I haz an idea
10-25-08, 12:39 AM
#26
Smoke moar
Yes at WOT it will suck in more air, and push out more exhaust, requiring more fuel. You don't measure mpg by always WOT.
When driving through a city, if the engine has to exert less energy in sucking in air and pushing out exhaust, it'll run more efficiently. It'll beable to suck more sure, changing the amount it'd suck in at 25% throttle and 100% from a stock car. Yet it'll still require less to do what it did before. My dad was the one who noticed he's driven the car for 8 years before he died, as he told me requires less throttle, and gas lasts longer.
I don't get what your saying besides trying to prove me wrong, yes I know at WOT it'll suck more, require more gas. DO YOU DRIVE AROUND AT WOT IN THE CITY? I SURE DONT. I'm talking about city mpg, not race track WOT all the time mpg, oh wait mpg on a track shouldn't even matter.
sigh
When driving through a city, if the engine has to exert less energy in sucking in air and pushing out exhaust, it'll run more efficiently. It'll beable to suck more sure, changing the amount it'd suck in at 25% throttle and 100% from a stock car. Yet it'll still require less to do what it did before. My dad was the one who noticed he's driven the car for 8 years before he died, as he told me requires less throttle, and gas lasts longer.
I don't get what your saying besides trying to prove me wrong, yes I know at WOT it'll suck more, require more gas. DO YOU DRIVE AROUND AT WOT IN THE CITY? I SURE DONT. I'm talking about city mpg, not race track WOT all the time mpg, oh wait mpg on a track shouldn't even matter.
sigh
10-25-08, 03:11 AM
#27
Full Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DeLand, FL
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTT i say yes your car is a beautiful piece, but im home on a friday as im leaving (4am) right now to the airport, takin a week off of work and going up to MA to visit friends, anyway, none of this was ment to start any arguements, i was just asking a simple question as a friend who had an fc, took his ftp s out and used sheetmetal to duct it to a cold air, i was just wondering if i hoocked it up to say (the ford truck intak for instance) an enclosed basicly forced to the cone airflow if it would be any kind of an improvment ont he stock setup.
10-25-08, 03:46 AM
#28
I Dislike Everything
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: St. Louis/Southern Illinois
Posts: 3,701
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
Any bit helps, I noticed a gain from switching to a K&N drop in, the easier a motor can breathe the better the performance.
I'm not saying turbos wouldn't be nice but some people can't afford to go turbo, whats wrong with doing other things in the mean time?
If your motor can breathe better, gas millage goes up too
I'm not saying turbos wouldn't be nice but some people can't afford to go turbo, whats wrong with doing other things in the mean time?
If your motor can breathe better, gas millage goes up too
There's a big difference between a drop in air filter from K&N and drastically changing things around in an engine bay. And sorry, but I noticed NO power difference from a drop in air filter. Who cares about gas mileage, it's an RX-7, it's supposed to be fun, not a car that you have to pinch pennies on just to be able to enjoy the car.
This has NOTHING to do with a turbo swap. When did I ever say something like that. Now you are assuming too much into the topic at hand.
I see NO point in changing an air intake setup on a car that is running stock ports.
10-25-08, 11:01 AM
#29
Engine, Not Motor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 29,789
Likes: 0
Received 108 Likes
on
91 Posts
A more free flowing air filter certainly does increase mileage. It creates less pumping losses.
Going to a K&N filter on my Insight was an immediate 3-5 MPG gain. The effect on an FC would be considerably less though.
Going to a K&N filter on my Insight was an immediate 3-5 MPG gain. The effect on an FC would be considerably less though.
10-25-08, 12:23 PM
#30
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
TTT i say yes your car is a beautiful piece, but im home on a friday as im leaving (4am) right now to the airport, takin a week off of work and going up to MA to visit friends, anyway, none of this was ment to start any arguements, i was just asking a simple question as a friend who had an fc, took his ftp s out and used sheetmetal to duct it to a cold air, i was just wondering if i hoocked it up to say (the ford truck intak for instance) an enclosed basicly forced to the cone airflow if it would be any kind of an improvment ont he stock setup.
