Big hands then.  😄

 

 

Paper filter, K&N gauze and No filter at all.

Yeah, more horsepower with K&N but what about fuel consumption? muck on the throttle? particle retention?

Real life conditions isn't as prefect as in a Dyno room.

 

Another video with AEM intake and AEM Drop in Air Filter Replacement for OEM Airbox.

 

The second is the AEM 28-50041 DryFlow Air Filter, No oil required.

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71AOx3WmN9L._AC_SL1500_.jpg

 

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81WkAlUsveL._AC_SL1500_.jpg

 

is this like the Sprint filter?

 

 

The result? One of these is 2,66 % worst on fuel economy.

 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, D.FYLAKTOS said:

Yeah, more horsepower with K&N but what about fuel consumption? muck on the throttle? particle retention?

Real life conditions isn't as prefect as in a Dyno room.

All true and different vehicles will get different gains or losses on a dyno and in real life.

 

How is the following for particle retention, I did not even notice when I took the photo as the photo was for another matter.  A neighbour had been power cutting building blocks when I wanted to try to set the carbs but I gave up as the "6 cuts" he said he was going to do turned out to be a lot more and over most of the day.

 

Edited 9 March, 20224 yr by nta16

16 minutes ago, D.FYLAKTOS said:

The result? One of these is 2,66 % worst on fuel economy.

Far too loose a test, with variables, so easy to get 3% variance either way, dyno runs are at least more controlled.  And what many people mean by "performance" is more horsepower and not so concerned with fuel economy.  A proper performance increase would also cover fuel consumption but it would always be compromised by the nut behind the steering wheel.

 

2 hours ago, nta16 said:

Far too loose a test, with variables, so easy to get 3% variance either way, dyno runs are at least more controlled. 

 

In city traffic i think would be more than this amount due to the hotter engine bay.

Day by day i am starting getting distance from gauze filters, their maintenance does not suits me any more.

30 minutes ago, D.FYLAKTOS said:

Day by day i am starting getting distance from gauze filters, their maintenance does not suits me any more.

That is far enough, but to be fair, I do not know about the BMC but, for K&N the maintenance is low but as has been shown a paper filter changed in a timely manner does very well (and may be quieter for you) and you can just hold it up to the light to see how dirty it is. I would guess with your city use it may get dirtier and sooner but I am sure you would be on top of the changes.

 

Be interesting to see if a paper filter would make any difference to your city fuel consumption.

 

This filter is the 3rd (4th?) modification on a car you considered unmodified (other than ECU programming) anymore (other than perhaps the piping insulation if that just replaces original)?

 

41 minutes ago, nta16 said:

Be interesting to see if a paper filter would make any difference to your city fuel consumption.

 

This filter is the 3rd (4th?) modification on a car you considered unmodified (other than ECU programming) anymore (other than perhaps the piping insulation if that just replaces original)?

 

I just began measurements with a paper filter, it's not new, i have been use it for few months only. As expected it's quiet in low-middle rpm and gives a better feeling of "torque" at low rpm but let's wait till the TC-6 says at the end.

 

Except the Ecu chip, the air filter i have a custom exhaust from A-Z which means from manifold (wrapped) and catalyst till the tail pipe (45mm diameter) and iridium spark plugs. According to the Greek mechanics argo my car isn't "stock or mammyish or normal" ,it's in 1st stage. Here the N/A cars 4 stages.

1 hour ago, D.FYLAKTOS said:

Except the Ecu chip, the air filter i have a custom exhaust from A-Z which means from manifold (wrapped) and catalyst till the tail pipe (45mm diameter) and iridium spark plugs. According to the Greek mechanics argo my car isn't "stock or mammyish or normal" ,it's in 1st stage. Here the N/A cars 4 stages.

I forgot the exhaust wrap, and now you add large bore exhaust.  🙂

 

We have stages of tune over here but they are not formalised, in the old days it started with go-faster stripes (stick on coach lines down the sides of the car).  😄

 

The first thing that you say to a mechanic (when you go for 1st time) or some times he ask you first ''is your car mammyish?'' or ''what you have on it?'' and many times refuse to involved if you have made serious modifications.

