"Performance" air filter hype - Page 6 - AcuraZine - Acura Enthusiast Community

Notices
TL/TLX Frequently Asked Questions No New Threads Please.

"Performance" air filter hype

Old 03-21-2004, 11:34 AM
  #201  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Yeah sure. Nice history revisionism there sport.
No revision at all.

GO CHECK THE POST, "sport."

And while you're at it, PROVE that for any given octane fuel, aluminum heads will produce more power than their otherwise identical iron counterparts.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:34 AM
  #202  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Good.

But you've agrued that they produce more power...

In THEORY they may...but certainly no more than a decent ram air system on a vehicle traveling @ ~ 100 MPH.
Bzzzzz, WRONG.

But thanks for playing. At 100MPH there is ZERO increase in HP from automotive ram air.

But you know, I've wasted enough time with you. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. You read articles like the WS6 and ZX article and believe them no matter how much is proved different.

Enjoy your ignornace.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:34 AM
  #203  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
No revision at all.

GO CHECK THE POST, "sport."

And while you're at it, PROVE that for any given octane fuel, aluminum heads will produce more power than their otherwise identical iron counterparts.
Never said they would. Only that aluminum permits higher compression without detonation. Again you're full of sh!t.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:35 AM
  #204  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Bzzzzz, WRONG.

But thanks for playing. At 100MPH there is ZERO increase in HP from automotive ram air.

But you know, I've wasted enough time with you. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. You read articles like the WS6 and ZX article and believe them no matter how much is proved different.

Enjoy your ignornace.
Prove it's "zero" @ 100 MPH.

It's ~ 0.18 psig @ 100 MPH.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:36 AM
  #205  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Welp, now everyone can see that you're full of poop. Anyone reading this thread will see K&N's work just fine and putting ram air on a car is pointless.

If ignornace is bliss, you're on Cloud 9.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:36 AM
  #206  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Never said they would. Only that aluminum permits higher compression without detonation. Again you're full of sh!t.
They permit SLIGHTLY more compression than their otherwise identical iron counterparts.

But that gain is offset by aluminum's superior heat transfer properties (which transfers thermal energy OUT of the combustion chamber, thereby LOWERING cylinder pressure).
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:42 AM
  #207  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Prove it's "zero" @ 100 MPH.

It's ~ 0.18 psig @ 100 MPH.

HORSEPOWER...

If you aren't going to read the posts before replying, there is no point in continuing. I've already shown that any gains from ram air are non-existant. .3% at 62MPH, 1.8% at 125MPH.

Both are within the margin of uncertainly, thus making them ZERO.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:43 AM
  #208  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
They permit SLIGHTLY more compression than their otherwise identical iron counterparts.

But that gain is offset by aluminum's superior heat transfer properties (which transfers thermal energy OUT of the combustion chamber, thereby LOWERING cylinder pressure).
Slightly more compression? Says who? You? LOL. :o

You're too funny. This is it for real this time. I'm finished with you and your endless B.S. L8r.

Come back when you're ready to STFU and learn.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:44 AM
  #209  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
HORSEPOWER...

If you aren't going to read the posts before replying, there is no point in continuing. I've already shown that any gains from ram air are non-existant. .3% at 62MPH, 1.8% at 125MPH.

Both are within the margin of uncertainly, thus making them ZERO.
I ~ agree with those numbers.

But they certainly aren't any less "uncertain" or "non-existant" than those produced by K&N air filters.

If you got a check in the mail that equalled 1.8% of your annual gross income, would you call the value of that check "non-existant?"
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:45 AM
  #210  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Slightly more compression? Says who? You? LOL. :o

You're too funny.
Says the dozen or so links I've posted.

And a FULL POINT bump in compression is only worth ~ 1% in terms of power gains - ASSUMING the SAME thermal conductivity. It's worth a lot less than that when switching from iron to aluminum.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:55 AM
  #211  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
More links. Crap when are you going to learn links don't mean anything, especially when you're quoting the sources you're quoting.

Go get Engine Analyzer Pro and check the CR HP math for yourself instead of relying on some loser internet article writer like you did for the WS6 ram air lies.

THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:56 AM
  #212  
Andrenaline Junkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
V in THIS equation equals VELOCITY (flow velocity).

And I have never ONCE reference "the combined gas law.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html

"The qualitative behavior that is usually labeled with the term "Bernoulli effect" is the lowering of fluid pressure in regions where the flow velocity is increased."
You did reference the combined gas law. You said P1V1=P2V2, which assumes a constant temperature.
Swat Dude is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:58 AM
  #213  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
I ~ agree with those numbers.

But they certainly aren't any less "uncertain" or "non-existant" than those produced by K&N air filters.

