Keep K&N or NOT ?

[Job]

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
No trumpets or anything,they just appear dropping out of warp speed.
Farm Bro presented some nice data on restriction and did a nice job all around. Now then, except for pictures who on here has shown any of their own home brewed performance data lately? I was glad to learn no filter is about 1 inch restriction and Wix is 4 with others in between. Then Wix wins the efficiency as would be expected.
Filter Minder seems to have a pretty good handle on what filter life is too. Takes around 20 inches of water to start looking at replacing.

Respectfully, no. I have to fully concur with "Z" here and his overall comments.

As a layman doing his thing and coming up with some really entertaining stuff, I give Farm very high marks and enjoy watching a lot of his stuff ( and he raises very good and salient points at times)

On this specific topic and issue, his efforts, tests, results and conclusions are fundamentally and fatally flawed at every level and should not be relied upon for any decision making.

This is a very well defined and understood science ( filtration) both air and fluid separation. Darcy and other equations are very well known as well as the conditions of their validity in context with the specific applications.

One of the big disconnects is that filter testing to standard is a "uniform" method of various performance parameters for various products to compare themselves against. ( basically marketing bragging rights). They are not meant to be used as direct measurements of actual applications ( the types of testing people in industries I work in do which is the next level) because that's literally an infinite set of variables to consider.

Another big problem is anecdotal conclusions as there is seldom a direct and dependent causal link between a specific parameter or test result and the "claimed" performance enhancement ( like the 1 armed bandit tests) and marketing agents exploit this regularly.

So these home grown tests need a high degree of scrutiny and even advertising claims need it when they "draw conclusions" from these "test results"

Theres a long road between raw data, evaluated data, relevant data and the actual conclusion and its rarely a straight one and almost always is condition and parameter specific.

Just submitted for a baseline on all filter comparisons be it air or liquid- the science is the same, only the specifics of the application differ.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Farnsworth
It can be broken to pieces for you. First lesson, learn what a gram is by searching on the internet. Then find something in the kitchen like flour to try and make a one gram pile. You may need to order a scale from Amazon. Tomorrow it is math, you will learn how to calculate how long an engine runs at 60mph for 1000 miles. I am not able to spend a lot of time on you so do your homework on time.

I worked for many years as a research technologist designing scientifically and statistically valid experimentation procedures for materials characterization. Doing so taught me a lot about what constitutes a valid scientific inquiry that will stand up to subsequent analysis by mathematicians and peer review. Your goofy admonishment above and your previous posts show you know nothing about this type of experimentation and what defines an actual material test and what does not.

You're not the only one so don't be too upset. Project Farm has many followers both here on Bitog and YouTube. You have a lot of company.

 

[Job]

Originally Posted by Farnsworth
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
No trumpets or anything,they just appear dropping out of warp speed.
Farm Bro presented some nice data on restriction and did a nice job all around. Now then, except for pictures who on here has shown any of their own home brewed performance data lately? I was glad to learn no filter is about 1 inch restriction and Wix is 4 with others in between. Then Wix wins the efficiency as would be expected.
Filter Minder seems to have a pretty good handle on what filter life is too. Takes around 20 inches of water to start looking at replacing.

Respectfully, no. I have to fully concur with "Z" here and his overall comments.

As a layman doing his thing and coming up with some really entertaining stuff, I give Farm very high marks and enjoy watching a lot of his stuff ( and he raises very good and salient points at times)

On this specific topic and issue, his efforts, tests, results and conclusions are fundamentally and fatally flawed at every level and should not be relied upon for any decision making.

This is a very well defined and understood science ( filtration) both air and fluid separation. Darcy and other equations are very well known as well as the conditions of their validity in context with the specific applications.

One of the big disconnects is that filter testing to standard is a "uniform" method of various performance parameters for various products to compare themselves against. ( basically marketing bragging rights). They are not meant to be used as direct measurements of actual applications ( the types of testing people in industries I work in do which is the next level) because that's literally an infinite set of variables to consider.

Another big problem is anecdotal conclusions as there is seldom a direct and dependent causal link between a specific parameter or test result and the "claimed" performance enhancement ( like the 1 armed bandit tests) and marketing agents exploit this regularly.

So these home grown tests need a high degree of scrutiny and even advertising claims need it when they "draw conclusions" from these "test results"

Theres a long road between raw data, evaluated data, relevant data and the actual conclusion and its rarely a straight one and almost always is condition and parameter specific.

Just submitted for a baseline on all filter comparisons be it air or liquid- the science is the same, only the specifics of the application differ.


I agree, but am not so critical of Farm. He does have restriction values, and while not a million dollar setup seems OK for home use by people looking at the air filter in their car. Those values alone make the video worthwhile. I don't see any of the critical people here doing anything at all themselves to produce data like Farm has done.
I try to generally appreciate someone's efforts rather than knock them down. To look on the good side. On efficiency I think Farm did show something too. I know it's not making gage blocks to master standards but I don't knock the results for what they are either. The results correlate with how restrictive the filters are, pretty much. That's a causal link. Farm does seem to try and produce agenda free results. all IMO.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Originally Posted by Farnsworth

I agree, but am not so critical of Farm. He does have restriction values, and while not a million dollar setup seems OK for home use by people looking at the air filter in their car. Those values alone make the video worthwhile. I don't see any of the critical people here doing anything at all themselves to produce data like Farm has done.
[/b]I try to generally appreciate someone's efforts rather than knock them down. To look on the good side. On efficiency I think Farm did show something too. I know it's not making gage blocks to master standards but I don't knock the results for what they are either. The results correlate with how restrictive the filters are, pretty much. That's a causal link. Farm does seem to try and produce agenda free results. all IMO.


