FWIW Jeep Hi Pro Air Intake.
06-03-2006, 10:22 AM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWIW Jeep Hi Pro Air Intake.
"Simon Juncal" <SPAMERSSUCK@usefirstinitialandlastnameATerols.com > wrote in
message news:RvmdnVtZwehrCeLZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@rcn.net...
>
> FWIW the stock air plumbing is a well known to be less than ideal for
> power, this is true of almost ALL fuel injected vehicles intakes. The
> reason being they are required to meet NOISE regulations and fuel
> injection is NOISY stuff. so they are plumbed with more bends then needed
> to bounce the sound waves off of accoustically absorbant rubber, they are
> longer than needed to get more of the above. They are made out of less
> than ideal rubber tubing; which doesn't ressonate but which is prone to
> being sucked together thus constricting the flow; Into an "air box" which
> holds a filter but also provides a muffler like noise canceler, and a
> muffler like space for back pressure, into (finally) another bit of tubing
> often called a "snorkle" which is usually even softer rubber.
Funny, everything you mention isn't present on a TJ. The intake parts are
hard plastic that doesn't deform under vacuum, with a bellows molded in the
intake tube to keep engine vibs from transmitting to the body-mounted
airbox. The TJ intake is just as long as it needs to be to reach the airbox,
which is located in pretty much the only place it could be under the hood.
The air box/intake trumpet is designed to acts as more a water-entry
protection than a big muffler.
>
> This is why there's such a big industry around Cold Air induction, which
> throws that crap out in favor of less bends, metal pipes, and big air
> filters without a box or snorkle.
>
There's such a big industry because it looks cooler under the hood. If it
really increased mileage/power, don't you think the OEM's would be all over
it?
06-03-2006, 10:22 AM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWIW Jeep Hi Pro Air Intake.
"Simon Juncal" <SPAMERSSUCK@usefirstinitialandlastnameATerols.com > wrote in
message news:RvmdnVtZwehrCeLZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@rcn.net...
>
> FWIW the stock air plumbing is a well known to be less than ideal for
> power, this is true of almost ALL fuel injected vehicles intakes. The
> reason being they are required to meet NOISE regulations and fuel
> injection is NOISY stuff. so they are plumbed with more bends then needed
> to bounce the sound waves off of accoustically absorbant rubber, they are
> longer than needed to get more of the above. They are made out of less
> than ideal rubber tubing; which doesn't ressonate but which is prone to
> being sucked together thus constricting the flow; Into an "air box" which
> holds a filter but also provides a muffler like noise canceler, and a
> muffler like space for back pressure, into (finally) another bit of tubing
> often called a "snorkle" which is usually even softer rubber.
Funny, everything you mention isn't present on a TJ. The intake parts are
hard plastic that doesn't deform under vacuum, with a bellows molded in the
intake tube to keep engine vibs from transmitting to the body-mounted
airbox. The TJ intake is just as long as it needs to be to reach the airbox,
which is located in pretty much the only place it could be under the hood.
The air box/intake trumpet is designed to acts as more a water-entry
protection than a big muffler.
>
> This is why there's such a big industry around Cold Air induction, which
> throws that crap out in favor of less bends, metal pipes, and big air
> filters without a box or snorkle.
>
There's such a big industry because it looks cooler under the hood. If it
really increased mileage/power, don't you think the OEM's would be all over
it?
06-04-2006, 03:53 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWIW Jeep Hi Pro Air Intake.
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> Funny, everything you mention isn't present on a TJ. The intake parts are
> hard plastic that doesn't deform under vacuum, with a bellows molded in the
I've no idea what you're on about... Is it your point that they don't
use softer material because you looked under the hood of your TJ and
found plastic instead of rubber?
Maybe you're trying to prove my point for me? The intake hose on older
4.0's is made out of rubber, I know, I've got one sitting in my drive
way. I'm sure they changed to harder plastic on your TJ because they
wanted to optimize the HP and fuel economy every bit they could within
the confines they have to work under (regulations and industry standards
etc).
> There's such a big industry because it looks cooler under the hood.
Hmmm I guess your point is that they don't work and are only for
looks... and that OEM's always optimize for power and never compromise
for noise <shrug> I'm not going to try and part you from whatever
notions who've got. There are a thousand dyno numbers, and auto industry
noise regulations, floating about on the net if you wish to educate
yourself. Your starting point should be inquiring as to why many
manufacturers call the rubber tubing before an "air box" a "SILENCER"
That should get you on the right track.
