AFE Dry air filter for a little more performance on my 3.5

[carguy75]

Hi everyone.

 

I am new to this forum and I am a certified tweak-er.

 

Today I will install my new AFE Dry S to my new acquired 2011 Edge 3.5.

 

I would do a how-to on changing the air filter ,but it too simple.

 

However, I will give some feedback on how the Dry S performs of the 3.5 engine over time.

 

I used to buy K&N oiled filters until I got wind of these.

 

I used a AFE Dry S on a 2010 VW CC 3.6 I used to own, and it worked pretty good by giving my CC better throttle response and a couple of extra mpgs.

 

So, I will try it on the 2011 Edge 3.5.

 

Here is a pic of the filter.

Edited February 11, 2015 by carguy75

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

Haven't noticed any mpg gains from the AEM DryFlow yet, but lots of sound when on the gas for sure! Let's see how the AFE compares

[carguy75]

Well, I just installed the AFE Dry S filter and it fits perfectly in the air-box.

 

Now I will have to test it sometime when the wife lets me drive the Edge.

 

Here how it looks installed.

Edited February 12, 2015 by carguy75

[macbwt]

Rather vague on the cleaning instructions but essentially they use a NON-IONIC SURFACTANT which is generally associated with pretreating and in conjunction with herbicide applications to clean the filters. This in it's self is not really a danger they put this stuff in laundry soap etc to degrade the surface tension of liquids (i.e. water) in order to clean and penetrate. This filter is a K&N filter designed by K&N but sold under another name. Only difference is it does not use and oil.

 

You can buy a gallon of the cleaner online from other vendors for 20 bucks or pay this company 11 bucks for 32 oz pretty good mark up for the achems razor. Let me know if you get my applied meaning for achems razor.

Edited February 12, 2015 by macbwt

[carguy75]

Haven't noticed any mpg gains from the AEM DryFlow yet, but lots of sound when on the gas for sure! Let's see how the AFE compares

Do you have the drop-in filter or air intake filter kit?

 

FYI, I have never got good mileage from any performance filter if I floor it.

 

Only when I drive conservatively do I notice the extra mpgs, if any.

 

My wife do drives more easy going than me so the Edge should see some fuel economy improvements over time.

 

Do the Edge have adaptive automatic transmission shift logic that adapts to the driver style of driving?

[carguy75]

Rather vague on the cleaning instructions but essentially they use a NON-IONIC SURFACTANT which is generally associated with pretreating and in conjunction with herbicide applications to clean the filters. This in it's self is not really a danger they put this stuff in laundry soap etc to degrade the surface tension of liquids (i.e. water) in order to clean and penetrate. This filter is a K&N filter designed by K&N but sold under another name. Only difference is it does not use and oil.

 

You can buy a gallon of the cleaner online from other vendors for 20 bucks or pay this company 11 bucks for 32 oz pretty good mark up for the achems razor. Let me know if you get my applied meaning for achems razor.

Well, if it cleans the engine and give a little performance gain I do not care if it is essentially a dry K&N filter under a different name.

 

I rather like K&N as a company, but just wanted to use oil-free air filters when I drive cars under warranty ,so the powers that be can not use the air filter oil as an excuse to not repair my car.

Edited February 12, 2015 by carguy75

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

I have the drop-in filter. The Edge does have adaptive logic for the drivetrain.

[macbwt]

So true on the warranty issues. Most warranties are so cumbersome and designed to provide the manufacturer with a legal "out" for not providing warranty service. I bet the people that write them can not even abide by them. Either way just wanted to show the connection and it also proves a point that K&N recognizes the issue with the oil being the escape clause for car owners when it comes to warranty. As you know I have had a K&N in my Edge for over 200k miles and not had an issue.

Well, if it cleans the engine and give a little performance gain I do not care if it is essentially a dry K&N filter under a different name.

 

I rather like K&N as a company, but just wanted to use oil-free air filters when I drive cars under warranty ,so the powers that be can not use the air filter oil as an excuse to not repair my car.

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

Even if the oiling caused an issue, regular cleaning of the MAF/MAP sensor (once a year?) would be good, inexpensive practice. Now as far as the throttle body, it would take serious overoiling to affect it IMHO, but I don't really see any discussions on that link.

