PDA

View Full Version : LRA Snorkel: my experiences.



Lucus
27th December 2007, 10:37 PM
Hi Guys,
yesterday i installed a Les Richmond Autos snorkel to mmy 93rrc. Heres what i discovered.
( i am able to read all these parameters on my wolf 3d ecu screen)

Pre snorkel
Ambient 30deg c(tested using a small digital thermometer)
Intake air temp (at 70 k's per hour) 65 to 70deg c
Coolant temp 95 to 99 deg c dependant on load (ie up or down hill)
AFR at 70kph cruise set 15.1:1
Vacum at W.O.T. at 70kph 20 to 25kpa.


Post snorkel:
Ambient 44(phreaking hot!!!)deg c
Intake air temp (at 70 k's per hour) 45 to 49deg c
Coolant temp 92 to 95 deg c dependant on load (ie up or down hill, remained below thermo fan cut in temp at 70kph)
AFR at 70kph cruise set 16.2:1(lots more air!)
Vacum at W.O.T. at 70kph -02 to 00kpa.

To say i am happy is an understatement. I tested the before and after runs on the same 30km route between mny house and my fiance's house.
I went 4wding today in 33deg c heat and the hottest the car got was 102deg c and that was after about a 2km slog in 3rd gear low range at 40kph in the sand. The car would normally reach 108+ doing this. I also managed to banish the dreaded pinging i had in low range at high load but i also ran octane booster so i will have to retest the car again minus the o2 booster. But the 20 deg reduction in intake air temp had got to help. Btw the car had a totally standard intake system prior to fitting the snorkel and is fitted with a 4.6ltr.

cheers
Luke

Cap
28th December 2007, 10:18 AM
Thanks Luke for the info. Have you got any pics tho? :D

Lucus
28th December 2007, 10:53 AM
Yeah yeah i know i broke the #1 golden rule.........:wasntme:



I actually went 4wding yesterday up at the alkimos wreck and my Fiance was more interested in taking photos of our dog in the ocean. She then took the camera home!! I will get the camera and get a couple of snaps over the weekend.

cheers
Luke

Cap
1st January 2008, 01:10 PM
Forgot to ask you what did you pay for the snorkle?

RonMcGr
15th January 2008, 06:25 PM
Hi Guys,
yesterday i installed a Les Richmond Autos snorkel to mmy 93rrc. Heres what i discovered.
( i am able to read all these parameters on my wolf 3d ecu screen)

Pre snorkel
Ambient 30deg c(tested using a small digital thermometer)
Intake air temp (at 70 k's per hour) 65 to 70deg c
Coolant temp 95 to 99 deg c dependant on load (ie up or down hill)
AFR at 70kph cruise set 15.1:1
Vacum at W.O.T. at 70kph 20 to 25kpa.


Post snorkel:
Ambient 44(phreaking hot!!!)deg c
Intake air temp (at 70 k's per hour) 45 to 49deg c
Coolant temp 92 to 95 deg c dependant on load (ie up or down hill, remained below thermo fan cut in temp at 70kph)
AFR at 70kph cruise set 16.2:1(lots more air!)
Vacum at W.O.T. at 70kph -02 to 00kpa.

To say i am happy is an understatement. I tested the before and after runs on the same 30km route between mny house and my fiance's house.
I went 4wding today in 33deg c heat and the hottest the car got was 102deg c and that was after about a 2km slog in 3rd gear low range at 40kph in the sand. The car would normally reach 108+ doing this. I also managed to banish the dreaded pinging i had in low range at high load but i also ran octane booster so i will have to retest the car again minus the o2 booster. But the 20 deg reduction in intake air temp had got to help. Btw the car had a totally standard intake system prior to fitting the snorkel and is fitted with a 4.6ltr.

cheers
Luke

Hey Luke,

That is fantastic :D

Looks like I've done the right thing in buying a Snorkel.

Many thanks

Dougal
15th January 2008, 06:54 PM
Are you concerned that your AFR changed?
Sounds like your EFI isn't doing it's job.

Was your previous intake from a "hot" area (like behind the radiator)?

Lucus
15th January 2008, 07:53 PM
As stated the intake was in the stock land rover location trumpet and all.

The cruise afrs went slightly leaner. Simple to add a touch more fuel with the wolf. Instead i adjusted the air temp compensation to bring the afrs back into a range in happy with.

I spose its also possible that the slight ram affect of the snorkel may have cause the slight lean out, but i doubt it.

For what its worth the eng load factor decreased at the same engine rpm and road speed so it obviously breather better at speed with the snorkel.

Would be interesting to put a manometer in the area in front of the standard air intake to see what sort of pressure zone is created at speed.

cheers
Luke

Dougal
15th January 2008, 08:04 PM
For what its worth the eng load factor decreased at the same engine rpm and road speed so it obviously breather better at speed with the snorkel.

