| Author |
Message |
George
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 12:23 am Post subject:
Now it is Aero Turbo |
|
|
NES wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:42:45 -0500, "Steve W." <Dughut2@whatonce.com
wrote:
http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm
Let's see
K&N passed MORE dirt/dust and plugged up faster than just about every
other filter tested.
(Arlen) SPICER wrote,
"Now that I am not doing the tests and my objectivity is not necessary,
let me explain my motivation. The reason I started this crusade was that
I was seeing people spend a lot of money on aftermarket filters based on
the word of a salesperson or based on the misleading, incomplete or
outright deceiving information printed on boxes and in sales literature.
Gentlemen and Ladies, Marketing and the lure of profit is VERY POWERFUL!
It is amazing how many people believe that better airflow = more power!
Unless you have modifications out the wazoo, a more porous filter will
just dirty your oil! Some will say " I have used aftermarket brand X for
XXX # years with no problems. The PROBLEM is you spent a chunk of change
on a product that not only DID NOT increase your horsepower, but also
let in a lot of dirt while doing it! Now how much is a lot? ANY MORE
THAN NECESSARY is TOO MUCH!
Others are persuaded by the claims of aftermarket manufacturers that
their filters filter dirt "better than any other filter on the market."
Sounds very enticing. To small timers like you and me, spending $1500 to
test a filter sounds like a lot. But if you were a filter manufacturer
and you believed your filter could filter dirt better than any other
media on the market, wouldn't you want to prove it? Guess what. Test
your filter vs. the OE paper. It will cost you $3000 and for that price
you will have the data that you can use in your advertisements. Your
investment will be returned a thousand fold! EASIER than shooting fish
in a barrel! So why don't these manufacturers do this? Hmmm? Probably
not because they would feel guilty about taking more market share.
Now I am not saying that ALL aftermarket filters are useless. A paper
filter does not do well if directly wetted or muddy. It may collapse.
This is why many off-road filters are foam. It is a compromise between
filtering efficiency and protection from a collapsed filter. Now how
many of our trucks collapse their filters from mud and water? However,
if a filter is using "better airflow" as their marketing tool, remember
this....Does it flow better? At very high airflow volumes, probably.
BUT, Our trucks CAN'T flow that much air unless super-modified, so what
is the point? The stock filter will flow MORE THAN ENOUGH AIR to give
you ALL THE HORSEPOWER the engine has to give. And this remains true
until the filter is dirty enough to trip the air filter life indicator.
At that point performance will decline somewhat. Replace the filter and
get on with it.
SURPRISE!!!
WHAT??!! K/N filters aren't worth the money??!! You mean their
literature is full of lies??!! What's this world coming to?
All kidding aside, I've never purchased a K/N filter for the simple
reason that, more airflow through a similar sized filter equals more
dirt. It's elementary.
I learned my lesson about creative marketing when I had a Aero Turbo
muffler installed on my truck. Their literature boasted large
increases in MPG with their muffler. I figured any increase would be
worth it. I didn't realize any increase at all.
NES
What are the particulars concerning your Aero Turbo installation. I |
know the literature makes claims that defy the physical rules of the
universe, but I keep hearing stories that seem to support their claims.
What year and model vehicle did you put it on, did you follow their
requirements? And what was the actual outcome??
Thanks,
George
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:
Re: REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. |
|
|
| Quote: | K&N passed MORE dirt/dust and
plugged up faster than just about every
other filter tested.
|
Finally some are seeing the light! I've been preachin' against these
filters for years only to be villified for not knowing what I was
talking about. It's old technology that was abandoned by every major
engine manufacturer back in the fifties. I wonder how many folks had to
do a ring job on their engines due to these filters.....
Goes to show how gullible folks are when it comes to advertising. Ya
know, folks are still buying that Tornado gizmo that installs on a carb!
That piece of garbage was in the JCWhitney cat for $9.95 back in the
50s....same piece of junk costs $70 today. Oh well, if it seems too
good to be true......it is!
Dave S(Texas) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Kelly
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:36 am Post subject:
Re: REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. |
|
|
In article <10tn3f7nip3l4a1@corp.supernews.com>,
"Renegade Knight" <renegade.knight@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Air + Fuel + Efficiency.
All other things being equil if you make the motor more efficient at burning
gas and turning it into power you get more power. It takes work to creat
the vacume that draws air in. Less intake restriction means more of the
motors power can go to HP.
|
Wrong.
