Not exactly, the amount of hp you gain from an air filter rises with your engine capacity (The bigger the engine, the more hp you get). It's the same thing for the 100 octane gas you find at Shell and other top of the line companys. For your car it isn't worth it to use that kind of gas because you will only gain about 1-2hp. You will need something of about 3L or bigger to get more then 10-20 hp from that gas thus making it worth it.
How do the performance air filters work? I assume it's just a better (but more costly) design that can filter the same amount of crap out of the air, but doesn't restrict the airflow as much meaning more gets into the engine.
Indeed. Performance air filters clean the air just as the stock ones doe (producers claim it's better) but they are bigger then a normal air filter and they have a conic shape, thus maximizing the amount of air the engine can suck in.
But you have to keep buying the cleaning kit instead, which costs about the same as a normal air filter. I wouldn't bother unless I was racing the car.
In many cases, you're spot on. But cheaper brand 'performance air filters' just lower the restriction but also let more crap through. As do racing filters, where you're not so concerned with long service intervals and high mileage engine life.
Bambo - we're talking about a replacement performance filter that goes in the same hole in the airbox. Sticky out ones, or bigger ones generally lower performance as all the carefully calculated resonance effects the airbox is meant to cope with. A decent cold air intake kit (which will only increase power by about 3 percent anyway) will cost a bit more than £80, once you've got ducting, adaptors for the airbox, a decent filter, a heat shield, and a mounting sorted. Cheap ones are crap and should be avoided at all costs.
Not putting one on mine at the moment as its running a bit lean anyway and ill soon be converting it to fuel injection from a ford granada (10-20bhp and 10mpg extra, plus unleaded conversion 
)
) (BAMBO)
DELETED
by BAMBO
I don't really see the point in just replacing the filter. My brother owns a toyota soarer, with a super restrictive intake box. No point replacing the filter if you have a induction piping the size of your finger, it'll do shit all. So we ended up replacing it with a Apexi power intake, which has the adapater for it and puts it right up near the leadlight (big gap beneath the headlight for air) Cost him about $280 i think.
Then we used an alumium and heat proof rubber box around it to keep the hot air out, then use some industrial air-con type tubing running from one of the front bumper inlets up below the headlight area.
It would definatly increase performance, its not an overly large filter, doesnt suck in hot air, and it isn't restrictive.
Along with this its had a 3" downpipe, high flow cat, then splits into two 2.5" for the exhaust, along with an intercooler, transmission cooler, and shiftkit, on 14psi
Made 287rwhp after the ECU tune, putting out some nice power for only minimal engine mods.
But that being said...its all quality brands, $5 filters from your universal performance shop isn't going to do anything.
I have to say that usually the biggest effect of "performance" filters are just getting a better sound.
On stock car just changing the filter isn't usually doing anything really. Of course this can vary.
Usually better filters should be used on tuned engines, because the original filters and air boxes may constrict the air flow. Also it makes the sound bigger, so it is a way to tell public you have a powerful engine.
I have a Pipercross filter on my car in the place of the original air box / filter, also the intake pipe is bigger than original. But the main reason is still to make it sound better. Yes my car's engine is slightly tuned, but to be honest if I would put the original air box there, it probably wouldn't have a big effect. Also it still haves the original MAF.
About the torque. My car has better torque than original, but the torque is on slightly higher rpm's. This is Ford "Pinto" 2.0 OHC engine.
List of what is done and what also has the biggest effect on torque, works on most engines if built properly.
Lowered and ported head (bigger compression ratio, bigger ports allowing more air flow)
Pipercams "aftermarket" cam, a "mild" one, so gives something but not anything radical.
Modified MAF, for richer air fuel ratio. Not good for fuel efficiency, but whit original MAF this engine is just horrible to drive.
Also the exhaust is modified a "staight" 2", don't use too big exhaust on N/A engine, it kills the torque.
Of course the whole engine is rebuilt, putting a aftermarket cam to engine what have seen million kilometers isn't usually doing much.
Other very useful stuff what could have a noticeable effect.
Adjustable cam wheel, adjusting cam timing can have a big effect on what RPM the power is produced and how much.
Better exhaust manifold, for this type of engine 4-2-1 should do the job best.
Better, adjustable engine management system, for remapping the fuel and ignition maps. With them I could use the original inlet manifold with one throttle body, but even better with individual throttle bodys.
OR a pair of side draught twin choke carbs, ie. Dellorto DHLA 40's (motor porn). And a different adjustable ignition system.
And of course with better engine management system I could use more aggressive cam.
Or I could just do a turbo conversion, very easy with this engine, currently planning it.
Also when people say that aggressive cam kills the torque, it's bullshit.
Aggressive cam just moves it to higher rpm's... And usually with more aggressive cam the torque is higher.
On stock car just changing the filter isn't usually doing anything really. Of course this can vary.
Usually better filters should be used on tuned engines, because the original filters and air boxes may constrict the air flow. Also it makes the sound bigger, so it is a way to tell public you have a powerful engine.
I have a Pipercross filter on my car in the place of the original air box / filter, also the intake pipe is bigger than original. But the main reason is still to make it sound better. Yes my car's engine is slightly tuned, but to be honest if I would put the original air box there, it probably wouldn't have a big effect. Also it still haves the original MAF.
About the torque. My car has better torque than original, but the torque is on slightly higher rpm's. This is Ford "Pinto" 2.0 OHC engine.
List of what is done and what also has the biggest effect on torque, works on most engines if built properly.
Lowered and ported head (bigger compression ratio, bigger ports allowing more air flow)
Pipercams "aftermarket" cam, a "mild" one, so gives something but not anything radical.
Modified MAF, for richer air fuel ratio. Not good for fuel efficiency, but whit original MAF this engine is just horrible to drive.
Also the exhaust is modified a "staight" 2", don't use too big exhaust on N/A engine, it kills the torque.
Of course the whole engine is rebuilt, putting a aftermarket cam to engine what have seen million kilometers isn't usually doing much.
Other very useful stuff what could have a noticeable effect.
Adjustable cam wheel, adjusting cam timing can have a big effect on what RPM the power is produced and how much.
Better exhaust manifold, for this type of engine 4-2-1 should do the job best.
Better, adjustable engine management system, for remapping the fuel and ignition maps. With them I could use the original inlet manifold with one throttle body, but even better with individual throttle bodys.
OR a pair of side draught twin choke carbs, ie. Dellorto DHLA 40's (motor porn). And a different adjustable ignition system.
And of course with better engine management system I could use more aggressive cam.
Or I could just do a turbo conversion, very easy with this engine, currently planning it.
Also when people say that aggressive cam kills the torque, it's bullshit.
Aggressive cam just moves it to higher rpm's...
And usually with more aggressive cam the torque is higher.*makes notes* got the same engine
Instead of twin 40's its better to go for bike carbs, same power but better MPG. Id love to do a turbo conversion myself. and the adjustable cam pulley would be very handy.
Interesting fact - Ford never referred to that engine as a Pinto. It's been called that later. I forget now what it was called - I'd have to ask my father who was working for Ford (as head of powertrain development I think) at the time.
Edit: Yes, I know Pinto came from the car it was installed in, but many people think that Ford called it the Pinto like they call an engine Zetec or Duratec
Edit: Yes, I know Pinto came from the car it was installed in, but many people think that Ford called it the Pinto like they call an engine Zetec or Duratec
Was referred to as the overhead cam (OHC) but the use of it in the ford pinto gave it the name
Wiki is your friend:
The Ford Pinto engine is the unofficial but generic nickname for a 4 cylinder internal combustion engine built by the Ford Europe. In Ford sales literature it was referred to as the EAO or OHC engine, it is also sometimes called the "Metric engine" since it was designed using the metric system. The internal Ford codename for the unit was the T88-series engine.
The Ford Pinto engine is the unofficial but generic nickname for a 4 cylinder internal combustion engine built by the Ford Europe. In Ford sales literature it was referred to as the EAO or OHC engine, it is also sometimes called the "Metric engine" since it was designed using the metric system. The internal Ford codename for the unit was the T88-series engine.
That's it - T88! Thanks Psycho and thanks Wiki 
Well good if my typing wasn't completely useless.
Yep, forgot about the bike carbs, they've started to be pretty popular on "mild" road engines.
Tho when using bike "carbs" I would maybe use them as ITB's and use ie. the famous Megasquirt.
And as like I said twin carbs are motor porn.
BTW, if you have a stock IS OHC in good condition, here on 5th post you have a very useful tutorial, for easy and cheap way of turboing it.
The missing electric drawing is on page 6.
Hah! Now I have a way of making some Ford nutters confused and make me look like I know something.
Just out of curiousity, I was wondering about what the benefit would be with an engine with insanely high horsepower (engines used in F1 cars for example) over an engine with very high torque but not as high power in proportion (ie. Audi R10). Maybe my question is a little vague, but my knowledge of cars is quite limited.
Because the powerband is usually larger, I think.
Gears multiply or divide torque. E.g. 300 torques into an 18/22 gear ratio gives 245 torques out.
Power is not multiplied, so 300hp in = 300hp out (ignoring efficiencies)
So a car with a peak torque of 1000lbft and ~500hp in a narrow power band has gearing that reduces the torque at the wheel but increases the road speed range at which it can be used. Whereas a car with just 200Nm and 500hp has very much different gearing that will usually result in very similar torques at the wheels (and obviously the same power).
You see, the engine doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the power and torque at the wheels. As power isn't multiplied by gearing it's usually a better indication of vehicle performance between different types of cars.
