Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
"Dave in Colorado" <DontSpam@me.in> wrote in message
news:BfPmf.107$KJ6.16019@news.uswest.net...
: Billy Ray said:
:
: > If you examine the chart you will see almost no improvement at the RPM
: > levels where I generally operate my '02 WJ.
:
: Are you actually trying to talk some sense into me? Don't confuse me with
: the facts when my mind is already made up.
:
: But you know, you're dead right. I have been coveting the thing for a few
: days now and almost convinced myself I needed it. But coincidentally I
: hadn't been driving it for the same few days. I got in it today and drove
: about 40 miles total, and am reminded that it has plenty of power. And
even
: driving over Vail pass and the approach to Eisenhower tunnel (between
: western and eastern Colorado) over Thanksgiving pushed thing thing only to
: 3500 except occasionally while passing AND climbing one of the passes.
:
: While it would be great to have, I just don't know how often I'd really
: notice having it.
:
: Dave
Sensible thinking Dave.
One other thing, they are a real messy pain in the neck to clean and the
cleaning/reoiling kit is expensive too.
KJK
:
:
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
"Dave in Colorado" <DontSpam@me.in> wrote in message
news:BfPmf.107$KJ6.16019@news.uswest.net...
: Billy Ray said:
:
: > If you examine the chart you will see almost no improvement at the RPM
: > levels where I generally operate my '02 WJ.
:
: Are you actually trying to talk some sense into me? Don't confuse me with
: the facts when my mind is already made up.
:
: But you know, you're dead right. I have been coveting the thing for a few
: days now and almost convinced myself I needed it. But coincidentally I
: hadn't been driving it for the same few days. I got in it today and drove
: about 40 miles total, and am reminded that it has plenty of power. And
even
: driving over Vail pass and the approach to Eisenhower tunnel (between
: western and eastern Colorado) over Thanksgiving pushed thing thing only to
: 3500 except occasionally while passing AND climbing one of the passes.
:
: While it would be great to have, I just don't know how often I'd really
: notice having it.
:
: Dave
Sensible thinking Dave.
One other thing, they are a real messy pain in the neck to clean and the
cleaning/reoiling kit is expensive too.
KJK
:
:
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
"Dave in Colorado" <DontSpam@me.in> wrote in message
news:BfPmf.107$KJ6.16019@news.uswest.net...
: Billy Ray said:
:
: > If you examine the chart you will see almost no improvement at the RPM
: > levels where I generally operate my '02 WJ.
:
: Are you actually trying to talk some sense into me? Don't confuse me with
: the facts when my mind is already made up.
:
: But you know, you're dead right. I have been coveting the thing for a few
: days now and almost convinced myself I needed it. But coincidentally I
: hadn't been driving it for the same few days. I got in it today and drove
: about 40 miles total, and am reminded that it has plenty of power. And
even
: driving over Vail pass and the approach to Eisenhower tunnel (between
: western and eastern Colorado) over Thanksgiving pushed thing thing only to
: 3500 except occasionally while passing AND climbing one of the passes.
:
: While it would be great to have, I just don't know how often I'd really
: notice having it.
:
: Dave
Sensible thinking Dave.
One other thing, they are a real messy pain in the neck to clean and the
cleaning/reoiling kit is expensive too.
KJK
:
:
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
And you have to clean and re-oil all the way down the intake tube,
to get out what it's caught.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"KJ.Kate" wrote:
>
> Sensible thinking Dave.
> One other thing, they are a real messy pain in the neck to clean and the
> cleaning/reoiling kit is expensive too.
>
> KJK
>
> :
> :
to get out what it's caught.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"KJ.Kate" wrote:
>
> Sensible thinking Dave.
> One other thing, they are a real messy pain in the neck to clean and the
> cleaning/reoiling kit is expensive too.
>
> KJK
>
> :
> :
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
And you have to clean and re-oil all the way down the intake tube,
to get out what it's caught.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"KJ.Kate" wrote:
>
> Sensible thinking Dave.
> One other thing, they are a real messy pain in the neck to clean and the
> cleaning/reoiling kit is expensive too.
>
> KJK
>
> :
> :
to get out what it's caught.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"KJ.Kate" wrote:
>
> Sensible thinking Dave.
> One other thing, they are a real messy pain in the neck to clean and the
> cleaning/reoiling kit is expensive too.
>
> KJK
>
> :
> :
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
And you have to clean and re-oil all the way down the intake tube,
to get out what it's caught.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"KJ.Kate" wrote:
>
> Sensible thinking Dave.
> One other thing, they are a real messy pain in the neck to clean and the
> cleaning/reoiling kit is expensive too.
>
> KJK
>
> :
> :
to get out what it's caught.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
"KJ.Kate" wrote:
>
> Sensible thinking Dave.
> One other thing, they are a real messy pain in the neck to clean and the
> cleaning/reoiling kit is expensive too.
>
> KJK
>
> :
> :
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
>There are likely to be economy gains with this device too.
The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced there would be any economy
gains. Can someone come up with a theory why this might be true?
It seems to me that the Fuel/Air mixture is determined by the sensors and
the computer, regardless of how much or little restriction (within reason?)
is on the intake or how much Oxygen is in the air, and is one of the reasons
why EFI is fantastic in Colorado, where you can be driving at 4000 or 12,000
feet within a few hours--the sensors tell the computer what's going on, and
it makes the adjustments X number of times per second.
Dave
The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced there would be any economy
gains. Can someone come up with a theory why this might be true?
