Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tylers65
Warranty - Where as this filter cannot void your warranty, it is not a simple "use once and throw away" type of filter. It requires maintenance on the part of the user in the form of a simple solution cleaning and "oiling". This would become a time and cost consuming issue for dealerships based on the amount of time it takes to actually clean one of these style filters as it requires removal from the car, cleaning with soap and water, air drying, re-oiling, and finally replacement. On a normal day, it could take the majority of the day just to let this item air dry prior to placing it back in the car. Would you (as a service department customer) wait an entire business day without a car for a simple air filter replacement? Would you pay the hourly rate to replace a filter that went from 1 hour to 8 hours of labor that the dealer service department WILL CHARGE EVERY PENNY for?
|
This makes sense. I've always wondered why the manufacturers would not want to put such a filter on stock. If it were just an additional $30 for a filter you could throw in and forget about, which the manufacturer could get for a quantity discount, then it would make sense to do so even for very marginal fuel savings. However, if it would create another maintenance item that's inconvenient to do in a timely manner, I can see why they would stick with a drop-in replacement paper filter. However, they could also solve the problem of time it takes to re-oil the cotton filters by simply having a few ready to go, and swapping them.
In the past though I have often wondered if the reason the manufacturers don't use those filters is beacuse they might accelerate the long wear and tear on the engine, or some other drawback.
Quote:
|
Conpiracy Theories - We are all aware (or should be by now) of the gentleman who is selling modifications to the Honda Insite called the MIMA-c. This little goodie when installed in an Insite is allowing users to get more than 100 MPG. Now, he is an extremely intelligent man but likely not more intelligent than a whole group of engineers at Honda. So the question is, why would Honda not do this in the first place? It has proven effective and safe to use. It is also extremely inexpensive ($675 at the most and under $500 if you build it yourself). There are a lot of things auto companies COULD do but choose not to. I will let the conspiracy theorists have their fun with this one.
|
This one has always bothered me as this is a matter of adding a few switches and software. The only reason that system costs as much $600 is because it's very low volume, and must use complicated custom circuitry to "trick" the IMA system into accepting the manual controls. Honda however could have simply included this feature by implement different software ($0 a unit, once developed) and a few switches (maybe $10/unit).
I can understand why they didn't from a marketing position though. They wanted to minimize hassles from confused customers complaining. I'm certain many people would do dumb things like drain their pack in the first five minutes, then have to drive around charging their battery back up, then compain to Honda about crappy mileage.
I do believe however they could have given the driver a few switches, or profiles with different logic, such as a gradual assist for going up long hills, and a more powerful assist for going up shorter ones, similar to how some automatic transmissions have "sport" and "economy" switches on them. These things woudl require almost no attention from the driver, they'd be more idiot proof than manual control, but would still have a lot of the benefits of manual control.
Quote:
|
As I stated before, I have personally seen gains of 15% increased fuel economy in my previous vehicle with a simple $40 air filter. It paid for istelf after the first 3 tanks of gas and then saved me money ever since. Granted, this was a V8 that was obviously not as efficient as it could be. If we could realize a third of that (5% increase) I would personally see a difference of 47.5 MPG to just shy of 50 MPG. Keep in mind, my car has 3000 miles on it and has not even had its first oil change. If I were to get the advertised average of 50 MPG I could see up to 52.5 to 53 MPG.
|
Yes, even a 5% increase would be very nice to see. I suspect that you might not see as much of a difference in a vehicle with computer controlled fuel injeciton as an older V8 though. I'd be interested in seeing what results you get if you do isntall a K&N filter, though.