Anyone use a SMALLER intake tube? - Fuelly Forums

Click here for important details on the Gas Cubby v3 Free Launch

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-21-2016, 08:36 PM   #1
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7
Country: United States
Anyone use a SMALLER intake tube?

Would using a smaller diameter intake tube help mileage any? I figure lees air ,and the ecm would compensate for it and use less gas. this would be on a regular f.i. car
__________________

sc2dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2016, 05:07 AM   #2
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,439
Country: United States
Location: north east PA
You'll just depress the pedal further for the same amount of power, which could decrease the pumping losses from the throttle being open wider. Otherwise, just go slower, and you won't have to make mods to your car for the same gains.
__________________

trollbait is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2016, 09:55 AM   #3
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by trollbait View Post
You'll just depress the pedal further for the same amount of power, which could decrease the pumping losses from the throttle being open wider. Otherwise, just go slower, and you won't have to make mods to your car for the same gains.
Ok, but what if you consistently run,say, at 60m.ph., for a long distance. Because the diameter is smaller, wouldn't intake velocity pick up some?
sc2dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2016, 07:32 PM   #4
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 302
Country: United States
Location: Nebraska
The only way you will know is to try it. Make very careful notes, because odds are there will be no difference. The only time it will make any difference is at wide open throttle. Most cars spend very little time at wide open throttle.
Charon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2016, 11:20 PM   #5
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,412
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Mid Wales
Most cars benefit from a larger air intake, preferably one with a cold air feed. You're not going to do it any favours by suffocating it. Think of a car as a human, a smaller intake is like having asthma, with restricted air you're going to breath quicker and more often. With a larger airway, you'll breath easier, deeper and less often.
__________________

Please subscribe to my YouTube channel
Draigflag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2016, 06:19 AM   #6
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,439
Country: United States
Location: north east PA
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc2dave View Post
Ok, but what if you consistently run,say, at 60m.ph., for a long distance. Because the diameter is smaller, wouldn't intake velocity pick up some?
The intake velocity will pick up in order to provide the required air. With no other changes, the engine is going to need to burn the same amount of fuel at 60mph, and thus need the same amount air, regardless of the intake size.

The airflow can go from smooth laminer to turbulent with a narrower tube. I can't say what effect, if any this will have.

Warm or hot air intakes have shown some efficiency improvement in fuel economy. Warmer air is less dense, so there is less of it for a given volume. With less air in the cylinder, less fuel is added. The power output goes down with the less fuel, but if you do apply more accelerator to make up for it, the throttle opens wider, which lowers the pumping losses in the engine.

Whether it works or not is model dependent, and requires testing.
trollbait is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2016, 04:18 PM   #7
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 14
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draigflag View Post
Most cars benefit from a larger air intake, preferably one with a cold air feed. You're not going to do it any favours by suffocating it. Think of a car as a human, a smaller intake is like having asthma, with restricted air you're going to breath quicker and more often. With a larger airway, you'll breath easier, deeper and less often.
i agree
DieselBaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2016, 01:51 PM   #8
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,207
Country: United States
Location: wiliamsburg virigina
One of the mpg enhancements Honda used on the VX model was a smaller diameter intake tube as well as a smaller diameter exhaust. Better velocity and turbulence worked well in conjuction with the lower lift of one intake valve, allowing AF ratios as high as 25 to 1.
R.I.D.E. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2016, 01:55 PM   #9
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,207
Country: United States
Location: wiliamsburg virigina
Intake tube maximum diameter, just like the diameter of header tubes is only effective at maximum power and air flow. A human can breathe through a straw, but running 100 yard dashes would be catastrophic. Higher air velocity increases turbulence and improves mixture homogenity.
R.I.D.E. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2016, 12:14 PM   #10
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 8
Country: United States
Also remember that there is a maf sensor in the intake and if it is not reprogrammed to the new size it will think the increase in air velocity is actually more air and try and keep the air/fuel ratio the same and therefore over fuel. Then the oxygen sensors will see the excess HCs in the exhaust and try and pull it back. This will cause a lean condition which may ping. Some ware along the CEL is bound to come one because it will all be out of balance

A larger intake will essentially be the opposite with the same probability of a CEL.

Now with proper programming to accout for the intake volume some gains can be had.
__________________

2004LB7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.