Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
#51
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
>
>
#52
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
>
>
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
They work because the are less restrictive through the throttle transition. The
larger surface area of the filter allows airflow on demand building the cylinder
pressures through this transistion. The engine will only flow as much air as it
needs, no more.
Have you ever seen a the hood scoop on a pro-stock drag car? Large, LARGE with a
nominal opening. The purpose isn't to ram the air into the engine but to have
more air available than the engine needs throughout the RPM range.
Add to the mix that the air intake charge is cooler than the underhood temp for
a more dense air flow.
As for the filtering efficiencies of the filter media the K&N meets exceeds SAE
testing standards. If you feel that you need better filtration you might try and
AFE (ProGaurd 7), AIRAID, or AEM filter, all of which feature synthetic media
that will filter consistently to 2 microns (as opposed to 6 or 7 for a gauze
only filter).
As for the sound... If you plan on running an aftermarket exhaust system you
will never hear the intake. If you don't it is the sound of Horsepower.
Happy Holidays All!
Carl wrote:
> Not to mention incresed 'crud' making its way through the air filter and
> into the engine.. Bottom line is K&N is a less restrictive filter. It lets
> more air in, which lets more 'crud' in. Take the air filter off your engine,
> drive around the block and see if you notice a power difference worth paying
> for.
>
> Carl
>
> "Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:439928b7$0$15352$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> > Dave,
> >
> > The increased sound level will be of different character, than a less
> > restrictive exhaust would be. You will definitely notice something at
> > first, but after a while maybe not at all. If you want more specific
> > information, I am afraid you will have to find someone, who has it
> > installed
> > already, and actually listen. It's too bad they don't have a sound
> > recording to go along with the dyno graph.
> >
> > Imho, the percentage increase shown is not worth the expense, unless you
> > are
> > towing something and want all the power you can get, or are serious about
> > fuel economy. There are likely to be economy gains with this device too.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Dave in Colorado" <DontSpam@me.in> wrote in message
> > news:4W8mf.1531$4K2.1504@news.uswest.net...
> >> Just wondering if anyone has installed one of these and used them... and
> > if
> >> they make the thing roar in a noticeable way when just driving around
> > town,
> >> or are out on the highway doing 70-75. My wife has to drive this thing
> > too,
> >> and I don't want the complaining to be louder than the motor. It's a
> >> 2000
> >> Grand Cherokee.
> >>
> >> It's a Fuel Injection Performance Kit Gen2, apparently increasing HP by
> >> 13.10, or more interestingly, reaching the same HP as the stock engine
> > 1000
> >> RPMs lower. (There's a graph.)
> >>
> >> http://www.knfilters.com/search/prod...Prod=57-1513-1
> >>
> >> Any comments would be helpful.
> >>
> >> Thanks.... Dave
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
larger surface area of the filter allows airflow on demand building the cylinder
pressures through this transistion. The engine will only flow as much air as it
needs, no more.
Have you ever seen a the hood scoop on a pro-stock drag car? Large, LARGE with a
nominal opening. The purpose isn't to ram the air into the engine but to have
more air available than the engine needs throughout the RPM range.
Add to the mix that the air intake charge is cooler than the underhood temp for
a more dense air flow.
As for the filtering efficiencies of the filter media the K&N meets exceeds SAE
testing standards. If you feel that you need better filtration you might try and
AFE (ProGaurd 7), AIRAID, or AEM filter, all of which feature synthetic media
that will filter consistently to 2 microns (as opposed to 6 or 7 for a gauze
only filter).
As for the sound... If you plan on running an aftermarket exhaust system you
will never hear the intake. If you don't it is the sound of Horsepower.
Happy Holidays All!
Carl wrote:
> Not to mention incresed 'crud' making its way through the air filter and
> into the engine.. Bottom line is K&N is a less restrictive filter. It lets
> more air in, which lets more 'crud' in. Take the air filter off your engine,
> drive around the block and see if you notice a power difference worth paying
> for.
