# Gas Mileage After Air Intake Baffle Removed



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

savethewave said:


> I am wonder if anyone has done any gas mileage test after removing the air intake baffle. Also the Pro/Cons of the noise from the Turbo.


You won't notice much difference in gas mileage. The primary purposes of bypassing the resonator and intake plumbing are to improve throttle response and pull in cold air from the fenderwell instead of hot air from the engine bay. The former is for drivability, and the latter is to help prevent knock. It also improves performance, but the difference is marginal. 

The only Con that I can think of is that the motor does sound louder (a comfort issue for some), and the filter may get dirty a tad bit faster since you're pulling in air from closer to the ground. I haven't driven enough to know for sure.


----------



## iCruze2 (Dec 16, 2011)

savethewave said:


> I am wonder if anyone has done any gas mileage test after removing the air intake baffle. Also the Pro/Cons of the noise from the Turbo.


No such con exists when referring to the sound of a turbo!!!


----------



## sciphi (Aug 26, 2011)

There's not a gas mileage difference from the mod itself. It's mainly for sound, and to let one know when they're boosting at low RPM's. One can use it for gas mileage by letting off the gas when hearing the turbo spool.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

sciphi said:


> There's not a gas mileage difference from the mod itself. It's mainly for sound, and to let one know when they're boosting at low RPM's. One can use it for gas mileage by letting off the gas when hearing the turbo spool.


That's exactly how I use it as well.


----------



## Smurfenstein (Nov 16, 2011)

There is a slight con to an air intake. If you love the extra sound, you may find yourself flooring more often, and getting horrible mileage.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

According to these aftermarket air cleaner people, engineers are idiots and can't even design an air inlet system. When a lot more goes into this that meets the eye, A whole ton of government standards have to be met. So why aren't they fooling around with the valve intake timing, exhaust, ignition, injectors, intake and exhaust manifolds and everything else dealing with the emission and airflow characteristics of an engine?

Mainly because the air cleaner is the easiest thing to fool with also accompanied with major lie type claims. Only thing you are doing is hurting yourself with the warranty and even insurance companies by modifications. With the correct attorneys, if they find you even modified your air cleaner and didn't report this, they don't have to cover you, even if it wasn't were fault.

If you want more engine noise, has to be an MP3 available someplace you can play through your radio. More noise is all you are getting.


----------



## Beaker (Mar 21, 2012)

No GM engineers are just focused on designing a vehicle that everyone can drive. Not everyone wants to hear a turbo spool or a blowoff valve release. They're designing for quiet operation. Not the greatest performance. 

An air intake though in no way voids a warranty. All you're doing is letting the motor breathe easier. Now if say you created your own intake that somehow let a piece of debris into the motor and it broke, then they might try not to cover it. But if your engine throws a rod or a valve spring breaks, an aftermarket air intake will have had nothing to do with that.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

You can do whatever you want to do with your vehicle, certainly wouldn't recommend recommending it, just be prepared to accept the liability for whatever you do, don't try to blame anyone else.

Turbo is an air compressor, and as such, any compression of air generates an excess amount of heat, function of the intercooler to reduce that temperature. SAE defined automotive range is -40 to 125*C, so if more denser air is required, just drive only when its -40*C outside.

The word, "modified" had an infinite number of definitions, try defining that in a court of law.


----------



## Beachernaut (Mar 27, 2012)

I think Beaker has the right of it. IMO the convoluted design of the air intake has more to do with sound than anything else. The fact that all of this plumbing is put in before the air filter tells me that it has no other real purpose. If there was any kind of air flow purpose for this extra plastic, it would all be negated by the air filter itself. Take a look at previous GM cars and you'll see quite a few examples. Why would they develop OHV engines when they already had pushrod engines? Cadillac is a great example. Why use the Northstar, when GM already had pushrod engines that would work just as well? Because grandma might not like that noise the pushrod engine makes.

