ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Induction kit for valver- Is it worth it
- Thread starter JonL
- Start date
Yeah but no one is arguing over whether the ram air system works as in inceasng the manifold pressure as this clearly does work by the number of turbo or super charged cars around. What were arguing is that you cannot increase the manifold pressure by ramming air into it through the forward motion of the car, unless its a correctly designed scoop moving at very high velocity.
Ram air DOES work, but it has to be correctly designed, if it didnt work there would be no such thing as ramjets, but these need to be moving a several times the speed of sound to work, so high speed and correct design are key.
Simon, yep...
Ben, he is absolutely correct, increasing pressure increases density. a turbo does this fine. Putting a bucket in the airflow does not however. Mooney Aircraft have a ramair system, it works at about 150 mph from a carefully designed aerodynamic system in the intake on a small frontal area in the cowl aided by the thrust of the prop - or more correctly by the airflow from the prop and the forward motion. - at speeds ABOVE 150 mph
on a road car, the effect is non existent and the negatives outweigh the benefits.
Many times these old wives tales are made a sort of cult status with no real understandning of what is happening or the scability of such.
Joe.
Well the way I read Nicks posting was that when his scope became disconnected he noticed a loss in performance and his so called A/F metre showed it was running rich, although he was still sucking in air form the wheel arch i.e. cold air, whether the scopes connected or not doesnt effect how cold the air is entering the system. So he is arguing that ram air effects performance, which it doesnt. Hope I didnt come across too rude
Hi Ben, yes.. it is fact that cooler air is denser (more oxygen per cc !!) and this WILL improve power with the correct fueling.
But, unfortunately, Nick is NOT arguing this point. He is saying that the forward motion of the car causes a pressure increas in the inlet manifold by having a forward facing scoop into the airflow...
and that. doesnt work... the cold air is kewl.. long live cold air.. the ram air is in the land of the fairies.
Joe..
Yep, NO pressure change at all, welcome to the wonderful world of physics, doesnt always follow common sense.
We could have some great common sense vs qunatam mechanics arguments on here, lol. Whos heard of the two slit problem, the only true problem in all of exsitence, solve this one and youre god!!
Simply because the turbo is a pump and it is doing work on the air. The blades of the compressor wheel in the turbo push on the air and force it into the engine, thus raising its pressure. Downstream of the turbo is effectivily a pressurised sealed system, think about it when you drive along at 70mph air is pushed into the tube until it creates high enough back pressure to reach equalibrium with the air being forced in, but this pressure is so low it doesnt increase it by anything like enough to effect performance, but this is exactly why ram air does work when you start getting to serious speeds.
I will break my silence on this one just for you Simon. Interesting that you talk of the two slit problem, yes I do know all about it, as a scientist you must also know the principle of Occams Razor? If you dont then look it up. And perhaps consider the idea that an *objective* investigation of an effect would involve changing the theory to fit the results, not the other way round.
All I see is a lot of bluster, desperation to debunk an idea even though you have *zero* evidence that ram air *doesnt* work. But I do accept the onus is on me to prove it works which I believe I have done convincingly. Going back to the principle I talked about above, here are two explanations for the effects seen:
1. Cheapo inaccurate air/fuel ratio meter suddenly decided to go even more inaccurate at exactly the same time that the ram scoop feed got disconnected. Then as soon as I reconnected the scoop feed pipe, the cheapo inaccurate meter went back to its normal inaccuracies and showed the exact same AFR that it always had before the pipe came off.
2. Competition spec Autometer AFR gauge showed a richer mix than usual which turned out to be because the ram scoop feed pipe had come off and the engine was only sucking the same cold air that had previously been rammed in under pressure. Reconnecting the pipe and testing at the same speed and throttle as before showed the AFR dead-on, exactly as it had always been before.
Of course, there are other equally ridiculous hypotheses as number 1 which seems to be the way of Slarty, eg. a gremlin got under the bonnet and adjusted my fuel pressure which made the reading richer, then they adjusted back again at the same time I hooked up my pipe; maybe the ECU just felt like lengthening the usual injector duration at full throttle just for fun? And then changed back again when I put the pipe back on? Come on, dont kid yourselves - its staring you in the face but for some reason which I cannot fathom (stubbornness?) you just cant accept it. The further you dig a hole, the harder it is to get back out.
