Get improved gas milage now - not a gimmick!

[Wolverine@MSU]

Back in the late summer of 2005 my trusty Ford Escort died (just refused to start one day) and I got a new Toyota Matrix. Base model (crank windows, manual door locks, 1.9 L, 4 cyl, 5-speed). I subscribed to the Matrix Owners Forum and read about a particular type of air filter made by a company called K & N. It's a permanent air filter, with a foam rubber element that just gets cleaned and oiled occasionally (every 20,000 miles or so). Posters had noted that they got better gas milage with this filter, presumably because of the increased air flow that the filter offered over the pleated paper type OEM filters. Well, I bit, and got one last summer. It set me back about $60, but models for other cars are cheaper (one for my wife's Focus was only $35).
I noticed right away what appeared to be better milage. I kind of keep an eye on how many miles between a full tank, 3/4 full, 1/2 full, 1/4, full, and seemed to be going significantly farther during each interval. I keep a log of gas usage statistics, and an Excel spreadsheet to analyze the data. It's been a little over a year since the new filter went in, and so I figured I'ld compare my average mpg for the year before and the year after installaton. Here are the results:

Year before - 12,437 miles, 383.44 gal, 32.4353 mpg, $1037.12 in gas purchased.
Year since - 12,224 miles, 347.31 gal, 35.1962 mpg, $1142.11 in gas purchased.

That works out to an 8.5% increase in fuel efficiency. Applying that to the $1142 paid for gas, works out to be a $97 savings in one year, easily paying for the cost of the filter.

I was skeptical about the claims for this filter, but the numbers pretty much speak for themselves.

[Hawk]

Interesting! I'll have to look into that for my Ranger.
Not much of an improvement but every little bit helps, and as you say, it easily pays for itself in a year.

Edit 1: Is this the filter you're talking about? http://www.knfilters.com/filtercharger.htm

[Wolverine@MSU]

Yes it is. And to boot, you'll see even more of a savings with a relatively low-mpg vehicle as per the graph from the milage poll question/answer.

[Gwizz]

http://waterpoweredcar.com/watergroups.html

Here is a site of links that propose to about double your milage.

I have more links if you want them.

[KevinL]

We hot rodders have known about K&N filters for years.

Their plant is about 30 mins from me in SoCal.

[Wolverine@MSU]

Here's a real eye opener:

Burning one gallon of gasoline releases enough carbon dioxide to double the CO2 concentration in about 3 million gallons of air!

The math:
Burining one gallon of gas results in the production of about 18 lbs of CO2.
18 lbs / 2.2 lbs per kilogram = 8.18 kg CO2 (8180 grams)
8180 grams CO2 / 44 grams per mole = 186 moles CO2
1 mole of gas at standard temperature and pressure occupies 22.4 liters (Ideal gas law)
186 moles CO2 x 22.4 L/mole = 4164 liters of CO2
CO2 comprises about 0.038% by volume of the atmosphere, thus
4164 L / 0.00038 = ~11,000,000 liters or about 3,000,000 gallons

Just thought you might like to know.

[Gwizz]

Wolvy, something does not look right with your figures.
The atmosphere is one vast place and CO2 is normally in parts per million of it.
While burning of fuel does add to those parts per million, it only Adds a very small part and one of many natural phenomena that release much more CO2 into planetoid space.
We could not have a green planet with out CO2. Plants require it. It is the reason big cities have smog. Too much asphalt and not enough trees.

There is a study now under way, investigating the demise of major cities in ancient history, where trees were removed and deserts created. It would seem by removing trees we would increase the content of CO2 in our air by a great amount just by breathing.

The results of this study will be interesting to see. It will probably result in another tax to save the planet and line someones pockets.

[Bonneville455]

The results of this study will be interesting to see. It will probably result in another tax to save the planet and line someones pockets.

You got that right.

And once that’s accomplished, it will be time for the powers that be to tell us of the new evil lurking where none thought possible. Considering that carbon dioxide is one of the most abundantly naturally occurring substances on earth, I would expect the new evil to be either hydrogen dioxide or oxygen itself. Woe will be us.

[nedfumpkin]

There is already a movement afoot to ban hydrogen dioxide. Did you know that this stuff is found in every river in North America? It's everywhere and clean up will be in the trillions.