I don't believe we are far apart and as stated I like his work and generally support him and give credit to his imagination, ingenuity and dedication to what he does. I also don't question his motives nor impugn him in any way as having an "agenda".

There is also a point where "duty of care" comes in when people ( well intentioned) take this work as a "fact" or somehow equal and on par with legitimate testing and then make decisions (financial and maybe even safety) off of said information.

To the bolded points.

To conduct these tests and produce "data" ( defined as scientifically valid) on this subject takes specialized training and experience as well as specialized ( and expensive) equipment so the absence of laymen trying to replicate the "illusion" of validated experimentation is not a legitimate justification just for data's sake.

On the other, they "correlate" but only to a point and even then barely conditional but that's an issue with the entire filter testing "industry" because many manufacturers ( under permission of law) publish and wordsmith "data" that goes from deliberately wrong to 'selectively misleading" and the readers without those specialized skills then accept those things as gospel and the circle repeats.

I cannot blame Farm for that, he has plenty of company.

For example, filter restriction (in and of itself) will have no effect on end performance of a car engine or a dilute phase vacuum conveying system UNLESS said restriction exceeds the ACFM requirements of the application. (nulling humidity, density and ambient pressure modifiers). That's a factually true statement but people don't often understand what makes it up.

Its really a very complex set of testing requirements and parameters and manufacturers are the most guilty when it comes to contradicting and misleading claims so I certainly cant fault Farm for the motivation that moved him to do his video in the first place. I applaud him for it but that stops well short of any type of endorsement of his methods or results.

 

[Job]

Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
It can be broken to pieces for you. First lesson, learn what a gram is by searching on the internet. Then find something in the kitchen like flour to try and make a one gram pile. You may need to order a scale from Amazon. Tomorrow it is math, you will learn how to calculate how long an engine runs at 60mph for 1000 miles. I am not able to spend a lot of time on you so do your homework on time.

I worked for many years as a research technologist designing scientifically and statistically valid experimentation procedures for materials characterization. Doing so taught me a lot about what constitutes a valid scientific inquiry that will stand up to subsequent analysis by mathematicians and peer review. Your goofy admonishment above and your previous posts show you know nothing about this type of experimentation and what defines an actual material test and what does not.

You're not the only one so don't be too upset. Project Farm has many followers both here on Bitog and YouTube. You have a lot of company.


You need to get the 1 gram pile of flour done so as to get a visual on what it looks like. Remember the next lesson is to calculate the hours an engine runs in 1000 miles at 60 mph. I can give a hint at lesson three when it is divulged the 1 gram pile introduced into the engine is spread evenly over the hours you will calculate. This will also be a very generous calculation compared to considering around town and idling hours.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
For example, filter restriction (in and of itself) will have no effect on end performance of a car engine or a dilute phase vacuum conveying system UNLESS said restriction exceeds the ACFM requirements of the application. (nulling humidity, density and ambient pressure modifiers). That's a factually true statement but people don't often understand what makes it up.


I agree with most of what you've said in this discussion, expect it's pretty clear that increased filter restriction certainly does effect engine performance at WOT conditions.

When not at WOT and driving around like a grandma, then it will be hard to tell the effect of the air filter restriction because computer controlled FI engines will adjust to more restrictive air filter, and slightly more throttle will be required to get the same power output. But when you hit WOT the added restriction will show itself as loss of power (ie, shown by the Engineering Explained dyno tests, and many other similar dyno tests for decades). Try and see how much power you lose on an old style engine with a carburetor and fixed fuel jetting when you start choking down the filter airflow.

The Engineering Explained video (and thousands of similar dyno tests) proved that. Simply changing the flow restriction of the air filter and leaving everything else constant showed increased T & HP at WOT with less air filter restriction. Take that another step of reducing the flow resistance of the entire intake system and some engines gain a pretty substantial amount of power at WOT.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Its really a very complex set of testing requirements and parameters and manufacturers are the most guilty when it comes to contradicting and misleading claims so I certainly cant fault Farm for the motivation that moved him to do his video in the first place. I applaud him for it but that stops well short of any type of endorsement of his methods or results.


Project Farm's "motivation" might be to try and help people compare the performance of products, etc ... but his main motivation like every big YouTuber is to make content that will attract the most views & likes, which makes them the most revenue.

ISO, SAE and ASTM test specs and procedures were invented for a reason, and that is to define an official process so manufacturers can test against those standards to get as close to an apples-to-apples comparison of available products as possible. If every yahoo in their garage came up with their own testing procedures and processes, then there will never be any way to make any kind of logical apples-to-apples comparisons.