> If it
> really increased mileage/power
> don't you think the OEM's would be all over
> it?
Great logic, so by your "reasoning" OEM's always produce and engineer
all their components for optimal performance... So would you say a stock
mustang GT comes with an optimal exhaust system, engineered with only
performance and fuel economy in mind?
Let's put it this way, would you trade me your plastic intake for the
soft floppy rubber one off my 92 XJ? If the softer one was adequate then
why did they change it?
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
> Funny, everything you mention isn't present on a TJ. The intake parts are
> hard plastic that doesn't deform under vacuum, with a bellows molded in the
I've no idea what you're on about... Is it your point that they don't
use softer material because you looked under the hood of your TJ and
found plastic instead of rubber?
Maybe you're trying to prove my point for me? The intake hose on older
4.0's is made out of rubber, I know, I've got one sitting in my drive
way. I'm sure they changed to harder plastic on your TJ because they
wanted to optimize the HP and fuel economy every bit they could within
the confines they have to work under (regulations and industry standards
etc).
> There's such a big industry because it looks cooler under the hood.
Hmmm I guess your point is that they don't work and are only for
looks... and that OEM's always optimize for power and never compromise
for noise <shrug> I'm not going to try and part you from whatever
notions who've got. There are a thousand dyno numbers, and auto industry
noise regulations, floating about on the net if you wish to educate
yourself. Your starting point should be inquiring as to why many
manufacturers call the rubber tubing before an "air box" a "SILENCER"
That should get you on the right track.
> If it
> really increased mileage/power
> don't you think the OEM's would be all over
> it?
Great logic, so by your "reasoning" OEM's always produce and engineer
all their components for optimal performance... So would you say a stock
mustang GT comes with an optimal exhaust system, engineered with only
performance and fuel economy in mind?
Let's put it this way, would you trade me your plastic intake for the
soft floppy rubber one off my 92 XJ? If the softer one was adequate then
why did they change it?
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
06-04-2006, 03:53 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWIW Jeep Hi Pro Air Intake.
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> Funny, everything you mention isn't present on a TJ. The intake parts are
> hard plastic that doesn't deform under vacuum, with a bellows molded in the
I've no idea what you're on about... Is it your point that they don't
use softer material because you looked under the hood of your TJ and
found plastic instead of rubber?
Maybe you're trying to prove my point for me? The intake hose on older
4.0's is made out of rubber, I know, I've got one sitting in my drive
way. I'm sure they changed to harder plastic on your TJ because they
wanted to optimize the HP and fuel economy every bit they could within
the confines they have to work under (regulations and industry standards
etc).
> There's such a big industry because it looks cooler under the hood.
Hmmm I guess your point is that they don't work and are only for
looks... and that OEM's always optimize for power and never compromise
for noise <shrug> I'm not going to try and part you from whatever
notions who've got. There are a thousand dyno numbers, and auto industry
noise regulations, floating about on the net if you wish to educate
yourself. Your starting point should be inquiring as to why many
manufacturers call the rubber tubing before an "air box" a "SILENCER"
That should get you on the right track.
> If it
> really increased mileage/power
> don't you think the OEM's would be all over
> it?
Great logic, so by your "reasoning" OEM's always produce and engineer
all their components for optimal performance... So would you say a stock
mustang GT comes with an optimal exhaust system, engineered with only
performance and fuel economy in mind?
Let's put it this way, would you trade me your plastic intake for the
soft floppy rubber one off my 92 XJ? If the softer one was adequate then
why did they change it?
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
> Funny, everything you mention isn't present on a TJ. The intake parts are
> hard plastic that doesn't deform under vacuum, with a bellows molded in the
I've no idea what you're on about... Is it your point that they don't
use softer material because you looked under the hood of your TJ and
found plastic instead of rubber?
Maybe you're trying to prove my point for me? The intake hose on older
4.0's is made out of rubber, I know, I've got one sitting in my drive
way. I'm sure they changed to harder plastic on your TJ because they
wanted to optimize the HP and fuel economy every bit they could within
the confines they have to work under (regulations and industry standards
etc).
