Ram Air Intake Scoop on Hood
03-04-04, 08:18 PM
#76
Super Snuggles
Originally posted by ZeroBanger
it looks like my old thread from about a year and a half ago was deleted, but I did extensive testing at the drag strip and the short story is I found that by ramming air under the car into both the M2/rx7fashion cold air box and the stock air box in both instances I gained a consistent 5-6 mph on the trap. This was done using averages from about 60 runs at the strip.
it looks like my old thread from about a year and a half ago was deleted, but I did extensive testing at the drag strip and the short story is I found that by ramming air under the car into both the M2/rx7fashion cold air box and the stock air box in both instances I gained a consistent 5-6 mph on the trap. This was done using averages from about 60 runs at the strip.
Let's say you've got a 3,000 lb. car with a manual transmission (~15% drivetrain losses). With a trap speed of 102 mph, that's equivalent to about 255 horsepower at the flywheel. Sound familiar? To increase trap speed to 107-108 mph, though, you'd need 294-302 horsepower at the flywheel, or another 39-47 horsepower. In other words, you couldn't pick up 5-6 mph in trap speed on even a stock FD just by "ramming" air into the air box.
Let's take the same car and calculate the horsepower required for a 117 mph trap speed. Oddly enough, it works out to just about 325 at the rear wheels, or ~384 at the flywheel, which corresponds very closely to the dyno results and trap speed of my friend's R2. What would it take to increase trap speed by 5-6 mph? 435-445 horsepower at the flywheel. Once again, you're not going to manage that with just a "ram air" intake.
03-04-04, 10:13 PM
#77
Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Central Carolina
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
these aren't the greatest scans. but i found it interesting.
http://www.geocities.com/s0ulrane/pics/rx7scan3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/s0ulrane/pics/rx7scan4.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/s0ulrane/pics/rx7scan3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/s0ulrane/pics/rx7scan4.jpg
03-05-04, 12:36 AM
#78
Rotary Optimist
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by wrparrish
these aren't the greatest scans. but i found it interesting.
http://www.geocities.com/s0ulrane/pics/rx7scan3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/s0ulrane/pics/rx7scan4.jpg
these aren't the greatest scans. but i found it interesting.
http://www.geocities.com/s0ulrane/pics/rx7scan3.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/s0ulrane/pics/rx7scan4.jpg
03-05-04, 09:29 AM
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: nj
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-05-04, 09:40 AM
#80
Rotary Enthusiast
TURBO INLET PRESSURE EFFECT
increasing inlet pressure, for a fixed boost, will reduce the pressure ratio, make the turbo work less at lower rpm with less pumping losses, reduce manifold temps, and reduce exh dilution of the intake charge.
this is not a big effect.
this link is to an excel spreddsheet that i've checked and corrected. this shows the effect of pressure drop in the intake on the charge temp and the mass flow rate. it does not account for slight changes in the compressor efficiency. it does not consider exhaust effects.
just vary the the intake pressure drop in the far right rpm column, and see effects on intake temp and the TMf, or theoretical mass flow. drop of zero means atmospheric, and -.5 means a ram effect pressure of .5 psi 'boost' at the turbo inlet.
fyi, in the prior posted motorcycle link, 30 mbar is .44 psi.
http://johnbaas.dyndns.org/audi/VE.xls
increasing inlet pressure, for a fixed boost, will reduce the pressure ratio, make the turbo work less at lower rpm with less pumping losses, reduce manifold temps, and reduce exh dilution of the intake charge.
this is not a big effect.
this link is to an excel spreddsheet that i've checked and corrected. this shows the effect of pressure drop in the intake on the charge temp and the mass flow rate. it does not account for slight changes in the compressor efficiency. it does not consider exhaust effects.
just vary the the intake pressure drop in the far right rpm column, and see effects on intake temp and the TMf, or theoretical mass flow. drop of zero means atmospheric, and -.5 means a ram effect pressure of .5 psi 'boost' at the turbo inlet.
fyi, in the prior posted motorcycle link, 30 mbar is .44 psi.
http://johnbaas.dyndns.org/audi/VE.xls
03-05-04, 09:55 AM
#81
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Buckhead
Posts: 3,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jimlab
And what else did you change to get the rest of the horsepower responsible for that increase in trap speed?
