Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I did a search but couldnt find info directly relating to this (probably because most people here run a PFC and therefore need to run an intake pipe and pod to accomodate the AFM). Im going to be running a LinkPlus and a large T4 sized compressor on a top mount manifold. Im debating whether or not to spend the extra cash and get a custom intake pipe made up and fit my HKS filter or simply leave the turbo without an air feed and mesh the air intake to protect the compressor wheel.

Most Japanese drag and Drift cars ive seen dont run pod/panel filters and simply leave their turbo's naked. I want to do this aswell for the sake of cost reduction expect 'hose-clamp' some mesh to protect the comp wheel.

Is this a good option or shall I get my HKS mushroom filter on there?

Edited by DRFT 14
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/105760-run-intake-and-pod-or-mesh-turbo/
Share on other sites

What about routing a pipe from the front bumper and into the engine bay and sitting it close to the turbo? Wouldnt that be a better option? Its seems aparent that a 'naked' compressor would suck air in a lot more freely as opposed to sucking through a filter. Wouldnt this alone make the compressor wheel spin alot faster and earlier and therefore reducing turbo lag and increasing power?

Sydneykid, im in NZ :P

Edited by DRFT 14

So what your saying is, even though I live in a generally dust/sand free place like Auckland City (or any such place), running a meshed turbo will cause damage to the compressor? Im not sure to be honest. It seems to me that unless im using the car as an offroader (which im not :P), then the turbo should be pretty safe?

Edited by DRFT 14

"pretty safe" to me is not GOOD enough IMO,

Filter is for peace of MIND, and wont be much diffrent in performance wise,

If u be able to make CAI, u only draw cool air in, its way better than being nake and sucking hot air from the engine.

or rain can easily get washed over the engine if you have a small gap in the bonnet..

or even one dusty road.. or just dust in the air generally..

big risk to be taking if you've obviously spent some money on the engine setup..

I always like going back to the MINES GTR thing.

ridiculously fast, has stock air box with custom intake.

so it uses a panel filter of all things..

and I think it still has stock intake pipe rom Air box to turbos too.

So why isn't it good enough for you?

So what your saying is, even though I live in a generally dust/sand free place like Auckland City (or any such place), running a meshed turbo will cause damage to the compressor? Im not sure to be honest. It seems to me that unless im using the car as an offroader (which im not :wub:), then the turbo should be pretty safe?

My car only ever gets driven in the city, You should see all the crap on the filter! I hate to think of all that junk in my bores

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...