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.

Skeedatl

Here it is again...since you obviously missed it

The REALITY of the no-so-ram air

temperature = Tair = 20C = 293K
atm. pressure = Pair = 14.7PSIA
Cpair = 1005J/KgK
K = 1.4
the Cpair and K are constants for air.

62 MPH = 27.78m/s

Calc temp of the "rammed" air

Tramair = ((Vcar^2/2gc)/cp) + Tair
Tramair = (((27.78m/s)^2/2(1kgm/Ns^2)/1005J/kg) + 293K
Tramair = 293.4K

Delta T is + 0.4K or 0.4C.

Pram = Pair (Tram/Tair)^(k/(k-1))
Pram = 14.7PSIA (293.4K/293K)^(1.4/(1.4-1))
Pram = 14.75PSIA - 14.7PSIA
Pram = 0.05PSIG (gauge pressure)

Driving 62 MPH will only have a gain of 0.05 psi. Whatta joke.


At 125MPH about 55.5m/s

Calc temp of the LOL "rammed" air

Tramair = ((Vcar^2/2gc)/cp) + Tair
Tramair = (((55.5m/s)^2/2(1kgm/Ns^2)/1005J/kg) + 293K
Tramair = 294.5K

Delta T is + 1.5K or 1.5C.

Pram = Pair (Tram/Tair)^(k/(k-1))
Pram = 14.7PSIA (294.5K/293K)^(1.4/(1.4-1))
Pram = 14.97PSIA - 14.7PSIA
Pram = 0.27PSIG (gauge pressure)

Now Mr. Engineer, show me where the math is wrong. .27PSI at 125MPH...put that up against the vacuum of a motor? It isn't CRAP. ZILCH NADA NOTHIN'.

Just how much HP do you think you're gonna get from .27PSI? Like you could even do the math for it. Hell, like you even understand the mathematics above, where it comes from, what I'm even talking about.


AGAIN, you don't see any benefit from compression of the air until around Mach .5. Below that, you see NO PERCEIVABLE BENEFIT. Any benefit experienced comes from other factors such as air charge temperature...but not from some stupid concept of "ramming" air into the motor. It starts to work at 320MPH, but not 50, 100, or 150MPH.

Skeedatl

Even at around 250MPH, charge temp goes up about 6C and you'll get only 1.05PSI. 1PSI!!!!! Even at 250MPH, that's at the top end of CART speeds...you get 1PSI...ONE.

Considering how much horsepower it takes to get a car or bike to 250MPH, even a light CART it's 750HP...how much more power are you going to get from 1PSI? Nothin', NADA, ZILCH...even at 250MPH.

Skeedatl

See, to the non-engineer reading magazines to get their info...that sounds all well and good..."Wow, it went from 8mb to 30mb!!!", until you familiarize yourself with the millibar scale. While the difference between 8mb and 30mb sounds significant, it isn't. 8mb is only 0.11603 PSI, 30mb is only 0.435113 PSI. A millibar is a very tiny unit of pressure meaurement.

Even their magic projections of 40mb at close to 170MPH, that 40mb is only .58 PSI. Hardly something to crow about.

Even their own testing reports barely 1/2 PSI even at a whopping 170 MPH...OBVIOUSLY THEIR OWN TEST shows ram air doesn't work for sh!t. And you AREN'T going to get 9HP from .4 PSI.

Again...what HP increase if any comes from a better (lower) intake charge temperature that can occur from any CAI. There is NO HP to be gained from "ramming air" into a car or bike motor. They simply aren't fast enough to compress the air to the degree needed to build additional HP.

harddrivin1le

The real world test data speaks for itself.

harddrivin1le

Sure there is.

Anyone who reads those articles can see that.

Yesterday morning you were INSISTING that aluminum heads allow "vastly higher" compression ratios.

Real world examples prove that to be patently false.

