|
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
eb_guy888 wrote: stock standard, can I ask where u got that 3" intake pipe from? local exhaust shop Shum's EL wrote: cranborile - definately a 3 inch mandrel bent pipe
How have you come to this conclusion?
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Slick |
|
|||
|
Nice work dude!
Have you got a pod filter laying around?. like to see how she stacks up, exposed & in box.
_________________ Mind f**k!!! it works on feeble minded ignorant sheeples... there's plenty of em on this site... some are very intelligent but by god they are so thick!!! Pakrat wrote: You can buy them seppertly
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| 4.9 EF Futura |
|
|||
|
cranborile wrote: Thinking about modding my EF 4.0l (95). Based on these results what do people think would be the best intake mod for EF 4.0l?
(In laymans terms for people as inteleeegent as me!) Keep an eye on this thread and the decision should become fairly simple as stockstandard plays around with a few more setups. Based on the results so far, it would seem that running straight out of the throttle body is the best performance option, but doesnt afford your engine much protection!
_________________ I promise..... I will never die. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| prydey |
|
|||
|
i'm tipping there will be only minor differences whatever setup gets thrown at it. more modified cars may require more air but ford would not have designed a car that was starved of air with std setup. as the first graph shows, there is a low down improvement with bigger snorkel but the stock setup, which surprised me also as it is quite a small opening, performed quite well.
on my xr6 wagon i used to own the snorkel was the only thing i replaced and that was mainly due to the fact that it was cheap and easy. i never bothered with the rest. ran std ef intake (yes the big twin pipe setup). it never showed up starving for air on any dyno runs and it made fairly decent power for a relatively stock car. 130rwkw with zorst only. on a side note, i borrowed a mazda 808 from my mechanic on time. he had put a 626 engine in it and due to bonnet clearance could not fit air cleaner on top of carby. he was not concerned as its a few hundred dollar dunga that he lends out, and it had been like it for years. ran fine though. carby prolly needs a good cleanout. sorry to waffle on. good work stockstandard. maybe this will end the constant influx of these sort of threads.
_________________ eb v8: low loud and fast. just how a v8 should be. i guess the big question is, is it fast enough... |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Walkinshaw |
|
||
|
If Excel was playing ball on my PC, i'd post up a pic. Ive run very similar test thisarvo with almost identical results. Tested AU2 XR8 snorkel with panel filter and 3" manderel pipe and straight in the TB. The diffrence is very similar to what Stockstandard has posted above. With the box/filter though mine drops to 94kpa though as my intake tract has some temporary joins which are less than quality.
_________________ Soo many idiots. So few bullets |
||
| Top | |
||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
Ran more tests tonight. I took the airbox out and compared a 3" mandrel bent pipe, the standard EF twin intake pipe, and again the open TB. These are the results.
Looks like the 3" pipe is better, but not by much. I did 3 runs with each today as well and what I am noticing is that each run has similar characteristics. What I mean by that is where there is a bump or trough is one run it is also there in the others. The manifold pressure jump at 3700-4000 rpm is obviously a result of the BBM switching from long to short runners, but also in every run something odd would happen at 4750 rpm. In all the runs with the EF pipe the pressure would jump a little and in the 3" runs it would drop. I will be trying an AU intake (with the very narrow mouth) as well soon. I also have had a donation of a paper filter and a k&n pod to test against my k&n panel filter. I also have an AU T series airbox lid (with the alloy bellmouth), an EF airbox lid (with the plastic pipe) and an AU lid (with the narrow openeing).
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| smoke_ |
|
|||
|
just a question, would you be disconnecting the battery so the computer could 'learn' the difference in restriction/vacuum, or would this not matter as it would be WOT?
either way, at least someone is actually 'proving' what works and what dosen't.
_________________ NEW RIDE - FPV FG F6 6spd Auto. 12.26@114MPH, 1.88 60FT on Cheapy Tyres with 38PSI - Stock except K&N filter! |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
Im using an aftermarket ECU so it doesnt need to be reset. Also I doubt that the engine tune can even change the manifold pressure by a measurable amount.
To be honest considering how small the changes in manifold pressure are I dont think that even the ford ecu would need to relearn anything. If you look at the graph you see a 1-2kpa difference between the intakes, but the atmospheric pressure can easily change 3-4kpa in different weather conditions.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| fiftyone |
|
|||
|
not sure if pressure over revs is the best test, is it? wouldn't HP over rev's using x snorkel be better? makes sence as faster air flow equals lower pressure anyway
_________________ ** For Sale ** http://www.fordmods.com/ford-parts-for-sale-f17/assorted-e-series-parts-t124697.html |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Steady ED |
|
|||
|
fiftyone wrote: not sure if pressure over revs is the best test, is it? wouldn't HP over rev's using x snorkel be better? makes sence as faster air flow equals lower pressure anyway
? He's not testing how much power you get, hes testing the restriction in the intake. Closer to atmospheric at WOT, the less restrictive the intake.
_________________ ED XR8 Sprint - S-Trim, V500, 249rwkw |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
Yep thats it. HP over rpm introduces LOTS of variables as well, and of course would require me to pay lots of $ in dyno time. Measuring manifold pressure directly shows exactly how much air is being restricted by the intake.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| fiftyone |
|
|||
|
fair nuff, just thought that restrictions could help (in a way) with low down power and such
_________________ ** For Sale ** http://www.fordmods.com/ford-parts-for-sale-f17/assorted-e-series-parts-t124697.html |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
Here is a pic of the two intakes as tested
I also measured the volume of both EF pipe is 5.5L 3" pipe is 5.6L Looking at that pic I have to wonder how much turbulance that rubber joint on the standard EF pipework causes and if it would go any better with some smooth rubber joiners.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| data_mine |
|
|||
|
You should try some full sick turbo intercooler silicon pipe maaaaate.
_________________ 1998 DL LTD in Sparkling Burgundy, daily, 302W, stereo, slow |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| ef_gas |
|
||
|
hi
If the 3 inch pipe has a kink or dint would that effect the air flow as in theary it does but in practice yes or not cheers |
||
| Top | |
||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 74 guests |
12.06@120MPH
