Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 09:54:19 -0500 From: "The Malt Hound" <c900nospam.apana.org.au> wrote in message news:d0fsj2$inn$2nospam.apana.org.au... > Johannes H Andersen <johsnospamssssssssssssssssizefitter.com> writes: > >>Craig's C900 Site wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I've documented online a very short 'project', but one which may >>> have >>> far-reaching effects on my car's reliability. >>[...] >>> >>> Let me know if you have any comments re the air filter page! > >>I live near a large city, you can see dust on the car next morning >>after >>cleaning it. Hence you need an effective standard paper air filter, >>or the >>engine will be ground to nothing. > > That's an interesting observation. Are you saying that foam-based > and other > non-paper based filters are less effective? Can you expand on what > you've > said a bit more? Absolutely. Search around for a few of the thousands of discussions on K&N filters for example. Any of the so-called "performance" ait filters get their "additional performance" by being less restrictive to intake airflow. Less restrictive = less filtering as a general rule of thumb. Also, be aware that the *only* time that a less restrictive filter will improve engine performance at all is at wide open throttle. At anything less than WFO the throttle plate (being partially closed) will present more intake restriction. Hey, that's how the throttle works! But, a bad filter will be a bad filter at all throttle positions. The choice is yours... -Fred W
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
