Why "cold air" systems like INJEN's aren't optimal
03-20-2004, 08:17 PM
#41
All metals are efficient conductors of heat. That's part of the definition of a metal, that they're generally good conductors of heat.
But again, you're all missing the point.
The fact that aluminum gets hot is irrelevant. The air charge doesn't pull enough heat from the CAI in the short time it's in there to make a difference. Think about it, at 600 CFM how long do you think the air is in there?
But again, you're all missing the point.
The fact that aluminum gets hot is irrelevant. The air charge doesn't pull enough heat from the CAI in the short time it's in there to make a difference. Think about it, at 600 CFM how long do you think the air is in there?
03-20-2004, 08:20 PM
#42
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
All metals are efficient conductors of heat. That's part of the definition of a metal, that they're generally good conductors of heat.
But again, you're all missing the point.
The fact that aluminum gets hot is irrelevant. The air charge doesn't pull enough heat from the CAI in the short time it's in there to make a difference. Think about it, at 600 CFM how long do you think the air is in there?
All metals are efficient conductors of heat. That's part of the definition of a metal, that they're generally good conductors of heat.
But again, you're all missing the point.
The fact that aluminum gets hot is irrelevant. The air charge doesn't pull enough heat from the CAI in the short time it's in there to make a difference. Think about it, at 600 CFM how long do you think the air is in there?
Then again, GM selected plastic for the LS1/LS6 intake manifolds and cited better insulating characteristics for a cooler charge (vs aluminum) as one of the main advantages.
Are they wrong?
03-20-2004, 08:20 PM
#43
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
All metals are efficient conductors of heat. That's part of the definition of a metal, that they're generally good conductors of heat.
But again, you're all missing the point.
The fact that aluminum gets hot is irrelevant. The air charge doesn't pull enough heat from the CAI in the short time it's in there to make a difference. Think about it, at 600 CFM how long do you think the air is in there?
All metals are efficient conductors of heat. That's part of the definition of a metal, that they're generally good conductors of heat.
But again, you're all missing the point.
The fact that aluminum gets hot is irrelevant. The air charge doesn't pull enough heat from the CAI in the short time it's in there to make a difference. Think about it, at 600 CFM how long do you think the air is in there?
Then again, GM selected plastic for the LS1/LS6 intake manifolds and cited better insulating characteristics for a cooler charge (vs aluminum) as one of the main advantages.
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/50638/
Are they wrong?
And under MOST driving conditions, street engines are drawing FAR less than 600 CFM!!!!
03-20-2004, 08:31 PM
#44
Renaissance Man
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I understand my physics properly, this is how I see it. At that flow, the air has a tendency to heat up on its own regardless of the distance travelled or temeprature of the vessel in which it is carried because it is being compressed. If it is in contact with a hot surface it will allow for more heating due to compression and possibly aid in the heating process. If it is in contact with a cold surface, the cooler temperature will counteract the compression heating and allow the air to remain closer to the temperature it entered at. This is the principle behind intercoolers at least. In N/A applications the heat gain may be negligible, but every ºF helps IMO.
03-20-2004, 08:37 PM
#45
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
I've already stated that any difference will be next to negligible earlier in this thread....
Then again, GM selected plastic for the LS1/LS6 intake manifolds and cited better insulating characteristics for a cooler charge (vs aluminum) as one of the main advantages.
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/50638/
Are they wrong?
And under MOST driving conditions, street engines are drawing FAR less than 600 CFM!!!!
I've already stated that any difference will be next to negligible earlier in this thread....
Then again, GM selected plastic for the LS1/LS6 intake manifolds and cited better insulating characteristics for a cooler charge (vs aluminum) as one of the main advantages.
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/50638/
Are they wrong?
And under MOST driving conditions, street engines are drawing FAR less than 600 CFM!!!!
03-20-2004, 08:52 PM
#46
Team Anthracite President
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Silicon Valley, California
Posts: 988
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
You say Potato, I say Potato...
All I know is that I wouldn't cook a potato using plastic, I don't think that would taste too good...
"Let's call the whole thing off"
Mike Smeezy, Zaino Master
"Let's call the whole thing off"
Mike Smeezy, Zaino Master
03-20-2004, 08:55 PM
#47
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
It's hype, just like ram air is hype. They choose plastic 'cause it's cheaper.
It's hype, just like ram air is hype. They choose plastic 'cause it's cheaper.
