[Check Codes]

Should I move this to OT? :surrender:

At least IMHO, there's no need, it'll die out on it's own.

 

[loubapache]

At least IMHO, there's no need, it'll die out on it's own.

Well, what if the girls start a similar or even more complicated calculation proving "Guys = (All Evil)^2?

 

[lkchris]

You say this as if it's a news flash.

Apparently the "newsflash" to the original poster is that Mercedes come with maintenance schedule booklets that define all kinds of things, including the air filter replacment interval.

It's only logical that if one thinks Mercedes well-engineered cars, then the maintenance schedules developed by those same engineers might be pretty well thought out as well.

It's all a little beyond auto shop 101, which is what the original post sounds like.

BTW, if you don't have this booklet for your car, you can order one at 800.for.merc or if your car is pretty new they are online for download at mbusa.com

 

[mbvis]

Air filters are one of those things that usually don't get too much attention. Even if they look ok, they still should be replaced with every oil change IMO. My car's city fuel economy was progressively getting bad over time. I was down to around 9-10 MPGs in the city. My filter looked OK but I replaced it anyways as I had an extra one lying around. My city fuel economy doubled immediately!!!:thumbsup: I am now getting b/w 18-19 MPGs now in the city! (32 highway, an increase from 28).

My advice: Spend the few $$$ and change the air filter at every oil change. You will more than make it up via much better fuel economy.

Oh yeah, my car has 99k miles on it. 2000 E320. Will do spark plugs one day as soon as I find the time and motivation and energy to do so.

The right amount of air and fuel determines the good gas mileage at optimum power.
Air flow + Temperature --> MAF sensor --> analog voltages --> AD --> car computer.
There's a thermistor on the sensor, too, if you ever looked at it.

 

[Mosysav]

I think j99xj is completely right.
A clogged filter will reduce the volume or air entering the cylinders.
Thus the volume of fuel injected will also be reduced by the injection system in order to respect the optimal air:fuel ratio (14:1).
So a clogged filter reduces the engine's power but not the mileage.
The mileage will only decrease on old engines that use carburators.

 

[oefvetw124lover]

I'm late to the party but
a clean air filter is critical for the maintenance of any vehicle
if in doubt concerning the condition of your air filter, change it.
you dont have to get a K&N air filter (the debate rages) but a new stock one is better than an old used one.

 

[Figuero]

Originally Posted by loubapacheView Post
Should I move this to OT?
At least IMHO, there's no need, it'll die out on it's own.

5 years later....... The debate rages on.

In my opinion (assuming the filter is still doing a good job of filtering the air and the fuel injection system is working properly)the restriction is simply limiting WOT.

WOT is no longer WOT, but rather WOT is reduced by the restriction of the dirty filter. You simply have to push the gass pedal down farther.....
Push it - Push it real good.

 

[Check Codes]

I think j99xj is completely right.
A clogged filter will reduce the volume or air entering the cylinders.
Thus the volume of fuel injected will also be reduced by the injection system in order to respect the optimal air:fuel ratio (14:1).
So a clogged filter reduces the engine's power but not the mileage.
The mileage will only decrease on old engines that use carburators.

Were this true, there would be no need to ever change an air filter, or for any throttle body to be larger than 1 mm.

 

[Kajtek1]

Were this true, there would be no need to ever change an air filter, or for any throttle body to be larger than 1 mm.

Yeah, but computer sensing less air, will deliver less fuel, what in first stage might actually save fuel as you won't be able to accelerate fast, nor drive at top speeds.
But then at certain point, like taking 2 minutes to reach 60 mph you might figure out that fuel saving is one thing, but getting there on time is important too.
That said air filter on wife diesel reached 8 years/90,000 miles. I have a filter minder installed on it and it is still in green.