A snorkle doesn't affect that.
Your engine is throttled remember, being more freeflowing before the throttle doesn't help at all (if indeed it is more freeflowing).

I think the load is due to air temp. Air density decreases with rising temp which has a big effect on aerodynamic drag.
Your second run was at a significantly hotter ambient temp than your first one which makes comparisons somewhat distorted. It'll be interesting to see what it reads in more similar conditions to your first run.

Lucus
15th January 2008, 08:23 PM
What would you like to see at the same ambient? The load factor?

My reference to breathing was in terms of the ram affect and to some extent the increase in flow through the air box, which is now a side entry whole aprox 3.25" in diameter rather than the 2" (ish?) hole in the trumpet.

Obviously you disagree with what i have found?

If you can sit on the same engine rpm at the same road speed on the same section of road with less load and thusly less throttle opening something is obviouslt working more effciently.

I think a back to back ambient test wouldnt prove much as the eng intake temp would be cooler at 25c ambient with the snorkel than at 25c with out the snorkel?

Luke

Dougal
16th January 2008, 03:29 PM
What would you like to see at the same ambient? The load factor?

My reference to breathing was in terms of the ram affect and to some extent the increase in flow through the air box, which is now a side entry whole aprox 3.25" in diameter rather than the 2" (ish?) hole in the trumpet.

Obviously you disagree with what i have found?

If you can sit on the same engine rpm at the same road speed on the same section of road with less load and thusly less throttle opening something is obviouslt working more effciently.

I think a back to back ambient test wouldnt prove much as the eng intake temp would be cooler at 25c ambient with the snorkel than at 25c with out the snorkel?

Luke

I think ambient temp is the biggest player. Running the same road at the same temp (same wind conditions if possible) will give the best results for comparison. It's well established that vehicles get better fuel economy in warmer conditions, so far your test has confirmed that.

If the aerodynamic load drops due to ambient air temp, then it's not an efficiency gain. Ram air isn't significant at 70km/h, nor at 100km/h. Your modifications to the airbox could help at WOT, but will do absolutely nothing when the throttle is partially closed.

Lucus
16th January 2008, 03:46 PM
You did read in my post that the change in vacum was at WOT? I am dubious about ram air effect and always have been. Feel free to do some testing on your own rangie and set what sort of pressures you have in front of the standard air intake and in side the airbox at 70kph and once you have some figures i will do that same with my car at 70kph drawing air through the snorkel. should be an interesting test. Obviously the bigger hole in the airbox will affect the result so i will make up a restrictor to reduce mine to the standard size if this pleases you.

What exactly do you mean by aerodynamic load?

Dougal
16th January 2008, 04:17 PM
You did read in my post that the change in vacum was at WOT? I am dubious about ram air effect and always have been. Feel free to do some testing on your own rangie and set what sort of pressures you have in front of the standard air intake and in side the airbox at 70kph and once you have some figures i will do that same with my car at 70kph drawing air through the snorkel. should be an interesting test. Obviously the bigger hole in the airbox will affect the result so i will make up a restrictor to reduce mine to the standard size if this pleases you.

What exactly do you mean by aerodynamic load?

My rangie is far from stock. Isuzu turbo diesel, homemade air filter housing with landcruiser element and intake at the front edge of the bonnet. My filter restriction gauge doesn't get past the first bar (2500Pa) with 20psi on a 4L engine sucking on it.
I've (breifly) considered a water gauge, but the risk of my engine sucking in the water didn't impress me.
That's why I'm interested in your results, see what the factory originally had going.
It's not necessary to make up a restrictor, at 70km/h cruise the throttle plate will be making all the restriction you need.

Aerodynamic load is the power required to push your vehicle through the air. It cubes with forward speed (twice as fast = 8 times as much power) and relates very well to air density. Colder (hence denser) air creates more resistance than hotter, thinner air.

maxpower
27th February 2009, 11:43 PM
I knwo this is an old post however its all very scientific. but colder, denser air can create a dramatic effect on performance and providing your car with this type of air (which a snorkel would, same as a cold air box) for eg. my XR8 ran half a second quicker on the quarter with the air pod sealed off from the engine n the air flowing around the front headlight into the box.

Dougal
28th February 2009, 07:10 AM
I knwo this is an old post however its all very scientific. but colder, denser air can create a dramatic effect on performance and providing your car with this type of air (which a snorkel would, same as a cold air box) for eg. my XR8 ran half a second quicker on the quarter with the air pod sealed off from the engine n the air flowing around the front headlight into the box.

It's well established that cold air improves performance. But that cold air increases your pumping losses when not at full throttle (petrol engines only). This increases fuel consumption.

Just another tradeoff really.

Grover-98
28th February 2009, 10:27 AM
I have also read that a snorkel decreases fuel consumption obviously not by too much other wise they would promote it more but i read it in 4WD Monthly when they did a large test on ways to save fuel and the effects on fuel consumption of common modifications. :)