POLL: Who thinks K&N panel filters add "2-3 MPG?"
03-28-2004, 10:48 AM
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
POLL: Who thinks K&N panel filters add "2-3 MPG?"
That's equates to roughly a 10% improvement for the new TL.:lol2:
Someone should write Acura and tell them how they could increase their fleet mileage by ~ 10% @ the cost of ~ $12 per vehicle (their cost delta between a K&N and the OEM filter).
03-28-2004, 11:28 AM
#3
It depends on what it's replacing. If you're comparied a new cotton filter with a new paper filter, there isn't going to be much (if any) difference. But the paper filter gets dirty sooner, so if you compared to filters at say 10K or 15K miles, you could see a difference in fuel mileage due to the paper filter blocking flow more than the cotton filter would at that mileage.
If you change your paper (even a cheap paper) filter often, you won't see any difference between a cotton and paper filter in terms of MPH, HP or anything else. As you pointed on in other threads, any dyno number posted are typically within the margin of error of the dyno and don't prove anything. The testor could simply be picking favorable pulls.
I run cotton for 2 reasons. It came with the CAI and I would have otherwise been changing the filter with every oil change and since I drive tons of miles (30K a year minimum) over a few years that can add up especially since I would be so lazy as to just have the dealer do it during the service...so I'm sure the filter would be a billion dollars plus another billion in labor charges.
With cotton I can just pull and clean it twice a year and I'm good to go.
If you change your paper (even a cheap paper) filter often, you won't see any difference between a cotton and paper filter in terms of MPH, HP or anything else. As you pointed on in other threads, any dyno number posted are typically within the margin of error of the dyno and don't prove anything. The testor could simply be picking favorable pulls.
I run cotton for 2 reasons. It came with the CAI and I would have otherwise been changing the filter with every oil change and since I drive tons of miles (30K a year minimum) over a few years that can add up especially since I would be so lazy as to just have the dealer do it during the service...so I'm sure the filter would be a billion dollars plus another billion in labor charges.
With cotton I can just pull and clean it twice a year and I'm good to go.
03-28-2004, 11:30 AM
#4
Retired MOD
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Age: 46
Posts: 3,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: POLL: Who thinks K&N panel filters add "2-3 MPG?"
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Someone should write Acura and tell them how they could increase their fleet mileage by ~ 10% @ the cost of ~ $12 per vehicle (their cost delta between a K&N and the OEM filter).
Someone should write Acura and tell them how they could increase their fleet mileage by ~ 10% @ the cost of ~ $12 per vehicle (their cost delta between a K&N and the OEM filter).
03-28-2004, 11:50 AM
#6
Retired MOD
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Age: 46
Posts: 3,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by Skeedatl
It depends on what it's replacing. If you're comparied a new cotton filter with a new paper filter, there isn't going to be much (if any) difference. But the paper filter gets dirty sooner, so if you compared to filters at say 10K or 15K miles, you could see a difference in fuel mileage due to the paper filter blocking flow more than the cotton filter would at that mileage.
It depends on what it's replacing. If you're comparied a new cotton filter with a new paper filter, there isn't going to be much (if any) difference. But the paper filter gets dirty sooner, so if you compared to filters at say 10K or 15K miles, you could see a difference in fuel mileage due to the paper filter blocking flow more than the cotton filter would at that mileage.
Originally posted by Skeedatl
If you change your paper (even a cheap paper) filter often, you won't see any difference between a cotton and paper filter in terms of MPH, HP or anything else. As you pointed on in other threads, any dyno number posted are typically within the margin of error of the dyno and don't prove anything. The testor could simply be picking favorable pulls.
If you change your paper (even a cheap paper) filter often, you won't see any difference between a cotton and paper filter in terms of MPH, HP or anything else. As you pointed on in other threads, any dyno number posted are typically within the margin of error of the dyno and don't prove anything. The testor could simply be picking favorable pulls.
Originally posted by Skeedatl
I run cotton for 2 reasons. It came with the CAI and I would have otherwise been changing the filter with every oil change and since I drive tons of miles (30K a year minimum) over a few years that can add up especially since I would be so lazy as to just have the dealer do it during the service...so I'm sure the filter would be a billion dollars plus another billion in labor charges.
With cotton I can just pull and clean it twice a year and I'm good to go.