Some mechanics have repair-shops which advertise what they offer, prices etc for stage 1 till 3.This is for N/A cars, the turbo guys are different story and have their own rules.

Here in Greece when you modify a car more than the stage 1 then as we say here ''you are married with it'' because you can not sell it and only another ''crazy'' guy will buy it since the every day driver is afraid to buy such a car.

 

Today i couldn't take a proper fuel consumption measurement, we have cold weather, light rain and a lot of traffic, i really want to see what's going to happen with the Paper filter.

K&N RESPONSE TO MASS AIR FLOW SENSOR CONCERNS

 

We are aware of the "urban myth" created by a few dealerships that a vehicle's MAF sensor can be contaminated by K&N filter oil. No evidence has ever been provided to support this "myth" and years of diagnostic testing by K&N has shown that not only is this allegation not real, it is not even possible. 

 

https://www.knfilters.com/maf/massair.htm

 

 

1 hour ago, D.FYLAKTOS said:

K&N RESPONSE TO MASS AIR FLOW SENSOR CONCERNS

 

We are aware of the "urban myth" created by a few dealerships that a vehicle's MAF sensor can be contaminated by K&N filter oil. No evidence has ever been provided to support this "myth" and years of diagnostic testing by K&N has shown that not only is this allegation not real, it is not even possible. 

 

https://www.knfilters.com/maf/massair.htm

 

 

It happens over time it let's more oil particles attracting more dirt and cooking it. 

1 hour ago, Thefeliciahacker said:

It happens over time it let's more oil particles attracting more dirt and cooking it. 

I would have thought it might only happen when new or when an idiot like me has over oiled it, think of all the muck from a diesel, eventually they do wear out but takes quite a while.

 

 

K&N Air Filter VS Stock Paper Filter

 

It's not very well made video (light conditions etc) but the guy did a fuel consumption test, the results after two trips with each filter were:

 

K&N: 651 + 630 = 640,5 Km

Stock Paper: 682 + 716 = 699 Km

The K&N filter is for "power" not fuel economy in the same way as your large bore exhaust.

 

That was a poor test missing out the vital component to make an assessment and basing the conclusion on a very loose data point.

 

So many youngsters just rely on what is on the screen in front of them without question and in this case the car's dash and its instrumentation and computer programs.

 

For a start he said his neighbour had cleaned the K&N and although not mentioned the K&N shown looked oiled and may have been over oiled as I have done a couple of times before so that is not a good fixed representation of the K&N filter.  Even if it was cleaned and oiled to as new factory standard it would have to be compared to a new paper filter.  The paper filter was said to have been used  but not by how much or any measure of contamination given so again not a good fixed representation of the paper filter.

 

At the start of the video it looked like his check engine light was on but too out-of-focus to tell.

 

The vital component missing is the amount of fuel used to divide into the distances travelled !!  It is not rocket science.

 

Also he said he noticed a small difference in power with the K&N, whether there was or not and how much does not matter what matters is he noticed showing he was driving off the cruise control so his inputs would have been variable, pushing more with the K&N so using more fuel.  This is what happens with performance improvements, they could give lesser fuel consumption if the vehicle is driven in the same way as before but the driver drives a little harder so does not gain this fuel economy and often uses more fuel because they drive harder even if they do not notice doing so.

 

Just knowing there are performance parts fitted most drivers would drive a bit quicker, then if they can also feel or hear there is more performance they will use it more, intentionally or not.

 

Proper tests are carried out by skilled and trained drivers, not untrained members of the public, under very strict conditions using  controlled dynos in very controlled environments  and laboratory equipment, not the variable real world environments and conditions and loose car's own equipment and computer programs - and then many manufacturers like VW have been fiddling things to make them look better. 😄

 

Personally I would be very surprised if any random tester did not use more fuel knowing they have a performance filter fitted but the point here is that with just adding in a simple bit of maths more accuracy could have been given, the level of accuracy is another matter.

 

Having tests from YouTube and manufacturers' claims I am sure will show both that the K&N and other performance filters are good or great and that it is neither and bad, the results will also vary for so many reasons.  But those do not matter, what matters is what is best for you with what you want to achieve with your particular 21 year-old modified car.  Unless you can employ a skilled trained driver and pay for the proper testing using the proper equipment to test different air filters on your particular 21 year-old modified car you have to go with your own findings and decisions, no one else is you and driving your car under your conditions.

