I understand you don't have the data for the gasser like VAG-COM. Beyond that I can't get very specific, especially as to exactly what the ECU is seeing and doing.Īgain a reminder, this tangiental discution is about a K&N in a gasser. I will say that the greatest mileage gains seem to be made at highway speeds of 65 and up. I don't suppose you're going to accuse me of "Kool-aid" math in the case of the Jetta? You can't because I'm a Capri-Sun man. I used the same methods for those cars as I did for the Jetta in this study. All I have are my gas mileage calculations, and that has been enough to satisfy me. If I had a VAG-com-like tool for GM and Ford vehicles I could take a shot at explaining it in some vehicles, but I have no such tool. You're talking about a wide variety of vehicles. The car companies can't control this, so all they really have to gain is increased warranty costs from the vast majority of people who won't do what it takes to get proper performance from these filters.Īs far as a specific technical explanation goes, I don't have one. Over-oil them and some sensors are at risk. Neglect them and they pass less air and more dirt than a paper filter. There are too many things that can be done wrong with them.
3) Even if they did need to squeeze out that extra 8% mpg, they would find other ways to do it because the service requirements of these filters is a liability. I have some idea of what the culture of these companies is like. I've worked for a couple of tier 1 automotive OEM's. They would rather spend millions lobbying against increased fuel economy standards than spend an additional $20 or $30 per car on anything that will increase economy. It's not actually CAFE that is important to the automakers, it's fighting CAFE they are concerned about. 2) The price alone is enough to kill the idea outright at this point in time. All those knuckleheads that are racing me to red lights every day would actually get WORSE mileage than they do now with paper. 1) First of all, any potential mpg gain from these filters is entirely dependent on proper driving habits. The reduced filtration is probably one, but even if we pretend for a moment that they could filter every bit as good as paper, they still wouldn't be used as factory parts. Non-disposable oiled gauze air filters being stock in new cars is a non-starter for a few reasons. I'll address the CAFE point first, because it's the best answer I have. Some of this has come up in previous discussions I was involved with. At any rate, the point was more cautionary in that a quick glance at the chart in question might suggest a much greater difference than just 3% or so.Ĭlick to expand.Just to be clear, the following is entirely about naturally aspirated gassers, not TDIs. However, I again point to the Bob is the Oil Guy study which isn't showing anything like 46 times more contamination between the stock and K&N filters. I missed the part about different time durations in my too-quick read (a dangerous habit) of the study. Compared to the AC, the K&N “plugged up” nearly 3 times faster, passed 18 times more dirt and captured 37% less dirt. After only 24 minutes the K&N had accumulated 221gms of dirt but passed 7.0gms. In 60 minutes the AC Filter accumulated 574gms of dirt and passed only 0.4gms. The AC Delco filter test ran for 60 minutes before exceeding the restriction limit while the AMSOIL and K&N tests each ran for 20 and 24 minutes respectively before reaching max restriction. In the chart above it’s important to note the different test durations for each filter. I got the "18 times as much" from a different portion of the study that chart came from:
0 kommentar(er)