[macbwt]

When I clean my K&N and re oil it. I take special care to oil it, but not over apply the oil. This is a case where too much is a bad thing and the MAF/MAP sensor will take the hit. I did have a chevy (HHR JUNK CAR, whole other story) that the MAF/MAP sensor had to be replaced due to the K&N oil IMHO. My fault most likely as I was new to the K&N fither system. Since then experience has of course taught me many lessons.

 

A note on the dry filter if I decided to go that route I personally would get some liquid clothes detergent and mix up a diluted gallon and be done with it. Same concept and cheaper based on the SDS sheet I read from the website. Essentially what you are doing when you clean it is to break down the water surface to penetrate and using the diluted laudry soap does the same thing and also provided the ability to break down the oils and clean them out of the filter. Then simply rinse thourghly and let dry and reinstall.

[carguy75]

When I clean my K&N and re oil it. I take special care to oil it, but not over apply the oil. This is a case where too much is a bad thing and the MAF/MAP sensor will take the hit. I did have a chevy (HHR JUNK CAR, whole other story) that the MAF/MAP sensor had to be replaced due to the K&N oil IMHO. My fault most likely as I was new to the K&N fither system. Since then experience has of course taught me many lessons.

 

A note on the dry filter if I decided to go that route I personally would get some liquid clothes detergent and mix up a diluted gallon and be done with it. Same concept and cheaper based on the SDS sheet I read from the website. Essentially what you are doing when you clean it is to break down the water surface to penetrate and using the diluted laudry soap does the same thing and also provided the ability to break down the oils and clean them out of the filter. Then simply rinse thourghly and let dry and reinstall.

No offense, but I just replace the oil or dry performance filters after about three years of use.

 

They only cost about 50 dollars, so I just replace the filters instead of possibly over-oiling the K&n air filters.

 

And I will just change out the Dry S filter in about three years for a fresh one.

 

But each it own.

[akirby]

On what basis do you think a less restrictive air filter would yield better mpg? And if it was true that you could gain a few mpg just by using a different filter that costs a few bucks per vehicle, why aren't the manufacturers using them?

[carguy75]

On what basis do you think a less restrictive air filter would yield better mpg? And if it was true that you could gain a few mpg just by using a different filter that costs a few bucks per vehicle, why aren't the manufacturers using them?

To be honest, just my experience from using performance air filters in the past whereas I noticed that my cars picked up additional mpgs from a filter change, even on newer cars that had relatively clean OEM filters(if I did not floor the gas pedal trying to test the acceleration).

 

My theory to why is that performance filters allows air to freely enter the engine with less restriction than higher filtrating OEM air filters which allows the engine to work easier to maintain speed with out needing additional input from the throttle to maintain engine combustion.

 

I know you may be thinking that if high flowing air filters give better gas mileage than why aren't the automakers using them stock on every car.

 

My opinion to why automakers do not use high flowing air filters on their complete line-up is because the high flowing filters allows more dirt to pass through the filter media that could cause premature engine damage depending on the performance filter used, and most importantly cost(good filtrating high flowing filters costs at the least twice as much as a paper filter), which add up quickly when you are buying millions of them.

 

Remember, high flowing performance filters can be obtained from most automakers for their high performance car models for an additional cost with the promise of better engine performance and increase economy developed by their performance divisions.

 

Example: TRD, Mopar, Nismo,etc.

 

The best example I can use is how air filters work in a AC blower unit, in which higher filtrating filters(Merv 13 or higher) product less air flow through the ac vents compared to a less filtering filter(Merv 6 or lower).

 

The OEM paper is the best at filtering engine air at the cost of the engine losing efficiency while saving the automaker money, in comparison performance filters allows the engine to operate more efficiently at the expense of more dirty air entering the engine as a result.

 

Like anything in life there are trade-offs to be made, so you will not find an air filter that will be great at doing both jobs of filtering the air and being efficient as well.

 

Like all season tires on a car, which will never beat out dedicated summer or winter tires.

 

Please note that any gains from a non-force induction engine will not be too noticeable, maybe 1-2 horsepower gain to the wheels(5-10hp at the crank) and maybe a few extra mpgs.

 

But every little gain is something.

 

Here is a performance air filter from the Ford Motor Company performance division, and it is oiled.

http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=24354

Edited February 16, 2015 by carguy75

[akirby]

Popular theory but incorrect. It doesn't matter how the air gets to the engine. Only the amount and the density as measured by the MAF. You can get a bit more air at WOT so you might pick up a few hp, but not better fuel economy. The amount of fuel is determined by the amount of oxygen. The engine doesn't work harder or easier - it just opens the valves and takes in whatever is there.

