I used to replace air filters every time I got a chance. But now I am smart and have been using the same filter for at least 15-20K. All my old filters that I have saved looks just like yours i.e. there really was no need to replace them.
Honda Civic 2013 Air Filter - 11,000 miles (Pics)
- Thread starter OriginHacker21
- Start date
- Status
That filter was good for a lot more miles and it would have fed your engine cleaner air than a new filter would. I have over 60k miles on the filter in my S2000 and I drive it all over the 11 western states. I'm up to 8"(H2O) on my filter minder now and I'll change it out when it gets to 15" or 6 years whichever comes first.
ROD
ROD
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
"Engine more responsive"
I've probably participated in dyno testing over a hundred vehicles in 23 years, doing before and after tests and comparing those results with seat of the pants evaluations. That experience has given me a better-than-average tune on my butt-dyno and I still can't feel more than a 5% power increase in most cars/trucks... even my own... one of which I have driven for 27 years and know it well. Frankly, I scoff at all this "more responsive" stuff when talking about a lightly loaded filter as with the example here. Placebo effect, pure and simple.
You guys need to go back and re-read the Oak Ridge tests Air Filters & Fuel Economy to see how much restriction it takes to make a serious impact on power.
Maybe you need to read the test you linked,'cause the test,you cited, states the driver could "feel the restriction". Maybe your "dyno" has nerve damage.
"Engine more responsive"
I've probably participated in dyno testing over a hundred vehicles in 23 years, doing before and after tests and comparing those results with seat of the pants evaluations. That experience has given me a better-than-average tune on my butt-dyno and I still can't feel more than a 5% power increase in most cars/trucks... even my own... one of which I have driven for 27 years and know it well. Frankly, I scoff at all this "more responsive" stuff when talking about a lightly loaded filter as with the example here. Placebo effect, pure and simple.
You guys need to go back and re-read the Oak Ridge tests Air Filters & Fuel Economy to see how much restriction it takes to make a serious impact on power.
Maybe you need to read the test you linked,'cause the test,you cited, states the driver could "feel the restriction". Maybe your "dyno" has nerve damage.
Don't be absurd.
Of course at a high restriction you can feel it. After 13,000 miles, unless you've collected a lot of dirt from being in a dusty environment, you can't.
A worthwhile quote from "Effect of Intake Air Filter Condition on Vehicle Fuel Economy" at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/Air_Filter_Effects_02_26_2009.pdf :
"According to Patil, Halbe, and Vora, it is common for air filter service indicators to be set between about 5.0 and 7.0 kPa, which corresponds to the setting of the unit taken from the Chevrolet Silverado. The unit tested from the 2006 Dodge Ram is set at a slightly lower level, which is believed to be due to the vehicle being equipped with a diesel engine. While the level of restriction on a closed-loop, feedback, throttled, spark-ignition (SI) engine would not be expected to affect fuel economy (as described above), the additional pumping loss might be expected to affect the fuel economy of the unthrottled diesel engine.This restriction level is noted as the point of critical pressure drop because at levels greater than the “final pressure drop,” overall engine performance begins to degrade significantly."
Another one for context:
"Figure 3.7 shows the acceleration times for the vehicles with both a clogged and new air filter. The data were analyzed from 20 to 80 mph to ensure that the vehicle was at WOT, removing any driver induced variability. The WOT protocol requires the vehicle to be accelerated at WOT from idle to 85 mph. The driver reported being able to “feel” the restriction created by the clogged filter and sense the decreased acceleration for both the Camry and Lucerne. The Charger was 0.6 seconds slower in the clogged state, but the driver reported no noticeable decrease in acceleration."
Here is the chart. Note the incremantal drop in acceleration times between a new filter and a totally clogged one. Tell me again that you can "feel" the difference in a lightly loaded, 13,000 mile filter.
The restriction gauge in my Honda has moved only fractionally in the past 30K (about 45K on the fitler IIRC) and there is no degradation of performance
Of course at a high restriction you can feel it. After 13,000 miles, unless you've collected a lot of dirt from being in a dusty environment, you can't.