It doesn't amount to a rat's ass @ grocery getter speeds, but I never claimed otherwise:
http://www.rrzone.com/929products/ra...amairexp.shtml
03-21-2004, 04:44 AM
#49
Retired MOD
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Age: 47
Posts: 3,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If I was you guys I would just take the resornator out.....that is the biggest drawback on the 04 TL intake.....trust me you don't want the aftermarket filters......it needs maintenance. Plus one of the reasons the aftermarket works better than stock, is because you are removing the resornator to instell the aftermarket intake. Just my opinion.
03-21-2004, 07:16 AM
#50
Cruisin'
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: GA
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This argument has an easy answer. Go drive your car for about 30 minutes, pop open the hood and put your hand on the intake tube. Those with the stock plastic intake will not get burned. Those with an aftermarket aluminum intake most likely will get burned. On the other hand I agree with Skeedatl that the air is not in the intake tube long enough to absorb much heat from it. The real advantage comes from keeping the airflow straight, smooth, and at high velocity.
03-21-2004, 07:20 AM
#51
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
Ram air is a myth. The RRZone experiment confuses static with dynamic airflow by using a compressed charge which doesn't exist with ram air.
If you took fluids you would already know that.
Ram air is a myth. The RRZone experiment confuses static with dynamic airflow by using a compressed charge which doesn't exist with ram air.
If you took fluids you would already know that.
http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml
"Where vehicle speeds are very high, gains from ram air are significant. This was discovered by Rolls-Royce in the late 1920s as the company developed its R Schneider Trophy air racing engine. At speeds above 300 mph, it was noticed that the R’s fuel mixture leaned out enough to cause backfiring. When the mixture was corrected for ram-air pressure gain, the engineers realized they had a "free" source of power. At 350 mph the gain from ram air is almost 15 percent. Similar mixture correction is necessary when ram air is used on drag-race and Bonneville cars and bikes."
03-21-2004, 07:33 AM
#52
The speeds required to convert dynamic into static pressure are far higher than street cars can achieve. 300MPH? 350MPH? Those are top fuel speeds.
My original post of this concept described that this compression doesn't occur until Mach .5.
My original post of this concept described that this compression doesn't occur until Mach .5.
03-21-2004, 08:11 AM
#53
Ram air in automobiles is a myth as I've already proven mathematically in the filter thread. What conversion of dynamic to static pressure that applies at 300+MPH doesn't translate to 50-100MPH.
It's a myth perpetrated by magazine dorks and benchtop racers who don't understand fluid mechanics, so much so that even their experiments are massively flawed (as in your ZX example).
It's a myth perpetrated by magazine dorks and benchtop racers who don't understand fluid mechanics, so much so that even their experiments are massively flawed (as in your ZX example).
03-21-2004, 09:33 AM
#54
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
Ram air in automobiles is a myth as I've already proven mathematically in the filter thread. What conversion of dynamic to static pressure that applies at 300+MPH doesn't translate to 50-100MPH.
It's a myth perpetrated by magazine dorks and benchtop racers who don't understand fluid mechanics, so much so that even their experiments are massively flawed (as in your ZX example).
Ram air in automobiles is a myth as I've already proven mathematically in the filter thread. What conversion of dynamic to static pressure that applies at 300+MPH doesn't translate to 50-100MPH.
It's a myth perpetrated by magazine dorks and benchtop racers who don't understand fluid mechanics, so much so that even their experiments are massively flawed (as in your ZX example).
That doesn't mean that it's a myth @ speeds of ~ 100 MPH and above.
Therefore, you can't make the blanket statement that it's a myth.
03-21-2004, 09:54 AM
#55
Instructor
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Aliso Viejo, CA
Age: 52
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, after reading all the posts, here's my 2c.
Metals will always conduct heat better than plastics.(FACT)
The intake has to be at a lower pressure on normally aspirated cars than the atmosphere. Therefore there is no heat of compression. (FACT)
Heat transfer is time dependant (FACT)
Engines are nothing more than pumps. (FACT), at 6,000 rpm the 3.2 Engine moves about 340 cfm (quick calc) on a 3" line that's 8' long the residence time is about .07 seconds (again quick calc) I don't have any of my heat transfer texts here so I cannot figure out the actual heat transfer. I don't think however that there is a lot in plastic or metal.