 

Edited 10 March, 20224 yr by nta16

22 years back i was younger with money and time to spend so as for "air filter" i have tested:

Stock paper

K&N and BMC gauze

POD (we call them Cone) gauze or metal mesh or foam.

Air intake (plastic).

 

Stock air box filter with flap and without it, with one or two aif feeding hoses, with 2 holes without those hoses,with POD inside.

 

6 hours ago, nta16 said:

The K&N filter is for "power" not fuel economy in the same way as your large bore exhaust.

 

Power in Dynamometer or 0-100 km test, ok so what is the gain for an average (daily driver) ? 

For me all these years was Noise, Low rpm lag, more gas spend, some power on high rpm useful mainly in mountain routs.

 

My exhaust (from manifold and back) is now on factory diameter, passes the sound-emission test.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, D.FYLAKTOS said:

Power in Dynamometer or 0-100 km test, ok so what is the gain for an average (daily driver) ? 

Many tuners just go for power but for a road car you want overall performance which will give and best running and fuel efficiency within the limits of the car.  If the owner has the car set up more for high speed or acceleration (gearing) then it will be more difficult to get performance lower down and overall and of course generally 'pedal to the metal' tends to be more fuel consumption.

 

A good tuner for a road car will tune for overall performance, within the limits of the car and what has been done to it, overall performance will include power and fuel economy but only if the car is not driven harder after tuning.  Generally when the car feels better many/most will drive it harder and some without even realising after the initial noticing.

 

An air filter that lets through sufficient air for the overall (and set peak) performance for as long as possible without cleaning or changing is an advantage.

 

Of course car tuning for overall performance and fuel consumption has tuning the engine as just one element and the whole car has already been designed and tuned during development and build.

 

26 minutes ago, nta16 said:

An air filter that lets through sufficient air for the overall (and set peak) performance for as long as possible without cleaning or changing is an advantage.

 

 

Take a look the first part of this video, a 1300cc car with just an air filter.

 

 

POD cheap, POD expensive and stock Paper filter

Which is going to win on the Dyno?

1 hour ago, D.FYLAKTOS said:

Which is going to win on the Dyno?

Sprint filter.

I am not surprised at the 1300 result but a few notes - they are only looking at peak power, the location and fixing varied with pod(s) to paper filter, there were no pre-runs before the sets of two tests, just because someone has been doing something for a long time does not necessarily mean that they are the best or possibly even very good at it or the videographers may not have paid for enough dyno time, (but I would not be taking my car there for tuning, I am not sure his generalisations were too accurate).  I realise videos have to be edited and kept interesting but they would have said if any pre-runs were done.

 

Results

from using Stock air filter box (with flap inside), factory hoses (incoming air and air from manifold), Paper filter:

 

1) the 1st cold start of the day is one click Worst which means with previous combination the needle was going for few seconds at 1100 rpm and the was returning to 800+ rpm, now takes a little bit longer.

2) although the conditions these days in Greece aren't as before few weeks (now we have cold, light snow, lot of traffic from home to work but not so from work to home) the fuel consumption is one click Worst.

3) the second cold start of the day is ''bad'' as the previous, no improvement.

4) I have less noise on idle or light acceleration, very good feeling of torque on low-medium rpm but no test at high rpm because i have no road for test.

 

I paid a lot of money for new air filter box (with the mechanism inside), spend time for installation with hoses etc and what i got?

 

24 minutes ago, D.FYLAKTOS said:

what i got?

You have got a car with factory fitted equipment and with modifications.

 

Have you added any insulation, or made it more insulated, to any pipes or hoses to or from air box more than factory standard?

 

How many changes have you made since the things have got worse and what are they?

 

You must bear in mind your reprograming was set up with the car as it was and not as it is now so you would have to ask the programmer if the differences would influence the programming.

 

The car manufacturers take time and repeated testing to find what works best overall and that's what you have to do if you deviate from factory standard too much.  You spent many years changing the set up so you must expect to take a little while to fine tune it.