Even if the meter was as cheapo as has been suggested it really is quite a stretch of the imagination to suggest that the level of inaccuracy would suddenly change at the same time as the ram scoop disconnected, then change back again at exactly the same time as the scoop was connected again. I know my own car and meter readings. Ive been driving and modding it for long enough.
Thats my last word.
Ben M8, what you are actually asking is both valid and also the root of the problem
one needs a source to deliver a result.
You cannot move a box without pushing it or applying pressure or force.
So, if the air is at 14.7 pounds per square inch.. which it is roughly... then the force applied by this air is constant.
A Turbo can apply a greater force (pressure) to the inlet pipe. by order of 1-40 pounds per square inch pressure on a given area over and above the 14.7 psi of normal air.
There is a mechanical link to the pressure delivery.. it uses power !
Now, our infamous ram air is receiving pressure at 14.7 psi.. no more, thats it,.... and the manifold pressure at WOT is 1 bar - ie the same 14.7 psi (in the best case scenario)
What you need to assess and calculate, and in fact comprehend (no offense intended !) is that to increase pressure one needs to do work, the ram air system has to make a change in pressure occur above the pre-existing 14.7 pounds per square inch...
Whare does this come from, ?? it takes energy to produce a change... air rushing along at 40 mph to 80 mph doesnt produce the levels of energy !.
If thae level of compression was possible at normal speeds then the car would go nowhere due to this compressability factor of air..it wouldnt be able to move.
The change in aerodynamics of a simple scoop to a normal front end is probably more detrimental to drag than it is to ram air.. and thats not even considering pulse progression and turbulent layer effects (messed up airflow lol) !
Joe.
please explain.. "doing work on the air" if its moving at the same speeds although the pump will increase the pressure because it wont let air flow back the other way, the pressure will still increase without the pump cause the pressure is still there from the speed your doing... obviously no where near as much but it still has to increase
Indeed Nick,
"We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
or
"The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct"
Although the two slit experiment is fun
makes for good arguments in the pub, lol.It is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. In fact, some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it is that it is unquestionably correct.
Classic quote, lol.
Hi Nick..
ok, here we go..
Quote: Originally posted by Nick Read on 13 October 2002
I will break my silence on this one just for you Simon . Interesting that you talk of the two slit problem, yes I do know all about it, as a scientist you must also know the principle of Occams Razor? If you dont then look it up. And perhaps consider the idea that an *objective* investigation of an effect would involve changing the theory to fit the results, not the other way round. Yes, but this presumes factual proof of concept, not disproval..
All I see is a lot of bluster, desperation to debunk an idea even though you have *zero* evidence that ram air *doesnt* work.
Not following your theory in relation to the above.. but kewl.
But I do accept the onus is on me to prove it works which I believe I have done convincingly. Going back to the principle I talked about above, here are two explanations for the effects seen:
AHA !!.. I love proof !
1. Cheapo inaccurate air/fuel ratio meter suddenly decided to go even more inaccurate at exactly the same time that the ram scoop feed got disconnected.
Nick dood, its either inaccurate or MORE innacurate.. or are you saying that the innacuracies are linear ??... and hence by nature, accurate ??. you talk in riddles of mis-understanding. or is there a part of INNACURATE that you are having a problem with ??
Then as soon as I reconnected the scoop feed pipe, the chepo inaccurate meter went back to its normal inaccuracies and showed the exact same AFR that it always had before the pipe came off.
See above (or See Me lmao... sorry, teacher joke !)
2. Competition spec Autometer (sales bullsh*t mode on !) AFR gauge showed a richer mix than usual which turned out to be because the ram scoop feed pipe had come off and the engine was only sucking the same cold air that had previously been rammed in under pressure. Reconnecting the pipe and testing at the same speed and throttle as before showed the AFR dead-on, exactly as it had always been before.
Of course !!!. the innacuracies are accurate if you know where to look, gadzooks !!!.. the manufacturers MISSED this one. !!.. they could make a fortune.. ABSOLUTE power from this incredibly accurate but non-accurate device.. or is accuracy in the mind of the beholder or mis-interpreter ???.