>
> Carl
>
> "Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:439928b7$0$15352$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> > Dave,
> >
> > The increased sound level will be of different character, than a less
> > restrictive exhaust would be. You will definitely notice something at
> > first, but after a while maybe not at all. If you want more specific
> > information, I am afraid you will have to find someone, who has it
> > installed
> > already, and actually listen. It's too bad they don't have a sound
> > recording to go along with the dyno graph.
> >
> > Imho, the percentage increase shown is not worth the expense, unless you
> > are
> > towing something and want all the power you can get, or are serious about
> > fuel economy. There are likely to be economy gains with this device too.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Dave in Colorado" <DontSpam@me.in> wrote in message
> > news:4W8mf.1531$4K2.1504@news.uswest.net...
> >> Just wondering if anyone has installed one of these and used them... and
> > if
> >> they make the thing roar in a noticeable way when just driving around
> > town,
> >> or are out on the highway doing 70-75. My wife has to drive this thing
> > too,
> >> and I don't want the complaining to be louder than the motor. It's a
> >> 2000
> >> Grand Cherokee.
> >>
> >> It's a Fuel Injection Performance Kit Gen2, apparently increasing HP by
> >> 13.10, or more interestingly, reaching the same HP as the stock engine
> > 1000
> >> RPMs lower. (There's a graph.)
> >>
> >> http://www.knfilters.com/search/prod...Prod=57-1513-1
> >>
> >> Any comments would be helpful.
> >>
> >> Thanks.... Dave
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
They work because the are less restrictive through the throttle transition. The
larger surface area of the filter allows airflow on demand building the cylinder
pressures through this transistion. The engine will only flow as much air as it
needs, no more.
Have you ever seen a the hood scoop on a pro-stock drag car? Large, LARGE with a
nominal opening. The purpose isn't to ram the air into the engine but to have
more air available than the engine needs throughout the RPM range.
Add to the mix that the air intake charge is cooler than the underhood temp for
a more dense air flow.
As for the filtering efficiencies of the filter media the K&N meets exceeds SAE
testing standards. If you feel that you need better filtration you might try and
AFE (ProGaurd 7), AIRAID, or AEM filter, all of which feature synthetic media
that will filter consistently to 2 microns (as opposed to 6 or 7 for a gauze
only filter).
As for the sound... If you plan on running an aftermarket exhaust system you
will never hear the intake. If you don't it is the sound of Horsepower.
Happy Holidays All!
Carl wrote:
> Not to mention incresed 'crud' making its way through the air filter and
> into the engine.. Bottom line is K&N is a less restrictive filter. It lets
> more air in, which lets more 'crud' in. Take the air filter off your engine,
> drive around the block and see if you notice a power difference worth paying
> for.
>
> Carl
>
> "Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:439928b7$0$15352$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> > Dave,
> >
> > The increased sound level will be of different character, than a less
> > restrictive exhaust would be. You will definitely notice something at
> > first, but after a while maybe not at all. If you want more specific
> > information, I am afraid you will have to find someone, who has it
> > installed
> > already, and actually listen. It's too bad they don't have a sound
> > recording to go along with the dyno graph.
> >
> > Imho, the percentage increase shown is not worth the expense, unless you
> > are
> > towing something and want all the power you can get, or are serious about
> > fuel economy. There are likely to be economy gains with this device too.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Dave in Colorado" <DontSpam@me.in> wrote in message
> > news:4W8mf.1531$4K2.1504@news.uswest.net...
> >> Just wondering if anyone has installed one of these and used them... and
> > if
> >> they make the thing roar in a noticeable way when just driving around
> > town,
> >> or are out on the highway doing 70-75. My wife has to drive this thing
> > too,
> >> and I don't want the complaining to be louder than the motor. It's a
> >> 2000
> >> Grand Cherokee.
> >>
> >> It's a Fuel Injection Performance Kit Gen2, apparently increasing HP by
> >> 13.10, or more interestingly, reaching the same HP as the stock engine
> > 1000
> >> RPMs lower. (There's a graph.)
> >>
> >> http://www.knfilters.com/search/prod...Prod=57-1513-1
> >>
> >> Any comments would be helpful.