 

[Ingenieur]

I'll try
It does improve mpg due to less pumping loss

Assume
Fixed power required to move the car
300 cfm of air required and the a/f is maintained
atm press 14.7
Clean filter drop 0.1 psi
Dirty filter drop 0.2 psi

After clean filter 14.6
Assume tb at some position to make 100 hp and press drop or dp = 6 psi
Net on piston = 8.6 or a vaccum of -6.1 psi

After dirty filter 14.5
New tb position since cfm = area x 4005 x sqrt(dp)
We'll assume new dirty tb position = 1.1 x clean tb position
Doesn't matter since we are looking at ratios of the above equation
cfm cancels since it is 300 for both, ie power is the same, 4005 cancels
Dirty tb dp = clean tb dp / sq(1.1) = 6/1.2 = 5
Makes sense, open more > dp drops
Net on piston = 14.5 - 5 = 9.5 > clean of 8.6 manifold vac is less at -5.2

It takes more power from the process to work against the higher pressure, ie more pumping loss
Think of it as incurring the pumping loss of a larger throttle position without the benefit of more power
Pumping losses increase with output but in this case we don't get the power, but we do get the losses

 

[raymond-]

i'm a simple thinker, a byproduct of seattle public schools.

it's an internal cumbustion engine. each cylinder requires X+ cc of air per
intake stroke. add to that the amount of fuel needed to meet the
predetermined AF ratio.

so obviously air is needed and in enough volume to meet the critical minimum
amount to feed all cylinders.

any air flow restriction begins to limit that which is needed to feed all cylinders

what do you think?

 

[Ingenieur]

Logically

Stands to reason
If with a dirty filter the throttle MUST be INCREASED to make the SAME power (relative to a clean one)
And if the filter were clean it would make MORE power at the increased throttle position
SO
There MUST be MORE losses with the dirty filter
AND
More losses means lower efficiency
Lower efficiency means lower mpg

 

[Kajtek1]

The more throttle would apply to carburated engines, although even there it is the air flow that sucks fuel from the nozzles.
On computerized engine, pushing the gas pedal is just a wish you are giving to computer. Computer analyze how much air comes to the engine and with restricted air will restrict fuel.
Therefore you come to the point when it will take 2 minutes to reach 60 mph.
All wit top fuel efficiency.

 

[loubapache]

Sir K had been on at the very beginning.

For carbureted engine, it was true that a partially clogged air filter affects both fuel economy and performance. That was the conventional wisdom so people always think a modern (injected and computer controlled) engine works the same way.

Fortunately or unfortunately, that was really not the case in a modern engine. There had been several tests to prove that there is very little, if any, difference in terms of fuel economy between new and partially clogged air filters. (Otherwise, K&N sale would go over the roof.)

I know many in the forum do not trust Consumers Report so I will spare their study. However, let's try one done by real scientists.

The most authoritative study was done by scientists from Oak Ridge National Labs. I guess the government (think DOD) must own a lot vehicles so this is a significant things. They tested a lot of different engines and found no real fuel economy difference between new and partially clogged air filters in modern cars. There is, however, a performance difference.

I saved that info and here is their conclusion: (the 1972 reference was to a carbureted engine)

<<
Results reveal insignificant fuel economy and emissions sensitivity of modern vehicles to air filter condition, but measureable effects on the 1972 vehicle. All vehicles experienced a measured acceleration performance penalty with clogged intake air filters.
>>

 

[Ingenieur]

The more throttle would apply to carburated engines, although even there it is the air flow that sucks fuel from the nozzles.
On computerized engine, pushing the gas pedal is just a wish you are giving to computer. Computer analyze how much air comes to the engine and with restricted air will restrict fuel.
Therefore you come to the point when it will take 2 minutes to reach 60 mph.
All wit top fuel efficiency.

Not accurate
In your example the loss percentage of power would be lower than steady state
Why? Because the ratio of filter loss to tb loss decreases
Part throttle 2/5 vs 2/ much less than 5 = better cyl filling
It would not take much more time but top speed would be decreased for the same fuel consumption
Also if it takes longer to accel that means less torque
Less torque means less power since torque = 5252/rpm x power
So you do LESS work force x distance using more fuel

 

[Ingenieur]

Sir K had been on at the very beginning.

