Jump to content
SAU Community

Pod Vs Air Box

ClutchBurndout-:(
 Share

Recommended Posts

ClutchBurndout-:( Grand Master

ClutchBurndout-:(

Posted
Posted

ok ok a question many have asked, but im sitll not satisfied

my car has around abouts 19kwrw, im running a BMC pod, now, im sorta getting sick of the sucking noise i get everytime i accelorate, not realy annoying but sorta want to get rid of it, so i am thinking of putting my air box back in, is there realy that much difference between the two? like, does the pod give so much more kwrw that it should be there? or does it do bugger all else that its not worth the sucking noise?

cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/262511-pod-vs-air-box/
Share on other sites
ClutchBurndout-:( Grand Master

ClutchBurndout-:(

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Know what ya mean the standard turbo gets quite annoying with a POD

Standard Airbox fine imo, I was running 330ish rwkw with one (K&N panel filter as well of course). .

yea thats what i thought, i dotn see how the pod can be better apart from more exposure to air, with the snorkel to the from bar i dont see how its that bad, but i think the pod starts beating the air box at higher rpm? it can only suck so much air through the snorkel haha

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/262511-pod-vs-air-box/#findComment-4496145
Share on other sites
(OO)Firty Free(OO) Rising Star

(OO)Firty Free(OO)

Posted
Posted
yea thats what i thought, i dotn see how the pod can be better apart from more exposure to air, with the snorkel to the from bar i dont see how its that bad, but i think the pod starts beating the air box at higher rpm? it can only suck so much air through the snorkel haha

Takes a lot of Air to flow 330rwkw cant be too restrictive, used to spin people out when they looked under the bonnet and it looked stock.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/262511-pod-vs-air-box/#findComment-4496156
Share on other sites
quarkgun Proficient

quarkgun

Posted
Posted

From what i've read, unless the pod is enclosed and thus is shielded from the hot air, it's actually detrimental to the cars performance.

My car had a pod when i bought it, i changed it back to stock air box. Didn't notice any difference. I agree that the pod is too noisy - i prefer the stock sound :P

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/262511-pod-vs-air-box/#findComment-4496294
Share on other sites
gotRICE? Veteran

gotRICE?

Posted
Posted
From what i've read, unless the pod is enclosed and thus is shielded from the hot air, it's actually detrimental to the cars performance.

My car had a pod when i bought it, i changed it back to stock air box. Didn't notice any difference. I agree that the pod is too noisy - i prefer the stock sound :P

x2. I put an Apexi pod into my 33.

Got sick of the noise pretty quick.

Changed back to stock airbox and Apexi panel and havnt looked back. Love the cute little spool noise the turbo makes.

And might i add, noticed no change in the way the car drives.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/262511-pod-vs-air-box/#findComment-4496402
Share on other sites
RBwhatever Veteran

RBwhatever

Posted
Posted

I don't wanna sound like a jerk towards you or anything, but you did do a search before you created this thread yes?

For your power you'd be fine with an airbox no worries. I have a pod, only because my cooler kit didn't accommodate for the air box, and it was easier swapping to a pod rather than butchering a perfectly fine item(the snorkel I mean). I have since boxed off the pod and routed a CAI and having the said annoying sucking noise which doesn't really bother me.

And if you feel a power difference between the 2, please report back with, "my car makes 11ty more bummerwatts" or "11ty less bum watts" because you won't feel a difference. And if you think you do......it's all in your head.

If your box fits back in ok, put it back in if it floats your floaty. And it's one less thing for a copper to whinge about. Win win :P

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/262511-pod-vs-air-box/#findComment-4496421
Share on other sites
ClutchBurndout-:( Grand Master

ClutchBurndout-:(

Posted
  • Author
Posted

heh, yea i did a quick search, but i fail at finding words to search, "pod vs airbox" turned up bugger all, but yes, i think i will put the air box back in, i do also love that little whssssssssssss the turbo does when spooling hehe, even if im the only one that hears it :P

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/262511-pod-vs-air-box/#findComment-4496430
Share on other sites
Fry_33 Proficient