I run cotton for 2 reasons. It came with the CAI and I would have otherwise been changing the filter with every oil change and since I drive tons of miles (30K a year minimum) over a few years that can add up especially since I would be so lazy as to just have the dealer do it during the service...so I'm sure the filter would be a billion dollars plus another billion in labor charges.
With cotton I can just pull and clean it twice a year and I'm good to go.
03-28-2004, 11:55 AM
#7
I've never had to replace a cotton filter...they always outlasted the car. As for dirt at 15K, the thing about cotton is they can still filter and have decent flow at 15K. They "look" dirty but that isn't a guage of airflow and filtering performance. The second you oil it and get fine dust on it they look filthy.
My point was at 15K a paper filter is utterly and completely dead while the cotton will keep on doing its work. IOW cotton stay more efficient longer.
But that's the choice anyone can make. You don't favor cotton, you're free to run paper. Me, I prefer cotton.
With noise...my CAI is plenty noisy...I dunno how much is due to filter, how much is due to no silencer. I never ran a cotton filter in the stock box so I don't know about the TL, but I ran cotton in my old 5-0 and it didn't seem any louder. But who could tell over 2-1/2" exhaust and 2 chamber flowmasters.
My point was at 15K a paper filter is utterly and completely dead while the cotton will keep on doing its work. IOW cotton stay more efficient longer.
But that's the choice anyone can make. You don't favor cotton, you're free to run paper. Me, I prefer cotton.
With noise...my CAI is plenty noisy...I dunno how much is due to filter, how much is due to no silencer. I never ran a cotton filter in the stock box so I don't know about the TL, but I ran cotton in my old 5-0 and it didn't seem any louder. But who could tell over 2-1/2" exhaust and 2 chamber flowmasters.
Trending Topics
03-28-2004, 12:10 PM
#8
Retired MOD
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Age: 46
Posts: 3,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally posted by Skeedatl
With noise...my CAI is plenty noisy...I dunno how much is due to filter, how much is due to no silencer. I never ran a cotton filter in the stock box so I don't know about the TL, but I ran cotton in my old 5-0 and it didn't seem any louder. But who could tell over 2-1/2" exhaust and 2 chamber flowmasters.
With noise...my CAI is plenty noisy...I dunno how much is due to filter, how much is due to no silencer. I never ran a cotton filter in the stock box so I don't know about the TL, but I ran cotton in my old 5-0 and it didn't seem any louder. But who could tell over 2-1/2" exhaust and 2 chamber flowmasters.
If you mainly buy it for looks, then yeah it does look better than the stock airbox.
03-28-2004, 12:11 PM
#9
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Cotton takes LESS maintanence than paper.
Cotton takes LESS maintanence than paper.
However, that's neither here nor there in terms of this post.
Here are examples of what people are claiming:
Originally posted by cybershot
I realize that it doesn't make much sense, but i installed the K&N yesterday before my 150 mile trip to Austin from Houston. I have 5K miles on the car and it always gets around 29-30 on the highway going around 75 mph. The whole way I was getting right at 32. All I'm saying is mine changed. If I reset it while driving on the highway on cruise control it gives 32 mpg, before yesterday, this method showed 29-30 mpg. I know this may add some fuel to the flames, but they were my observations.
I realize that it doesn't make much sense, but i installed the K&N yesterday before my 150 mile trip to Austin from Houston. I have 5K miles on the car and it always gets around 29-30 on the highway going around 75 mph. The whole way I was getting right at 32. All I'm saying is mine changed. If I reset it while driving on the highway on cruise control it gives 32 mpg, before yesterday, this method showed 29-30 mpg. I know this may add some fuel to the flames, but they were my observations.
Originally posted by marquis
Anyone else have experience with these air filters and whether they think they are worth using? An extra 2-3 mpg for $40 is a good deal in my book. Performance boost would be a plus too.
Anyone else have experience with these air filters and whether they think they are worth using? An extra 2-3 mpg for $40 is a good deal in my book. Performance boost would be a plus too.
03-28-2004, 12:13 PM
#10
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: POLL: Who thinks K&N panel filters add "2-3 MPG?"
Originally posted by Bitium
That is because is not true..... also the filter has to be maintain more often.
That is because is not true..... also the filter has to be maintain more often.
Others claim otherwise. (See my post directly above)
The people making these claims fail to understand that they're claming a ~ 10% increase overall engine efficiency merely by installing a different air filter and that if that were the case, they'd see similar gains on a chassis dyno (~ 23 more peak HP and a corresponding percentage gain across the entire RPM spectrum).
