All Motor All Motor Advanced Performance. Talk about Engine Swaps, Internal Engine work. Not your basic Y pipe and Intake Information.

Probable inline air filter?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-06-2007 | 09:06 AM
  #1  
MOHFpro90's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,717
From: Sunshine State
Probable inline air filter?

Maybe not 'adanved' enough for this forum, but I have hatched an idea. Looking around, I never found an inline air filter, of the sorts. Here's my idea. Sorry, I didnt ahve access to photoshop, so paint was my only resource...



Tech talk? I see one problem...surface area. Less of it means the air cant move as quickly...but depending on the density, material, etc...of the filter, and quality, this problem could be possibly over come, right?

Oh, and this would save space, you could put it whereeve needed, you wouldnt need a filter at the end of your intake tubing, leaving opportunities such as tubes where your foglights are, etc... Ram effect would benefit if your tube was flush with the bumper...

Opinions,ideas, etc(with supporting evidence)...wanted.
Old 08-06-2007 | 09:54 AM
  #2  
DasYears
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
f5f5f5, still no pic
Old 08-06-2007 | 10:27 AM
  #3  
nismology's Avatar
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,116
From: Miami, FL
Originally Posted by DasYears
f5f5f5, still no pic
Incorrect use of the term "F5" FTBan.



But yes, the image isn't being shown.
Old 08-06-2007 | 10:55 AM
  #4  
MOHFpro90's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,717
From: Sunshine State
Fixing now...picassa wont hold it either...
Old 08-06-2007 | 11:23 AM
  #5  
DasYears
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by nismology
Incorrect use of the term "F5" FTBan. But yes, the image isn't being shown.
what? i was surely hitting f5 so... i can see the pic now but no idea what the post is about
Old 08-06-2007 | 11:46 AM
  #6  
MOHFpro90's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,717
From: Sunshine State
Then dont post...pic link fixed.
Old 08-06-2007 | 11:58 AM
  #7  
DasYears
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by MOHFpro90
Oh, and this would save space, you could put it whereeve needed, you wouldnt need a filter at the end of your intake tubing, leaving opportunities such as tubes where your foglights are, etc... Ram effect would benefit if your tube was flush with the bumper...
ram effect only a pontiac dream, no real world benefit. the only advantage i can think of is using an air horn at the end, and even then its not much. you could use a 3.5" tube and then the filter area wouldnt matter anymore
Old 08-06-2007 | 12:12 PM
  #8  
pmohr's Avatar
No more Maximas...
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,331
From: Oak Ridge, TN
Originally Posted by DasYears
what? i was surely hitting f5 so... i can see the pic now but no idea what the post is about
Consider it a joke among subscribers, from another forum...

In any case, I think the entire point of the filter being at the end of the intake ducting on every car is so that nothing gets into the tube. If you had an inline filter far back from the inlet, you would surely be picking up debris (leaves for most part would be the worst) and inside an intake tract it wouldn't take all too much to completely seal up that filter (a leaf or two, at the most). With an end mounted filter:
  1. it has more surface area (as you said), so more area for air to flow through; a minor blockage of one section doesn't quite compromise the intake's ability to suck in air
  2. it's in a relatively open environment so any major debris that would create a blockage in an inline filter system will just fall off of the filter
Old 08-06-2007 | 12:18 PM
  #9  
pmohr's Avatar
No more Maximas...
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,331
From: Oak Ridge, TN
Originally Posted by DasYears
ram effect only a pontiac dream, no real world benefit
Not entirely true. For any of us, or basically most drivers with 'regular' vehicles, it is:
Originally Posted by http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1129295&highlight=ram+air&forum_i d=1
While it's appealing to imagine the forward velocity of a car being converted into free supercharge, the actual air pressure gain is extremely small at normal speeds. For example, at 150 mph, the pressure gain when air is efficiently brought to rest is 2.75 percent. Because this is a dynamic effect, it is proportional to the square of the air velocity. At a more realizable automobile speed of 75 mph, the effect (again with 100 percent efficient conversion of velocity into pressure) will be only one-quarter as great — that is, just under seven-tenths of one percent.