> >>
> >> Thanks.... Dave
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
larger surface area of the filter allows airflow on demand building the cylinder
pressures through this transistion. The engine will only flow as much air as it
needs, no more.
Have you ever seen a the hood scoop on a pro-stock drag car? Large, LARGE with a
nominal opening. The purpose isn't to ram the air into the engine but to have
more air available than the engine needs throughout the RPM range.
Add to the mix that the air intake charge is cooler than the underhood temp for
a more dense air flow.
As for the filtering efficiencies of the filter media the K&N meets exceeds SAE
testing standards. If you feel that you need better filtration you might try and
AFE (ProGaurd 7), AIRAID, or AEM filter, all of which feature synthetic media
that will filter consistently to 2 microns (as opposed to 6 or 7 for a gauze
only filter).
As for the sound... If you plan on running an aftermarket exhaust system you
will never hear the intake. If you don't it is the sound of Horsepower.
Happy Holidays All!
Carl wrote:
> Not to mention incresed 'crud' making its way through the air filter and
> into the engine.. Bottom line is K&N is a less restrictive filter. It lets
> more air in, which lets more 'crud' in. Take the air filter off your engine,
> drive around the block and see if you notice a power difference worth paying
> for.
>
> Carl
>
> "Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:439928b7$0$15352$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> > Dave,
> >
> > The increased sound level will be of different character, than a less
> > restrictive exhaust would be. You will definitely notice something at
> > first, but after a while maybe not at all. If you want more specific
> > information, I am afraid you will have to find someone, who has it
> > installed
> > already, and actually listen. It's too bad they don't have a sound
> > recording to go along with the dyno graph.
> >
> > Imho, the percentage increase shown is not worth the expense, unless you
> > are
> > towing something and want all the power you can get, or are serious about
> > fuel economy. There are likely to be economy gains with this device too.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Dave in Colorado" <DontSpam@me.in> wrote in message
> > news:4W8mf.1531$4K2.1504@news.uswest.net...
> >> Just wondering if anyone has installed one of these and used them... and
> > if
> >> they make the thing roar in a noticeable way when just driving around
> > town,
> >> or are out on the highway doing 70-75. My wife has to drive this thing
> > too,
> >> and I don't want the complaining to be louder than the motor. It's a
> >> 2000
> >> Grand Cherokee.
> >>
> >> It's a Fuel Injection Performance Kit Gen2, apparently increasing HP by
> >> 13.10, or more interestingly, reaching the same HP as the stock engine
> > 1000
> >> RPMs lower. (There's a graph.)
> >>
> >> http://www.knfilters.com/search/prod...Prod=57-1513-1
> >>
> >> Any comments would be helpful.
> >>
> >> Thanks.... Dave
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
They work because the are less restrictive through the throttle transition. The
larger surface area of the filter allows airflow on demand building the cylinder
pressures through this transistion. The engine will only flow as much air as it
needs, no more.
Have you ever seen a the hood scoop on a pro-stock drag car? Large, LARGE with a
nominal opening. The purpose isn't to ram the air into the engine but to have
more air available than the engine needs throughout the RPM range.
Add to the mix that the air intake charge is cooler than the underhood temp for
a more dense air flow.
As for the filtering efficiencies of the filter media the K&N meets exceeds SAE
testing standards. If you feel that you need better filtration you might try and
AFE (ProGaurd 7), AIRAID, or AEM filter, all of which feature synthetic media
that will filter consistently to 2 microns (as opposed to 6 or 7 for a gauze
only filter).
As for the sound... If you plan on running an aftermarket exhaust system you
will never hear the intake. If you don't it is the sound of Horsepower.
Happy Holidays All!
Carl wrote:
> Not to mention incresed 'crud' making its way through the air filter and
> into the engine.. Bottom line is K&N is a less restrictive filter. It lets
> more air in, which lets more 'crud' in. Take the air filter off your engine,
> drive around the block and see if you notice a power difference worth paying
> for.
