I put my truflow on a few weeksago, and since I did my mpg has sucked! Before the trueflow, I was getting around 15.7 mpg, and now for the last 3 tanks of gas I have got 14.3, 14.2, 14.3. Can someone tell me why this is? I got this thing because it says it will make your mpg better. I am going to try it one more tank, and then I am going to put the factor stuff back on, and see if it is any better. If it is better, I will have the trueflow up for sale. I will update this post when I fill back up in 2 weeks. Before it is ever said: yes I checked my mpg by pen and paper. It's the only way I do it, and I do it every fill up. Also: my driving habits have not changed at all,so don't tell me it's because I'm getting on it more!!!

 

I have the Trueflow and it works great. I did not gain any MPG, but sure gained in power. I guess I am lucky, my Hemi has always made 19+ on the road and 15 in town. I like the Trueflow because it is cleaner looking and works fine. I am, however, ordering the Amsoil EVA filter for it, instead of using the wet filter from Trueflow. I see no reason why the MPG would drop on your unit.

 

I am wondering the same thing. I don't have the true flow but I put an intake on my truck right after christmas and dropped from 14-15ish to 12-13. I'm driving the same and haven't figured it out yet and it's annoying me. I do have a powerwire and it has been pretty cold here lately so I don't know if that has anything to do with it. Part of the problem may be that my average trip is 3 miles to work and 3 miles back.

 

I dropped in a Volant Cool air system in my 2004 hemi 4X4 after my first oil change. I also converted the transfer case, oil, transmission to Amsoil synthetics (No I'm not a dealer) I was getting 14.5 before the mods and 16.8 after the mods. I did disconnect the battery so it would reset the computer. I've also had the computer flashed to provide better shift points. I'm very satisfied with the extra power and mileage that the mods have made. I'm still debating on installing headers....any ideas/thoughts???

 

More airflow = more power = more fuel required. It's simple physics.

If an intake would improve mileage by even .1 mpg, auto makers would have already done it.

 

lol

 

that, and maybe you guys are in the throttle a little more now since it sounds good? Just wondering

 

Read the last two lines again!

 

No significant loss or gain when I added my K&N CAI. The real plus was an approximate 1.5-2 mpg increase when I added LT Headers to the CAI & Cat-back exhaust. And I'm sure it could be better because I know I'm on the gas harder now that it sounds so good...

 

no gain or loss of MPG from an air intake change

'normal' MPG jumps around by at least 2 or 3
and it takes a careful test
thought up by guys smarter and more experienced than you or i
to 'settle down' the variation
and give you a test that will really find MPG differences
========
The right way to do it
Goodyear goes by the book with Fuel Max test
When Goodyear introduced its new Unisteel tires with Fuel Max technology last year, and claimed that they were more fuel-efficient than its older designs, the company invited the press to come to its San Angelo Proving Grounds in Texas and observe an SAE/TMC Type II fuel consumption test, pitting old against new.

In this case, two identical tractor-trailers — a control rig and a test rig with the same powertrain, mileage, horsepower, GCW, tires, pressure, etc. — were fitted with removable, portable fuel tanks, which were weighed before and after identical runs of at least 28 miles at the exact same highway speed. Fuel consumption was measured by tank weight, and the two rigs were compared as a baseline. Three runs, which must produce results within 2 percent of each other, were made. In this case, the two rigs’ fuel consumption figures were consistently within 1 percent of each other.

Next, the test was repeated, with the control rig unchanged, and the test truck fitted with the component to be tested — in this case, the new tires. Over the course of three runs, with results within 2 percent of each other, the test truck had consumed about 7.5 percent less fuel per run.

Claim made, point proved, case closed.