When driving through a city, if the engine has to exert less energy in sucking in air and pushing out exhaust, it'll run more efficiently. It'll beable to suck more sure, changing the amount it'd suck in at 25% throttle and 100% from a stock car. Yet it'll still require less to do what it did before.
10-25-08, 05:53 PM
#32
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
B) I quoted myself along with two other posts saying, *gee, isn't this all the same thing?*
C) Would you care to explain how you believe my arguement took a 180* turn? If not, STFU & DIAF. Your post was completely useless
10-25-08, 06:31 PM
#33
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: on a twisty road somewhere...
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sure id be glad to. remember when you said this?
the only way thats true is under WOT. like stated above. now you reverse that and say this...
but hey i thought you said it was not applicable and all marketing hype? where did that argument go?
the only way thats true is under WOT. like stated above. now you reverse that and say this...
By making it easier to pull air in and push air out you are freeing up power that would be used moving vacuum and pressure around and putting it to better use
10-25-08, 06:44 PM
#34
Smoke moar
S4GXL You can't win with TTT
He doesn't drive like normal people, remember hes always WOT so he doesn't like things like better intake because it'll lower his gas milliage.
He knows I was right, he just wont admit it because he hates me. Which is odd because I KNOW he was right also, I guess he can't accept both of us being right.
Aaron Cake yeah I know it didn't do much, I think if you replace the stock exhaust the intake will become a more limiting factor, so both intake, exhaust, proper maintenance would make a N/A preform at its best before porting it, turboing, etc.
He doesn't drive like normal people, remember hes always WOT so he doesn't like things like better intake because it'll lower his gas milliage.
He knows I was right, he just wont admit it because he hates me. Which is odd because I KNOW he was right also, I guess he can't accept both of us being right.
Aaron Cake yeah I know it didn't do much, I think if you replace the stock exhaust the intake will become a more limiting factor, so both intake, exhaust, proper maintenance would make a N/A preform at its best before porting it, turboing, etc.
10-25-08, 06:54 PM
#35
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
There is a large difference between lab tests and real world experience. In the real world people are on the gas more than they cruise. While cruising an engine needs only a fraction of it's available energy to keep the car at a constant speed. So, by lowering the pumping losses, you are allowing the engine to be more effiecent. However, subject the motor to load and all of a sudden the effiecencies that you gained by reducing the pumping losses that you would've seen with more MPG are now being absorbed by more power becuase more air is being ingested into the engine and thus more fuel is being used.
Make sense now?
Remember kiddies, I'm never wrong. Just because you're not smart enough to see that I'm right, doesn't make me wrong, it makes you a fool.
10-25-08, 07:01 PM
#37
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
That's becuase I'm never wrong. Seriously
That is, potentially, the most retarded thing I have EVER heard of me. It's the reason why my lifted Cherokee with 31" mudders still gets >19MPG with a near perfect 50/50 split of city & highway
I just explained why you were wrong to make such a boastful claim.
The filter is not a limiting factor.
It's a shame people with stock N/A's won't dyno these things.
It's a shame people with stock N/A's won't dyno these things.
That should be stickied in the new members section 
Thanks Jack
10-25-08, 07:14 PM
#39
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: on a twisty road somewhere...
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=TitaniumTT;8668456]I'm sorry you lack common sense and have the reading comprehension of a retarded ADD child......
[\quote]
your right. you win teh internet.
Actually, it would be true under any acceleration where the trottle is at the same physical location. If you are at say 50% throttle with a normal filter, and 50% throttle with an aftmkt filter, which do you think would be allowing more air into the engine?
There is a large difference between lab tests and real world experience. In the real world people are on the gas more than they cruise. While cruising an engine needs only a fraction of it's available energy to keep the car at a constant speed. So, by lowering the pumping losses, you are allowing the engine to be more effiecent. However, subject the motor to load and all of a sudden the effiecencies that you gained by reducing the pumping losses that you would've seen with more MPG are now being absorbed by more power becuase more air is being ingested into the engine and thus more fuel is being used.
