K&N performance air intake

Don't forget, horsepower is torque x rpm (divided by a constant) so torque is the ONLY measurement you need.

At any rpm, the higher the torque, the higher the hp.

Not to be overly pendantic,  but if horsepower is torque x rpm (divided by a constant), one better have at least TWO measurements - RPM and Torque?

But that aside....

Yeah, thats what I thought also, until I was informed about the scangage reading HP... and I knew it had no way of reading torque!

Evidently one does not need torque to get the measure for instantaneous horsepower, which is what the scangage reads. Was news to me, but a good lesson. Never too old to learn..

source - https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090704102835AAve62z&guccounter=1


@CalCruiser - Thanks for the chart. It does confirm that the peak added power is way up (4100 RPM). With the added noise, the K&N is still not a desired mod for me. Too much buck, not enough bang. 

And if anyone is waiting on chiptune results.. Sorry! Did not do the chip flash last night, found I had a right front wheel bearing that was showing some play. It had started as a slight vibration at 75-80 mph last trip, I assumed tire imbalance. It moved down to 65-70mph so I checked closer...and the wheel shows excess clearance in the bearing. I re-used the stock ones when I did the new brakes, so maybe they have reached EOL. (Yes, i did clean, inspect and re-grease them! Auto parts store gave me the wrong ones, so had to re-use due to time) I had to use the pre-installed seat that came in the disc, however, and mating a used bearing race to a new seat may have introduced excess wear. So she stayed parked today, doing the bearing(s) tonight.

Nah.. You don't need both, you just need torque.  If it's higher than it was at any given point, you have increased the HP.   RPM is linear, torque isn't.

Where you get the most bang for your buck is in the 2,000 to 3,000 RPM range.  That's where the majority of your use is and where an increase in power will mean less gas usage to maintain that RPM.

Again, were are not talking big numbers, we're talking a few percent.   Even the reported 17 HP increase at 4100 RPM is only a 5% (in round numbers) increase.  Hardly noticeable really.

By the way, IMHO the best number to read from a scan gauge type device is Engine Load.  Again, the numbers will be small.

Finally got to road test this on a 1600 mile trip through the mountains. It exceeded all expectations.

R/T from sea level to Moab UT via 15 to 70 to 191 with cc set at 67 achieved consistent 11.6 mpg calculated  at fill-ups, not just watching the scan gauge. The Ford V10 sings and pulls like  a freight train at 3200 rpm while maintaining 67mph on grades . We climbed  through 7700 and  6600 feet multiple times but  my 4 speed auto never dropped to 2nd gear and the ambient temperature was cool enough that I felt ok with letting the cc hold it at 67 in 3rd at 3200rpm. This completely changes the  driving characteristics by letting the engine rev another 500 rpm higher instead of downshifting again, and driving 160 miles on 1/4 tank is a very noticeable  15% improvement.

It really works !!

.........and driving 160 miles on 1/4 tank is a very noticeable  15% improvement.

Here are my thoughts on this suggestion.

Regardless of the type of vehicle with fuel pump in-tank, when driving with less than 1/4 tank of gas, the fuel pump's electric motor is not kept cool by fuel because it is no longer submerged in fuel, hence you are reducing the life expectancy of the fuel pump's electric motor.  I always tell my family to make it a habit to fill up when the tank is 1/4 full.  Doing so is good practice to avoid the cost to replace the fuel pump assembly.  They never fail at a good time or in a good place, so add the cost of towing and the over-all inconvenience.  Replacing an in-tank fuel pump can easily cost you over $600 plus towing and loss of pay and or time.

It's not worth running below 1/4 full for me.

I am not trying to be a critic here, just sharing what I have learned over the years.
Ron Dittmer

PS: If your fuel pump dies (no buzzing sound when turning on the ignition) and you are stranded, sometimes you can get lucky by slapping the bottom of the fuel tank while your spouse is cranking the engine. It could take 20 to 30 slaps.  The vibration from the slap jolts the armature on the fuel pump's electric motor just enough to get it running again.  But don't turn off the engine.  Drive directly to a repair center.

Finally got to road test this on a 1600 mile trip through the mountains. It exceeded all expectations.

R/T from sea level to Moab UT via 15 to 70 to 191 with cc set at 67 achieved consistent 11.6 mpg calculated  at fill-ups, not just watching the scan gauge. The Ford V10 sings and pulls like  a freight train at 3200 rpm while maintaining 67mph on grades . We climbed  through 7700 and  6600 feet multiple times but  my 4 speed auto never dropped to 2nd gear and the ambient temperature was cool enough that I felt ok with letting the cc hold it at 67 in 3rd at 3200rpm. This completely changes the  driving characteristics by letting the engine rev another 500 rpm higher instead of downshifting again, and driving 160 miles on 1/4 tank is a very noticeable  15% improvement.

