harddrivin1le

Good point. Of course, anyone who attempts to perform/publish a TRULY independent test gets trashed by those who want to believe - no matter WHAT.

This link to the test that I posted back on page 1 (and the personal attacks that followed) is living proof of that.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm

And the speaker wire issue goes way beyond "Monster Cable." There are all types of VERY expensive "magic speaker wires" out there...Look @ any high scale audiophile magazine and it's packed full of such wires. "Vacuum spun silver" is one such example.

edmiller9999

While running the risk of taking this discussion grossly off-topic, I don't think McIntosh ever made any distinction about the "average" listener, since there is no such thing.... is there? :-)

In fact, Gordon Gow used "audiophiles" to be the judges in his experiments!!!!

Here's a summary of the process Mr. Gow went through.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rogerr7/wire.htm#gordongow

Skeedatl

Problem with your posted test is that it's not a "scientific" test. They don't measure particulates. They don't control the environment...they simply go by "shade" and just drive around which is nonsense. If they used SAE standards to conduct the test in a closed environment that they could control everything including the size of the particulates...then the test results would be valid. Simply put there are WAY too many variables other than the different filters that affect the results of the test.

Them all being "gray" doesn't tell you anything, especially after only 500 miles. It could have rained shortly before the test cleaning the air and roads, and by the time they get to the cotton filter, it could have been windy and blown more dust than normal on the road.

I'm not saying that is what happened, but we don't know because there was no control over the environment.

An accurate test would be to build a machine that holds the filters in a closed environment then blow different particulates through it and see which filter gets dirty the fastest (by measuring their flow) and also measuring how many and why type of particulate matter was permitted through.

But I had already explained all this had you bothered to read.

harddrivin1le

The test undoubtedly isn't 100%...

Then again, there is a LOT of hype on the part of K&N and the other "magic air filter" manufacturers.

One guy on this site was telling me that his mileage jumped in his TL by 2 MPG JUST by installing a K&N panel filter. And he probably believes it due to the power of suggestive advertising.

I personally run an Amsoil foam filter in my Z28. It's filthy every time I change it (every oil change); just as the K&Ns were in my previous vehicles.

Why do I run it instead of a paper filter? Perhaps I'm a victim of suggestive advertising as well, although I did buy it @ a wholesale price because I "couldn't refuse." More than one LS1 owner has "proved" the superiority of Fram paper filters over K&N replacement panel filters via back to back dyno tests. Those results undoubtedly fall within the margin of error of the dyno/test facility and probably "prove" nothing.

Of course, I never have to buy new filters as I'd have to with paper filters and I MIGHT be getting SLIGHTLY (and I do mean SLIGHTLY) more power from the Amsoil.

The again, I might not.

Skeedatl

I run cotton only 'cause I don't have to change it. I don't buy a MPG increase from a cotton filter. More likely it's a change in driving habit or even the effect of a new TL "loosening up".

Aegir

The focus of the K&N discussion has pretty much focused on the air flow potential, in volume, of the filter. Anyone care to weigh in on my previous comments related to airflow quality? "An interesting effect was that cars would produce more power with a K&N than with no air filter. One theory, that I agree with, was that the K&N created less turbulent flow through the MAF meter. I have no idea how applicable this would be to other cars including the TL. It is clearly dependent the air intake design."

I did a quick search and found an air filter study, conducted on a flowbench, that included swirl measurements.
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...rs/index.shtml

Generally, the cotton filters produced less turbulent airflow than the paper filters. Since a mass airflow sensor measures pressure differentials, less turbulent flow should produce a more consistent and more accurate measurement. Sorry, I don't have a link to back up this claim. Real world examples include MAF motors making more power on the dyno with an air filter than without. Another is seeing MAF cars with unshrouded air filters idling poorly because fan wash was hiting the air filter and causing inconsistent MAF readings. Ultimately, a more accurate measurement would lead to more accurate fuel metering and probably more power. How much is relative because it depends on what you are starting with. The intake design, stock filter quality, filter age, and sensor type and design would all be factors.

Does any of this apply at all to a new TL? To be honest, I have no idea. I'm not even sure what types of sensors the TL is using in it's intake system, so I'm not going to guess how they would be impacted. Anyone who does know please feel free to 'educate' me.