"The pressure build-up can be defined using the Pitot-static tube theory:

P = .5 x r x v2

Pressure (P) is force divided by an area. In the English system of measurement the units of pressure are (lb - force)/in2 which translates to psi. Density (r) is mass divided by volume. The units of density in the English system are (lb - mass)/in3. Velocity (v) is air speed, with units ft/sec. Plotting pressure vs. speed gives a graph that has theoretical pressure rising with the square of speed, and this is why ram air has much more effect at greater speeds. For a speed of 150 mph, the resulting maximum theoretical pressure would be about 27mb (approximately .4 psi)."

Skeedatl

And the day before that you were insisting that V was velocity in the combined gas law.

Again, with such a tiny change in HP on the dyno, you don't know what causes it. It can easily be justified by colder intake charge and better flowing air as obviously the bike is stopped on a dyno and even with the typical fan, cooling is way less effecient.

Their own pressure results confirm my math.

The point is, you aren't going to get a measurable HP increase from .4 PSI. If you got 9HP from a .5PSI increase, you would see electric blowers actually working rather than being the joke that they are.

Ram air in cars and bikes don't work. They aren't fast enough to build measureable HP. You're better off with any CAI. The Injen CAI posts similar dyno results, with NO ram air setup.

harddrivin1le

I've already explained the source of my error and will scan/post the page from my fluids book if I have to.

1 PSIG delta is the difference between sea level and 2,000 feet above sea level.

http://home.flash.net/~rfm2/altitude.htm

If you race then you should know that a given car running @ 2,000 feet will produce measurably less power (and be measurably slower) than it will be at sea leve.

http://home.flash.net/~rfm2/altitude.htm

harddrivin1le

I've already ADMITTED to my error, explained the source of my error and will scan/post the page from my fluids book if I have to.

1 PSIG delta is the difference between sea level and 2,000 feet above sea level.

http://home.flash.net/~rfm2/altitude.htm

If you race then you should know that a given car running @ 2,000 feet will produce measurably less power (and be measurably slower) than it will be at sea leve.

http://home.flash.net/~rfm2/altitude.htm

Skeedatl

1 PSI from ram air is a lot. 250MPH. I don't know of too many street cars, even even race cars for that matter capable of 250MPH. And of those that do 250MPH, I don't see many without force induction (like Top Fuel and CARTs).

harddrivin1le

A decent "ram air" system begins to produce quantifiable gains in intake pressure @ roughly 100 MPH.

And such a system costs next to nothing.

I'll take whatever it's worth, given the relatively insignificant cost.

I agree with you that many fools believe that "ram air" makes a "big" difference @ everyday speeds.

I'm not one of them.

If I were then I'd have bought an "SS" Camaro or a WS6 Firebird instead of the the regular Z28 (which has no "ram air" at all) 5.5 years ago when I was shopping for such cars.

Skeedatl

What you consider a quantifiable gain in pressure does not equate of a quantifiable gain in HP.

In reading these articles, people should question the results. The math, OUR math simply doesn't back up their claims of "ramming" is where the power is coming from. So you look for other reasons for the pickup in HP on the dyno. The most logical reason is cold air, which in CAI applications show very similar results. There is no arguing that ram air is a CAI. So as you see the same benefit in HP from ram air as you would a regular CAI...how much of the HP is coming from the so-calling ramming and how much is comming from the CAI aspects of the ram air setup?

By the math, and the 'real world results'...all of it.

As for the SS and WS6, you know as well as I that there was revised intakes, headers and other parts that came with those packages. The HP increases came not from "ram air" but by actually hardware speed parts.

Skeedatl

It is my opinion, based on the mathematics and results of these ram air tests, comparing them to regular CAI tests, that any HP increase that's being seen, especially at speeds under 200MPH is from the CA properties of ram air, not the "ramming" properties of ram air.

harddrivin1le

That's not an accurate statement.

The intake and exhaust manifolds were indentical. The airbox was even the same (at least for the Camaro).

Why can't you accept the graphs in those tests which clearly show a change from a vacuum to a net positive pressure in the intake as speeds hit the ~ 100 MPH mark?