For the record, performance equipment for tow vehicles became hot during the first gas crisis in 1973. Jerry Jardine, Fred Offenhauser, Bruce Crower and Vic Edlebrock, Jr. used race car tow trucks as a test bed for equipment. Remember, a lot of race cars were towed on roll backs or on trailers behind a truck with a camper. As these products were developed, ads in CamperCoachman and TL generate 1000's of responses and 100's of satisfied customers.
I ran a Wrangler through a hub deep stream on Sunday with a K&N filter charger with nary a drop of water in the intake tube. While I respect Tom's opinion, I would point out that every single truck manufacturer, including Toyota, Honda and Nissan, works with SEMA members and the 2009 F-150 has already been set for measurement sessions.
Products we're talking about here are not from J.C. Whitney nor are they sold on late night TV by Billie Mays.
In all honesty, I doubt that the cost benefits of installing high performance equipment on a modern TV would pencil out today. But, the benefits are still there if you want to pay the money and do it right.
what would be the proper way to clean a Duramax Mass Airflow Sensor?
spray it down with electronic tuner cleaner?
should it be touched with a tac cloth when doing this?
anyone know the proper way?
I shoot PJ7 paper filter oil on Fram air filters, and someone told me a couple days ago that would foul my MAS....true? or myth?
No TV tuner cleaner. They contain a lubricant. Never touch the film or wires inside the sensor housing.
Find a spray can of Mass Airflow Sensor cleaner at the auto parts store. I like the CRC line of products.
If the sensor’s OK and isn’t throwing a code spraying it down generally won’t harm it. Just don’t expect miracles. There seems to be a tipping point from which they don’t recover.
As far as oiling a paper filter I don’t know about the PJ7 oil. I wouldn’t bother for all the reasons previously mentioned. In any case less would be more.
Tom.
__________________
Airstream Forums Member # 2806
WBCCI # 6411 Not All Who Wander Are Lost.
It's my understanding that a diesel engine has a fixed amount of airflow for all power settings. Only fuel is modulated as needed for performance. A clean stock filter should provide the proper airflow and superior filtering.
The usefulness or performance of aftermarket products aside, the fact is vehicles produced in America, or produce in another country for sale or for use in America, achieve the poorest fuel economy in the world.
While vehicles sold here are some of the most technically advanced, government regulations on emissions require a waste of fuel to achieve the required levels. The on-board computers actually add fuel on the input side when the sensors see unburned products of combustion in the exhaust system. This additional fuel promotes higher temps in the catalytic converter, which re-burns the exhaust gasses, to assure the required emissions level.
An example is the European SmartCar. This vehicle achieves 50-60 mpg in the EU, but due to the emissions laws in the US, it is de-tuned to around 30 mpg. This is also witnessed by the fact that new engines, and improvements to current engines, are meant to meet emissions standards, and are less concerned about improving fuel economy.
One wonders if the outcome is truly a gain. Is burning more fuel now really better than the limited improvement of a slightly better emissions measurement.
Further, not all the automotive engineers work for the auto manufacturers. It seems that products not totally concerned with emissions limitations can make some improvements.
__________________
Jeff, Cindy and the Brittanys:
Remi and Hunter
'81 International 31'CB "Fus-a-lodge"
'03 2500HD Chevy Duramax w/improvments
WBCCI #7026 Air #17054
The usefulness or performance of aftermarket products aside, the fact is vehicles produced in America, or produce in another country for sale or for use in America, achieve the poorest fuel economy in the world.
While vehicles sold here are some of the most technically advanced, government regulations on emissions require a waste of fuel to achieve the required levels. The on-board computers actually add fuel on the input side when the sensors see unburned products of combustion in the exhaust system. This additional fuel promotes higher temps in the catalytic converter, which re-burns the exhaust gasses, to assure the required emissions level.
An example is the European SmartCar. This vehicle achieves 50-60 mpg in the EU, but due to the emissions laws in the US, it is de-tuned to around 30 mpg. This is also witnessed by the fact that new engines, and improvements to current engines, are meant to meet emissions standards, and are less concerned about improving fuel economy.
One wonders if the outcome is truly a gain. Is burning more fuel now really better than the limited improvement of a slightly better emissions measurement.
Further, not all the automotive engineers work for the auto manufacturers. It seems that products not totally concerned with emissions limitations can make some improvements.
You hit the nail on the head! I participated in several tests using speed equipment installed on a SBC that not only increased HP, but improved economy both on the dyno and on the street. AND, was within the parameters of emission control requirements. What we didn't know at the time was the political forces that were at work to set standards that weren't always in the consumer's best interest. A good example was the "visual" test. I had two cars that had to be sold out of state (California) because they would not pass the visual test due to the installation of tube headers and an aluminum intake manifold with a low restriction air cleaner. Interestingly enough, both of these vehicles passed the smog check.