Let's say you've got a 3,000 lb. car with a manual transmission (~15% drivetrain losses). With a trap speed of 102 mph, that's equivalent to about 255 horsepower at the flywheel. Sound familiar? To increase trap speed to 107-108 mph, though, you'd need 294-302 horsepower at the flywheel, or another 39-47 horsepower. In other words, you couldn't pick up 5-6 mph in trap speed on even a stock FD just by "ramming" air into the air box.
Let's take the same car and calculate the horsepower required for a 117 mph trap speed. Oddly enough, it works out to just about 325 at the rear wheels, or ~384 at the flywheel, which corresponds very closely to the dyno results and trap speed of my friend's R2. What would it take to increase trap speed by 5-6 mph? 435-445 horsepower at the flywheel. Once again, you're not going to manage that with just a "ram air" intake.
And what else did you change to get the rest of the horsepower responsible for that increase in trap speed?
Let's say you've got a 3,000 lb. car with a manual transmission (~15% drivetrain losses). With a trap speed of 102 mph, that's equivalent to about 255 horsepower at the flywheel. Sound familiar? To increase trap speed to 107-108 mph, though, you'd need 294-302 horsepower at the flywheel, or another 39-47 horsepower. In other words, you couldn't pick up 5-6 mph in trap speed on even a stock FD just by "ramming" air into the air box.
Let's take the same car and calculate the horsepower required for a 117 mph trap speed. Oddly enough, it works out to just about 325 at the rear wheels, or ~384 at the flywheel, which corresponds very closely to the dyno results and trap speed of my friend's R2. What would it take to increase trap speed by 5-6 mph? 435-445 horsepower at the flywheel. Once again, you're not going to manage that with just a "ram air" intake.
I didn't make any changes when I did the tests. I dont have my data with me at the moment but the first comparisions were with stock air box, highflow cat, catback, power FC, small SMIC only. First runs were done with stock air box with K & N filter. The next set of runs were identical with a ram air going into the bottom of that box. The gain was 3-4 MPH on the trap consistent.
The 2nd set of tests over the next few months were done with an rx-7 fasion air box and midpipe, everything else the same as above. The initial test over the first month or so had no ram air. My trap actually dropped over what my trap was with the highflow cat and ram air in the stock air box.
The next set of tests were done with the same setup but a ram air into the bottom of the rx7fasion cold air box, this was done over a month or 2. The result was 4-5 MPH average over the same setup without the ram air.
03-05-04, 12:51 PM
#82
2/4 wheel cornering fiend
Originally posted by DamonB
That's why stock cars for instance plumb their intake to the base of the windsheild...
That's why stock cars for instance plumb their intake to the base of the windsheild...
Fact is you can get high pressure air anywhere you wish on a moving car. The vehicle is moving through the air at some velocity and so the air in relation to the vehicle is moving at the same velocity IF you bring your ram air from outside the boundary layer of the vehicle.
I guess "wacky" may be a rather harsh adjective (seeing as how F1 cars use a vertical intake positioned above the driver's cockpit), but I was envisioning the same sort of duct protruding out of an FD hood. Yes, you can get high pressure zones anywhere you want, but in order to realize the maximum benefits of ram-air, you need a clean, uninterrupted flow of air (and at least some intake/airbox design) to prevent a lot of the niggling problems that occur from using airflow to pressurize the intake area. And...
The nose generally has the cleanest air; that's a given.
03-05-04, 02:47 PM
#83
Super Snuggles
Originally posted by ZeroBanger
Jim,
I didn't make any changes when I did the tests. I dont have my data with me at the moment but the first comparisions were with stock air box, highflow cat, catback, power FC, small SMIC only. First runs were done with stock air box with K & N filter. The next set of runs were identical with a ram air going into the bottom of that box. The gain was 3-4 MPH on the trap consistent.
The 2nd set of tests over the next few months were done with an rx-7 fasion air box and midpipe, everything else the same as above. The initial test over the first month or so had no ram air. My trap actually dropped over what my trap was with the highflow cat and ram air in the stock air box.
The next set of tests were done with the same setup but a ram air into the bottom of the rx7fasion cold air box, this was done over a month or 2. The result was 4-5 MPH average over the same setup without the ram air.
Jim,
I didn't make any changes when I did the tests. I dont have my data with me at the moment but the first comparisions were with stock air box, highflow cat, catback, power FC, small SMIC only. First runs were done with stock air box with K & N filter. The next set of runs were identical with a ram air going into the bottom of that box. The gain was 3-4 MPH on the trap consistent.
