants (hardly where the intelligence lives).
Until the consumer STOPS buying gas guzzlers, this nation will continue to be controlled by the Middle East. The
ONLY other option is to go in and take over the Middle East. The problem is, it seems that Americans are much more willing to take the latter option than the former.
It seems to me that we (as a nation) are destined to commit suicide in our individual quest for power. That's what all this "Big vehicle" money is all about.....personal power. People seem to feel that they have more control over their lives and their destiny if they drive a big, powerful vehicle. After-all, they spend a good percentage of their time in it. The truth is, by doing so, they invest $1 in the Middle East for every $3 that they spend at the pump. You would have thought that 9-11 would have been a wake-up call to this nation.
IMHO our leaders have spent a lot of time, $ and lives pointing their finger at the Middle East and trying to resolve the issue there. I truly believe that if American's really wanted to stop the Middle East conflict, save lives, save money and make a better place for their grandchildren to live, we would change the way that we spend our $. The 1st step would be to divorce ourselves from this oil addiction that we have. Everyone, individually must take personal responsibility for their buying habits. Blaming this sort of non-sense on the manufacturer is the same as blaming the Middle East for having enough $ to fund terrorism. They are both accomplished by
our purchasing decisions.
WE, each one of us, decide where we spend our $. For every dollar that we spend, we need to understand that we are supporting a product. When we buy a Big-Mac, we are supporting fast food. When we buy guns, we are supporting gun manufacturers. When we buy big cars, we are (partially) supporting the oil companies (mostly Mid-Eastern). When we buy school books we are supporting publishing and education. When we buy movie tickets, we are supporting an entire host of things from the fine arts to drugs but mostly the salary and buying habits of the rich and famous. When we buy gas, we are supporting terrorism. It is no more complicated than that. WE control our own destiny in our purchasing power. We need to take accountability for ourselves, until we do, we will continue down a path of self destruction and destruction as a nation.
This nation needs to start buying the way that they think and not from the seat of their pants. We have
NO ONE to blame for what is going on in our lives and futures but ourselves. As I said before....."It's all about the money". Follow the money trail and you will
always find the source of the problem.
...............Remove soap box...........return to work......... :p
I need to go camping........ :U
Quote from: waveryWE, each one of us, decide where we spend our $. For every dollar that we spend, we need to understand that we are supporting a product. When we buy a Big-Mac, we are supporting fast food. When we buy guns, we are supporting gun manufacturers.
...............Remove soap box...........return to work......... :p
I need to go camping........ :U
And what is WRONG with supporting gun manufactures ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Quote from: Billy BobAnd what is WRONG with supporting gun manufactures ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
:confused: Who said there was something wrong with it? It's just a personal decision that individuals make. If you knowingly support the fire arms manufacturers when you make that purchase, that's a good thing. At least you are taking responsibility for where your $ goes. I also own a couple of guns. I have no problem with personal firearms.
Actually, I was fishing for a response like this. How do you feel about where your $ goes when you fill your tank? ;)
Quote from: wavery:confused: Who said there was something wrong with it? It's just a personal decision that individuals make. If you knowingly support the fire arms manufacturers when you make that purchase, that's a good thing. At least you are taking responsibility for where your $ goes. I also own a couple of guns. I have no problem with personal firearms.
Actually, I was fishing for a response like this. How do you feel about where your $ goes when you fill your tank? ;)
OH, OK because some folks don't realize these are some of the same gun manufactures that make our military arms that keep our boys in the service the best there are.
On your second question. NOT GOOD AT ALL.
I realize that we are financing the next terrorist attack on the US.
Here would be my answer for getting off the Middle East oil addition. Add at least another $1 FEDERAL tax to every gallon sold. That extra $1 per gallon can pay for health benefits for EVERY American CITIZEN and keep raising it if need be until we no longer import ANY Middle East oil, which is really NOT as much a most people think. We import a LOT more from Canada and Mexico.
Quote from: Billy BobHere would be my answer for getting off the Middle East oil addition. Add at least another $1 FEDERAL tax to every gallon sold. That extra $1 per gallon can pay for health benefits for EVERY American CITIZEN and keep raising it if need be until we no longer import ANY Middle East oil, which is really NOT as much a most people think. We import a LOT more from Canada and Mexico.
I would suggest that instead of putting it into health care, that the tax be used to subsidize alternative fuels. If Americans vote with their pocket book, and gas is $4/gallon but E85 is $1.50/gallon, comsumers will make purchasing decisions based on that alone.
Austin
Quote from: AustinBostonI would suggest that instead of putting it into health care, that the tax be used to subsidize alternative fuels. If Americans vote with their pocket book, and gas is $4/gallon but E85 is $1.50/gallon, comsumers will make purchasing decisions based on that alone.