In fact, velocity energy is not converted into pressure at 100 percent efficiency. A figure of 75 percent efficiency is usual, which reduces our notional ram-air gain at 75 mph to one-half of one percent.
But for race cars or top speed runs, it is useful:

Originally Posted by http://forums.corvetteforum.com/showthread.php?t=1129295&highlight=ram+air&forum_i d=1

Where vehicle speeds are very high, gains from ram air are significant. This was discovered by Rolls-Royce in the late 1920s as the company developed its R Schneider Trophy air racing engine. At speeds above 300 mph, it was noticed that the R’s fuel mixture leaned out enough to cause backfiring. When the mixture was corrected for ram-air pressure gain, the engineers realized they had a "free" source of power. At 350 mph the gain from ram air is almost 15 percent. Similar mixture correction is necessary when ram air is used on drag-race and Bonneville cars and bikes.
Old 08-06-2007 | 01:10 PM
  #10  
d00df00d's Avatar
Old enuf to pick his own gears
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,036
Any filter resists air flow. But the more filter area you have, the less resistance there is. That's why you generally want the filter to be as big as reasonably possible.

If you want to build an intake with an inline filter, build a big chamber around a cylindrical or conical filter and just run a duct up to it from wherever you want (a la stock airbox).
Old 08-06-2007 | 01:41 PM
  #11  
Godson's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 533
From: Philadelphia PA
Pretty much what I was thinking....isnt the stock airbox a prime example of an "inline" air filter?
Old 08-06-2007 | 01:57 PM
  #12  
NmexMAX's Avatar
dot dot dot ...
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 34,588
From: Santa Fe, NM
Looks like an A33 stock airbox to me.

Cliffs: Retrofit A33 airbox to A32 chassis. I had been talking about this to another member and well, it seems to be a better design than the A32, but Do we really know for sure?
Also, the A32 and A33's both use the same air filter. Only difference is their placement in the 'stream'.

So, does this toss out the surface area idea? Or is the A33 airbox using the surface area more efficiently?
Old 08-06-2007 | 02:43 PM
  #13  
MOHFpro90's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,717
From: Sunshine State
Yes, like an airbox...but smaller, lighter, and movable. I would say it would not be much bigger than something like the Water Bypass valve, just a bit deeper. With the A32 airbox, the air makes a u-turn. Air, like anything else, takes the path of less resistance, thus you have more air going through a smaller part of the filter. More clogged, reduced flow, etc...this would eliminate the path of less resistance.

The debris idea is true. However, if its mounted in an appropriate place...you would lower that chance. With some small tweaks to this, we could eliminate the idea of leaves, debris etc...not to mention, these would be smaller, therefor easier to clean, cheaper, etc...Another tweak, make it similar to a fish tank filter, sliding in and out. Pop a little top, slide out, slide a new one in, push top back down.

With a funnel of some sort, the shape of say a fog light housing, molded to a circle, this would theoretically "funnel" more air into the pipe. Not to mention, getting air straight from the outside...no fumes/heat.

d00df00d, I thought about that. It would be quite large though. Take your avg K&N, 4 to 5" in diameter, at another 1" on either side for room and outer cylinder, you just eliminated the purpose of the inline. Youve got a 7" wide, 12" long cylinder to place somewhere...thats for a small K&N
Old 08-06-2007 | 02:51 PM
  #14  
NmexMAX's Avatar
dot dot dot ...
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 34,588
From: Santa Fe, NM
Originally Posted by MOHFpro90

Another tweak, make it similar to a fish tank filter, sliding in and out. Pop a little top, slide out, slide a new one in, push top back down.
i.e. A33
Old 08-06-2007 | 03:41 PM
  #15  
MOHFpro90's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,717
From: Sunshine State
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
i.e. A33
Not familiar with them so I wouldnt know...hehe. Something like this is what I had in mind:



~4" diameter filter, 3" tubing in, 4" cylinder. Lid on hinge, push down on the lid, and it comes open, pull it out, put a new one in, push down on the lid.
Old 08-06-2007 | 04:06 PM
  #16  
NmexMAX's Avatar
dot dot dot ...
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 34,588
From: Santa Fe, NM
Originally Posted by MOHFpro90
Not familiar with them so I wouldnt know...hehe.
I am and have tried making this point that this idea is very similar to retrofitting an A33 stock airbox to the A32 chassis.
Old 08-06-2007 | 04:08 PM
  #17  
MOHFpro90's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,717
From: Sunshine State
I see what youre saying. I was just going for a non airbox approach.
Old 08-06-2007 | 04:15 PM
  #18  
pmohr's Avatar
No more Maximas...
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 14,331
From: Oak Ridge, TN
Originally Posted by NmexMAX
I am and have tried making this point that this idea is very similar to retrofitting an A33 stock airbox to the A32 chassis.
How involved is it? Searched yielded no results, probably mostly because it keeps saying that '5th' and '4th' are too short, so I can only really search for 'retro intake' or airbox or what have you.