It really works !!

So summarize... Exactly what modifications did you do?

Chip upgrade/reprogram?  K&N?  Muffler replacement?  Intake modification?  Etc.

Quote from: CalCruiser on May 05, 2019, 03:09:08 pm

.........and driving 160 miles on 1/4 tank is a very noticeable  15% improvement.

Here are my thoughts on this suggestion.

Regardless of the type of vehicle with fuel pump in-tank, when driving with less than 1/4 tank of gas, the fuel pump's electric motor is not kept cool by fuel because it is no longer submerged in fuel, hence you are reducing the life expectancy of the fuel pump's electric motor.  I always tell my family to make it a habit to fill up when the tank is 1/4 full.  Doing so is good practice to avoid the cost to replace the fuel pump assembly.  They never fail at a good time or in a good place, so add the cost of towing and the over-all inconvenience.  Replacing an in-tank fuel pump can easily cost you over $600 plus towing and loss of pay and or time.

It's not worth running below 1/4 full for me.

I am not trying to be a critic here, just sharing what I have learned over the years.
Ron Dittmer

PS: If your fuel pump dies (no buzzing sound when turning on the ignition) and you are stranded, sometimes you can get lucky by slapping the bottom of the fuel tank while your spouse is cranking the engine. It could take 20 to 30 slaps.  The vibration from the slap jolts the armature on the fuel pump's electric motor just enough to get it running again.  But don't turn off the engine.  Drive directly to a repair center.

Doing towing, the 'slap the tank' trick works many times. Makes it so I can drive on the ramp truck instead of winch it up.    And indeed, those that run low on gas all the time do get more pump failures. Not to mention
that with less gas and more air in the tank the expansion/contraction of the air inside makes it more prone to getting moisture in the tank, although modern fuel systems are MUCH less prone to this than those of 20 yrs ago.

I am fairly sure CalCruiser meant "Driving 160 miles on an indicated 1/4 tank of fuel used" IE: 160 miles from full to 3/4, etc.   

Not "we managed to get 160 miles out of the last 1/4 tank of gas". 

This would be the first time a cold air intake, on its own, would have increased mileage by 16%, increased power and even change shift points. In my experience, that is. I am with Donc13 on this one... what else did you do?

Just the K&N  77-2570KTK, otherwise all oem. The difference is hard to believe. We had a stiff crosswind all the way to Moab too.
For anyone familiar with the route from Vegas to Moab here’s some calculations  from my gas receipts:

Hurricane UT to Moab UT 352 miles / 30.28 gal. = 11.624 mpg

Moab UT - Richfield UT 165 mi / 14.3 gal. = 11.538 mpg

Currently in Vegas , only 289 mi since topping off in Richfield. Will fill up again before leaving Nevada and update mpg for the last climb through 7700 ft driving west out of Utah.

Doing 67mph uphill in 3rd at 3200 rpm the scan gauge was showing 6.8 mpg. Before the transmission would typically downshift to  3rd at 2850 then to 2nd and struggle to hold 60mph at 3800 on steep grades. The outside temp was around 75. I was watching the water and transmission temps closely on the scangauge , both only increased 10 degrees on the long climbs.

Well, no arguing with the findings. Your mileage and driveability are better. Thanks for the update!!

How old/what brand was your previous air filter?

Frankly, I am amazed at the result, and wish I had the time (and money!)  to investigate properly.  IE: put the old system, old filter on and log results. Old system, NEW filter, log results.  If everyone got the results you did, I would be working full time to install them. Hell, the OEM's would kill for a 10% improvement in mileage when new, and I am SURE with their purchasing power their cost would be much lower.  And its not like we are dealing with a 'new and exciting' area, 6.8 ford V-10's have been around for a long time, and are fairly well understood.

I have seen cheap air filters reduce power (and mileage), going to a Wix filter in one car that had a generic in it resulted in 20+ hp at the rear wheels on one test. On a ~550 HP smallblock, prolly spinning close to 7K rpm. (AKA 'street grenade'  ) Extreme example, but those are the ones that 'stick' in memory, right?

Especially at the (relatively) low RPM's you are dealing with, I wonder how much is the element itself improving VS the cold air assembly.  Right now I am running a cheapo STP (not even the 'best' one...the cheapest from AutoZone) Because when I checked the filter the first time, it was HORRIBLE and this was the only one at AZ. Not to mention after doing so, until now, I had not givin one thought to it again.    Until this chat.