Now it sounds like there's going to be a Project Farmsworth with his kitchen scale ... can't wait to see the results of that test data.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
UNLESS said restriction exceeds the ACFM requirements of the application. (nulling humidity, density and ambient pressure modifiers).

I agree with most of what you've said in this discussion, expect it's pretty clear that increased filter restriction certainly does effect engine performance at WOT conditions.

Project Farm's "motivation" might be to try and help people compare the performance of products, etc ... but his main motivation like every big YouTuber is to make content that will attract the most views & likes, which makes them the most revenue.

ISO, SAE and ASTM test specs and procedures were invented for a reason, and that is to define an official process so manufacturers can test against those standards to get as close to an apples-to-apples comparison of available products as possible. If every yahoo in their garage came up with their own testing procedures and processes, then there will never be any way to make any kind of logical apples-to-apples comparisons.

Now it sounds like there's going to be a Project Farmsworth with his kitchen scale ... can't wait to see the results of that test data.

I'm going to "assume" ( conditionally to be nice) that you accidently didn't see that bolded QUALIFIER that put the first statement in context and made it fully accurate as written. Without that qualifier, every condition you raised is correct.

Where the dyno becomes anecdotal and the direct line from filter properties to "dino performance" is broken forever is the dyno tests the CAR and said performance is the direct result of multiple inputs independent from air flow.

Its no different than when I test a compressor ( vane, screw, recip, scroll etc) or Vacuum pump to get full ACFM ( much different from CFM or SCFM) and PSIA ( not PSIG)- The downstream system benefits FROM the device output- not a part of it or determining factor.

In combustion you have a % gas and % fuel with an LEL and UEL compressed to go boom. If the intake has available air to pull in at whatever cycles to achieve the required reaction then there is no direct affect or effect or relationship to % filter obstruction. That's the basic formula for all flash dryers and other gas fired kilns, boilers, aspirated equipment etc.

The problem on the system side of any filter ( defined as opposite the atmosphere side and acknowledging that any filter is a "restriction"- just a question of how much)-- I that now you have a density issue because the vacuum "stretches' the air ( due to airs compressibility unlike a liquid pump calculation) so you may get a inadequate VOLUME in the cylinder to fire properly. ( or too much depending)

The next level is flow restrictions, turbulence and even laminar events inside housings and routings but now that's getting deeper than a post.

This is common engineering scenario and widely known and doing it makes one appreciate all the differences and conditions involved.

On the rest, I agree his primary motive is money (personally I would be concerned if he did all that without a profit motive unless he was a philanthropist)

I agree without reservation on your comments on standards and home tests etc.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted by Farnsworth
You need to get the 1 gram pile of flour done so as to get a visual on what it looks like. Remember the next lesson is to calculate the hours an engine runs in 1000 miles at 60 mph. I can give a hint at lesson three when it is divulged the 1 gram pile introduced into the engine is spread evenly over the hours you will calculate. This will also be a very generous calculation compared to considering around town and idling hours.

This response borders on the bizarre. Intellectually devoid and separated from reality. Is that all you have?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
I'm going to "assume" ( conditionally to be nice) that you accidently didn't see that bolded QUALIFIER that put the first statement in context and made it fully accurate as written. Without that qualifier, every condition you raised is correct.


Yes, I saw the "qualifier". I wouldn't use the phrase "unless said restriction exceeds the ACFM requirements of the application" when talking about IC engines. Just what is the "ACFM requirements" of any given engine? There really isn't one, "requirements" wise. I know you're really not into engines much, and try to use other "examples" that don't make good analogies, but we are specifically talking about engines here.

A more proper way to say/describe it would be "unless said restriction decreases the maximum volumetric flow potential of the application".

What I mean by that is any given engine has a maximum volumetric efficiency (air throughput flow) based on it's design. The VE of the system is also effected when you start attaching an intake and exhaust system to the engine. Changing the intake and exhaust system (without changing the engine design itself: ie, like with new heads, porting, pistons, cams, etc) has been proven to increase power output for 70+ years by hot rodders. Go look at how much more power can be obtained on an already high performance engine by just bolting on a complete aftermarket intake and exhaust system. Pretty much every OEM system can be improved. Freeing up the intake and exhaust systems allows the engine to breath closer to its maximum VE potential.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Where the dyno becomes anecdotal and the direct line from filter properties to "dino performance" is broken forever is the dyno tests the CAR and said performance is the direct result of multiple inputs independent from air flow.


I wouldn't call the dyno "anecdotal" when the same dyno is used to tune and track the effect of engine & system modifications. So how do you explain changing just one thing (ie, just the air filter) and seeing a repeatable change in power output? The dyno test Engineering Explained did are valid, and prove that simply by dropping in a different air filter into the OEM intake system can change power at WOT.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Its no different than when I test a compressor ( vane, screw, recip, scroll etc) or Vacuum pump to get full ACFM ( much different from CFM or SCFM) and PSIA ( not PSIG)- The downstream system benefits FROM the device output- not a part of it or determining factor.


