"Performance" air filter hype
03-20-2004, 10:37 PM
#121
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
BZZZZZ.
I had you on ignore until today. Otherwise I would have continued explaining why aluminum heads can build way more power.
While iron heads keep heat, they keep it during non-combustion cycles, increasing detonation.
You can run higher compression with aluminum heads thus building more power than is lost through aluminum heads not keeping the heat.
I never said that for a given engine, you take off iron heads, and put on aluminum that you will build more horsepower. I said aluminum allows you to build more power because you can run more compression.
Take the LT1 for example. The reason they can run 10:1 was because they went to reverse flow cooling, keeping combustion temps down during non-ignition times. Controlling detonation.
If you put iron heads on that LT1, it would detonate, you would not be able to run 10:1 with iron heads on that motor on pump gas. You would have to lower the compression (and reduce the time advance), and the loss of compression is more "lost" power than you would gain by holding in the heat.
If you have say a 9:1 motor with iron and there is no detonation, the iron headed motor should make more power than an identical aluminum head because of the trapped heat.
BZZZZZ.
I had you on ignore until today. Otherwise I would have continued explaining why aluminum heads can build way more power.
While iron heads keep heat, they keep it during non-combustion cycles, increasing detonation.
You can run higher compression with aluminum heads thus building more power than is lost through aluminum heads not keeping the heat.
I never said that for a given engine, you take off iron heads, and put on aluminum that you will build more horsepower. I said aluminum allows you to build more power because you can run more compression.
Take the LT1 for example. The reason they can run 10:1 was because they went to reverse flow cooling, keeping combustion temps down during non-ignition times. Controlling detonation.
If you put iron heads on that LT1, it would detonate, you would not be able to run 10:1 with iron heads on that motor on pump gas. You would have to lower the compression (and reduce the time advance), and the loss of compression is more "lost" power than you would gain by holding in the heat.
If you have say a 9:1 motor with iron and there is no detonation, the iron headed motor should make more power than an identical aluminum head because of the trapped heat.
Aluminum permits a ~ 1/2 point increase in CR for a given head/combustion chamber design. I've already posted that.
But it also GIVES UP the heat faster. So the aluminum head HAS to run a higher CR in order to produce ~ THE SAME power as the (otherwise identical) iron head running a slightly lower CR.
I'll check my text book on Monday @ work on pressure velocity issue.
Either way, lowering velocity INCREASES pressure. And a scoop in a "ram air" system DOES lower velocity (thereby increasing pressure @ the intake manifold).
http://www.boscobel.k12.wi.us/~schnr...lli_effedt.htm
03-20-2004, 10:38 PM
#122
Andrenaline Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
But hollow point's offer lower PSI for a given velocity, isn't that what counteracts the high velocity?
What's gyp board and do you have good links for this stuff?
I figured the .223 goes though because of the tiny surface area of the .223 translates to way more PSI than 9mm allowing it to go through.
But hollow point's offer lower PSI for a given velocity, isn't that what counteracts the high velocity?
What's gyp board and do you have good links for this stuff?
I figured the .223 goes though because of the tiny surface area of the .223 translates to way more PSI than 9mm allowing it to go through.
http://www.ammolab.com/Test%20Results.htm
03-20-2004, 10:40 PM
#123
First, who told you that aluminum permits only 1/2 pt in compression? Whoever told you that is full of crap.
Of course lower velocity increases static pressure. That is what you were arguing against for the first 4 pages of this thread and what those dorks in the articles you've been posting don't understand.
Higher velocity is why ram air doesn't work. You can't compress air at automobile speeds and that's the only way you're going to increase static pressure over the environment. (That is you aren't going to get static pressure higher than static air outside the car)
Of course lower velocity increases static pressure. That is what you were arguing against for the first 4 pages of this thread and what those dorks in the articles you've been posting don't understand.