>
> Carl
>
> "Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:439928b7$0$15352$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> > Dave,
> >
> > The increased sound level will be of different character, than a less
> > restrictive exhaust would be. You will definitely notice something at
> > first, but after a while maybe not at all. If you want more specific
> > information, I am afraid you will have to find someone, who has it
> > installed
> > already, and actually listen. It's too bad they don't have a sound
> > recording to go along with the dyno graph.
> >
> > Imho, the percentage increase shown is not worth the expense, unless you
> > are
> > towing something and want all the power you can get, or are serious about
> > fuel economy. There are likely to be economy gains with this device too.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Dave in Colorado" <DontSpam@me.in> wrote in message
> > news:4W8mf.1531$4K2.1504@news.uswest.net...
> >> Just wondering if anyone has installed one of these and used them... and
> > if
> >> they make the thing roar in a noticeable way when just driving around
> > town,
> >> or are out on the highway doing 70-75. My wife has to drive this thing
> > too,
> >> and I don't want the complaining to be louder than the motor. It's a
> >> 2000
> >> Grand Cherokee.
> >>
> >> It's a Fuel Injection Performance Kit Gen2, apparently increasing HP by
> >> 13.10, or more interestingly, reaching the same HP as the stock engine
> > 1000
> >> RPMs lower. (There's a graph.)
> >>
> >> http://www.knfilters.com/search/prod...Prod=57-1513-1
> >>
> >> Any comments would be helpful.
> >>
> >> Thanks.... Dave
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
larger surface area of the filter allows airflow on demand building the cylinder
pressures through this transistion. The engine will only flow as much air as it
needs, no more.
Have you ever seen a the hood scoop on a pro-stock drag car? Large, LARGE with a
nominal opening. The purpose isn't to ram the air into the engine but to have
more air available than the engine needs throughout the RPM range.
Add to the mix that the air intake charge is cooler than the underhood temp for
a more dense air flow.
As for the filtering efficiencies of the filter media the K&N meets exceeds SAE
testing standards. If you feel that you need better filtration you might try and
AFE (ProGaurd 7), AIRAID, or AEM filter, all of which feature synthetic media
that will filter consistently to 2 microns (as opposed to 6 or 7 for a gauze
only filter).
As for the sound... If you plan on running an aftermarket exhaust system you
will never hear the intake. If you don't it is the sound of Horsepower.
Happy Holidays All!
Carl wrote:
> Not to mention incresed 'crud' making its way through the air filter and
> into the engine.. Bottom line is K&N is a less restrictive filter. It lets
> more air in, which lets more 'crud' in. Take the air filter off your engine,
> drive around the block and see if you notice a power difference worth paying
> for.
>
> Carl
>
> "Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:439928b7$0$15352$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
> > Dave,
> >
> > The increased sound level will be of different character, than a less
> > restrictive exhaust would be. You will definitely notice something at
> > first, but after a while maybe not at all. If you want more specific
> > information, I am afraid you will have to find someone, who has it
> > installed
> > already, and actually listen. It's too bad they don't have a sound
> > recording to go along with the dyno graph.
> >
> > Imho, the percentage increase shown is not worth the expense, unless you
> > are
> > towing something and want all the power you can get, or are serious about
> > fuel economy. There are likely to be economy gains with this device too.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "Dave in Colorado" <DontSpam@me.in> wrote in message
> > news:4W8mf.1531$4K2.1504@news.uswest.net...
> >> Just wondering if anyone has installed one of these and used them... and
> > if
> >> they make the thing roar in a noticeable way when just driving around
> > town,
> >> or are out on the highway doing 70-75. My wife has to drive this thing
> > too,
> >> and I don't want the complaining to be louder than the motor. It's a
> >> 2000
> >> Grand Cherokee.
> >>
> >> It's a Fuel Injection Performance Kit Gen2, apparently increasing HP by
> >> 13.10, or more interestingly, reaching the same HP as the stock engine
> > 1000
> >> RPMs lower. (There's a graph.)
> >>
> >> http://www.knfilters.com/search/prod...Prod=57-1513-1
> >>
> >> Any comments would be helpful.