Make sense now?
still wrong. it would be true if there wasnt anything measuring the air intake into the motor. all that is controlled by the ECU so you dont see more air at any given RPM unless you compress the air. you must have never heard of the fact that your ECU controlls A/F ratio. adding a high flow filter wont add more air into your motor. thats 100% riceboi myth. instead it would allow more power to be made at a given RPM, but as long as driving style doesnt change, your engine will be more efficient and use the same a/f ratio at any given RPM. dude dont argue with me i know more about the mechanics of engines than you.
[\quote]
your right. you win teh internet.
Actually, it would be true under any acceleration where the trottle is at the same physical location. If you are at say 50% throttle with a normal filter, and 50% throttle with an aftmkt filter, which do you think would be allowing more air into the engine?
There is a large difference between lab tests and real world experience. In the real world people are on the gas more than they cruise. While cruising an engine needs only a fraction of it's available energy to keep the car at a constant speed. So, by lowering the pumping losses, you are allowing the engine to be more effiecent. However, subject the motor to load and all of a sudden the effiecencies that you gained by reducing the pumping losses that you would've seen with more MPG are now being absorbed by more power becuase more air is being ingested into the engine and thus more fuel is being used.
Make sense now?
10-25-08, 07:30 PM
#40
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Second - Go back to elementary school and beg them to let you back into english class
still wrong. it would be true if there wasnt anything measuring the air intake into the motor. all that is controlled by the ECU so you dont see more air at any given RPM unless you compress the air. you must have never heard of the fact that your ECU controlls A/F ratio. adding a high flow filter wont add more air into your motor. thats 100% riceboi myth. instead it would allow more power to be made at a given RPM, but as long as driving style doesnt change, your engine will be more efficient and use the same a/f ratio at any given RPM. dude dont argue with me i know more about the mechanics of engines than you.
Forth -
Fifth - See Rule #1 & rule #2
Sixth - I'm going to go finish wiring my AIM dashs' CAN communcations so that it will work with my Motec M820. Do you have any ******* clue what those three things are? If you do, you might just know enough to slowly step away from the keyboard and never argue with me again - noob
10-25-08, 07:36 PM
#42
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: on a twisty road somewhere...
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an air filter will ALLOW more air to enter the engine. it wont MAKE the engine take in more air. if the engine had no way of measuring air mass you would be right.
and your trying to stump me with some retarted question? your trying to get your guage cluster to read what your standalone is doing. maybe theres too many idiots on this forum and thats why you jump at every person who disagrees.
and your trying to stump me with some retarted question? your trying to get your guage cluster to read what your standalone is doing. maybe theres too many idiots on this forum and thats why you jump at every person who disagrees.
10-25-08, 07:53 PM
#43
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Cmanns - I was never trying to prove you wrong, nor could I as my car is no longer N/A. However, many people have posted that the increase in mileage from a drop in filter would be negligable. I noticed no improvement when I did mine 11 years ago. Not to mention I pointed out the difference between lab tests and real world experience and why I believe through my own experiences a HUGE INCREASE IN GAS MILEAGE is nothing more than a myth and advertising hype. We are done now, mkay?
Is it just me or am I quoting myself alot here in an attempt to prove myself right 
Could that be because I'm never wrong?
This still applies
No, all I did was just prove that you have no business talking in any thread about engine management. If everyone on this forum was like you I would first have my account deleted, then I would torch my car, then probably shoot myself. Now please, see Forth from above
Actually, it would be true under any acceleration where the trottle is at the same physical location. If you are at say 50% throttle with a normal filter, and 50% throttle with an aftmkt filter, which do you think would be allowing more air into the engine?
Make sense now?
Make sense now?
Could that be because I'm never wrong?No, all I did was just prove that you have no business talking in any thread about engine management. If everyone on this forum was like you I would first have my account deleted, then I would torch my car, then probably shoot myself. Now please, see Forth from above
10-25-08, 08:51 PM
#44
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reasons why TTT is a loser...