Higher velocity is why ram air doesn't work. You can't compress air at automobile speeds and that's the only way you're going to increase static pressure over the environment. (That is you aren't going to get static pressure higher than static air outside the car)
03-20-2004, 10:43 PM
#124
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
First, who told you that aluminum permits only 1/2 pt in compression? Whoever told you that is full of crap.
Of course lower velocity increases pressure. That is what you were arguing against for the first 4 pages of this thread and what those dorks in the articles you've been posting don't understand.
Higher velocity is why ram air doesn't work. You aren't going to get static pressure higher than static air.
First, who told you that aluminum permits only 1/2 pt in compression? Whoever told you that is full of crap.
Of course lower velocity increases pressure. That is what you were arguing against for the first 4 pages of this thread and what those dorks in the articles you've been posting don't understand.
Higher velocity is why ram air doesn't work. You aren't going to get static pressure higher than static air.
GM is running 9.4:1 with 2 valve, cast iron heads and 87 octane fuel.
The aluminum/4 valve heads in my Accord permit a .6:1 increase with the same octane fuel.
03-20-2004, 10:44 PM
#125
Andrenaline Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
But hollow point's offer lower PSI for a given velocity, isn't that what counteracts the high velocity?
What's gyp board and do you have good links for this stuff?
I figured the .223 goes though because of the tiny surface area of the .223 translates to way more PSI than 9mm allowing it to go through.
But hollow point's offer lower PSI for a given velocity, isn't that what counteracts the high velocity?
What's gyp board and do you have good links for this stuff?
I figured the .223 goes though because of the tiny surface area of the .223 translates to way more PSI than 9mm allowing it to go through.
My department actually dropped our HK MP-5's and went to suppressed, 12 inch barreled AR-15's as our entry weopon. It just boils down to basic common sense, if you are on a search warrant or SWAT entry and you get in a fire fight, the last thing you want to do is kill your team member in the next room. There are numerous studies like the one below but basically, I think there is a common thread to all of them and that is that a hard target interferes with the expansion of a hollow point round causing it to behave like ball ammo. The energy of the 55-grain .223 round is quickly lost into the first obstruction and it frags fairly easily, meaning, if you don't hit flesh, the chances of it going through 4 more walls are greatly diminished.
http://www.olyarms.com/snoco.html
03-20-2004, 10:46 PM
#126
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-20-2004, 10:46 PM
#127
Andrenaline Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
You were OUTRIGHT WRONG about aluminum heads...and you never admitted it, despite the fact that I posted ~ half a dozen links to the contrary.
I'll find what I'm looking for and when I do I'll post it.
You were OUTRIGHT WRONG about aluminum heads...and you never admitted it, despite the fact that I posted ~ half a dozen links to the contrary.
I'll find what I'm looking for and when I do I'll post it.
03-20-2004, 10:49 PM
#129
Holy crap...EVERY ARTICLE you posted made the claim that higher velocity resulted in higher pressure. That's why these dumbasses call it Ram Air.
Comparing GM to Honda doesn't show anything.
You just just have ZERO clue as to what you're cutting and pasting.
Do you actually READ the articles before you copy them?
Comparing GM to Honda doesn't show anything.
You just just have ZERO clue as to what you're cutting and pasting.
Do you actually READ the articles before you copy them?
03-20-2004, 10:49 PM
#130
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
Dude, are you my wife??? You can't win this one so now you are bringing up the past??? (If anyone rat's me out that I said that, I'll hunt you down.)
Dude, are you my wife??? You can't win this one so now you are bringing up the past??? (If anyone rat's me out that I said that, I'll hunt you down.)
http://www.hughesengines.com/general..._head_tech.asp
"Aluminum heads dissipate (get rid of) heat much faster than iron heads. The rapid heat loss from the combustion chamber results in reduced combustion chamber pressures (heat equals pressure); similar to the effect that lowering the compression ratio lowers cylinder pressure. When switching to aluminum heads you MUST raise the compression ratio to prevent a power loss....