I think the answer to why aftermarket CAIs are Al and not plastic is not technical but economical
Tubes cannot be made from thermoplastics since they would melt. Making the tubes out o thermoset resins wold require molds (very expensive molds) to make a couple hundred units; not economical for aftermarket mfrs. That's why they use Al. Al tubes ca be bent to fit a particular application on their shop. once they have a pattern, a computer can roll 1 or 1,000 at no additional cost.
Automakers on the other hand, make thousands of vehicles. once the molds are done, the unit cost is very very cheap.
Not a heat transfer issue a cost issue Aluminum is "cheap" and with the right metalurgy can be bent quite easily, it's shiny corrosion resistant and can be anodized into pretty colors that add $$$ to the bottom line rahter than to the performance of the engine.
Metals will always conduct heat better than plastics.(FACT)
The intake has to be at a lower pressure on normally aspirated cars than the atmosphere. Therefore there is no heat of compression. (FACT)
Heat transfer is time dependant (FACT)
Engines are nothing more than pumps. (FACT), at 6,000 rpm the 3.2 Engine moves about 340 cfm (quick calc) on a 3" line that's 8' long the residence time is about .07 seconds (again quick calc) I don't have any of my heat transfer texts here so I cannot figure out the actual heat transfer. I don't think however that there is a lot in plastic or metal.
I think the answer to why aftermarket CAIs are Al and not plastic is not technical but economical
Tubes cannot be made from thermoplastics since they would melt. Making the tubes out o thermoset resins wold require molds (very expensive molds) to make a couple hundred units; not economical for aftermarket mfrs. That's why they use Al. Al tubes ca be bent to fit a particular application on their shop. once they have a pattern, a computer can roll 1 or 1,000 at no additional cost.
Automakers on the other hand, make thousands of vehicles. once the molds are done, the unit cost is very very cheap.
Not a heat transfer issue a cost issue Aluminum is "cheap" and with the right metalurgy can be bent quite easily, it's shiny corrosion resistant and can be anodized into pretty colors that add $$$ to the bottom line rahter than to the performance of the engine.
03-21-2004, 09:57 AM
#56
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by rkilian
OK, after reading all the posts, here's my 2c.
Metals will always conduct heat better than plastics.(FACT)
The intake has to be at a lower pressure on normally aspirated cars than the atmosphere. Therefore there is no heat of compression. (FACT)
Heat transfer is time dependant (FACT)
Engines are nothing more than pumps. (FACT), at 6,000 rpm the 3.2 Engine moves about 340 cfm (quick calc) on a 3" line that's 8' long the residence time is about .07 seconds (again quick calc) I don't have any of my heat transfer texts here so I cannot figure out the actual heat transfer. I don't think however that there is a lot in plastic or metal.
I think the answer to why aftermarket CAIs are Al and not plastic is not technical but economical
Tubes cannot be made from thermoplastics since they would melt. Making the tubes out o thermoset resins wold require molds (very expensive molds) to make a couple hundred units; not economical for aftermarket mfrs. That's why they use Al. Al tubes ca be bent to fit a particular application on their shop. once they have a pattern, a computer can roll 1 or 1,000 at no additional cost.
Automakers on the other hand, make thousands of vehicles. once the molds are done, the unit cost is very very cheap.
Not a heat transfer issue a cost issue Aluminum is "cheap" and with the right metalurgy can be bent quite easily, it's shiny corrosion resistant and can be anodized into pretty colors that add $$$ to the bottom line rahter than to the performance of the engine.
OK, after reading all the posts, here's my 2c.
Metals will always conduct heat better than plastics.(FACT)
The intake has to be at a lower pressure on normally aspirated cars than the atmosphere. Therefore there is no heat of compression. (FACT)
Heat transfer is time dependant (FACT)
Engines are nothing more than pumps. (FACT), at 6,000 rpm the 3.2 Engine moves about 340 cfm (quick calc) on a 3" line that's 8' long the residence time is about .07 seconds (again quick calc) I don't have any of my heat transfer texts here so I cannot figure out the actual heat transfer. I don't think however that there is a lot in plastic or metal.
I think the answer to why aftermarket CAIs are Al and not plastic is not technical but economical
Tubes cannot be made from thermoplastics since they would melt. Making the tubes out o thermoset resins wold require molds (very expensive molds) to make a couple hundred units; not economical for aftermarket mfrs. That's why they use Al. Al tubes ca be bent to fit a particular application on their shop. once they have a pattern, a computer can roll 1 or 1,000 at no additional cost.