Of course, there are other equally ridiculous hypotheses as number 1 which seems to be the way of Slarty, eg. a gremlin got under the bonnet and adjusted my fuel pressure which made the reading richer, then they adjusted back again at the same time I hooked up my pipe; maybe the ECU just felt like lengthening the usual injector duration at full throttle just for fun? And then changed back again when I put the pipe back on? Come on, dont kid yourselves - its staring you in the face but for some reason which I cannot fathom (stubbornness?) you just cant accept it. The further you dig a hole, the harder it is to get back out.
See Me again LOL !!..
Even if the meter was as cheapo as has been suggested it really is quite a stretch of the imagination to suggest that the level of inaccuracy would suddenly change at the same time as the ram scoop disconnected, then change back again at exactly the same time as the scoop was connected again. I know my own car and meter readings. Ive been driving and modding it for long enough.
But you are placing your unfound trust in something that a marketting man sold to you ..... you are relying on your meter of all meters to provide the feedback u need.. but the feedback is not accurate, and yet you RELY on it to base your dubious opinions on... ???..
So, lets say Nick buys a blood pressure monitor.. it is accurate to a range of 90 - 130 systolic....
He puts it on his arm and reads 150... it MUST be 150.. cos it says so.. HELLO !! ?????... no, its innacurate..
your arguments appear to support the fact that the lambda lights are accurate or at least repeatable ??.. repeatability is accuracy .... you cant have it both ways dood ??.
They are not accurate or repeatable,
Thats my last word.
Frank Buck fer dat lol... !!!.. seriously Nick. dont base opinions on presumptions.. I know its difficult, but you need to step back and apply your apparantly scientific mind to the root causality and effect.
if nicks meter is inaccurate... and itinaccuracy changes does that not mean there is some relative accuracy still there to judge any differnces from? otherwise it would have no changed....
same as a rolling road , everyone says there inaccurate but we still use them as a change in figures is still an acurrate way of showing mods work...
and NO AN INDUCTION KIT IS NOT WORTH IT ON A VALVER FOR ALL THOSE STILL INTERESTED... we poved that earlier on the lack of cold air front...
allthough ekoteks rule!!
(sorry couldnt resist that one)Yes, probably....
To imply that an innacurate device will read a predictable change is presuming accuracy.. again I must ask (and all public awareness campaigns and warnings as to non intent for whatever you presume follows).... what bit of INNACURATE dont you understand ??
Rolling roads ARE innacurate in a definive sense.. aha ! you say.. so innacuracy in one is acceptable in the other ??.. no I say lol...
The innacuracies in a rolling road are due to specific variables such as tyre pressure, atmospheric pressure and engine state,,, these are outside influences,
A lambda sensr is (unless wideband at about $500- $2000 !) is only reasonably accurate in its defined range (say lambda 1 for this discussion)
the lambda can read round about stoich, but goes totally non linear and NON PREDICTABLE above or below the threshholds.
If you deem to use the device outside of these parameters then you are going to be innacurate.. not...... innacurate in predictable ways as you elude to.. but innacurate.. which surpasses (by the very nature) predictability.
and yes, the ecotec is a pile on the arsehole of tuning that many seem to accept.. preperation H is only good for the results.. not the cause... if you cause the cause you are already pre-ordaining the reaction....
End result.... crap times... even with an estimated but non deleiverable nos shot....
Joe.
I run a K&N induction kit and am fully aware of the downsides associated therewith. I dont actually know this, but can certainly feel that my is less responsive on the rare occasions that I venbture into high temperature environments (like England ha ha!).
My car spends its time primarily a) under a cover in my garage, b) on longish drives in Wales - plenty of "cold" air, and c) never in built up traffic.
So I think Im an example of when an induction kit can be used without downsides - apart from the cost.
I wouldnt bother to spend £80 on a kit unless you really, really crave the roar and hissing. My car came with one already on it and I replaced that as it died and I couldnt get an original air box for less than silly money at the time.
The engine dyno that was done on my car was blowing cold air at it as far as I know, so it will be interesting to find out what power it makes in an engine bay without that benefit. I wish there was a good rolling road near to me in Wales!
erm.. slarty - why do F1 and bikes GP/Superbike constructors bother to create something that is called a "ram air intake"? and why is the frontal area of those intakes limited by some rules?