All that said, I don't believe that any benefit in airflow quantity or quality would be enough to notice in terms of mpg or 'seat of the pants' power output. Again, Honda has clearly paid some attention to the air intake on the TL. It is probably very good. If a cotton air filter added 2 mpg and some hp, I can almost guarantee that Honda would put one in there from the factory - a disposable one that you would have to buy from them at $75 a pop!

harddrivin1le

Most MAFs have "screens" located upstream of the sensing "wires." Those screens serve to "staighten" the airflow in order to cut down on turbulence and allow the MAF to get an accurate reading..

You're statement probably has mose merit, though I'd argue that it would depend on a host of variables (vehicle, proximity of the filter relative to the MAF, etc).

I told the guy who made the 2 mpg claim the same thing; Honda would USE such a filter if it produced an ~ 8% gain in MPG (along with the SIGNIFICANT performance increase that would go with such a reduction in "restriction.")

Aegir

MAF screens - Yes, the stock MAF sensors that I have experience with have screens. This fits in with the "car manufacturers generally know what they are doing when they..." train of thought. However, I have not seen an aftermarket MAF come with a screen, and the real world cases that I mentioned definitely involved aftermarket sensors. This helps explain why the air intake/filter would make a difference in those cases.

Both examples, screens and filters, show that intake path flow dynamics do matter in some applications. If there is any difference in performance from an air filter in the TL I would not be surprised if flow dynamics had more to do with it than flow volume. The only compromise I can imagine Honda would have made on the air intake would be for noise - so maybe there is a 'little something' there.

Norse396

I was just pushing buttons. In this thread all one has to do is make a claim and bada bing bada boom 15 pages of ranting.

kilrb

Forgive me, as I did not wade through all 14 pages...

There is a great article at Sportrider.com, which tested the effects of ram air on motorcycles on a track, and they did find some effect. Here's the link for anyone who cares.

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/

Skeedatl

The benefits (if any) from ram air come from colder intake charge, not from "ramming air" as discussed.

harddrivin1le

Excellent link.

And there are SEVERAL articles in there....

I like the real world/road test which PROVED that ram air increases ACTUAL PRESSURE @ the intake.

harddrivin1le

Those articles don't support your claim.

Read them.

They includes on road test data where a manometer was used to measure air pressure @ the inlet - ON THE ROAD. Gains in HP were significant at higher speeds.

"At the strip we were able to give the big Kwakker its head, with one eye on the slowly rising column of green fluid and the other on the rapidly rising speedo. At the end of each run we logged boost pressure against indicated speed.

The results were even better than we'd hoped for. At lower speeds (under 120 mph) the gauge was easy to read and the results quite consistent: at 70 mph pressure was 8mb; at 80 mph, 10mb; at 100 mph, 12mb; at 110 mph, 14mb. From this point things really took off: At 120 mph (indicated) the airbox pressure was approximately 19mb, at 130 mph about 23mb, at 140 mph, 26mb and at an indicated 150 mph, the gauge was beginning to pump out green liquid as it bubbled over the 30mb limit.

At a real speed of 167 mph, past experience shows that the ZX-9R's speedo indicates 181 mph; there was obviously even more to come, perhaps as much as 30 mph worth of additional air pressure. Plotting the air pressure figures against speed for a rough representation of the way the air pressure increases suggests that the progression isn't linear.

This is as we'd expected. Air drag doesn't increase at a linear rate but relative to the square of the speed. At above 25 mph, air resistance builds in proportion to the square of the air speed over the motorcycle: twice the speed, four times the resistance. The faster the bike goes, the greater should be the increase in pressure and thus intake pressure. When we plotted the rough course of the pressure increase on a graph and continued it upward, we came up with a projected 44mb (or more) of pressure at an indicated 180 mph, when the bike would actually be traveling at its real top speed of 167 mph.

SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

The maximum pressure we were able to generate on the dyno was approximately 30mb, which gave a peak of 131 bhp from a ZX-9R as compared to the 123 bhp measured at rest. In other words, each 10mb increase in inlet pressure is worth approximately 2.6 bhp at peak on a derestricted 9R.

At an indicated 150 mph on the road, the inlet pressure had already neared the 30mb figure. We can therefore say with confidence that the ZX-9R is producing at least 131 bhp at the rear wheel in real world conditions-8 bhp more than at rest on the dyno.