Aluminum heads will not automatically create more power than iron heads unless they flow more air and are installed on a higher compression ratio engine."
03-20-2004, 10:49 PM
#131
Andrenaline Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Aluminum permits a ~ 1/2 point increase in CR for a given head/combustion chamber design. I've already posted that.
But it also GIVES UP the heat faster. http://www.boscobel.k12.wi.us/~schnr...lli_effedt.htm
Aluminum permits a ~ 1/2 point increase in CR for a given head/combustion chamber design. I've already posted that.
But it also GIVES UP the heat faster. http://www.boscobel.k12.wi.us/~schnr...lli_effedt.htm
03-20-2004, 10:51 PM
#132
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 what you are saying then is aluminum would make a good intake pipe material????? Like, say, on the Injen?
So what you are saying then is aluminum would make a good intake pipe material????? Like, say, on the Injen?
AT ALL.
Plastic heads would be better than aluminum and iron if they wouldn't MELT.
Aluminum is good at conducting HEAT away from hot spots and into cooler areas.
That's exactly what you DON'T want on an air filter assembly.
03-20-2004, 10:54 PM
#133
Andrenaline Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
No, that's not what I'm saying.
AT ALL.
Plastic heads would be better than aluminum and iron if they wouldn't MELT.
No, that's not what I'm saying.
AT ALL.
Plastic heads would be better than aluminum and iron if they wouldn't MELT.
03-20-2004, 10:55 PM
#134
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Can YOU read?
http://www.hughesengines.com/general..._head_tech.asp
"Aluminum heads dissipate (get rid of) heat much faster than iron heads. The rapid heat loss from the combustion chamber results in reduced combustion chamber pressures (heat equals pressure); similar to the effect that lowering the compression ratio lowers cylinder pressure. When switching to aluminum heads you MUST raise the compression ratio to prevent a power loss....
Aluminum heads will not automatically create more power than iron heads unless they flow more air and are installed on a higher compression ratio engine."
Can YOU read?
http://www.hughesengines.com/general..._head_tech.asp
"Aluminum heads dissipate (get rid of) heat much faster than iron heads. The rapid heat loss from the combustion chamber results in reduced combustion chamber pressures (heat equals pressure); similar to the effect that lowering the compression ratio lowers cylinder pressure. When switching to aluminum heads you MUST raise the compression ratio to prevent a power loss....
Aluminum heads will not automatically create more power than iron heads unless they flow more air and are installed on a higher compression ratio engine."
03-20-2004, 11:00 PM
#135
Originally posted by Swat Dude
But you are saying that it gives up heat very fast, right???
But you are saying that it gives up heat very fast, right???
The point he was making (although wrong in concept) was the the aluminum CAI would take heat from the motor and give it up to the air charge. A plastic CAI wouldn't easily take any heat from the motor nor easily give it up to the air.
However the air charge isn't in there long enough to absorb heat so it doesn't matter.
03-20-2004, 11:00 PM
#136
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 agree with this statement, but I would add that aluminum permits the building of more power by permitting more than enough compression to offset the loss of heat.
I agree with this statement, but I would add that aluminum permits the building of more power by permitting more than enough compression to offset the loss of heat.
The slightly higher CR allowed by aluminum OFFSETS that material's heat transfer properties.
The net result isn't more power.
The cheif advantage of aluminum heads is that they are lighter (~ 55 pounds in a SBC and ~ 75 pounds in a BBC).
They are therefore the perferred material for performance heads.
03-20-2004, 11:03 PM
#138
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
The point he was making (although wrong in concept) was the the aluminum CAI would take heat from the motor and give it up to the air charge. A plastic CAI wouldn't easily take any heat from the motor nor easily give it up to the air.
However the air charge isn't in there long enough to absorb heat so it doesn't matter.
The point he was making (although wrong in concept) was the the aluminum CAI would take heat from the motor and give it up to the air charge. A plastic CAI wouldn't easily take any heat from the motor nor easily give it up to the air.