AHEM
1) you drive a cherokee with 31" mudders
2) you bother complaining about grammar ON THE INTERNET (when what he was saying was completely understandable)
3) you sit behind a computer screen and flame people so you can feel smart (probably compensating for a small ***** and maybe you were picked on as a child who knows i dont give a ****)
4) you think you are always right and you brag about it ON THE INTERNET
5) you bother taking the time to quote everyone and make lists to prove a point ON THE INTERNET
6) the guy you were arguing with has been trying to say that you are both right (even though you have been consistently annoying as ****) and you STILL CONTINUE TO BE ANNOYING AS **** YOU DOUSCHEBAG
7) Please burn in your own flames now
AHEM
1) you drive a cherokee with 31" mudders
2) you bother complaining about grammar ON THE INTERNET (when what he was saying was completely understandable)
3) you sit behind a computer screen and flame people so you can feel smart (probably compensating for a small ***** and maybe you were picked on as a child who knows i dont give a ****)
4) you think you are always right and you brag about it ON THE INTERNET
5) you bother taking the time to quote everyone and make lists to prove a point ON THE INTERNET
6) the guy you were arguing with has been trying to say that you are both right (even though you have been consistently annoying as ****) and you STILL CONTINUE TO BE ANNOYING AS **** YOU DOUSCHEBAG
7) Please burn in your own flames now
10-25-08, 08:51 PM
#45
Smoke moar
TitaniumTT ok I'm sorry then.
I was also never trying to say that its a big gain, we get about 22mpg MAYBE I'm not sure my dads the one that calculated it. Driving about 60mi to my home town, we could go there and back on a full tank and still have more than half, before the catback and k&n it'd suck up more than half, which is a pretty big diff.
I guess I miss understood you then.
I was also never trying to say that its a big gain, we get about 22mpg MAYBE I'm not sure my dads the one that calculated it. Driving about 60mi to my home town, we could go there and back on a full tank and still have more than half, before the catback and k&n it'd suck up more than half, which is a pretty big diff.
I guess I miss understood you then.
10-25-08, 09:04 PM
#46
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Reasons why TTT is a loser...
AHEM
1) you drive a cherokee with 31" mudders
2) you bother complaining about grammar ON THE INTERNET (when what he was saying was completely understandable)
3) you sit behind a computer screen and flame people so you can feel smart (probably compensating for a small ***** and maybe you were picked on as a child who knows i dont give a ****)
4) you think you are always right and you brag about it ON THE INTERNET
5) you bother taking the time to quote everyone and make lists to prove a point ON THE INTERNET
6) the guy you were arguing with has been trying to say that you are both right (even though you have been consistently annoying as ****) and you STILL CONTINUE TO BE ANNOYING AS **** YOU DOUSCHEBAG
7) Please burn in your own flames now
AHEM
1) you drive a cherokee with 31" mudders
2) you bother complaining about grammar ON THE INTERNET (when what he was saying was completely understandable)
3) you sit behind a computer screen and flame people so you can feel smart (probably compensating for a small ***** and maybe you were picked on as a child who knows i dont give a ****)
4) you think you are always right and you brag about it ON THE INTERNET
5) you bother taking the time to quote everyone and make lists to prove a point ON THE INTERNET
6) the guy you were arguing with has been trying to say that you are both right (even though you have been consistently annoying as ****) and you STILL CONTINUE TO BE ANNOYING AS **** YOU DOUSCHEBAG
7) Please burn in your own flames now
cmanns - you just said that it wasn't a big gain, then in the same post said it was a big diff
In the future, this is what infuriates me - bullshit and inconsistancies. Stay away from those & I play nice.
10-26-08, 10:45 AM
#49
Engine, Not Motor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 29,789
Likes: 0
Received 108 Likes
on
91 Posts
Yes, a timeout is in order.
A round of bannings will take place if this junk happens again because the offenders are the same over and over. Infractions don't seem to be working but I expect a vacation from posting for a few weeks will.
A round of bannings will take place if this junk happens again because the offenders are the same over and over. Infractions don't seem to be working but I expect a vacation from posting for a few weeks will.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