IMHO - the forced/ram has one benefit... It decreases amount of work needed to "suck" the air into the cylinder... - at WOT a properly constructed forced intake should make a difference...
erm, Maciek m8.. there is a major difference between a superbike and f1 car than a humble clio.... lol.
the forced / ram air doesnt happen at the speeds the humble clio achieves and has not even got the aerodynamic capabilities to offer any benefit at f1 speeds ..
, also, the restriction you refer to is an oraface diameter to restrict total airflow to try to even out performance in formula racing .. not a restiction on any ram air type effect.A Lack of basic knowledge of inlet design on an N/A engine leads to the type of comment you made, and is again the root cause of the lack of acceptance and understanding of the issues.
Intel systems on N/A work on pulse progression, a rapidly occuring high / low pressure in the intake, the low pressure is designed to cause a partial vacuum that progresses the next available charge in a controlled way - ie prepares the charge in the tract for the next intake pulse. It relies on the pressure differential and design of the tract.
Without this understanding I can see why Nick and others cannot comprehend.
The charge is already mass increased due to progression, adding a crappy scoop will bugger this up no end lol...
Why do people add or remove trumpet length (hence perceived restictive areas) to a tb or carb system ??.. easy.. to alter the pulse progression, nothing more, to try to tune it at an optimal range.... why do exhaust systems not have a system to allow a partial vacuum to be applied (by a correctly facing airflow) to the outlet ??... cos it buggers up the design.... Why do camshafts have overlap periods ???.. to assist the overall progression.. why do turbo charged units require a reduction in overlap ?? cos the progression is negated leading to lower initial power prior to a genuine boost etc etc etc..
Answer me this... there is an electric supercharger available, it can flow, say, 350 cfm in free air, if you fit this to your inlet system it will boost your performance yes ?? - so fit 3 and have a real boost....
... nope...
Now, do we want a discussion on the superb electric supercharger for 50 dollars ?
When the automobile and train were invented the prospect of travelling at 30mph or so was enough to convince some scientists that the human body could not breath at those horrendous speeds.......
hmmmm.. about the same level of science that presumes a simple scoop will increase power..
Without a knowledge of the make up of the earth it was presumed it was flat.... again, logical at the time.....
or, how about these other items of history that we have been blessed with (and ALL thorugh lack of understanding and knowledge)
Ecotec valve (More power, better pickup, better economy)
Ram air system on a clio (as above lol)
Earth Straps for cars (Better radio reception and lack of shocks from static electricity)
Magnetic fuel polarisers for economy (Werent they just the best economy device !)
Electric superchargers (Simple, cheap and highly effective... not)
Splitfire spark plugs (Bigger spark MUST equal better burn!)
Indexing of spark plugs (Surely ?? - if the plug electrodes all point the same way the flame front will be equal leading to a smoother delivery of power)
Removing the cat on modern vehicles (Gotta be a restriction and restrictions are always baddddddddd)
Putting an egg in the radiator to seal leaks (Excellent, I always have one with me and the rest of the problems it causes with blockage and overheating are secondary)
Lowering any car to improve handling (It HAS to work hasnt it ??.. the manufacturers got it wrong)
Fitting an induction kit WILL improve power (Cos ALL IK std fittings are bound to be crap !.. the manufacturer spends million on making the car as powerful and as fuel efficient as practical and of course overlooks this simple area where we can ALL improve.
0 - 60 are what makes a car the best - or fastest in the uk - or whatever - (Yep, we all drive in straight lines from a standing start.....)
etc etc etc etc...
I juest want a sensible discussion not comparing work on intake to a Ecotek or magnetizer...
"Intel systems on N/A work on pulse progression, a rapidly occuring high / low pressure in the intake, (...)"""
but doesn;t it all happen AFter the air filter???
"simple scoop will increase power.." i didn;t say that...
i still think that a properly constructed ram air - even using a orginal filer box, with or without socalled performance element
, may have some benefits... and i talked with a owner of a car ( btw. he is not a silly boy - his knowledge is far greater than mine), who measured that above ~80-90mph (only above...) it helps... . His friends racing a megane... and he constructs this...something like "cold air intake" or ram - or whatever to call it. spends a half of a day to do it, but its said to work... but then it;s not a simple scoop.
