Air Intake Restrictor with A-B test

[Fr3AkAzOiD]

Ok, so the thought here was that if the engine gets less air it will have to lower the amount of fuel it uses to maintain normal air/fuel ratio.
Less gas will be less power but possibly higher mpgs at cruising speed.

So here is my mass airflow sensor.


My thinking is that all I would have to do is block up the air filter box to do the trick.
So out comes the box cutter and the coroplast and a hacking I go and come out with this abomination.



Sorry about the pic quality, it was 1am at a gas station. :\
So on the right side you see the top of the air intake is being blocked about 3/4 by a piece of coroplast.
Then on top of that is the big piece of coroplast with a small hole in the center about 1/3 the side of the air intake tube.
Then on top of that mess I put the air filter and then latch the box closed.
The box was still air tight and with the filter on tip I didn't have to worry about anything getting sucked into the engine.

I did my runs between 1 - 2 am so traffic was no issue, though I probably confused the hell out of the guy at the gas station I used to stop and record numbers at.
Temps were 45 - 47F and I did my best to hold 45 mph though my car doesn't have cruise control so it was a bit hard.

Had a 1.5 - 2 mile stretch of road with gentle ups and down.


Heading west with my restricted air intake my runs were 52.4, 53.0, 53.4 for an average of 52.93 mpg.

Heading west with the normal air intake my runs were 52.9, 52.9, 53.7, 53.3 for an average of 53.2 mpg.

Heading east with my restricted air intake my runs were 50.6, 51.7, 51.5, 52.5 for an average of 51.57 mpg.

Heading east with the normal air intake my runs were 52.7, 52.1, 53.3 for an average of 52.7 mpg.

Variance heading west was 0.9 mpg but the variance heading east was much larger at 1.55 mpg.

Heading west the standard air intake was 0.27 mpgs better then the restricted intake.
Heading east the standard air intake was 1.13 mpgs better then the restricted intake.

I know the sample size was very small that that it looks like the restricted air intake didn't work but going both directions the variance was larger then the difference of averages.

I plan on giving it a try again on a different road once I need to replace my air filter so I can mod the filter itself and then run a comparison between a clean filter and a dirty one modded to be more restrictive.

Thing I don't know is how long does it take for the cars CPU to modify the air/fuel ratio?
I did do a quick 5 minute drive between normal air intake and restrictive air intake but I'm not sure if that was enough for the CPU to actually change the mix.

[mcrews]

That's one hell of a good job for no cruise (and no scangauge?)

My gut tells me that while the idea seem good, it's not going to work.
But let's get some of the smart guys in here.

[Frank Lee]

My gut tells me to feed it.

But it always says that. If I listen closer it also tells me that the throttle plate takes care of ALL the engine's intake restriction needs... and it's fully adjustable too!

[Arragonis]

Does your car have a MAP or MAF sensor ?

[jakobnev]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

..the throttle plate takes care of ALL the engine's intake restriction needs... and it's fully adjustable too!

I think Frank pretty much called it, the only effect your mod has is a different throttle position reading for the same total restriction.

[mwebb]

the US EPA and IATn have conducted pretty thorough testing which shows that up to about 50% restriction of the air filter has about zero effect on fuel economy On Fuel Injected systems , it does reduce maximum flow and so will reduce maximum power output -

these tests were in response to the many false claims of various vendors including but not limited to K & N that replacing air filters could somehow magically improve fuel economy

it does not
as demonstrated by the test results in at least 3 separate sets of testing

[MetroMPG]

Props for posting results that didn't align with expectations. Science!

[Fr3AkAzOiD]

The car has a built in instant and average mpg display and while probably not as accurate as a scangauge it's good enough to easily detect a change of 3% or greater.

Not sure if I have a MAP or MAF. If it's important I can look it up.

I don't mind posting results that didn't work out. But right now I feel there isn't enough proof one way or the other. Even though I'm now expecting that it either won't make a difference or it will actually make things worse I feel obligated to do a second set of tests in the future.

Reason I tried this is due to a bad layout for setting up a warm air intake so I figured instead of getting less dense warmer air I would just reduce the amount of more dense cold air.

Idea sounded good at one in the morning ;P

[MetroMPG]

If I had a nickel for every brilliant idea I had at 1 in the morning!

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by Fr3AkAzOiD

The car has a built in instant and average mpg display and while probably not as accurate as a scangauge it's good enough to easily detect a change of 3% or greater.

Not sure if I have a MAP or MAF. If it's important I can look it up.

I don't mind posting results that didn't work out. But right now I feel there isn't enough proof one way or the other. Even though I'm now expecting that it either won't make a difference or it will actually make things worse I feel obligated to do a second set of tests in the future.

Reason I tried this is due to a bad layout for setting up a warm air intake so I figured instead of getting less dense warmer air I would just reduce the amount of more dense cold air.

Idea sounded good at one in the morning ;P

Man, you had me.......rightr before the last SENTENCE!!!!!!

It's all good.
Keep thinkin and keep tryin.