Mangahelic testing for the stock air box!!
12-09-03, 10:14 PM
#1
Mangahelic testing for the stock air box!!
Ok well some of you may know that I make intakes for FC's and I have an N/a model done and a TII model in the works. Among temperature drop, Horsepower gain, and the cool noise 
that a Cone filter intake gives you it also is suppossed to lower the restriction in the intake. But how much restriction does it have stock??? well noone really knows.
UNTIL NOW
Well A while back I was doing reaserch for testing the cold air intake I make and I came up with three basic types of tests: HP, Temp, and Inches of Water << Which is used for measuring restriction in an intake or anything else. The first two are already done or in the near future will be done. I have some problems with the test car at the moment so I am not going to waste money on the dynomometer yet but hell thats another story. The temp logs are available at the website which you all can visit if you follow the link in my sig.
A while back me and a friend were told about magnehelic measuring devices. My friend Wankel7 went ahead and purchased a guage specifically used to measure in inches of water.
Shown above is a nice pic of the guage itself which is a rather large peice. Roughtly about the size of the FC's tach I would guestimate.
And here is the proud owner of the guage happily displaying his prized measuring instrument.
We took my FC with a 99% stock intake. The only thing is that I don't have the air pump hooked up or much anything else lol!. But it goes from the stock snorkle to the stock connector to the stock botx lid to the Fram filter with ~4-5k miles on it to an S4 AFM through the stock rubber hose to an unmodded elbow with a NON ported intake manifilold TOP and Bottom. And this is on a NON-ported engine. Its as close to stock as you can get without emmissions.
HOW WE HOOKED IT UP:
James just used his dremmel to make a small hole large enough for a hose barb connector to hook up his HOSE TECHNIQUES silicone line to. We routed the line through an existing hole in the firewall and into the passenger cabin.
Here is a shot of the hose barb and the rest of the line and guage.
After that it was off to the highway to get some nice pulls at WOT with it hooked up to properly see the amount it would read under load at highway speed with the intake fully working.
Kinda blurry but hell it was going kinda fast.
Well here is what we got:
DATA
These are third gear pulls Reading from 3k rpms to S4 N/a redline which is 7k rpms. We descided that before 3k rpms it doesn't really matter what is going on because no one races a car at that low an RPM.
The first Pull we did was on a bit of a down grade with a left turn close to redline.
3k- 3" of water
4K- 4" of water
5k- 7" of water
6k- 8" of water
7k- 9.5" of water
Second Pull was level untill about 6krpms at which we took a hill.
3k- 3" of water
4K- 4.9" of water
5k- 7" of water
6k- 9.5" of water
7k- 10.5" of water
Third Pull Was fairly level as I remember it.
3k- 3" of water
4K- 4.2" of water
5k- 7" of water
6k- 8.5" of water
7k- 9.8" of water
These were all conducted on a fairly cool night ~70* F
The Last pull. WITHOUT A FILTER
Same as before we took it out for ONE pull as I didn't want to risk a hamster falling into my AFM or TB.
3k- 1" of water
4K- 2" of water
5k- 3" of water
6k- 4.2" of water
7k- 5.1" of water
Now this tells us that basically half the restriction in the stock intake up to the rubber hose is the filter itself. The other half is well obviously the stock intake tract. Soon I hope to get the CAI tested with the same setup on the same stretch of highway to see what we get on the Guage.
Enjoy the numbers.
Santiago
NOTE this is reall testing with a guage ment for this type of measurement and not some vaccume guage.
that a Cone filter intake gives you it also is suppossed to lower the restriction in the intake. But how much restriction does it have stock??? well noone really knows. UNTIL NOW
Well A while back I was doing reaserch for testing the cold air intake I make and I came up with three basic types of tests: HP, Temp, and Inches of Water << Which is used for measuring restriction in an intake or anything else. The first two are already done or in the near future will be done. I have some problems with the test car at the moment so I am not going to waste money on the dynomometer yet but hell thats another story. The temp logs are available at the website which you all can visit if you follow the link in my sig.
A while back me and a friend were told about magnehelic measuring devices. My friend Wankel7 went ahead and purchased a guage specifically used to measure in inches of water.
Shown above is a nice pic of the guage itself which is a rather large peice. Roughtly about the size of the FC's tach I would guestimate.
And here is the proud owner of the guage happily displaying his prized measuring instrument.
We took my FC with a 99% stock intake. The only thing is that I don't have the air pump hooked up or much anything else lol!. But it goes from the stock snorkle to the stock connector to the stock botx lid to the Fram filter with ~4-5k miles on it to an S4 AFM through the stock rubber hose to an unmodded elbow with a NON ported intake manifilold TOP and Bottom. And this is on a NON-ported engine. Its as close to stock as you can get without emmissions.
