Ford Focus Forum, Ford Focus ST Forum, Ford Focus RS Forum - Reply to Topic
Ford Focus Forum
HomeContact UsAbout UsGalleryDiscussion ForumsMarketplace


Go Back   Ford Focus Forum, Ford Focus ST Forum, Ford Focus RS Forum > Ford Focus Third Generation > DURATEC Ti-VCT Performance (2012-Current) > !! Steeda CAI Results Only !!

DURATEC Ti-VCT Performance (2012-Current) The place to chat about any Duratec 2.0L Ti-VCT engine performance, tuning and exhaust related upgrades.

Search This Forum | Image Search | Advanced Search    
Ford Focus Tire & Wheels FocusFanatics Merchandise

Thread: !! Steeda CAI Results Only !! Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Focus Forum, Ford Focus ST Forum, Ford Focus RS Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
08-01-2013 07:45 PM
Von551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duffman355 View Post
Btw for reference steeda intake plus fs werks race exhaust makes the car sound like a boxer 4 like an imprezza or something. It has a deep rumble and a deep throaty roar. I had my buddy drive my car and i kinda jizzed hearing it outside. Never heard a na inline 4 sound so good. He also couldn't believe the power gains. He has driven my car in all three states of various performance levels.
perfect. I love the sound of the WRX. I like the non-ricey sound of the fswerks stealth exhaust from videos i've seen. Now i know to buy the steeda cai and fswerks stealth for a nice sound and power gain. thanks!
05-12-2013 11:01 AM
dyn085 Yes, it is my observation that the steady-state commuters are the ones experiencing the most issue. That is actually how I came upon the Typhoon for dyno testing-Vluc wanted to know why he was getting such bad fuel mileage over OEM with a steady-state Interstate commute. He saw the dyno testing that I was doing and shipped it to me so that he could get some numbers and my opinion to satisfy his curiosity. I get a lot of questions asked via PM, and the question of why someone isn't getting better mileage with their aftermarket intake has come to me quite a few times.

The reason that I make the generalized statement is because it is based on my years of looking at generalized data (forums, etc.) and my experiences with modding. There is no good empirical data that can support the claim in either way (or vice-versa, everyone is definitive on each side of the debate), but my observation has been that the majority experience a degree of fuel mileage loss. I am personally a MPG guy, as I mod my car based on the 95% of the usage it will get. I like having power and occasionally RACECAR, but 95% of the time my car is strictly a work commuter. As such, I tend to do a lot of research geared towards getting better mileage out of my tank. I'm enough of a MPG guy that this is literally the first work car that I've purchased new that actually had AC...but ultimately I will never give an actual, non-generalized answer unless I have either done my own testing or there is conclusive data to support an exact answer.

Sometimes I have the tendency to feel that people who claim they are seeing a mileage increase are experiencing cognitive dissonance and are simply trying to justify their purchase. Realistically, I have to understand and believe that there are people that-based on their driving habits, commute, etc.-actually are seeing an increase. It's not that it isn't possible, as I can illustrated next.

I ran the Newmission mod for a couple thousand miles. Despite all of the raving in the thread of how much better mileage was, I never got remotely close to seeing even matching numbers on my typical work commute. I didn't test it for a week and then claim it was junk. I ran it for a respectable time and determined it didn't work for me. The absolute only time I ever saw an increase was during one long steady-state trip (2 hours). Even though it wasn't definitive given the length of that particular testing time (the trip), I saw the highest mileage average on that trip than at any other time while owning the car to this day. To specifically claim that the intake concept is bad would be wrong, but I can generally say that it works for people whose commute is longer, steady state driving.

Either way, I can't and won't specifically comment on the Steeda unit without having one donated to me for testing...anyone?... All I can definitively say is to drive it for at least three tanks before you come to your own conclusion of how it performs on your own individual commute.
05-12-2013 09:57 AM
TboneZX3
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyn085 View Post
The biggest complaints usually come from steady-state (Interstate, highway) drivers whom commute longer distances. If it is of your opinion that those whom get worse mileage are at fault, so be it. Maybe you are entirely right. Its much easier to qualify efficiency losses as always being driver error, because it is the largest part of the equation.
I didn't realize that it was steady-state drivers that were experiencing this. If that's the case, then the point I was trying to make (oddly?) is moot.