Automakers on the other hand, make thousands of vehicles. once the molds are done, the unit cost is very very cheap.
Not a heat transfer issue a cost issue Aluminum is "cheap" and with the right metalurgy can be bent quite easily, it's shiny corrosion resistant and can be anodized into pretty colors that add $$$ to the bottom line rahter than to the performance of the engine.
I see these aluminum tube "intakes" advertised all over...
They're selling them in the tens of thousands.
They prefer aluminum because it LOOKS "cooler" than plastic. And the consumer pays the price of what is undoubtedly a net higher cost.
Every new car is loaded with cheap plastic under the hood (including radiator shrouds, master cylinder reservoirs, etc). They don't melt....
03-21-2004, 10:08 AM
#57
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
It's a "myth" on the street @ speeds that resemble the speed limit.
That doesn't mean that it's a myth @ speeds of ~ 100 MPH and above.
Therefore, you can't make the blanket statement that it's a myth.
It's a "myth" on the street @ speeds that resemble the speed limit.
That doesn't mean that it's a myth @ speeds of ~ 100 MPH and above.
Therefore, you can't make the blanket statement that it's a myth.
All of those "test" articles (ZX, WS6 etc) you've posted in support of your arguement are total B.S. The RAMMING EFFECT of Ram air in cars does not exist, and SERVES ZERO PURPOSE AND BUILDS ZERO ADDITIONAL HORSEPOWER. At least you finally admit it.
03-21-2004, 10:10 AM
#58
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
Duh, I've only been saying that in 2 threads for 20 posts now. It's a myth until around Mach .5, which was part of one of my very first posts on the subject.
All of those "test" articles (ZX, WS6 etc) you've posted in support of your arguement are total B.S. At least you finally admit it.
Duh, I've only been saying that in 2 threads for 20 posts now. It's a myth until around Mach .5, which was part of one of my very first posts on the subject.
All of those "test" articles (ZX, WS6 etc) you've posted in support of your arguement are total B.S. At least you finally admit it.
It becomes (very modestly) effective @ 100 MPH and its effect grows exponentially (^2) with velocity thereafter.
03-21-2004, 10:14 AM
#59
What was the WS6 article? The ZX article? You used both to argue against my claims that there is no ram affect for ram air in automobiles.
You are so full of it. You are a liar and I'm done with you.
You are so full of it. You are a liar and I'm done with you.
03-21-2004, 10:40 AM
#60
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
What was the WS6 article? The ZX article? You used both to argue against my claims that there is no ram affect for ram air in automobiles.
You are so full of it. You are a liar and I'm done with you.
What was the WS6 article? The ZX article? You used both to argue against my claims that there is no ram affect for ram air in automobiles.
You are so full of it. You are a liar and I'm done with you.
03-21-2004, 11:14 AM
#62
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
Thank you for FINALLY owning up to your mistakes.
Thank you for FINALLY owning up to your mistakes.
What you (mis) constued from the WS6 link is your error, not mine.
EVERY other article I've posted cites a negligable gain in manifold pressure from "Ram Air" below ~ 100 MPH.
03-21-2004, 11:17 AM
#64
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
You posted it not me?
Now you posted it, but you don't believe it?
Uh...okay. Whatever. Keep diggin' that hole of yers.
You posted it not me?
Now you posted it, but you don't believe it?
Uh...okay. Whatever. Keep diggin' that hole of yers.
@ 100 MPH, that difference is roughly equivalent to the gain one might expect when switching from a paper air filter to a K&N.
Yet, you defend the K&N while dimissing the concept of Ram Air as "a myth."
03-21-2004, 11:21 AM
#65
Andrenaline Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Again, RAM AIR produces a MEASUREABLE gain in manifold pressure @ speeds of ~ 100 MPH and over...
@ 100 MPH, that difference is roughly equivalent to the gain one might expect when switching from a paper air filter to a K&N.
Yet, you defend the K&N while dimissing the concept of Ram Air as "a myth."
Again, RAM AIR produces a MEASUREABLE gain in manifold pressure @ speeds of ~ 100 MPH and over...
@ 100 MPH, that difference is roughly equivalent to the gain one might expect when switching from a paper air filter to a K&N.
Yet, you defend the K&N while dimissing the concept of Ram Air as "a myth."
03-21-2004, 11:22 AM
#67
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Swat Dude
So ram air would do me absolutely no good on my TL for day to day driving, but a KN would.
So ram air would do me absolutely no good on my TL for day to day driving, but a KN would.