Captain, whilst I tend to ignore these messages where one person disputes what another is saying I would say one thing. You mention lowering, filters etc are crap because manufacturers would sort it out first time! I would disagree with this, why do Ralyy teams etc go to ITG for their filters, bilstein or whoever for the shox, Garret for a Turbo, AP, Brembo etc for Brakes when, by your logic the Big car manufacturers are know it alls who can do everything themselves????
Explain? Surely noone is an expert in everything, as you tend to suggest often that Car manufacturers (and yourself) often are!
Modern day vehicles are all about compromises, you may have a Subaru that in one form has won a rally but the punter in the street will never use anywhere near that potential. They are more bothered about how much it costs to run, is it easy to break into, how much shopping you can put in it, if the seats fold down.......
A mate of mine worked for Nissan and the maountof paperwork he had to deal with for cost improvements of less than a penny was unbelievable. Big business for these BIG manufacturers.
Suspension on improved vehicles like the latest sprty Clios and Focus: Arent they lowered or revised in some way. Stiffer springs used, bigger brakes??? Why was this not correct first time when the car came out. Captain, everything in life is a learning experience, otherwise people would still refuse to believe change and things do change.
Enuff of all this rubbish, just let people give info on this board on what has worked for them and not poo poo everything that someone may not agree with. Just like chips, one chip does not suit all cars because every car is different, even from the factory at day one. Isnt that called production tolerances. What works for one person may not another! I have found this forum a great help in getting "majority" advice from people, I would never believe one person over another but go with majority thinking unless given evidence that is understandable to a non eng/scientific person why something is different.
Peace!
Captain, whilst I tend to ignore these messages where one person disputes what another is saying I would say one thing. You mention lowering, filters etc are crap because manufacturers would sort it out first time! I would disagree with this, why do Ralyy teams etc go to ITG for their filters, bilstein or whoever for the shox, Garret for a Turbo, AP, Brembo etc for Brakes when, by your logic the Big car manufacturers are know it alls who can do everything themselves????
Well, thats EASY PEASY !!!///.........
ITG.. cos they sponsor them in the form of free goodies.
same for........ Bilstein, or whoever lol.. Garret... AP.... Brembo...... et al... payola !!
and yes, the manufacturers know FAR more than you or I ...
Can you REALLY be so Naive to think otherwise..... r..... perhaps you CAN ???.
What a concept....... !
Joe.
Maciek - youre right. It does work and I have seen the proof myself. Of course in the world of Slart, he had to try and make my results worthless by coming up with some bullsh*t story about inaccurate equipment. Theres no point arguing with warped logic like that...obviously his car is very different from everyone elses...when his fuel gauge says half, it could be almost on empty. The next day when it says half it could be full up.
You see in Slarty-land, errors with equipment can stay perfectly steady and give rock-solid, repeatable readings for a year then suddenly change to a different level of inaccuracy for no reason, then go back to the normal inaccuracy again. The fact that my scoop was disconnected during that exact period when the readings changed is not of any consequence to Slarty - because hes *already decided* what works and what doesnt on the humble Clio. I wonder why, if he has such a low opinion of what can be done with the humble Clio that all of us here drive, doesnt he sell up and get some hairy chested, medallion wearing sports car rather than continue to try and belittle the Clio and anyone who might try and modify it without his approval?
Nothing can be trusted in the world of Slarty and certainly not if its the opinion of just an enthusiast whos actually tried stuff out for real rather than sitting in an armchair reading technical books. All data must be from Renault, or some big manufacturer because of course only they can know whats best for our cars.
Back to the real world now! Cause and effect are important, to anyone with two brain cells to rub together - a richer air/fuel ratio when the ram scoop is disconnected only points to one thing - that extra pressure greater than atmospheric was being supplied by the ram scoop. This is also confirmed by the fact that when the scoop was put back, my meter showed the exact same steady reading that it always had done before. Now of course there is a possibility that it is some other weird effect that made this clear change in the usual amount of air/fuel ratio. But they are so unlikely that they can be ruled out, eg. fuel pressure suddenly increasing then decreasing back to normal, while the scoop was off; an inaccurate meter or lambda sensor suddenly making a change in its inaccuracy level while the scoop was off, then changing back again as soon as the scoop was back on again. Far-fetched as the last idea might seem, it is actually the basis of Slartys poo-pooing of my results!