Merlyn has a berk so his stocker is laying around, I was thinking about putting it in my A32. Anyone done this with pics?
Old 08-06-2007 | 04:21 PM
  #19  
NmexMAX's Avatar
dot dot dot ...
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 34,588
From: Santa Fe, NM
Originally Posted by pmohr
How involved is it? Searched yielded no results, probably mostly because it keeps saying that '5th' and '4th' are too short, so I can only really search for 'retro intake' or airbox or what have you.

Merlyn has a berk so his stocker is laying around, I was thinking about putting it in my A32. Anyone done this with pics?
Noe one has really though of it or brought it up since they're both stock( a bad word), and probably not worth the trouble. But, it be nice to get some data from it. I have a hacked A33 and a stock A32 lying around.

Anyone familiar with either box can relate to what I'm saying. To the OP, why go all out when you can try something that has been 'pre designed'
Old 08-06-2007 | 04:23 PM
  #20  
00SEMAX19's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 912
From: Auburn WA,
This sounds like what Ford has been doing in it's ford trucks for a bit now. They run a inline cone filter
Old 08-06-2007 | 04:27 PM
  #21  
DasYears
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
i dont understand why one would go through all this trouble when a WAI or hacked a33 intake would likely yield equal or BETTER results
Old 08-06-2007 | 04:28 PM
  #22  
MOHFpro90's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,717
From: Sunshine State
I mean, I don't think it would yield crazy gains or anything, but it would (seem to) be a more efficient system, that could yield some benefits...

So I take it this was kinda worth being in the advanced motor section?

Edit, Das...if an intake came out like this...for $30 on ebay...whos to say its not worth buying over the time, money and stuff invested in retoring an A33 into an A32...
Old 08-06-2007 | 04:37 PM
  #23  
DasYears
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
because of the small flow area over the filter? even the stock box has more filter area than this inline filter. if you put it in a GIANT fishbowl with an equally massive filter then ok, but at that point you still have the monstrocity of a stock airbox...in other words, if youre making this big pipe, instead of putting a filter in the middle, put a big one on the end. you will already have to make a new pipe. what do you think the advantage is to have the filter inside the pipe instead of on the end?
Old 08-06-2007 | 04:40 PM
  #24  
NmexMAX's Avatar
dot dot dot ...
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 34,588
From: Santa Fe, NM
Originally Posted by 00SEMAX19
This sounds like what Ford has been doing in it's ford trucks for a bit now. They run a inline cone filter
I know you fellas have popped open a B18C1/5engine and seen the 'stock' cone filter in there.

Originally Posted by DasYears
i dont understand why one would go through all this trouble when a WAI or hacked a33 intake would likely yield equal or BETTER results
Personally I didn't like the hacked version. Too loud. Maybe the hacked filter holder ( a couple of holes)

That's why I'm not using it anymore, too loud.
Old 08-06-2007 | 06:08 PM
  #25  
MOHFpro90's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,717
From: Sunshine State
Das, you would have to go into techniccals. Get the air resistance rating for a K&N filter / sq in. Then, figure out with 3" tubing, how big your Cyl would need
to be.

Oh, and here...



Say you had a 4" diameter cylinder with a filter in it. The stock A32 filter is roughly what, 5x10 inches(guessing from memory)? 50 sq inches of area, but only about 40 percent is being used...putting it at 20 sq inches. 8xpi is greater than that 20 sq inches. I would say less than that 40% is used...so a 4" circle filter would be MORE efficient than the stock filter even at its size. Just guesswork though, don't have accurate measurements, etc...