A worthwhile quote from "Effect of Intake Air Filter Condition on Vehicle Fuel Economy" at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/Air_Filter_Effects_02_26_2009.pdf :
"According to Patil, Halbe, and Vora, it is common for air filter service indicators to be set between about 5.0 and 7.0 kPa, which corresponds to the setting of the unit taken from the Chevrolet Silverado. The unit tested from the 2006 Dodge Ram is set at a slightly lower level, which is believed to be due to the vehicle being equipped with a diesel engine. While the level of restriction on a closed-loop, feedback, throttled, spark-ignition (SI) engine would not be expected to affect fuel economy (as described above), the additional pumping loss might be expected to affect the fuel economy of the unthrottled diesel engine.This restriction level is noted as the point of critical pressure drop because at levels greater than the “final pressure drop,” overall engine performance begins to degrade significantly."
Another one for context:
"Figure 3.7 shows the acceleration times for the vehicles with both a clogged and new air filter. The data were analyzed from 20 to 80 mph to ensure that the vehicle was at WOT, removing any driver induced variability. The WOT protocol requires the vehicle to be accelerated at WOT from idle to 85 mph. The driver reported being able to “feel” the restriction created by the clogged filter and sense the decreased acceleration for both the Camry and Lucerne. The Charger was 0.6 seconds slower in the clogged state, but the driver reported no noticeable decrease in acceleration."
Here is the chart. Note the incremantal drop in acceleration times between a new filter and a totally clogged one. Tell me again that you can "feel" the difference in a lightly loaded, 13,000 mile filter.
The restriction gauge in my Honda has moved only fractionally in the past 30K (about 45K on the fitler IIRC) and there is no degradation of performance
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Don't be absurd.
Of course at a high restriction you can feel it. After 13,000 miles, unless you've collected a lot of dirt from being in a dusty environment, you can't.
A worthwhile quote from "Effect of Intake Air Filter Condition on Vehicle Fuel Economy" at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/Air_Filter_Effects_02_26_2009.pdf :
"According to Patil, Halbe, and Vora, it is common for air filter service indicators to be set between about 5.0 and 7.0 kPa, which corresponds to the setting of the unit taken from the Chevrolet Silverado. The unit tested from the 2006 Dodge Ram is set at a slightly lower level, which is believed to be due to the vehicle being equipped with a diesel engine. While the level of restriction on a closed-loop, feedback, throttled, spark-ignition (SI) engine would not be expected to affect fuel economy (as described above), the additional pumping loss might be expected to affect the fuel economy of the unthrottled diesel engine.This restriction level is noted as the point of critical pressure drop because at levels greater than the “final pressure drop,” overall engine performance begins to degrade significantly."
Another one for context:
"Figure 3.7 shows the acceleration times for the vehicles with both a clogged and new air filter. The data were analyzed from 20 to 80 mph to ensure that the vehicle was at WOT, removing any driver induced variability. The WOT protocol requires the vehicle to be accelerated at WOT from idle to 85 mph. The driver reported being able to “feel” the restriction created by the clogged filter and sense the decreased acceleration for both the Camry and Lucerne. The Charger was 0.6 seconds slower in the clogged state, but the driver reported no noticeable decrease in acceleration."
Here is the chart. Note the incremantal drop in acceleration times between a new filter and a totally clogged one. Tell me again that you can "feel" the difference in a lightly loaded, 13,000 mile filter.
The restriction gauge in my Honda has moved only fractionally in the past 30K (about 45K on the fitler IIRC) and there is no degradation of performance
Your shifting your positions. First,you say,one can't feel a difference when replacing an old AF,then,when called,in this post,you admit one may feel a difference. So which is it? I,others,and the driver in the test,you linked,noticed a difference in engine response when changing out an old AF. The fact that you don't notice a difference is unique to you,not to others.
Don't be absurd.
Of course at a high restriction you can feel it. After 13,000 miles, unless you've collected a lot of dirt from being in a dusty environment, you can't.
A worthwhile quote from "Effect of Intake Air Filter Condition on Vehicle Fuel Economy" at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/Air_Filter_Effects_02_26_2009.pdf :
"According to Patil, Halbe, and Vora, it is common for air filter service indicators to be set between about 5.0 and 7.0 kPa, which corresponds to the setting of the unit taken from the Chevrolet Silverado. The unit tested from the 2006 Dodge Ram is set at a slightly lower level, which is believed to be due to the vehicle being equipped with a diesel engine. While the level of restriction on a closed-loop, feedback, throttled, spark-ignition (SI) engine would not be expected to affect fuel economy (as described above), the additional pumping loss might be expected to affect the fuel economy of the unthrottled diesel engine.This restriction level is noted as the point of critical pressure drop because at levels greater than the “final pressure drop,” overall engine performance begins to degrade significantly."
