Well since I removed it on my own car, obviously my answer would be yes I would. I just don't think it's that much of a hassle to do and it's not going to do any damage to my car other than a few broken plastic clips.

Well most things on a stock car were not meant to be removed according to the manufacturer but doesn't stop modders from doing what they do.

 

What a strange stance coming from the guy that is trying to decide between 2 big brake kits that he doesn't need, and doesn't even understand...

 

Silicone is not the only way to put it back in. If you want to put it back in permenantly, you can do exactly what the factory did ... glue it.

 

You dont have to get an attitude with your responses, i merly stated my position on this filter. I have not looked at this filter yet nor do i plan to but others have stated that the filter is held in by clips not glue. Now i could be mistaken but that is what i have gotten from this 6+ page thread.

Believe me Gernby, i totally understand the idea/concept of BBK's. I merely wanted to get the opinions/thoughts of others. I dont plan on ever tracking or racing my car but do things to it to make it look better and perform better.

 

That would be true if all Toyotas were MAF.

 

I apologize for coming across with an attitude. It just seemed odd because of your comments on the BBK thread (off topic).

The thing is that I believe the carbon mesh filter is as much of a gimick as the "tornado" and "30 HP car chip for $20". I use LOTS of carbon every year to filter my 105 gallon marine aquarium, and I KNOW that the few grams of activated carbon in that mesh screen won't be effective at filtering many cubic miles of air that it is subjected to in a year. I realize that the purpose is to filter the air that seeps back out of the intake manifold while the engine is NOT running, but the fact is that it is filtering the incoming air also for no reason.

In my opinion, removing it is as much of a win-win as it gets. If the filter only has an effective life of 10K miles (totally guessing), then why not make that 10K miles happen with the NEXT owner? If the power increase is more significant in performance than the weight reduction of removing it, that's a HUGE win even if it is only 0.1 HP. If it's free ... even bigger win. If it can be 100% restored to OEM condition with 4 drops of glue ... does it get any better?!

 

I had to use 6 drops on mine.

 

I can attest to what Gernby said. As much as activated carbon can absorb and it really is incredible, there is a limit and beyond that it's not going to do anything and in an aquarium setting the over used carbon actually becomes toxic as it will start releasing what it abosorbed. I wonder just how much carbon they put in that secondary emissions filter?

""A gram of activated carbon can have a surface area in excess of 500 m², with 1500 m² being readily achievable. For comparison, a tennis court is about 260 m²"

Also found some more info about how this process works. Apparently the primary filter should clean the air enough that limits the amount of dirty air to hit the activated carbon in the secondary filter, hense allowing it to last much much longer and with it's design is supposed to desorb from the carbon and burn in combustion.

"Within the vehicle, vapors from the fuel tank are channelled through canisters containing activated carbon instead of being vented to the atmosphere. The vapors are adsorbed within the canister, which feeds into the inlet manifold of the engine. When the vehicle is running, the vapors desorb from the carbon, are drawn into the engine and burned.

Evaporative emissions from the vehicle are limited by law and tested as part of the new vehicle type approval by a so-called SHED-test. The current limit is 2 grams of HC per hour, which may amount to an evaporation of one liter (1/4 gallon) in a month."

 

I agree that "quality" activated carbon has incredible amounts of surface area that will absorb "stuff", but I don't think any carbon can absorb its weight in toxins. Even if the carbon absorbed 10X its weight in harmfull crap, why would we care? There ain't no way the carbon in that filter weighs more than a few grams!

 

It's Federally warranted for 100k miles. It is also purged every time you run the engine. Just like the evap canister used for the fuel tank. It isn't intended to permanently trap HC, only hold them long enough to get them sucked back into the engine and burned. You guys are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

 

Remove it! It's extra wieght.

 

The only thing that will "purge" carbon is EXTREME heat. When does that occur in the air box? I don't care what the Fed gov. warrants the filter for. It can't be effective for very long. The EPA is looking through the wrong end of the scope on this one.

 

Maybe you should look at the evap canister design that's been on cars for the last 25 years or so preventing HC emissions from your gas tank, and sucking those same HCs through your engine during the purge cycle. Sorry, you're not getting me to agree with you on this. That's how it's designed and how it works.

 

I can't recall a time I've ever changed your mind about anything, but I'm still gonna try. You are still talking about designs that the government mandates. If you study how carbon filtration works, you would see that the carbon is exhausted pretty quickly, and needs to be replaced, or baked at very high temperatures.

Have you ever used any sort of carbon filter for water or a HEPA air filter? They don't last long at all. I've used carbon for water and air for decades, and I can tell when it is exhausted.

 

Read page 4 of this document. I think you can stop telling me what the government expects for evaporative emissions compliance. This looks pretty clear. 150,000 miles is pretty significant.