[Bonneville455]

There is already a movement afoot to ban hydrogen dioxide. Did you know that this stuff is found in every river in North America? It's everywhere and clean up will be in the trillions.

The time might be just about right to start up a company buying and selling hydrogen dioxide "footprint" credits.

[Wolverine@MSU]

Wolvy, something does not look right with your figures.
The atmosphere is one vast place and CO2 is normally in parts per million of it.

I think the numbers are correct. 0.00038% = 380 parts per million, the current estimate of CO2 concentration.

Going back to the calculations, 11,000,000 liters = 11,000 cubic meters (1 liter = a cube 10 centimeters on a side => 1000 liters per cubic meter). Using a thickness of 42 km for the atmosphere ( a bit on the high side), the volume of the atmosphere becomes 310,340 cubic kilometers (4/3 x pi x 42^3); "one vast place" as noted by Gwizz. One cubic kilometer = 1 billion (10^9) cubic meters. Hence 11,000 cubic meters = 0.000011 cubic kilometers or just 3.5 BILLIONTHS of a percent of the total volume of the atmosphere. Personally I'm not too worried that my one gallon of gas is going to overload the system, but the estimated DAILY use of gasoline in the US alone is 390,000,000 gallons. That means that every 71 days, we (in the US alone) are adding enough CO2 to double the concentration in the entire atmosphere. It's a real testiment to the resiliency of the biosphere to suck up all that excess CO2.

Considering that carbon dioxide is one of the most abundantly naturally occurring substances on earth,

What's your reference for this? Water, and compounds that make up the crust (silicates), are surely more abundant than CO2.

I would expect the new evil to be either hydrogen dioxide or oxygen itself

I think you must mean dihydrogen oxide (H2O)

[Gwizz]

What didn't look correct was:

CO2 comprises about 0.038% by volume of the atmosphere,

Since you now state this in parts per million, it makes more sense. I did read someplace that the CO2 that man is responsible for, not counting his breathing, is a small part of all the CO2 created on earth by more normal means.

An interesting side note: With all the smoke (CO2) being created by fires in California, it has a cooling affect on the earth as it crosses the poles, by blocking the sun rays. It doesn't seem right does it. Build a fire and cool the planet.

It's a real testiment to the resiliency of the biosphere to suck up all that excess CO2.

I agree. There are places on our planet that are almost devoid of green. All that is needed to again make these areas productive is more water and CO2. Since a lack of CO2 is now less of a problem, The need for water is still a major problem. Now, we need to discover a way to pollute with water in the right places. Bigger far reaching storms maybe?
If Russia is correct that they can control the weather, maybe they can send some rain to the dry places of the world.

But then, Mother nature has a way of kicking us in the sit down when we fool with her.

[Bonneville455]

Considering that carbon dioxide is one of the most abundantly naturally occurring substances on earth,

What's your reference for this? Water, and compounds that make up the crust (silicates), are surely more abundant than CO2.

I didn't say it was as abundant as water or sand - nothing is. But considering that all living things produce it and that it is produced in much larger amounts by naturally occuring phenomena in the earth, I'd say it is pretty abundant in nature.

But the global warming debate isn't about "greenhouse gases" as much as it is about ideology and control. What environmental fanatics really want control of is you and I.

[WPandP]

I wonder if anyone has ever thought to compare the amount of CO2 produced by automobiles and an equivalent force of horse-drawn carriages. There was a time when "team tracks" were so named because a team of horses pulled the wagon right up alongside, to unload the boxcar. All personal transport was by horse. Imagine if today's car-driving population instead maintained horses for their mobility purposes; not only would there be more horses exhaling, but there'd also have to be more cleared pasture land and thus less forest, perhaps other factors.

I just wonder whether isolating it out to just the amount of CO2 produced by burning gas ignores the greater picture, of actual progress towards a cleaner environment, which has been achieved not by socialist mandate but rather by free market development. I kinda like walking through paved streets free from manure...

[nedfumpkin]

Most of the CO2 is produced by the oceans, and the life in them. Then there is all the photosynthesis from the green stuff all over the earth, then there are all the volcanoes puffing out the stuff. Humans account for less than 2% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. A forest fire covering a large area, which is completely necessary for rejuvenation, can put more CO2 in the air that a large urban area can in a year.

BTW...beer produces approximately 1 million tonnes of CO2 per year.