However the air charge isn't in there long enough to absorb heat so it doesn't matter.
Aluminum is good at transferring heat (from hot areas to cooler ones).
Transferring heat from the engine compartment INTO what is supposedly a "cold air" intake system is just plain stupid.
03-20-2004, 11:05 PM
#139
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
This is where we must agree to disagree. The increase in CR permitted by Al heads isn't slight.
This is where we must agree to disagree. The increase in CR permitted by Al heads isn't slight.
GM is running 9.4:1 with iron heads, two valves per cylinder and 87 octane.
How much power (as a percentage) do you think is gained by jumping from 10:1 to 11:1 (assuming the same mead material)?
03-20-2004, 11:09 PM
#141
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 depends on the impact of the heat transfer. The transfer is so small in the TL application that it doesn't matter.
It depends on the impact of the heat transfer. The transfer is so small in the TL application that it doesn't matter.
Pentroof/4 valve chambers, aluminum heads and premium fuel (to support the higher CR) COMBINED are only good for a ~ 1.6 point jump (~ 11:1, like the Honda S2000).
A 1.6:1 jump equate to a ~ 1.6% increase in power. That's good for ~ 5 HP in a 300 HP engine.
http://www.wallaceracing.com/crpower.gif
03-20-2004, 11:12 PM
#142
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 depends on the impact of the heat transfer. The transfer is so small in the TL application that it doesn't matter.
It depends on the impact of the heat transfer. The transfer is so small in the TL application that it doesn't matter.
I agreed with that ~ 4 pages back.
But it's fundamentally wrong to use aluminum tubing in that application.
Plastic would be better (mainly in theory) and FAR less expensive.
03-20-2004, 11:15 PM
#143
Andrenaline Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
The point he was making (although wrong in concept) was the the aluminum CAI would take heat from the motor and give it up to the air charge. A plastic CAI wouldn't easily take any heat from the motor nor easily give it up to the air.
However the air charge isn't in there long enough to absorb heat so it doesn't matter.
The point he was making (although wrong in concept) was the the aluminum CAI would take heat from the motor and give it up to the air charge. A plastic CAI wouldn't easily take any heat from the motor nor easily give it up to the air.
However the air charge isn't in there long enough to absorb heat so it doesn't matter.
Check this out:
http://thecurmudgeon.freeservers.com...ocacy-pg1.html
03-20-2004, 11:25 PM
#144
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Again, GM is running 9.4:1 in their 3.8 liter V6 with 2 valve, iron heads and 87 octane.
Pentroof/4 valve chambers, aluminum heads and premium fuel (to support the higher CR) COMBINED are only good for a ~ 1.6 point jump (~ 11:1, like the Honda S2000).
A 1.6:1 jump equate to a ~ 1.6% increase in power. That's good for ~ 5 HP in a 300 HP engine.
http://www.wallaceracing.com/crpower.gif
Again, GM is running 9.4:1 in their 3.8 liter V6 with 2 valve, iron heads and 87 octane.
Pentroof/4 valve chambers, aluminum heads and premium fuel (to support the higher CR) COMBINED are only good for a ~ 1.6 point jump (~ 11:1, like the Honda S2000).
A 1.6:1 jump equate to a ~ 1.6% increase in power. That's good for ~ 5 HP in a 300 HP engine.
http://www.wallaceracing.com/crpower.gif
But all your examples are apples and oranges.
03-20-2004, 11:28 PM
#145
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
I agree with that.
I agreed with that ~ 4 pages back.
But it's fundamentally wrong to use aluminum tubing in that application.
Plastic would be better (mainly in theory) and FAR less expensive.
I agree with that.
I agreed with that ~ 4 pages back.
But it's fundamentally wrong to use aluminum tubing in that application.
Plastic would be better (mainly in theory) and FAR less expensive.
