|
| EL__Fairmont |
|
|||
|
After having the EF intake pipe and lid on for a few days, with good results.
When boxing up the el intake, i noticed a raised lump in the intermediate pipe on the plenium. It seems this would stop some airflow at high revs 
any opinions 
_________________ 97 EL Fairmont 4l OHC .Silver. Last edited by EL__Fairmont on Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:51 pm, edited 2 times in total. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Pulco |
|
||
|
how do u get that just from the intake...
both motors are meant to be the same power so explain how u come to put this forward?
_________________
|
||
| Top | |
||
| Molloy |
|
|||
|
mmmm looks good in text but your prob gonna have 100 EL owners that are gonna say somthing.
_________________ SS Inductions CAI, K&N Filters, M-spec FMC, Turbosmart BOV, 8psi capa tune, X-force cat. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Rapier |
|
||
|
omfg this is sooooooooooo dumb
why dont you put ure car on the dyno with different intakes and see how much difference there is it will be completely f**k all. now dont forget ef and el use completely different ignition systems that may have something more to do with it, and also those figures mean F**k all anyway caus the cars wouldnt have been tested in the same conditions. air intake is goinna make a couple of kw difference, id say if there is any difference between ef and el pipes would be within 2rwkw nothing to get you to excited about |
||
| Top | |
||
| Timmeh |
|
||
|
They do flow better but not enough to make any difference on the 1/4. There is another thread still active with flow rates proving the EF one is better.
|
||
| Top | |
||
| EL__Fairmont |
|
|||
|
bump
_________________ 97 EL Fairmont 4l OHC .Silver. Last edited by EL__Fairmont on Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Molloy |
|
|||
|
They did cost cut on the EL, so ive "heard"
_________________ SS Inductions CAI, K&N Filters, M-spec FMC, Turbosmart BOV, 8psi capa tune, X-force cat. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Soulfire |
|
|||
|
EL__Fairmont wrote: you can do all the searches on the net you want, the fact is that every review shows the EF having better quarter mile times. and it's all due to the cheap a*** intake they put in the EL.
if you have an EL take, look down the pipe that is bolted too the intake plenium . It has a cammels back in it that is huge limiting the air flow, so as to clear the plenium. bad, bad engineering design mr ford.... all about cost cutting......................... hm. my EL xr was pretty quick, wonder if there are EFs proving this theory out there. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Walker |
|
|||
|
EL__Fairmont wrote: you can do all the searches on the net you want, the fact is that every review shows the EF having better quarter mile times. and it's all due to the cheap a*** intake they put in the EL.
if you have an EL take, look down the pipe that is bolted too the intake plenium . It has a cammels back in it that is huge limiting the air flow, so as to clear the plenium. bad, bad engineering design mr ford.... all about cost cutting......................... Here we go again, you and your s**t theories, stop reading Street Machine and get back to reality and STFU. If you talked this s**t in person i'd say the same to your face, i can't handle s**t talkers with text book theories. Any d***head who says their extractors has a different note from changing oil isn't worth listening too, end of story! |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Pulco |
|
||
|
too right walker
there is no way an intake could make that much difference between 2 fairly similar cars
_________________
|
||
| Top | |
||
| Walker |
|
|||
|
In the other thread on this subject, i did note that i did notice acceleration improvement, but it was mainly on LPG, and that i did gain 50 km per tank going from EF to the EL setup.
But he basically says if that's the case you're a liar, because the book states blah blah blah. I couldn't give 2 s**t what your book or graphs state, if i can't feel it then it's not there, same goes for anyone who does it... If they feel the difference then good on them, they couldn't give a s**t what the text book states. My car according the the Ford book says a 16.1 quarter, yet mine ran a 15.5, so obviously something must be done to my car, is that right "Mr EL__Fairmont"? I'm getting out of these threads before i totally lose it with this tool! |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| shnoza |
|
|||
|
first of all you use two different model cars to compare this theroy so it is incorrect for starters. the EF is a gli and the EL is a futura. im pretty sure the futura has extra things in it over the gli. which equals more weight. hence the el is slow. if im wrong can someone please say so.
_________________ "Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits."
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
BWAHAHAAHA
Love it! I would have thought that comparing a futura to a gli (different vehicle weight and diff ratios), the completely different ignition systems, the fact that those figures you quote were probably done years apart on different tracks (or g-tech/theoretical performance calculations) would most likely change the result but your logic is flawless. How can anyone argue with it? (I could argue the finer points of why ford actually did change the intake on the EL's but like walker im not going to waste my time.)
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Mitch_ |
|
|||
Posts: 6168 Joined: 5th Nov 2004 |
and i think an el will run faster than a 17 and ef a bit slower than 16.2...
My mates AU Fairmont runs 16.5, and thats s**t launches too! i run 15.5 in my Fairmont so probably 16.5 with auto...so theres feck all difference! probably just up to the drivers!
_________________
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| EL__Fairmont |
|
|||
|
bumpage
_________________ 97 EL Fairmont 4l OHC .Silver. Last edited by EL__Fairmont on Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:02 am, edited 2 times in total. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 80 guests |