For carbureted engine, it was true that a partially clogged air filter affects both fuel economy and performance. That was the conventional wisdom so people always think a modern (injected and computer controlled) engine works the same way.

Fortunately or unfortunately, that was really not the case in a modern engine. There had been several tests to prove that there is very little, if any, difference in terms of fuel economy between new and partially clogged air filters. (Otherwise, K&N sale would go over the roof.)

I know many in the forum do not trust Consumers Report so I will spare their study. However, let's try one done by real scientists.

The most authoritative study was done by scientists from Oak Ridge National Labs. I guess the government (think DOD) must own a lot vehicles so this is a significant things. They tested a lot of different engines and found no real fuel economy difference between new and partially clogged air filters in modern cars. There is, however, a performance difference.

I saved that info and here is their conclusion: (the 1972 reference was to a carbureted engine)

<<
Results reveal insignificant fuel economy and emissions sensitivity of modern vehicles to air filter condition, but measureable effects on the 1972 vehicle. All vehicles experienced a measured acceleration performance penalty with clogged intake air filters.
>>

Works the same for any otto cycle
Fuel delivery method does not matter
k&n does increase mileage
Not sure that is good though since that means less effective filtration
The differences are on the order of ~10-20% of 10% pumping losses
a few percent at best
But it all depends on how fouled the filter is
I do not belive you can double mileage

 

[Ingenieur]

It is ANY intake restriction
Not only the filter
That is why mfgs of even economy cars try to minimize pressure drop thru the intake track

 

[Ingenieur]

Another thing to consider
Engines run open loop ie tb position tps
And closed loop sigma trim and the maf
The tps system uses a map to get fuel rate close and the other 2 inpus which have a lag to trim it
If the filter is blocked the tps will over fuel until trimmed
If bad enough the trim may run up against its limits

In a car that is constantly changing load it adds up
That is why the percent increase is greater for city start/stop than steady state highway

 

[Kajtek1]

Another thing to consider
Engines run open loop ie tb position tps

For the starters, my engines do not have tps, nor do they have throttle
With my Superduties I could spend $500 on fuel a day, so I was observing all the variations pretty carefully.
Partially clogged filter plays no role in normal driving.
My filter minder would go to read when I pulled 25,000 lb set up on 12 miles grade, what translate to gas pedal firmly on the floor for 20 minutes or more, but then after resetting I could drive it for another 2000 miles with no problems.
As usually in such things it is very fine balance between what actually happen, what we I can measure and what do we believe.
I said it before and I am going to say it again, that from all the maintenance things I can do to my car - vacuuming the carpets brings the highest power gain and the best fuel economy

 

[Patch's]

"Our cars have a complicated fuel injection system that is designed to maximize fuel economy and reduce emissions. That being said, if you have a dirty air filter, less air is physically able to enter the engine, the MAF is smart enough to know this and thus reduces the fuel injector duty cycle to keep the air/fuel ratio happy. So it is impossible for the engine to run rich and ruin fuel economy until the filter is completely clogged in which case the engine wouldn't even idle properly if at all."

"Ball-zie" Statement! You must be pissed at a recent expense for some expensive fuel system parts? So now you are saying the car needs to deal with an old stuffed up filter, “deal with it”! I can't stop laughing!! I know your pulling our leg, but what an unexpected twist of facts! This sounds just like "economic forecast reporting" the facts are there, but just way out of plan....LOL!
Just yesterday my son and I were working on his MR2 we had to pressure test for a suspected leak in the cold start injector, so I took the opportunity to explain the simple 1990 fuel system, and of course we start with air! The very 1st thing I said "if you want to bust power 1st you need to know the potential volume of air you can get into the cylinder, the adding gas part is easy to do; it's all about the air and the compression!"
J99XJ, that is very cool thinking! But all we end up with, is a very confused system what!