Put a big restriction on the intake side of any of those devices and see how much ACFM throughput you get compared to what their actual maximum potential is. As the restiction goes up, the ACFM throughput will decrease.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
In combustion you have a % gas and % fuel with an LEL and UEL compressed to go boom. If the intake has available air to pull in at whatever cycles to achieve the required reaction then there is no direct affect or effect or relationship to % filter obstruction. That's the basic formula for all flash dryers and other gas fired kilns, boilers, aspirated equipment etc.


You do understand (I hope) that IC engines that can draw in and exhaust more air (higher throughput, more VE) can then also burn more fuel with that air, and therefore make a bigger "boom" to make more power.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
The problem on the system side of any filter ( defined as opposite the atmosphere side and acknowledging that any filter is a "restriction"- just a question of how much)-- I that now you have a density issue because the vacuum "stretches' the air ( due to airs compressibility unlike a liquid pump calculation) so you may get a inadequate VOLUME in the cylinder to fire properly. ( or too much depending)


As mentioned before in these discussions, anytime you decrease the absolute pressure at the inlet to the throttle body on a NA engine at WOT, there will be less air volume going into the engine. Less air volume in means less fuel is required for correct combustion, which means less power made.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
The next level is flow restrictions, turbulence and even laminar events inside housings and routings but now that's getting deeper than a post.


True ... and that's where full aftermarket intake and exhaust systems come in, as they also optimize flow by reducing turbulence, etc that can reduce the overall VE of the entire system.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Quote
Yes, I saw the "qualifier". I wouldn't use the phrase "unless said restriction exceeds the ACFM requirements of the application" when talking about IC engines. Just what is the "ACFM requirements" of any given engine? There really isn't one, "requirements" wise. I know you're really not into engines much, and try to use other "examples" that don't make good analogies, but we are specifically talking about engines here.

A more proper way to say/describe it would be "unless said restriction decreases the maximum volumetric flow potential of the application".


What "you" would use is not correct, that's why I didn't.

The ACFM requirement in any combustion equation is the mass of air by volume required for the desired reaction. Its a fixed value because a bore and stroke relationship doesn't change- RPMs just mean the same thing faster.

You are correct that I'm not the expert on an IC engine as a 'thing" but what we are talking about is no mechanically different than any reciprocating pump and the physics are identical sans the combustion requirements but even they are fixed based on a design ( which is also why the spark has to be at a certain heat and length) Air/fuel and fire- all in the proper relationship.

Quote
What I mean by that is any given engine has a maximum volumetric efficiency (air throughput flow) based on it's design. The VE of the system is also effected when you start attaching an intake and exhaust system to the engine. Changing the intake and exhaust system (without changing the engine design itself: ie, like with new heads, porting, pistons, cams, etc) has been proven to increase power output for 70+ years by hot rodders. Go look at how much more power can be obtained on an already high performance engine by just bolting on a complete aftermarket intake and exhaust system. Pretty much every OEM system can be improved. Freeing up the intake and exhaust systems allows the engine to breath closer to its maximum VE potential.


Yeah, I said that ( in not so much detail and specific to an IC engine) and don't disagree but thisnt relative to the subject at hand

Quote
I wouldn't call the dyno "anecdotal" when the same dyno is used to tune and track the effect of engine & system modifications. So how do you explain changing just one thing (ie, just the air filter) and seeing a repeatable change in power output? The dyno test Engineering Explained did are valid, and prove that simply by dropping in a different air filter into the OEM intake system can change power at WOT.


Maybe you wouldn't but here's why it is. If the goal is to say "thing X" improves overall performance by "Y" degree in any ASSEMBLY where there are multiple and both dependent and independent inputs them you must have the ability to isolate that specific "thing" to the exclusion of all others to say this alone does that and then test repeatability. I can make any counter argument that there was an equal rolling resistance because the day got warmer otherwise.

I do dyno testing on motors and gear drives and know the process and its associated strengths and weaknesses very well.

Quote
Put a big restriction on the intake side of any of those devices and see how much ACFM throughput you get compared to what their actual maximum potential is. As the restriction goes up, the ACFM throughput will decrease.


I said that

Quote
You do understand (I hope) that IC engines that can draw in more air (higher throughput, more VE) can then also burn more fuel with that air, and therefore make a bigger "boom" to make more power.


You do understand (I hope) that an IC engine CANNOT draw in more air per cycle that the BORE can hold as the piston hits BDC and with that can only draw from the available density directly in front of it?

If that volume and density is adequate for the combustion process then it will operate properly, it not it will either operate improperly ( but run) or simply not run depending on what extreme it is.

Quote
As mentioned before in these discussions, anytime you decrease the absolute pressure at the inlet to the throttle body on a NA engine at WOT, there will be less air volume going into the engine. Less air volume in means less fuel required for correct combustion, which means less power made.


To a point as long as its within range, yes but that's not in question

Quote
True ... and that's where full aftermarket intake and exhaust systems come in, as they try to optimize flow by reducing turbulence, etc that can reduce VE of the entire system.


I don't dispute that but some need to try a little bit harder.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Yes, I saw the "qualifier". I wouldn't use the phrase "unless said restriction exceeds the ACFM requirements of the application" when talking about IC engines. Just what is the "ACFM requirements" of any given engine? There really isn't one, "requirements" wise. I know you're really not into engines much, and try to use other "examples" that don't make good analogies, but we are specifically talking about engines here.