[Bonneville455]

Ever notice that the political views of approximately 100% of global warming alarmists are on the far left? That’s no coincidence.

Their concern is not about “global warming”. No, they use global warming hysteria as a tool to advance their real agenda. And it’s a very effective tool on today’s population that largely does what it is told without question.

Some food for thought…
http://66.175.38.157/warm%20earth%20fanatacism.pdf

[Gwizz]

Excellant link Bonneville455.

It kind of says it all doesn't it.

[Wolverine@MSU]

It kind of says it all doesn't it.

And then some:

Those who espouse an irrational belief in the unsubstantiated concept of “global warming”....

I haven't been able to find a single reference that shows that global temperatures have been decreasing. In fact, every credible source of data shows that, on the whole, global temperature (as measured in many different ways) has been on the increase since the 19th century. (c.f. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/). I hardly think it is irrational to evaluate scientific data for what it says. You don't need an "agenda" to look at a graph and draw a conclusion. There are areas on the Earth that have seen localized cooling (c.f. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glo ... ng.html#q3) but overall the trend is undeniable. What is causing the increase is the heart of the debate.

At the very core of these arguments lies a dirty little secret; namely, that the chief proponents of “Warm Earth” fanaticism are all men and women of a Marxist persuasion.

Talk about fanaticism. This is as irrational a statement as the previous one. Who is this guy anyway? I Googled his name, but couldn't find anything of significance other than this piece. In his defense, he does make some credible observations, mainly that the personal mobility we have (compared to Europeans) has contributed a great deal to the powerful US economy. I, for one, don't want to give up my car. I also don't buy into the "Warm Earth Fanaticism" that would have us give up the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed. Fanaticism can be a two edged sword, so we need to be very carful how we wield it.

[Gwizz]

Wolvy, I don't think it is possible to know for sure where the proof lies because lier's offer the proofs.

I tried to keep an open mind while reading the links you posted. They were often poorly written and ambiguous. They were not reports and charts that were easy to understand.
At least they did offer some alternative possibles but alway ended within the theme for global warming. Both groups I believe are controlled.

examples:

The two sites you linked would be in danger of loosing funding if they didn't report correctly for those who control their tax dollars. The dollar is a force that can easily corrupt the scientific world and too often does.

The worldwide temperature data for our oceans and air had been available worldwide for years. This data is no longer available to the public, causing me to suspect manipulation of this data. We can no long check for our selfs and are only offered data we are allowed to see.

Recently on MSN News as a proof of global warming two pictures were given for last years ice melt in the Arctic. The latter picture did show major areas of ice melt. But taking a closer look there was many more smaller areas where there was an increase in ice. I estimated the increase was over 2 times greater than the melt. The person who posted those pictures was either a bone head or knew man caused global warming was a lie. It still makes more sense to me for the volcanic action under the Arctic to form warm water vents that raise up in a column to form a thin warm layer under the ice and thus melt a large area. The pattern of melt fits this scenario.

A newspaper reporter told me he had to write of things he knew were untrue or he would loose his job.

Lately I've noticed an increase in reference to global warming and green house gases, etc.
Anymore the average person will find it hard to understand when a lie is offered. The more a lie is publicized the more it is believed. With enough publicity, common sense may not even be helpful to discern the truth.

The only way we have left is to be awake and question every thing. When a person lies, stop trusting that person. Watch who is making money off of environmental issues and stop trusting them. Watch who is placing unreasonable restrictions and removing freedoms and stop trusting them.

And a little understanding of how things really work can aid discernment as well.

[Bonneville455]

Excellant link Bonneville455.

It kind of says it all doesn't it.

Yep, it does.

And it squares solidly with my experience and resultant gut feeling about the issue. The main reason I have never jumped on the bandwagon is my fundamental distrust of those who most loudly preach the call for action. One thing makes them all the same – their socialist leanings.

There is a clear agenda here and it is not even very well disguised. Stirring up a frenzy of fear about destroying mother earth with our cars and air conditioners is a tool. Just as stirring up a frenzy of fear of weapons of mass destruction was a tool.

Wolverine, in another thread I recall your agreeing that political correctness has done significant damage to freedom of thought and expression. It is abundantly clear today that getting on board with the activist climate change hand wringers is the politically correct position on the issue – would you not agree? That should tell you a lot right there.