The 2nd set of tests over the next few months were done with an rx-7 fasion air box and midpipe, everything else the same as above. The initial test over the first month or so had no ram air. My trap actually dropped over what my trap was with the highflow cat and ram air in the stock air box.
The next set of tests were done with the same setup but a ram air into the bottom of the rx7fasion cold air box, this was done over a month or 2. The result was 4-5 MPH average over the same setup without the ram air.
Facts are facts... you can't pick up 5-6 mph (or even 3-4) in trap speed in back to back testing with only the addition of a hose to the air box from the front of the car.
03-05-04, 03:24 PM
#84
Originally posted by jimlab
In other words, track and weather conditions certainly varied and there was no data collected about engine coolant or oil temperature during runs, so there was no baseline and basically it's all worthless data.
Facts are facts... you can't pick up 5-6 mph (or even 3-4) in trap speed in back to back testing with only the addition of a hose to the air box from the front of the car.
In other words, track and weather conditions certainly varied and there was no data collected about engine coolant or oil temperature during runs, so there was no baseline and basically it's all worthless data.
Facts are facts... you can't pick up 5-6 mph (or even 3-4) in trap speed in back to back testing with only the addition of a hose to the air box from the front of the car.
The RX7 Fashion airbox is less restritive than stock. This test proves that the engine can and will accept more air than the aftermarket box will allow, without additional pressure feeding the box.
ZB's test cannot not be discounted as irrelevant.
03-05-04, 03:40 PM
#86
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Buckhead
Posts: 3,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by adam c
I thinks ZB's tests are very helpfull. It shows that bringing additional air into the airbox increases your trap time in the 1/4 mile. An obvious HP gain. How much, I cannot say.
The RX7 Fashion airbox is less restritive than stock. This test proves that the engine can and will accept more air than the aftermarket box will allow, without additional pressure feeding the box.
ZB's test cannot not be discounted as irrelevant.
I thinks ZB's tests are very helpfull. It shows that bringing additional air into the airbox increases your trap time in the 1/4 mile. An obvious HP gain. How much, I cannot say.
The RX7 Fashion airbox is less restritive than stock. This test proves that the engine can and will accept more air than the aftermarket box will allow, without additional pressure feeding the box.
ZB's test cannot not be discounted as irrelevant.
Thanks for the support, JimLab just likes to argue.
Last edited by ZeroBanger; 03-05-04 at 03:59 PM.
03-05-04, 03:56 PM
#87
Rotary Optimist
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: San Clemente, CA
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by ZeroBanger
You can be discounted as irrelevant. Like I said, I took averages over many months of testing. You can relate it to what ever you want but when I have the ram air I consistently had the higher trap speed than when I didn't. Your opinion is just an opinion. My tests were done well and any reasonable person would understand it.
You can be discounted as irrelevant. Like I said, I took averages over many months of testing. You can relate it to what ever you want but when I have the ram air I consistently had the higher trap speed than when I didn't. Your opinion is just an opinion. My tests were done well and any reasonable person would understand it.
Unfortunately, without evidence of apples to apples tests, your claimed results will be subject to criticism and/or doubt.
03-05-04, 03:57 PM
#88
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Buckhead
Posts: 3,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by FD Seeker
I think adam's last line "cannot not be" was a mistake. I think he was supporting you.
Unfortunately, without evidence of apples to apples tests, your claimed results will be subject to criticism and/or doubt.
I think adam's last line "cannot not be" was a mistake. I think he was supporting you.
Unfortunately, without evidence of apples to apples tests, your claimed results will be subject to criticism and/or doubt.
03-05-04, 03:58 PM
#89
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Buckhead
Posts: 3,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jimlab
In other words, track and weather conditions certainly varied and there was no data collected about engine coolant or oil temperature during runs, so there was no baseline and basically it's all worthless data.
Facts are facts... you can't pick up 5-6 mph (or even 3-4) in trap speed in back to back testing with only the addition of a hose to the air box from the front of the car.
In other words, track and weather conditions certainly varied and there was no data collected about engine coolant or oil temperature during runs, so there was no baseline and basically it's all worthless data.
Facts are facts... you can't pick up 5-6 mph (or even 3-4) in trap speed in back to back testing with only the addition of a hose to the air box from the front of the car.