Another one for context:
"Figure 3.7 shows the acceleration times for the vehicles with both a clogged and new air filter. The data were analyzed from 20 to 80 mph to ensure that the vehicle was at WOT, removing any driver induced variability. The WOT protocol requires the vehicle to be accelerated at WOT from idle to 85 mph. The driver reported being able to “feel” the restriction created by the clogged filter and sense the decreased acceleration for both the Camry and Lucerne. The Charger was 0.6 seconds slower in the clogged state, but the driver reported no noticeable decrease in acceleration."
Here is the chart. Note the incremantal drop in acceleration times between a new filter and a totally clogged one. Tell me again that you can "feel" the difference in a lightly loaded, 13,000 mile filter.
The restriction gauge in my Honda has moved only fractionally in the past 30K (about 45K on the fitler IIRC) and there is no degradation of performance
Your shifting your positions. First,you say,one can't feel a difference when replacing an old AF,then,when called,in this post,you admit one may feel a difference. So which is it? I,others,and the driver in the test,you linked,noticed a difference in engine response when changing out an old AF. The fact that you don't notice a difference is unique to you,not to others.
The filters being talked about in the test are completely loaded. A lot different than comparing a filter with a little bit of dirt on it. It's pretty simple... You can feel a difference between a fully loaded filter and a clean filter but not between one that has minor restriction and a clean one. If the filter isn't deforming under WOT like in the test it ain't that loaded.
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Your shifting your positions. First,you say,one can't feel a difference when replacing an old AF,then,when called,in this post,you admit one may feel a difference. So which is it? I,others,and the driver in the test,you linked,noticed a difference in engine response when changing out an old AF. The fact that you don't notice a difference is unique to you,not to others.
I said all along and repeatedly that it's not reasonable to assume that there is a measurable difference in performance from the fractional increase in restriction that comes from a lightly loaded filter, as in this13,000 mile case, and that you or others can "feel" that tiny difference in restriction. My personal experience gives me a better-than-average ruler to judge that because I've had the opportunity to compare what the dyno shows to what my the seat of the pants indicates.
And then you completely ignore the evidence I presented from the test... which you tried to use against me. Even with a plugged filter, the Charger in the test only lost 0.6 seconds in the 20-80 acceleration tests WITH A FULLY PLUGGED FILTER and they stated the driver, a trained test tech, couldn't feel the difference seat-o-pants. They could feel a 1.68 second difference in one of the other cars. In light of that, and based on my personal experience, I contend that the difference between a fractionally restricted, low-miles-in-use-filter can't be felt by a person and likely is not measurable on a dyno either.
What you and others are experiencing for the most part is called the placebo effect and it gets all of us at one time or another. Even me. I guard against it now.
Back in the '60s, one of the big magazines (I believe it was Road & Track) asked a small group of car enthusiasts to performance test a car before and after some mods were made. All the mods did was make the car louder, not faster, and this was carefully tested/documented. Without exception, the enthusiasts said the car was markedly faster. Placebo effect. The car sounded faster therefore it WAS faster.
If you guys want to say you can feel these tiny differences in restriction, well, it's a free country. Just don't expect these observations to get much evidentiary weight from the more objective Bitogers.
Your shifting your positions. First,you say,one can't feel a difference when replacing an old AF,then,when called,in this post,you admit one may feel a difference. So which is it? I,others,and the driver in the test,you linked,noticed a difference in engine response when changing out an old AF. The fact that you don't notice a difference is unique to you,not to others.
I said all along and repeatedly that it's not reasonable to assume that there is a measurable difference in performance from the fractional increase in restriction that comes from a lightly loaded filter, as in this13,000 mile case, and that you or others can "feel" that tiny difference in restriction. My personal experience gives me a better-than-average ruler to judge that because I've had the opportunity to compare what the dyno shows to what my the seat of the pants indicates.
