she kept her motor clean and had a modified box...

[feraldisco]

...for improved airflow that is...[bigwhistle]

a couple of interesting articles - interesting to see that air filter type (or even running no filter at all) doesn't seem to be as significant a factor in air flow/supply as other things

Browser Warning (http://autospeed.com/cms/A_110720/article.html)

Browser Warning (http://autospeed.com/cms/A_111109/article.html?popularArticle)

[slugger]

just replacing my filter box with a pod filter gave me much better airflow and used less fuel.

[PhilipA]

I have done the tests recommended by Autospeed and the total restriction of a snorkle and standard barrel filter on a 92RRC is 11 inches of water to the mouth of the MAF.

This is NOTHING and seeing that I am not about to delete the MAF , then there is no need for any other filter box setup. I actually bought and modified a Commodore box before testing then decided it was not worth the hassle.

BTW one of the things Julian recommended was to take the screen out of the MAF. THIS IS WRONG. The reason it is there is not to hold out debris but to amalgamate the air flow so that the MAF reads correctly.

I read somewhere that I could never find again ( at a MAF maker's website maybe Bosch - but certainly not a forum) that the only time it is OK to delete the screen is if there is at least 300-350MM of straight hose before the MAF. Who has that?

So if you have a LRA snorkel and barrel filter it is just about ideal.

BTW I also took the pressure rise caused by the snorkle at 80KMh and it was 1-1.5 inches with cruise throttle ie NOTHING. This applies to a V8. maybe differnet on diesel. I cannot comment on flat filters.

Method used was Minihelic gauge tapped into inlet tube and sealed with ag joiner and silastic between airfilter and MAF.

[Dougal]

just replacing my filter box with a pod filter gave me much better airflow and used less fuel.

Does filtration concern you at all?

[Tank]

I have done the tests recommended by Autospeed and the total restriction of a snorkle and standard barrel filter on a 92RRC is 11 inches of water to the mouth of the MAF.

This is NOTHING and seeing that I am not about to delete the MAF , then there is no need for any other filter box setup. I actually bought and modified a Commodore box before testing then decided it was not worth the hassle.

BTW one of the things Julian recommended was to take the screen out of the MAF. THIS IS WRONG. The reason it is there is not to hold out debris but to amalgamate the air flow so that the MAF reads correctly.

I read somewhere that I could never find again ( at a MAF maker's website maybe Bosch - but certainly not a forum) that the only time it is OK to delete the screen is if there is at least 300-350MM of straight hose before the MAF. Who has that?

So if you have a LRA snorkel and barrel filter it is just about ideal.

BTW I also took the pressure rise caused by the snorkle at 80KMh and it was 1-1.5 inches with cruise throttle ie NOTHING. This applies to a V8. maybe differnet on diesel. I cannot comment on flat filters.

Method used was Minihelic gauge tapped into inlet tube and sealed with ag joiner and silastic between airfilter and MAF.
Would you have a pic of your setup that I could see, I have a snorkle and barrel type airfilter, I was wondering where you connected the snorkle pipe to the barrel. BTW I don't have at least 300mm of hose before the MAF , I have removed the birdcatcher screen with the only effect being a slightly better throttle response. I have seen similar MAF systems on other vehicles and they didn't have a wire screen, I just don't see it being anything other than a restriction, Regards Frank.

[PhilipA]

Would you have a pic of your setup that I could see, I have a snorkle and barrel type airfilter, I was wondering where you connected the snorkle pipe to the barrel.

Mine is just the standard LRA side inlet into the air filter.
Look here.
Snorkel RRC (http://www.lrautomotive.com.au/contents/en-us/d621.html)

Well, I had mine out also but it could only have any effect at very high loads, and the sensor being on the inside of a bend would certainly see less air than if on the outside of the bend.
BTW throttle response is more to do with the TPS than the MAF. TPS is predictive MAF is reactive.
Regards Philip A

[BigJon]

My snorkel is plumbed into the original air inlet of my barrel air cleaner. I did cut the trumpet off to get a better surface to weld the intake pipe onto it.

I recently replaced the air filter (quite clogged with dirt and bees), so I will be interested to see if I can feel any difference when I drive it next.

[Tank]

PhilipA,I can't see how having the air inlet on the side of the air filter could possibly work correctly. The filter and air box (can) is designed to work with the air entering the end of the cannister and the air flowing along the length of the filter. The side entry is concentrating the total air flow at one small area (3 to 4"dia.). My original air filter was setup like yours and the day I purchased it I removed the air filter and noted that the previous owner had been rotating the filter as it was totally clogged all around it's circumference. I changed my cannister and the difference in throttle response was very noticeable, if you want check out pics of my setup in Gallery under "Tank", Regards Frank.

[PhilipA]

Well it works.

Of course the filter gets dirtier where the pipe enters but the entry is not just 3-4 inches. It is a large oval about 6x4. Have a look at the photo.

The only minor problem caused is that in a very strong storm rain the facing side will get wet, but there is still plenty of filter.

Regards Philip A

[Tank]

It might work, but certainly not as good as if it was coming in the end like it was designed to, to each his own I suppose, Regards Frank

[PhilipA]

Tank, in theory the end entry is better and I had my end entry opened up at one stage and a cold air duct made from fibreglass across the top of the battery, until a friend with a standard nozzle hydrauliced his engine going through a deep puddle at 80KMh.
I have a packaging problem in that I have a Thor manifold which brings the throttle body forward , so I cannot even have the MAF clamped to the barrel mouth. Not ideal but only thing possible.
I experimented with a Commodore panel filter but the problem with snorkels, 2nd batteries and panel filters in RRCs is that the air inlet is necessarily on the bottom to stop water flooding of the element, and there is nowhere to put a pipe/fitting in a RRC unless you relocate everything behind the filter.
And seeing it exhibits such a low restriction , I did not think any gain is worth the effort. it has been like this about 7 years now, and I have never had a blocked filter,despite extensive dusty work, as I am careful and fit unifilter socks when in the bulldust.
Regards Philip A

[Tank]

PhilipA, sounds like you don't have much room for modifications, I see your dilemma. I am going to fit a Donaldson filter and housing under the bonnet, I will have to cut the top of the inner guard to set the body low enough to clear the bonnet, the filter is around twice the size of the original, so should provide plenty of air, Regards Frank.

[feraldisco]

here I was starting a post with heterosexual innuendo...and then Philip starts talking about end entries being better and having his opened up at one stage...


Tank, in theory the end entry is better and I had my end entry opened up at one stage and a cold air duct made from fibreglass across the top of the battery, until a friend with a standard nozzle hydrauliced his engine going through a deep puddle at 80KMh.
I have a packaging problem in that I have a Thor manifold which brings the throttle body forward , so I cannot even have the MAF clamped to the barrel mouth. Not ideal but only thing possible.
I experimented with a Commodore panel filter but the problem with snorkels, 2nd batteries and panel filters in RRCs is that the air inlet is necessarily on the bottom to stop water flooding of the element, and there is nowhere to put a pipe/fitting in a RRC unless you relocate everything behind the filter.
And seeing it exhibits such a low restriction , I did not think any gain is worth the effort. it has been like this about 7 years now, and I have never had a blocked filter,despite extensive dusty work, as I am careful and fit unifilter socks when in the bulldust.
Regards Philip A

[Tombie]

I knew the editor of that mag...

What a tool :(

Seen him destroy many a good car....

Was astounded one day to watch him feeding welding O2 straight into the air intake of a vehicle :eek: