Possible 6% mpg gain from adding a cone filter...Ford Focus...

[HydroJim]

I'm not saying that the gains suspectnumber961 is experiencing are accurate, but I feel that the rest of you guys are too quick to turn it down. I understand the need for accurate testing and I want it too.

The factory air intake set up on a ford Focus is very long, winding, and restrictive.

a short-ram intake like the one installed in this case may actually be producing a gain on this particular car. I'm not saying it's the filter itself, I'm just saying that on this particular car, this mod seems to help. Countless people swear by MPG gains from air filters like this in focus based forums, so there may be something to it.

t-vago- The ford focus uses a MAF sensor so warm air intakes have no affect.

Again, I'm in no way endorsing or refuting the gains, I'm just trying to find an explanation

[t vago]

Originally Posted by HydroJim

t-vago- The ford focus uses a MAF sensor so warm air intakes have no affect.

Boy, that's a generalization sorely in need of a good kick...

Just because some MAF cars have not benefitted from a WAI due to compensation by their engine computers, that does not mean that every single MAF car out there cannot benefit. Wouldn't it be surprising to find out that this model of Ford Focus actually did benefit from a WAI? In terms of improving fuel economy, at least the WAI has a good sound basis in theory, whereas ram air does not even have that.

Then again, with regard to the OP's improvement, I guess we'll never know how that happened, now, will we?

And again I must point out that I did not say that the OP did not actually see any gains. I said, and I will continue to say, that the OP has no clue how the gains were made.

[HydroJim]

I actually got that generalization from this very forum

Thanks for the info, before I go spreading that idea around like fact. Everyone I have talked to said it would be no use on my car

[t vago]

Well, to be fair, it is a somewhat supportable generalization. So far, none of the (admittedly few) MAF cars, which have tested here so far, have shown any improvement with a HAI.

That isn't to say that MAF cars in general will not show improvement, though.

[niky]

It's more believable, actually, for a MAF-equipped car to show improvement than a MAP-equipped car... especially as so many MAP-equipped cars nowadays adjust to any filter changes by dialling back power right away.

Air filter changes are like voodoo nowadays. We tested a MAP-equipped car with a short-ram and it made 5% extra at redline and nearly 10% less at 3k rpm (cruising), with AFRs going pig rich in the area of loss but slightly leaner (as you'd expect) at the area with gains. Even with the stock box in, replacing the filter with a less restrictive medium resulted in the same change.

Computers. Meh. They're too smart.

[mwebb]

document this -
if you can - do not show some horse poop unverifiable alleged trace on an alleged dyno , allegedly with the car in question

show me graphed scan data
you can use enhanced data for the car or simple generic obd2

ready begin

IF you are not fibbing the calculated load value at WOT will be 5% greater with your modification than without , STFT or real time lambda will be adding slightly -
do not BS me lad - i will know

We tested a MAP-equipped car with a short-ram and it made 5% extra at redline and nearly 10% less at 3k rpm (cruising), with AFRs going pig rich in the area of loss but slightly leaner (as you'd expect) at the area with gains.

Originally Posted by niky

It's more believable, actually, for a MAF-equipped car to show improvement than a MAP-equipped car... especially as so many MAP-equipped cars nowadays adjust to any filter changes by dialling back power right away.

Air filter changes are like voodoo nowadays. We tested a MAP-equipped car with a short-ram and it made 5% extra at redline and nearly 10% less at 3k rpm (cruising), with AFRs going pig rich in the area of loss but slightly leaner (as you'd expect) at the area with gains. Even with the stock box in, replacing the filter with a less restrictive medium resulted in the same change.

Computers. Meh. They're too smart.

[niky]

By niky_tamayo at 2012-07-02


By niky_tamayo at 2012-07-02


By niky_tamayo at 2012-07-02
(Didn't really want to share these, because they're for an unpublished article, but you asked nicely... )

This was a media test unit that I brought over to a friend's shop. Perks of being both an autojourno and an aftermarket seller, he gets to test out and prototype intakes, exhausts and headers that they build in-house to gauge whether they're worth stocking for sale. Pipe routing is a big part of the package development*. Obviously, this one was a bust. Can't sell customers an intake that loses power in the area most people drive in every day.

