Mustang Evolution Forum banner
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey all, I just installed the K&N filter assy, changed the oil to synthetic as the car reached 1K miles. I removed the rectangular piece that goes from the radiator support to the airbox so the engine runs on the warm air from the engine bay. I know that it defeats the CAI concept, but really, this car has 420 hp, I am more interested in boosting the MPG. The car went from 18mpg to 27.5 mpg overnight.
The idea is that the warm air is less dense, so the same air/fuel ratio will give higher mpg. It works.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,510 Posts
Colder air does require less fuel to burn, but under normal driving with a fully warmed car I dont see those mods creating 10mpg, when the summer time hits that hotter air will probably hurt more than it helps though.

27mpg is more of a highway set cruise when its nice and flat type of thing which is doable no problem stock or slightly modified. I have the V6 version so cant compare, but I get 30mpg if I go 55 vs 29mpg at 70 vs 27.5-27.0 at 75+ with cruise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
Colder air does require less fuel to burn, but under normal driving with a fully warmed car I dont see those mods creating 10mpg, when the summer time hits that hotter air will probably hurt more than it helps though.

27mpg is more of a highway set cruise when its nice and flat type of thing which is doable no problem stock or slightly modified. I have the V6 version so cant compare, but I get 30mpg if I go 55 vs 29mpg at 70 vs 27.5-27.0 at 75+ with cruise.
yes, colder denser air requires less fuel so the engine is more efficient with cooler air. I doubt you got those numbers from pen and paper calculation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
453 Posts
No disrespect, but if there ANY mod that provided a 10MPG boost to fuel economy, then Ford would have incorporated it into the car.

Under the right conditions on flat ground, the car is already EPA rated at 26MPG anyway. Add in some margin of error depending on how you're determining the mileage, and you could easily "see" 27 MPG under the right conditions.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,510 Posts
since my v6 is a manual its rated at 29 vs 31 but I still get 30+ if I go the right speed and dont have to mess with a bunch of hills.
 

