- #43 of 50
-
Re: 25.3MPG in 300 Touring. [daphod74]
by xtec
-
Sep 05, 2007 (2:19 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: daphod74 (Sep 05, 2007 10:05 am)
I agree with everything you said until you mention to install a K&N filter.I wasted money buying a K&N filter for my '06 Charger SXT.I lost two miles per gallon,plus 5 MPH on speed.After I checked out the stock filter,it says that is a high flow filter.My opinion is to use the stock filter,my results was proof for me.Plus there have been disscussions on forums about K&N,and it a toss up.I think it depends on the stock filter.If you have a thick filter,then i think it may help.The Chrysler filter is thin like the K&N.
|
- #44 of 50
-
5.7 HEMI
by smithed
-
Sep 25, 2007 (5:43 am)
-
|
City: about 15
Highway: about 24 (a lot of 80 MPH driving) 
|
- #45 of 50
-
MPG---UPDATE
by greyfox1
-
Feb 10, 2008 (1:38 pm)
-
|
My previous post in this portion of the forum was Reply #25 dated December 31, 2005. My 300C just recently turned 40,000 miles. I tallied up actual fuel used and actual miles traveled out of my "little black book" and found that the average MPG for 40,000 miles was 19.1 . I don't think that is all that bad considering the fact I see folks every day driving mini-vans and SUV's that are not getting that kind of MPG. 
|
- #46 of 50
-
Re: MPG---UPDATE [greyfox1]
by coolrunning
-
Apr 04, 2008 (2:57 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: greyfox1 (Feb 10, 2008 1:38 pm)
You are so correct. There are a lot of so-called "econoboxes" made by Japanese manufacturers that get the same mileage. 25 mpg HYW from a Toyota Rav4 is not near as impressive as a 5.7L HEMI doing the same thing!
|
- #47 of 50
-
Re: 25.3MPG in 300 Touring. [xtec]
by coolrunning
-
Jun 23, 2008 (11:43 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: xtec (Sep 05, 2007 2:19 pm)
I also installed a K & N air filter on my 5.7 HEMI, and have not noticed any improvement in mileage or performance. If anything, I think the mileage is a bit worse, but I attributed that to the weight of my right foot... I had a discussion recently with someone about the high flow air filters and learned something. These filters really make a difference on carbureted engines where you can get more horses from more air/fuel. On modern engines with computer controlled injection and the combustion air intake controlled with mass airflow sensors and oxygen sensors in the exhaust side, you could take the air cleaner off completely and never change the amount of air allowed into the engine. So, what is the point? If anything, the filters don't clean as well and can allow dirt to flow into the micro-sized orifices that meter air/fuel into the cylinders, etc. I am definitely considering going back to stock filters!
|
- #48 of 50
-
Re: 25.3MPG in 300 Touring. [coolrunning]
by shipo
-
Jun 23, 2008 (2:09 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: coolrunning (Jun 23, 2008 11:43 am)
"I am definitely considering going back to stock filters!"
I'm thinking that that's a good move.
|
- #49 of 50
-
Re: 25.3MPG in 300 Touring. [coolrunning]
by brit5
-
Jul 24, 2008 (5:44 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: coolrunning (Jun 23, 2008 11:43 am)
Fuel injection engines do not work the same way that carbureted engines do.
With an intelligent fuel injection system, the increased airflow from reduced air filter obstruction results in the metered introduction of additional fuel to compensate for greater air mass-flow. The engine will make more peak power but will burn more fuel doing so.
Maintenance warnings about dirty air filters negatively affecting performance on EFI engines are quite correct, but the performance parameter that is most affected is power output, not economy. A really dirty airfilter not only significantly reduces power, it can also result in air bypassing the filter altogether, carrying grit into the engine with obvious implications for engine life.
|
- #50 of 50
-
Re: 25.3MPG in 300 Touring. [brit5]
by coolrunning
-
Oct 10, 2008 (12:16 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: brit5 (Jul 24, 2008 5:44 am)
You are absolutely correct. If I owned a 1960's muscle car, I wouldn't hesitate to use a K & N air filter. They are a well designed and constructed product. They are such a risk to modern engines, they are even banned from use by Dodge on any DIESEL engines according to the dealerships. They claim the stock OEM filters do a better job of keeping the dirt out of critical areas. Since I can see daylight when I hold my K & N filter up to the sun, I am inclined to agree. Besides, the whole point was to improve my fuel economy which it did not. 
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans 
