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

 

"Simon Juncal" <SPAMERSSUCK@usefirstinitialandlastnameATerols.com > wrote in
message news:DrednfvHr_3Ppx7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@rcn.net...
> 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 had a 93 xj, as well, yes it was softer plastic. I understand your logic
but you lack empirical evidence. Can you show that any deformity under
vacuum has an appreciable negative effect to the airflow? I thought not.

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).

Which means a replacement "cold air induction" system would be even more of
a waste of $$ on a TJ.


>> 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'll put it this way, perhaps they look good *and* improve performance
somewhat, but they are better at looking good than making a significant
performance increase.
>
> > 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?
>

Given the more stringent fuel economy standards than years past, many OEM's
are doing whatever they can to gain even small increases in FE. For example,
if the Tornado really does what it's supposed to do, it would be installed
as OEM equipment. Likewise with the fuel line magnet. My point is, a lot of
the aftermarket intake stuff, while some of it does improve performance
incrementally, is designed primarily to lighten the consumer's wallet.

I had a K & N factory replacement filter on my TJ years ago, I tossed it
when I noticed the thin film of dust on the inside of the intake tube. A
couple more horsepower isn't worth sandblasting the cylinders, IMO.

 

"Simon Juncal" <SPAMERSSUCK@usefirstinitialandlastnameATerols.com > wrote in
message news:DrednfvHr_3Ppx7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@rcn.net...
> 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 had a 93 xj, as well, yes it was softer plastic. I understand your logic
but you lack empirical evidence. Can you show that any deformity under
vacuum has an appreciable negative effect to the airflow? I thought not.

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).

Which means a replacement "cold air induction" system would be even more of
a waste of $$ on a TJ.


>> 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'll put it this way, perhaps they look good *and* improve performance
somewhat, but they are better at looking good than making a significant
performance increase.
>
> > 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?
>

Given the more stringent fuel economy standards than years past, many OEM's
are doing whatever they can to gain even small increases in FE. For example,
if the Tornado really does what it's supposed to do, it would be installed
as OEM equipment. Likewise with the fuel line magnet. My point is, a lot of
the aftermarket intake stuff, while some of it does improve performance
incrementally, is designed primarily to lighten the consumer's wallet.

I had a K & N factory replacement filter on my TJ years ago, I tossed it
when I noticed the thin film of dust on the inside of the intake tube. A
couple more horsepower isn't worth sandblasting the cylinders, IMO.

 

"Simon Juncal" <SPAMERSSUCK@usefirstinitialandlastnameATerols.com > wrote in
message news:DrednfvHr_3Ppx7ZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@rcn.net...
> 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 had a 93 xj, as well, yes it was softer plastic. I understand your logic
but you lack empirical evidence. Can you show that any deformity under
vacuum has an appreciable negative effect to the airflow? I thought not.

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).

Which means a replacement "cold air induction" system would be even more of
a waste of $$ on a TJ.


>> 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'll put it this way, perhaps they look good *and* improve performance
somewhat, but they are better at looking good than making a significant
performance increase.
>
> > 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?
>

Given the more stringent fuel economy standards than years past, many OEM's
are doing whatever they can to gain even small increases in FE. For example,
if the Tornado really does what it's supposed to do, it would be installed
as OEM equipment. Likewise with the fuel line magnet. My point is, a lot of
the aftermarket intake stuff, while some of it does improve performance
incrementally, is designed primarily to lighten the consumer's wallet.

I had a K & N factory replacement filter on my TJ years ago, I tossed it
when I noticed the thin film of dust on the inside of the intake tube. A
couple more horsepower isn't worth sandblasting the cylinders, IMO.

 

Matt Macchiarolo did pass the time by typing:

> I had a 93 xj, as well, yes it was softer plastic. I understand your logic
> but you lack empirical evidence. Can you show that any deformity under
> vacuum has an appreciable negative effect to the airflow? I thought not.

I can, but then again my ZJ sucks a lot harder than your XJ. :D


Actually, look up SCAT hose. I have to use that as a liner in the
stock air intake to keep the accordian rubber from collapsing.


--
-- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
Banks Header - and BEER, in the fridge!

 

Matt Macchiarolo did pass the time by typing:

> I had a 93 xj, as well, yes it was softer plastic. I understand your logic
> but you lack empirical evidence. Can you show that any deformity under
> vacuum has an appreciable negative effect to the airflow? I thought not.

I can, but then again my ZJ sucks a lot harder than your XJ. :D


Actually, look up SCAT hose. I have to use that as a liner in the
stock air intake to keep the accordian rubber from collapsing.


--
-- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
Banks Header - and BEER, in the fridge!

 

Matt Macchiarolo did pass the time by typing:

> I had a 93 xj, as well, yes it was softer plastic. I understand your logic
> but you lack empirical evidence. Can you show that any deformity under
> vacuum has an appreciable negative effect to the airflow? I thought not.

I can, but then again my ZJ sucks a lot harder than your XJ. :D


Actually, look up SCAT hose. I have to use that as a liner in the
stock air intake to keep the accordian rubber from collapsing.


--
-- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
Banks Header - and BEER, in the fridge!

 

"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:TD4hg.52565$9c6.25181@dukeread11...

>
>
> Actually, look up SCAT hose. I have to use that as a liner in the
> stock air intake to keep the accordian rubber from collapsing.
>
>

Apples<>oranges. When OEM's install Hesco's at the factory, you'll see metal
intake tubes.

> --
> -- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
> HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
> Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
> Banks Header - and BEER, in the fridge!
>

 

"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:TD4hg.52565$9c6.25181@dukeread11...

>
>
> Actually, look up SCAT hose. I have to use that as a liner in the
> stock air intake to keep the accordian rubber from collapsing.
>
>

Apples<>oranges. When OEM's install Hesco's at the factory, you'll see metal
intake tubes.

> --
> -- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
> HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
> Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
> Banks Header - and BEER, in the fridge!
>

 

"DougW" <post.replies@invalid.address> wrote in message
news:TD4hg.52565$9c6.25181@dukeread11...

>
>
> Actually, look up SCAT hose. I have to use that as a liner in the
> stock air intake to keep the accordian rubber from collapsing.
>
>

Apples<>oranges. When OEM's install Hesco's at the factory, you'll see metal
intake tubes.

> --
> -- DougW -- 93 ZJ 4.0 http://members.***.net/wilsond
> HESCO Supercharger - 300W IASCA Stereo - Edelbrock IAS Shocks
> Gibson Exhaust - rear DCpower - custom gauge install - Stillen Rotors
> Banks Header - and BEER, in the fridge!
>