the ph1 airbox has two small air feeds. the v6 has one large air feed. i think the ph1 airbox is probably more restrictive.
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.
RB182: V6 Airbox Fitted
- Thread starter stuart1989
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 182
the ph1 airbox has two small air feeds. the v6 has one large air feed. i think the ph1 airbox is probably more restrictive.
Golf GT & A4 Avant
IMO a caf isn't a bad thing as long as it's not the only source of air into the filter. Best to have it pointing towards the filter area and not directly into it.
I've been playing with my V6 box for ages trying to get the best out of it. Currently I have a small silicone hose approx 150/200mm long on the filter so it draws air directly from behinf the headlight and where the acoustic valve would have been with no CAF.
I've been playing with my V6 box for ages trying to get the best out of it. Currently I have a small silicone hose approx 150/200mm long on the filter so it draws air directly from behinf the headlight and where the acoustic valve would have been with no CAF.
Clio RS 172
2 small but the area are in total bigger than V6...i'ts better 2 small because the pressure remain too high...it's the same case of water...
Golf GT & A4 Avant
But the pressure of the air entering the airbox is so small it may not matter. For better airflow you want less restriction which your more likely to get with the 1 larger feed instead of 2 smaller ones. IMO anyway
R26
Golf GT & A4 Avant
I haven't heard that. I had mine RR'd with CAF from fog going straight into the V6 airbox and the graph shows no flat spots at all. But the car ran better having the CAF pointing towards the airbox and without the CAF at all than it did when the airbox was sealed to the CAF.
have you looked at the jms thread? id say that was pretty conclusive.
Boys, no offence, but a 20bhp gain gets you approx 1-2cars lengths from 40-110mph! So it's safe to say 10bhp would get you even less. Just had a look at the thread. Very impressive. But RR's mean sweet FA in the real world. We used a V6 airbox back in 05 as a back to back comparison against the maxogen, the V6 airbox lost 0.4bhp and the Maxogen gained. 1.2bhp, but lost some torque...I can't remember the figure.
The overall feeling was the maxogen was overpriced but sounded good. The V6 airbox was a cheapy copy which lost power. So the best solution was the oem airbox and a saving of x hundred pounds.
The overall feeling was the maxogen was overpriced but sounded good. The V6 airbox was a cheapy copy which lost power. So the best solution was the oem airbox and a saving of x hundred pounds.
im not gona bite. your opinion, your entitled to it. ive got my own.
R26
Fella, calm down, it's an opinion! Are you really convinced than Renault airbox will give you 10+brake! C'mon now! RR graphs or not. You might be interested in this too then.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/15BHP-Power-M...arts_Vehicles_CarParts_SM?hash=item2eaacb6317
Rolling roads probably wont show exactly what power your car is producing but they will show what difference a mod will make. Im guessing JMS done multiple power runs and didnt just get lucky with an extra 10 bhp on their first run.
Inlets are said to give 10/15 bhp at the best of times and my car (with the inlets matched) went past another members car very easily and the lead kept increasing. So the little 5 or 10 bhp here and there will make a difference.
The spanner in the works is you say the car you tested with the V6 airbox lost power
I think its just going to end up like most things on here and each to their own.
Inlets are said to give 10/15 bhp at the best of times and my car (with the inlets matched) went past another members car very easily and the lead kept increasing. So the little 5 or 10 bhp here and there will make a difference.
The spanner in the works is you say the car you tested with the V6 airbox lost power
I think its just going to end up like most things on here and each to their own.
Right I usually steer well clear of this sort of stuff on the forum as its opinions Vs opinions, keyboard Vs keyboard and as a result there is a lot of unfounded info floating about.
The testing we carried out on the kit was as controlled as is practically possible; usually if it's not 'oh it was done on a different day' or 'oh where are the before figures' then there is another issue, any suggestions as to how we could attain more accurate results?
Nope. Your graph proves a gain. Therefore making it the most marketable product available. And you've covered all the bases as you say.
I just don't believe the gain on paper is reflective on the road fella! Gruppe M, could only extract 8.6bhp from a challenge 360!! So 10+bhp on a 4pot clio just seems...well...optimistic.
I just don't believe the gain on paper is reflective on the road fella! Gruppe M, could only extract 8.6bhp from a challenge 360!! So 10+bhp on a 4pot clio just seems...well...optimistic.
Not really a comparison you can make, ever.
They are so many factors that are involved in the design of an intake system, and I suspect the fezza was in a significantly higher state of tune when standard than the Clio meaning it will inherently be less supceptable to any form of tuning work. If I am honest I am surprised even 8bhp could be extracted from it! From the factory one of the Clios priorities is to keep the sound down, improving on the standard airbox is not hard if you know the rules.