 

Exhibit A: a guy put a cloth diaper in his stock air box and drove it for a few days. There wasn't much power but when he measured his fuel economy it actually went UP, not down.

 

Exhibit B: K&N does extensive dyno testing to show power improvements. They could just as easily perform fuel economy tests and publish those results. But you won't find anything like that on their website.

[carguy75]

Popular theory but incorrect. It doesn't matter how the air gets to the engine. Only the amount and the density as measured by the MAF. You can get a bit more air at WOT so you might pick up a few hp, but not better fuel economy. The amount of fuel is determined by the amount of oxygen. The engine doesn't work harder or easier - it just opens the valves and takes in whatever is there.

 

Exhibit A: a guy put a cloth diaper in his stock air box and drove it for a few days. There wasn't much power but when he measured his fuel economy it actually went UP, not down.

 

Exhibit B: K&N does extensive dyno testing to show power improvements. They could just as easily perform fuel economy tests and publish those results. But you won't find anything like that on their website.

Man.

This debate about high flowing air filters is as old as cars have been modified.

 

I will respect your take on it, because we will be going back and fourth about engine efficiency and MAF sensors till our fingers hurt from typing.

 

However, I stand firm to what I believe no matter how many examples of diaper in the air box tests and opinions you post about.

 

To me the performance air filters work and I believe my cars have showed so improvement by using them.

 

Nuff said.

Edited February 14, 2015 by carguy75

[macbwt]

And to both of ya. 270,000 miles on a K&N air filter (original MAF/MAP sensor). Average fuel mileage is 20mpg and on Blizzak snow tires with winter fuel. I run Bridgestone Dueler Alanza Ecopias for the summer and get better fuel mileage with the summer blend. Just the result I get all others may vary with their experiences.

[akirby]

Don't substitute theories for actual test results. Especially test results from the same agency that actually performs the tests and who sets the standards.

 

In a modern closed loop system the air fuel ratio will always adjust to match the actual air intake whether you have a K&N, a paper filter or no filter. This test clogged the filter so much it was deformed from the vacuum - a worst case scenario - with no difference.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/pdfs/Air_Filter_Effects_02_26_2009.pdf#page37

 

The goal of this study was to explore the effects of a clogged air filter on the fuel economy of vehicles operating over prescribed test cycles. Three newer vehicles (a 2007 Buick Lucerne, a 2006 Dodge Charger, and a 2003 Toyota Camry) and an older carbureted vehicle were tested.

Results show that clogging the air filter has no significant effect on the fuel economy of the newer vehicles (all fuel injected with closed-loop control and one equipped with MDS). The engine control systems were able to maintain the desired AFR regardless of intake restrictions, and therefore fuel consumption was not increased.

[akirby]

http://www.metrompg.com/posts/air-filter-part-2.htm

[WWWPerfA_ZN0W]

A cooler, denser charge of air resulting from a freer flowing filter would result in the engine having to do less work to pull the same load. More power at the same rpm (or same power at lower rpm) means more efficient engine. More efficient engine means more mpg. Would you drive around with the top of the airbox off and let the intake air heatsoak? Of course not.

 

http://www.bankspower.com/techarticles/show/22-Cool-Air-Equals-Power

 

Combining the intake with a proper exhaust will maximize this effect. I still think a proper tune will net you even better results.

[akirby]

A cooler, denser charge of air resulting from a freer flowing filter would result in the engine having to do less work to pull the same load. More power at the same rpm (or same power at lower rpm) means more efficient engine. More efficient engine means more mpg. Would you drive around with the top of the airbox off and let the intake air heatsoak? Of course not.

 

http://www.bankspower.com/techarticles/show/22-Cool-Air-Equals-Power

 

Combining the intake with a proper exhaust will maximize this effect. I still think a proper tune will net you even better results.

Cooler denser air will produce more power. The problem is that also requires more fuel. Banks' statement that "generally increases fuel economy" is the same as K&N's similar vague claims. It's all marketing BS.

 

Again - this is just as easy to test and prove as power levels. If there was a mpg benefit they would have graphs and test data to back it up pasted all over their websites.

 

Don't believe marketing and urban myths - believe the facts.

[akirby]

BTW - this was true on carbureted engines where the air fuel ratio was not computer controlled as shown in the fueleconomy.gov test. But nobody makes those now.

[carguy75]

Don't substitute theories for actual test results. Especially test results from the same agency that actually performs the tests and who sets the standards.