You might want to read this, though:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm
03-21-2004, 11:25 AM
#68
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
Even if there was a measurable gain in man press (which there isn't...the gains are inside the window of environmental uncertainty), that doesn't equate to measurable gains in HP.
Even if there was a measurable gain in man press (which there isn't...the gains are inside the window of environmental uncertainty), that doesn't equate to measurable gains in HP.
03-21-2004, 11:27 AM
#69
Originally posted by Swat Dude
So ram air would do me absolutely no good on my TL for day to day driving, but a KN would.
So ram air would do me absolutely no good on my TL for day to day driving, but a KN would.
The increase in airflow occurs at all speeds, and more importantly, cotton air filters the longer service lives, so while a paper filter will noticeably kill HP late in it's service life, the cotton filter will not.
You take 2 filters with 10,000miles on them, 1 paper, 1 cotton, and the cotton will permit SIGNIFICANTLY more airflow as the paper filter is clogged with filth.
I use a cotton filter, not for HP, but for serviability. I don't like changing my air filter with every oil change, which is what you need to do in order to keep the best efficiency with paper filters.
03-21-2004, 11:29 AM
#70
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
Yes, for 2 reasons.
The increase in airflow occurs at all speeds, and more importantly, cotton air filters the longer service lives, so while a paper filter will noticeably kill HP late in it's service life, the cotton filter will not.
You take 2 filters with 10,000miles on them, 1 paper, 1 cotton, and the cotton will permit SIGNIFICANTLY more airflow as the paper filter is clogged with filth.
I use a cotton filter, not for HP, but for serviability. I don't like changing my air filter with every oil change, which is what you need to do in order to keep the best efficiency with paper filters.
Yes, for 2 reasons.
The increase in airflow occurs at all speeds, and more importantly, cotton air filters the longer service lives, so while a paper filter will noticeably kill HP late in it's service life, the cotton filter will not.
You take 2 filters with 10,000miles on them, 1 paper, 1 cotton, and the cotton will permit SIGNIFICANTLY more airflow as the paper filter is clogged with filth.
I use a cotton filter, not for HP, but for serviability. I don't like changing my air filter with every oil change, which is what you need to do in order to keep the best efficiency with paper filters.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm
03-21-2004, 11:34 AM
#71
I've already shown how that experiment is flawed in my posts on this page of another thread.
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showt...7&pagenumber=2
Obviously you missed it.
http://www.acura-tl.com/forums/showt...7&pagenumber=2
Obviously you missed it.
03-21-2004, 11:52 AM
#72
Andrenaline Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
It MIGHT do a little good...assuming you drove near redline all the time (thereby maximizing the flow rate through the filter).
You might want to read this, though:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm
It MIGHT do a little good...assuming you drove near redline all the time (thereby maximizing the flow rate through the filter).
You might want to read this, though:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm
I already read it and the experiment is fatally flawed, not enough controls and "gut-feel" results. Now if had fed the filters the same dust makeup or a set time and then measured the particle size and weight of the dust that wound up on the second filter, I might buy it a little more. Plus, I thought we decided that just by designing a air box with a filter with more surface area would lower the pressure loss on a CLEAN paper filter enough to make it the same as KN.
03-21-2004, 11:55 AM
#73
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Swat Dude
First, would day to day driving be redline all the time?? My how you love to twist the facts and the arguments and second....
I already read it and the experiment is fatally flawed, not enough controls and "gut-feel" results. Now if had fed the filters the same dust makeup or a set time and then measured the particle size and weight of the dust that wound up on the second filter, I might buy it a little more. Plus, I thought we decided that just by designing a air box with a filter with more surface area would lower the pressure loss on a CLEAN paper filter enough to make it the same as KN.
First, would day to day driving be redline all the time?? My how you love to twist the facts and the arguments and second....
I already read it and the experiment is fatally flawed, not enough controls and "gut-feel" results. Now if had fed the filters the same dust makeup or a set time and then measured the particle size and weight of the dust that wound up on the second filter, I might buy it a little more. Plus, I thought we decided that just by designing a air box with a filter with more surface area would lower the pressure loss on a CLEAN paper filter enough to make it the same as KN.
It's essentially ZILCH.
That means that the worst filter in this test only caused a pressure drop of 0.07 psi. In my opinion, this means that if you are picking an air filter based on performance, you probably aren't doing your car any favors.