03-05-04, 04:07 PM
#91
Rotary Enthusiast
Originally posted by ZeroBanger
I didn't make any changes when I did the tests. I dont have my data with me at the moment but the first comparisions were with stock air box, highflow cat, catback, power FC, small SMIC only. First runs were done with stock air box with K & N filter. The next set of runs were identical with a ram air going into the bottom of that box. The gain was 3-4 MPH on the trap consistent.
I didn't make any changes when I did the tests. I dont have my data with me at the moment but the first comparisions were with stock air box, highflow cat, catback, power FC, small SMIC only. First runs were done with stock air box with K & N filter. The next set of runs were identical with a ram air going into the bottom of that box. The gain was 3-4 MPH on the trap consistent.
03-05-04, 09:03 PM
#92
Super Snuggles
Originally posted by ZeroBanger
Like I said, I took averages over many months of testing. You can relate it to what ever you want but when I have the ram air I consistently had the higher trap speed than when I didn't. Your opinion is just an opinion. My tests were done well and any reasonable person would understand it.
Like I said, I took averages over many months of testing. You can relate it to what ever you want but when I have the ram air I consistently had the higher trap speed than when I didn't. Your opinion is just an opinion. My tests were done well and any reasonable person would understand it.
Your "tests" mean jack ****. Go back to posting in the lounge.
03-05-04, 09:05 PM
#93
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Buckhead
Posts: 3,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jimlab
Any intelligent person would understand that the difference in track conditions, temperature, humidity, tire condition, the heat of your engine, or the amount of gas in your tank could skew the results... I guess you're not one of them.
Your "tests" mean jack ****. Go back to posting in the lounge.
Any intelligent person would understand that the difference in track conditions, temperature, humidity, tire condition, the heat of your engine, or the amount of gas in your tank could skew the results... I guess you're not one of them.
Your "tests" mean jack ****. Go back to posting in the lounge.
03-05-04, 09:05 PM
#94
Full Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another autospeed article on where to mount your intake.
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_1023/article.html
Unfortunately, this one requires a subscription.
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_1023/article.html
Unfortunately, this one requires a subscription.
03-05-04, 09:06 PM
#95
Super Snuggles
Originally posted by KevinK2
The stock box inlet elbo is very restrictive. I measured about 1.2 psi of vacuum at 6K+ in the box on a stock FD, with no filter in place. This may have been the biggest factor in your stock box testing.
The stock box inlet elbo is very restrictive. I measured about 1.2 psi of vacuum at 6K+ in the box on a stock FD, with no filter in place. This may have been the biggest factor in your stock box testing.
I'm still waiting for someone to mount a boost sensor on their bumper or hood and show me they can achieve 1 psi to add on to the 10 psi their turbos are producing...
03-05-04, 09:14 PM
#96
Super Snuggles
Originally posted by ZeroBanger
My tests are valid, Im certain of it.
My tests are valid, Im certain of it.
What part of your "tests" do you believe resembles what I've just described? That you went to the same track?
03-05-04, 10:48 PM
#98
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Buckhead
Posts: 3,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Jim Lab is so damn sure of himself he can hand pick someone in northern cali to meet me at the track. I will take 2 towels and stuff the hoses under my car for 2 runs and remove them for the other two.
I will run my water injection so heatsoak will not be an issue.
im very confident of my findings. Put up or shut up Jimlab.
I will run my water injection so heatsoak will not be an issue.
im very confident of my findings. Put up or shut up Jimlab.
03-05-04, 11:12 PM
#99
Super Snuggles
Originally posted by adam c
Statical data is more accurate when a large sample is taken. If ZB was trying to prove his point with only a few samples, you would be correct in questioning him. However, he has a large number of tests which strongly support his conclusion.
Statical data is more accurate when a large sample is taken. If ZB was trying to prove his point with only a few samples, you would be correct in questioning him. However, he has a large number of tests which strongly support his conclusion.
03-05-04, 11:14 PM
#100
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Buckhead
Posts: 3,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jimlab
If his data were collected in controlled conditions, it would support his conclusion. Since it was taken with no baseline, no way of determining if additional weight from fuel or or track conditions affected the outcome, it's useless.
If his data were collected in controlled conditions, it would support his conclusion. Since it was taken with no baseline, no way of determining if additional weight from fuel or or track conditions affected the outcome, it's useless.