Power is not multiplied, so 300hp in = 300hp out (ignoring efficiencies)
So a car with a peak torque of 1000lbft and ~500hp in a narrow power band has gearing that reduces the torque at the wheel but increases the road speed range at which it can be used. Whereas a car with just 200Nm and 500hp has very much different gearing that will usually result in very similar torques at the wheels (and obviously the same power).
You see, the engine doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the power and torque at the wheels. As power isn't multiplied by gearing it's usually a better indication of vehicle performance between different types of cars.
I ended up just getting a key cut for the car...
Where the locking mechanism was placed was impossible to get to on a right angle to hit it properly.
I have a question, however.
Because we pulled out the door lock barrel, will this allow us to start the car (bypass the imobiliser?) or is there something in the ingition barrel that needs to be on the key also?
Need to swap over the battery..but cbf doing it now.
Where the locking mechanism was placed was impossible to get to on a right angle to hit it properly.
I have a question, however.
Because we pulled out the door lock barrel, will this allow us to start the car (bypass the imobiliser?) or is there something in the ingition barrel that needs to be on the key also?
Need to swap over the battery..but cbf doing it now.
If it's an aftermarket imobiliser then it is normally a small black box wired into the ignition switch wiring loom and shoved up under the dash near your steering column. If that's the case it is pretty straight forward to get rid of the imobiliser. Just follow the wires from the imobiliser box and disconnect them from the original wiring harness, they are normaly wired in with quick t connectors so are easy to remove. Also there will be one main original wire that will have been cut in half which you will need to reconnect back together again after you have disconected the wires leading from the imobiliser.
Good morning (it's midnight here). I have a little bit of info I want to confirm. Regarding passenger cars, people say that it is better to have the gas tank filled up all the way to full all the time. However, some people don't think so. My cousin filled his Honda Prelude up to halfway and let it run until the needle hit a little past empty. My father filled his Toyota 4Runner up to halfway as well, but my mother fills her Toyota Sienna until it is full.
Let's say that you are currently using your car to get from home to work and back. The pros I know so far that using partially filled tanks make the car lighter, and this depends on how much fuel it holds maximum. This can probably improve economy by a bit. The cons could be more trips to the gas station and if you're unlucky enough, you would be stranded somewhere on empty. Also, according to a hypermiling forum someone said that the fuel pump will not last as long since an emptier tank cannot cool the fuel pump enough to prolong its life.
Is the last sentence true? How do you fill up your own car (if you have one)? Finally, are there other advantages or disadvantages to running partially full?
Let's say that you are currently using your car to get from home to work and back. The pros I know so far that using partially filled tanks make the car lighter, and this depends on how much fuel it holds maximum. This can probably improve economy by a bit. The cons could be more trips to the gas station and if you're unlucky enough, you would be stranded somewhere on empty. Also, according to a hypermiling forum someone said that the fuel pump will not last as long since an emptier tank cannot cool the fuel pump enough to prolong its life.
Is the last sentence true? How do you fill up your own car (if you have one)? Finally, are there other advantages or disadvantages to running partially full?
I've owned alot of cars most end up with alot of km on the clock 300,000+ before I pass them on and have never had problems with electronic fuel pumps, the older type of mechanical driven pumps yes but the newer fuel pumps are very reliable so I think you would be very unlucky to have problems with one
As for saving fuel by only ever filling to half full, well yes it is likely to save fuel. But for me it's not worth the hassel of so many trips to the servo
I'm a full tank to empty type of guy all the time You would be much better off paying extra attention to your tyre pressures I think than worrying about fuel load.My brother never lets it go below a quarter of a tank.
Last thing you want is gunk and stale fuel entering the engine, and everytime he has gone below a quarter the car seems to ping its nuts off.
Last thing you want is gunk and stale fuel entering the engine, and everytime he has gone below a quarter the car seems to ping its nuts off.
I know what you mean, but it sounds so funny if you take it out of engine/car context
I try to buy gas once I use up half a tank which is usually about a week depending on if I drive to conserve fuel or not. The reason I do this is in case there were an emergency and I had to drive a long distance and couldn't fill up for some reason.
Too little fuel in the tank can allow condensation to build up as water in the tank, which can start to rot it from the inside (and some of that can then get into the pumps and knacker them).
For day to day use it makes little difference really. I full to max and refuel when it's on E. But if I'm storing a car I try to either drain the tank (long term storage) and leave it open, or fill it to the brim (short term storage when fuel aging isn't a problem).
For day to day use it makes little difference really. I full to max and refuel when it's on E. But if I'm storing a car I try to either drain the tank (long term storage) and leave it open, or fill it to the brim (short term storage when fuel aging isn't a problem).
Miscellaneous Automotive Questions Thread (Please Read 1st Post)
(147 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG