Archives

Hi everyone. This is my first post other that my post in the "welcom" forum. I have a 2007 Honda Accord, V6 with 6-speed MT and navi system. It has an MPG screen that shows average and "instant fuel". Just wondering if this is accurate and as good as the one everyone on this board seems to be using? edit...sorry for the double post, i can edit but i don't see how to delete
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii101/kevnc/IMG00075.jpg

Also, wondering about my air filter. I have a K&N "short ram" air filter installed. I notice a performance improvement but wonder if all things being equal in driving style, if this should help with MPG and how much?
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii101/kevnc/IMG00076.jpg

Short answer....its not as good. While that specific number should be equivilant to the one scan guage can calculate, after all its just speed divided by instant (or slighly averaged) fuel usage), the scan guage can do much more.

However, I don't have one yet either, and your built in guage can offer some strong hints on what things you do right or wrong, so don't ignore it. However there is one problem with it...the guage is way outside your normal view so using it regularly will have you spending less time with you head up. The scan guage can be positioned where its even more convient than the regular dash guage which is another plus for it.

I have the same functionality in my Impala, and I still purchased a Scangauge. It's definitely worth getting - the extra information (such as throttle position or gallons per hour,) is helpful, and it is also nice to have the Scangauge mounted in my direct line-of-sight while driving, instead of off to the right, which takes my eyes off the road for too long. The ability to read engine error codes is also useful.

Wayne's accord has the same screen and as I recall, it is accurate... but too limited.

The K&N location seems to be good, it isn't drawing cold air like a true CAI, which would give you better performance but decrease FE. To get the most out of these filters, keep them clean, they often get more dirty on the underside from road debris. Every 3k miles at least visually inspect. I've used K&N and the cheaper parts store varieties and couldn't tell a difference in performance. After the K&N got beat up and nasty looking I replaced it with the cheaper ones, I would clean them a few times then throw them away and buy a new one for $15.00 I now use standard OEM style Fram filters on everything.

Buy a scangauge! Help the (fuel) economy! - Dale

Thanks for the replies so far! That filter came with the tubing to bring it near the tire for true cold air but it can be configured either way. I set it up as short ram because A) it is winter and B) I'm kind of scared of puddles in the other config

So, your saying that the cold air would hurt FE but increase performance?

That is correct. The colder air is denser. To keep the air/fuel mixture ratio the same the computer puts in more fuel per cylinder charge. This results in more power and more fuel usage. That's why many of us use a warm air intake during the winter. It lowers the density and gets the fuel usage back down closer to summertime levels.

Yes. Cold air allows more fuel to be compacted into the combustion chamber, more fuel equals more power. Blowers, turbos and nitrous oxide work towards the same goal, generally speaking, increase air volume and you can increase power by "dumping" more fuel.

The warm air intake would be more in line with FE. Warmer air allows for gas liquid to be less dense and in an oversimplified optimal situation to enter the combustion chamber as a vapor. Giving a more thorough burn, less emissions and a much great efficiency.

You use less gas but burn it more efficiently. The power loss to an average car would be noticeable at top end speeds. for my Geo Metro it may lose 3-5mph above 75mph. for your 3L Honda, I'm guessing it would slow it from 130mph to 124mph. Not really something to worry about unless your drag racing. - Dale

I realize that in theory a cold air intake or even a K&N air filter will get less MPG, but in my experience this isn't true. Every car I have owned I usually install a K&N in the stock air box, & on average gain 1 MPG or more.
This is the same results every person I talk to gets, I would speculate this is because the motor is making more power, you are using less throttle at any given speed.

You don't need to clean these filters as often as stated above, matter of fact they filter better when dirty. Also one guy above mentions using Fram filters, Fram makes the WORST air/oil filters you can buy. If you buy a fram air filter you might as well just throw you air filter away and not use one at all(ask any mechanic or parts guy).

From what I've heard, K&N's aren't so super either. They're generally not recommended for my car because the extra oil and dirt they let in have a tendency to kill the MAF.

When comparing a K&N air filter and a paper filter like Fram they both have their strong points.

A K&N will allow more air to flow with less filtration abilities while the paper filter will catch more particles both large and small better but not breathe as well.

K&N was designed for performance with applications for racing where HP is more important than longevity of the engine. So when saying that it would be better to run without a Fram than to use one you are somewhat correct if your intended results are performance at the cost of replacing parts.

In some instances Fram is inferior to similar OEM paper filters, generally comparing overall quality and the number of pleats will be fairly easy to reveal which is the better filter. The fit of the filter within in its housing is important as an out of round filter or a not quite square one depending on it's style will not seal well, letting particles get around the filter.

The more pleats of a paper filter will give more surface area for particles to be trapped.

I use paper filters because they are cheap/easy to replace and protect the engine well, a K&N is good for airflow and it creates less waste as it doesn't need to be thrown out every 5K miles so environmentally it has some merit.

Amsoil oil/foam filters score better than K&N or paper filters in the SAEJ726C tests from what I could find in my searches.

It's a matter of intentions and cost. - Dale

5k? I don't replace mine until at least 25k. I check it, but don't replace it.

Paper all the way. I'm never anywhere close to high rpm and WOT, so any (even minor) airflow restriction is not an issue to me.

I should change my signature to include: I agree with Pale.

Check each oil change. Changes have come at 15k to 40k. I've bought the replacements (I use OEM) and compared new and old with no significant difference observed, then waited to change until it seemed like I should. Then kept the old because I'm quite sure they could be reused.

Obviously different if on dirt roads or in a volcanic ash cloud, etc.

LOL :p I can't say I dislike that idea, though. ;)