03-28-2004, 12:18 PM
#11
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
I'd argue that cleaning/re-oiling those filters is far more maintenence intensive than merely disposing an old one and throwing in a new one.
I'd argue that cleaning/re-oiling those filters is far more maintenence intensive than merely disposing an old one and throwing in a new one.
It's way easier (and cheaper) for me to clean my filter twice a year than go out and buy or have the deal install 4 or more paper filters a year. I typically clean the filters when I'm detailing the car so that the time it takes the cotton to dry isn't a problem. I just consider it "detailing" my filter. Takes just a few minutes if you don't count the drying time.
03-28-2004, 12:22 PM
#12
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Depends...paying for and going out to get the paper filter is more of a pain...or worse, paying the dealer to do it which is what my lazy ass does....then get bent at the $100 oil change bill.
It's way easier (and cheaper) for me to clean my filter twice a year than go out and buy or have the deal install 4 or more paper filters a year. I typically clean the filters when I'm detailing the car so that the time it takes the cotton to dry isn't a problem. I just consider it "detailing" my filter. Takes just a few minutes if you don't count the drying time.
Depends...paying for and going out to get the paper filter is more of a pain...or worse, paying the dealer to do it which is what my lazy ass does....then get bent at the $100 oil change bill.
It's way easier (and cheaper) for me to clean my filter twice a year than go out and buy or have the deal install 4 or more paper filters a year. I typically clean the filters when I'm detailing the car so that the time it takes the cotton to dry isn't a problem. I just consider it "detailing" my filter. Takes just a few minutes if you don't count the drying time.
Same basic deal as a K&N in terms of maintenance.
I run it mainly because I don't have to keep buying replacement (paper) filters.
But these claims of ~ 10% mileage improvements are outright insane.
If that were the case then wed see similar gains in power on chassis dynos (~ 230 stock and with the paper filter and ~ 250 merely by installing a K&N).
03-28-2004, 12:27 PM
#13
I wouldn't believe gains in HP, but I would believe 10% loss in a dirty paper filter compared to the same mileage K&N...but that's not based on anything but visual inspection of filthy paper filters compared to the cotton ones. But visual inspection doesn't mean much. Given that paper filters do get clogged faster, logic simply suggests that when they're massively clogged there will be a drop in HP and MPG just as if there were any obstruction in the airstream.
03-28-2004, 12:29 PM
#14
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
I wouldn't believe gains in HP, but I would believe 10% loss in a dirty paper filter compared to the same mileage K&N...but that's not based on anything but visual inspection of filthy paper filters compared to the cotton ones. But visual inspection doesn't mean much. Given that paper filters do get clogged faster, logic simply suggests that when they're massively clogged there will be a drop in HP and MPG just as if there were any obstruction in the airstream.
I wouldn't believe gains in HP, but I would believe 10% loss in a dirty paper filter compared to the same mileage K&N...but that's not based on anything but visual inspection of filthy paper filters compared to the cotton ones. But visual inspection doesn't mean much. Given that paper filters do get clogged faster, logic simply suggests that when they're massively clogged there will be a drop in HP and MPG just as if there were any obstruction in the airstream.
And remember, a ~ 10% gain mileage (same car/driver/driving style) would equate to a ~ comparable gain in output on a chassis dyno.
Thus, the guy below should see ~20-plus drivewheel HP gains (plus comparable percentage gains across the entire rpm spectrum) when he throws his TL on a chassis dyno.
He won't.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cybershot
I realize that it doesn't make much sense, but i installed the K&N yesterday before my 150 mile trip to Austin from Houston. I have 5K miles on the car and it always gets around 29-30 on the highway going around 75 mph. The whole way I was getting right at 32. All I'm saying is mine changed. If I reset it while driving on the highway on cruise control it gives 32 mpg, before yesterday, this method showed 29-30 mpg. I know this may add some fuel to the flames, but they were my observations.
03-28-2004, 12:36 PM
#15
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You made an entirely new thread to mock those that say they see this improvement with the K&N air filter? Why? Don't you have better things to do with your time that going over posts with a fine tooth comb simply to prove them wrong and argue over 15 pages about air filters?
Why is it so important to you that you are proven right and that you point out other people's incorrect observations or assertions?
It's really getting old.
Why is it so important to you that you are proven right and that you point out other people's incorrect observations or assertions?
It's really getting old.