03-21-2004, 12:03 PM
#74
Andrenaline Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
The difference in pressure drop between a K&N and a paper filter is next to ZERO:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm
The difference in pressure drop between a K&N and a paper filter is next to ZERO:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm
03-21-2004, 12:08 PM
#75
Andrenaline Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Forget the "dust" part and look at the difference in pressure drop between the filter when new (and clean).
It's essentially ZILCH.
That means that the worst filter in this test only caused a pressure drop of 0.07 psi. In my opinion, this means that if you are picking an air filter based on performance, you probably aren't doing your car any favors.
Forget the "dust" part and look at the difference in pressure drop between the filter when new (and clean).
It's essentially ZILCH.
That means that the worst filter in this test only caused a pressure drop of 0.07 psi. In my opinion, this means that if you are picking an air filter based on performance, you probably aren't doing your car any favors.
Go here and scroll down to the product bulletin for the XH.
http://www.camfilfarr.com/script/pr...oppic=top18.jpg
small differences in static can equate to significant differences in cfm.
Seriously, as much fun as this is, TALKING TO YOU HARDDRIVIN IS LIKE BEATING YOUR HEAD AGAINST THE WALL. I CAN'T WASTE ANYMORE TIME RESPONDING TO YOUR LAME ASS BECAUSE UNLIKE YOU, I HAVE A LIFE. I will continue to read your "ignorance is bliss" post for amusement only.
03-21-2004, 12:09 PM
#76
Andrenaline Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Forget the "dust" part and look at the difference in pressure drop between the filter when new (and clean).
It's essentially ZILCH.
That means that the worst filter in this test only caused a pressure drop of 0.07 psi. In my opinion, this means that if you are picking an air filter based on performance, you probably aren't doing your car any favors.
Forget the "dust" part and look at the difference in pressure drop between the filter when new (and clean).
It's essentially ZILCH.
That means that the worst filter in this test only caused a pressure drop of 0.07 psi. In my opinion, this means that if you are picking an air filter based on performance, you probably aren't doing your car any favors.
03-21-2004, 12:16 PM
#77
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Forget the "dust" part and look at the difference in pressure drop between the filter when new (and clean).
It's essentially ZILCH.
That means that the worst filter in this test only caused a pressure drop of 0.07 psi. In my opinion, this means that if you are picking an air filter based on performance, you probably aren't doing your car any favors.
Forget the "dust" part and look at the difference in pressure drop between the filter when new (and clean).
It's essentially ZILCH.
That means that the worst filter in this test only caused a pressure drop of 0.07 psi. In my opinion, this means that if you are picking an air filter based on performance, you probably aren't doing your car any favors.
Paper filters simply don't maintain their flow for very long at all. Within a few 1000 miles their efficiency drops off quickly while a cotton filter can go way more than 10,000 miles with no apparent drop in efficiently.
03-21-2004, 12:18 PM
#78
Andrenaline Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Which is K&N and other cotton manufacturers point. Paper filters don't stay clean very long. They filter not with oil where the dirtier it gets the more trapping ability it has. Paper filters of course have tiny holes that block the filth. Once there is filth there, there is no airflow.
Paper filters simply don't maintain their flow for very long at all. Within a few 1000 miles their efficiency drops off quickly while a cotton filter can go way more than 10,000 miles with no apparent drop in efficiently.
Which is K&N and other cotton manufacturers point. Paper filters don't stay clean very long. They filter not with oil where the dirtier it gets the more trapping ability it has. Paper filters of course have tiny holes that block the filth. Once there is filth there, there is no airflow.
Paper filters simply don't maintain their flow for very long at all. Within a few 1000 miles their efficiency drops off quickly while a cotton filter can go way more than 10,000 miles with no apparent drop in efficiently.
03-21-2004, 12:26 PM
#80
Andrenaline Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
I still have hope that 1LE will change from a serial troll to someone actually interested in learning about building power and racing.
I still have hope that 1LE will change from a serial troll to someone actually interested in learning about building power and racing.
Now, me on the other hand, I am here to learn. I already ordered my blue door lights, no domes, and I painted my calipers after JJCS gave me the skinny on the best paint (no ricer comments please, skeed). I also am waiting for the AEM intake to put on my TL and I really like some of the concepts that RonJon put out for front body kits. This website can be a very useful tool for TL owners and people looking to buy a TL. Harddrivin isn't here for knowledge. He is here to argue, and argue about stuff he has no basis to argue. He is a troll, and not a very smart one.