I would be surprised if a tech at a dealership would even find this. At the very least that would mean there's something major wrong with your car, and it's unlikely they would even look on the intake side of your air filter. It'd be more likely they'd start at the airbox, and work their way toward the engine from there. If they voided your warranty for this, that means they were looking for some reason to void it. In that case, I'm sure they could find some reason to void the warranty on a completely stock car with no modifications. My brother had his warranty voided on his truck for "abuse". Turns out GM (or the dealership) put in an improperly balanced driveshaft. 2 transmissions later they voided his warranty.


----------



## Beaker (Mar 21, 2012)

They developed new types of engines because they got more power and greater fuel efficiency out of them. It had nothing to do with noise. A properly operating engine that uses pushrods is just as quiet as one that doesn't.


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

NickD said:


> According to these aftermarket air cleaner people, engineers are idiots and can't even design an air inlet system. When a lot more goes into this that meets the eye, A whole ton of government standards have to be met. So why aren't they fooling around with the valve intake timing, exhaust, ignition, injectors, intake and exhaust manifolds and everything else dealing with the emission and airflow characteristics of an engine?
> 
> Mainly because the air cleaner is the easiest thing to fool with also accompanied with major lie type claims. Only thing you are doing is hurting yourself with the warranty and even insurance companies by modifications. With the correct attorneys, if they find you even modified your air cleaner and didn't report this, they don't have to cover you, even if it wasn't were fault.
> 
> If you want more engine noise, has to be an MP3 available someplace you can play through your radio. More noise is all you are getting.


Nick, I respect your opinion and you usually have a lot of good things to say. I've learned a lot, but please consider what's going on here. I'll trace the path of the airflow on the stock system as well as I can. 

Airflow starts being pulled right behind the sealed upper grill above the bowtie. I posted a picture of this in my writeup for the resonator bypass modification. It then travels downward in front of the radiator, wraps around the front bumper, and goes into a large resonator box. This purpose of this box is to quiet the sound of the intake. The air then travels up through a duct (which I removed per my writeup), and into the airbox, which is left stock. 

Once the air is inside the airbox, it has to go through an air filter, and air diffuser that reduces turbulence and evens the flow of air for correct MAF reading, then goes past the MAF Sensor. The rest past that is irrelevant. 

I'm sure they sucked in air from the top of the engine bay to maximize fuel economy, but in this particular engine, it works against us as people are recording knock with bone stock motors in the winter. At that point, any way to pull in colder air would be of benefit to us. 

The 3-4 feet of plumbing before the resonator box also doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose, but it sure does cause a restriction that reduces throttle response significantly. The resonator box has an obvious purpose of acting like an intake muffler. So long as the airbox itself isn't modified, everything past that will not affect the tuning of the engine. Temperature variations occur naturally and are accounted for. 

The only disadvantage I can possibly think of is that sucking air from further down may get the filter dirtier a tad bit quicker, but I don't believe it will be of any consequence. You also hear the grunt and growl of the motor as well as the turbo boost, something I'm sure most people would prefer to live without.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Respect your opinions too, just have a terrible background with product liability suits. If you think I am bad, should meet my son working as an underwriter for a major insurance company. Had a German Shepherd dog I wanted to give away, was nasty toward my granddaughter. Had plenty of takers, but my son made me write up a three page disclaimer before giving it away. The taker had no problem signing it, got one heck of a great dog for free. That photo is my new now six month old pup that plays wonderfully with my granddaughter, they grew up together.

Theory of getting greater air into the combustion chamber is good, and cold air does do that. But at penalty as well, namely the atomization of the fuel. Get droplets that end up in the catalytic converter causing excess heat with corresponding shorter life.

In engineering, tradeoffs is the name of the game, best one can do is to compromise.