If you got a check in the mail that equalled 1.8% of your annual gross income, would you call the value of that check "non-existant?"
1.8% in manifold pressure doesn't equate to perceivable gains in HP.

Show me the math that says it does. I just ran a 1.8% boost increase with Engine Analyzer Pro and there was ZERO change in HP.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:58 AM
  #214  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
More links. Crap when are you going to learn links don't mean anything, especially when you're quoting the sources you're quoting.

Go get Engine Analyzer Pro and check the CR HP math for yourself instead of relying on some loser internet article writer like you did for the WS6 ram air lies.
The highest CRs I see on new, mass produced street cars is ~ 11:1.

That's with aluminum heads, 4 valves/cylinder and premium fuel.

GM is running 9.4:1 with iron heads, 2 valves/cylinder and 87 octane fuel in their 3.8.

That's a TOTAL difference of 1.6:1
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 11:59 AM
  #215  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Swat Dude
You did reference the combined gas law. You said P1V1=P2V2, which assumes a constant temperature.
It was not my intent to reference the common gaw law.

And I check my fluids books this AM and discovered that I was wrong.

p1V1 = p2V2 where v is velocity, but p is DENSITY (not pressure) in the shock wave formula.

So shoot me.

Would you like me to scan and post that page from my text book to prove the genesis of my admitted error?

Meanwhile:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:03 PM
  #216  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Again with the flawed logic. 2 COMPLETELY different engines, different manufacturers, different injectors, different head designs, different EVERYTHING, and they're following 2 different emissions standards, meeting power requirements for 2 or more different cars.

Should should no better than to try and use that to support your compression arguement.

You actually think that 9.6:1 is the absolute highest CR capable on 87? You think that 11:1 is the abolute highest capable on 91?

You'ld be wrong in both cases.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:03 PM
  #217  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
1.8% in manifold pressure doesn't equate to perceivable gains in HP.

Show me the math that says it does. I just ran a 1.8% boost increase with Engine Analyzer Pro and there was ZERO change in HP.
Which are the same gains it would show for a K&N air filter. LOL
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:05 PM
  #218  
Andrenaline Junkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
Ram Air provides a quantifiable increase in static presssure (@ the intake manifold) @ speeds that one would normally associate with "racing."

Its effect @ "street speeds" (e.g. 60 MPH) is negligible, though I have never claimed otherwise.

http://www.snowgoercanada.com/tech_ram_air.shtml

"Where vehicle speeds are very high, gains from ram air are significant. This was discovered by Rolls-Royce in the late 1920s as the company developed its R Schneider Trophy air racing engine. At speeds above 300 mph, it was noticed that the Rís fuel mixture leaned out enough to cause backfiring. When the mixture was corrected for ram-air pressure gain, the engineers realized they had a "free" source of power. At 350 mph the gain from ram air is almost 15 percent. Similar mixture correction is necessary when ram air is used on drag-race and Bonneville cars and bikes."
How many races do you know do they maintain consistent speeds of 300 mph??????
Swat Dude is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:05 PM
  #219  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
It was not my intent to reference the common gaw law.

And I check my fluids books this AM and discovered that I was wrong.

p1V1 = p2V2 where v is velocity, but p is DENSITY (not pressure) in the shock wave formula.

So shoot me.

Would you like me to scan and post that page from my text book to prove the genesis of my admitted error?

Meanwhile:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html
You've made so many errors the Acura-TL.com servers couldn't handle the upload traffic.

We all know you make many errors. Your mistakes in this thread are just many of many many.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:07 PM
  #220  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
You've made so many errors the Acura-TL.com servers couldn't handle the upload traffic.

We all know you make many errors. Your mistakes in this thread are just many of many many.
What's engine analyzer show as a percentage gain when jumping from 10:1 to 11:1?
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:14 PM
  #221  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
5% depending on the motor with NO other changes normally associated with upping the compression. But of course non-benchtop racers know that you make other changes (eg in cam profile) when you are in a position to run higher compression.

When you have aluminum heads, you get to run higher compression. This along is more than enough to make up for the loss of heat. And without the risk of preignition you can run more aggressive timing, manipulate cam overlap to scavange the cylinders better etc. Things you just can't really do efficiently with detonation or lower compression.

But like you're actually interested in learning this.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:15 PM
  #222  
Andrenaline Junkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
It was not my intent to reference the common gaw law.

And I check my fluids books this AM and discovered that I was wrong.

p1V1 = p2V2 where v is velocity, but p is DENSITY (not pressure) in the shock wave formula.

So shoot me.

Would you like me to scan and post that page from my text book to prove the genesis of my admitted error?