·
The Blue Dragon
Joined
·
5,488 Posts
Did you change your driving habits as well? Did you decide to do strictly highway driving on your test instead of city and highway? It doesn't add up
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
610 Posts
Hey all, I just installed the K&N filter assy, changed the oil to synthetic as the car reached 1K miles. I removed the rectangular piece that goes from the radiator support to the airbox so the engine runs on the warm air from the engine bay. I know that it defeats the CAI concept, but really, this car has 420 hp, I am more interested in boosting the MPG. The car went from 18mpg to 27.5 mpg overnight.
The idea is that the warm air is less dense, so the same air/fuel ratio will give higher mpg. It works.
Did you actually drive it and got 27.5 mpgs or it just showed up on the dash?? Because what happens sometimes is that it says your getting 27.5 mpgs ( ex) but once your done with the tank you didn't really get what it says . It's less.. happens to me all the time
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I drove the exact same route to town, 20 miles one way, about the same temperature and same driving habits. I used the dash display the same as before for consistancy. I realize it may be off, but it just shows a huge jump that can't be argued away. Yesterday I drove into Portland, about 30 miles one way and with somewhat more city stopping, it still averaged 24.4. Bottom line is that the warmer air is not as dense, which given the same air/fuel ratio means less fuel. The idea of the CAI is to get higher density air for higher hp. I don't need any more hp for my style of driving, this car absolutely rocks as is. It may well be a combination of the engine reaching a break in point at 1100 miles as well as using the synthetic oil. The argument that Ford would have done this is not founded by the results. The Ford engineering is performance based, not mpg based. It is a Mustang, after all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,745 Posts
Don't care what the computer says, the car did not gain 9.5mpg over night. I can make mine say what ever I want, but simple math (gallons used divided by miles driven) will say different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
I drove the exact same route to town, 20 miles one way, about the same temperature and same driving habits. I used the dash display the same as before for consistancy. I realize it may be off, but it just shows a huge jump that can't be argued away. Yesterday I drove into Portland, about 30 miles one way and with somewhat more city stopping, it still averaged 24.4. Bottom line is that the warmer air is not as dense, which given the same air/fuel ratio means less fuel. The idea of the CAI is to get higher density air for higher hp. I don't need any more hp for my style of driving, this car absolutely rocks as is. It may well be a combination of the engine reaching a break in point at 1100 miles as well as using the synthetic oil. The argument that Ford would have done this is not founded by the results. The Ford engineering is performance based, not mpg based. It is a Mustang, after all.
U need to go retake a basic science class. LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
And to what end would taking a science class achieve...it wouldn't stop people from behaving like ostriches...head too deep in the sand to even consider something might work. I just know what I see in the car, the results are there, and how else to explain it other than the slight mods done???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
And to what end would taking a science class achieve...it wouldn't stop people from behaving like ostriches...head too deep in the sand to even consider something might work. I just know what I see in the car, the results are there, and how else to explain it other than the slight mods done???
A science class would teach u that ur theory on warmer air & fuel consumption is backward. ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,547 Posts
And to what end would taking a science class achieve...it wouldn't stop people from behaving like ostriches...head too deep in the sand to even consider something might work. I just know what I see in the car, the results are there, and how else to explain it other than the slight mods done???
You're posting in a forum full of a lot of extremely knowledgeable mustang folks. Saying things we know isn't true, isn't going to magically make it true. We all know better. lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
A science class would teach u that ur theory on warmer air & fuel consumption is backward. ;-)
I'm sorry, but this post is correct, air density doesn't have a whole lot of impact on fuel consumption unless you go from sea level to the Rockies, at which point your MPG would go down as you are starving the engine of necessary oxygen. The denser the air, the more complete burning of the fuel used. It doesn't change the amount of fuel injected. So to burn all of the energy in the fuel, you want more dense air which means more oxygen molecules per cubic inch. Hope this helps a little bit, if not ill find it in my Modern Marine Engineers Manual and post it... Seems to me like you may have tricked the computer by resetting on a slope etc. I can make the computer read 99.9 MPG if I leave it in neutral at the top of a mountain click reset and drift Down.... On another note, I do see 26-27 MPG during highway driving on a consistent basis.... Usually 19-20 combined....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,510 Posts
lets not try to make this into a bashing thread, while I dont believe those changes would gain 9-10 mpg, I am sure they can help. Thanks for sharing with us what you did and what you noticed. If you really want to get into it revert back to stock and drive for a couple weeks keep logs and drive the same exact way with the mods. Be fair in how/where you drive so it averages out the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Ok, I will concede that I am not as knowledgeable as the rest of you, I don't have a NRA sticker.
The whole purpose of posting what I did and what I found was to explore the reason for the results being so dramatic. I now understand that cold air is denser than warm air. And the engine doesn't really change the amount of fuel that is injected into the engine, and that the route that I drive obviously suffered a dramatic elevation shift from sea level to mountaintop, which because of my uneducated background I failed to notice.
So now that I am better informed, I can see clearly that someone slapped a NRA sticker on my car, and that the same air/fuel ratio will mean that less dense air will require higher fuel content than the cold/oxygen rich air, because the oxygen will burn more completely, thus yeilding higher mpg. So I can now understand that I should reinstall the spacer to the front of the car, and change the synthetic oil back to perhaps 75/90 weight. Perhaps removing the K&N filter and duct taping the paper filter in place will assure that the car remains in the forum accepted mpg range of 14-18.
Can't thank you all enough for your insight and encouraging words.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Ok, I will concede that I am not as knowledgeable as the rest of you, I don't have a NRA sticker.
The whole purpose of posting what I did and what I found was to explore the reason for the results being so dramatic. I now understand that cold air is denser than warm air. And the engine doesn't really change the amount of fuel that is injected into the engine, and that the route that I drive obviously suffered a dramatic elevation shift from sea level to mountaintop, which because of my uneducated background I failed to notice.
So now that I am better informed, I can see clearly that someone slapped a NRA sticker on my car, and that the same air/fuel ratio will mean that less dense air will require higher fuel content than the cold/oxygen rich air, because the oxygen will burn more completely, thus yeilding higher mpg. So I can now understand that I should reinstall the spacer to the front of the car, and change the synthetic oil back to perhaps 75/90 weight. Perhaps removing the K&N filter and duct taping the paper filter in place will assure that the car remains in the forum accepted mpg range of 14-18.
Can't thank you all enough for your insight and encouraging words.
Mtnman, don't take anything that I said the wrong way, I was just trying to throw in a quick explanation. I know I tend to not follow up after I originally post, but the sarcastic attitude towards someone over it is kinda ridiculous. If there's anything in this world I can tell you for sure, don't argue with science.. What you said didn't make sense, people informed you that a 10 mpg increase with what you did is not normal, I've been running full synthetic for the last month or so, and not much of a change, I run the JLT intake and tune and I did get a slight boost, but not a 10 mpg boost! That's excessive! Are you sure they didn't replace your engine and not just your oil? Good luck with defying physics!

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------

Ok, I will concede that I am not as knowledgeable as the rest of you, I don't have a NRA sticker.
The whole purpose of posting what I did and what I found was to explore the reason for the results being so dramatic. I now understand that cold air is denser than warm air. And the engine doesn't really change the amount of fuel that is injected into the engine, and that the route that I drive obviously suffered a dramatic elevation shift from sea level to mountaintop, which because of my uneducated background I failed to notice.
So now that I am better informed, I can see clearly that someone slapped a NRA sticker on my car, and that the same air/fuel ratio will mean that less dense air will require higher fuel content than the cold/oxygen rich air, because the oxygen will burn more completely, thus yeilding higher mpg. So I can now understand that I should reinstall the spacer to the front of the car, and change the synthetic oil back to perhaps 75/90 weight. Perhaps removing the K&N filter and duct taping the paper filter in place will assure that the car remains in the forum accepted mpg range of 14-18.
Can't thank you all enough for your insight and encouraging words.
Oh I forgot, try changing your oil to pebbles, that tends to give you a few mpg and a few horsepower!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Just pulled the car into the shop to install the latest forum suggested mod...cutting a hole in the floor to install the "Flintstone booster". Though it only works if coasting downhill, with a tailwind from a tornado, it is factory authorized to yeild higher mpg and keep the car "mainstream". It even comes with a "Science book reader" which is bluetooth.
Very cool.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top