So, with this you get:

1. Possible ram effect
2. Air from wherever you want, fog light, headlight, hood, wheel well...
3. More filter efficiency
4. Smaller, cheaper and less costly to recharge filter
5. Smaller cylinder rather than the stock airbox
Old 08-06-2007 | 09:54 PM
  #26  
DasYears
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by MOHFpro90
thats not how an a33 stock intake or cone filter works...


Originally Posted by MOHFpro90
Say you had a 4" diameter cylinder with a filter in it. The stock A32 filter is roughly what, 5x10 inches(guessing from memory)? 50 sq inches of area, but only about 40 percent is being used...putting it at 20 sq inches. 8xpi is greater than that 20 sq inches. I would say less than that 40% is used...so a 4" circle filter would be MORE efficient than the stock filter even at its size. Just guesswork though, don't have accurate measurements, etc...
2 pi R is the measurement for circumference, youre looking for pi R^2. and the answer is ~12.56 for a 4" diameter filter. an aftermarket filter, say a straight cylinder filter, 3.5" diameter and 4" long (this is a small filter). answer is ~88. if your measurement for the stock air filter is indeed accurate, then with the a33 rig that nmex noted would be ~50 as well, since it flows straight through. im seeing a defficiency here in the 4" diameter filter. to get an exposed filter area equal to an after market cone, you would need a filter> 10" diameter

PS: you used the diameter in your calculation, you needed to use the radius (2")
Old 08-06-2007 | 10:39 PM
  #27  
97_Roadrunner's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 230
From: Laval, Québec (We speak french over here!)
Interesting thread.
I think you will benifit from ram charging effect at normal speeds if you manage to mold your intake to a fog hole.

My "ram" setup was showing improvement as low as 40mph!
















Old 08-07-2007 | 12:43 AM
  #28  
Godson's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 533
From: Philadelphia PA
what type of improvement a 40mph? Are we talking hp or butt dyno? Thats is an intersting setup you have there...so that snorkel underneath just feeds into the stock filter holder box and "breathes" air on your WAI?
Old 08-07-2007 | 05:33 AM
  #29  
MOHFpro90's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,717
From: Sunshine State
Originally Posted by DasYears
thats not how an a33 stock intake or cone filter works...




2 pi R is the measurement for circumference, youre looking for pi R^2. and the answer is ~12.56 for a 4" diameter filter. an aftermarket filter, say a straight cylinder filter, 3.5" diameter and 4" long (this is a small filter). answer is ~88. if your measurement for the stock air filter is indeed accurate, then with the a33 rig that nmex noted would be ~50 as well, since it flows straight through. im seeing a defficiency here in the 4" diameter filter. to get an exposed filter area equal to an after market cone, you would need a filter> 10" diameter

PS: you used the diameter in your calculation, you needed to use the radius (2")
That's how an A32 works...Were not discussing the A33, we're discussing the possibilty of an inline cartidridge type filter that ELIMINATES an airbox....if you like the A33 stock airbox...keep it, or get it, whatever...

When crucnching numbers, you would have to get more accurate data. Specfically the resistance factor. A stock/cone filter isnt going to push the air, its only going to slow it down, IF resistance is a factor. Its not a matter of which is more efficient but if in fact the size of the inline filter would actually decrease performance of the system. Lets say it resists air by 20%. Im not a physics guy, so someone will have to chime in. 1 litre of air in the 3" tube is 8.663" deep, in the 4" tube it is 4.85" deep. A 44% increase in surface area with the 4" tube over the 3". I would imagine that calculating the efficiency of said filter would require using the surface area, velocity, volume, etc...again, if anyone wants to help the physics impaired kid...I took bio in high school...

97RoadRunner, thats kindof what I am working on right now with my intake. I thought about taking a MAF adapter, and fitting it to the bottom of the airbox. Them, get a 3" flexipipe like yours, and running it down to the foglight position. I never got around to it though...
Old 08-07-2007 | 07:41 AM
  #30  
97_Roadrunner's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 230
From: Laval, Québec (We speak french over here!)
Originally Posted by Godson
what type of improvement a 40mph? Are we talking hp or butt dyno?
Yes, It is buttdyno...
Originally Posted by Godson
Thats is an intersting setup you have there...so that snorkel underneath just feeds into the stock filter holder box and "breathes" air on your WAI?
You got it. Also, the air intake temp. sensor is inside the ram piping...
Old 08-07-2007 | 07:47 AM
  #31  
DasYears
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by MOHFpro90
That's how an A32 works...Were not discussing the A33, we're discussing the possibilty of an inline cartidridge type filter that ELIMINATES an airbox....if you like the A33 stock airbox...keep it, or get it, whatever...
yes, we suggested a more efficient way to do it, saying the a32 and your idea are both sub-par.

