Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey all,

This is a topic that hasnt been covered much for the guys upwards of 400kw that I could see.

Here's the issue;

On my GTR i have the ARC airbox with twin genuine ARC filters. Give it a squirt of full throttle and the filter gets sucked in to the actual airbox and all mangled up into a mess ($110 each, this gets tiresome quickly). It was funny the first time, but now its just plain old annoying.

This problem rose its head somewhere between 380 and 403rwkw, so im confident in saying that the limit of the (completely unmodified) ARC box is somewhere in there for at least my setup. Note; ARC dont seem to list a max HP/KW for this box

8db9c180.jpg

Now given that im past 403rwkw, something has to happen here as its annoying but not only that im sure its a big restriction on power if its strong enough to suck the filter in (which has allen keys on the filter bracket).

So far ive come up with;

1. Mod the ARC box with more bracing for the filters (not keen on that, its too nice as it is and the restriction will still be there)

2. Get a stock airbox and mod that but who knows how that will turn out

3. Something made from scratch using high flow commodore/falcon filters locally available and with huge surface area and filter braces

4. Use pod filters (no fkn way)

I know this thread wont apply to everyone just like the GT-RS on stroker motor thread, but id love to hear what anyone with a 400kw plus GTR has to say on the topic so please speak up :D

.....aaaaaaaand go!

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/353896-gtr-airboxes-for-large-hp/
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Steve after looking at ur airbox yesterday its a pretty poor design how they have the top filter just sitting in there. It needs to have a lip underneath the filter not just on top. If u fitted an underside lip and also a thin t bar crossing underneath also it will fix ur issue and not create any flow restriction

My ARC airbox had exactly the same problem ..but i was using a K&N filter instead of an arc one, which i assume was slightly different in size.

My fix was just what DVS23R mentioned as well..i tigged a cross under the filter out of 3mm diameter stainless rod..problem fixed

Although now i have gone back to a modified factory airbox because i prefer the stock look.

3. Something made from scratch using high flow commodore/falcon filters locally available and with huge surface area and filter braces

FG XR8 Airbox and snorkel with K & N panel filter fitted to FG F6 turbo.

Good for tad over 500rwhp....maybe more. http://forum.rdpbris...ic.php?f=4&t=80

Given the long intake tract to the other side of the engine bay in a stock F6 I dare say it would be more efficient with shorter inlet tract in a GTR .

Also being plastic - less heat soak.

Can be modded to fit a pod filter inside.

I have one of these at home......so if you want dimensions just ask.

My 2 cents.

Edited by juggernaut1

or if your really adventurous ...the factory pod filter setup in the new Coyote supercharged Fords could possibly be made to fit?

http://www.caradvice.com.au/85953/fpv-gt-gt-e-gt-p-gs-supercharged-coyote-v8-review/

from the pictures that the first version of the arc box which ran the paper filters with the steel housing(no suck in).

the type 1 box and type 2 filters which dont have the support is what is happening with your box

the arc airbox can be modded fairly easily to stop that happening and wont cause any restrictions/flow loss.

Tangomatt - 410rwkw stock airbox, nismo intake

Aaron34 - 400rwkw stock airbox

:D

Was any back to back testing done to come to that decision? Genuine question I.e. Comparison with Greddy hard pipe kit?

Come to what decision? Those were the results.

As for comparo, perhaps @ some point on someone else's car. Can't say without question but then who can say they've tested every off-shelf airbox on the market? :)

Tangomatt - Using the Nismo intake kit going by the pictures (piping included). Just not 100% on the actual airbox itself.

Aaron34 - factory R34 GTR far as i know

Come to what decision? Those were the results.

As for comparo, perhaps @ some point on someone else's car. Can't say without question but then who can say they've tested every off-shelf airbox on the market? :)

Tangomatt - Using the Nismo intake kit going by the pictures (piping included). Just not 100% on the actual airbox itself.

Aaron34 - factory R34 GTR far as i know

The decision to use the standard airbox over a suction kit.

Not for every one just this... surely someone has done a power run make "x" KW then taken airbox off replaced it with pods or a full suction kit and made "y" KW?

I would be happy to use the OEM airbox with a Nismo snorkel and replacement AFM pipes knowing that it would not be a restiction.

well given the two cars do have some different items...

vcam, piping, snorkel... but are pretty much the same output... its a good representation.

also the airbox vs pod, maybe but how do you test that on a dyno with excessive heat soak that the airbox will not suffer from in bonnet down test over time. pod will always suffer :(

not running 400rwkw but when I tested the R32 GTR box back to back with Blitz pods at 280 rwkw I lost about 20 rwkw. put the box back in, took the lid off and taped the panel filter in and the power came back. not consistent with the experience of others and both tests were done with bonnet up, but it's a big difference either way. front of box is now modified but haven't done back to back test with it in that config.

Chopped part of the bottom of the 32GTR airbox out to get more flow, I was running only 363RWKW though.

Didn't like how small the single inlet at the front was. I was running 80mm Z32 MAFs on the stock box too.

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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...