It seems to me that the Fuel/Air mixture is determined by the sensors and
the computer, regardless of how much or little restriction (within reason?)
is on the intake or how much Oxygen is in the air, and is one of the reasons
why EFI is fantastic in Colorado, where you can be driving at 4000 or 12,000
feet within a few hours--the sensors tell the computer what's going on, and
it makes the adjustments X number of times per second.
Dave
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
>There are likely to be economy gains with this device too.
The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced there would be any economy
gains. Can someone come up with a theory why this might be true?
It seems to me that the Fuel/Air mixture is determined by the sensors and
the computer, regardless of how much or little restriction (within reason?)
is on the intake or how much Oxygen is in the air, and is one of the reasons
why EFI is fantastic in Colorado, where you can be driving at 4000 or 12,000
feet within a few hours--the sensors tell the computer what's going on, and
it makes the adjustments X number of times per second.
Dave
The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced there would be any economy
gains. Can someone come up with a theory why this might be true?
It seems to me that the Fuel/Air mixture is determined by the sensors and
the computer, regardless of how much or little restriction (within reason?)
is on the intake or how much Oxygen is in the air, and is one of the reasons
why EFI is fantastic in Colorado, where you can be driving at 4000 or 12,000
feet within a few hours--the sensors tell the computer what's going on, and
it makes the adjustments X number of times per second.
Dave
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
>There are likely to be economy gains with this device too.
The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced there would be any economy
gains. Can someone come up with a theory why this might be true?
It seems to me that the Fuel/Air mixture is determined by the sensors and
the computer, regardless of how much or little restriction (within reason?)
is on the intake or how much Oxygen is in the air, and is one of the reasons
why EFI is fantastic in Colorado, where you can be driving at 4000 or 12,000
feet within a few hours--the sensors tell the computer what's going on, and
it makes the adjustments X number of times per second.
Dave
The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced there would be any economy
gains. Can someone come up with a theory why this might be true?
It seems to me that the Fuel/Air mixture is determined by the sensors and
the computer, regardless of how much or little restriction (within reason?)
is on the intake or how much Oxygen is in the air, and is one of the reasons
why EFI is fantastic in Colorado, where you can be driving at 4000 or 12,000
feet within a few hours--the sensors tell the computer what's going on, and
it makes the adjustments X number of times per second.
Dave
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
I measure a consistent 25 mpg with my four cylinder Wrangler, after having
installed a K&N and a cat back from Borla. I don't drive it like a little
old lady either. As anyone who owns a Wrangler can tell you, this is pretty
good mileage, even for the four cylinder model. I think what you're maybe
overlooking is that the stock intake and exhaust restriction is not within
reason. Why that would be, I don't know, but lots of these types of add-ons
are sold every year, and not everyone who buys them is an idiot.
The problem with a theoretical analysis, which you seem to be attempting, is
you don't have all the numbers, nor do you know all the factors which are
likely to be important.
I think that the best intake upgrade, would be a paper filter with simply
more surface area, to satisfy the people who are whining about contamination
of the engine. Unfortunately, it would take up too much space, and I
couldn't find one, so I used a K&N instead. If you don't want to install
one, that is fine, but it is a waste of time trying to come up with
theories, that it is of no benefit at all.
Earle
"Dave in Colorado" <DontSpam@me.in> wrote in message
news:2asnf.78$935.1225@news.uswest.net...
> >There are likely to be economy gains with this device too.
>
> The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced there would be any
economy
> gains. Can someone come up with a theory why this might be true?
>
> It seems to me that the Fuel/Air mixture is determined by the sensors and
> the computer, regardless of how much or little restriction (within
reason?)
> is on the intake or how much Oxygen is in the air, and is one of the
reasons
> why EFI is fantastic in Colorado, where you can be driving at 4000 or
12,000
> feet within a few hours--the sensors tell the computer what's going on,
and
> it makes the adjustments X number of times per second.
>
> Dave
>
>
installed a K&N and a cat back from Borla. I don't drive it like a little
old lady either. As anyone who owns a Wrangler can tell you, this is pretty
good mileage, even for the four cylinder model. I think what you're maybe
overlooking is that the stock intake and exhaust restriction is not within
reason. Why that would be, I don't know, but lots of these types of add-ons
are sold every year, and not everyone who buys them is an idiot.
The problem with a theoretical analysis, which you seem to be attempting, is
you don't have all the numbers, nor do you know all the factors which are
likely to be important.
I think that the best intake upgrade, would be a paper filter with simply
more surface area, to satisfy the people who are whining about contamination
of the engine. Unfortunately, it would take up too much space, and I
couldn't find one, so I used a K&N instead. If you don't want to install
one, that is fine, but it is a waste of time trying to come up with
theories, that it is of no benefit at all.
Earle
"Dave in Colorado" <DontSpam@me.in> wrote in message
news:2asnf.78$935.1225@news.uswest.net...
> >There are likely to be economy gains with this device too.
>
> The more I think about it, the less I'm convinced there would be any
economy
> gains. Can someone come up with a theory why this might be true?
>
> It seems to me that the Fuel/Air mixture is determined by the sensors and
> the computer, regardless of how much or little restriction (within
reason?)
> is on the intake or how much Oxygen is in the air, and is one of the
reasons
> why EFI is fantastic in Colorado, where you can be driving at 4000 or
12,000
> feet within a few hours--the sensors tell the computer what's going on,
and
> it makes the adjustments X number of times per second.
>
> Dave
>
>