A more proper way to say/describe it would be "unless said restriction decreases the maximum volumetric flow potential of the application".

What "you" would use is not correct, that's why I didn't.

The ACFM requirement in any combustion equation is the mass of air by volume required for the desired reaction. Its a fixed value because a bore and stroke relationship doesn't change- RPMs just mean the same thing faster.


What I said is absolutely correct. There is no "ACFM requirement" when talking about IC engines unless you want to equate that to the ideal 100% VE (based on the bore & stroke). But no NA IC engine has 100% VE while running - and the VE changes with RPM (that's one reason why T and HP drop off at higher RPM). An IC engine has a VE less than 100% even without an intake and exhaust system, and even less VE with more and more restrictive intake and exhaust systems. That's why installing just a high performance intake and/or exhaust system can make an IC engine put out a good amount of added power at WOT.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
You are correct that I'm not the expert on an IC engine as a 'thing" but what we are talking about is no mechanically different than any reciprocating pump and the physics are identical sans the combustion requirements but even they are fixed based on a design ( which is also why the spark has to be at a certain heat and length) Air/fuel and fire- all in the proper relationship.


I'll just repeat what you've agreed with later below - seems you're contradicting yourself. Just like any "air pump" with a volumetric throughput, if you start restricting the air intake system, then the air volume throughput will decrease farther away from the max potential VE.

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Put a big restriction on the intake side of any of those devices and see how much ACFM throughput you get compared to what their actual maximum potential is. As the restriction goes up, the ACFM throughput will decrease.


Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I wouldn't call the dyno "anecdotal" when the same dyno is used to tune and track the effect of engine & system modifications. So how do you explain changing just one thing (ie, just the air filter) and seeing a repeatable change in power output? The dyno test Engineering Explained did are valid, and prove that simply by dropping in a different air filter into the OEM intake system can change power at WOT.


Maybe you wouldn't but here's why it is. If the goal is to say "thing X" improves overall performance by "Y" degree in any ASSEMBLY where there are multiple and both dependent and independent inputs them you must have the ability to isolate that specific "thing" to the exclusion of all others to say this alone does that and then test repeatability. I can make any counter argument that there was an equal rolling resistance because the day got warmer otherwise.

I do dyno testing on motors and gear drives and know the process and its associated strengths and weaknesses very well.


So you're now saying that changing only one variable at a time and seeing the result has no validity. You do understand that the dyno tests EE was doing was on the same day, back to back in a short amount of time. You're not the only one around here with testing experience.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Put a big restriction on the intake side of any of those devices and see how much ACFM throughput you get compared to what their actual maximum potential is. As the restriction goes up, the ACFM throughput will decrease.

I said that


So what's your point? ... as this is the basic point of the whole discussion. But you still produce straw to somehow try to claim that increasing intake flow resistance isn't going to effect engine performance, lol.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
You do understand (I hope) that IC engines that can draw in more air (higher throughput, more VE) can then also burn more fuel with that air, and therefore make a bigger "boom" to make more power.


You do understand (I hope) that an IC engine CANNOT draw in more air per cycle that the BORE can hold as the piston hits BDC and with that can only draw from the available density directly in front of it?

If that volume and density is adequate for the combustion process then it will operate properly, it not it will either operate improperly ( but run) or simply not run depending on what extreme it is.


This is where your misconception is. There is a difference between "adequate" and maximum. "Adequate" as defined by what?

You're kind of there when you say "an IC engine CANNOT draw in more air per cycle that the BORE can hold as the piston hits BDC and with that can only draw from the available density directly in front of it" ... but you're missing the fact that part of that "can only draw from the available density directly in front of it" is dependent on the total restriction between the atmosphere and the throttle body. And actually, the throttle body is technically part of that intake system also, as a larger throttle body can also increase HP. In fact, every component to the combustion dome inside the cylinder is part of the intake system, but lets define the end of the intake system as the inlet side of the throttle body.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
As mentioned before in these discussions, anytime you decrease the absolute pressure at the inlet to the throttle body on a NA engine at WOT, there will be less air volume going into the engine. Less air volume in means less fuel required for correct combustion, which means less power made.


To a point as long as its within range, yes but that's not in question


That's true, regardless - it's simple fluid dynamics. And now your back to agreement on the main topic being discussed. So exactly what is in question?

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
True ... and that's where full aftermarket intake and exhaust systems come in, as they try to optimize flow by reducing turbulence, etc that can reduce VE of the entire system.


I don't dispute that but some need to try a little bit harder.


There are many very good aftermarket intake and exhaust systems on the market these days. Besides, how would you really know since you said that you're not into engines.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Quote
What I said is absolutely correct. There is no "ACFM requirement" when talking about IC engines unless you want to equate that to the ideal 100% VE (based on the bore & stroke). But no NA IC engine has 100% VE while running - and the VE changes with RPM (that's one reason why T and HP drop off at higher RPM). An IC engine has a VE less than 100% even without an intake and exhaust system, and even less VE with more and more restrictive intake and exhaust systems. That's why installing just a high performance intake and/or exhaust system can make an IC engine put out a good amount of added power at WOT.