Not shown is the AFR trace or the dyno where we put the stock piping back in and simply removed the stock air filter element... but that was exactly halfway between the aftermarket and stock traces. The AFR trace showed an area where the engine goes pig rich at cruising rpms at full throttle under load (this is a brake dyno). In both aftermarket and no filter tests, the AFRs dip into even richer territory at said area, even though it runs leaner (as you'd expect) in others. My theory was that the engine expects a fat load of air from the intake resonator at 3-4k rpm, but we still showed that loss in power with the stock induction (sans filter) back in place... so perhaps it's simply a failsafe to keep the engine cool and happy while under load on the highway. Shame. The car can do 30 km/l. (officially 26 highway) I bet it could do much better with a retune.

This is obviously not one of those cars that dials back power to stock levels across the board when you change out the induction system... since the dynos actually show power gains... but I can actually dig up said dynos if you feel like it.

These tests help the shop determine what aftermarket parts they will offer for sale or strike off their list. It's thanks to these that they don't offer cone filters for most MAP-equipped modern turbodiesels (no gain, no point) or cat-backs for some mass-market cars (no gain, no point). While they could probably bundle such things with a retune or a chip that stops the stock ECU from neutering gains, there's not enough of a market here to bother.

EDIT: We didn't attach an OBD reader to the car... but there was little need and no time to do a comprehensive test... it's a relatively simple car with a single cat that doesn't meet US or Euro emissions standards, so any computer chicanery is happening due to what's going on at the MAP and not the O2 sensor... especially since we weren't running it in closed-loop on the dyno (all WOT runs).

Yes, the STFT and possibly LTFT (if this car actually runs LTFT adjustment) will wander, and yes, that needs to be taken into account when designing an intake, but this was a short and simple test to see if it was worth the while to try to develop the part. (in other words, would it be simple or too involved for something that at most a dozen customers would buy?)

-----

*Pipe routing... Honda claims that they gained 10 hp midrange on the MMC 06 Fit/Aria by reversing the rotation of one radiator fan so it blew cool air onto the intake pipes... seriously...

More concretely, I actually lost 10 peak hp on the dyno on my personal car when we tested a different WAI configuration (shorter tube)... 10 hp that we couldn't get back no matter how we retuned the ECU... which showed that said pipe length really wasn't optimal... which supports the observation that me and some others have that a big part of why CAIs make power isn't to do with intake air temperature, but induction tube resonance and/or flow.... which is why I went with a WAI instead of a CAI in the first place, despite my build being for power rather than economy.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

Someone posted that he saw an mpg gain from this on a forum dedicated to the Focus...took me a long time to try it due to believing it had little chance of working. I already had what I thought was a good flow...don't exactly run the car a full throttle a lot...taxing the intake system. You can buy these cone filters at parts stores for not too much (the off brands)...installing it like I did means it is easily reversible.

All the brilliant analysis as to why it won't work is FUNNY. Just like watching people TAKE A DUMP.

cons? Noisy if you floor it...not the best filtering in a dusty area?

I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to improve their mpg...it's like pushing drugs.

You may want to have your smallpox vaccination reversed,go on an all sugar diet,skip the hand washing,and enjoy pond water rather than anything a municipal water supply has to offer.1,000,000 volt electrical power? Why not?
These are all related to 'Funny' analysis which apparently holds no interest for you.
Let us know when you hit 200 mpg with your chrome muffler bearings.

[suspectnumber961]

My only responsibility here (and I use that term loosely) is report something that I think might be increasing my mpg...not to argue endlessly as to how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

It's unfortunate that all the sophistry might keep someone from testing this for themselves. No sweat off my mpg if no one tries it though.

$26 gets you started.....need to check OD of intake tube and fitment of the filter.

Buy Spectre Universal High Flow Air Filter 8136 at Advance Auto Parts

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by HydroJim

The factory air intake set up on a ford Focus is very long, winding, and restrictive.

So is the air intake on my diesel.
Yet it's still good enough to provide mixtures with plenty of excess air, as diesels do.