MPG

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
56
Location
USA
If this has been discussed, then I'm sorry. I've been searching both here and several other sites for an answer for an hour now. But, I've found answers from both sides.

I'm running an AEF Pro-Dry air filter in my '10 Toyota Yaris. I bought it because it is reusable and pays for itself within a couple of stock filters purchases, not because I was looking for any performance gain. But I'm hearing from some people that high flow filters can actually hurt fuel mileage some. Others say no, it will help MPG. I would think more air means more fuel, but I don't know.

Bottom line? Do you gurus think I should keep the AEF filter in or put the stock back in in the name of a slight bump in MPG?

Thanks
 
The computer for your engine will adjust to the proper air to fuel mix regardless of what air filter you are using.

If the air filter increases flow (biger passages in filter), it might allow small particles past it. That could reduce engien life.
 
Any loss of MPG would be as a result of flooring it in order to 'feel' the increased power; in other words the minimal HP gains in mid-high RPM range that may be freed up depending on your application.

It's an aFe, by the way; not a AEF(unless you are referring to AEM?) Pro Dry(is it a Pro Dry S?).

Someone else can correct me if I'm wrong. I'd 'gently' clean it every 15,000 miles if you continue to use it. No de-greasers, just follow their recommendations for cleaning the filter. The real concern with aftermarket drop-in filters is simply whether or not they filter close to or as well as aftermarket direct replacements(non high flow/reusable).

The basic way you can attempt to track this is through UOAs; by monitoring silicon readings.
 
Last edited:
A replacement aftermarket filter element (using the OEM housing and plumbing) is unlikely to have ANY effect on MPG or performance. You can count only on gaining the convenience of being able to clean the filter rather than having to replace it.... which you may not think is such a big concern after you read the rest of this.

Most people change their filters too often. If you read the EPA test referenced in the link below, you will see that even severe reductions in airflow from plugged filters has little to do with fuel economy because the EFI system continually trims the mixture. Even carbureted cars are less effected than many of us might think.

Air Fitlers and Fuel Economy

The gist is that a filter looking a little dirty is likely still doing a fine job at filtering and is likely to still have all the airflow capacity the engine needs. It likely will continue good filtering right up to the point it's completely plugged and the engine won't run above idle. Filtering efficiency actually improves as the filter loads up a little but the potential danger in a dirty filter is that if the restriction gets severe enough, the filter element may fail and allow the engine to start sucking dirt through.

If you have a restriction gauge, you can forestall that possibility. The Donaldson Informer or Filter Minder (you can Google them) are two easily available restriction gauges. The general rule of thumb is to replace a filter when the restriction increases 2.5 kPa (0.75" mercury) over the stock clean filter reading. Pulling filter elements out often for cleaning or inspection is often counter productive because you can ruin the filter sealing or drop dirt into the intake.

How plugged can they be and still allow the engine to perform? I have done some flow bench testing on filters and many of the OEM elements have more than enough potential airflow to allow the engine to produce maximum power, even when partially restricted and dirty. Case in point, I recently flow tested my stock 5.4L F150 filter with it's OE Motorcraft filter element in it (w/20K miles on it) and it delivered an average airflow of 621.58 CFM in the stock housing. The calculated airflow needs for the 5.4L engine at 5200 rpm is around 400 cfm (depending on what volumetric efficiency you plug into the calculation... I used 0.80). That means I have 35+ more airflow than I need for maximum power WITH A FILTER THAT ALREADY HAS 20K MILES ON IT! I can't speak to every filter or vehicle, but the generic airflow figure I have seen is that most OE filters have 40 percent more calculated flow than the engine can use to account for dirt loading. I seldom see 5200 rpm (the truck sucks enough gas as it is!!) and feather-footing it around at 2000 rpm and using that prodigious low end torgue to haul me around, the airflow needs are more like 150 cfm, so at that rate, I have more like 75 percent more airflow than I can use at that moment.

There is no power to be gained just by having more potential airflow capability than the engine can use. As mentioned earlier, the overage in the stock filters is to account for dirt loads. The engine needs what it needs at the moment and, if it gets it, other factors will hinder performance, not airflow. When it runs out of air, that's when you'll see a drop. By itself, on a stock engine, a complete system that is well tuned (runner length and diameter, cool air ducting etc.) for the car may have an effect on performance at the higher RPM range, perhaps on the midrange and perhaps a very small effect on MPG (though not likely). How much gain is proportional to how well the OE system was designed vs the new one. The OEMs are doing a pretty good job designing intake systems, spending a lot of time and money on them to wring the most power/MPG and, frankly, some of the aftermarket suppliers do little if any R&D or tuning... just making something that looks good and has gnarly intake noise.

When you have increased the airflow needs of the engine by other mods, that when you can outstrip the OE intake and replacing it with a higher flowing system is necessary more to NOT LOSE the power from the other mods by restricting airflow than it is gaining power from the airflow increase itself.

As mentioned, the filtering ability of some aftermarket media is questionable... just as the quality of some aftermarket replacement filters are questionable. There hasn't been near enough study done IMO. The OE and the better name brands are a surer bet towards meeting the original design specs than some of the super cheap auto parts store, of no-name house brand filters.
 
Last edited:
It's and aFe Pro-Dry S....sorry for the typo. As I mentioned, I only bought it for the convenience of having a reusable filter, not a performance gain.