Fry_33

Posted
Posted

I have 200rwkw with a GT2530 turbo. I have the standard airbox and a pipercross panel filter. It is currently tuned to correct AFR's. These turbo's generally make 220-230rwkw's going by the results I've seen. There was a dip in the upper range of my power curve and it is annoying to know it could do better. We took the airbox snorkle, lid and filter off and I instantly gained 13rwkw. It doesn't sound like much and there was still a dip up high in the rev range. However, since the engine could breath better it must have started looking up another map section as the AFR's became rich in the dip section. If these were sorted out then it should hit the typical power figures.

If you actually take a good look at the snorkle and airbox lid they are pretty restrictive. You probably won't notice the lack of power changing from pod to airbox on the street as you aren't really driving high in the rev range which is where the most potential for improvement is. The other point is if you change something and don't tune it to suit it you won't know what affect it had on AFR's and whether there is more/less potential.

The less flow restriction (pressure drops) there are to the air going in and gases coming out the easier it is on the engine and turbo.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/262511-pod-vs-air-box/#findComment-4496516
Share on other sites
SS8_Gohan Grand Master

SS8_Gohan

Posted
Posted

^ your intake pipe was most likely sucking close, can do that with that sort of power. look for 'rev210's intake pipe mod' or buy a silicone one.

as has been mentioned, stock airbox is fine, but you might need to get a silicone intake pipe to stop the 'sucking closed' issue

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/262511-pod-vs-air-box/#findComment-4496566
Share on other sites
Fry_33 Proficient

Fry_33

Posted
Posted
^ your intake pipe was most likely sucking close, can do that with that sort of power. look for 'rev210's intake pipe mod' or buy a silicone one.

as has been mentioned, stock airbox is fine, but you might need to get a silicone intake pipe to stop the 'sucking closed' issue

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately that's all been looked at. I did buy one of those silicone inlet pipes a while back but I don't really rate them. I don't want to start a war on that though, just my personal preference. I have a piece of stainless steel inside the rubber inlet pipe so it should not be sucking closed at all, pretty sure this was looked at as a cause anyway. I think this is what you mean by the rev210 mod?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/262511-pod-vs-air-box/#findComment-4496704
Share on other sites
rev210 Grand Master

rev210

Posted
Posted
I have 200rwkw with a GT2530 turbo. I have the standard airbox and a pipercross panel filter. It is currently tuned to correct AFR's. These turbo's generally make 220-230rwkw's going by the results I've seen. There was a dip in the upper range of my power curve and it is annoying to know it could do better. We took the airbox snorkle, lid and filter off and I instantly gained 13rwkw. It doesn't sound like much and there was still a dip up high in the rev range. However, since the engine could breath better it must have started looking up another map section as the AFR's became rich in the dip section. If these were sorted out then it should hit the typical power figures.

If you actually take a good look at the snorkle and airbox lid they are pretty restrictive. You probably won't notice the lack of power changing from pod to airbox on the street as you aren't really driving high in the rev range which is where the most potential for improvement is. The other point is if you change something and don't tune it to suit it you won't know what affect it had on AFR's and whether there is more/less potential.

The less flow restriction (pressure drops) there are to the air going in and gases coming out the easier it is on the engine and turbo.

I agree that the snorkel could be improved. But, dyno with the bonnet 'up' isn't really worth anything as it negates the airpressure related position of the snorkel intake.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/262511-pod-vs-air-box/#findComment-4497037
Share on other sites
juggernaut1 Proficient

juggernaut1

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here's another option that could be adapted - paint it black to give it that OEM look:

IMG_0201.jpg

IMG_0202.jpg

and installed - note that the filter backs up against the back of the headlight to draw air in from outside of the engine bay:

IMG_0277.jpg

IMG_0278.jpg

Edited by juggernaut1
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/262511-pod-vs-air-box/#findComment-4497242
Share on other sites

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Kapr
      RB20DE NEO smallbox clutch.

      By Kapr · Posted

      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.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      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. 
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      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.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      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.
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      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...