Here is what the EPA has to say about this subject:

"UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
ENGINE SWITCHING FACT SHEET
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
March 13, 1991
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
Pursuant to frequent requests for information received by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regarding the legality and effects of engine switching, this document will summarize federal law
and policy pertaining to this matter, and will discuss other related issues.
A. Federal Law
The federal tampering prohibition is contained in section 203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42
U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). Section 203(a)(3)(A) of the Act prohibits any person from removing or rendering
inoperative any emission control device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor
vehicle engine prior to its sale and delivery to an ultimate purchaser and prohibits any person from
knowingly removing or rendering inoperative any such device or element of design after such sale and
delivery, and the causing thereof. The maximum civil penalty for a violation of this section by a
manufacturer or dealer is $25,000; for any other person, $2,500. Section 203(a)(3)(B) of the Act
prohibits any person from manufacturing or selling, or offering to sell, or installing, any part or
component intended for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine where a
principal effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative any device or
element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle engine, and where the person
knows or should know that such part or component is being offered for sale or is being installed for
such use. The maximum civil penalty for a violation of this section is $2,500.
EPA received many questions regarding the application of this law to a situation where one engine is
removed from a vehicle and another engine is installed in its place. EPA's policy regarding "engine
switching" is covered under the provisions of Mobile Source Enforcement Memorandum No. lA
(Attachment 1). This policy states that EPA will not consider any modification to a "certified
configuration" to be a violation of federal law if there is a reasonable basis for knowing that emissions
are not adversely affected. In many cases, proper emission testing according to the Federal Test
Procedure would be necessary to make this determination.
2
A "certified configuration" is an engine or engine chassis design which has been "certified" (approved)
by EPA prior to the production of vehicles with that design. Generally, the manufacturer submits an
application for certification of the designs of each engine or vehicle it proposes to manufacture prior to
production. The application includes design requirements for all emission related parts, engine
calibrations, and other design parameters for each different type of engine (in heavy-duty vehicles), or
engine chassis combination (in light-duty vehicles). EPA then "certifies" each acceptable design for use,
in vehicles of the upcoming model year.
For light-duty vehicles, installation of a light-duty eng~ne into a different light-duty vehicle by any
person would be considered tampering unless the resulting vehicle is identical (with regard to all
emission related parts, engine design parameters, and engine calibrations) to a certified configuration of
the same or newer model year as the vehicle chassis, or if there is a reasonable basis for knowing that
emissions are not adversely affected as described in Memo 1A. The appropriate source for technical
information regarding the certified configuration of a vehicle of a particular model year is the vehicle
manufacturer.
For heavy-duty vehicles, the resulting vehicle must contain a heavy-duty engine which is identical to a
certified configura- tion of a heavy-duty engine of the same model year or newer as the year of the
installed engine. Under no circumstances, however, may a heavy-duty engine ever be installed in a
light-duty vehicle.
The most common engine replacement involves replacing a gasoline engine in a light-duty vehicle with
another gasoline engine. Another type of engine switching which commonly occurs, however, involves
diesel powered vehicles where the diesel engine is removed and replaced with a gasoline engine.
Applying the above policy, such a replacement is legal only if the resulting engine-chassis configuration
is equivalent to a certified configuration of the same model year or newer as the chassis. If the vehicle
chassis in question has been certified with gasoline, as well as diesel engines(as is common), such a
conversion could be done legally.
Another situation recently brought to EPA's attention involves the offering for sale of used foreign-built
engines. These engines are often not covered by a certified configuration for any vehicle sold in this
country. In such a case, there is no way to install such an engine legally. EPA has recently brought
enforcement actions against certain parties who have violated the tampering prohibition by performing
illegal engine switches.
It should be noted that while EPA's policy allows engine switches as long as the resulting vehicle
matches exactly to anv certified configuration of the same or newer model year as the chassis, there are
some substantial practical limitations to performing such a replacement. Vehicle chassis and engine
designs of one vehicle manufacturer are very distinct from those of another, such that it is generally not
possible to put an engine into a chassis of a different manufacturer and have it match up to a certified
3
configuration. Therefore, practical considerations will generally limit engine switches to installation of
another engine which was certified to be used in that same make and model (or a "twin" of that make
and model, e.g., Pontiac Grand Am and Oldsmobile Calais). In addition, converting a vehicle into a
different certified configuration is likely to be very difficult, and the cost may prove prohibitive.
B. State Laws
Many states also have statutes or regulations prohibiting tampering in general. Most of these laws
specifically prohibit tampering by individuals. A few specifically prohibit engine switching, using
provisions similar to those stated in EPA's policy. To determine the state law in any given state, the
state's Attorney General's office should be contacted. In addition, many states have state or local
antitampering inspection programs which require a periodic inspection of vehicles in that area, to
determine the integrity of emission control systems. Many programs have established policies for
vehicles which have been engine switched. While EPA does not require these programs to fail engine
switched vehicles which are not in compliance with federal policy, the Agency does strongly
recommend that these programs set their requirements so as to be consistent with the federal law. State
or local programs which pass illegally engine switched vehicles may mislead federally regulated parties
into believing that engine switching is allowed by federal law."


