Unfortunately I dissagree with the above guy who suggests that the snorkel makes no difference. I am a novice and have never worked on cars before (as I take pains to explain to anyone within earshot repeatedly....)

However (here we go again)...

I have even searched FORDMODS and the amount of people who think putting a large hole in the bottom side of the air box makes a large difference would lead me to believe that the snorkel is a bloody issue. As I thought it was, and found improvements to be had when removing it.

ONCE AGAIN - Why would TICKFORD make a much bigger snorkel if it made no difference? Tickford are apparently in the business of making things go better. To make it go better, they changed it. Therefore it is logical thinking to say that the standard snorkel can be improved upon. Simply put - if it isn't a problem, then why change it?

They have changed it. So, it must be a problem. Once again, simple.

People who have cut holes in their air box report more response instantly. All I can see a hole in the airbox doing is making the snorkel redundant when the engine starts sucking air.

I lean towards the snorkel generally being a pain in the a*** and threw it away as a bad joke. My air now starts at the pod with nothing at all restrictive before it. It works well, and I *do* notice the difference without having to have dyno tests etc etc. It's 80-120Kph time would be a lot better now, although being an auto it's 0-60 probably ain't a whole heap different - I still have to wait for the revs to pick up to about 3000 before it really starts launching.

Was slightly dissapointed that the real nice extractors I put on didn't improve things dramatically again... But, I promise you, if you put extarctors on the same day you took your flat filter, snorkel and air box out of the equation you'd think you'd bought a new car for twenty minutes and have a nice smile to boot.


I do agree that a big gain would come from removing the 2" odd restriction in the pipe within lid of airbox - or at least drilling holes all along it to allow air in from all over the filter, not just the small hole at end of pipe in roughly the centre of the box. Fortunately most people would remove this when cramming a pod into the original box anyway.

This still doesn't explain why people in other topics have claimed remarkable imrpovements simply by putting two or three inch holes in the fender side of their air box.

I still think the disclaimer is appropriate.

Is that my disclaimer? Well I never...

Something else to think about is fuel economy.

I recently read about a guy that created a HAI, a Hot Air Intake, in order to increase his fuel economy. The way this supposedly reduces fuel consumption is to reduce pumping losses at the throttle butterfly. Hot air is less dense and therefore a wider throttle opening is required to achieve a given torque value. A wider throttle opening means less resistance at the throttle butterfly. You might think a wider throttle opening means more fuel consumption, but in many modern vehicles the engine will only inject as much fuel as there is oxygen in which to burn it.

This ties in with vehicles like many honda's which have s**t bottom end torque and good fuel economy. We have seen many motors go down the path of stronger top ends and weaker bottom ends, resulting in better fuel economy, and compensated in some part by the fitment of more gears in the gearbox. The BA motor follows this path by focusing on the top end, including the fitment of an intake that is tuned to the top end.

If we want to go this way with our motors we can do this by fitting a BA or similar intake, and not use the snorkel. I reckon this favours the top end, and may enhance fuel economy.

[But for one last twist, heat rises. The airbox intake is low, but behind the radiator, so at low vehicle speeds it surely sucks say warm air. At higher speeds various aerodynamic factors could see almost anything happenning. The snorkel on the other hand is at the top of the engine bay. Unless it is properly sealed from the engine bay at low speeds it may suck warm engine bay air, and in that instance is not a cold air intake.]

Thoughts?

the search button will show a thread in which test results show the actual intake temps for what you have said

Here's some links

http://www.fordmods.com/forums/viewtopi ... ght=intake temps

http://www.fordmods.com/forums/viewtopi ... ght=intake temps

http://www.fordmods.com/forums/benefit- ... ke%20temps

http://www.fordmods.com/forums/ef-air-i ... ke%20temps

Now, I am liking this thread again.,..!

You may have been misinterpreting some of the things i've said fiend. I suggested the snorkel offers no benefit with regard to air velocities filling the cylinders due to it being before the air filter, which would muffle air velocities. Further to this however i wonder if it might make a small benefit in this regard at very low rpm, because the filter won't offer much resistance then. Even if it does, this benefit may be too small to warrant consideration.

Too true - Is easy enough to misinterpret things said on forums of any nature. Listen to all the talkback radio callers on half price blue rinse day at the local hair salon!


http://www.fordmods.com/forums/cold-air ... 0air%20box

http://www.fordmods.com/forums/viewtopi ... 3&start=20
(about two or three messages up from last one)...


This thread is old, but interesting. He (commercial sponsor inserted here) measure a VACUUM at the air box with a normal snorkel and no (or little) vacuum with a three inch hole in the bottom.

This could be read to mean that the snorkel is working better if you read his original wording on page one, but the way I look at that is that if there is no vacuum being created in the slightest around my pod filter (as per my snorkeless system) then there is less effort and more air for the split second between idling and hoofing.