HOW WE HOOKED IT UP:
James just used his dremmel to make a small hole large enough for a hose barb connector to hook up his HOSE TECHNIQUES silicone line to. We routed the line through an existing hole in the firewall and into the passenger cabin.
Here is a shot of the hose barb and the rest of the line and guage.
After that it was off to the highway to get some nice pulls at WOT with it hooked up to properly see the amount it would read under load at highway speed with the intake fully working.
Kinda blurry but hell it was going kinda fast.
Well here is what we got:
DATA
These are third gear pulls Reading from 3k rpms to S4 N/a redline which is 7k rpms. We descided that before 3k rpms it doesn't really matter what is going on because no one races a car at that low an RPM.
The first Pull we did was on a bit of a down grade with a left turn close to redline.
3k- 3" of water
4K- 4" of water
5k- 7" of water
6k- 8" of water
7k- 9.5" of water
Second Pull was level untill about 6krpms at which we took a hill.
3k- 3" of water
4K- 4.9" of water
5k- 7" of water
6k- 9.5" of water
7k- 10.5" of water
Third Pull Was fairly level as I remember it.
3k- 3" of water
4K- 4.2" of water
5k- 7" of water
6k- 8.5" of water
7k- 9.8" of water
These were all conducted on a fairly cool night ~70* F
The Last pull. WITHOUT A FILTER
Same as before we took it out for ONE pull as I didn't want to risk a hamster falling into my AFM or TB.
3k- 1" of water
4K- 2" of water
5k- 3" of water
6k- 4.2" of water
7k- 5.1" of water
Now this tells us that basically half the restriction in the stock intake up to the rubber hose is the filter itself. The other half is well obviously the stock intake tract. Soon I hope to get the CAI tested with the same setup on the same stretch of highway to see what we get on the Guage.
Enjoy the numbers.
Santiago
NOTE this is reall testing with a guage ment for this type of measurement and not some vaccume guage.
Last edited by 1987RX7guy; 12-09-03 at 10:44 PM.
12-09-03, 11:10 PM
#3
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Those are very surprising numbers. In every other test of a stock airbox (all in different types of cars) the filter accounted for a very small percentage of the total restriction, and was usually around 1inH2O. The FC's filter is a good size and is constructed like most other paper filters.
Were all of the tests done at constant WOT? Was the no-filter test done in exactly the same manner as the with-filter tests?
Were all of the tests done at constant WOT? Was the no-filter test done in exactly the same manner as the with-filter tests?
Last edited by NZConvertible; 12-09-03 at 11:20 PM.
12-09-03, 11:16 PM
#5
Haven't we ALL heard this
Yes, after we did a turn around on the highway we stopped on the side of the road way. Took the filter out and did a run.
The only thing that concerns me on the testing is the size of the hose we used. It was small hose that was to be used for the washer fluid lines that came with my silicone hose kit.
However, I really do not think that would be a factor. Also, the numbers are not so important. I would consider the difference between the filter/no filter more important. Interested in thoughts on that.
Just for giggles we did a run in my 95 GMC Jimmy with a 4.3 V6. It did only 3" of Water at WOT near redline (5000ish). This time we put the hose right after the filter element.
James
The only thing that concerns me on the testing is the size of the hose we used. It was small hose that was to be used for the washer fluid lines that came with my silicone hose kit.
However, I really do not think that would be a factor. Also, the numbers are not so important. I would consider the difference between the filter/no filter more important. Interested in thoughts on that.
Just for giggles we did a run in my 95 GMC Jimmy with a 4.3 V6. It did only 3" of Water at WOT near redline (5000ish). This time we put the hose right after the filter element.
James
Trending Topics
12-10-03, 12:00 AM
#10
Haven't we ALL heard this
And for those of you that are like.....WTF is a magnehelic gauge and why should care?
Read this autospeed artical for the skinny.
http://www.autospeed.com/A_0629/page1.html
James
Read this autospeed artical for the skinny.
http://www.autospeed.com/A_0629/page1.html
James
12-10-03, 12:04 AM
#11
accept no imitations™
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: san francisco
Posts: 2,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Wankel7
The first three runs are with a stock Fram filter.
James
The first three runs are with a stock Fram filter.
James
12-10-03, 04:05 AM
#15
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Wankel7
Just for comparassion NZ what are some " of Water numbers from other cars?
Just for comparassion NZ what are some " of Water numbers from other cars?
Audi S4 (2.2L turbo, 30inH2O)
Holden Commodore (3.0L turbo, 30inH2O)
Mazda MX-5 (1.6L, 15inH2O)
Subaru WRX (2.0L turbo, 51inH2O) [need to subscribe]
Nissan Maxima (2.0L turbo, 30inH2O) [need to subscribe]
All of these intake systems where substantially improved by using pressure testing at various points along the system to find where the restrictions were. In every case the filter in the stock airbox caused about 1inH2O pressure drop. All used OEM filters, not aftermarket replacements like the Fram used here or aftermarket "performance" filters like K&N.