> >>
> >> Thanks.... Dave
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
I had a K&N stock-sized replacement filter for a few thousand miles, oiled,
etc.. Tossed it when I noticed a thin film of dust on the inside of the
intake tube between the filter box and throttle body. What wasn't sticking
to the tube was getting into the engine. Replaced with an OEM filter and
voila, no dust on the intake tube inside surface. That's not theoretical,
that's real-world.
"Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:439f1a95$0$15348$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
>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
>>
>>
>
>
etc.. Tossed it when I noticed a thin film of dust on the inside of the
intake tube between the filter box and throttle body. What wasn't sticking
to the tube was getting into the engine. Replaced with an OEM filter and
voila, no dust on the intake tube inside surface. That's not theoretical,
that's real-world.
"Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:439f1a95$0$15348$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
>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
>>
>>
>
>
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
I had a K&N stock-sized replacement filter for a few thousand miles, oiled,
etc.. Tossed it when I noticed a thin film of dust on the inside of the
intake tube between the filter box and throttle body. What wasn't sticking
to the tube was getting into the engine. Replaced with an OEM filter and
voila, no dust on the intake tube inside surface. That's not theoretical,
that's real-world.
"Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:439f1a95$0$15348$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
>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
>>
>>
>
>
etc.. Tossed it when I noticed a thin film of dust on the inside of the
intake tube between the filter box and throttle body. What wasn't sticking
to the tube was getting into the engine. Replaced with an OEM filter and
voila, no dust on the intake tube inside surface. That's not theoretical,
that's real-world.
"Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:439f1a95$0$15348$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
>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
>>
>>
>
>
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
I had a K&N stock-sized replacement filter for a few thousand miles, oiled,
etc.. Tossed it when I noticed a thin film of dust on the inside of the
intake tube between the filter box and throttle body. What wasn't sticking
to the tube was getting into the engine. Replaced with an OEM filter and
voila, no dust on the intake tube inside surface. That's not theoretical,
that's real-world.
"Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:439f1a95$0$15348$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
>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
>>
>>
>
>
etc.. Tossed it when I noticed a thin film of dust on the inside of the
intake tube between the filter box and throttle body. What wasn't sticking
to the tube was getting into the engine. Replaced with an OEM filter and
voila, no dust on the intake tube inside surface. That's not theoretical,
that's real-world.
"Earle Horton" <NurseBustersNoSpam@msn.com> wrote in message
news:439f1a95$0$15348$a82e2bb9@reader.athenanews.c om...
>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
>>
>>
>
>
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
Hi Dave,
I thought you were a troll, thanks for confirming it.
The paper filter has many times the area for filtration, just no
giant holes like the K&N.
Would you like to show me where K&N states they conform to Society
of Automotive Engineers, quality? If you look they don't even warranty
their own product if you take it off-road:
http://knfilter.com/warrantyletter.htm
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Dave Dixon wrote:
>
> They work because the are less restrictive through the throttle transition. The
> larger surface area of the filter allows airflow on demand building the cylinder
> pressures through this transistion. The engine will only flow as much air as it
> needs, no more.
>
> Have you ever seen a the hood scoop on a pro-stock drag car? Large, LARGE with a
> nominal opening. The purpose isn't to ram the air into the engine but to have
> more air available than the engine needs throughout the RPM range.
>
> Add to the mix that the air intake charge is cooler than the underhood temp for
> a more dense air flow.
>
> As for the filtering efficiencies of the filter media the K&N meets exceeds SAE
> testing standards. If you feel that you need better filtration you might try and
> AFE (ProGaurd 7), AIRAID, or AEM filter, all of which feature synthetic media
> that will filter consistently to 2 microns (as opposed to 6 or 7 for a gauze
> only filter).
>
> As for the sound... If you plan on running an aftermarket exhaust system you
> will never hear the intake. If you don't it is the sound of Horsepower.
>
> Happy Holidays All!
I thought you were a troll, thanks for confirming it.
The paper filter has many times the area for filtration, just no
giant holes like the K&N.
