Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com - Truck Trend claims 10% more MPG with K&N in 2009 Ford F-150 after bogus road test

EcoModder.com (https://ecomodder.com/forum/)

- EcoModding Central (https://ecomodder.com/forum/ecomodding-central.html)

- - Truck Trend claims 10% more MPG with K&N in 2009 Ford F-150 after bogus road test (https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/truck-trend-claims-10-more-mpg-k-n-10523.html)

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

http://image.trucktrend.com/f/featur...ford-f-150.jpg
(Source: Truck Trend)

This kind of stuff pisses me off:

Truck Trend used K&N's chassis dynamometer to measure the difference in peak horsepower and torque before & after swapping out the OEM intake tract & filter for the aftermarket parts.

And then they "hit the road for our own evaluation" of MPG and subjective performance changes.

Fools!

Quote:

we mapped out a 52-mile mountain loop outside Los Angeles with various stretches of two-lane highway, some freeway, a stretch of tight twisties, ending with a series of gentle curves, ranging in elevation from 1800 feet to 4200 feet above sea level. Our before and after runs were done just several days apart with an average speed within 4/10th of a mph of each other, with very similar temperature and road conditions. According to the on-board computer on our F-150 that can calculate instant and average mpg data (reset at the beginning of each of our runs, right after we topped off the tank), we averaged close to 10-percent-better fuel economy with the K&N Intake Kit, improving from 19.2 mpg to 21.0 mpg.

That's an invalid test, and they should be ashamed of themselves for using it as a basis for promoting the K&N products.

The kicker: on top of their misunderstanding of how to do basic testing, they then use their flawed results as justification for advocating that readers spend about $350 for the K&N parts, because...

Quote:

with the gas savings alone, the intake kit pays for itself in 16 months

What they should have done:

Why the freak didn't they just use the truck's "instant and average MPG data" while still on the dynamometer?

They could have easily run a range of A-B-A comparisons, avoiding all the other confounding variables they experienced in their on-road "test", and ended up with valid data. And it would have taken less time than the on-road silliness!

At best, they're just ignorant. At worst, they're shills for K&N (who, I presume are regular advertisers).

Full article: More Power and Better Fuel Economy For Our 2009 Ford F-150 - Tech - Truck Trend

The dyno doesn't account for wind resistance and other real-world conditions, but will give a baseline that one can calculate from.

Then again, I believe some of the newer chassis dynos have settings to account for wind and other variables.

Good point.

But even if the dyno didn't have an aero compensation feature built in, they could have run multiple tests at the same "road" speed and gauged results at varing loads (to simulate steady state driving on a grade and/or with wind resistance).

That data would still be vastly, vastly better than what they did.

You know the bulk of the content for these rags is just "infomercials" in print. :mad:

Well, the dyno would have been perfect to measure intake pressure drop at various loads. Which is the only thing that an intake can do, change intake restriction. There's no way an intake will return a 10% mileage increase, especially at part load where the reduction in vacuum from the new intake is minimized. Total lack of journalistic rigor. It's an article written by "By The Author"...whatever...

It's just a whole load of nonsense the sheeple will gobble and disseminate as gospel...

I keep going back to see if anyone has commented yet on their "rigor" mortis, but no one has.

Must... resist.. urge.. to.. comment...

Just do it. Nicely. Someone needs to tell these 'noids that not everyone is going to buy into the load of BS they're trying to sell. Seriously.

Here it is:

Quote:

The entire premise of this "article" is flawed. In fact, there is too much wrong with it to itemize and stay within the posting character limit so I'll cut to the chase and say this isn't really an article at all, it is an infomercial for hawking this product and a strikingly poor one at that. Even the product's makers are smart enough not to make claims this ridiculous. If anyone wants the real scoop on fuel economy they can go to www.fueleconomydotgov there you will find what has been SCIENTIFICALLY tested and proven to work, and what has not.

LMAO

Good one, Frank.

I'm somewhat surprised the comment is still there today.

OH - and it has been joined by another.