Lets say you are cruising at 80 MPH in your gasoline land ark at 3,000
RPM. Note your throttle position with stock paper air filter. Now
replace the filter with your choice of super non-restrictive filter and
note your throttle position under the same conditions. It is closed more
than previously because any and all restriction "saved" by the
"performance" air filter is compensated for at the throttle body.
Don't bother to actually try the above as you would have to be able to
measure the throttle position *very* accurately (the difference between
stock filter and no filter isn't much.) And then average the results
because under these conditions everything is always changing.
Under the stated conditions HP output remains constant. RPM remains
constant. The quantity of air does not change. The engine will suck air
on the intake exactly as hard with either filter. Look beyond the air
filter, the only point "restriction" matters is that which is seen at
the intake valves. K&N is happy if you only consider the restriction
between the throttle and outside atmosphere.
The only thing which is important is the *sum* of the intake
restriction. For a given HP output on a gasoline engine that sum will
remain constant because it is the very thing which regulates HP output.
If the engine gets more air the fuel system will add more fuel to
maintain combustion and emissions. More fuel = more HP = more faster,
where the driver compensates by lifting on the throttle to reduce the
air and therefore HP. The only time "less restriction" buys you anything
is under full throttle.
The link which started this thread was specifically interested in air
filter performance as related to Diesel engines. The intake equation is
different as the Diesel does not have a throttle. More air could result
in more efficiency.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:34 am Post subject:
Re: REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. |
|
|
This make so much sense! thanks for sharing!
"David Kelly" <n4hhe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n4hhe-77411E.18362005012005@knology.usenetserver.com...
| Quote: | In article <10tn3f7nip3l4a1@corp.supernews.com>,
"Renegade Knight" <renegade.knight@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote:
Air + Fuel + Efficiency.
All other things being equil if you make the motor more efficient at
burning
gas and turning it into power you get more power. It takes work to
creat
the vacume that draws air in. Less intake restriction means more of the
motors power can go to HP.
Wrong.
Lets say you are cruising at 80 MPH in your gasoline land ark at 3,000
RPM. Note your throttle position with stock paper air filter. Now
replace the filter with your choice of super non-restrictive filter and
note your throttle position under the same conditions. It is closed more
than previously because any and all restriction "saved" by the
"performance" air filter is compensated for at the throttle body.
Don't bother to actually try the above as you would have to be able to
measure the throttle position *very* accurately (the difference between
stock filter and no filter isn't much.) And then average the results
because under these conditions everything is always changing.
Under the stated conditions HP output remains constant. RPM remains
constant. The quantity of air does not change. The engine will suck air
on the intake exactly as hard with either filter. Look beyond the air
filter, the only point "restriction" matters is that which is seen at
the intake valves. K&N is happy if you only consider the restriction
between the throttle and outside atmosphere.
The only thing which is important is the *sum* of the intake
restriction. For a given HP output on a gasoline engine that sum will
remain constant because it is the very thing which regulates HP output.
If the engine gets more air the fuel system will add more fuel to
maintain combustion and emissions. More fuel = more HP = more faster,
where the driver compensates by lifting on the throttle to reduce the
air and therefore HP. The only time "less restriction" buys you anything
is under full throttle.
The link which started this thread was specifically interested in air
filter performance as related to Diesel engines. The intake equation is
different as the Diesel does not have a throttle. More air could result
in more efficiency.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whitelightning
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:44 am Post subject:
Re: REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. |
|
|
"David Kelly" <n4hhe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n4hhe-77411E.18362005012005@knology.usenetserver.com...
| Quote: | In article <10tn3f7nip3l4a1@corp.supernews.com>,
The link which started this thread was specifically interested in air
filter performance as related to Diesel engines. The intake equation is
different as the Diesel does not have a throttle. More air could result
in more efficiency.
