Thread: P38 snorkel

Originally Posted by p38arover

It wasn't criticism, it was a constructive comment!



There was no mention of it being for a 35" wheel and therefore a need for that size. I wasn't commenting on how far outside the body the wheel would stick, merely on the length of the arm.

Re a 35" on the Kaymar, I have no idea but Paul can put one on mine to check.

sorry ron, when i use a im 9times out of ten taking the **** youve met me you should know that.

Originally Posted by ytt105

Don't get knarky Discowhite!!

It's all constructive comment as p38arover said.

And you're right, I couldn't build it. That's why I'd be interested in buying one when HardRange go into production.

But as I said, in its present configuration it would not be suitable for me.
how do you know? you havnt seen it yet. it clears my camper trailer but my D2 door dosnt.

Standard size tyres, camper trailer attached.

I'd have to climb over the drawbar to unclip the carrier, then climb back over the drawbar to get to the beer fridge, assuming it would swing over the top of the drawbar and camper handbrake. with a step down hitch, like the OEM D2 one it will/should clear most A frames, but probably not the likes of the ultimate. there are so many variables when building custom stuff its not funny and i dont think anyone out there can anticipate everything. as i said it is a prototype and im sure andy and paul will gladly listen to all sugestions when it comes to what actually goes into production.

So, Andy, the bumper bar looks fine, but those not using large tyres would probably be happier with a smaller swing-away,

Why not make both type of swing-aways and let the buyer choose?
this was taken into consideration when i was building it. i cant speak for the boys but its probably a possibility to have the option of long or short or no swing arm at all.

just remember that this was built in my shed with only a 4'' grinder a 170amp mig a 1/2 battery drill and a spray gun. i dont have access to the fabrication equipment the likes of kaymar/arb ect have, all i try and do is build a very reasonably priced pice of gear that will not break and suits the purpose for which its built.

cheers phil

If only Land Rover had consulted its customers in a forum like this during development of the P38, we wouldn't have those computers on the floor and a snorkel/Raised Air Intake would be a standard option

Thank you very much to all for your feedback. We tend to get focussed on certain aspects of product development so it is great to get some fresh perspectives.

The head of the snorkel/RAI will be lowered and possibly offset back towards the windscreen, similar to Keelan's suggestion.

Up for grabs where the Hard Range branding will go yet. Nothing too obnoxious... either raised slightly or indent/shadowed.

The rear bar - Phil has done an outstanding job on this. I will be swapping over to this bar at the first opportunity (heads-up that my 2yo 4x4i rear bar will be going on sale after that happens).

We will definitely discuss swing-arm options some more among ourselves. I do like the idea of having options for no arm, single short arm, 2 short arms or 1 long arm.

Given the strength of that bar, we may put a couple of recovery points in as well, and perhaps a nice looking rear bash plate (I see Hard Range branding there).

You can see where we are going with this I hope...
The rear bar gives us solid mounting to extend under-body protection.
At the front, the 3-hoop Roo Bar gives us side locating points to extend side protection from the Roo Bar back to the rock sliders (next project) and offers more protection for the RAI.

Andy - here's the pic of the diff guard you wanted, and you can just see the adjustable Panhard Rod as well


Cheers, Paul.

Hey Paul,
Re: Snorkel flow conversation last night...
Bit quiet at work so I've done some calculations for you. Bear in mind, I'm not that great at maths or physics...

Ok, so @ 110kph lets say the engine sits on 2500rpm. If the engine had 100% volumetric efficiency, it would need just over 200cfm or air to feed it. If we take away the rest of the intake and say that we have 2m of 3" pipe (the snorkel) to feed the engine, @ 200cfm, the maximum flow of the pipe is ~23mp/s or ~83kph. So we have a difference of 27kph. What this would mean as far as I understand it (which is not very much), is that at 110kph, the maximum airflow of the pipe is less than the wind speed providing the air, so the extra air will take the path of least resistance and flow around the head rather than compressing the air in the snorkel already. I presume this would mean that you could run which ever design head you would like, as the engine will generally be using the vacuum to draw air in, rather than the wind speed pushing air in.

For those that are interested, at 5000rpm the engine will be drawing enough air to equal 165kph :P

Anywho, I think most of this is correct, I'll keep having a think about it and let you know if I realize I've stuffed up. And please feel free to tell me I've stuffed up anyone, as I say, I'm not full bottle on this stuff

Cheers,
Keels.

Originally Posted by WasabiPimpNinja

Hey Paul,
Re: Snorkel flow conversation last night...
Bit quiet at work so I've done some calculations for you. Bear in mind, I'm not that great at maths or physics...

Ok, so @ 110kph lets say the engine sits on 2500rpm. If the engine had 100% volumetric efficiency, it would need just over 200cfm or air to feed it. If we take away the rest of the intake and say that we have 2m of 3" pipe (the snorkel) to feed the engine, @ 200cfm, the maximum flow of the pipe is ~23mp/s or ~83kph. So we have a difference of 27kph. What this would mean as far as I understand it (which is not very much), is that at 110kph, the maximum airflow of the pipe is less than the wind speed providing the air, so the extra air will take the path of least resistance and flow around the head rather than compressing the air in the snorkel already. I presume this would mean that you could run which ever design head you would like, as the engine will generally be using the vacuum to draw air in, rather than the wind speed pushing air in.

For those that are interested, at 5000rpm the engine will be drawing enough air to equal 165kph :P

Anywho, I think most of this is correct, I'll keep having a think about it and let you know if I realize I've stuffed up. And please feel free to tell me I've stuffed up anyone, as I say, I'm not full bottle on this stuff

Cheers,
Keels.

Yep you have stuffed up.

Snorkel pipe id is a minimum of 90mm (3.5"). The safari one for the 4.0 Disco 2 (and us 4,6 version) is only 75mm. The standard p38 airbox, post 97 has a removable air restrictor which is also 75mm. (yes pauls car has this removed, so it flows 90mm from snorkel head to air filter)

I think i understand your calcs, but wouldnt the size and opening in the head of the snorkel make a bit more of an influence than the diameter of the pipe?

Andy


Re the rear bar, you would need a really really short drawbar for the wheel carrier to hit anything.

Originally Posted by discowhite

just remember that this was built in my shed with only a 4'' grinder a 170amp mig a 1/2 battery drill and a spray gun. i dont have access to the fabrication equipment the likes of kaymar/arb ect have, all i try and do is build a very reasonably priced pice of gear that will not break and suits the purpose for which its built.

cheers phil

The quality, craftmanship and practicality in this rear bar is seccond to none. Even if you see it mounted to the car at the show on sunday, you wont be able to see the internal bracing that phill has put in, and all the chassis pickup points. (The car has more chance of bending in the middle than the bar bending). Phill is a perfectionist, which is why i begged him to build this for us.

Thankyou mate, I only wish you could do the production versions, not only the prototypes.

Andy

They both look really good Andy, job well done!

And I know they aren't for sale yet, but I will put my name up again for one of the snorkels anyway! The head would be nice if it was the style that wraps around onto the top of the windscreen glass... like the newer airtech (I think) ones.

And really man, you think you got a bald patch??? I'll show you a properly bred and trained one at the Expo.

Originally Posted by DT-P38

The head would be nice if it was the style that wraps around onto the top of the windscreen glass... like the newer airtech (I think) ones.

I had heard they had a few problems in deep holes where the water splashes up the windscreen (rare but it does happen) & then right into the air intake.

And really man, you think you got a bald patch??? I'll show you a properly bred and trained one at the Expo.

I'll see yours & raise you another !!

If my head was in that photo, the flash bounceback would have obliterated everything.