> There's such a big industry because it looks cooler under the hood.
Hmmm I guess your point is that they don't work and are only for
looks... and that OEM's always optimize for power and never compromise
for noise <shrug> I'm not going to try and part you from whatever
notions who've got. There are a thousand dyno numbers, and auto industry
noise regulations, floating about on the net if you wish to educate
yourself. Your starting point should be inquiring as to why many
manufacturers call the rubber tubing before an "air box" a "SILENCER"
That should get you on the right track.
> If it
> really increased mileage/power
> don't you think the OEM's would be all over
> it?
Great logic, so by your "reasoning" OEM's always produce and engineer
all their components for optimal performance... So would you say a stock
mustang GT comes with an optimal exhaust system, engineered with only
performance and fuel economy in mind?
Let's put it this way, would you trade me your plastic intake for the
soft floppy rubber one off my 92 XJ? If the softer one was adequate then
why did they change it?
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
06-04-2006, 03:53 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWIW Jeep Hi Pro Air Intake.
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> Funny, everything you mention isn't present on a TJ. The intake parts are
> hard plastic that doesn't deform under vacuum, with a bellows molded in the
I've no idea what you're on about... Is it your point that they don't
use softer material because you looked under the hood of your TJ and
found plastic instead of rubber?
Maybe you're trying to prove my point for me? The intake hose on older
4.0's is made out of rubber, I know, I've got one sitting in my drive
way. I'm sure they changed to harder plastic on your TJ because they
wanted to optimize the HP and fuel economy every bit they could within
the confines they have to work under (regulations and industry standards
etc).
> There's such a big industry because it looks cooler under the hood.
Hmmm I guess your point is that they don't work and are only for
looks... and that OEM's always optimize for power and never compromise
for noise <shrug> I'm not going to try and part you from whatever
notions who've got. There are a thousand dyno numbers, and auto industry
noise regulations, floating about on the net if you wish to educate
yourself. Your starting point should be inquiring as to why many
manufacturers call the rubber tubing before an "air box" a "SILENCER"
That should get you on the right track.
> If it
> really increased mileage/power
> don't you think the OEM's would be all over
> it?
Great logic, so by your "reasoning" OEM's always produce and engineer
all their components for optimal performance... So would you say a stock
mustang GT comes with an optimal exhaust system, engineered with only
performance and fuel economy in mind?
Let's put it this way, would you trade me your plastic intake for the
soft floppy rubber one off my 92 XJ? If the softer one was adequate then
why did they change it?
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
> Funny, everything you mention isn't present on a TJ. The intake parts are
> hard plastic that doesn't deform under vacuum, with a bellows molded in the
I've no idea what you're on about... Is it your point that they don't
use softer material because you looked under the hood of your TJ and
found plastic instead of rubber?
Maybe you're trying to prove my point for me? The intake hose on older
4.0's is made out of rubber, I know, I've got one sitting in my drive
way. I'm sure they changed to harder plastic on your TJ because they
wanted to optimize the HP and fuel economy every bit they could within
the confines they have to work under (regulations and industry standards
etc).
> There's such a big industry because it looks cooler under the hood.
Hmmm I guess your point is that they don't work and are only for
looks... and that OEM's always optimize for power and never compromise
for noise <shrug> I'm not going to try and part you from whatever
notions who've got. There are a thousand dyno numbers, and auto industry
noise regulations, floating about on the net if you wish to educate
yourself. Your starting point should be inquiring as to why many
manufacturers call the rubber tubing before an "air box" a "SILENCER"
That should get you on the right track.
> If it
> really increased mileage/power
> don't you think the OEM's would be all over
> it?
Great logic, so by your "reasoning" OEM's always produce and engineer
all their components for optimal performance... So would you say a stock
mustang GT comes with an optimal exhaust system, engineered with only
performance and fuel economy in mind?
Let's put it this way, would you trade me your plastic intake for the
soft floppy rubber one off my 92 XJ? If the softer one was adequate then
why did they change it?
--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein
06-04-2006, 09:55 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWIW Jeep Hi Pro Air Intake.
Simon Juncal wrote:
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> Funny, everything you mention isn't present on a TJ. The intake parts
>> are hard plastic that doesn't deform under vacuum, with a bellows
>> molded in the
>
>
> I've no idea what you're on about... Is it your point that they don't
> use softer material because you looked under the hood of your TJ and
> found plastic instead of rubber?