Meanwhile:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pber.html
How many times are you going to post the same link to something you obviously have no clue about??????
Swat Dude is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:18 PM
  #223  
Andrenaline Junkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Insane Poster

Harddriving and Skeedatl,

I would just like to take a moment to thank both of you. This thread has taken me from Gold to Insane Poster. A moment of silence please...
Swat Dude is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:23 PM
  #224  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
What I hope that people get from this, is don't trust what you read in magazines...think for yourself...ask WHY something works, not just take it at face value...and most importantly, get personal experience doing it rather than living through some magazine dork.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:26 PM
  #225  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tampa
Posts: 166
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
skeedatl, when I first began reading this thread, I couldn't care less about this topic. That's all changed. I have to say that I have learned a great deal and mostly from your posts. Thanks!
mspence3 is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:34 PM
  #226  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
When you have aluminum heads, you get to run higher compression. This along is more than enough to make up for the loss of heat.
Is it?

Or do you just THINK it is?
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:36 PM
  #227  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Swat Dude
How many times are you going to post the same link to something you obviously have no clue about??????
I have "no clue" about the fact that a DROP in velocity (e.g. at the base of a ram air scoop) will result in an INCREASE in pressure?
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:36 PM
  #228  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
According to Engine Analyzer Pro (which is the only way to make a material only swap since there are no identical aluminum and iron heads), it is.

In practical experience, I see significant increases in power from aluminum heads because racers can run more boost and/or higher compression (before detonation) along with all the tweaks that go along with them.

It isn't all about weight savings.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:38 PM
  #229  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
I have "no clue" about the fact that a DROP in velocity (e.g. at the base of a ram air scoop) will result in an INCREASE in pressure?
Ahhh, a statement we can agree on.

You won't increase the pressure higher than the surrounding air. There is no ramming effect. Ram air scoops like the ones on the WS6 aren't designed to slow the air. If that were the case they were be divergent scoops...and they ain't.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:40 PM
  #230  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
They put ram air on the WS6 so dumbasses will think they're getting more power. Ram air is domestic RICE! Just as useless as a shopping cart wing and 20LBS of vinyl stickers.

ALL of the HP gains in the SS and WS6 come not from ram air, but by revised intakes manifolds and the like.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:43 PM
  #231  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
In practical experience, I see significant increases in power from aluminum heads because racers can run more boost and/or higher compression (before detonation) along with all the tweaks that go along with them.
But there are OTHER variables in those comparisons besides the head materials (such as port size/shape in the heads themselves) along with other engine mods (different intake set-up with the new heads, "hotter" cam (which produced a lower dynamic compression ratio), etc, etc, etc.


Virtually NO-ONE installs heads and keeps everything else identical (including the internal geometries of the heads themselves).

And that's the genesis of what I'll call " the aluminum head myth."

BTW:

I have Desktop Dyno SE. It also showed a 5% gain in peak HP from going from 10:1 in 11:1 in a 350 Chevy (but with the SAME heads/head material).
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:44 PM
  #232  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Skeedatl
Ahhh, a statement we can agree on.

You won't increase the pressure higher than the surrounding air. There is no ramming effect. Ram air scoops like the ones on the WS6 aren't designed to slow the air. If that were the case they were be divergent scoops...and they ain't.
Of course you will...

You TOLD me you would a few threads back.

The "end" of the scoop (inside) as an air brake...doesn't it?

Originally posted by Skeedatl
HORSEPOWER...

If you aren't going to read the posts before replying, there is no point in continuing. I've already shown that any gains from ram air are non-existant. .3% at 62MPH, 1.8% at 125MPH.
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:46 PM
  #233  
Andrenaline Junkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
I have "no clue" about the fact that a DROP in velocity (e.g. at the base of a ram air scoop) will result in an INCREASE in pressure?
An increase in pressure from what???? You have failed to mention what the baseline pressure is. Does it go back to atmospheric?? The pressure across the car at 100 mph is reduced according to bernouli.
Swat Dude is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:48 PM
  #234  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: GA
Posts: 24
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
All the complex fluid dynamics aside, the reason Ram Air doesn't work at auto speeds is that the mass airflow at which the air is pushed into the intake manifold by the ram effect must overtake the rate at which it is being pulled in by the engine before you can have any increase in manifold pressure. An increase in static pressure in the air plenum just ahead of the filter does not nessecarily equate into increased manifold pressure. The MAP sensor in a fuel injected engine must sense the increase before additonal fuel will be scheduled.
WhiteTiger is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:48 PM
  #235  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Swat Dude
An increase in pressure from what???? You have failed to mention what the baseline pressure is. Does it go back to atmospheric?? The pressure across the car at 100 mph is reduced according to bernouli.
Here's what HE wrote. And that more or less agrees with figures I've seen (and posted):

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Skeedatl
HORSEPOWER...

