Truck Trend claims 10% more MPG with K&N in 2009 Ford F-150 after bogus road test

[Christ]

Frank -
You can try BBB, if you really want to pursue the complaint, you might mention it to K&N themselves, as well as the company that owns the truck magazine (There is always a media company, and they might be interested to know about the false advertising that's going on in their "upright and honest" publication.)

Of course, you could also write a letter to the editor, asking for correction of falsehoods in the article. CC that note to those who "authored" the article, and executives of both the magazine and the parent company. Forward all correspondence to the BBB, titled with the report number, so it will be filed correctly.

[tasdrouille]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

So then you need to buy an air compressor, no?

Yes, but most places where car maintenance is performed have compressed air at hand.

Originally Posted by mwebb

or
borrow the vacuum cleaner , suck from the dirty side , same difference

Vacuuming the dirty side is not exactly the same a blowing from the clean side. Vacuuming was effective, but not as much a blowing.

[jcp123]

Doesn't seem that much different to how I calculate MPG improvements...change something, go through my usual driving cycle, observe the results. Although, the sample size probably isn't big enough, I'd say doing it over 3-5 tanks or so before and after would be a better way to test.

[Christ]

To make the matter as complicated as possible, you'd want to design a venturi that could capture the airflow of ~ 50 square feet while the wind is traveling at approximately 7 MPH, and channel it through the ~ 1 square foot of the average air filter, with as little skin friction as possible. Compression losses are inevitable.

That would qualify as "blowing it out with compressed air".

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by jcp123

Doesn't seem that much different to how I calculate MPG improvements...change something, go through my usual driving cycle, observe the results.

I bet: the vast majority of drivers see enough variation in the fuel economy of their "usual driving cycle" without even changing anything that results from that approach would be statistically insignificant.

You'd have to be measuring something that provides a massive change for it to rise above the static.

That said, I hold the testing regimen of a person or magazine hawking a product or junk science to tougher standards than the average Joe trying to figure out if, say, his cardboard air dam (or whatever) is helping his MPG. Meaning: I'm less inclined to jump down Joe's throat if his testing isn't rigorous, though I'll still be respectfully skeptical of claimed results.

[Christ]

I don't even test my stuff anymore, honestly. If I like it, I keep it. If after a while, I find that I'm not able to get my better numbers (that I can normally see once in awhile), that's when I start testing. As long as my "best" keeps getting higher (as reflected by my fuel logs), I just keep doing whatever I do.

[jcp123]

Yeah, good point, the magazine does have more resources than the rest of us for testing accurately...heck, I don't even have an SG I can hook up to my car (OBDII was another 29 years away ), though, so observing the consistency of results is all I have, much like the way they conducted their test...though over a longer period of time than a mere 52 mile test course. 7 tanks in a row, immediately, over 17mpg (a 20% improvement in my normal 14mpg FE) was enough to tell me that leaning out my carb and backing my cruise speed down to 40mph was statistically a valid increase. If it'd been just one tank, or some 52 mile test loop, though, I wouldn't have been convinced at all and would be equally dubious had I been on their staff.

If they insist on testing that out without the dyno time, then I'd even tell them to average out a few weeks' worth of driving before and after and see if there's any kind of improvement that's statistically valid. Like you, I don't see how a K+N is going to account for a 10% FE increase.

[Christ]

Anyone care to guess how long the EPA test course for highway mileage is?

51 miles.

How long was the test for?

52 miles.

Coincidence? I think they were probably trying to make the semi-intellectual think they were somehow exhibiting mimicry of the EPA test, probably in order to aide credibility.

Frank, How's that sound for a conspiracy theory?

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by jcp123

Yeah, good point, the magazine does have more resources than the rest of us for testing accurately...

Yup! That's the crux of it. They had access to a dyno... AND THEY BLEW IT!

Hey - maybe we should be passing the hat around to start the EcoModder Dynamometer Fund...

17mpg (a 20% improvement in my normal 14mpg FE) was enough to tell me that leaning out my carb and backing my cruise speed down to 40mph was statistically a valid increase.

Good example of a "massive change" poking its head up above the normal noise of tank to tank variation. Unfortunately, most of the mods people are doing here are good for a couple percent individually at best, which makes them very hard to test for on the road.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

The moral of the story is don't trust the garbage in the enthusiast magazines...

Except Kevin Cameron's material, mostly found in old Cycle World magazines. That guy rules.

The moral of the story especially is don't even waste your time reading a piece "By The Author" or whatever obviously bogus nom de plume.

Kevin Cameron is amazing! When Al needs to bump me off the computer I snitch his cycle mags 'til I can get back online.Kevin's articles are some of the best technical writing I've ever experienced.He does rule!