And then you completely ignore the evidence I presented from the test... which you tried to use against me. Even with a plugged filter, the Charger in the test only lost 0.6 seconds in the 20-80 acceleration tests WITH A FULLY PLUGGED FILTER and they stated the driver, a trained test tech, couldn't feel the difference seat-o-pants. They could feel a 1.68 second difference in one of the other cars. In light of that, and based on my personal experience, I contend that the difference between a fractionally restricted, low-miles-in-use-filter can't be felt by a person and likely is not measurable on a dyno either.
What you and others are experiencing for the most part is called the placebo effect and it gets all of us at one time or another. Even me. I guard against it now.
Back in the '60s, one of the big magazines (I believe it was Road & Track) asked a small group of car enthusiasts to performance test a car before and after some mods were made. All the mods did was make the car louder, not faster, and this was carefully tested/documented. Without exception, the enthusiasts said the car was markedly faster. Placebo effect. The car sounded faster therefore it WAS faster.
If you guys want to say you can feel these tiny differences in restriction, well, it's a free country. Just don't expect these observations to get much evidentiary weight from the more objective Bitogers.
Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Your shifting your positions. First,you say,one can't feel a difference when replacing an old AF,then,when called,in this post,you admit one may feel a difference. So which is it? I,others,and the driver in the test,you linked,noticed a difference in engine response when changing out an old AF. The fact that you don't notice a difference is unique to you,not to others.
I said all along and repeatedly that it's not reasonable to assume that there is a measurable difference in performance from the fractional increase in restriction that comes from a lightly loaded filter, as in this13,000 mile case, and that you or others can "feel" that tiny difference in restriction. My personal experience gives me a better-than-average ruler to judge that because I've had the opportunity to compare what the dyno shows to what my the seat of the pants indicates.
And then you completely ignore the evidence I presented from the test... which you tried to use against me. Even with a plugged filter, the Charger in the test only lost 0.6 seconds in the 20-80 acceleration tests WITH A FULLY PLUGGED FILTER and they stated the driver, a trained test tech, couldn't feel the difference seat-o-pants. They could feel a 1.68 second difference in one of the other cars. In light of that, and based on my personal experience, I contend that the difference between a fractionally restricted, low-miles-in-use-filter can't be felt by a person and likely is not measurable on a dyno either.
What you and others are experiencing for the most part is called the placebo effect and it gets all of us at one time or another. Even me. I guard against it now.
Back in the '60s, one of the big magazines (I believe it was Road & Track) asked a small group of car enthusiasts to performance test a car before and after some mods were made. All the mods did was make the car louder, not faster, and this was carefully tested/documented. Without exception, the enthusiasts said the car was markedly faster. Placebo effect. The car sounded faster therefore it WAS faster.
If you guys want to say you can feel these tiny differences in restriction, well, it's a free country. Just don't expect these observations to get much evidentiary weight from the more objective Bitogers.
Not interested in the rhetoric. I'm just interested in the facts. From the link you cited....4.1 Conclusions."Acceleration performance on all vehicles was improved with a clean air filter." Now that's a fact!
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Your shifting your positions. First,you say,one can't feel a difference when replacing an old AF,then,when called,in this post,you admit one may feel a difference. So which is it? I,others,and the driver in the test,you linked,noticed a difference in engine response when changing out an old AF. The fact that you don't notice a difference is unique to you,not to others.
I said all along and repeatedly that it's not reasonable to assume that there is a measurable difference in performance from the fractional increase in restriction that comes from a lightly loaded filter, as in this13,000 mile case, and that you or others can "feel" that tiny difference in restriction. My personal experience gives me a better-than-average ruler to judge that because I've had the opportunity to compare what the dyno shows to what my the seat of the pants indicates.
And then you completely ignore the evidence I presented from the test... which you tried to use against me. Even with a plugged filter, the Charger in the test only lost 0.6 seconds in the 20-80 acceleration tests WITH A FULLY PLUGGED FILTER and they stated the driver, a trained test tech, couldn't feel the difference seat-o-pants. They could feel a 1.68 second difference in one of the other cars. In light of that, and based on my personal experience, I contend that the difference between a fractionally restricted, low-miles-in-use-filter can't be felt by a person and likely is not measurable on a dyno either.
What you and others are experiencing for the most part is called the placebo effect and it gets all of us at one time or another. Even me. I guard against it now.
