from reading over the results, it tells us that running the 3inch pipe to where jaysen had his resulted in the intake to that pipe being in a very low pressure area. IE: not good for getting air in.

it would be interesting to run the same manometer test with a few different snorkles. and to run it on the engine side of the filter with a paper VS oiled cotton test.


jay, i still like the $1.50 manometer.

Thanks Brad, I only did it to see it for myself, not for bragging rights here on FM. I lost that car over 3 years ago, so the tests were a long time before any of this airbox discussion ever came to light. Please someone else do the same test, I would like to compare results. BTW there was a pressure zone analysis that I found back before I did this test that gave me the inspiration to see if what I had done was worth it, or just pissing in the wind. Turns out I ended up with wet legs.

Okay - There's a million things that come to mind here - (actually, one or three, but a million sounded cool. Now I have had a couple of seconds to reflect on it, I've decided it doesn't. Crap.)

Right, so I've had a thought. Being that I was under the impression that the engine was dragging air through at a rate that exceeded the front air pressure if driving at below 100 km/h or so anyway. Obviously, depending on throttle position, etc etc etc.

Simply put - when I dump the pedal on my "straight to a pod" system I can still hear it sucking, as you can even if you remove ALL air intake before throttle body. One time when I was using a cleaning product and a "get it started you bugger" type product I just put a little puddle of it on the rocker cover and then ranked the throttle cable violently open and watched the throttle suck up the puddle quite efficiently.

This would lead me to believe that the I6 or V8 produced by Ford circa 1994 would work nicely as a vacuum cleaner. Somewhat impractical, sure, but nonetheless a viable option if your inlaws are due around and there's pet hair on the sofa.



Have just discovered that I have no flat panel air filter to sit in original EF intake and am actually not keen on sucking all the fluid out of a measuring rig in this circumstance. Besides which- I ain't putting the bloody air box back in permanantly, ever, unless it is to sell the car to some insurance agent cheap in the hope of buying it back cheap the following week.


Also came up with idea of testing beyond filter, but then complications set in. I could explain, but my messages are already renown for being overweight.


Am going to go buy an expensive roll of masking tape with a low stick rating and start creating a better test rig for pressure testing on and under bonnet now. Thanks for the inspiration.

Don't have a 3D model of the car to display results on, but do have photoshop and an airbrush tool.

http://www.fordmods.com/forums/post913037.html

http://www.fordmods.com/forums/post913037.html

Last edited by fiend on Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

A little while ago i remember seeing a picture on fordmods of a whopper snorkel, it was larger than the large tickford snorkel. Anyone have any ideas on who sells them? It would be interesting to test one of those versus the tickford one versus the std one.

it was probably a ss snorkle?
at around $260 for an aftermarket snorkle is a bit rich....

Can't remember, but if it is that price, i agree, forget it.

Aunger make one as well
Part No. RAI2086 To suit Falcon EF/EL/AU/BA 6 & 8 Cylinder



SS Inductions

Who sells the aunger ones and how much are they?

Looking at those air pressure values Fiend, you might want to tap into that 7.25. Cut a hole into the bumper and fit a bellmouth arrangement, but water tends to get in i think. Thats why the snorkels have a bit of protection.

Yeahp. I notice a little water getting all the way to my pod filter with current arrangement anyway. It has to be REAL wet and probably wouldn't happen at sedate speeds, but yeahp...

As I say, I'm happy with my induction for now - but may do another test of pressures in the radiator mouth, in wheel arch and under front lip below ABS unit (below the left cornering lamp for those with real cars without ABS) that will give you all plenty of food for thought over ducting to a chopped airbox....!

Actually did this test looking for VENTS, not induction. Posted a link to the graphic here as it is kind of relevant, and I should have checked more induction spots whilst I was there.

For my two cents, have a quick look at what I've done to my EF intake. I copied the stuff that Autospeed did: [http://autospeed.com/cms/A_107828/printArticle.html]

^^^^^^^

The above link can be replaced with http://autospeed.com/cms/A_107828/article.html for a more clickable version to see the photos close up.


AUTOSPEED ARTICLES (as above...)

PART ONE
Explanation of "negative boost" and introduction to whole concept of air into combustion chamber
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_107824/article.html

PART TWO
Full of rubbish about how to check air pressures - although, I should have read it before doing my testing, it just confirms that I ain't thick and arguably did a better job by having coils and traps that were designed to stop water level movement without pressure differential. Whatever. It works.
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_107825/article.html

PART THREE
NOW we're getting interesting... Although the "bonnet gap" argument for this Falcon based bonnet is not the same as the FAIRMONT, LANE or LTD bonnets, which unfortunately seal the whole way from headlight to headlight across the front of the car! Hence my chopping the bonnet away underneath a Fairlane grill that was quickly modified to allow air through.
Recommend anyone in the least interested in reducing the loss associated with EF induction to read this....
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_107826/article.html

AHAH... I wondered where I had seen this graphic before, and it completely agrees with my testing! YAY, I re-invented the wheel

Although it, too, shows a remarkably low pressure zone at top third of window which confirms that query I had about my own data from this area...
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_107826/article.html

PART FOUR
You want to know what the actual blockages are in the EF intake... Read it and weep.
http://www.autospeed.com/A_107827/cms/article.html
http://www.autospeed.com/A_107827/cms/article.html
http://www.autospeed.com/A_107827/cms/article.html

PART FIVE
Their solution, as tested by our man, above.
I'm a little confused as to why they left the snorkel there and didn't just run the duct from the front air damn directly to the airbox and remove the restriction the snorkel provides. Odd. Especially given that you can fit 3" alloy pipe all over the place when fitting an intercooler, you should find a spot for a bit of pipe to the standard EF Box and Filter....!

They got 3KW at the rear wheels on a DYNO, which means there is no positive air pressure (as would appear on a car actually moving forwards) at the intake. They didn't even change things that much...

We are back to the
BIGGER SNORKEL & BIGGER BONNET GAP
basically.
http://autospeed.com/cms/A_107828/article.html





THIS IS FROM ARTICLE FOUR...

So for a standard car, the Falcon certainly doesn’t have a bad air intake. But there were still 16 inches of water of pressure drops through the intake system – and there doesn’t have to be any! (Well, there doesn’t have to be much – eliminating all pressure drop is usually not worth it. Yep, some hairy critters will remain.)

But what made up these pressure drops?

1 Before throttle total impedance 16.0 | Difference to next section 2.8 | Dual duct between box and throttle

2 Outlet duct of airbox total impedance 13.2 | Difference to next section 6.0 | Airbox outlet

3 Outlet side of filter in airbox total impedance 7.2 | Difference to next section 1.0 | Filter

4 Intake side of filter in airbox total impedance 6.2 | Difference to next section 3.0 | Snorkel

5 Intake of snorkel total impedance 3.2 | Difference to next section - None - the snorkel is the first bit of the intake.


Let’s take a look at this table cos it tells the whole story. By looking at the pressure drops at each point within the intake system, we can quickly conclude how much each section contributes to the total.

So (and this is the classic case that I love repeating each time we do a story like this!), by looking at the measured pressure drop after the filter (7.2) and the pressure drop before the filter (6.2) we can see that the pressure drop across the (new) filter is just 1 inch of water, or 0.036 psi! In fact, as it is always the way when you measure pressure drops, the filter contributes stuff-all to the total intake flow restriction. In all the testing we have done, we have never seen a factory filter contributing more than a trivial amount of restriction to the total – never! So, upgrading the filter in the standard airbox is a complete waste of time.





This is an excerpt from the end...
""""
Because the reduced intake restriction depends to some extent on the fact that the car is moving through air, we were uncertain as to whether to bother doing a dyno run. But since we needed a baseline for the later mods, we put the Falcon on ChipTorque’s dyno anyway. And even in the dyno room (which no way has the characteristics of on-road airflow) we still saw a distinctive and repeatable gain of 3kW at the rear wheels.

On the road the engine now revs out more freely above 4000 rpm and the throttle response at all revs is clearly sharper."""


I agree with this. By removing my snorkel and airbox and replacing it with a pod I feel the response above 3500 - 4000 is much better (ie - when the BBM is on a short path, not long...)

My air induction system to the pod isn't a duct as such - it is just a deflector to make sure the pod gets cold air, not warm in the slightest.


I feel that the engine sucks so much air (it is a four litre after all) that it will actually by requiring heaps heaps heaps more than any direct ducting could ever provide.

I can see the argument for leaving the airbox in place and getting rid of small snorkel to provide some positive air pressure at speed...

However, their dyno testing was done without this positive air pressure and proves beyond doubt that the snorkel arrangement is a restriction. If my car makes a few extra KW at rear end from removing it, then it's a pretty simple equation, is it not?



PRESSURE IN THE INDUCTION
====================
I have a BA intake fitted and simply removed my pod filter from it and tested @ 3,000rpm stationary vehicle. Test rig supplied result of 1.25 going up to 3.25 @ 5,500 RPM stationary vehicle. This would suggest that if you could find a spot of 3.50 or higher for a duct straight to the original EF Airbox you would provide positive pressure to the engine at 70km/hour or above - even at 5,000 rpm!!!

THAT SUPRISED ME and now has me leaning towards putting the airbox back in as the air pressure around my pod filter in my "open box" design is about 2.00, but this is not directly "forced" to the throttle from that position. It will cut the effort required by the motor to suck air in, but having a positive air pressure at the throttle body sounds like an interesting proposition. And you are not going to get that from the standard snorkel without putting holes through your bonnet in front of it, no matter how big you make the snorkel opening.




A lot of this is being repeated at forums/post913474.html#913474





And that is another overwieght post from the Fiend. Don't worry, there will be more. Just smile and lay back... Think of England...

im not sure that it is even possible to force air into the TB even if the TB was facing forwards and exposed to free flowing air?

at what speed would this need to happen?

even at the end of a quarter mile doing 150+ kmph, i still think the TB will be sucking more air than can be rammed into it...

I did try and work this out somewhere, but I think a decimal place had ruined my computations. Someone should be able to tell you accurately.

I don't know enough maths off the top of my head to work it out and am a bit too tired to start researching it now. Maybe after a bath.....

Hi mate was that on a v8 or a 6?