>
> Maybe you're trying to prove my point for me? The intake hose on older
> 4.0's is made out of rubber, I know, I've got one sitting in my drive
> way. I'm sure they changed to harder plastic on your TJ because they
> wanted to optimize the HP and fuel economy every bit they could within
> the confines they have to work under (regulations and industry standards
> etc).
>
>> There's such a big industry because it looks cooler under the hood.
>
> Hmmm I guess your point is that they don't work and are only for
> looks... and that OEM's always optimize for power and never compromise
> for noise <shrug> I'm not going to try and part you from whatever
> notions who've got. There are a thousand dyno numbers, and auto industry
> noise regulations, floating about on the net if you wish to educate
> yourself. Your starting point should be inquiring as to why many
> manufacturers call the rubber tubing before an "air box" a "SILENCER"
> That should get you on the right track.
>
> > If it
> > really increased mileage/power
> > don't you think the OEM's would be all over
> > it?
>
> Great logic, so by your "reasoning" OEM's always produce and engineer
> all their components for optimal performance... So would you say a stock
> mustang GT comes with an optimal exhaust system, engineered with only
> performance and fuel economy in mind?
>
> Let's put it this way, would you trade me your plastic intake for the
> soft floppy rubber one off my 92 XJ? If the softer one was adequate then
> why did they change it?
>
Results on first tank: 254.4mi 10.950gal Wheels and tires 235/70x16 on
16x7 steel wheels. This is on an otherwise stock '04 Wrangler X.
Mostly (90%) on paved roads running the a/c about half the time. I can
live with it :-)
--
FRH
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> Funny, everything you mention isn't present on a TJ. The intake parts
>> are hard plastic that doesn't deform under vacuum, with a bellows
>> molded in the
>
>
> I've no idea what you're on about... Is it your point that they don't
> use softer material because you looked under the hood of your TJ and
> found plastic instead of rubber?
>
> Maybe you're trying to prove my point for me? The intake hose on older
> 4.0's is made out of rubber, I know, I've got one sitting in my drive
> way. I'm sure they changed to harder plastic on your TJ because they
> wanted to optimize the HP and fuel economy every bit they could within
> the confines they have to work under (regulations and industry standards
> etc).
>
>> There's such a big industry because it looks cooler under the hood.
>
> Hmmm I guess your point is that they don't work and are only for
> looks... and that OEM's always optimize for power and never compromise
> for noise <shrug> I'm not going to try and part you from whatever
> notions who've got. There are a thousand dyno numbers, and auto industry
> noise regulations, floating about on the net if you wish to educate
> yourself. Your starting point should be inquiring as to why many
> manufacturers call the rubber tubing before an "air box" a "SILENCER"
> That should get you on the right track.
>
> > If it
> > really increased mileage/power
> > don't you think the OEM's would be all over
> > it?
>
> Great logic, so by your "reasoning" OEM's always produce and engineer
> all their components for optimal performance... So would you say a stock
> mustang GT comes with an optimal exhaust system, engineered with only
> performance and fuel economy in mind?
>
> Let's put it this way, would you trade me your plastic intake for the
> soft floppy rubber one off my 92 XJ? If the softer one was adequate then
> why did they change it?
>
Results on first tank: 254.4mi 10.950gal Wheels and tires 235/70x16 on
16x7 steel wheels. This is on an otherwise stock '04 Wrangler X.
Mostly (90%) on paved roads running the a/c about half the time. I can
live with it :-)
--
FRH
06-04-2006, 09:55 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWIW Jeep Hi Pro Air Intake.
Simon Juncal wrote:
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> Funny, everything you mention isn't present on a TJ. The intake parts
>> are hard plastic that doesn't deform under vacuum, with a bellows
>> molded in the
>
>
> I've no idea what you're on about... Is it your point that they don't
> use softer material because you looked under the hood of your TJ and
> found plastic instead of rubber?
>
> Maybe you're trying to prove my point for me? The intake hose on older
> 4.0's is made out of rubber, I know, I've got one sitting in my drive
> way. I'm sure they changed to harder plastic on your TJ because they
> wanted to optimize the HP and fuel economy every bit they could within
> the confines they have to work under (regulations and industry standards
> etc).