Good, Now I'm starting to see exactly where and how you got so far off base. VE for a NAIC engine is basically the same calculation for a compressor except for the 2 phase flow with the fuel but that's specific to the intake and that intake is partially shared by the other cylinders. That's secondary to the atmospheric volume and density available at the inlet for this to draw.

In this case the only mover is the suction provided by the piston cycling and the only volume available is what's right outside the inlet.
The straw comes in when you go off about the HP breather and all that.

Nowhere ever did I say anything where removing restriction (which is what happened) doesn't increase flow and then the domino effect. I SAID that UNLESS the restriction ALTERS THAT SAME THING then there will be no difference. (go up and read it again, it's right there in plain English) You are proving a point that was never in dispute. The point is that if SAID RESTRICTION doesn't prohibit adequate air for the required combustion in the first place then adding "more available air" ( which cannot be sucked into the bore due to dimension and stroke) wont matter because it will still be there waiting on the next stroke.

I am still trying to ascertain if you really don't grasp this or simply misreading.

Quote
I'll just repeat what you've agreed with later below - seems you're contradicting yourself. Just like any "air pump" with a volumetric throughput, if you start restricting the air intake system, then the air volume throughput will decrease farther away from the max potential VE.

No contradiction, you are just confusing yourself more and I'm trying to help you with that

Quote
So you're now saying that changing only one variable at a time and seeing the result has no validity. You do understand that the dyno tests EE was doing was on the same day, back to back in a short amount of time. You're not the only one around here with testing experience.


NO, I said quite clearly then and now that on a dyno that changing a single input in a system where multiple inputs determine a systemic output is not a direct and exclusive proof that the single change is the "only" thing responsible.

In dyno testing all possible parameters and inputs are not measured thus cannot be eliminated from the equation. You may have testing experience but I suggest you also develop the proper understanding of the testing process and interpreting the results.

Yes of course there is an aggregate change and its not outside any realm of consideration that a single change of input directly affects a systemic output ( by changing a single or multiple reactions) that still has to be isolated and defined during validation study before it moves from "anecdotal indication" to a definitive repeatable truth. I could just as easily state that some property of the lubrication kicked in, reduced friction and that was the "reason".

The first thing I look at is the design of experiments, methods and analysis methodology to validate that process long before the first test is run- I would suggest you do the same. In this case the test doesn't fully isolate and validate the specific claims thus it is anecdotal.

Quote
This is where your misconception is. There is a difference between "adequate" and maximum. "Adequate" as defined by what?

You're kind of there when you say "an IC engine CANNOT draw in more air per cycle that the BORE can hold as the piston hits BDC and with that can only draw from the available density directly in front of it" ... but you're missing the fact that part of that "can only draw from the available density directly in front of it" is dependent on the total restriction between the atmosphere and the throttle body. And actually, the throttle body is technically part of that intake system also, as a larger throttle body can also increase HP. In fact, every component to the combustion dome inside the cylinder is part of the intake system, but lets define the end of the intake system as the inlet side of the throttle body.


Oh gee, let me draw you a picture to help you visualize this. Adequate and maximum defined as the proper ratio of air to fuel to achieve the optimum energy release from too lean all the way to excess saturation. You need to read more carefully- I said it can only draw from what's in front of it. Again, you are going too far in the straw.

Quote
That's true, regardless - it's simple fluid dynamics. And now your back to agreement on the main topic being discussed. So exactly what is in question?


I know its true, i said it but its not "regardless" because as the density changes it affects velocity which affects the ability to maintain homogenous flow in a 2 phase situation going into the chamber- that's ADVANCED fluid dynamics.( and beyond the scope of this discussion because we are directly discussing the combustion process)

Quote
There are many very good aftermarket intake and exhaust systems on the market these days. Besides, how would you really know since you said that you're not into engines.


Nice try at the ad hom appeal to authority but still a fail.

Simply put, the physics and equations are no different than any pump and its curve operating at BEP ( air or water) in conjunction with the system curve from the suction and discharge sides. Choke either ( or open either) and unbalance the system and bad things happen.

Since the IC was developed along the lines of these systems and math that predates the IC engine by CENTURIES- what do you think the IC equations are built from? Nothing changes other than a few minor specifics among degrees. Other than the chemical reaction creating the explosion as the prime mover- there is no difference. All of them suck from one end and blow out the other turning on a shaft at a given RPM.

There's no magical mystical automotive anything that doesn't ( or cant) exist in the other systems to varying degrees. How do you not know this?

Just to prove that point, name any single function, process or component that doesn't exist anywhere else? Name one thing an IC engine does that no other "thing" does or has incorporated into it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
What I said is absolutely correct. There is no "ACFM requirement" when talking about IC engines unless you want to equate that to the ideal 100% VE (based on the bore & stroke). But no NA IC engine has 100% VE while running - and the VE changes with RPM (that's one reason why T and HP drop off at higher RPM). An IC engine has a VE less than 100% even without an intake and exhaust system, and even less VE with more and more restrictive intake and exhaust systems. That's why installing just a high performance intake and/or exhaust system can make an IC engine put out a good amount of added power at WOT.