Originally Posted by MOHFpro90
if anyone wants to help the physics impaired kid...I took bio in high school...
you took bio, ive taken college and high school AP physics...im confused on who the impaired one is
Old 08-07-2007 | 08:03 AM
  #32  
DasYears
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by 97_Roadrunner
Yes, It is buttdyno...

You got it. Also, the air intake temp. sensor is inside the ram piping...
this isnt a ram air, its a cold air intake. basically. since its not attatched to the ram tube, you wont experience ANY ram effect, the "compressed" air from the under car tube releases all the pressure at the end of the tube and the filter just picks up typical 1ATM air, just colder than normal. its actually a good idea, since you get the benefit of a CAI with the short, beneficial length of a WAI
Old 08-07-2007 | 08:05 AM
  #33  
NmexMAX's Avatar
dot dot dot ...
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 34,588
From: Santa Fe, NM
Originally Posted by 97_Roadrunner
Yes, It is buttdyno...
http://forums.maxima.org/showpost.ph...0&postcount=44

I know my ing gets old, but w/o sufficient data, butt dynos are just

I read this on another forum, and well, it's true for the most part. (Taken from http://forums.maxima.org/showpost.ph...1&postcount=13 )
On the road testing is notoriously inaccurate. You don't feel power so much as you feel change in torque versus time. If the car feels stronger up top, that likely means you are noting a surge or increase in power at a certain point. This is just as easily attributed to making LESS power down low as it would be to making more up top. This is the same sort of "feeling faster" that all of the OBD-II track pipe people experienced. Same peak power, less midrange, and thus the car would have a much larger slope in the power band between the midrange and the high RPM range of operation. This is why the butt dyno should never be used. If you are going to try to make more power by messing with sensors, then do so with proper test procedures in place. A wideband to verify the AFR, as well as a timing light to check for any changes to ignition timing from changed load readings, is really required. The before/after tests should also be done on a dyno with the variables as controlled as possible to verify the change in power.


If you are going to try to make more power by messing with sensors, then do so with proper test procedures in place. A wideband to verify the AFR, as well as a timing light to check for any changes to ignition timing from changed load readings, is really required. The before/after tests should also be done on a dyno with the variables as controlled as possible to verify the change in power.
I too have been guilty of this misleading approach. When I first d/c'd my VIAS (killed the vac line for fun). I truly thought my car was making more power up top. I even consulted with some other members about it and mentioned that I thought it really helped. A couple of them said, nope all in your head. You're going it's been dynod and all you gain is a loss in low-mid range. So, I thought what the hell, went to the dyno, ate my words with the results.

So, with all that said, I despise of buttdynos.




Originally Posted by 97_Roadrunner
You got it. Also, the air intake temp. sensor is inside the ram piping...
Any data from it?
Old 08-07-2007 | 08:11 AM
  #34  
97_Roadrunner's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 230
From: Laval, Québec (We speak french over here!)
Originally Posted by MOHFpro90
97RoadRunner, thats kindof what I am working on right now with my intake. I thought about taking a MAF adapter, and fitting it to the bottom of the airbox. Them, get a 3" flexipipe like yours, and running it down to the foglight position. I never got around to it though...
It's actually a 4" drying machine flex pipe.
With 4", it fit around the square inlet of the stock airbox. No adaptor needed.
The intake snorkel, is simply a duct for dryers, and I removed the flap inside, so it's stay opened. The best way I've found to hold this together, is duct tape... call it gettho or cheesy, but it work.

Provide outstanding heat-management.
I buttdyoed it in winter until I got "cel" 0303: overheated front 02 sensor,
(took about 1 hour in wot)
and the intake manifold temperature was around -10 Farenheit.
The valve cover, was slightly warm, but not even half as warm it can get while idleing.
Old 08-07-2007 | 08:19 AM
  #35  
DasYears
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
with the IAT in the cold tube, youre detecting cooler air than youre actually using, so you are more likely to run a little rich
Old 08-07-2007 | 08:23 AM
  #36  
MOHFpro90's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,717
From: Sunshine State
Originally Posted by DasYears
yes, we suggested a more efficient way to do it, saying the a32 and your idea are both sub-par.



you took bio, ive taken college and high school AP physics...im confused on who the impaired one is
I was asking someone with pyhsics experience to crunch some numbers, finding out the efficiency rating of a filter with 4" in diameter. I want to know that if the velocity of the air traveling through a 3" pipe is efficiently passed thorugh a 4" filter...incorporating factors such as velocity, resistance of filter, volume of air, filter surface area(louvered/ribbed or flat?) etc...

Less efficient? Prove it. Saying "Oh, the A33 is bigger" doesnt mean sh*t...you have to actually SHOW that this is innefficient in its design, and unpractical. Lets say you did 4.5"...or even 5" if totally necessary. If those sizes were necessary to produce a [more than] efficient intake, then you would eliminate the lmitations of using a stock airbox in your intake, while getting the advantages of the CAI, ram effect, its mobility, etc...

Psshht...AP, IB FTMFW!
Old 08-07-2007 | 08:24 AM
  #37  
97_Roadrunner's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 230
From: Laval, Québec (We speak french over here!)
Originally Posted by DasYears
this isnt a ram air, its a cold air intake. basically. since its not attatched to the ram tube, you wont experience ANY ram effect, the "compressed" air from the under car tube releases all the pressure at the end of the tube and the filter just picks up typical 1ATM air, just colder than normal. its actually a good idea, since you get the benefit of a CAI with the short, beneficial length of a WAI
Yeah, I know, but I still like to call it a "ram"...
All I would need to do to make it a real ram, is to put back the top of the stock airbox. That would be good for drag races, but for dayly driving, I dont want to have air sucked so low near the ground...
Old 08-07-2007 | 08:34 AM
  #38  
97_Roadrunner's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 230
From: Laval, Québec (We speak french over here!)
Originally Posted by DasYears
with the IAT in the cold tube, youre detecting cooler air than youre actually using, so you are more likely to run a little rich
Well I think It read about the same temp. as the air the engine breath. As I said, after an hour, reving in the 5k/6k rmp range, the engine was ice cold! The IM casting was at -10 degree farenheit! Same temperature outside the engine bay!!
Old 08-07-2007 | 08:59 AM
  #39  
DasYears
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by MOHFpro90
Less efficient? Prove it. Saying "Oh, the A33 is bigger" doesnt mean sh*t...you have to actually SHOW that this is innefficient in its design, and unpractical.
youre unclear on the concept here. the a33 DOES NOT TURN. it is just like what you are saying here, just a rectangular filter instead of round

Originally Posted by 97_Roadrunner
Well I think It read about the same temp. as the air the engine breath. As I said, after an hour, reving in the 5k/6k rmp range, the engine was ice cold! The IM casting was at -10 degree farenheit! Same temperature outside the engine bay!!
you said the IAT was -10. and if your IM was -10 thats NOT good
Old 08-07-2007 | 09:01 AM
  #40  
97_Roadrunner's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 230
From: Laval, Québec (We speak french over here!)
Originally Posted by MOHFpro90
I was asking someone with pyhsics experience to crunch some numbers, finding out the efficiency rating of a filter with 4" in diameter. I want to know that if the velocity of the air traveling through a 3" pipe is efficiently passed thorugh a 4" filter...incorporating factors such as velocity, resistance of filter, volume of air, filter surface area(louvered/ribbed or flat?) etc...

Less efficient? Prove it. Saying "Oh, the A33 is bigger" doesnt mean sh*t...you have to actually SHOW that this is innefficient in its design, and unpractical. Lets say you did 4.5"...or even 5" if totally necessary. If those sizes were necessary to produce a [more than] efficient intake, then you would eliminate the lmitations of using a stock airbox in your intake, while getting the advantages of the CAI, ram effect, its mobility, etc...

Psshht...AP, IB FTMFW!

I think you will have a hard time trying to fit something bigger than 4". The Pipe is barely passing between the tranny, rad, battery and motor...


Quick Reply: Probable inline air filter?



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:19 AM.