Austin
That works for me. I support biodiesel and E85/M85. I just don't think I should have to pay 100% gasoline prices for a blend that only delivers 80% of the fuel economy of pure gasoline. I refuse to knowingly buy ethanol blends because I think that they should be appropriately cheaper, because I won't go as far on them. And all this ranting and raving about how much it costs to produce E85 - I see a lot of grass areas along interstates that could be better served growing crops that would be converted to ethanol - let's see, farm the areas and save the highway maintenance budget while paying a local farmer for their effort.
Quote from: wynotThat works for me. I support biodiesel and E85/M85. I just don't think I should have to pay 100% gasoline prices for a blend that only delivers 80% of the fuel economy of pure gasoline. I refuse to knowingly buy ethanol blends because I think that they should be appropriately cheaper, because I won't go as far on them. And all this ranting and raving about how much it costs to produce E85 - I see a lot of grass areas along interstates that could be better served growing crops that would be converted to ethanol - let's see, farm the areas and save the highway maintenance budget while paying a local farmer for their effort.
I agree with you. However, I would go a step farther. I would happily pay $1 per gallon more for ethanol than I would pay for petrol. At least until it is established and enough stations are in place to make them competitive. At that point, the laws of supply and demand will kick in and our capitalistic system will work on it's own. "It's all about the money".
The idea of taxing petrol to subsidize ethanol may be wrought with bureaucratic waste IMO. If petrol is taxed $1PG, I doubt if 25% of that money would actually find it's way to the ethanol manufacturers. I am more in favor of the consumer taking the responsibility to make the decision of where their $ goes by where they spend it. "It's all about the money". I don't like the government making decisions about where consumers $ goes. IMHO, that is an insult to our intelligence and a recipe for corruption and greed by getting too many hands on too much money. "It's all about the money".
How many taxes, programs and sir-charges have been levied on everything from gas to gambling with the promise that it will go to education? What a joke. It is almost always differed to other expenditures and the cost of managing those moneys is often higher than the $ collected through huge bureaucratic ineptness. "It's all about the money", let the consumer take responsibility for where it goes.
Quote from: wynotThat works for me. I support biodiesel and E85/M85. I just don't think I should have to pay 100% gasoline prices for a blend that only delivers 80% of the fuel economy of pure gasoline.
Around here (suburban Twin Cities), E85 sells for about 20 cents a gallon less than regular gasoline, and in the short run the price seems less volatile.
Four out of the five people I've talked to who own flex vehicles say they get more power and slightly more mileage with E85; the fifth said he saw no difference.
On the other hand, you may have to go 10 miles out of your way to find it.
Austin
We get most of our oil in America from Canada, not the Middle East. We grow enough corn, soybeans, and other vegtables to make plenty of alternative fuel. Technology is there for hydrogen powered vehicles (water), etc. It is indeed about the $$$. There is way too much money tied up in oil to make a change right now.
Quote from: AustinBostonAround here (suburban Twin Cities), E85 sells for about 20 cents a gallon less than regular gasoline, and in the short run the price seems less volatile.
Four out of the five people I've talked to who own flex vehicles say they get more power and slightly more mileage with E85; the fifth said he saw no difference.
On the other hand, you may have to go 10 miles out of your way to find it.
Austin
I saw on the news where Minnesota was pushing E85 hard for support of the farm economy in the state. But in fuel mileage, it's all about the BTUs and ethanol doesn't have it. Octane perhaps, since it is cheap (subsidized) way to increase octane. Just gotta wonder if the folks you've spoken with really paid attention to their fuel mileage on pure gasoline, because those just aren't statements that I've been hearing from folks using it (E85).
Of course, each of my car's have their preference on what fuel they like, and they don't necessarily all like the same brand...
Quote from: lwbflWe get most of our oil in America from Canada, not the Middle East. We grow enough corn, soybeans, and other vegtables to make plenty of alternative fuel. Technology is there for hydrogen powered vehicles (water), etc. It is indeed about the $$$. There is way too much money tied up in oil to make a change right now.
Everything I hear about the hydrogen side of life, says it costs far more to make than what is produced - especially separating hydrogen and oxygen out of water, apparently uses a LOT of electricity and fuel cell technology still needs some source fuel, where gasoline is often the fuel of choice...
Quote from: lwbflWe grow enough corn, soybeans, and other vegtables to make plenty of alternative fuel.
Only if we ask the world to stop eating.
Austin
Quote from: AustinBostonOnly if we ask the world to stop eating.
Austin
Amen.
The crops that are currently being grown aren't sitting around waiting to be used for alternative fuels, they're either being consumed domestically or sold internationally.