Good, Now I'm starting to see exactly where and how you got so far off base. VE for a NAIC engine is basically the same calculation for a compressor except for the 2 phase flow with the fuel but that's specific to the intake and that intake is partially shared by the other cylinders. That's secondary to the atmospheric volume and density available at the inlet for this to draw.


Guess what happens when the "atmospheric volume and density at the inlet for this to draw" is decreased because the path the air takes through the intake system before the manifold becomes more restrictive.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
In this case the only mover is the suction provided by the piston cycling and the only volume available is what's right outside the inlet.
The straw comes in when you go off about the HP breather and all that.


Yes, and what happens when the absolute pressure "right outside the inlet" decreases because of restriction in the intake system.

"HP breather and all that" ... ? Never used those words. You might want to expand on that so I know what you're talking about.

As far as VE, there is plenty on the 'net that will explain to you what IC engine VE is.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Nowhere ever did I say anything where removing restriction (which is what happened) doesn't increase flow and then the domino effect. I SAID that UNLESS the restriction ALTERS THAT SAME THING then there will be no difference. (go up and read it again, it's right there in plain English) You are proving a point that was never in dispute. The point is that if SAID RESTRICTION doesn't prohibit adequate air for the required combustion in the first place then adding "more available air" ( which cannot be sucked into the bore due to dimension and stroke) wont matter because it will still be there waiting on the next stroke.
I am still trying to ascertain if you really don't grasp this or simply misreading.


My point is that pretty much every factory car on the road (even many already very high performance cars) can gain quite a bit more HP by opening up the intake and/or exhaust system - see it all the time with Corvettes, Mustangs, etc.

What it seems you're saying in red is that ever car on the road is already designed to put out the most HP it could ever put out regardless of intake or exhaust modifications. That's completely false - because "said restriction" DOES prohibit the maximum potential air flow. If what you say was true, then the Engineering Explained dyno test would show no differences in HP with different air filters in the stock air box. Nor would any other dyno test show any HP gains after installing better flowing intake and exhaust systems. I am still trying to ascertain if you really don't grasp this or simply misreading ... or just being obtuse as a way to troll.

You do know (maybe not) that an engine's T curve basically reflects the engine's VE curve over it's RPM range. Explain to me why opening up the intake and/or exhaust (or even just putting a better flowing air filter in the stock box) increases the T and HP output. You can't get more T and HP out of a NA IC engine at WOT without increasing the VE somehow.

The only example that would fit your statement of "The point is that if SAID RESTRICTION doesn't prohibit adequate air for the required combustion in the first place then adding "more available air" (which cannot be sucked into the bore due to dimension and stroke) wont matter because it will still be there waiting on the next stroke" would be if the intake system was so small and restrictive that it wouldn't matter what air filter was used. Or if the throttle body was so small that it became the restrictor of the air flow into the intake manifold (ie, like NASCAR using a 'restrictor plate' to limit engine HP output). Give me an example of a car that was made in the last 20 years that fits that scenario (ie, the intake and exhaust system is allowing the max VE possible from the design of the engine).

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I'll just repeat what you've agreed with later below - seems you're contradicting yourself. Just like any "air pump" with a volumetric throughput, if you start restricting the air intake system, then the air volume throughput will decrease farther away from the max potential VE.

No contradiction, you are just confusing yourself more and I'm trying to help you with that


No confusion on my part ... some on yours. Then what's your point?

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
So you're now saying that changing only one variable at a time and seeing the result has no validity. You do understand that the dyno tests EE was doing was on the same day, back to back in a short amount of time. You're not the only one around here with testing experience.


NO, I said quite clearly then and now that on a dyno that changing a single input in a system where multiple inputs determine a systemic output is not a direct and exclusive proof that the single change is the "only" thing responsible.

In dyno testing all possible parameters and inputs are not measured thus cannot be eliminated from the equation. You may have testing experience but I suggest you also develop the proper understanding of the testing process and interpreting the results.

Yes of course there is an aggregate change and its not outside any realm of consideration that a single change of input directly affects a systemic output ( by changing a single or multiple reactions) that still has to be isolated and defined during validation study before it moves from "anecdotal indication" to a definitive repeatable truth. I could just as easily state that some property of the lubrication kicked in, reduced friction and that was the "reason".

The first thing I look at is the design of experiments, methods and analysis methodology to validate that process long before the first test is run- I would suggest you do the same. In this case the test doesn't fully isolate and validate the specific claims thus it is anecdotal.


All a bunch of straw grasping because you can't understand a simple test where only one variable was changed. If his testing would have been on different days and he also modified something else beside just dropping in a different air filter, then your comments might have some validity ... but that's not what happened. His dyno testing was good enough to show that allowing more air flow into the engine increased HP - it's not rocket science. He also correlated acceleration data with the dyno data.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
This is where your misconception is. There is a difference between "adequate" and maximum. "Adequate" as defined by what?

You're kind of there when you say "an IC engine CANNOT draw in more air per cycle that the BORE can hold as the piston hits BDC and with that can only draw from the available density directly in front of it" ... but you're missing the fact that part of that "can only draw from the available density directly in front of it" is dependent on the total restriction between the atmosphere and the throttle body. And actually, the throttle body is technically part of that intake system also, as a larger throttle body can also increase HP. In fact, every component to the combustion dome inside the cylinder is part of the intake system, but lets define the end of the intake system as the inlet side of the throttle body.