----------



## Snazzy (May 17, 2011)

Can you provide a guide for us non-mechanics ?


----------



## XtremeRevolution (Jan 19, 2012)

Nick, 

Good post, but I don't think we're having issues with atomization when our cars are knocking straight form the factory in the winter. Anything to help reduce that knock will be beneficial. GM did the same thing with the Supercharged 3800 motors knocking from the factory, and now they're doing it again. Not sure why they think any knock is acceptable, but I'd feel better knowing it's not there. That, and the air-to-air intercooler does warm up the air charge in the winter. 

If someone is concerned with their dealer finding out what they did, the intake duct can be reinstalled in 30 seconds. 

So long as this is a pre-filter modification, I don't think think the EPA is going to care. If anything, we're doing them a favor by getting more mileage out of that same bit of fuel by reducing knock. 

Always a pleasure hearing what you have to say. 



Snazzy said:


> Can you provide a guide for us non-mechanics ?


For the bypassing of the intake resonator? See the link in my signature.


----------



## jakkaroo (Feb 12, 2011)

sorry op for this,but when i had a injen sri on my car i took it off and swapped back stock so that meant putting the actuall resonatar that sits in the bumper back on,so you have to remove the bumper and its a pain to get it back on,so long story short i was driving along and floored and i got nothing bbut hessitation,took it to the dealer and they said the gasket on the resonator wasnt all the way on meaning i ****** up and dint install it right did the dealer really care,nope didnt say a word,but nick sorry to say most guys at a dealership are gonna be car guys and to see mods to a new platform is kinda cool for them


----------



## Higgs Boson (Mar 7, 2012)

A lot of bad information in this thread, I won't name names, NickD..... I just went for a run with my dog and I am sweaty and exhausted, otherwise, I would light your posts on fire and sweep away the ashes to reveal the truth. But right now, I can't.

I'll give a summary.....You do realize these are not carburated engines, right? A change in airflow has a corresponding change in fuel delivery. Welcome to 2012! heck, welcome to 1988 in some cases.... There is a lesson to be learned for you regarding how engines work, namely fuel injected modern engines.

by the way, before I had three car dealerships, I was a Fixed Operations Manager for a major manufacturer. I voided (correction, DENIED...you can't "void" a warranty, although I could brand a VIN) some really funny warranty claims in my time but some of what you say has nothing to do with reality with respect to what manufacturers look for and do in these cases....

Anyways, I'm not in the mood.


----------



## Beaker (Mar 21, 2012)

What the EPA thinks about what I do to my car means about as much to me as what an ant thinks of me after I crush it.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Just saying the way it is today, this isn't the same country I was born and raised in where modification, innovation, and even risk taking was encouraged. Greatest hobby I had growing up was modifying vehicles, customizing, if you may, with all sorts of engine modifications.