Back in the '60s, one of the big magazines (I believe it was Road & Track) asked a small group of car enthusiasts to performance test a car before and after some mods were made. All the mods did was make the car louder, not faster, and this was carefully tested/documented. Without exception, the enthusiasts said the car was markedly faster. Placebo effect. The car sounded faster therefore it WAS faster.
If you guys want to say you can feel these tiny differences in restriction, well, it's a free country. Just don't expect these observations to get much evidentiary weight from the more objective Bitogers.
Not interested in the rhetoric. I'm just interested in the facts. From the link you cited....4.1 Conclusions."Acceleration performance on all vehicles was improved with a clean air filter." Now that's a fact!
Originally Posted By: FZ1
Not interested in the rhetoric. I'm just interested in the facts. From the link you cited....4.1 Conclusions."Acceleration performance on all vehicles was improved with a clean air filter." Now that's a fact!
Of course. You go from a fully plugged filter to a clean one, acceleration improves. No disagreement from me on that. My contention is the a matter of degree.
You have made statements, here and previously, that you can tell a difference, seat-o-pants, when you replace a low-miles-in-use, lightly loaded filter. I am saying that is most likely the placebo effect because the physics doesn't match up. If it takes a fully nearly of fully plugged filter before professionals, can feel a seat-o-pants loss of power, I very much doubt non-prefossionals can "feel" a filter that's loaded to less than 10 percent.
I've personally flow benched several filters, observed tests of many other and seen flow bench reports on others (go back a couple of years in my posts and you can see pics of my F150 air filter under test). Many air filters have 20-40% more airflow capacity than the engine needs to produce maximum power. That general average was confirmed by some professionals in the industry in the course of my research for a project. That overage is to account for dirt loading so maximum power is always available and any drop in power will come near the end of the filter's lifetime. The bottom line on that is until that overage of flow is used up, there is virtually no impact on power or throttle response with a lightly loaded filter. When that overage is reached, the power losses begin but are only noticeable at the higher rpm. There is very little impact in low rpm, "grandma" type driving until the filter gets very severely clogged.
These are my contentions and they line up with the physics.
Not interested in the rhetoric. I'm just interested in the facts. From the link you cited....4.1 Conclusions."Acceleration performance on all vehicles was improved with a clean air filter." Now that's a fact!
Of course. You go from a fully plugged filter to a clean one, acceleration improves. No disagreement from me on that. My contention is the a matter of degree.
You have made statements, here and previously, that you can tell a difference, seat-o-pants, when you replace a low-miles-in-use, lightly loaded filter. I am saying that is most likely the placebo effect because the physics doesn't match up. If it takes a fully nearly of fully plugged filter before professionals, can feel a seat-o-pants loss of power, I very much doubt non-prefossionals can "feel" a filter that's loaded to less than 10 percent.
I've personally flow benched several filters, observed tests of many other and seen flow bench reports on others (go back a couple of years in my posts and you can see pics of my F150 air filter under test). Many air filters have 20-40% more airflow capacity than the engine needs to produce maximum power. That general average was confirmed by some professionals in the industry in the course of my research for a project. That overage is to account for dirt loading so maximum power is always available and any drop in power will come near the end of the filter's lifetime. The bottom line on that is until that overage of flow is used up, there is virtually no impact on power or throttle response with a lightly loaded filter. When that overage is reached, the power losses begin but are only noticeable at the higher rpm. There is very little impact in low rpm, "grandma" type driving until the filter gets very severely clogged.
These are my contentions and they line up with the physics.
I'm with Jim on this stuff:
"thinking" you can feel a difference vs actually feeling a difference, is in fact a very big difference.
"thinking" you can feel a difference vs actually feeling a difference, is in fact a very big difference.
Originally Posted By: surfstar
I'm with Jim on this stuff:
"thinking" you can feel a difference vs actually feeling a difference, is in fact a very big difference.
I'll rephrase this for you with a dose of reality. Thinking,another,person can't feel,what the person,actually,feels,"is in fact,a very big difference." Let's call it the "reverse placebo effect." Lol.
I'm with Jim on this stuff:
"thinking" you can feel a difference vs actually feeling a difference, is in fact a very big difference.
I'll rephrase this for you with a dose of reality. Thinking,another,person can't feel,what the person,actually,feels,"is in fact,a very big difference." Let's call it the "reverse placebo effect." Lol.
- Status