Performance & Gas Mileage mod needed
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
From: U.S.A.
"So you are saying that for every gallon burned in your 2001, you can now go approximately 120 yards farther? "
Yup, I get a whole 1.1917 miles farther per average 17.478 gallon fillup!
I was just stating the numbers for information. There are some crazy claims out there for certain products. And I am part geek so I like to keep numbers.
For example:
Average MPG since new: 15.594
Average MPG prior to K&N air Filter: 15.270
Average MPG w/ K&N air Filter: 15.399
Average MPG w/ FM 40 and K&N: 15.306
Average MPG w/ FM 40 and MAC intake: 15.728
Average MPG since 16 July 02 to 05 May 03 (91 octane) 15.405
Average MPG since 05 May 2003 (87 octane) 15.840
Yup, I get a whole 1.1917 miles farther per average 17.478 gallon fillup!
I was just stating the numbers for information. There are some crazy claims out there for certain products. And I am part geek so I like to keep numbers.
For example:
Average MPG since new: 15.594
Average MPG prior to K&N air Filter: 15.270
Average MPG w/ K&N air Filter: 15.399
Average MPG w/ FM 40 and K&N: 15.306
Average MPG w/ FM 40 and MAC intake: 15.728
Average MPG since 16 July 02 to 05 May 03 (91 octane) 15.405
Average MPG since 05 May 2003 (87 octane) 15.840
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, TX
So, to clarify since you are so impressed with your gain, after going approx 350-400 miles on a tank, you get a .26 % gain in mileage per tank?
And you can honestly say that was a filter? Sorry bud, but you're just looking for a reason to believe in somehting, anything that you could attribute everything to..
To me, that gain is not even as much of an improvement than an oil change!
Just looking at your numbers, you started at 15.27 and still have not gone above 16 MPG with only a .5 MPG gain since you bought it. That is most likely due to breaking in...
Technical Article Contributor
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 10,511
Likes: 10
From: Under the flightpath of old ORD 22R
ReelWork,
I have done the testing on several FIPKs, and know between them the MAFS flow rates does increase, even between FIPK mfgrs.
If I would have belived Mike Troyer out of the gate, I could have saved about $600.00 in FIPK experiments.
The one I have now looks a whole lot like a AF1 FIPK. It is the K&N T/B tube with a MAFS adapter plate, and the filter from the JLP Ram Air intake kit for a L ( long cylinder with the pleats at the end ).
This setup out flows the K&N filter with the chrome plate on the end, and even out flows the JLP kit in the under 60 MPH range quite a bit.
The JLP setup was paired with a WMS V-Tube, and twin 2" brake duct hoses feeding the bottom of the unit, as well as the fender opening.
I was testing with a G-Tech and AutoTap software logging the MAFS flow rate vs RPM and Intake Air Temp. In addition to the 60' times, and MAFS flow rates I used a Omega OM-44 Temp logging probe set, to check fender temps and under hood temps, against the intake temps, to check the cool air intake claims ( which are not what they say they are ).
So the AF1 type setup ( and maybe the complete knock off from eBay ?? don't know for sure on that one ) produces a lowered 60' and 1/8 mi time, and an increased MAFS flow rate, and at the over 30 MPH range, the same temp as an enclosed air intake.
So while a drop in will increase the MAFS flow rate over a stock paper element, the correct FIPK will out flow a drop in, which means more air to the engine. Under TPS > 80% area the engine can take more air into the system then a lot of FIPKs will allow.
Back to your point of is it worth it ?
To me yes, others maybe no. That is a subjective question, in terms of what performance is worth. For yourself it is not by any means, which is cool. Other knuckle heads like myself it is worth the money spent.
I don't watch MPG rates, so that is an unknow in terms of is a drop in better vs a FIPK, which the FIPK could be worse for all I know.
Either way..mod the way you like to, and enjoy your truck !!
I have done the testing on several FIPKs, and know between them the MAFS flow rates does increase, even between FIPK mfgrs.
If I would have belived Mike Troyer out of the gate, I could have saved about $600.00 in FIPK experiments.
The one I have now looks a whole lot like a AF1 FIPK. It is the K&N T/B tube with a MAFS adapter plate, and the filter from the JLP Ram Air intake kit for a L ( long cylinder with the pleats at the end ).
This setup out flows the K&N filter with the chrome plate on the end, and even out flows the JLP kit in the under 60 MPH range quite a bit.
The JLP setup was paired with a WMS V-Tube, and twin 2" brake duct hoses feeding the bottom of the unit, as well as the fender opening.
I was testing with a G-Tech and AutoTap software logging the MAFS flow rate vs RPM and Intake Air Temp. In addition to the 60' times, and MAFS flow rates I used a Omega OM-44 Temp logging probe set, to check fender temps and under hood temps, against the intake temps, to check the cool air intake claims ( which are not what they say they are ).
So the AF1 type setup ( and maybe the complete knock off from eBay ?? don't know for sure on that one ) produces a lowered 60' and 1/8 mi time, and an increased MAFS flow rate, and at the over 30 MPH range, the same temp as an enclosed air intake.
So while a drop in will increase the MAFS flow rate over a stock paper element, the correct FIPK will out flow a drop in, which means more air to the engine. Under TPS > 80% area the engine can take more air into the system then a lot of FIPKs will allow.
Back to your point of is it worth it ?
To me yes, others maybe no. That is a subjective question, in terms of what performance is worth. For yourself it is not by any means, which is cool. Other knuckle heads like myself it is worth the money spent.
I don't watch MPG rates, so that is an unknow in terms of is a drop in better vs a FIPK, which the FIPK could be worse for all I know.
Either way..mod the way you like to, and enjoy your truck !!
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
From: U.S.A.
Please don't misinterpret me. You completely misunderstood what I'm saying.
I'm not impressed with any of these mods for mpg gains. There isn't one that really did squat!
I keep numbers for reference. None of them were one time measurements. They are all over time. When a debate comes up like this one I can back up my words with numbers. As you have seen. In this case the mods have done very little (if nothing) to improve mpg.
0.5 mpg improvement over the life of the truck could very well be equated to break-in. We just need someone who has done zero mods and has kept logs to compare against.
"And you can honestly say that was a filter?" I never said that. I only showed the numbers as they appear in the log. You can interpret them however you like.
The advantage is that future buyers of a K&N filter can actually see what the results from the addition are. There is no snake oil, no opinions, just numbers.
I'm not impressed with any of these mods for mpg gains. There isn't one that really did squat!
I keep numbers for reference. None of them were one time measurements. They are all over time. When a debate comes up like this one I can back up my words with numbers. As you have seen. In this case the mods have done very little (if nothing) to improve mpg.
0.5 mpg improvement over the life of the truck could very well be equated to break-in. We just need someone who has done zero mods and has kept logs to compare against.
"And you can honestly say that was a filter?" I never said that. I only showed the numbers as they appear in the log. You can interpret them however you like.
The advantage is that future buyers of a K&N filter can actually see what the results from the addition are. There is no snake oil, no opinions, just numbers.