Diesel doesn't have a throttle, now that's the damnedest thing I ever heard. |
Whitelightning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whitelightning
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:18 am Post subject:
Re: REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. |
|
|
<MajorDomo@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:41DC3BF9.9699C32E@mailcity.com...
| Quote: | That is why they call that stuff "after market." If ANY of the
stuff actually did what they claimed it would not be "after
market," because every automotive manufacture would be using the
stuff. Every manufacture is looking for every advantage over the
other to meet or exceed CAFE
mike hunt
|
Most "after market" stuff does work. But then most after market is geared
at power and performance, which does not go hand and hand with CAFE, but
usually against it. The after market has been providing roller lifters and
rocker arms since the early 70's. why? Because they reduce friction in the
valve train, which frees up horse power, and allows higher rpms. Guess what
many auto manufactures are using these days? Do you think Chevy would have
put V-8s in the Monza if there hadn't been so many people using after market
to put them in Vegas? Or ford have put V-8s in the Mustang II if so many
people hadn't used after market kits to do the same with Pintos and Mustang
II's? Hot Rodders where rigging up snorkels with dryer hose and then after
market kits to get cool air from out side the engine bay into the intake way
back in the early 60's. How many manufactures don't have ducting from the
radiator horn to the intake these days? We knew back in the early 70's that
an air dam across the front made the car handle better, and run faster, that
ground affects kits got us better fuel mileage and handling.. How many cars
today don't have some sort of air dam and ground affects ether as an added
on piece like the S-10s, or incorporated into the bumper design and rocker
panels like the Mustang, Monte Carlo, Impala and the Corvette? The after
market has been providing performance suspension components for ever. Its
only been in the last 10-15 years that you have seen manufactures start
using teflon and polyurethane bushings, and performance shocks/struts like
Bilstien. It was the automotive enthusiast and the after market that got
sway bars on oem.
Like any other industy there are snake oil salesmen out there. But they
make up a very small percentage of the industry.
Of course if you were one of those that was always trying to get a bit more
out of what the manufacturer sold you, you would know this. OEM never does
anyhting that costs more till they are forced to by consumer demand and lost
sales kick them in the gonads and getting their attention.
Whitelightning |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SgtSilicon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:26 am Post subject:
Re: REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 01:44:38 GMT, "Whitelightning"
<white.lightning2@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"David Kelly" <n4hhe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n4hhe-77411E.18362005012005@knology.usenetserver.com...
In article <10tn3f7nip3l4a1@corp.supernews.com>,
The link which started this thread was specifically interested in air
filter performance as related to Diesel engines. The intake equation is
different as the Diesel does not have a throttle. More air could result
in more efficiency.
Diesel doesn't have a throttle, now that's the damnedest thing I ever heard.
Whitelightning
I was thinking the same thing. Diesel is injected, just like most |
modern gas engines. The main difference is ignition. It's like the
dude was trying to imply gas engines still have the air and fuel mixed
before entering the cylinders while diesels don't. Fact is, many
modern gas engines dont mix until in the cylinders either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Renegade Knight
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:52 am Post subject:
Re: REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. |
|
|
If I understood that at least somewhat. Carborated vehicles might see a
benift, but the ones with compuer controls will overide the filter benifits
to keep the motor operating wthin spec. So you would need a tweak in the
programming to realize the benifits?
"David Kelly" <n4hhe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n4hhe-77411E.18362005012005@knology.usenetserver.com...
| Quote: | In article <10tn3f7nip3l4a1@corp.supernews.com>,
"Renegade Knight" <renegade.knight@no.spam.hotmail.com> wrote:
Air + Fuel + Efficiency.
All other things being equil if you make the motor more efficient at
burning
gas and turning it into power you get more power. It takes work to creat
the vacume that draws air in. Less intake restriction means more of the
motors power can go to HP.
Wrong.
Lets say you are cruising at 80 MPH in your gasoline land ark at 3,000
RPM. Note your throttle position with stock paper air filter. Now
replace the filter with your choice of super non-restrictive filter and
note your throttle position under the same conditions. It is closed more
than previously because any and all restriction "saved" by the
"performance" air filter is compensated for at the throttle body.
Don't bother to actually try the above as you would have to be able to
measure the throttle position *very* accurately (the difference between
stock filter and no filter isn't much.) And then average the results
because under these conditions everything is always changing.
Under the stated conditions HP output remains constant. RPM remains
constant. The quantity of air does not change. The engine will suck air
on the intake exactly as hard with either filter. Look beyond the air
filter, the only point "restriction" matters is that which is seen at
the intake valves. K&N is happy if you only consider the restriction
between the throttle and outside atmosphere.
The only thing which is important is the *sum* of the intake
restriction. For a given HP output on a gasoline engine that sum will
remain constant because it is the very thing which regulates HP output.
If the engine gets more air the fuel system will add more fuel to
maintain combustion and emissions. More fuel = more HP = more faster,
where the driver compensates by lifting on the throttle to reduce the
air and therefore HP. The only time "less restriction" buys you anything
is under full throttle.
