hi
If the 3 inch pipe has a kink or dint would that effect the air flow as in theary it does but in practice yes or not
cheers

what about AIR FLOW over REVS.

wouldn't be that hard to setup an airflow meter and log the voltage over revs.

would be interesting to see MAP over AIRFLOW over REVS.

Its pretty easy to monitor the map sensor pressure output, you can even use a buffered tacho and a cross reference table, however the measuring of the actual flow would probably require the purchase of a seperate device.

Good work though.

If I had a MAF sitting around Id hook it up and see what the airflow was. The results wouldnt be any different but it would be nice to know how many CFM restriction something was.

Then again if I had a MAF I could rig up a hobo flow bench and just flow test each setup.

Anyone have an old 55mm MAF they want to donate?

hell yeah,... go the hobo flowbench... that would surely set every straight.

True, but nobody seems to have much to say about the results so far. I was expecting to get flamed for posting graphs that suggest that the standard snorkel might be better than the el-gt.

It occured to me that the same datalogs I am using to measure manifold pressures can be used to calculate acceleration, so here are graphs showing just that...





There really isnt much between the snorkels, but the 3" pipe is looking better. I did some rough calculations and it looks like the 3" pipe would have averaged 1/10s better on the 0-100 compared to the standard ef pipe (3" pipe was also about 0.015 quicker than the open TB).

Awesome stuff.

With a bit more testing we might be able to figure out the ultimate intake setup.

be good to see a test with an EL/AU intake pipe and airbox lid. i remember reading somewhere jim mock saying the ef twin pipes are better?

Great work stockstandard !!
Finally some hard data do dispell the myth of instantly getting better flow by discarding the standard intake system.
As you say there is very little difference between the standard intake and the 3"inch mandrel bend.
The plots look almost identical, with the 3" pipe moving aprox 250 rpm further up the revband.
Even though your accelaration calculations shows a slight edge to the 3" pipe .... in real world terms I wonder if it would really be noticable though.
I for one will be keeping my standard EF intake

I do have one question though .... on my EF XR6 the airbox lid has a bell mouth/venturi intake .... is this the same for normal EF's or only XR6's?

you mentioned the the strangeness at about 4750 where the 3 inch pipe drops off and the EF twin picks up a bit.

i noticed the ef twin has resonator on it, much like the V8 'dog turd'.
if you are not going to keep the ef twin it would be interesting to see the difference between the stock ef twin and the ef twin with the resonator blocked off

i didn't think we needed an other thread on this so thought i would just post it here.


did an experiment with the stock EF intake and a paper filter vs: 3 inch intake and a K&N filter. it wasn't %100 fair becuase the K&N hadn't been cleaned in about 12 months but here is what was done and the outcome.

it was a fuel economy test, i had some long distance trip to do over the last few weekends. both were about 400km.

so filled up with BP 98 octane feul because my car pings on anything less. (well it pings on 98 too but thats another story)

the stock intake and paper filter returned 11km/L
the 3inch intake and K&N filter returned 12.5 km/L
for a 65L tank that about 97km difference.

both of these test were done with the cruise control ON cruising at 110km/h only slowing back to 100 for some tighter bends and hills.
the posted limmit on that road is 110km/h except on the tighter bends and hills when it drops back to 100km/h

hi
yeah good one only reenforcing the mods I have done
cheers

hi
yeah good one only reenforcing the mods I have done
cheers