But for anyone who is still in two minds about the principle of ram air (that a forward facing scoop can channel air into a sealed area and thus pressurise it, and that this effect becomes greater the faster you go), consider this:
People have taken fog lights out and then found that at high speed, say 70mph, their plastic wheelarch sh*tguards suddenly pop out and get run over. It may be that this is a faulty piece of plastic that suddenly decides to pop off of its own accord. Or maybe theres a cause and effect here...high speed air going into a scoop with nowhere to go once its in, causes pressure on the sh*tguard, this popping it off.
Or how about this for all those doubters who say there is no ram-air at low speeds? If you again took out a foglight and attached a limp plastic bag into the opening, secured it airtight around the edge, would you not see the bag puff up at even a fairly low speed? Eventually the speed of the air pressurising the surfaces of the bag would get so great that it would overcome either the strength of the bag (and tear it) or overcome the strength of the adhesive/tape and come unstuck. You might say well yes that will happen but it doesnt take much pressure to puff up a plastic bag...but the point is that Slarty believes that there is no way that a forward facing scoop on a Clio can deliver any kind of pressure above the normal atmospheric.
Self-belief in your ideas is one thing but to try and belittle people and pour unfounded scorn on their ideas when they are just sticking up for the basic laws of physics and their own real observations, is entirely another. And in my view, unacceptable on a public forum. Maybe we should change this site to HumbleCliosport, for people who cant even have faith that their own Clios, with a few mods can be just as good performers as cars costing much much more.
joe, when manufacturers make cars they dont make them to there top spec fastest possible for a reason... reliability!! if the tuned the buggery and slammed everycar to the floor that came out the show room, yes ud have a faster better handling car but not everyone wants that, people want reliable, still powerful (at times) cars that dont get stuck when they approach a speed bump and doesnt need topping with oil and petrol every 100 miles..
hence they bring out the cars as standard thats why people can modify them if they want there cars like that...
its all down to costs.. not everyone wants a super beast and the majority doesnt thats y cars arnt like that when they come out... and if every car was the roads would be far more dangerous as everyone could cane it everywhere!!
car manufactors do know more than us!! and therefore do know also that there cars can be tuned and improved vastly otherwise constuctors would not enter modified cars into racing theyd just enter the standard models if they were that good!!
back to ram air......
think of this ..... blow into a balloon, it goes up ..... pressure!!
put a pipe on the balloon .... still inflates the blowing is still causing PRESSURE
so to release ( MOVE ) this pressure lets put another pipe through the balloon and to a ..... big pink balloon!!
--- so the pressure is still there but it has moved from the first balloon to the second bigger ballon meaning it can now take more pressure.... agreed...
now then..... if we call the person blowing into the first pipe mother nature and the pipe can still be the pipe.... then we call the balloon an air box then the next pipe can still be a pipe.... and the final big pink balloon can be called an engine ..........................................
uh oh.!!!!! PRESSURE FROM THE BLOWING HAS INCREASED IN THE ENGINE!!!
oh boy oh boy what did I do... should have stayed quiet and keep my thoughts for myself
myself im somewhere inbetween your counteropinions... ...it may work, but not always, it is not so easy, so it has to be properly and carefully constructed - meaning trying not to spoil intake characteristics - what was explained by slarty.thats why its worth sh*t to simply fit a cone, but may be worth to make a custom intake (to filterbox if not using Tbodies...)
so please PLEASE don;t start to go aggresive...PLEASE dont go personal... its better for the topic...
lets chill , and come back to the whole thing on next 1/4miles... or simply - try to measure it with an accelerometer (cheaper version...)
at the end of the day me and nick believe ram air works and joe doesnt, so joe will continue to not use it ( not knowing what hes missing http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/tung2.gif ) and me and nick and others will continue to use it......