If you aren't going to read the posts before replying, there is no point in continuing. I've already shown that any gains from ram air are non-existant. .3% at 62MPH, 1.8% at 125MPH.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:50 PM
  #236  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by WhiteTiger
All the complex fluid dynamics aside, the reason Ram Air doesn't work at auto speeds is that the mass airflow at which the air is pushed into the intake manifold by the ram effect must overtake the rate at which it is being pulled in by the engine before you can have any increase in manifold pressure. An increase in static pressure in the air plenum just ahead of the filter does not nessecarily equate into increased manifold pressure. The MAP sensor in a fuel injected engine must sense the increase before additonal fuel will be scheduled.
It depends how you define, "auto speeds."

At 55 MPH the effect if essentially zero.

At 200 MPH is isn't.

A very mild increase in manifold pressure becomes "quantifiable" ~ 100 MPH.

http://www.vararam.com/reality_of_ram_air01.html

harddrivin1le is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:54 PM
  #237  
Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,363
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
I don't agree with and never claimed that identical setups, one aluminum one iron will make the same power. Iron holds in more heat thus makes more power.

However, swapping to aluminum isn't ever for just aluminum sake. It's even rarely for weight sake. It's for compression and/or boost sake. I know I'm going to aluminum heads when I can afford it cause a buddy of mine has nearly the same setup I do, but he runs 5 more PSI of boost than I can on the same race gas 'cause he's got aluminum heads. And his heads don't flow any more than my ported iron heads do. But if I get anywhere near his boost (22PSI) I detonate like a mother F-er.

For me, for cost sake, I'll buy new heads and valvetrain but the valves will be the same size as what I have, intake, cam will stay the same.

But I'll be able to CRANK UP THE BOOST. I'm hoping for low 10's after the head swap. I want to get my buddy's heads then send them over to Joe Sherman to get worked.
Skeedatl is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:55 PM
  #238  
Andrenaline Junkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by harddrivin1le
It depends how you define, "auto speeds."

At 55 MPH the effect if essentially zero.

At 200 MPH is isn't.

A very mild increase in manifold pressure becomes "quantifiable" ~ 100 MPH.

http://www.vararam.com/reality_of_ram_air01.html

I thought we were talking KN vs. Ram air for hp increases. I for one am not going to be driving my TL at 200 mph. This is the TL forum, right. With all this BS, I forgot where I was at for a second.
Swat Dude is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 12:59 PM
  #239  
Andrenaline Junkie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 581
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by WhiteTiger
All the complex fluid dynamics aside, the reason Ram Air doesn't work at auto speeds is that the mass airflow at which the air is pushed into the intake manifold by the ram effect must overtake the rate at which it is being pulled in by the engine before you can have any increase in manifold pressure. An increase in static pressure in the air plenum just ahead of the filter does not nessecarily equate into increased manifold pressure. The MAP sensor in a fuel injected engine must sense the increase before additonal fuel will be scheduled.
This about the best layman's explanation for why ram air won't work. If harddrivin can't understand this, he is totally lost. If I can add to this...

The air that is sucked in by the engine is basically replaced at atmospheric pressure minus the losses of the intake. You would have to have some pretty substantial pressure, i.e., supercharger or turbocharger, to actually "ram" air into the manifold. Would a ram air system perhaps overcome so of the static losses in the intake system to actually deliver atmospheric pressure to the manifold??? Skeedatl??? I think it is doubtful at any automobile speeds.
Swat Dude is offline  
Old 03-21-2004, 01:06 PM
  #240  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, RI
Posts: 2,372
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally posted by Swat Dude
This about the best layman's explanation for why ram air won't work. If harddrivin can't understand this, he is totally lost. If I can add to this...

The air that is sucked in by the engine is basically replaced at atmospheric pressure minus the losses of the intake. You would have to have some pretty substantial pressure, i.e., supercharger or turbocharger, to actually "ram" air into the manifold. Would a ram air system perhaps overcome so of the static losses in the intake system to actually deliver atmospheric pressure to the manifold??? Skeedatl??? I think it is doubtful at any automobile speeds.
The link I posted (above) shows a 0.176 psig increase @ the manifold @ 100 MPH.

http://www.vararam.com/reality_of_ram_air01.html



Sure that's small.

But it's a lot LARGER than the delta P between a K&N air filter and a paper media filter.

I therefore don't understand how someone can support K&N's claims while simultaneously dismissing Ram Air as "myth" (@ elevated speeds).
harddrivin1le is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: "Performance" air filter hype


Contact Us Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

© 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.