It is not my opinion that efficiency losses are always driver error, especially not in steady-state driving. If it's your opinion that adding an intake will generally reduce MPG due to increased pumping inefficiencies, so be it. You may be entirely right.

I was simply trying to understand why, generally speaking, adding an intake will reduce your MPG. I didn't understand from this statement that you were saying that the added air and fuel was a result of OEM exhaust restriction and the pumping losses created by it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dyn085 View Post
Generally speaking, adding an intake hurts fuel mileage due to the added air, extra fuel, and OEM exhaust restriction.
I, personally, would want to see some hard data before making a blanket statement like that. Apparently, you've seen enough negative result to comfortably make that statement.
05-12-2013 09:35 AM
dyn085
Quote:
Originally Posted by TboneZX3 View Post
I'm not sure you do understand what I'm saying. At the same power setting, you are not using any more air or fuel with the aftermarket intake, so there would be no difference in MPG. If the MAF is requiring more fuel (due to more air), then you are not at an equal power setting and, of course, will not get the same MPG.

I doubt that the OEM exhaust is restrictive enough to add more than a very miniscule amount of pumping loss at cruising power (where you're typically going to be concerned about MPG) with an aftermarket intake. Pumping losses will play a larger part at larger throttle openings, I agree. But, in what I would call "normal" driving, I would bet the increase in pumping loss would be nearly immeasurable.

That does play a part in the whole scheme. However, that really isn't pertinent to subject of discussion, is it? You stated that the aftermarket intake will generally show reduced MPG over the factory setup. The Typhoon isn't less efficient at producing horsepower below 3200 rpm than the factory setup, so my response to the topic of discussion is still the same. We can go all over the place if you want to start comparing multiple intakes, modifications, and their tuning and efficiencies at various RPM.
You are trying to say that if it will take the engine a hypothetical 100lb ft of torque to keep the car at steady state cruise then the Typhoon will be creating that hypothetical number at the same or fewer RPM over the OEM setup. Even though you are saying it oddly, I understand exactly what you are trying to say.

I don't intend on 'going all over the place', I simply added the comparison of my setup to show how an aftermarket intake can sacrifice one end of the powerband to make gains on the other. My setup showed a relatively linear increase across the powerband in comparison to OEM. That's all. This isn't about why K&N is better or worse than Steeda or AEM or anything else. If anything, the thread is supposed to be about Steeda only. I can't compare anything to my OEM setup, because it was gone within the first 500 miles of me owning the car. I charted my entire process from beginning to end as best as I could.

I gave my information, and never specifically stated that someone absolutely will lose MPG's. That would be a load of crap, because there is a myriad of factors that go into those numbers. I simply said to wait 3 tanks before comparing numbers.

I'm glad you get the same mileage, but many other members don't. The biggest complaints usually come from steady-state (Interstate, highway) drivers whom commute longer distances. If it is of your opinion that those whom get worse mileage are at fault, so be it. Maybe you are entirely right. Its much easier to qualify efficiency losses as always being driver error, because it is the largest part of the equation.
05-12-2013 08:39 AM
TboneZX3
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyn085 View Post
Well, more or less. I understand what you're saying and the thought process. The intake itself doesn't require more fuel, but the additional air that the MAF measures does. When you add the additional fuel, there is more to exhaust. If the exhaust is OEM, it is probably only tuned for roughly what the engine was designed to exhale. By adding power, you are adding a small percentage of pumping loss by trying to force it through the same exit.
I doubt that the OEM exhaust is restrictive enough to add more than a very miniscule amount of pumping loss at cruising power (where you're typically going to be concerned about MPG) with an aftermarket intake. Pumping losses will play a larger part at larger throttle openings, I agree. But, in what I would call "normal" driving, I would bet the increase in pumping loss would be nearly immeasurable.

