03-05-2010, 09:36 AM
|
#61
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 279
|
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 279
|
I did the HCF delete, but I have yet to notice a bit of difference in get up and go or fuel economy.
There is no doubt that the filter is restrictive, but I think the gains may be so minimal I'm not noticing them. *shrug*
__________________
2008 V6 Limited 4x4
Westin Ultimate Bullbar, Hitch Shackle, LED interior/exterior conversion, 15% Formula One tint
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
03-05-2010, 03:49 PM
|
#62
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Desert Southwest
Age: 42
Posts: 507
|
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Desert Southwest
Age: 42
Posts: 507
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheik
I did the HCF delete, but I have yet to notice a bit of difference in get up and go or fuel economy.
There is no doubt that the filter is restrictive, but I think the gains may be so minimal I'm not noticing them. *shrug*
|
I'm with the same agreement as you! I believe it's due to the large surface area of the filter it allows much more air to be brought in versus if we had a smaller filter just allowed just enough air in.
__________________
2008 SR5 4x4 V6 Salsa Red Pearl w/Taupe Interior
Mods: OW 2.0", LR UCA's, 285/70R17 Cooper STT Pro's w/Spidertrax 1.25" Spacer, DirtyDeeds Muffler, SpeedoHealer
Audio: Eclipse HU CD8445, Polk Audio db6501 6.5" Components, Polk Audio db351 3.5" in factory tweeter location, 2 Audiobahn 10" Subs @ 1200W
"I'm an AMERICAN by birth and a VETERAN by choice"
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
03-05-2010, 06:43 PM
|
#63
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 4,086
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 4,086
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chayos00
I'm with the same agreement as you! I believe it's due to the large surface area of the filter it allows much more air to be brought in versus if we had a smaller filter just allowed just enough air in.
|
I think it only applies to the V8's. I think i gained 1hp. LOL
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
04-13-2010, 06:58 PM
|
#64
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 395
|
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 395
|
After having my filter out for over a month I've seen a maybe a 1 MPG increase. I always go to the same gas station, and drive extremely close to identical routes each week which keep the variables down. I've been tracking my MPG for about 6 months now, all MPG tracking has been done by hand too. Also no increase in noise either inside or outside even with the heat/AC and radio off.
__________________
2007 4Runner Sport V6 4WD Shadow Mica, Tint, Extended differential breather, Carbon filter removed, Bilstein 5100s - 0 setting with Old Man Emu 884s, ToyTec Superflex coils and 5100s rear, Dobinsons UCAs, P265/70/17 Michelin Defender LTX M/S, Spidertrax, Xtreme Phillips 4300K HIDs, ICON Sway Bar Relocation Blocks
Former 1999 4Runner Highlander V6 4WD Black
Last edited by martini; 12-29-2010 at 07:12 AM.
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
04-13-2010, 08:21 PM
|
#65
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: S Oregon
Age: 70
Posts: 1,406
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: S Oregon
Age: 70
Posts: 1,406
|
i finally got a decent interstate run of 1200 miles. 24 MPG with my stock '07 v6 Sport.
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
05-07-2010, 09:32 PM
|
#66
|
Junior Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1
|
not too long ago i purchased an 05 sport edition and i'm glad i found this site. i was looking for some free 'mods' for my engine and found this thread. i will be removing my hydrocarbon filter tomorrow. i don't think it will give noticeable power but i figure why not...i may gain a horsepower or two...
anyways, i see a lot of people on here wondering and claiming that you can get better gas mileage from removing it. i see confusion all the time about intake products and mods that will supposedly give you better gas mileage.
we can all agree that the hydrocarbon filter is restrictive to some degree (maybe insignificant but maybe not). we can all agree that because of the restriction there is a pressure drop across the filter. any pressure drops in the intake system means less air molecules into the combustion chamber during the intake stroke which means less power. so most people figure that by reducing the pressure drop in an intake (such as by removing the hydrocarbon filter) that you would in turn gain fuel economy (maybe an insignificant amount or maybe significant).
this idea is completely wrong. remember, the engine power and the amount of fuel that is combusted is regulated by the throttle / butterfly valve. the throttle intentionally creates a pressure drop. so any reduction in pressure drop through the intake system caused by removing the hydrocarbon filter would mean that your right foot would simply be slightly less on the gas pedal for any particular speed. the free-er flowing the intake, the more closed the throttle will be. there is no impact to gas mileage.
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
10-10-2010, 08:58 PM
|
#67
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 149
|
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 149
|
Got bored, just did it to mine. Figured it can't hurt, especially after looking at it and realizing how thick it was.
Guess the gas mileage numbers will tell, I doubt I'll notice anything in the power department.
__________________
2006 4Runner V8 4x4 Limited:
JBL, Bilstein 5100s @ 0.85" w/ FJ coils, BFG Rugged Terrain 265/65R18, full LED interior, TSB cats + Magnaflow 12286 + resonator delete, iPod.
2006 4Runner V8 2WD Sport:
JBL, Daystar 2.5/1.5, Nitto TG 265/70R17, full LED interior, iPod -- SOLD!
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
10-11-2010, 03:27 PM
|
#68
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ----
Posts: 900
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ----
Posts: 900
|
Actually, the fuel is regulated by the PCM within a closed loop (feedback) system consisting of the throttle position, O2 sensors, engine load, air temp, etc. (after warm up)
But putting more air into the engine doesn't equate to better mileage...In fact, it should be the opposite. To keep the proper air/fuel ratio the PCM will add more fuel if it senses more oxygen via the closed loop feedback. More air could equate to more power though.