 

In a modern closed loop system the air fuel ratio will always adjust to match the actual air intake whether you have a K&N, a paper filter or no filter. This test clogged the filter so much it was deformed from the vacuum - a worst case scenario - with no difference.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/pdfs/Air_Filter_Effects_02_26_2009.pdf#page37

 

The goal of this study was to explore the effects of a clogged air filter on the fuel economy of vehicles operating over prescribed test cycles. Three newer vehicles (a 2007 Buick Lucerne, a 2006 Dodge Charger, and a 2003 Toyota Camry) and an older carbureted vehicle were tested.

Results show that clogging the air filter has no significant effect on the fuel economy of the newer vehicles (all fuel injected with closed-loop control and one equipped with MDS). The engine control systems were able to maintain the desired AFR regardless of intake restrictions, and therefore fuel consumption was not increased.

Very good information, but it does not prove that high performance air filters do not increase fuel economy, only that modern engines adapt to dirty air filters to maintain AFR(which may severely kill horsepower in the process and possibly damage the engine in the long-term).

 

Therefore, you will still have to change your dirty air filter.

 

In fact, the research gives me the impression that the modern engine will adapt to the additional air flow and improve the engine fuel economy slightly by adjust the engine parameters the same way it adjust it for lack of airflow.

Edited February 14, 2015 by carguy75

[carguy75]

Cooler denser air will produce more power. The problem is that also requires more fuel. Banks' statement that "generally increases fuel economy" is the same as K&N's similar vague claims. It's all marketing BS.

 

Again - this is just as easy to test and prove as power levels. If there was a mpg benefit they would have graphs and test data to back it up pasted all over their websites.

 

Don't believe marketing and urban myths - believe the facts.

Man.

 

I get the feeling that you really do not believe in higher flowing air filters giving any additional fuel economy gains, but I believe they can on certain cars.

 

It depend on the engine control programming, which is different among the different automakers.

 

Some will adjust to changes better than others and in different ways.

 

So nor you or me can just say that an air-filter will or will not work on a particular car until you actually try it.

 

I have started using the AFE Dry S in my car, so I will be a better judge to how well it works more than you(even though you have a ton of theories on why it would not work).

 

Now, if you really want to accurately judge the AFE Dry S filter ,just buy one and make a log of what your mpg is before and after the filter change.

 

If you are not willing to do that, stop posting about something you really have not used by posting different results from different cars being tested on the web that are not the Ford 3.5 engine or the Dry S air filter.

 

I am not trying to be nasty, just tired of reading negative posts from individuals who never really tested a product or its results.

 

However, I understand that this is the internet so everyone will have an opinion, and I respect yours.

Edited February 14, 2015 by carguy75

[carguy75]

And to both of ya. 270,000 miles on a K&N air filter (original MAF/MAP sensor). Average fuel mileage is 20mpg and on Blizzak snow tires with winter fuel. I run Bridgestone Dueler Alanza Ecopias for the summer and get better fuel mileage with the summer blend. Just the result I get all others may vary with their experiences.

Wow, your Edge is averaging very good gas mileage.

 

I would be happy if I can average 21-22 mpg mixed city/highway driving with my new AFE filter, before my filter change I was averaging only about 19 mpg mixed driving as of a few days ago.

 

What was your mileage before using the K&N filter, if you can remember it with almost 300000 miles on the clock?

 

I am guessing you mean 27000 miles?

Edited February 14, 2015 by carguy75

[carguy75]

I want to post that my Edge was averaging between 17-19 mpg in mixed city/highway(depending on traffic) on the Edge's mpg meter before I changed my old air filter.

 

I reset the Edge's mpg meter once the day I bought it a week ago, and 17-19 mpg was the average which goes up to about 22mpg while I drive on the highway, but goes down to 16mpg in the city during congestion .

 

Today, after giving the ECU sometime to adjust to the new filter, I reset the mpg meter again.

 

Now ,I will check to see over the course of a week if my Edge will gain any improvements in economy when my wife drives it around like she normally does around town.

 

Before someone chimes in about it is not a proper scientific experiment, my posts are not supposed to be.

 

Just honest "real world" observations about if the new air filter is giving any "real world" noticeable improvements to my Edge engine.

 

If someone want charts and AF ratio graphs,you can buy a AFE Dry S filter and go Mr.Science all you like.

Edited February 14, 2015 by carguy75