Maybe I'm wrong. I can't measure the losses. I can only speculate on that, but I can say that I saw no difference in MPG in my driving patterns pre/post Typhoon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dyn085 View Post
In any direction, you also have to take into account how the new intake affects your powerband. If the engine sacrifices torque on the low end in order to flow better on the high end, this can affect fuel mileage/consumption. When compared to the snorkel delete/K&N drop-in, the Typhoon was under-powered below 3200rpm iirc. Considering the fact that I stay below 3200 rpm 95% of the time when accelerating, I lost mpg with the typhoon installed (in comparison to my current setup).
That does play a part in the whole scheme. However, that really isn't pertinent to subject of discussion, is it? You stated that the aftermarket intake will generally show reduced MPG over the factory setup. The Typhoon dynos I've seen show that it's still (at least slightly) more efficient at producing horsepower below 3200 rpm than the factory setup, so my response to the topic of discussion is still the same. We can go all over the place if you want to start comparing multiple intakes, modifications, and their tuning and efficiencies at various RPM.
05-11-2013 02:30 PM
dyn085
Quote:
Originally Posted by TboneZX3 View Post
I don't quite understand this... Air and fuel would still be controlled by your foot on the throttle, right? So, accelerating at the same rate or cruising at the same rate of speed should net the same MPG, regardless of intake. Granted, you may have to use smaller throttle openings to achieve the same result with the less-restrictive intake. I find it hard to blame a less-restrictive intake for reduced fuel economy when, in actuality, it's you--the driver--who is controlling the mass of air entering the throttle body. It isn't that the less-restrictive intake is requiring more air/fuel to achieve the same result.

I personally saw zero difference in MPG when I installed my K&N Typhoon.
Well, more or less. I understand what you're saying and the thought process. The intake itself doesn't require more fuel, but the additional air that the MAF measures does. When you add the additional fuel, there is more to exhaust. If the exhaust is OEM, it is probably only tuned for roughly what the engine was designed to exhale. By adding power, you are adding a small percentage of pumping loss by trying to force it through the same exit.

In any direction, you also have to take into account how the new intake affects your powerband. If the engine sacrifices torque on the low end in order to flow better on the high end, this can affect fuel mileage/consumption. When compared to the snorkel delete/K&N drop-in, the Typhoon was under-powered below 3200rpm iirc. Considering the fact that I stay below 3200 rpm 95% of the time when accelerating, I lost mpg with the typhoon installed (in comparison to my current setup).

Ultimately, there are many variables that are in-play when it comes to fuel mileage and mods. When I say that 'generally speaking, you will lose mpg with an intake', I am also taking in to consideration that some people won't. It's a generalized statement based on engine theory and will apply to more people than it won't.
05-11-2013 01:51 PM
georgegren So after a few weeks with the CAI my mileage is close to what it was before, maybe one or two MPG less, max. It might be that I get on it a little more because of the sound.
Today I installed the Magnaflow exhaust, now I'm a happy camper. It seems much more drivable. Better low end pull. Seat of the pants, it seemed like with just the CAI it lost a bit on low rpm pull. Feels much stronger with the exhaust added.
I'll let you know what my mileage does over the next few tanks.

GG
05-06-2013 10:09 PM
Juicedz Edit
05-06-2013 09:30 PM
TboneZX3
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyn085 View Post
Generally speaking, adding an intake hurts fuel mileage due to the added air, extra fuel, and OEM exhaust restriction.
I don't quite understand this... Air and fuel would still be controlled by your foot on the throttle, right? So, accelerating at the same rate or cruising at the same rate of speed should net the same MPG, regardless of intake. Granted, you may have to use smaller throttle openings to achieve the same result with the less-restrictive intake. I find it hard to blame a less-restrictive intake for reduced fuel economy when, in actuality, it's you--the driver--who is controlling the mass of air entering the throttle body. It isn't that the less-restrictive intake is requiring more air/fuel to achieve the same result.

I personally saw zero difference in MPG when I installed my K&N Typhoon.
05-06-2013 09:06 PM
scoobtothenoog I'm extremely torn between this and the k&n. Anyone have experience with both of these?
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may 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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:52 AM.


Copyright 2002-2014 FocusFanatics.com. All Rights Reserved : Privacy Policy : Advertise Information

Focus Fanatics Ford Focus Forum offers many fun ways for you to engage with other Ford Focus Owners from across the world. Whether it be about the aftermarket performance modifications, technical how-to's, European tuned suspension or awesome fuel economy similar to the Audi S3, Ford Fusion and Acura TLX. You can find all Ford Focus and Focus ST related information here. Join our Ford Focus discussion forums and chat with local Focus enthusiasts in your area. Challenger Hellcat - Charger Hellcat