>
>> There's such a big industry because it looks cooler under the hood.
>
> Hmmm I guess your point is that they don't work and are only for
> looks... and that OEM's always optimize for power and never compromise
> for noise <shrug> I'm not going to try and part you from whatever
> notions who've got. There are a thousand dyno numbers, and auto industry
> noise regulations, floating about on the net if you wish to educate
> yourself. Your starting point should be inquiring as to why many
> manufacturers call the rubber tubing before an "air box" a "SILENCER"
> That should get you on the right track.
>
> > If it
> > really increased mileage/power
> > don't you think the OEM's would be all over
> > it?
>
> Great logic, so by your "reasoning" OEM's always produce and engineer
> all their components for optimal performance... So would you say a stock
> mustang GT comes with an optimal exhaust system, engineered with only
> performance and fuel economy in mind?
>
> Let's put it this way, would you trade me your plastic intake for the
> soft floppy rubber one off my 92 XJ? If the softer one was adequate then
> why did they change it?
>
Results on first tank: 254.4mi 10.950gal Wheels and tires 235/70x16 on
16x7 steel wheels. This is on an otherwise stock '04 Wrangler X.
Mostly (90%) on paved roads running the a/c about half the time. I can
live with it :-)
--
FRH
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> Funny, everything you mention isn't present on a TJ. The intake parts
>> are hard plastic that doesn't deform under vacuum, with a bellows
>> molded in the
>
>
> I've no idea what you're on about... Is it your point that they don't
> use softer material because you looked under the hood of your TJ and
> found plastic instead of rubber?
>
> Maybe you're trying to prove my point for me? The intake hose on older
> 4.0's is made out of rubber, I know, I've got one sitting in my drive
> way. I'm sure they changed to harder plastic on your TJ because they
> wanted to optimize the HP and fuel economy every bit they could within
> the confines they have to work under (regulations and industry standards
> etc).
>
>> There's such a big industry because it looks cooler under the hood.
>
> Hmmm I guess your point is that they don't work and are only for
> looks... and that OEM's always optimize for power and never compromise
> for noise <shrug> I'm not going to try and part you from whatever
> notions who've got. There are a thousand dyno numbers, and auto industry
> noise regulations, floating about on the net if you wish to educate
> yourself. Your starting point should be inquiring as to why many
> manufacturers call the rubber tubing before an "air box" a "SILENCER"
> That should get you on the right track.
>
> > If it
> > really increased mileage/power
> > don't you think the OEM's would be all over
> > it?
>
> Great logic, so by your "reasoning" OEM's always produce and engineer
> all their components for optimal performance... So would you say a stock
> mustang GT comes with an optimal exhaust system, engineered with only
> performance and fuel economy in mind?
>
> Let's put it this way, would you trade me your plastic intake for the
> soft floppy rubber one off my 92 XJ? If the softer one was adequate then
> why did they change it?
>
Results on first tank: 254.4mi 10.950gal Wheels and tires 235/70x16 on
16x7 steel wheels. This is on an otherwise stock '04 Wrangler X.
Mostly (90%) on paved roads running the a/c about half the time. I can
live with it :-)
--
FRH
06-04-2006, 09:55 PM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWIW Jeep Hi Pro Air Intake.
Simon Juncal wrote:
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> Funny, everything you mention isn't present on a TJ. The intake parts
>> are hard plastic that doesn't deform under vacuum, with a bellows
>> molded in the
>
>
> I've no idea what you're on about... Is it your point that they don't
> use softer material because you looked under the hood of your TJ and
> found plastic instead of rubber?
>
> Maybe you're trying to prove my point for me? The intake hose on older
> 4.0's is made out of rubber, I know, I've got one sitting in my drive
> way. I'm sure they changed to harder plastic on your TJ because they
> wanted to optimize the HP and fuel economy every bit they could within
> the confines they have to work under (regulations and industry standards
> etc).
>
>> There's such a big industry because it looks cooler under the hood.
>
> Hmmm I guess your point is that they don't work and are only for
> looks... and that OEM's always optimize for power and never compromise
> for noise <shrug> I'm not going to try and part you from whatever
> notions who've got. There are a thousand dyno numbers, and auto industry
> noise regulations, floating about on the net if you wish to educate
> yourself. Your starting point should be inquiring as to why many
> manufacturers call the rubber tubing before an "air box" a "SILENCER"
> That should get you on the right track.