03-28-2004, 12:39 PM
#16
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TLProspect
You made an entirely new thread to mock those that say they see this improvement with the K&N air filter? Why? Don't you have better things to do with your time that going over posts with a fine tooth comb simply to prove them wrong and argue over 15 pages about air filters?
Why is it so important to you that you are proven right and that you point out other people's incorrect observations or assertions?
It's really getting old.
You made an entirely new thread to mock those that say they see this improvement with the K&N air filter? Why? Don't you have better things to do with your time that going over posts with a fine tooth comb simply to prove them wrong and argue over 15 pages about air filters?
Why is it so important to you that you are proven right and that you point out other people's incorrect observations or assertions?
It's really getting old.
And do you want people blowing their money based on FALSE CLAIMS/igorance?
I want people to know that they WILL NOT SEE any quantifiable gain in fuel economy by switching from a (less than totally filthy) OEM paper air filter to a K&N replacement panel filter.
PERIOD
:clown: :thefinger:
03-28-2004, 12:42 PM
#18
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
"Massively clogged"? After 5,000 miles?
"Massively clogged"? After 5,000 miles?
03-28-2004, 12:42 PM
#19
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by TLProspect
You're right, I should have looked at the "thread starter". I'll know better next time.
You're right, I should have looked at the "thread starter". I'll know better next time.
That way you can continue living with eyes closed. Living if much easier that way.
03-28-2004, 01:22 PM
#20
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MA
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please point out where the in quote you used by me makes *any* claims on the results of using a K&N filter. Sheesh, get your facts straight you moron. Better yet, keep me out of your asinine, pointless, imflamatory arguments.
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
I'd argue that cleaning/re-oiling those filters is far more maintenence intensive than merely disposing an old one and throwing in a new one.
However, that's neither here nor there in terms of this post.
Here are examples of what people are claiming:
quote
riginally posted by marquis
Anyone else have experience with these air filters and whether they think they are worth using? An extra 2-3 mpg for $40 is a good deal in my book. Performance boost would be a plus too.
I'd argue that cleaning/re-oiling those filters is far more maintenence intensive than merely disposing an old one and throwing in a new one.
However, that's neither here nor there in terms of this post.
Here are examples of what people are claiming:
quote
riginally posted by marquisAnyone else have experience with these air filters and whether they think they are worth using? An extra 2-3 mpg for $40 is a good deal in my book. Performance boost would be a plus too.
03-28-2004, 03:27 PM
#21
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Yes...good idea.
That way you can continue living with eyes closed. Living if much easier that way.
Yes...good idea.
That way you can continue living with eyes closed. Living if much easier that way.
No one is saying you're wrong. The way you present your ideas, facts, whatever, is in a tactless, I'm right/you're completely wrong attitude. How about arguing in a manner that doesn't require insults and back handed comments? There's an idea.
03-28-2004, 06:26 PM
#22
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by marquis
Please point out where the in quote you used by me makes *any* claims on the results of using a K&N filter. Sheesh, get your facts straight you moron. Better yet, keep me out of your asinine, pointless, imflamatory arguments.
Please point out where the in quote you used by me makes *any* claims on the results of using a K&N filter. Sheesh, get your facts straight you moron. Better yet, keep me out of your asinine, pointless, imflamatory arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by marquis
Anyone else have experience with these air filters and whether they think they are worth using? An extra 2-3 mpg for $40 is a good deal in my book. Performance boost would be a plus too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03-28-2004, 06:33 PM
#23
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone should write Acura and tell them how they could increase their fleet mileage by ~ 10% @ the cost of ~ $12 per vehicle (their cost delta between a K&N and the OEM filter).
03-28-2004, 06:42 PM
#25
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The K&N may or may not save me few mpg, but it sure keeps the jiffylube guys from asking if I want to purchase their $15 paper filter - along with $10 wiper blades, $50 belts, hoses, etc....
03-28-2004, 06:51 PM
#27
Team Owner
Originally posted by Norse396
The work it takes to use a K&N makes it unsuitable for the average car sold to the average consumer.
The work it takes to use a K&N makes it unsuitable for the average car sold to the average consumer.
Others have a differing opinion, and I respect that.
Another thing to consider is the K&N can present a minor hazard to some cars; my previous car used a "hot wire" MAF. There were some owners who tried the K&N (and Amsoil) in that car, and ended up with a thin coating of the filter lubricant on the hot wire of the MAF, which caused the MAF to malfunction. It may be that they over-oiled their filters, but that is a hazard of use.