Emission controls need to be set by engineers, not congress pandering to environmentalists. That goes for state law makers too.
The usefulness or performance of aftermarket products aside, the fact is vehicles produced in America, or produce in another country for sale or for use in America, achieve the poorest fuel economy in the world.
We have the poorest average fuel economy in the world because we drive vehicles with the highest average weight, and designed for style and comfort rather than aerodynamics, and we drive them too fast. You can also blame highway safety requirements for increasing the weight of vehicles on our road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdalrymple
While vehicles sold here are some of the most technically advanced, government regulations on emissions require a waste of fuel to achieve the required levels. The on-board computers actually add fuel on the input side when the sensors see unburned products of combustion in the exhaust system. This additional fuel promotes higher temps in the catalytic converter, which re-burns the exhaust gasses, to assure the required emissions level.
That's not true. The difference in efficiency between the air fuel ratio for optimum emission control, and the one for optimum efficiency is very small.
The catalytic converter works by absorbing nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, and unburned hydrocarbons. Nitrous oxides are broken down by the catalyst to provide oxygen to consume the carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons.
Until a few years ago the way the precise ratio was achieved was by running slightly rich to build up carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons on the catalyst for a second, then burn slightly lean to produce NOx and excess oxygen for a second. This was done because the oxygen sensors weren't accurate enough to stay on the exact ratio. The solution was to make sure the time average is the correct ratio. You can see the oscillation clearly on an oscilloscope.
About 5-6 years ago broad-band oxygen sensors came out that were capable of measuring the correct air fuel ratio came out. The improvement was fairly minor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdalrymple
An example is the European SmartCar. This vehicle achieves 50-60 mpg in the EU, but due to the emissions laws in the US, it is de-tuned to around 30 mpg. This is also witnessed by the fact that new engines, and improvements to current engines, are meant to meet emissions standards, and are less concerned about improving fuel economy.
According to Smart's website the 2008 version uses 4.8 L/100km. By my calculation this is 46 MPG. This is for gasoline. Most of the European ones are diesel.
It's my understanding that a diesel engine has a fixed amount of airflow for all power settings. Only fuel is modulated as needed for performance. A clean stock filter should provide the proper airflow and superior filtering.
Diesels do not have a throttle plate, as a gasser does. The plumbing through the air flow is fixed in size but the volume of air that flows through it increases as RPMs increase. That is where K&N claims to have an advantage and yes they do but the amount of dirt that flows through the engine the rest of the time does not justify the increased air flow unless you are racing and intend to rebuild the engine anyway.
While this thread has strayed from the original post, canadianguy pretty much nailed it down. The range of fuel efficient sub compacts in Europe is quit broad and generally unavailable in the US. I’d love to see a Polo in this country. Sales says there’s not enough demand to bring in a US spec model. (time to rethink that position.) We got a Jetta in this Tuesday with the new "Clean Diesel" engine. 50 state certified and MPG numbers similar to Prius. This in a car with a real trunk and performance.
Recent polling data seems indicate that the general public is starting to re-examine the way, and what they drive. The data is born out in last months sales figures posted by the automakers.
I think for the non-technical readers it should be noted that gas and diesel engines have become nearly identical in the way fuel management and emissions are handled. The Duramax mentioned in the first post has electronically controlled fuel injectors, EGR, Catalysts and a full array of input and output sensors. Just like your family sedan. The Horsepower, Performance and Emissions balancing act have always been a difficult compromise.
Politics aside, even I have "Air Quality" issues with my county board. The opinion of some of my friends and colleagues here on the Forum is that air quality and economy be left in the hands of the engineers and not to the legislature. They might want to ask the people of some smog afflicted community how they feel about the problem. And how they voted. There’s no going back now.
OK, I'm done now,
Tom.
__________________
Airstream Forums Member # 2806
WBCCI # 6411 Not All Who Wander Are Lost.
Diesels do not have a throttle plate, as a gasser does. The plumbing through the air flow is fixed in size but the volume of air that flows through it increases as RPMs increase. That is where K&N claims to have an advantage and yes they do but the amount of dirt that flows through the engine the rest of the time does not justify the increased air flow unless you are racing and intend to rebuild the engine anyway.
Bigger holes pass bigger pieces of dirt.
Been there did that and it is not worth it.
Ditto. I'm with you on this one. It's always been my understanding that K&N are designed for race applications. More airflow and less concern about what goes into the engine as it will be rebuilt soon anyhow. You have to be a master of the exact amount of oil to use on them etc. If you're not racing, don't bother with the K&N. Any gain will be offset by premature engine wear.
Quick Links
Linear Mode