 

You can reverse the steps you have made since the better figures to see which give the best results. this is best done by reversing one step at a time and testing, better or worse and then reversing something different or in combination with previous step or steps.  Doing too much at once makes it difficult to know what actually gives improvement or not.

 

Also consider what might be worse in cold or cooler weather might be better in hot or warmer weather, your recording the figures will now be very useful.  If you could borrow a good scan tool and record live data that would also help - but you do NOT want a scan tool connected up all the time and certainly not a cheap device that might damage the car's computer and/or programs.

 

3 minutes ago, nta16 said:

Have you added any insulation, or made it more insulated, to any pipes or hoses to or from air box more than factory standard?

 

I just wrapped the hose between the air filter box till throttle and the piece of hose which is close to manifold, see those small hoses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Škoda_Felicia#/media/File:Skoda_Felicia_1.3mpi_Lump.JPG

 

This was for protection from heat of the engine bay, can this small wrapping affects the cold starts-fuel consumption? How?

The modification started at 2003 and till 2020 the fuel consumption at city traffic was very good, now in 2022 i can not blame those modifications and there is no meaning to say again and again why i did them.

At Spring of 2022 things suddenly started to get worst about fuel consumption and it insane to put the blame for example on the Ecu-chip or the exhaust manifold wrapping that i did in 2003.

14 minutes ago, nta16 said:

You have got a car with factory fitted equipment and with modifications.

 

Tenths of Millions of drivers are like me and if i say that turning back to the original air filter design and i got worst fuel consumption on city driving they will think that i am sick.

If i would say ''i installed a cold air intake" they would tell me that ''this sucks hot air from hot engine bay etc" and yeah that's acceptable but a factory air box with factory paper filter and a protected 20cm plastic hose made the car running with richer mixture than before with BMC gauze filter, no flap mechanism, wide oped fresh air hole?

2 hours ago, D.FYLAKTOS said:

I just wrapped the hose between the air filter box till throttle and the piece of hose which is close to manifold, see those small hoses:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Škoda_Felicia#/media/File:Skoda_Felicia_1.3mpi_Lump.JPG

 

This was for protection from heat of the engine bay, can this small wrapping affects the cold starts-fuel consumption? How?

Sorry I am not sure which ones you mean but it does not matter I only expressed the idea, I do not know the details.

 

Does it effect the consumption and how, again sorry no idea, other than if anything is contrary to any of the programming or was not installed or set that way at programming, I doubt this would make any difference but then I doubt other changes that appear to have made a difference.  I wondered if you had increased the insulation value of something that was factory insulated whether this might retain more heat than was planned for - but it is just a thought, I do not know.

 

I am not getting at you or what you have done or are doing but just trying to list the facts as I remember (or more likely forget) them from posts, you know your car I do not.

 

2 hours ago, D.FYLAKTOS said:

The modification started at 2003 and till 2020 the fuel consumption at city traffic was very good, now in 2022 i can not blame those modifications and there is no meaning to say again and again why i did them.

At Spring of 2022 things suddenly started to get worst about fuel consumption and it insane to put the blame for example on the Ecu-chip or the exhaust manifold wrapping that i did in 2003.

I can not blame anything as I do not know what is causing this, I can not remember asking why you did anything and you have explained but the information did come out piecemeal slightly altering things and more difficult for me to remember, not that that matters.

 

I thought you had the chip reprogramed (or refreshed/reinstalled) recently, if not my mistake or misunderstanding.

 

Apart from the coolant issue if there was any other differences or work done before and after the fuel consumption got worse then you could go back to how things were when you were getting better fuel consumption in one go or bit by bit if you want to narrow down the culprit - that was my one and only idea.

 

Sorry I do not understand your second post but what I put is what you have, a car with factory fitted equipment and with  modifications, and so do millions of others but not your particular car and set up and driving conditions and recordings, if they did you might get to the solution sooner.

 

Depending on how much information you can get from such, if you was able to get live data from when the car starts well and compare it with live data from when it does not that might give you some more pointers to the diagnostics or might show or highlight  what the variances are and if you can record live data from your start up and city driving you could see what happens when and the changes.  Unless someone else can spot something that has been missed so far, but it is not me I have already given my only idea.