This may not be the case with the TL, but it is something to consider: if the creator of the car didn't design in a lubricated filter, they may not have designe the car to deal with the lubricant.
Mike
03-28-2004, 06:57 PM
#28
Team Owner
Originally posted by casooner90
The K&N may or may not save me few mpg, but it sure keeps the jiffylube guys from asking if I want to purchase their $15 paper filter - along with $10 wiper blades, $50 belts, hoses, etc....
The K&N may or may not save me few mpg, but it sure keeps the jiffylube guys from asking if I want to purchase their $15 paper filter - along with $10 wiper blades, $50 belts, hoses, etc....
Mike
03-28-2004, 09:12 PM
#31
Andrenaline Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Yes...good idea.
That way you can continue living with eyes closed. Living if much easier that way.
Yes...good idea.
That way you can continue living with eyes closed. Living if much easier that way.
03-28-2004, 09:18 PM
#32
Re: POLL: Who thinks K&N panel filters add "2-3 MPG?"
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
That's equates to roughly a 10% improvement for the new TL.:lol2:
Someone should write Acura and tell them how they could increase their fleet mileage by ~ 10% @ the cost of ~ $12 per vehicle (their cost delta between a K&N and the OEM filter).
That's equates to roughly a 10% improvement for the new TL.:lol2:
Someone should write Acura and tell them how they could increase their fleet mileage by ~ 10% @ the cost of ~ $12 per vehicle (their cost delta between a K&N and the OEM filter).
And a synthetic oil filter such Mobil 1 or Bosch would filter much more that the stock paper filter, and very likely would help the engine last longer.
03-28-2004, 09:19 PM
#33
Powered by Guinness
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Stockton, CA
Age: 54
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Uhm, it's just an air filter! :smackhead
There could be a placebo effect where the folks looking for evidence of an improvement subconciously alter their driving style and end up realizing it - X-files style.
There could be a placebo effect where the folks looking for evidence of an improvement subconciously alter their driving style and end up realizing it - X-files style.
03-29-2004, 10:40 AM
#34
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MA
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uh, did you actually take the time to *read* the post i made in the context it was posted? It was a friggin *question* to posts made within a thread about the filters. My post makes absolutely NO claims about the filters. I've never used one until now (just installed them yesterday).
This is SO typical of you 1LE. Posting snippets of information you don't even understand or even try to take the time to in order to make your arguments. What a loser.
This is SO typical of you 1LE. Posting snippets of information you don't even understand or even try to take the time to in order to make your arguments. What a loser.
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
quoteriginally posted by marquis
Please point out where the in quote you used by me makes *any* claims on the results of using a K&N filter. Sheesh, get your facts straight you moron. Better yet, keep me out of your asinine, pointless, imflamatory arguments.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by marquis
Anyone else have experience with these air filters and whether they think they are worth using? An extra 2-3 mpg for $40 is a good deal in my book. Performance boost would be a plus too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote
riginally posted by marquisPlease point out where the in quote you used by me makes *any* claims on the results of using a K&N filter. Sheesh, get your facts straight you moron. Better yet, keep me out of your asinine, pointless, imflamatory arguments.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by marquis
Anyone else have experience with these air filters and whether they think they are worth using? An extra 2-3 mpg for $40 is a good deal in my book. Performance boost would be a plus too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03-29-2004, 12:21 PM
#35
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: POLL: Who thinks K&N panel filters add "2-3 MPG?"
Originally posted by roadman
Better add to that letter that synthetic oils protect engines better, last longer intervals, and get better mpg than the dino oil that comes with the car.
And a synthetic oil filter such Mobil 1 or Bosch would filter much more that the stock paper filter, and very likely would help the engine last longer.
Better add to that letter that synthetic oils protect engines better, last longer intervals, and get better mpg than the dino oil that comes with the car.
And a synthetic oil filter such Mobil 1 or Bosch would filter much more that the stock paper filter, and very likely would help the engine last longer.
There are no such federal requirements addressing oil changes.
03-29-2004, 12:27 PM
#36
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by marquis
Uh, did you actually take the time to *read* the post i made in the context it was posted? It was a friggin *question* to posts made within a thread about the filters. My post makes absolutely NO claims about the filters. I've never used one until now (just installed them yesterday).
This is SO typical of you 1LE. Posting snippets of information you don't even understand or even try to take the time to in order to make your arguments. What a loser.
