|
| Molloy |
|
|||
|
I think for $280 u would hope it would do somthing.
_________________ SS Inductions CAI, K&N Filters, M-spec FMC, Turbosmart BOV, 8psi capa tune, X-force cat. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| andrewsfutura |
|
|||
|
the SS inductions system is allright. but its not worth $280 bucks. I got it from a wreckers luckily for $70. It makes SOME difference but definately not for the amount of money you pay. Its definately better than the other snorkels and everything but costs WAY too much. ?Have a look at mine at heathcote next.
_________________ The boogieman checks under his bed for chuck norris |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| tickford_6 |
|
||
Posts: 6449 Joined: 11th Nov 2004 |
CLEANEB wrote: well seein as your cars on gas it would be a waste of cash because gas systems work better without ram air.
well i guess it's just lucky the ss inductions intake is not a ram air intake, seems to be alot of "i dont think..... and you be better off with......" from people that have never even had one on their car. as for being worth the money, well that just depends how big your pay check is |
||
| Top | |
||
| Walker |
|
|||
|
Always surprises me when people say they notice the difference with a Tickford snorkel, i never did when i fitted it to my EF.
I fitted the huge Aunger (Same as SS and it cost me nothing) cold air intake to my Lane, didn't notice any difference. If it did gain it maybe a couple of KW, and that isn't going to be noticable. To be honest, the gains will be felt more over 100 k's than in throttle response down low. Just to add, no way in f**k hell would i have payed the money they want for an SS or Aunger. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| efbignik |
|
|||
|
looked at Aunger
$210 but i can get ss for $70 more
_________________ EFBIGNIK 145.9 RWKW Falcon / 16.27 @ 86.72mph (Stock)
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| auute6 |
|
|||
|
i got a aunger on my au ute i noticed a lil difference also runing a k&n panel and cuatom pipeing well worth it every bit helps by the way im straight gas and it goes harder
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| ef_gas |
|
||
|
Yeah i installed a SS Bigmouth ,also put an K&N Filter .I definetly knowtist an imprvement in accelloration and fuel improvement.
FGT wrecker sell a gt intake for $32.00 ,that's better tha $220.00 cheers |
||
| Top | |
||
| pauly_pizza |
|
||
|
fordzatmyplace wrote: pauly_pizza wrote: ol he speaks some truth.. but what i think his the difference between and el gt snorkel and the ss inductions, is very minor power gain.. But a heap more cost... so i dont think the price is real justified unless u need that extra air intake, cos maybe u have alot of mods etc.. i agree with you 100% it is hard to justify the extra cost of the SS for 3 kw, but he is looking for as much power as he can get. Which is why i think he should get the SS ya thats also truth... get every kw etc lol |
||
| Top | |
||
| pauly_pizza |
|
||
|
noabs wrote: a friend of mine recently fitted one to his BA, at first he said there was no difference but after a few hunderd K's he says it revs smoother up top (manual XR6) and has more torque and is very happy with it now. A fair bit of $$$ but he's happy and likes the look of it also.
my el gt snorkel, after a while gave my el fairmont i6 stock better revs past i would say 3,000 grand...cos of its larger air intake obviously.. but power, accelertation wasn't noticeable.. yet untill i fitted a k@n panel and a custom 3inch piping and an 80mm ef air box lid, goes better.. Last edited by pauly_pizza on Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total. |
||
| Top | |
||
| 19concorde |
|
||
|
Mash85 wrote: 19concorde wrote: I have one and love it. I think every car will repond a little differently. I saw my economy increase slightly and have better response. I think it was worth it, but everyone has there own opinion. if what you say is true about the improved economy, then eventually its going to pay for itself. for less than $280 though you could probably make you own air intake pipe leading from the bottom brake vent in your bumper up the the air box. ive seen a few others that have done this, they also claim noticeable improvements. As you said, "eventually" it is going to pay off, but it may take a while 
There are other alternatives in getting the same effect for less cost, but after spending the money, i need to try and find someway of justifying it.
_________________ _Gianni_ |
||
| Top | |
||
| Walker |
|
|||
|
The best cold air intake was the one i made for the EF.
I went through the bottom of the airbox and ran a 75 mm tube down to the front bar... As soon as i done it i noticed the difference. Not having ABS made it easy to do. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| pauly_pizza |
|
||
|
19concorde wrote: Mash85 wrote: 19concorde wrote: I have one and love it. I think every car will repond a little differently. I saw my economy increase slightly and have better response. I think it was worth it, but everyone has there own opinion. if what you say is true about the improved economy, then eventually its going to pay for itself. for less than $280 though you could probably make you own air intake pipe leading from the bottom brake vent in your bumper up the the air box. ive seen a few others that have done this, they also claim noticeable improvements. As you said, "eventually" it is going to pay off, but it may take a while There are other alternatives in getting the same effect for less cost, but after spending the money, i need to try and find someway of justifying it. thats right! |
||
| Top | |
||
| sleeperXR6 |
|
||
|
Hi FordMods, this is my first post.
With regards to enlarged intake/pipe to throttle: There is a reason why the pipe narrows before entering the throttle: it increases air velocity to the throttle body. The best way to explain this is using the example of a garden hose. Run a garden hose without a nozzle. You will find that you have low water pressure until you turn the hose on to near full. Next, run the hose with a nozzle, at nearly full pressure. Put your hand against the water. Can you feel how much more water pressure was created by simply having the water's passage restricted before exiting the hose? This is how the pipe-to-throttle narrowing works in your Ford.
_________________ The best engineering is accomplished when the component in question is simplified as much as possible, yet performs the task asked of it the most effeciently. |
||
| Top | |
||
| efbignik |
|
|||
|
Walker wrote: The best cold air intake was the one i made for the EF.
I went through the bottom of the airbox and ran a 75 mm tube down to the front bar... As soon as i done it i noticed the difference. Not having ABS made it easy to do. walker do you have anny pic's of your old set up??????
_________________ EFBIGNIK 145.9 RWKW Falcon / 16.27 @ 86.72mph (Stock)
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| tickford_6 |
|
||
Posts: 6449 Joined: 11th Nov 2004 |
sleeperXR6 wrote: Hi FordMods, this is my first post.
With regards to enlarged intake/pipe to throttle: There is a reason why the pipe narrows before entering the throttle: it increases air velocity to the throttle body. The best way to explain this is using the example of a garden hose. Run a garden hose without a nozzle. You will find that you have low water pressure until you turn the hose on to near full. Next, run the hose with a nozzle, at nearly full pressure. Put your hand against the water. Can you feel how much more water pressure was created by simply having the water's passage restricted before exiting the hose? This is how the pipe-to-throttle narrowing works in your Ford. that would be all well and good if the intake actualy did narrow just befor the throttle body. and even more so if we were talking about that section of the intake in the thread. |
||
| Top | |
||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests |
