HAI Experiment

[GasSavers_BEEF]

his test is total BS?

I don't see you doing any testing. it is easy to discredit someone elses efforts. where are yours? he is at least doing something.

the whole "not good enough" thing is easy to say when you have done nothing. if you don't agree with his results, do one yourself. disprove him the scientific way, not just by saying it's BS.

it is nice to see our newer members contributing so much

[GasSavers_NovaResource]

Originally Posted by BEEF

his test is total BS?

I don't see you doing any testing. it is easy to discredit someone elses efforts. where are yours? he is at least doing something.

the whole "not good enough" thing is easy to say when you have done nothing. if you don't agree with his results, do one yourself. disprove him the scientific way, not just by saying it's BS.

it is nice to see our newer members contributing so much

More good reading:
http://www.nextautos.com/auto-shows/...inject-engine/

Mazda has announced its new lineup of direct-injection engines, called the DISI (direct injection spark ignition). The announcement of the performance enhancing, fuel conscious engines comes only weeks after Ford?s EcoBoost announcement.

The I-4 DISI engine seeks to achieve a 15-20 percent improvement in performance and a 20 percent increase in fuel economy over Mazda?s 2.0L engines.

According to the press release, the DISI engine will reduce energy loss and improve thermal efficiency with a variety of technological engineering. This includes cooling the air intake temperature and reshaping the combustion chamber.

Mazda also noted that they are looking to produce direct-injection diesel turbo engine technology that can improve the fuel economy and emissions by 10 percent as well.

http://www.passagemaker-digital.com/.../200903/?pg=81

Related to air filter performance is the temparature of the air being consumed by the engine. Warm air is thinner or less dense than cool air, and thinner air burns less efficiently. Therefore, it is desirable to keep the air inlet temperature to a minimum.

[Philip1]

OK what are you doing to improve your milage? OH RIGHT NOTHIING you are barely beating EPA ratings. You obviously have no intention of trying anything and you want us to join you. The truth of the matter is IF automakers gave two damns about milage I would be getting 50mpg out of the car with no mods. so get off your high horse and do something rather than just nay saying everyone here or go away in general. I am tired of arguing with a person who has no intention to try anything so I will not continue arguing with a troll.

[GasSavers_NovaResource]

Post deleted due to inappropriate content

[GasSavers_maximilian]

Originally Posted by NovaResource

And the insults start. When all else fails, throw insults.

You've thrown posted a few pretty insulting things when discussing this topic too (giant cookie?). Let's all try to avoid them in general, OK?

[GasSavers_NovaResource]

Post removed due to attacking other members

[GasSavers_maximilian]

Originally Posted by NovaResource

The cookie was humor. It was not a personal attack.

I took it as extreme sarcasm. I apologize for misreading it. No tone or inflection.

[GasSavers_NovaResource]

Originally Posted by BEEF

his test is total BS?

I don't see you doing any testing. it is easy to discredit someone elses efforts. where are yours? he is at least doing something.

the whole "not good enough" thing is easy to say when you have done nothing. if you don't agree with his results, do one yourself. disprove him the scientific way, not just by saying it's BS.

Here goes. Last week my milage was 192.1 miles and I used 8.339 gallons for an MPG of 23.03. That will be baseline #1 for using the stock cold air inlet.

Today I filled up again:
256.4 miles


11.207 gallons used:


For an MPG of 22.87. That will be baseline #2 for the stock cold air inlet. Both numbers are similar and fairly typical for me in the winter.

Removing the factory cold air inlet. Here's the stock setup:




Closeup of the inlet on the outside of the radiator support:


Here the hose connecting the inlet to the air box is disconnected from the inlet and pointed towards the radiator and exhaust manifold to pick up warm, engine air:




Here the inlet is blocked off with duct tape to prevent any cool air from entering.


The inlet was secured in place with a wiretie to prevent it from moving. One week from today I'll have my first data from a WAI. My schedule for next week is almost identical to this past week so mileage should be close to the same.

[GasSavers_NovaResource]

Originally Posted by NovaResource

Here goes. Last week my milage was 192.1 miles and I used 8.339 gallons for an MPG of 23.03. That will be baseline #1 for using the stock cold air inlet.

Today I filled up again:
256.4 miles


11.207 gallons used:


For an MPG of 22.87. That will be baseline #2 for the stock cold air inlet. Both numbers are similar and fairly typical for me in the winter.

Removing the factory cold air inlet. Here's the stock setup:




Closeup of the inlet on the outside of the radiator support:


Here the hose connecting the inlet to the air box is disconnected from the inlet and pointed towards the radiator and exhaust manifold to pick up warm, engine air:




Here the inlet is blocked off with duct tape to prevent any cool air from entering.


The inlet was secured in place with a wiretie to prevent it from moving. One week from today I'll have my first data from a WAI. My schedule for next week is almost identical to this past week so mileage should be close to the same.

8 days later of a WAI and here are the results.

Today I filled up again.
263.0 miles (difference of 6.6 miles or 2.5% from last test):


11.566 gallons used (exact same station and pump uesd):


For an MPG of 22.73. That's a loss of 0.14 mpg with the WAI.

Conclusion: FAILURE

There is statistically ZERO benefit from a WAI. It doesn't appear to hurt mileage but it does not help. And with the obvious loss of power this is not a modification anyone should do unless the engine and computer are designed for lean burn.

I'm hooking the cold air duct back up and seeing the difference next week.

[101mpg]

You haven't done significant A-B-A testing. A-B, and one more tank is A-B-A, but butt dyno, your wanting it to fail, etc., have likely contributed. Do SIGNIFICANT testing - like A-B-A, 5 tankfuls on each. WAI may not work on YOUR vehicle, either. It does work for some, but not for all. That has been established.

You'll note my vehicle is in the top 10 for % over EPA, btw - and it's an automatic, so I can make claims about getting significant mileage increases from a position of security.

Originally Posted by NovaResource

8 days later of a WAI and here are the results.

Today I filled up again.
263.0 miles (difference of 6.6 miles or 2.5% from last test):
11.566 gallons used (exact same station and pump uesd):
For an MPG of 22.73. That's a loss of 0.14 mpg with the WAI.
Conclusion: FAILURE

There is statistically ZERO benefit from a WAI. It doesn't appear to hurt mileage but it does not help. And with the obvious loss of power this is not a modification anyone should do unless the engine and computer are designed for lean burn.

I'm hooking the cold air duct back up and seeing the difference next week.