Once again, if Tickford and performance cars have a bigger snorkel --- surely this is saying something?

While we're at it --- Care to explain or theorise why the EF has a still air cavity in the black plastic above the rocker cover, the EL doesn't, but it is back on AU and BA? In fact the AU V8 has a larger still air tude sitting around the shock tower at left front wheel.



On a different matter - I read a nice little article about the flow effects of extractors and complete pipes today. Turns out Ford happened on a great thing by reducing the size of the pipe from 2.5 to 2 inches to get clearance around the axles on the X something or other V8. You may think that BACK PRESSURE is needed to run a four stroke well. The guy who makes the best exhuast systems reckons it's actually the constrictive opening making the gases run faster which sucks more out on the next cycle... This is why simply putting big as extractors on ain't going to work... The straight bit of pipe, the curve and the way the pipe joins into one is far more important. Also - and this was the interesting bit for me - the gases are actually cooling rapidly and therefore require less space to exist happily within. Which is where Ford fell head first onto a great exhuast note with the twin piped V8 going into 2" around the diff to the rear bumper. Makes total sense to me. The whole "back pressure" argument has at last been explained in a way that makes sense to this amateur physics dude - it's not actually back pressure - it's momentum generated by fast moving gas in small hole VS slow moving gas in big hole. EASY!


Sheeez - How did I get onto that? Oh yeah - Air velocity around the filter. The TB is 3" give or take. The snorkel is hardly that. Simply, in my humble brain, for the throttle to work at maximum velocity the entrance to the air intake shouldn't be much less than that.

Last thing - I cannot seem to find the threads where new users and old alike were talking about cutting holes in the airbox to increase bottom end response and top end economy. They were here somewhere... Promise you.

Tickford installed a bigger mouth intake because Ford got it right in the first place with intake placement, Ford intentionally kept the standard snorkel smaller to reduce induction noise, and again they got it right. The dead air pockets your talking of are also to reduce induction noise. They are used to counter sound waves and in effect phase themselves out to a large extent, however sound waves are very complex having multiple harmonics of the same note, and therefore almost impossible to achieve complete phase cancellation, so you do still have some noise.

When I get a chance, Ill scan my oritinal manometer readings that I took back in 2004/5ish and post them up. Its all hand written so it migth be difficult to read though.

deleted

I cant scan my original recordings, so Ill type them instead.

This was done with a coke bottle half filled with water, approx 2 metres of 1/4" clear plastic tubing with markings in 5mm incriments that was fed in to the base of the air box via the intake snorkel. This was performed on an auto EF fairmont 6 cylinder with the standard snorkel, and the motor in standard tune. The 3 inch pipe that went in to the inner guard had to be terminated just below the guard skin due to the ABS unit, however as the front vents on the EF fairmonts are in a high velocity area, they would be a relatively low pressure zone even if you could duct right up to the vent. If you could pick up air from the radiator dam, you would probably find that the readings would be a hell of a lot different, as this is a high pressure zone.

From the readings, + means below the water line (ie pressure) and - means drawn above the water line (ie vacuume) and the 0 increment was kept at the water level (as best I could whilst trying to hold it still as my mrs drove)

Standard Snorkel Readings (3 inch pipe duct taped)
Constant speeds
60kph = +2 to +5 mm
80kph = +5 to +8 mm
100kph = +12 to +15 mm

0-100kph = -40 to -45 mm


Standard Snorkel + 3 inch pipe to inner guard
Constant speeds
60kph = +2 to +4 mm
80kph = +6 to +8 mm
100kph = +10 to +12 mm

0-100kph = -45 to -50 mm

3 inch pipe to inner guard only (snorkel mouth duct taped)
Constant speeds
60kph = +2 to +4 mm
80kph = +5 to +8 mm
100kph = +10 to +12 mm

0-100kph = -200mm approx (went beyond my measurements)

Just spent the last 10 minutes looking at those figures and appreciate the effort you went to here. It is almost worth me putting the original air box back on replicating the experiment - not because I don't believe you, but simple because I don't give a s**t about my EF airbox and could therefore put the end of the hose acurately into the centre of said box. Hell, no matter... Have been intending to do similar with duct taping the hose all over the front of the bonnet, wheel arches and engine bay of my Fairlaned EF I6, but have got a wee bit sidetracked - will do it sometime shortly.

Care to give any theory on the last measurement - went beyond your measurements - when the snorkel was taped over?

There's still a lot of variables here - How does a Falcon bonnet and a Fairmont bonnet differ in getting air up to the snorkel position is first thing. Anyways, all good - am still happy with the way mine works, and I can't hear the intake sound from the drivers seat unless flooring it - and it actually sounds a little deeper going straight into the pod (particularly when flooring it through tunnels )