03-20-2004, 11:29 PM
#146
Powered by Guinness
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Stockton, CA
Age: 54
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I'm fool enough to weigh in on the air filter discussion. My experience with them comes from 5.0L Mustangs and it is a bit dated - but here is some of what I remember...
K&N consistently produced slightly more power (3-5hp range) than stock. There are a lot of dyno pulls that support this. 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.
Another commonly known benefit of the K&N filter, at least back in the 80's, was that the flow gap between K&N and paper increased as the filters got dirty. The K&N would lose some flow, paper would lose more. This resulted in cars making more consistent power over the life of the filter (between cleanings).
As for efficiency, I have seen several motors torn down after 100K+ miles running with K&N's that looked great. No unexpected journal or bearing wear.
Cost-wise, the K&N is a pretty good call. They will last for years, are easy to clean, and cost less over the long haul than a stack of disposable paper filters.
Am I running out to buy one? No, but I'll think about it when the first change is due. With all the attention Honda paid to the air intake on the new TL, I'm betting the factory filter is probably a pretty good one.
Oh, and in the combined gas law, V is volume. Skeedatl is right on that one.
K&N consistently produced slightly more power (3-5hp range) than stock. There are a lot of dyno pulls that support this. 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.
Another commonly known benefit of the K&N filter, at least back in the 80's, was that the flow gap between K&N and paper increased as the filters got dirty. The K&N would lose some flow, paper would lose more. This resulted in cars making more consistent power over the life of the filter (between cleanings).
As for efficiency, I have seen several motors torn down after 100K+ miles running with K&N's that looked great. No unexpected journal or bearing wear.
Cost-wise, the K&N is a pretty good call. They will last for years, are easy to clean, and cost less over the long haul than a stack of disposable paper filters.
Am I running out to buy one? No, but I'll think about it when the first change is due. With all the attention Honda paid to the air intake on the new TL, I'm betting the factory filter is probably a pretty good one.
Oh, and in the combined gas law, V is volume. Skeedatl is right on that one.
03-20-2004, 11:42 PM
#147
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you really have to check a text book to quote Bernoulli's equation or verify a statement pertaining to it, one would have to wonder what were the two fluid mechanics courses you took. Forgetting it is equivalent to forgetting something like F=ma. Even otherwise, this equation can be derived without the aid of a text book on a sheet of paper based on energy balance considerations in a control volume or Euler's equations of motion by someone who has had exposure to a fluid mechanics course.
I'll check my text book on Monday @ work on pressure velocity issue.
03-20-2004, 11:55 PM
#148
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2004
Age: 60
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My only remark to this thread is that with a K&N filter in place my Mustang gained about a tenth in the quarter mile averaged over 10 runs with paper and 10 with the K&N to get a baseline.
There are people who got more but there are other reasons why it only got a tenth out of it and those reasons aren't important to the fact it did help.
I ran that motor for 7 years HARD at the race track and never had a problem with anything getting dirtier because of the K&N. Making sure you follow the recommended cleaning and oiling of course helps. I doubt I'll get one for the TL though.
There are people who got more but there are other reasons why it only got a tenth out of it and those reasons aren't important to the fact it did help.
I ran that motor for 7 years HARD at the race track and never had a problem with anything getting dirtier because of the K&N. Making sure you follow the recommended cleaning and oiling of course helps. I doubt I'll get one for the TL though.
03-20-2004, 11:57 PM
#149
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@harddrivin1le:
Just curious: do you know what a Pitot tube is and how it works? Are you familiar with how you compute fluid velocity using a Pitot tube?
Without running off to your text book, consider why the equation as you state fails when the fluid velocity is zero. You would have to have infinite pressure in order to bring a fluid at motion to rest according to what you posit. It is complete nonsense.
Just curious: do you know what a Pitot tube is and how it works? Are you familiar with how you compute fluid velocity using a Pitot tube?