Flat out, however, the Ninja indicates another 30 mph on the speedo. If boost at this speed was, as seems likely, 40mb, then the gain over atmospheric pressure would be approximately 11.5 bhp, giving a peak figure of 134.5 bhp. If inlet pressure reached 45mb, which it might well do, then the increase would be as much as 12 bhp, or a peak of 135 bhp. In other words, 123 bhp measured normally on a static Dynojet rolling road dynamometer could translate to as much as 135 bhp or more on the street. Ram air works."

harddrivin1le

How do you explain the REALWORLD (on the track) increases in airbox pressures as speeds rose(above ~ 100 MPH) in that article, where there was no fan "compressing" the air @ the intake as you claimed was the case when attempting to recreate the affect on a dyno.

The caveat in that link you originally posted was, "AT AUTOMOBILE SPEEDS." The author meant typical speeds as seen on the street. And he was correct in that assertion (~ 65 MPH).

A good Ram Air system clearly produces more power (via positive pressure @ the intake) @ elevated speeds.

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9910_ram/

http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_9508_ram/

kilrb

Wow, 1LE, does this mean we aren't enemies anymore?

harddrivin1le

I wasn't aware that we were....

That was a good link. Glad you posted it.

Even the dyno results (where some alledge the fan "compresses" the air) and the real world data (where there is no fan) were very comparable in terms of measured positive pressure vs. vehicle speed.

kilrb

Well, we were yelling at each other last week, calling names. No big deal.

neuronbob

You guys MUST be engineers, given the passion and vitriol of your arguments.

It's too bad you two don't live in the same part of the country. You guys really just ought to have a couple of beers together and settle this.

kilrb

You know, I'm not an engineer, but I seem to attract them. My two closest friends are mechanical engineers. I can argue until the end of time with one of them. It's fun.

harddrivin1le

I'm a mechanical engineer.

(No, I don't recall every formula I ever learned and I don't reference every college text I have on a regular basis. But hey, I graduated in 1986....18 years is a long time. On the other hand, 18 years of real world experience tends to counter-balance that forgetfulness.)

kilrb

Never would have guessed. :p You remind me soooo much of my buddy, it isn't even funny.

neuronbob

Hah! Knew it. One of my brothers is a dual mechie/aerospace engineer. A real geek, but I love him anyway.

Skeedatl?

harddrivin1le

I'm a far cry from "a geek."

:diablotin

Skeedatl

We've already gone over this, and I've already shown you the math which you obviously couldn't follow.

There is no ram air effect in automobiles, even fast automobiles.

The difference between -15 PSI at the throttle plate and -14.95 PSI at the throttle plate isn't going to mean SH!T on the track.

But of course you arleady knew that.

Skeedatl

:lol1: ROTFLMAO, yeah right you're an engineer.

Now that's the funniest thing I've read in a long while.

Skeedatl

B.S. (Pure) Mathematics, minor in physics CSULB 1993; B.S.M.E. CSULB 1996. Currently working on M.S.M.E. spec. fluid and thermal sciences and materials engineering (metals) CSULB hopefully done with my research by the end of the Fall this year and finish in June 05.

Skeedatl

We'll, the mathematics does support my claim. You say you're an engineer (still laughing after reading that), show me where the math is wrong? This time try and keep your formulas straight.

astro

roadman

Looks like Fram is soon to be jumping on the K&N style re-usable air filter. They call it that AirHog.

Framairhog.com

TL Enthusiast

jhawk5

Holy crap batman ! I did a search on filters hoping to find if someone better then me could say "Yes, buying a K&N or similar filter is better and worth the money versus buying the old stock filters at Wal-Mart or your dealer" ...................

I read thru the first page of posts and quickly realized that there is a mix of people of know what they are talking about, think they know what they are talking about, and finally know just enough to baffle most of us.

I have no desire to read through all the posts as somewhere someone decided that technical postings would be understood by all of us. Wrong ! The short of it is probably 90 to 95% of us couldn't tell from driving a TL if it had a K&N filter or stock filter in it ................

May the debate continue for those you wanting to discuss or argue or whatever !

david nikguhwin

just out of curiousity,is there a way to make the tl sound like the g35 coupe?

Atrain

First of all, an engine is basically an air pump. Almost every naturally aspirated engine will never see 100% VE or volumetric efficiency. To reach 100% VE you need a really great flowing engine (read $$$$). The TL's engine is no where near 100% VE.

Supercharge or Turbocharge a engine and you reach well over 100% VE.