argueing the points just the fun bit!! http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/roundeyes.gif
plus it give people fors and againsts for the subject and they can decide themselves. http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/thumbs.gif
OMG cant beleive this post got like this and to be honest its a big pile of poo!!!!and i gave up reading most ot it coz it just sounds like a bunch of kids saying my daddy is better then ur daddy nonsense, now im not having a dig at anyone but it seems this forum is getting worse and worse with the constant arguments and sh*t that keep on appearing,
ben and nick
if u beleive it works then do as u will, dont let others put u off what u beleive and u have no reason to try and convince others what u beleive to work or not, sometimes its best to agree to disagree as i dont think slarty will budge on this one.nick just keep on doing what u do ok mate, i think its great what u do to always try to improve ur car.
cap
although your mechanical knowledge is second to none on here its not always good to try to debunk every theory/mod thats tried. if other others disagree then so be-it just let it go. if they think they are getting an increase of performance from what they do then just let them to it. its not your mission on here to disprove every theory and mod that goes on.i mean its doing u no harm is it. if it makes u laugh then laugh but dont make out that ur right all the time.
sometimes i think the cap is a bit naive with things. im sure i read a quote that manufacturers know what there doing best but i think with hot hatches the manufacturer will always try to please the majority.pleasing 10 harcore enthusiasts or pleasing 100000 ppl like the 172 has, think i know which route to take. there if no such thing as a perfect car straight from factory as there always room for improvements. so why are u turboing the 172. think reno knows best and 172 is best how if left france.
on sponsorship theory although yeah it maybe freebie stuff but it must also work and be reliable. most manufacturers will try to save money by sponsorship so they can spend funds elsewhere but if these supplied parts are unreliable or crap and affect there cars performance to please the fans then all the freebies in the world wont help. these branded sponsors work
now my little bit on it on filter side im talking from experience with my own car
IK wicked roar and to be honest thats about it
std airbox makes my car much free reving and pick is much better low down and throughout rev range,yes i agree with the cap that reno prob knew that the clio would run hot under the bay so designed the ind sysytem them way it is.
from what ive seen soo far i beleive the std airbox is best on a 16v but on other cars it must work. why are they std equipment on most evos and scoobies and does the viper filter technology not come from developement on the lotus elise/exige
wongy
hehe nice to see you again Wongy, where you been lately? Ive still got to come round and see what your motors like now its all fixed up.
Maciek - I understand your point of view perfectly - ram air may work under certain conditions, other times maybe not. Even if it does work it may interfere with the induction characteristics that were designed into it by the manufacturers. Thats *all* fine by me, I can accept it. The thing I cant accept is being told that it is *impossible* on my Clio to see any increase in air pressure through ram air. IMHO that is absolute nonsense, like saying if you open the fresh air vents in the car you wont get any fresh air, or that the radiator cant possibly work because youd need to get to 150mph and have it sticking out above the car, before there would be enough airflow.
As Wongy says Ill keep doing what Im doing and Im happy to agree to differ on this, as I was the first time ram air principles came up a few months ago. I just cant accept someone who knows little about my car and specific mods, making out Im some kind of nutcase when I have seen the ram air effect with my own eyes; it may not be perfect, but it does exist.
hee hee..
no Nick,, you are not really some kind of nut case, just dillusional and confused.
Back to the real world now! Cause and effect are important, to anyone with two brain cells to rub together - a richer air/fuel ratio when the ram scoop is disconnected only points to one thing
But young man, you have no way to measure the a/f ratio.....
Self-belief in your ideas is one thing but to try and belittle people and pour unfounded scorn on their ideas when they are just sticking up for the basic laws of physics and their own real observations, is entirely another.
The trouble is Nick, you dont understand these basic laws you talk of...
You appear to know very little about the internal combustion engine or its operating principles, a/f ratio, or indeed, lambda sensors.
air flow in an induction system is dynamic, not static as in your sh*t guard theory, or plastic bag theory. Some people would use or buy any old crap, Nick, you certainly fall into that category big style...
The only thing you seem to quote is Brake HorsePower at the Keyboard.
You have no figures, no proof, no objective tests or results.
run with an ap22 if you are so convinced...
(do it in a controlled way with a non biased driver though lol)ooooooops, no gain, no proof.
Measure this fantastic presuure increase...
ooooooooop. no gain again... no proof again.
If my posts discourage 1 single person from wasting there time and money making there vehicle worse than it was originally then all is fine.
Your opinion on mods and performance in this area is not based on any sense or fact, just on a few cheap toy meters that you place your trust in.
Have fun testing....