Oh gee, let me draw you a picture to help you visualize this. Adequate and maximum defined as the proper ratio of air to fuel to achieve the optimum energy release from too lean all the way to excess saturation. You need to read more carefully- I said it can only draw from what's in front of it. Again, you are going too far in the straw.


More grasping and tangents ... anyone who knows and talks about engines automatically knows that we're talking about correct A/F throughout this discussion. It was never brought up until you did just now. Yes, I believe you when you said you're not too familiar with engines. Didn't think something so basic needed to be laid out for your understanding.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
That's true, regardless - it's simple fluid dynamics. And now your back to agreement on the main topic being discussed. So exactly what is in question?


I know its true, i said it but its not "regardless" because as the density changes it affects velocity which affects the ability to maintain homogenous flow in a 2 phase situation going into the chamber- that's ADVANCED fluid dynamics.( and beyond the scope of this discussion because we are directly discussing the combustion process)


We're not talking about the combustion process (again, should be assumed to be ideal) ... we're talking about engine VE, intake restitution and how that relates to HP output. As already said, correct A/F should be assumed ideal throughout this discussion. Something relatively simple.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
There are many very good aftermarket intake and exhaust systems on the market these days. Besides, how would you really know since you said that you're not into engines.


Nice try at the ad hom appeal to authority but still a fail.

Simply put, the physics and equations are no different than any pump and its curve operating at BEP ( air or water) in conjunction with the system curve from the suction and discharge sides. Choke either ( or open either) and unbalance the system and bad things happen.


Just like in the fastener torque thread, you go off on some obtuse tangent to distract from the actual discussion, lol. So you're saying all of the good aftermarket intake and exhaust systems don't do anything because the stock factory systems already allow as much flow as the VE of the engine design will allow ... sure, lol.

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Since the IC was developed along the lines of these systems and math that predates the IC engine by CENTURIES- what do you think the IC equations are built from? Nothing changes other than a few minor specifics among degrees. Other than the chemical reaction creating the explosion as the prime mover- there is no difference. All of them suck from one end and blow out the other turning on a shaft at a given RPM.

There's no magical mystical automotive anything that doesn't ( or cant) exist in the other systems to varying degrees. How do you not know this?

Just to prove that point, name any single function, process or component that doesn't exist anywhere else?Name one thing an IC engine does that no other "thing" does or has incorporated into it.


More obtuseness and deflection it seems, or maybe just down to some trolling now. "No other thing" ... exactly what "thing" ... you might want to expand on that. Does an air compressor (air pumps) have variable valve timing to optimize their VE at different RPM? ... no.

 

[TiGeo]

All of this b/c folks use high-flow filters to gain some flow/power and some folks thing they ruin your engine...hahahahaaha

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted by TiGeo
All of this b/c folks use high-flow filters to gain some flow/power and some folks thing they ruin your engine...hahahahaaha


EXACTLY!

 

[CT8]

Originally Posted by rooflessVW
Originally Posted by wemay
BMC is the same as K&N.

I'm not one to bash K&N... But BMC filters are of a much higher quality. And when they make a product for an OEM, you can bet they're to the manufacturer's specification - not a "universal" one.

How many people wear out a Porsche? I remember in the 1970s people would use them as daily drivers, speaking wonders how they were so great to drive from the S.F. Bay area to the ski slopes. Now they are exotic sports cars.

 

[Lufty]

I read Ford Performance released a kit for the new Ford Ranger with the equipment to download/upgrade the engine and transmission settings. Also included in the kit is a K&N drop-in filter. I thought it was interesting that Ford is using a K&N air filter of all the choices they had to choose from for this kit. Also retains warranty coverage when dealer or ASE mechanic installed.

 

[TiGeo]

Originally Posted by Lufty
I read Ford Performance released a kit for the new Ford Ranger with the equipment to download/upgrade the engine and transmission settings. Also included in the kit is a K&N drop-in filter. I thought it was interesting that Ford is using a K&N air filter of all the choices they had to choose from for this kit. Also retains warranty coverage when dealer or ASE mechanic installed.


Because as stated ad-nauseum in this thread - they are fine to use/don't cause issues. You get more flow (performance) at the expense of *a little* less filtration that arguably doesn't' matter anyway. Ford Racing isn't the only OEM performance div. to use high-flow oiled filters in their performance intake systems. Parts generally balance performance with longevity/reliability with OE bits weighted towards the latter. These filters require more involvement by the owner to maintain them but for those willing, they do provide slight performance gains that have been shown over and over. If filtering every last spec is your jam, cool, use the OE filter.

 

[Lufty]

TiGeo- I agree and couldn't of said it better myself. That's what I was trying to point out.

 

[Job]

Yes, the first reply to the OP was all that was needed. KN out, OE in, done. He said not so interested in performance.
Anyone public road racing testing fractions of a hp gain shouldn't be on public roads. Or they could public road race at night when it's colder so they make more horsepower. Best to do that with lights off. Let's hope no one is killed from it.