Thread: This is getting bloody annoying...

Originally Posted by Bohica

I have 4! yes four slots. You could be right. It would be interesting to see how much water enters the intake. Litres per minute and how quickly water exits through the slots. In heavy rainfall. How many drops per cubic metre? volume. Any numbers? 1%? 3%? at 100kph or 27.8 m per second, you are looking at 0.108 cubic metres per second, swept by the intake. With 10% of the air occupied by rain drops, you have 0.0108 cubic metres of water per second. Which works out at 0.0000108 Litres per second., about 1 500th of a teaspoon per second. So the amount is close to nothing. 250 CFM is about 0.12 cubic metres per second, slightly more than is being rammed into the air intake.
Or is it 10L per second?
It is late and I have 2 vastly different numbers. I need to sleep. Back tomorrow. Further research is required.

For heaven's sake... My point, lost as it may now be, was that a forward facing snorkel intake was as likely to be the culprit for water in the airbox as a perforated thingy idling in a car wash. I believe I stated that quite clearly. And here we are! Good grief, as that poor fellow Charlie Brown would say.

I still maintain that the little gutter and slots won't prevent water entering the airbox. I also believe that water might enter the airbox via the perforated thingy at idle in the car wash. Are you OK with that??

Now, the topic was the air filter pulled into the intake. I doubt the filter could get wet enough to be pulled in that way by the methods we have argued about. I believe that the filter was pulled in suddenly. Some blockage that occurred instantly. I don't know what that might have been. I am also aware that I may be wrong, and I maintain that the best thing to do is replace the filter and see if it does it again.

There is a well visited thread here about threads going off topic. This one has.

Originally Posted by Tombie

Why do you consider lower flow a benefit?

Higher Volume at lower boost is almost always better than lower volume at higher boost.

IMO it's about the relation between the two cos if for example you get 650 MAF so higher volume at 200 MAP that means a boost leak to me(provided both sensor are reading well) which would lead to the "MAF - cut out" syndrome at a point. That's why i made the measurements on my friend's vehcile cos he experienced intermittently the same thing under heavty load uphill and with strong head wind even with new sensors and no leak and it didnt happen again after he turned the snorkel backwards.

You may not be convinced about the slots, or the link between guard and airbox.

Except it does work - if seen the flow tests and modelling.
What minuscule remaining moisture is separated again by the directional changes and the end of the snorkel where it enters the guard can hold water enough to enable it to be evaporated without issue - for the worst of splashes.

But neither of those has caused your problem.

The short answer is your air filter has suffered cellulose failure and been drawn in whilst the engine was drawing nicely.

Causes
- Malicious water entry - someone sprayed a hose at the snorkel for quite a while.
- Large object entered bottom of airbox and partially blocked the filter
- Faulty part (element)
- Incorrect fitting of airbox (happens all the time and *that* will allow significant moisture in.

Originally Posted by sierrafery

IMO it's about the relation between the two cos if for example you get 650 MAF so higher volume at 200 MAP that means a boost leak to me(provided both sensor are reading well) which would lead to the "MAF - cut out" syndrome at a point. That's why i made the measurements on my friend's vehcile cos he experienced intermittently the same thing under heavty load uphill and with strong head wind even with new sensors and no leak and it didnt happen again after he turned the snorkel backwards.

Mass = Density
Pressure = Force over Area

If you are getting higher density, and lower map it’s because the engine isn’t needing as much boost to make the same power - more density allows better bang!

Better bang would have induced more power, more boost and resulted in the MAF going OoR. A small wind back of the Turbo boost likely would have solved it and ran more efficiently.

I was speaking about a proper relation between correct sensor readings i dont want to have a debate about how density and other things can affect power, all i revealed was what i found with live data reading...that vehicle ran perfect untill the snorkel was fitted and the relation between the MAF and MAP was altered more with snorkel toward front while toward rear was very close to the original that was my point nothing else... maybe it would have been better powerwise with some wastegate adjustment but my friend choosed not to do that

Really I found the opposite but not significant.
I have fitted a Minihelic air pressure gauge to the inlet of the air filter on both a RRC with snorkel and my D2 with snorkel.

Accelerating hard at 80Kmh I found 1 inch of water positive pressure with the snorkel head facing forward.

I haven't checked rearward but it is inconceivable that there would be positive pressure facing backwards.

So there is insignificant ram effect and any negative effects would also be pretty insignificant with the head facing backwards.
Regards PhilipA

I'm going to have to pinch a Magnehelic from work one day and have a play

Originally Posted by rick130

I'm going to have to pinch a Magnehelic from work one day and have a play

Every home should have a couple.