Uh, did you actually take the time to *read* the post i made in the context it was posted? It was a friggin *question* to posts made within a thread about the filters. My post makes absolutely NO claims about the filters. I've never used one until now (just installed them yesterday).
This is SO typical of you 1LE. Posting snippets of information you don't even understand or even try to take the time to in order to make your arguments. What a loser.
And I'M telling you that you WILL NOT GAIN "2-3 MPG." You MIGHT gain 1/10th that amount (0.2% - 0.3%).
03-29-2004, 12:29 PM
#37
Re: Re: Re: POLL: Who thinks K&N panel filters add "2-3 MPG?"
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Car companies have to meet CAFE regulations or pay HUGE fines to the Fed Gov. Larger vehicles generally equate to larger profit margins. Hence, every manufacturer strives to meet CAFE requirements by seeking to maxmize fuel economy while still remaining competitive within that vehicle's category in the marketplace.
There are no such federal requirements addressing oil changes.
Car companies have to meet CAFE regulations or pay HUGE fines to the Fed Gov. Larger vehicles generally equate to larger profit margins. Hence, every manufacturer strives to meet CAFE requirements by seeking to maxmize fuel economy while still remaining competitive within that vehicle's category in the marketplace.
There are no such federal requirements addressing oil changes.
BMW by the way uses all three things that I mentioned
03-29-2004, 12:32 PM
#38
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: POLL: Who thinks K&N panel filters add "2-3 MPG?"
Originally posted by roadman
Agreed, but my point is that there are simple add-ons that the manu will not do themselves and it is not because it is not better for the car.
BMW by the way uses all three things that I mentioned
Agreed, but my point is that there are simple add-ons that the manu will not do themselves and it is not because it is not better for the car.
BMW by the way uses all three things that I mentioned
BMWs "by the way" suck in terms of reliability. And they should include a suitcase full of $100 bills in the trucks of their cars given the outrageous price they charge for them.
03-29-2004, 01:24 PM
#39
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MA
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, still not willing to admit you took my question out of context and used it to try and fuel your argument? I didn't think you would, given your past behavior, but at least all the other reasonable people here reading this (if any still are at this point) know that I wasn't trying to make any unfounded claims.
As for me, I'll believe the real world data being posted by the folks here, which is more credible than the garbage you post here. Thanks again everyone for the tip.
As for me, I'll believe the real world data being posted by the folks here, which is more credible than the garbage you post here. Thanks again everyone for the tip.
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
quoteriginally posted by marquis
Uh, did you actually take the time to *read* the post i made in the context it was posted? It was a friggin *question* to posts made within a thread about the filters. My post makes absolutely NO claims about the filters. I've never used one until now (just installed them yesterday).
This is SO typical of you 1LE. Posting snippets of information you don't even understand or even try to take the time to in order to make your arguments. What a loser.
I have experience with them.
And I'M telling you that you WILL NOT GAIN "2-3 MPG." You MIGHT gain 1/10th that amount (0.2% - 0.3%).
quote
riginally posted by marquisUh, did you actually take the time to *read* the post i made in the context it was posted? It was a friggin *question* to posts made within a thread about the filters. My post makes absolutely NO claims about the filters. I've never used one until now (just installed them yesterday).
This is SO typical of you 1LE. Posting snippets of information you don't even understand or even try to take the time to in order to make your arguments. What a loser.
I have experience with them.
And I'M telling you that you WILL NOT GAIN "2-3 MPG." You MIGHT gain 1/10th that amount (0.2% - 0.3%).
03-29-2004, 01:26 PM
#40
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by marquis
So, still not willing to admit you took my question out of context and used it to try and fuel your argument? I didn't think you would, given your past behavior, but at least all the other reasonable people here reading this (if any still are at this point) know that I wasn't trying to make any unfounded claims.
As for me, I'll believe the real world data being posted by the folks here, which is more credible than the garbage you post here. Thanks again everyone for the tip.
So, still not willing to admit you took my question out of context and used it to try and fuel your argument? I didn't think you would, given your past behavior, but at least all the other reasonable people here reading this (if any still are at this point) know that I wasn't trying to make any unfounded claims.
As for me, I'll believe the real world data being posted by the folks here, which is more credible than the garbage you post here. Thanks again everyone for the tip.
And you made that as a statement - with no question mark @ the end of it.:wow:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by marquis
Anyone else have experience with these air filters and whether they think they are worth using? An extra 2-3 mpg for $40 is a good deal in my book. Performance boost would be a plus too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------