I bought a Yaris for it's great gas mileage, so I don't want to hurt my MPG if, in fact, a high-flow filter effects it. Sounds like there's no solid answer either way...which was the same info I was finding while searching the web.

BTW, I'd like to think that engine wear wouldn't be an issue, as I normally change the oil/filter in 5K or less. I've never had an issue with Castrol GTX and a PureOne filter over the years, so that's what I'm using.

If you guys feel like engine wear is a real possibility for me though...then please let me know and pull it and put the stock back in.
 
Last edited:
I've actually been considering going away from the K&N drop-in; especially if silicon doesn't trend down in my next UOA, in favor of an aFe Pro-Dry S.
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Harry_J had some good UOA with aFe Pro-Dry S, he reported some MPG improvement with aFe Pro-Dry S and lower silicon too.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2267581&page=1

Great read! Thanks.

It sounds like I really won't be able to see a measurable difference in my MPG. And if it filters fairly well then I'll just leave it in. It's been in for a year now anyway.

As always, I'll stay on top of my oil changes and continue to use a PureOne filter, as it seems to perform quite well according to the info here. Hopefully this will offset any tiny particles that might make it through.
 
^I'd still get a UOA to see where silicon readings are after a couple of oil change intervals(or during). $25 for a basic analysis generally.
 
from my experience, Motor oil, and Air Filter doesn't impact the MPG..

The big drop in MPG for me is switching from different brand of tires.
 
I prefer the oem AF. "Cleanable" filters are a bad idea Imo. I use 'em for 2 years or 18k and throw 'em away,just like the manual says.
 
Originally Posted By: FZ1
I prefer the oem AF. "Cleanable" filters are a bad idea Imo. I use 'em for 2 years or 18k and throw 'em away,just like the manual says.


What manual?

Unless you live in the dust bowl, you are throwing away a good filter in just 18K.
 
My 02 Accord V6 Honda manual. Severe service schedule. 2 years= about 18,000 for me. It's all severe service down here,Hoss.
 
The reason I asked is that I'm going on five years 40K miles on my Honda filter and it hasn't moved the restriction gauge yet. We live in farm country down a long gravel road, too. Since air filters have almost no effect on MPG, and then only when they are plugged to the point the car barely runs, I've adjusted my replacement schedule to suit and just go by the restriction meter.
 
I see. Just not my experience. I ran my last oem AF 26,000 and 32 months. Noticed slightly smoother engine response and,maybe,.5 mpg gain when I changed to a new oem. Just gonna go 2 years,this time. The mpg gain offsets the cost of the new AF for me.
 
What can I say? My experience is my experience. I do like the conclusion of "The Test" where they state...to paraphrase...."The test cars all accelerated better and made more power with a clean AF". That's why I want a fresher AF,my car runs better and the fractional mpg I gain pays for the new AF.
 
Originally Posted By: FZ1
What can I say? My experience is my experience. I do like the conclusion of "The Test" where they state...to paraphrase...."The test cars all accelerated better and made more power with a clean AF". That's why I want a fresher AF,my car runs better and the fractional mpg I gain pays for the new AF.


As someone who spends a lot of time calculating the energy demands of forward propulsion under much more controlled circumstances and with much higher-resolution tools, all I can is that if you think you can detect a .5 mpg difference after you've changed your air filter, you're seriously deluding yourself. "Belief" is a powerful thing, and obviously you believe the air filter change is improving your fuel economy. Keep in mind though that pretty much every bit of published literature on the subject suggests your belief is increasing wear on your engine.

I don't doubt you may have observed an increase in mpg, but to suggest it's because of the filter shows you're just not accounting for all of the other variables, which are many. If you're driving around with a portable weather station and wind anemometer mounted on a boom 20 feet in front of your car, and you're downloading engine load data and basing your calculations off of that--well then I'll take it all back...
 
Well,then,what wus it? Lol. I check the mpg on every tank and I noticed a slight,but consistent,increase in mpg. I assure you,my "accounting" is correct. Lol. Some of you boys have yet to learn the difference between theory...,and fact.
 
Quote:
Some of you boys have yet to learn the difference between theory...,and fact.

No, you don't know the difference between "anecdotal" and "fact." What you claim as fact is based on flawed data. Testing has indicated the relationship between air filter condition and MPG. You militantly dispute that by postulating a "theory" based on inconsistent, anecdotal information.

MPG is effected by many things outside of an air filter. Fuel quality, wind and weather conditions, vehicle conditions (tire pressure and tire condition is a big factor), traffic conditions, inconsistent tank filling due to different cutoff points for the nozzles at different stations (changes in fuel temp and specific gravity can also effect nozzle cutoff). Also, since the ethanol content of fuel is highly variable from tank to tank due to blending errors, "E10" can actually be anywhere from E6 to E14 (on average per industry sources) and MPG can vary several percent from tank to tank as the ethanol content changes. Lastly, the driver is a major factor that effects MPG. What can I say about that but, "we're all human."

Yes, this is my wiseacre way of agreeing with JOD when he says your "small and consistent" MPG readings are well within a margin for error that can be accounted for by the factors listed above, and others.

The EPA MPG vs air filter test I posted eliminated the factors I listed above and comes as close as anything I've seen to isolating all factors but the air filter. It's certainly "fact."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top