I've heard that the internal combustion engine is nothing more than an air pump. So, by 'freeing up the airflow', it doesn't have to work as hard to move the air in (or out...free flowing exhaust)...thereby allowing the engine to work more 'efficiently'. I believe that's where the 'improved' mileage would come from with everything else being equal.
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
10-11-2010, 08:55 PM
|
#69
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 122
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 122
|
Well I pulled mine last weekend and I'm showing about 2-3 mpg more than before, whether my meter/indicator is telling the truth or not, is another story. After the next fill up I plan on doing some calculations.
btw at highway speed (60mph) I was hitting 23-34 mpg?!?!! Is this even possible?
__________________
-----Marc-----
2003 V8 Limited 4WD
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
10-11-2010, 09:17 PM
|
#70
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 4,086
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 4,086
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolRayz
btw at highway speed (60mph) I was hitting 23-34 mpg?!?!! Is this even possible?
|
I hit 31mpg @ 105mph. w00t!
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
10-24-2010, 02:48 PM
|
#71
|
Junior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1
|
I have an 04 v8 that i am thinking about doing this too. Will it cause me to fail the CA smog emissions test that i have to pass every year before i register?
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
12-26-2010, 12:12 AM
|
#72
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Age: 46
Posts: 341
Real Name: David
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Age: 46
Posts: 341
Real Name: David
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wetwilly17
we can all agree that the hydrocarbon filter is restrictive to some degree (maybe insignificant but maybe not). we can all agree that because of the restriction there is a pressure drop across the filter. any pressure drops in the intake system means less air molecules into the combustion chamber during the intake stroke which means less power. so most people figure that by reducing the pressure drop in an intake (such as by removing the hydrocarbon filter) that you would in turn gain fuel economy (maybe an insignificant amount or maybe significant).
this idea is completely wrong. remember, the engine power and the amount of fuel that is combusted is regulated by the throttle / butterfly valve. the throttle intentionally creates a pressure drop. so any reduction in pressure drop through the intake system caused by removing the hydrocarbon filter would mean that your right foot would simply be slightly less on the gas pedal for any particular speed. the free-er flowing the intake, the more closed the throttle will be. there is no impact to gas mileage.
|
I suspect this conclusion is the most correct. The throttle is what (by design) governs restriction of air to gasoline engines. Until you get to the point that the throttle is no longer the bottleneck (maybe as low as 30% throttle at low RPMs where the engine can't digest much air) everything else on the induction system doesn't come in to play. We have modern fueling systems that can maintain a given air/fuel ratio under all conditions to thank for this. It's only when you need more power than the engine can provide at a given RPM and airflow which either results in the ECU enriching the mixture (many engines drop the air/fuel ratio from the standard ~14.7:1 to something in the ~13:1 or even richer at high loads for best power and reduced knock at the expense of fuel efficiency) or shifting the transmission and increasing the RPM, that a flow restriction such as the filter negatively affects MPG.
I may pull this filter tomorrow just to see what I get on longer trips to see what real world results I see.
__________________
2007 V6 SR5 4WD - OME 884/Toytec Superflex with Bilstein 5100s - Air Lift 60809 Air Bags - Sixity Wheel Spacers - Draw-Tite 75155 Receiver - Tekonsha P3 Electric Brake Controller - B&M 70264 Tranny Cooler
2006 Jayco Jay Series 1206 PUP - 3450 lb GVWR/14' Carson Landscape Trailer - 7000 lb GVWR/16' Wells Cargo Enclosed Trailer - 7000 lb
16-19 MPG City/20-22 MPG Highway/17-20 MPG w/Jayco @ 55 MPH/16-19 MPG with Landscape Trailer @ 5500lb @ 55 MPH/12-14 MPG with Enclosed Trailer at 55-60 MPH @ 6000lb - Pushing air sucks gas!
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
01-07-2011, 06:21 PM
|
#73
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Age: 46
Posts: 341
Real Name: David
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ridgecrest, CA
Age: 46
Posts: 341
Real Name: David
|
After doing this I can't notice any difference in power and I have yet to see any change in fuel economy even closely tracking it via my ScanGaugeII on the same highway at the same speeds under the same conditions.
__________________
2007 V6 SR5 4WD - OME 884/Toytec Superflex with Bilstein 5100s - Air Lift 60809 Air Bags - Sixity Wheel Spacers - Draw-Tite 75155 Receiver - Tekonsha P3 Electric Brake Controller - B&M 70264 Tranny Cooler
2006 Jayco Jay Series 1206 PUP - 3450 lb GVWR/14' Carson Landscape Trailer - 7000 lb GVWR/16' Wells Cargo Enclosed Trailer - 7000 lb
16-19 MPG City/20-22 MPG Highway/17-20 MPG w/Jayco @ 55 MPH/16-19 MPG with Landscape Trailer @ 5500lb @ 55 MPH/12-14 MPG with Enclosed Trailer at 55-60 MPH @ 6000lb - Pushing air sucks gas!
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
02-21-2011, 12:11 PM
|
#74
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: KCMO
Posts: 552
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: KCMO
Posts: 552
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdnanceMarine
After doing this I can't notice any difference in power and I have yet to see any change in fuel economy even closely tracking it via my ScanGaugeII on the same highway at the same speeds under the same conditions.
|
I kind of figured this might be the case. I'm guessing that others who think they reallized some gain (many of which were extreme at 2-3 mpg) were paying more attention than normal to the onboard readout and thus were driving easier than normal. As stated before, the intake really isn't a bottle neck and even if you can get more/colder air into the combustion chamber the computer will still look for the target a/f ratio and hit it by adding MORE fuel.
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
02-25-2011, 08:19 PM
|
#75
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Posts: 660
|
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Posts: 660
|
About 1% louder but no difference on fuel economy or power.
|
|
Reply With Quote
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|