The link which started this thread was specifically interested in air
filter performance as related to Diesel engines. The intake equation is
different as the Diesel does not have a throttle. More air could result
in more efficiency.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Erik-Jan Geniets
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:44 pm Post subject:
Re: REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. |
|
|
Whitelightning wrote:
| Quote: |
Diesel doesn't have a throttle, now that's the damnedest thing I ever > heard.
|
Why, it does not operate as a throttle. It actually is a pump.
Kind regards,
Erik-Jan.
http://www.fotograaf.com/trooper |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Full_Name
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 7:56 pm Post subject:
Re: REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 01:44:38 GMT, "Whitelightning"
<white.lightning2@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"David Kelly" <n4hhe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:n4hhe-77411E.18362005012005@knology.usenetserver.com...
In article <10tn3f7nip3l4a1@corp.supernews.com>,
The link which started this thread was specifically interested in air
filter performance as related to Diesel engines. The intake equation is
different as the Diesel does not have a throttle. More air could result
in more efficiency.
Diesel doesn't have a throttle, now that's the damnedest thing I ever heard.
Whitelightning
|
I think he's referring to a throttle plate (used to restrict air
flow). Diesels regulate the fuel delivery & the only intake air
restrictions are in place to minimize noise levels.
If 5-6 HP is the be all and end all, purchase & install good oil for
your engine, tranny, & Diff. there have been independent studies that
have measured a 5-8 HP at the wheel gain from that alone. PLUS.
You'll save fuel & potentially increase the life of your mechanical
parts.
For the best results? Sell your present car & purchase a more
powerful car. Less monkeying around, better reliability, more power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Full_Name
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:34 pm Post subject:
Re: REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:18:27 GMT, "Whitelightning"
<white.lightning2@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
MajorDomo@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:41DC3BF9.9699C32E@mailcity.com...
That is why they call that stuff "after market." If ANY of the
stuff actually did what they claimed it would not be "after
market," because every automotive manufacture would be using the
stuff. Every manufacture is looking for every advantage over the
other to meet or exceed CAFE
mike hunt
Most "after market" stuff does work. But then most after market is geared
at power and performance, which does not go hand and hand with CAFE, but
usually against it. The after market has been providing roller lifters and
rocker arms since the early 70's. why? Because they reduce friction in the
valve train, which frees up horse power, and allows higher rpms. Guess what
many auto manufactures are using these days?
Overhead cams?
Do you think Chevy would have
put V-8s in the Monza if there hadn't been so many people using after market
to put them in Vegas? Or ford have put V-8s in the Mustang II if so many
people hadn't used after market kits to do the same with Pintos and Mustang
II's?
I don't think either Chev or Ford sold many V8 Monza's or Mustang II's |
I think they decided to design cars to better handle a V8 after those
experiments
| Quote: | Hot Rodders where rigging up snorkels with dryer hose and then after
market kits to get cool air from out side the engine bay into the intake way
back in the early 60's. How many manufactures don't have ducting from the
radiator horn to the intake these days?
The manufacturers did it back in the 60's 70's & 80's. It usually got |
pulled off the air horn by people "hot rodding" their engine's
| Quote: | We knew back in the early 70's that
an air dam across the front made the car handle better, and run faster, that
ground affects kits got us better fuel mileage and handling..
You mean like the 1969 SuperBird, Charger Daytona & Ford Torino GT? I |
think the manufacturers knew, used and installed these devices on the
cars where they wouldn't be ripped off. Keep in mind the environment
the cars from the 1960's & 70's were driving in. The plastics, roads,
fuel & tires have improved dramatically since then.
| Quote: | How many cars
today don't have some sort of air dam and ground affects ether as an added
on piece like the S-10s, or incorporated into the bumper design and rocker
panels like the Mustang, Monte Carlo, Impala and the Corvette? The after
market has been providing performance suspension components for ever. Its
only been in the last 10-15 years that you have seen manufactures start
using teflon and polyurethane bushings, and performance shocks/struts like
Bilstien.
Back to my earlier comment. Try driving down a gravel road on a car |
with poly urethane bushings for more than 5 years. IF you could stand
the noise & feedback you'd be back at the dealer getting the bushings
changed so often you'd think Fiat is the way to go.
| Quote: | It was the automotive enthusiast and the after market that got
sway bars on oem.
Like any other industy there are snake oil salesmen out there. But they
make up a very small percentage of the industry.
Of course if you were one of those that was always trying to get a bit more
out of what the manufacturer sold you, you would know this. OEM never does
anyhting that costs more till they are forced to by consumer demand and lost
sales kick them in the gonads and getting their attention.
Whitelightning
|
OEM wants to make a sale, & Keep the money, then make another sale to
the same person. If you sell a product that won't hold up, isn't
suited to the environment or will cause other problems you will either
not be able to make another sale to the same person or you will have
people asking for their money back (or both).
GM Makes amazing direct injection Diesels in Europe, However the Fuel
in this continent is so polluted and the roads are so rough that they
refuse to import them (an example of reality getting in the way of a
good idea).
A group of highly trained engineers working as a team for GM Ford etc,
are more likely to arrive at a more workable automotive solution to a
problem than the average K-Tel inventor.
GM experiments & tries new things (i.e. the experimental CVCC 350 they
tried years ago) however they won't sell such a product to your wife
if it will leave her stranded outside of Fargo on a cold winter day or
won't work within the constraints of the EPA or CAFE.
That's life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Perfect Reign
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:58 pm Post subject:
Re: REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. |
|
|
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:42:45 -0500, someone posing as Steve W. chisled in
the wall:
| Quote: | http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm
Let's see
K&N passed MORE dirt/dust and plugged up faster than just about every
other filter tested.
|
Just my $0.02...
I bought a K&N drop-in filter for my '95 Jimmy at around 70,000 miles. I
noticed absolutely no difference in performance.
I later bought a CAI kit at around 120K miles and still noticed very little
difference in performance. At around the same time I replaced the muffler
and cat with Flowmaster (and whatever the cat was) models. It was at that
time, I noticed a bit more OTL increase.
IOW, the filter did absoletly nothing by itself.
On my '98 Maxima, I took a different approach - I ensured that the $1.50
Autozone air filter was changed every 4K miles when I did an oil change.
Having just bought a Saturn VUE on Sunday, I plan to do the same.
This technique provides two advantages - first I don't let too much dirt
into the engine, where it "could" possibly cause some future damage.
Second, I ensure I always have a free-flowing filter at a very low price.
Anybody need some bottles of K&N filter oil?
--
kai - perfectreign at yahoo dot com
www.perfectreign.com
"i believe in what i'm doing but what is it i'm doing here?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bret Chase
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 07, 2005 6:32 am Post subject:
Re: REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:26:20 GMT, secretspam@ihatespam.net
(SgtSilicon) wrote:
| Quote: | :|On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 01:44:38 GMT, "Whitelightning"
:|<white.lightning2@verizon.net> wrote:
:|
:|
:|>"David Kelly" <n4hhe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
:|>news:n4hhe-77411E.18362005012005@knology.usenetserver.com...
:|>> In article <10tn3f7nip3l4a1@corp.supernews.com>,
:|>> The link which started this thread was specifically interested in air
:|>> filter performance as related to Diesel engines. The intake equation is
:|>> different as the Diesel does not have a throttle. More air could result
:|>> in more efficiency.
:|
:|>Diesel doesn't have a throttle, now that's the damnedest thing I ever heard.
:|>Whitelightning
:|
:|I was thinking the same thing. Diesel is injected, just like most
:|modern gas engines. The main difference is ignition. It's like the
:|dude was trying to imply gas engines still have the air and fuel mixed
:|before entering the cylinders while diesels don't. Fact is, many
:|modern gas engines dont mix until in the cylinders either.
:|
:|
|
they're both injected, but that's about the total of their
similarities. Gas engines still (with the exception of the Isuzu 3.5l
Direct injection gasser) inject the fuel into the intake manifold,
before the intake valve, whether it be at the throttlebody, like in a
TBI system) or at the intake valve (SFI, CFI, MPFI systems). Diesels
inject the fuel directly into the cylinder at extremely high pressures
( max injection pressure on a Duramax is 25,000PSI) at a precise time
in the compresstion stroke to fire the cylinder. Gas engines are
stoichiometric, i.e. they require between 12:1-14.7:1 air/fuel to
operate. diesels are lean-burn... meaning they can idle at a
75:1-100:1 a/f mixture.
a diesels engine speed is controlled by the injection pump, there are
no throttle blades of any kind. the pump controls the amount of fuel
and the timing of the pulses. the more fuel the faster the engine
runs, the available amount of air never changes. in a gas engine the
more air is allowed in, the more fuel is added to maintain the A/F
ratio, which increases engine speed.
-Bret |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Isaiah Beard
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:53 am Post subject:
Re: REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. |
|
|
putt@webtv.net wrote:
| Quote: | Ya
know, folks are still buying that Tornado gizmo that installs on a carb!
That piece of garbage was in the JCWhitney cat for $9.95 back in the
50s....same piece of junk costs $70 today.
|
Not much change then, considering that $9.95 in 1950 dollars amounts to
around $73 in today's money. :)
But you're right, it IS junk.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LameBMX
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:22 pm Post subject:
Re: REAL air filter testing. More proof that K&N is junk. |
|
|
Full_Name wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 02:18:27 GMT, "Whitelightning"
white.lightning2@verizon.net> wrote:
MajorDomo@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:41DC3BF9.9699C32E@mailcity.com...
That is why they call that stuff "after market." If ANY of the
stuff actually did what they claimed it would not be "after
market," because every automotive manufacture would be using the
stuff. Every manufacture is looking for every advantage over the
other to meet or exceed CAFE
mike hunt
Most "after market" stuff does work. But then most after market is geared
at power and performance, which does not go hand and hand with CAFE, but
usually against it. The after market has been providing roller lifters and
rocker arms since the early 70's. why? Because they reduce friction in the
valve train, which frees up horse power, and allows higher rpms. Guess what
many auto manufactures are using these days?
Overhead cams?
Do you think Chevy would have
put V-8s in the Monza if there hadn't been so many people using after market
to put them in Vegas? Or ford have put V-8s in the Mustang II if so many
people hadn't used after market kits to do the same with Pintos and Mustang
II's?
I don't think either Chev or Ford sold many V8 Monza's or Mustang II's
I think they decided to design cars to better handle a V8 after those
experiments
Hot Rodders where rigging up snorkels with dryer hose and then after
market kits to get cool air from out side the engine bay into the intake way
back in the early 60's. How many manufactures don't have ducting from the
radiator horn to the intake these days?
The manufacturers did it back in the 60's 70's & 80's. It usually got
pulled off the air horn by people "hot rodding" their engine's
We knew back in the early 70's that
an air dam across the front made the car handle better, and run faster, that
ground affects kits got us better fuel mileage and handling..
You mean like the 1969 SuperBird, Charger Daytona & Ford Torino GT? I
think the manufacturers knew, used and installed these devices on the
cars where they wouldn't be ripped off. Keep in mind the environment
the cars from the 1960's & 70's were driving in. The plastics, roads,
fuel & tires have improved dramatically since then.
How many cars
today don't have some sort of air dam and ground affects ether as an added
on piece like the S-10s, or incorporated into the bumper design and rocker
panels like the Mustang, Monte Carlo, Impala and the Corvette? The after
market has been providing performance suspension components for ever. Its
only been in the last 10-15 years that you have seen manufactures start
using teflon and polyurethane bushings, and performance shocks/struts like
Bilstien.
Back to my earlier comment. Try driving down a gravel road on a car
with poly urethane bushings for more than 5 years. IF you could stand
the noise & feedback you'd be back at the dealer getting the bushings
changed so often you'd think Fiat is the way to go.
It was the automotive enthusiast and the after market that got
sway bars on oem.
Like any other industy there are snake oil salesmen out there. But they
make up a very small percentage of the industry.
Of course if you were one of those that was always trying to get a bit more
out of what the manufacturer sold you, you would know this. OEM never does
anyhting that costs more till they are forced to by consumer demand and lost
sales kick them in the gonads and getting their attention.
Whitelightning
OEM wants to make a sale, & Keep the money, then make another sale to
the same person. If you sell a product that won't hold up, isn't
suited to the environment or will cause other problems you will either
not be able to make another sale to the same person or you will have
people asking for their money back (or both).
GM Makes amazing direct injection Diesels in Europe, However the Fuel
in this continent is so polluted and the roads are so rough that they
refuse to import them (an example of reality getting in the way of a
good idea).
A group of highly trained engineers working as a team for GM Ford etc,
are more likely to arrive at a more workable automotive solution to a
problem than the average K-Tel inventor.
GM experiments & tries new things (i.e. the experimental CVCC 350 they
tried years ago) however they won't sell such a product to your wife
if it will leave her stranded outside of Fargo on a cold winter day or
won't work within the constraints of the EPA or CAFE.
That's life.
nah ... that want to make a car that will outlast the loan and their |
warranty by as little as possible
like anything else in this world .. it cant break till the warranty is up |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in