I may spring for ~$70 and find out.

https://www.knfilters.com/air-filters/e-0945-replacement-air-filter?gclid=CjwKCAjw2cTmBRAVEiwA8YMgzaTy7WciV0hjeiOS7SycYsTmugZemFSqUcd1v-S8x390TOvxEj0DPRoCYYIQAvD_BwE

I would agree with the majority of posters....KN filters are a waste and can do more harm than good.  I have used them on 3  E450’s and on a Sprinter and so zero improvement in performance or MPG on any of the applications. I would stick to a paper filter of good quality (Wix, Napa, Baldwin) and change more frequently.   If a Sprinter diesel gets a hit of oil thru the intake you can really do some damage.  Best of luck.

I thought you installed a 5 star?   That would explain the shift points rather than a filter.   

Regarding k&n.  Everyone has to decide for themselves. I’ve seen 1500 Honda gold wings with over 400,000 miles , use no oil and had a k& n their entire life. A friend at work had a ford p/ u with a 300 straight 6 with 375,000 and counting when he retired all with a k&n. And this with people who live in the low desert (tons of dust) . Is there an advantage to the K&n power wise, I have no idea, but I’ve known too many people with very high mileage vehicles who run k& n with no ill effects so I don’t buy the “ they cause more harm than good monologue” .  Use what ever floats your boat.  The internet is full of.  Well you know.

IE; Have  you ever seen the oil filter site where some random person cuts open oil filters and based on his opinion brand x is garbage and brand y is  better than brand w based on what he sees in the thickness of the case or how strong he feels the spring is. And people quote these sites, Seriously?  Not one bit of evidence based on lab results, nada. Show me oil analysis on each filter after use, not this one looks better. Sheeeesh, yet people buy into it.

Ron, did I miss it, I thought he stated the use of a 1/4 tank of fuel not stating down to a 1/4 tank. Maybe I missed it, if it’s down to a 1/4 tank I agree with you, I never let mine get that low. I did that a few times on a bike and burnt up the fuel pump from it over heating. Seems odd to hear the gas cools the pump but that’s what they claimed ruined my fuel pump. Not even considering the sediment issues.

Ron, did I miss it, I thought he stated the use of a 1/4 tank of fuel not stating down to a 1/4 tank. Maybe I missed it, if it’s down to a 1/4 tank I agree with you, I never let mine get that low. I did that a few times on a bike and burnt up the fuel pump from it over heating. Seems odd to hear the gas cools the pump but that’s what they claimed ruined my fuel pump. Not even considering the sediment issues.

Its not a myth,  the pump DOES rely on cooling by the gasoline. Down here, its like a poor mans curse...ya cant afford to keep gas in the tank, so the pump goes out earlier. 

No worries about sediment... every pump I have ever replaced sucks off the bottom of the tank all the time. There is a filter on most that is nicknamed 'the sock' that keeps the sediment out of the pump. This lets the fuel filter go to a finer mesh without clogging up so soon. There is a lot of surface area on the sock, and they generally last the life of the pump...because when the sock gets clogged, the pump overheats and goes bad.

Fuel pump for my 2007 shown below - sock is the white thins on the bottom.

Just the K&N  77-2570KTK, otherwise all oem. The difference is hard to believe. We had a stiff crosswind all the way to Moab too.
For anyone familiar with the route from Vegas to Moab here’s some calculations  from my gas receipts:

Hurricane UT to Moab UT 352 miles / 30.28 gal. = 11.624 mpg

Moab UT - Richfield UT 165 mi / 14.3 gal. = 11.538 mpg

Currently in Vegas , only 289 mi since topping off in Richfield. Will fill up again before leaving Nevada and update mpg for the last climb through 7700 ft driving west out of Utah.

Doing 67mph uphill in 3rd at 3200 rpm the scan gauge was showing 6.8 mpg. Before the transmission would typically downshift to  3rd at 2850 then to 2nd and struggle to hold 60mph at 3800 on steep grades. The outside temp was around 75. I was watching the water and transmission temps closely on the scangauge , both only increased 10 degrees on the long climbs.

I am going to do the opposite direction trip starting tommorow.    My 2551 is an E450 with a higher numerical rear end ratio than the E350.

I already have a K&N filter but just the filter, not the intake setup.   

With that, with the cc set at 68 and no serious head or tailwind... I average right about 10mpg.

I can get exact numbers for this trip.

Volk,  I’ve also learned not all fuel systems have a filter. The 1800 wing I had there is no fuel filter of any kind. Just a screen at the pump.  I always thought it odd but there are many high mileage units out there with no issue. Lends one to buy their gas at stations with high fuel turn over.