Without running off to your text book, consider why the equation as you state fails when the fluid velocity is zero. You would have to have infinite pressure in order to bring a fluid at motion to rest according to what you posit. It is complete nonsense.
03-20-2004, 11:59 PM
#150
Renaissance Man
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plastic would not be cheaper. Aluminum intakes take a stock 3" aluminum tube and bend it to specification. A plastic intake would entail making a blank, making a 4-part mold from the blank (top outside, top inside, bottom outside, bottom inside) then pouring the plastic into the mold, and finally waiting for it to set. Then after it comes out of the mold it must be cleaned and deburred before being assembled to the rest of the intake system to test for fit. If it doesn't fit on the first try you have to start all over again. Aluminum goes to the mandrel pipe bender, gets cut, then gets fitted.
You have to keep in mind that aftermarket applications are NOT high volume. Plastic only becomes cost effective for OEMs because of the high volume. You have to cover the cost of tooling for medium-to-high volumes because you need a mold that is going to stand up to repeated moldings. Aftermarket companies simply can't afford the high cost of these toolings (which for an intake would run about $10k).
You have to keep in mind that aftermarket applications are NOT high volume. Plastic only becomes cost effective for OEMs because of the high volume. You have to cover the cost of tooling for medium-to-high volumes because you need a mold that is going to stand up to repeated moldings. Aftermarket companies simply can't afford the high cost of these toolings (which for an intake would run about $10k).
03-21-2004, 12:08 AM
#152
Originally posted by Yaaro Dhana
@harddrivin1le:
Just curious: do you know what a Pitot tube is and how it works? Are you familiar with how you compute fluid velocity using a Pitot tube?
Without running off to your text book, consider why the equation as you state fails when the fluid velocity is zero. You would have to have infinite pressure in order to bring a fluid at motion to rest according to what you posit. It is complete nonsense.
@harddrivin1le:
Just curious: do you know what a Pitot tube is and how it works? Are you familiar with how you compute fluid velocity using a Pitot tube?
Without running off to your text book, consider why the equation as you state fails when the fluid velocity is zero. You would have to have infinite pressure in order to bring a fluid at motion to rest according to what you posit. It is complete nonsense.
03-21-2004, 12:11 AM
#153
Originally posted by Skeedatl
And aluminum takes a CNC bender and most likely 3D scanner (to scan the welded up prototype) which is only cost effective at volume.
And aluminum takes a CNC bender and most likely 3D scanner (to scan the welded up prototype) which is only cost effective at volume.
03-21-2004, 12:27 AM
#155
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Aegir
I'm fool enough to weigh in on the air filter discussion. My experience with them comes from 5.0L Mustangs and it is a bit dated - but here is some of what I remember...
K&N consistently produced slightly more power (3-5hp range) than stock. There are a lot of dyno pulls that support this. 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.
Another commonly known benefit of the K&N filter, at least back in the 80's, was that the flow gap between K&N and paper increased as the filters got dirty. The K&N would lose some flow, paper would lose more. This resulted in cars making more consistent power over the life of the filter (between cleanings).
As for efficiency, I have seen several motors torn down after 100K+ miles running with K&N's that looked great. No unexpected journal or bearing wear.
Cost-wise, the K&N is a pretty good call. They will last for years, are easy to clean, and cost less over the long haul than a stack of disposable paper filters.
Am I running out to buy one? No, but I'll think about it when the first change is due. With all the attention Honda paid to the air intake on the new TL, I'm betting the factory filter is probably a pretty good one.
Oh, and in the combined gas law, V is volume. Skeedatl is right on that one.
I'm fool enough to weigh in on the air filter discussion. My experience with them comes from 5.0L Mustangs and it is a bit dated - but here is some of what I remember...
K&N consistently produced slightly more power (3-5hp range) than stock. There are a lot of dyno pulls that support this. 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.
