TV mileage improvement-K and N filters

[chasd60]

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.

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.

[chasd60]

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.

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.

[wynot]

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.

[wynot]

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.

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.

[flyfisherman]

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

[wavery]

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.
 
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".

[wavery]

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

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

[wynot]

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 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.
 

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 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.
 

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?  

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.
 
 

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.

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...

[wynot]

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

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...

[wavery]

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.
 
 
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

[Billy Bob]

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.
...............Remove soap box...........return to work......... :p

I need to go camping........  :U

And what is WRONG with supporting gun manufactures ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

[wavery]

And 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?

[Billy Bob]

: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.

[AustinBoston]

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.

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

[wynot]

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

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.