They are so many factors that are involved in the design of an intake system, and I suspect the fezza was in a significantly higher state of tune when standard than the Clio meaning it will inherently be less supceptable to any form of tuning work. If I am honest I am surprised even 8bhp could be extracted from it! From the factory one of the Clios priorities is to keep the sound down, improving on the standard airbox is not hard if you know the rules.
ive written out a response twice and deleted because i can't be arsed. what happend to the new rules and spamming?? i think you've more than justified it tbh.
R26
b/g 182, meg tourer
tom@jms' comments have been interesting and useful to me, and some of ali's comments and views have been valid but i dont want it to become another pointless locked thread. i know it sounds like the same old airbox/induction kit thread, but there are interesting figures here and some people want to read and ask about it.
Look, i appreciate JMS are marketing a product, and I’m not deliberately trying to step on their toes. They seem to be doing good work for the RS's so there's no malice involved. It's just an unbelievable gain for the mod, compared to the same test carried out many moons ago with the opposite result. Bizarre. But if you want the kit, then Tom has proven the gains that all you need to see...
R26
This is the inherent problem with the industry. No one trusts anyone.
There are SO many companies out there, (some closer to home than you might think) that are simply stealing peoples hard earnt money. I have only been working on the RenaultSports for about a year now and I'm sick to the back teeth with some of the things I hear of/come across on these cars alone.
There are so many broken promises, poorly designed parts & services, un-trustworthy individuals & corporations I'm not surprised that there is a lack of trust. It has reached the point now where it has damaged peoples confidence to spend money extracting more performance from their cars, something which is compartively pointless as smoking, and yet people enjoy it, attended rolling road days, choosing the route for their car as a 'project' and then taking pride in it.
The problem is that now it has reached the point that no matter how hard you try to be as accurate & as reliable as possible, it is the norm for people to disregard your work / research. I am writing an article for a popular monthly on this very topic as we speak, I'll post it up when it's done as I think people may find it interesting.
There are SO many companies out there, (some closer to home than you might think) that are simply stealing peoples hard earnt money. I have only been working on the RenaultSports for about a year now and I'm sick to the back teeth with some of the things I hear of/come across on these cars alone.
There are so many broken promises, poorly designed parts & services, un-trustworthy individuals & corporations I'm not surprised that there is a lack of trust. It has reached the point now where it has damaged peoples confidence to spend money extracting more performance from their cars, something which is compartively pointless as smoking, and yet people enjoy it, attended rolling road days, choosing the route for their car as a 'project' and then taking pride in it.
The problem is that now it has reached the point that no matter how hard you try to be as accurate & as reliable as possible, it is the norm for people to disregard your work / research. I am writing an article for a popular monthly on this very topic as we speak, I'll post it up when it's done as I think people may find it interesting.
Danith
ClioSport Club Member
GTi 7.5 pp/Mx5 nd2
is this the only difference? im no 'expert' on airboxes, but the only diff from the pics i can make out is the airbox looks a bit bigger than the std ph1 airbox and im reading it has 1 large caf hole rather than 2 on std box.
or is there something else im missing?
Danith
ClioSport Club Member
GTi 7.5 pp/Mx5 nd2
also, i'm liking this comment. i have a pipercross I/K on my ph1 which i got purely for the sound, but have definately noticed the car is now slightly less responsive to 3k approx. would simply stickin the std box on and jibbin the CAF pipes give me a good compromise between sound and responsiveness?
I run my ph1 airbox with no CAF's now after reading this thread. I'm amazed at how much louder it is. It sounds very good.
Can't say i've noticed a difference in responsiveness either way. Saying that i'm running completely standard setup inc filter apart from the CAF's removed.
B
Bucko
I've been considering fitting a V6 airbox for a while, i even bought one about 6 months ago but sold it on as i was proper skint!
On the subject of CAF pipes and removing the standard side entry pipe as they are only a 'shoulder part', am i really reading it right?
This morning i was bored and decided to try it out, so i pulled off the fluffy pipe that goes from the standard PH2 airbox down behind the nearside headlight.
Is this right? All i seems to have done it make my car sound like a boy racer when i floor it...
On the subject of CAF pipes and removing the standard side entry pipe as they are only a 'shoulder part', am i really reading it right?
This morning i was bored and decided to try it out, so i pulled off the fluffy pipe that goes from the standard PH2 airbox down behind the nearside headlight.
Is this right? All i seems to have done it make my car sound like a boy racer when i floor it...
Attachments
Similar threads