Would you like to show me where K&N states they conform to Society
of Automotive Engineers, quality? If you look they don't even warranty
their own product if you take it off-road:
http://knfilter.com/warrantyletter.htm
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Dave Dixon wrote:
>
> They work because the are less restrictive through the throttle transition. The
> larger surface area of the filter allows airflow on demand building the cylinder
> pressures through this transistion. The engine will only flow as much air as it
> needs, no more.
>
> Have you ever seen a the hood scoop on a pro-stock drag car? Large, LARGE with a
> nominal opening. The purpose isn't to ram the air into the engine but to have
> more air available than the engine needs throughout the RPM range.
>
> Add to the mix that the air intake charge is cooler than the underhood temp for
> a more dense air flow.
>
> As for the filtering efficiencies of the filter media the K&N meets exceeds SAE
> testing standards. If you feel that you need better filtration you might try and
> AFE (ProGaurd 7), AIRAID, or AEM filter, all of which feature synthetic media
> that will filter consistently to 2 microns (as opposed to 6 or 7 for a gauze
> only filter).
>
> As for the sound... If you plan on running an aftermarket exhaust system you
> will never hear the intake. If you don't it is the sound of Horsepower.
>
> Happy Holidays All!
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Does K&N FIPK on 2000 4.7 liter V8 make my Jeep louder?
Hi Dave,
I thought you were a troll, thanks for confirming it.
The paper filter has many times the area for filtration, just no
giant holes like the K&N.
Would you like to show me where K&N states they conform to Society
of Automotive Engineers, quality? If you look they don't even warranty
their own product if you take it off-road:
http://knfilter.com/warrantyletter.htm
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Dave Dixon wrote:
>
> They work because the are less restrictive through the throttle transition. The
> larger surface area of the filter allows airflow on demand building the cylinder
> pressures through this transistion. The engine will only flow as much air as it
> needs, no more.
>
> Have you ever seen a the hood scoop on a pro-stock drag car? Large, LARGE with a
> nominal opening. The purpose isn't to ram the air into the engine but to have
> more air available than the engine needs throughout the RPM range.
>
> Add to the mix that the air intake charge is cooler than the underhood temp for
> a more dense air flow.
>
> As for the filtering efficiencies of the filter media the K&N meets exceeds SAE
> testing standards. If you feel that you need better filtration you might try and
> AFE (ProGaurd 7), AIRAID, or AEM filter, all of which feature synthetic media
> that will filter consistently to 2 microns (as opposed to 6 or 7 for a gauze
> only filter).
>
> As for the sound... If you plan on running an aftermarket exhaust system you
> will never hear the intake. If you don't it is the sound of Horsepower.
>
> Happy Holidays All!
I thought you were a troll, thanks for confirming it.
The paper filter has many times the area for filtration, just no
giant holes like the K&N.
Would you like to show me where K&N states they conform to Society
of Automotive Engineers, quality? If you look they don't even warranty
their own product if you take it off-road:
http://knfilter.com/warrantyletter.htm
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Dave Dixon wrote:
>
> They work because the are less restrictive through the throttle transition. The
> larger surface area of the filter allows airflow on demand building the cylinder
> pressures through this transistion. The engine will only flow as much air as it
> needs, no more.
>
> Have you ever seen a the hood scoop on a pro-stock drag car? Large, LARGE with a
> nominal opening. The purpose isn't to ram the air into the engine but to have
> more air available than the engine needs throughout the RPM range.
>
> Add to the mix that the air intake charge is cooler than the underhood temp for
> a more dense air flow.
>
> As for the filtering efficiencies of the filter media the K&N meets exceeds SAE
> testing standards. If you feel that you need better filtration you might try and
> AFE (ProGaurd 7), AIRAID, or AEM filter, all of which feature synthetic media
> that will filter consistently to 2 microns (as opposed to 6 or 7 for a gauze
> only filter).
>
> As for the sound... If you plan on running an aftermarket exhaust system you
> will never hear the intake. If you don't it is the sound of Horsepower.
>
> Happy Holidays All!