Since the early 70's, over 1,500 self proclaimed expert type agencies have been formed, backed up by a very powerful legal system. Have yet to hear or read of a single case where an individual won against the EPA and those that tried were fined severely. These OBD I and II systems that have to be used according to the EPA are crazy based on the very slow responding O2, does maintain an average air fuel ratio, but does that by having our engines running rich half the time, and lean the other half of the time. But is the law, can't fight it.

Really hate Harvard and those graduates that were thought how to lie and cheat on the guise to defend a crook, those guys have been running this country for years. Can't even hold my granddaughter on a long trip and comfort, has to be tied up in a car seat for hours or face a severe fine, could do that with my own kids. At ten years of age, neighbor helped me build a ten skiff I had a blast with all over the lake. No life preservers, no registration, can't do that anymore either.

Was traveling air a lot in the 60's airlines preferred cash, could buy a ticket for a last minute change and board the plane five minutes before it took off. Look how that has changed for our safety. Last trip for a total of six hours flying time was standing in line for over eleven hours.

These agencies never have to provide any proof of what their laws, strictly enforced are doing any good or not. The EPA made one **** of a huge mess with the refrigeration aspect of automobiles. All these agencies claim they are controlled by congress, but try talking to your congressman about some of they laws. Practically all the congressman never even heard of most of these agencies let alone the laws they are making.

Do I like how my country has changed over the last 40 years, my answer is **** no. But that is the way it has become. Yes, I was brainwashed primarily by the EPA, and not easy being told what to do by some person that can't even make it in private industry. Take the good old days anytime when we had freedom in the country.


----------



## Higgs Boson (Mar 7, 2012)

While I agree completely with your last post regarding our personal sentiment, all of those changes took place because the citizens of this good country either voted them in or sued the **** out of companies causing them to protect themselves from their own customers. It's a sad state of affairs to be sure. People don't even TRY to take care of themselves anymore or hold themselves responsible for their own actions....

Hey, I hurt myself, who's to blame and what can I get for it? Sick.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

Really killed general aviation, in the late 50's could rent a plane including the cost of the plane, fuel, and insurance for four bucks an hour. And that was tach time, could fly for two hours for four bucks in slow flight, just loved being up there.

Just one incident, an idiot in a Cessan 172 tried to adjust his seat on take off with three passengers abroad, lost control as the seat would go all the way back and all four were killed. Cessna lost a seven million dollar lawsuit, back then, more like twenty million today, for not putting a DO NOT ADJUST SEAT sign when flying label on the IP. But many like this, using an hour meter now for plane rental, would cost be over 80 bucks just to taxi to the end of the runway, can't afford that, so had to quit.

Was so optimistic back then, in the year 2000, everyone would have a plane.

Had lawsuits where people were severely injured with their own fist by driving cross handed when their airbag went off. Never won, airbags are the law, so no label on your steering wheel not to drive cross handed. Besides in drivers' training, suppose to have both hands on the opposite side of the wheel.

This is the world we live in today. Less government meant no more consumer protection. If you have a problem, suppose to hire an attorney and fight it yourself, really not worth the effort unless its a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Its those penny incidents that are making us broke. They add up in a hurry.


----------



## Beaker (Mar 21, 2012)

Not disagreeing with you at all Nick but I think we've gotten off topic.


----------



## Patman (May 7, 2011)

Anybody done anything with the 1.8 and is it worth it?


----------



## jakkaroo (Feb 12, 2011)

Patman said:


> Anybody done anything with the 1.8 and is it worth it?


works dam good the car really drives like it should from factory lol there is virtually no "throttle" lag anymore and the kicker is there is a bit of extra noise but hardly noticable at all vs a intake idd rather have this removed over a intake
intake is way to noisey


----------



## Beaker (Mar 21, 2012)

Installed a K&N intake yesterday and other than being able to hear the turbo and the BOV, I don't notice any extra noise. Granted I'm also keeping the RPMs under 2k. Coming from a lightly modded 06 GTO though, there's nothing this car can do to make noise that's going to bother me other than the engine or transmission breaking.


----------