How do you calculate VE?

The TL's engine is 3.2L V6 or 196 cubic inches and is a 4 stroke engine.

Volumetric Efficiency = theortical air flow over actual air flow

For every two revolutions of the engine, the TL engine can theoretically take in 196 cubic inches of air.

How much air can the TL's 3.2L engine flow?
NOTE: 1,728 is the conversion factor from in cubed to ft cubed.

CID/1,728 X RPM/2 =

OR...196 ci over 1,728 = 0.1134259

6,000 (RPM) OVER 2 = 3,000

3,000 X 0.1134259 = 340.27

So the TL can flow 340.2 of air flow at 6,000 rpm.

How about we agree that the TL's engine is actually flowing well enough to put it at 85% VE. This means it flows no more than 289 on a good day.

Now I don't care how you want to argue this fact but here goes. The K&N panel replacement filters can flow anywhere from 750-850 . It depends on their surface area and how clean they are. A conical 9" K&N flows 1,000 and more.

HOW IN THE WORLD CAN ANY FILTER THAT IS FLOWING MORE AIR THAN YOUR ENGINE CAN EVEN MOVE...MAKE ANY MORE POWER? Wait, don't answer that...because the answer is NO it can't.

Why is this? Simple...what determines power output of any gasoline engine is how efficiently it burns fuel. AIR IS A LIMITING FACTOR IN POWER OUTPUT. Yes I said that and it's true. You cannot just add air and poof...more power. No way...no how.

Air must be matched with fuel and spark and provided you have good compression you will make power. The more air you have, the more fuel you need to make the A/F ratio that is desired. At cruise speeds the engine tries to maintain what is called "STOICH" or 14.64:1 Air fuel ratio. Which is 14.64 (14.7) parts air to one part fuel. Please remember that heptane has a chemically correct formula of 14.64:1.

Now when you go wide open throttle (WOT), PCM's will always run rich (more fuel than air). This is done to primarily protect the catalytic converters (which BTW are real close to the exhaust manifolds on ULEV engines) from extreme heat. The extra fuel is actually not be used to make power but to cool the compression air charge.

I have done enough testing with supercharged engines to verify the changes of inlet systems and how they can alter power output especially those with mass air sensors (which the TL lacks).

The TL uses a manifold absolute pressure sensor with most likely Air intake temp and engine coolant temps to calculate incoming airflow. There is no reasonable way it can respond to a filter replacement unless MAP numbers changes dramatically. Which is just not possible in this situation.

My 4.6L supercharged T-Bird made 320.5 RWHP/380 RWTQ (SAE) on a dynojet with stock factory airbox and K&N panel filter (rated at 805 ). With 10-psi of boost and 19 degrees of spark timing it made 320 RWHP/380 RWTQ.

I then removed the entire factory airbox and installed a K&N conical 9" air filter directly to the MASS AIR METER. We then made another pull. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT A EX-FORD ENGINEER (JERRY W.) WAS PRESENT AND TUNING THE CAR, NOT A SPEED SHOP REVERSE ENGINEERING HACKER.

The car then made 325.1 RWHP/380 RWTQ (SAE). In reality it was a gain of 4.6 RWHP and NO RWTQ. With such a difference in air flow, about 200 ...why didn't the car make more power and torque?

Simple...you can only pack so much air and fuel in each cylinder. The 4.6 HP gain was a small PEAK spike at the high rpms not an average gain across the chart.

I can't even imagine how much power I would lose in the summer time with HOT engine bay air being sucked into the conical and the hood closed.

The bottom line is, don't believe all the BS in regards to these HIGH flow air filters. If they are SOOOOOOOOO GOOOOOOODDDDD, why aren't they installed on the factory floors.

Also cars with MASS AIR sensors tend to be skewed by the K&N and ACCEL Cool Blue oil that migrates from the filter the resistors on the MAF's hot wires. Insulating them and fooling the computer into thinking less air is actually flowing into the engine. So the PCM pulls fuel out and the engine pings.

Ford and GM have issued TSB's in regards to this dilemma.

Enjoy!

aphmd

Just leaving out all the scientific explanations, I wanted to let you all know that after replacing my paper filter with a K&N, I noticed absolutely no difference in power or gas consumption. Now I have to clean the damn thing, instead of just throwing it out and replacing it.

MistaBee

Always enjoyed reads like this. Good info.