Another commonly known benefit of the K&N filter, at least back in the 80's, was that the flow gap between K&N and paper increased as the filters got dirty. The K&N would lose some flow, paper would lose more. This resulted in cars making more consistent power over the life of the filter (between cleanings).
As for efficiency, I have seen several motors torn down after 100K+ miles running with K&N's that looked great. No unexpected journal or bearing wear.
Cost-wise, the K&N is a pretty good call. They will last for years, are easy to clean, and cost less over the long haul than a stack of disposable paper filters.
Am I running out to buy one? No, but I'll think about it when the first change is due. With all the attention Honda paid to the air intake on the new TL, I'm betting the factory filter is probably a pretty good one.
Oh, and in the combined gas law, V is volume. Skeedatl is right on that one.
I was talking about the relationship between PRESSURE and VELOCITY:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html
03-21-2004, 12:28 AM
#156
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Yaaro Dhana
@harddrivin1le:
Just curious: do you know what a Pitot tube is and how it works? Are you familiar with how you compute fluid velocity using a Pitot tube?
Without running off to your text book, consider why the equation as you state fails when the fluid velocity is zero. You would have to have infinite pressure in order to bring a fluid at motion to rest according to what you posit. It is complete nonsense.
@harddrivin1le:
Just curious: do you know what a Pitot tube is and how it works? Are you familiar with how you compute fluid velocity using a Pitot tube?
Without running off to your text book, consider why the equation as you state fails when the fluid velocity is zero. You would have to have infinite pressure in order to bring a fluid at motion to rest according to what you posit. It is complete nonsense.
Answer: Never
But as the velocity of a fluid deceases, pressure increases:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html
03-21-2004, 12:30 AM
#157
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 think we have already established that he has no practical knowledge of fluids (or even the mathematical background to understand what you're saying about evaluating his "magic math" at V1=0 if V is velocity which of course it isn't).
I think we have already established that he has no practical knowledge of fluids (or even the mathematical background to understand what you're saying about evaluating his "magic math" at V1=0 if V is velocity which of course it isn't).
V is velocity here, where a decrease in velocity = an inrease in pressure:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html
03-21-2004, 12:35 AM
#158
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
Holy crap...EVERY ARTICLE you posted made the claim that higher velocity resulted in higher pressure. That's why these dumbasses call it Ram Air.
Comparing GM to Honda doesn't show anything.
You just just have ZERO clue as to what you're cutting and pasting.
Do you actually READ the articles before you copy them?
Holy crap...EVERY ARTICLE you posted made the claim that higher velocity resulted in higher pressure. That's why these dumbasses call it Ram Air.
Comparing GM to Honda doesn't show anything.
You just just have ZERO clue as to what you're cutting and pasting.
Do you actually READ the articles before you copy them?
03-21-2004, 12:35 AM
#159
Instructor
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That page does not support your ludicrous claim that pv = const is Bernoulli's Theorem. For anyone that has a smattering of fluid mechanics knowledge, your statement is absolutely and astoundingly wrong (before you question credentials, let me mention that I have a doctorate in Mechanical Engineering and I do know what Bernoulli's theorem is).
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html
03-21-2004, 12:36 AM
#160
Drifting
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Yaaro Dhana
That page does not support your ludicrous claim that pv = const is Bernoulli's Theorem. For anyone that has a smattering of fluid mechanics knowledge, your statement is absolutely and astoundingly wrong (before you question credentials, let me mention that I have a doctorate in Mechanical Engineering and I do know what Bernoulli's theorem is).
That page does not support your ludicrous claim that pv = const is Bernoulli's Theorem. For anyone that has a smattering of fluid mechanics knowledge, your statement is absolutely and astoundingly wrong (before you question credentials, let me mention that I have a doctorate in Mechanical Engineering and I do know what Bernoulli's theorem is).
A drop in fluid velocity causes a rise in fluid pressure.
"The qualitative behavior that is usually labeled with the term "Bernoulli effect" is the lowering of fluid pressure in regions where the flow velocity is increased. "