>
> > If it
> > really increased mileage/power
> > don't you think the OEM's would be all over
> > it?
>
> Great logic, so by your "reasoning" OEM's always produce and engineer
> all their components for optimal performance... So would you say a stock
> mustang GT comes with an optimal exhaust system, engineered with only
> performance and fuel economy in mind?
>
> Let's put it this way, would you trade me your plastic intake for the
> soft floppy rubber one off my 92 XJ? If the softer one was adequate then
> why did they change it?
>
Results on first tank: 254.4mi 10.950gal Wheels and tires 235/70x16 on
16x7 steel wheels. This is on an otherwise stock '04 Wrangler X.
Mostly (90%) on paved roads running the a/c about half the time. I can
live with it :-)
--
FRH
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>> Funny, everything you mention isn't present on a TJ. The intake parts
>> are hard plastic that doesn't deform under vacuum, with a bellows
>> molded in the
>
>
> I've no idea what you're on about... Is it your point that they don't
> use softer material because you looked under the hood of your TJ and
> found plastic instead of rubber?
>
> Maybe you're trying to prove my point for me? The intake hose on older
> 4.0's is made out of rubber, I know, I've got one sitting in my drive
> way. I'm sure they changed to harder plastic on your TJ because they
> wanted to optimize the HP and fuel economy every bit they could within
> the confines they have to work under (regulations and industry standards
> etc).
>
>> There's such a big industry because it looks cooler under the hood.
>
> Hmmm I guess your point is that they don't work and are only for
> looks... and that OEM's always optimize for power and never compromise
> for noise <shrug> I'm not going to try and part you from whatever
> notions who've got. There are a thousand dyno numbers, and auto industry
> noise regulations, floating about on the net if you wish to educate
> yourself. Your starting point should be inquiring as to why many
> manufacturers call the rubber tubing before an "air box" a "SILENCER"
> That should get you on the right track.
>
> > If it
> > really increased mileage/power
> > don't you think the OEM's would be all over
> > it?
>
> Great logic, so by your "reasoning" OEM's always produce and engineer
> all their components for optimal performance... So would you say a stock
> mustang GT comes with an optimal exhaust system, engineered with only
> performance and fuel economy in mind?
>
> Let's put it this way, would you trade me your plastic intake for the
> soft floppy rubber one off my 92 XJ? If the softer one was adequate then
> why did they change it?
>
Results on first tank: 254.4mi 10.950gal Wheels and tires 235/70x16 on
16x7 steel wheels. This is on an otherwise stock '04 Wrangler X.
Mostly (90%) on paved roads running the a/c about half the time. I can
live with it :-)
--
FRH
06-05-2006, 08:52 PM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWIW Jeep Hi Pro Air Intake.
How does it compare with your old mileage, and how long before the new
intake pays for itself?
>>
> Results on first tank: 254.4mi 10.950gal Wheels and tires 235/70x16 on
> 16x7 steel wheels. This is on an otherwise stock '04 Wrangler X. Mostly
> (90%) on paved roads running the a/c about half the time. I can live with
> it :-)
>
> --
> FRH
intake pays for itself?
>>
> Results on first tank: 254.4mi 10.950gal Wheels and tires 235/70x16 on
> 16x7 steel wheels. This is on an otherwise stock '04 Wrangler X. Mostly
> (90%) on paved roads running the a/c about half the time. I can live with
> it :-)
>
> --
> FRH
06-05-2006, 08:52 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: FWIW Jeep Hi Pro Air Intake.
How does it compare with your old mileage, and how long before the new
intake pays for itself?
>>
> Results on first tank: 254.4mi 10.950gal Wheels and tires 235/70x16 on
> 16x7 steel wheels. This is on an otherwise stock '04 Wrangler X. Mostly
> (90%) on paved roads running the a/c about half the time. I can live with
> it :-)
>
> --
> FRH
intake pays for itself?
>>
> Results on first tank: 254.4mi 10.950gal Wheels and tires 235/70x16 on
> 16x7 steel wheels. This is on an otherwise stock '04 Wrangler X. Mostly
> (90%) on paved roads running the a/c about half the time. I can live with
> it :-)
>
> --
> FRH