The same technology that has allowed the US able to reduce the number of farms and still have phenomenal yields can be a very nasty double edged sword if we have significant droughts or flooding in strong ag regions. Our farms here in the East are comparatively small and just don't produce like the midwest. And much of the Western farms are so dependent on irrigation, that drought is a major issue. Once you change land use from ag to residential, you permanently lose that production area. Latest stats I read indicated that there wasn't enough farmland in the US to provide 100% ethanol production for demand, let alone, food AND ethanol.
If we're serious about this, then there needs to be a lot less useless grassy areas, more irrigation of semi-arid areas, and some removal of developed but unused properties (look out Superfund sites!!). And controlled development, which at least where we live, doesn't appear to have any control whatsoever, as I watch farm after farm sprount Vinylland houses.
what did I start?
to put some ofthis in perspective, my experience is with my 1999 durango slt with the 5.2l engine, stock. the route chosen is northen virginia/southern new england, I15-81-84 state route 9 inb conn, 95. length 550 miles, combination city/mountain/flat driving, no towing. mileage is based on the internal computer calculation and display. driving was comfortable highway speeds, 60-65. avarage of n/s round trip was 19.9mpg, up from an historic 16.5-17.5 avarage on the same trip.
there's the details.
Quote from: wynotAmen.
The crops that are currently being grown aren't sitting around waiting to be used for alternative fuels, they're either being consumed domestically or sold internationally.
As a farmer, I can honestly say that more crops are left in the field or plowed in than we could ever imagine. It's a gamble, when the price drops, you can actually make more money by filing for crop insurance. If you don't catch the price high when your crop is ready, well, you don't harvest it and make more money! I know we cant go 100% alternative fuel, but we can reduce our dependancy by leaps and bounds if the government would not regulate such attempts in a way that makes them impossible to produce. Lots of people around here have diesels and were using the used vegtable oil from local restaurants for fuel. Now the government has added regular fuel tax and other taxes for people doing this so it's cheaper to buy off road fuel again. How would they know? Well, when you have millions invested in land and equipment, you can't afford to risk giving it away to the goverment for such small amounts.
Quote from: lwbflAs a farmer, I can honestly say that more crops are left in the field or plowed in than we could ever imagine. It's a gamble, when the price drops, you can actually make more money by filing for crop insurance. If you don't catch the price high when your crop is ready, well, you don't harvest it and make more money! I know we cant go 100% alternative fuel, but we can reduce our dependancy by leaps and bounds if the government would not regulate such attempts in a way that makes them impossible to produce. Lots of people around here have diesels and were using the used vegtable oil from local restaurants for fuel. Now the government has added regular fuel tax and other taxes for people doing this so it's cheaper to buy off road fuel again. How would they know? Well, when you have millions invested in land and equipment, you can't afford to risk giving it away to the goverment for such small amounts.
On our farm, we used to be able to landbank. When that opportunity died, we went to the normal mid-atlantic eastern crops, winter wheat and corn. I guess if we still had the farm, it would be soybeans & corn now, but who knows. That farm was on a shale ridge, so it was 40% timber, and all shale... We made far more money selling shale than by what was grown in the soil. Interestingly enough, the current owners have left the fields fallow for 2 years, because hay/straw is paying more than the droughts are leaving for corn production.
In theory, since offroad is dyed, you could tell. But find a farmer who isn't running offroad in his/her pickup...those 500 gallon tanks just call to be filled up from...
I am suprised that I haven't heard about the restaurants charging for their used fryoil, for the first time, they can make money out of what they have to pay to haul away!
Quote from: wynotOn our farm, we used to be able to landbank. When that opportunity died, we went to the normal mid-atlantic eastern crops, winter wheat and corn. I guess if we still had the farm, it would be soybeans & corn now, but who knows. That farm was on a shale ridge, so it was 40% timber, and all shale... We made far more money selling shale than by what was grown in the soil. Interestingly enough, the current owners have left the fields fallow for 2 years, because hay/straw is paying more than the droughts are leaving for corn production.
In theory, since offroad is dyed, you could tell. But find a farmer who isn't running offroad in his/her pickup...those 500 gallon tanks just call to be filled up from...
I am suprised that I haven't heard about the restaurants charging for their used fryoil, for the first time, they can make money out of what they have to pay to haul away!
Yeah, they still pay you to haul it off for them too. Not all offroad is dyed, off shore fuel is not :# We are actually allowed to run the off road fuel in our trucks as long as they are registered as farm trucks. The thing that gets me is, back when we had our "shortage", all companies were allowed to run off road fuel. That dye stays in the tank forever, so unless they catch you with a full tank of off road, how can they charge you?