Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

why would you have both?? If you're talking about a pod filter followed by a panel boxed filter.. then there's no point except for induction sound. Having both would just add restriction to your airflow and make performance worse. Unless you're driving through a dust storm every day of the week I fail to see any benefit or reason. It's either one or the other mate.

this is my setup on my 34

OK, I see a heat shielded pod. Where's the panel filter in that pic?

but i havent seen anyone talking about having both? can it be done?

I know its not "legal' but im talking performace wise, not legality.

It can be done, but from a performance perspective its pointless. You're just adding needless complexity and you won't see any more airflow.

If you run the pod and panel in series, it just adds an intake restriction because the engine has to suck air through 2 filters. A single filter will provide enough filtration so the resistance decreases performance but doesn't add any safety.

If you run them in parallel (so you use a Y pipe to join the 2 together) then your total airflow is still restricted by the size of the intake pipe downwind of the Y pipe. You could just have 1 pipe of that diameter and see the same cross sectional flow. At the same time, 2 different airstreams merging creates turbulence, which is also bad for airflow.

Ah the good 'ole panel vs pod with a twist.

Basically in all the tests that have been done by various car magazines (both online and paper) the consensus is to get a high flowing non-oiled panel filter. Plus thats my opinion too. Feel free to flame away - honestly I don't care if you have a pod but for the love of god it better be shielded.

Autospeed has some nice articles about induction here:

Part 1: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_1361/article.html

Part 2: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_1370/article.html

Part 3: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_1379/article.html

Part 4: http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_1829/article.html

Good stuff in there.

As to why not pod and panel? The question is why would you? More restrictive. No gains. More convoluted piping. Probably not that much noise (if your into that kind of thing). Costly (relatively).

Essentially a lot of work for no real gain. The question is why would you?

Edit: added article

Edited by R33_Dude

my car has a panel filter and a pod filter set up, but there is pannel filter mouth and the pod aswell which doesnt go through the filter lol i didnt do this it was like that when i got it, pretty weird, the pod sits down in the front bar and piping joins up behind the panel filter, which has a mouth sitting behind the headlight.

I am getting rid of the filter soon and having the pod sitting by itself down within the front bar tho,

Edited by r32na
do u mean something like this?

this is my setup on my 34

25072009415-1.jpg

That a Good Set-Up Aswell, This Is What Iv Fitted To My 33Gtr-Heaps Better Then A Panel Filter!

post-64108-1248924337_thumb.jpg

i would like to cover my pod up just for a more tidy look

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

    • The values for HID colour are also defined ~ see https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2006L02732/latest/text  ~ goto section 3.9 onwards ....
    • So, if the headlights' cutoff behaviour (angles, heights, etc) are not as per 6.2.6.1.1 without automatic levelling, then you have to have to have automatic** levelling. Also, if the headlight does not have the required markings, then neither automatic nor manual adjusters are going to be acceptable. That's because the base headlight itself does not meet the minimum requirement (which is the marking). ** with the option of manual levelling, if the headlight otherwise meets the same requirements as for the automatic case AND can be set to the "base" alignment at the headlight itself. So that's an additional requirement for the manual case. So, provided that the marking is on the headlight and there is a local manual adjustment back to "base" on the headlight, then yes, you could argue that they are code compliant. But if you are missing any single one of these things, then they are not. And unlike certain other standards that I work with, there does not seem to be scope to prepare a "fitness for purpose" report. Well, I guess there actually is. You might engage an automotive engineer to write a report stating that the lights meet the performance requirements of the standard even if they are missing, for example, the markings.  
    • Vertical orientation   6.2.6.1.1. The initial downward inclination of the cut off of the dipped-beam to be set in the unladen vehicle state with one person in the driver's seat shall be specified within an accuracy of 0.1 per cent by the manufacturer and indicated in a clearly legible and indelible manner on each vehicle close to either headlamp or the manufacturer's plate by the symbol shown in Annex 7.   The value of this indicated downward inclination shall be defined in accordance with paragraph 6.2.6.1.2.   6.2.6.1.2. Depending on the mounting height in metres (h) of the lower edge of the apparent surface in the direction of the reference axis of the dipped beam headlamp, measured on the unladen vehicles, the vertical inclination of the cut off of the dipped- beam shall, under all the static conditions of Annex 5, remain between the following limits and the initial aiming shall have the following values:   h < 0.8   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   0.8 < h < 1.0   Limits: between 0.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.0 per cent and 1.5 per cent   Or, at the discretion of the manufacturer,   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The application for the vehicle type approval shall, in this case, contain information as to which of the two alternatives is to be used.   h > 1.0   Limits: between 1.0 per cent and 3.0 per cent   Initial aiming: between 1.5 per cent and 2.0 per cent   The above limits and the initial aiming values are summarized in the diagram below.   For category N3G (off-road) vehicles where the headlamps exceed a height of 1,200 mm, the limits for the vertical inclination of the cut-off shall be between: -1.5 per cent and -3.5 per cent.   The initial aim shall be set between: -2 per cent and -2.5 per cent.
×
×
  • Create New...