Perhaps Fram filters are just really bad. Try repeating the test with a new filter from Mazda.
12-10-03, 10:52 AM
#17
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to see the numbers for the K&N drop-in.
These filters are supposed to be (advertised) as low restriction filters designed to increase the available air flow, and therefore HP!
These filters are supposed to be (advertised) as low restriction filters designed to increase the available air flow, and therefore HP!
12-10-03, 11:02 AM
#18
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Wankel7
The only thing that concerns me on the testing is the size of the hose we used. It was small hose that was to be used for the washer fluid lines that came with my silicone hose kit.
James
The only thing that concerns me on the testing is the size of the hose we used. It was small hose that was to be used for the washer fluid lines that came with my silicone hose kit.
James
Just be sure that the hose does not get pinched somewhere between the intake and the gauge as it goes through the firewall.
With all of this 'imperical' data we may finally know whether the infamous 'cold air box' really IS worth the trouble!
Great begining guys!
12-10-03, 11:29 AM
#19
Unfortunately I don't own an OE filter. But I guess I can make a little trip to the dealer. But that won't be for a good while guys since they will probably want a lot of green for that crap. But probably after next week.
Santiago
Santiago
12-10-03, 01:02 PM
#20
Former Moderator. RIP Icemark.
its just the Fram is probably one of the worst air filters for flow out there, and at 5K miles probably all clogged up and useless.
Your numbers kinda say the same exact thing.
Your numbers kinda say the same exact thing.
12-10-03, 01:35 PM
#21
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by asherwood
I'd like to see the numbers for the K&N drop-in.
These filters are supposed to be (advertised) as low restriction filters designed to increase the available air flow, and therefore HP!
I'd like to see the numbers for the K&N drop-in.
These filters are supposed to be (advertised) as low restriction filters designed to increase the available air flow, and therefore HP!
12-10-03, 03:39 PM
#22
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by NZConvertible
Unless to are doing it to save money in the long term (and it takes several years to become economically viable), K&N (and other) drop-in filters are pointless. As all the tests I posted show, the actual filter only causes a tiny fraction of the total restriction in the intake system, between 2-6% on those cars. Even if a K&N filter has half of the restriction of a stock filter, the overall reduction in restriction through the intake system is going to be negligible.
Unless to are doing it to save money in the long term (and it takes several years to become economically viable), K&N (and other) drop-in filters are pointless. As all the tests I posted show, the actual filter only causes a tiny fraction of the total restriction in the intake system, between 2-6% on those cars. Even if a K&N filter has half of the restriction of a stock filter, the overall reduction in restriction through the intake system is going to be negligible.
With this in mind, I would rather have a K&N that gives me 'negligible' restriction versus a 100% increase!
Add to this that at the price I paid versus the cost of a genuine Mazda filter the K&N starts saving me money by the second cleaning.
Santiago, I think that most of us would still like to see the numbers for a freshly cleaned K&N
12-10-03, 04:07 PM
#23
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by asherwood
I here some of what you say, however the pressures listed above for the Fram drop-in would support the fact that a poor flowing filter would account for approximatly a 100% increase in flow restriction!
I here some of what you say, however the pressures listed above for the Fram drop-in would support the fact that a poor flowing filter would account for approximatly a 100% increase in flow restriction!
Add to this that at the price I paid versus the cost of a genuine Mazda filter the K&N starts saving me money by the second cleaning.
12-10-03, 07:09 PM
#24
Back from teh deadly!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Louisville KY 40299
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my 2 cents, but if you all want to see all these test results using different filters, why dont you send some money his way?
If it really mattered to me, I know I would.
If it really mattered to me, I know I would.
12-10-03, 07:15 PM
#25
Originally posted by Icemark
its just the Fram is probably one of the worst air filters for flow out there, and at 5K miles probably all clogged up and useless.
Your numbers kinda say the same exact thing.
its just the Fram is probably one of the worst air filters for flow out there, and at 5K miles probably all clogged up and useless.
Your numbers kinda say the same exact thing.
When we took it out it wasn't clogged up at all. It looked close to new. Given other brands are not available here for stock replacement I used Fram(other than going to a dealer). I would like to see any data to support your claim that Fram is the worst out there. I was reading up on the Racing Beat catalog and they ALSO recommend Fram oil filter's when using their filter relocation kits. Which directly contradicts all that you have said in the past about Fram being crap. I just don't see them being wrong since they have been testing a lot since way back before I was even born so I would put my trust heavily on them since they have serious experience in various racing classes and they did do the land speed runs with their 7's. Anyways if you can show us that data it would be great help to us. James said that he is going to bring the K&N drop in from home when he comes back from his hanuka vacation. We will have addittions to this thread when that happens.
At the moment I am still trying to find the problems with my hesitating but I think I am going to set up my CAI again and test that when I find someone to write down the results while I drive.
Santiago