Fitted Snokel drop in Performance

**feraldisco** · 12th September 2008, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by one_iota

And I would guess that the obverse would be true:

A snorkel will not degrade the engines breathing either.

The Venturi effect is an interesting factor in the defender's case as the intake is on the side of the guard and the air moving over the intake at speed should and probably does induce a negative pressure which if these things are so sensitive the standard setup should result in a decrease in performance.

I think the snorkel performance improvement thing is a furphy as is the dust/cool air thing. It's a spin applied in 4wd magazines to seduce the unsure who think it looks cool.

I will install a snorkel to do what a properly installed snorkel should do on a diesel engine and that is to keep water out of the motor on the odd occasion that I exceed the wading depth.

not a furphy at all - in fact the primary objective for me fitting a Safari was due to dust rather than water-the standard air intake on a D2 Td5 is ridiculous for two reasons - firstly the size of the hole in the inner guard is puny; secondly it takes air from above the front wheel - great on dirt roads...not...

I've cut out a larger hole in my inner guard and have added my own large diameter flexi pipe connecting the end of the snorkel to the airbox. If anything, the car seems to go better - certainly not worse.

Interestingly, the current 4WD Action mag indicates (as tested) a significant fuel economy improvement with snorkel fitted - but of course this depends on the particular car and how restrictive the original air intake set-up is...

**CaverD3** · 12th September 2008, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by feraldisco

Interestingly, the current 4WD Action mag indicates (as tested) a significant fuel economy improvement with snorkel fitted - but of course this depends on the particular car and how restrictive the original air intake set-up is...

Quite high (9.2% inrovement in economy) but it was an 80 series Tojo.

**scarry** · 12th September 2008, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by CaverD3

Quite high (9.2% inrovement in economy) but it was an 80 series Tojo.

doesnt really mean much...it was highly modified,whatever that means.

**CaverD3** · 12th September 2008, 06:03 PM

I took that figure with a lot of salt.

I don't think it should make any difference either way as long as the Snorkel is designed properly and free of obstruction.

**one_iota** · 12th September 2008, 06:06 PM

Fitting a snorkel to the Disco didn't make a "measurable" difference to either performance or fuel economy.

What made a difference was whether there was a head or tail wind, whether there was a tent on the roof racks or not or whether it was a hot day or a cold day. I return to my original point the snorkel effect on performance will be marginal if everything else is equal.

As for dust well that is what the filter is for and I suppose yes there might be a difference in the life of the filter but again that depends on the dust and whether the ram was pointing north or south but that is another debate

**feraldisco** · 15th September 2008, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by scarry

doesnt really mean much...it was highly modified,whatever that means.

it's irrelevant whether it was highly modified or not...the difference was measured on the same vehicle and the measured fuel consumption difference was purely due to the presence/absence of snorkel - and I was surprised at how big a difference it was.

as for the other comment that air filters are there to stop dust, yes they are, and if you like changing air filters on a regular basis, go for your life! I don't and the other advantage of a snorkel is that you can easily put a foam pre-filter over the snorkel head when heading off road to pretty much eliminate dust getting to your main air filter...

**cripesamighty** · 16th September 2008, 02:50 PM

Hi all,

This is a scan of the snorkel bit of the article in September's issue of Australian 4WD Action magazine for those that are interested. Note that it is a Safari snorkel.

**scarry** · 17th September 2008, 12:26 PM

[QUOTE=feraldisco;815675]it's irrelevant whether it was highly modified or not...the difference was measured on the same vehicle and the measured fuel consumption difference was purely due to the presence/absence of snorkel - and I was surprised at how big a difference it was.

There is obviously something wrong with the figures,as per this thread & many others on this site,guys who have recorded before & after figures have never got any real change.

**CaverD3** · 17th September 2008, 12:30 PM

It would depend upon the design of the snorkel, the air intake and the engine itself snorkel install could well improve the breathing of an engine if these were of poor design.
Well it was a Toyota.

**Scallops** · 17th September 2008, 12:45 PM

My 07 has a genuine snorkel - I didn't have any drop in power or torque after it was fitted - but what did improve was my fuel consumption.

Consider this - I have calculated my fuel usage from my recent around Oz trip. This included driving over the Gibson and Simpson deserts in 2nd gear, carrying 750kg of kit and with a roof rack and awning etc.

9.8 l per 100km!!!

Now, I do drive carefully - 90km/h cruising and not really reving it much above 2000rpm unless necessary - but still, it's a great result on the juice.

Thread: Fitted Snokel drop in Performance

Thread Tools

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions