Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

As usual with these types of partitions, there is nowhere to get air from unless you have an FMIC with "over the radiator" return pipe.

Also there is no provision for the factory air intake.

For the $$ + postage you could make a better one yourself if you have the time, inclination, tools and patience...

Yeah id say your still liable to be defected. Especially if you install the neon they say comes with it or whatever. Nothing says "look at me/defect me" than a lit up box in your engine bay.

Besides the fact that the air inside that partition is going to heat up mighty quickly considering the perspex is going to do nothing to stop radiated heat.

You're better off going for an insulated opaque box painted black to look as factory as possible.

lazy bastard is right. make one yourself, custom fitted to your setup.

i saw these on ebay yesterday, and my first question was, what are these made of? they dont look like they'd keep heat out. they look like they'd melt if anything.

Putting an extra box on top of a pod filter doesn't turn it into something else.

If you have an aftermarket cooler, and a pod filter (regardless of whether the filter is in a restrictive box) you will still get defected.

lol you could build that yourself for $10 with supplies from bunnings, and you could even save yourself the embarrassment of having a neon light in your engine bay.

At best it'll keep hot air out, but I'd question the heat resistance of the unit, esp near a nice top mount setup etc. Its not gonna stop you from gettin defected.

with the heat of the engine bay perspex will melt and disform.

i have made heaps of heat sheilds to re-route air into the box and still cut engine heat and after a hell of a lot of testing i found what worked best.

using a stainless stell box was best with rubber on the side walls of the box. Also you cannot have a totally sealed box, it must have somewhere , where clean dense air can enter , either usinghte stock intake pipe or re-routing it from the front bumper :wave:

personally this ebay one wouldnt last too long im guessing

i made mine myself, will post pics soon, looks like factory. It's made out of an aluminum panel composite, called alucobond, 1mm aly 3 mm polyurathena a 1 mm aly again. Then all lined with 15mm thermoinsluation foam, and the air picked up from the fornt bar via old hole for cooler. Dropped the engine intake temps dramatically, will post some pics soon.

i made mine myself, will post pics soon, looks like factory. It's made out of an aluminum panel composite, called alucobond, 1mm aly 3 mm polyurathena a 1 mm aly again. Then all lined with 15mm thermoinsluation foam, and the air picked up from the fornt bar via old hole for cooler. Dropped the engine intake temps dramatically, will post some pics soon.

Will be interested to see some pics of your air box!

i have made two custom setups...with a new 3" intake form the front bar, covers etc.

I went back to stock..wacked in a trust high-flow filter and saw the same, if not better, dyno results. The sealed setup + pressure of the seal stock boxes make them hard to beat IMO. There have been numerous external tests which have showed without a sealed unit u are pretty much wasting ur time. After making numerous custom setups for both my cars...I now have stock airboxes...but beter ducting/intakes.

Makes no "whoosh" noise, and 1 less defect for them to get me on in the future

I'll post up some pics tonight for you. The box i have made is sealed, well preatty much.

So how does the stock box appear to give much better midrange torque? I did the enclosure as the car already came with the pod and so forth.

i use the stock airbox 2...

but im just wondering which external tests are these ???

whenever i take the lid of the airbox off i always get another 5kw or so on the dyno (its sucking in hotter air obviously.. which isnt good)

and evan when i cut a big hole in the side of the top of the airbox it gained another 3kw... so im curious how your airbox made a higher figure on the dyno than it would with a pod ????

There have been numerous external tests which have showed without a sealed unit u are pretty much wasting ur time.
  • 5 weeks later...

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...