Jump to content
SAU Community

R34 Gtt Custom Air Box

R34mac

By R34mac,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

75coupe Grand Master

75coupe

Posted
Posted

and pods are so cool arnt they.... hiflow panel filter in the stock airbox vs pod filter in a stock like airbox... where's the difference?

its all for looks or induction sound isnt it... no real performance upgrade.

I love how people say ' I put a pod on and gained 4kw' its because your stock air filter was old and dirty.

the upgrade was buying a clean one.

I use and ARC airbox, but I admit it was for looks, not for performance gains, but I have a bonnet vent that directly feeds it too....

R34mac Enthusiast

R34mac

Posted
  • Author
Posted

and pods are so cool arnt they.... hiflow panel filter in the stock airbox vs pod filter in a stock like airbox... where's the difference?

its all for looks or induction sound isnt it... no real performance upgrade.

I love how people say ' I put a pod on and gained 4kw' its because your stock air filter was old and dirty.

the upgrade was buying a clean one.

I use and ARC airbox, but I admit it was for looks, not for performance gains, but I have a bonnet vent that directly feeds it too....

Yep completely agree.. which is why I never mentioned power gains as my reason for doing this.. I simply want the induction noise without the draw backs of having an unshielded pod.. :)

Fry_33 Proficient

Fry_33

Posted
Posted

I am playing around with a pod in box idea myself.. I'm trying to use the standard box though.. I know you say that there is stuff all difference between a Pod and Panel filter.. however have you looked at the difference between the surface areas of the 2? I have a pod here, just 120mm diam x ~140mm long.. if you roll this across the panel filter it is about 1.5 times the length for a similar width. I'm all for trying to make things breath as easily as possible. It is also something to try. I'm not sure if the pipe bends I'm thinking of using to get the pod to fit will negate the slightly improved flow?

What are the actual dimensions of the Apexi pod? I couldn't seem to find any dimensions which included top diam, bottom diam and length.

If you're making up your own box like this, I see no point why you can't try and shield of the remainder of the corner with some sheets at either end of the box.. then open up some holes below and on that shielded side. Since it's a pod you don't need to worry about opening up the base :) the snorkel can be a restriction one the flow levels get up there.

Good Luck with it!

R34mac Enthusiast

R34mac

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I am playing around with a pod in box idea myself.. I'm trying to use the standard box though.. I know you say that there is stuff all difference between a Pod and Panel filter.. however have you looked at the difference between the surface areas of the 2? I have a pod here, just 120mm diam x ~140mm long.. if you roll this across the panel filter it is about 1.5 times the length for a similar width. I'm all for trying to make things breath as easily as possible. It is also something to try. I'm not sure if the pipe bends I'm thinking of using to get the pod to fit will negate the slightly improved flow?

What are the actual dimensions of the Apexi pod? I couldn't seem to find any dimensions which included top diam, bottom diam and length.

If you're making up your own box like this, I see no point why you can't try and shield of the remainder of the corner with some sheets at either end of the box.. then open up some holes below and on that shielded side. Since it's a pod you don't need to worry about opening up the base :) the snorkel can be a restriction one the flow levels get up there.

Good Luck with it!

I don't know how different the R33 is but there aren't really any places below the airbox where I could put in an air feed.. unless I started cutting holes through the side into the area behind the guard but I am not too keen on that!

An Apexi pod is 117mm high. Diameters are:

Base: 132mm

Top: 120mm

Widest point (which is 20mm above the base): 160mm

Edited by R34mac
Fry_33 Proficient

Fry_33

Posted
Posted

Thanks for the Apexi dimensions.. bit too large for what I'm looking at.

No the R33 doesn't have much room either.. I have a return flow intercooler though using standard piping. If I had one that was crossflow and went over the radiator/drivers cam cover then that gives you more room to play with. The ones that go over the drivers cam cover would be good as it leaves lots of room for a snorkel. I don't want to cut any holes either though so the crossflow I/C is not something I want.

In terms of cutting a hole in the lower section it is just an idea to remove some of the restriction to the flow to the pod.. I'm fairly sure that Tao had issues getting enough air into the airbox once boost/airflow levels started to get up quite high for the Hypergear turbos. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact you're trying to suck the surface area of the pod/filter etc though a much smaller snokel/airbox lid inlet. If you open up the box you/re removing a bit of that. If you seal the area around the airbox then the flow past the headlight can feed it. If you have a crossflow intercooler then you already have a feed hole right below it :) I'm thinking out loud here a bit (Well typing as hard as I can) so I may not be taking some things into consideration. My main point is I guess that the pod removes the full need for the box alone to be sealed.. you can increase the area.

SargeRX8 Grand Master

SargeRX8

Posted
Posted

You know what you can do? Keep your factory box mounted in the stock location and use a 90 degree bend going through the old intercooler pipe and have the filter fitted under the car in the wheel arch. Measure it up, cut up as need and bam from the top looks stock, but your pod is in your wheel arch. Gravity won't allow water to get sucked up into the turbo either but that isn't to say your pod won't get wet but again you can shield it from splash from your wheel.

GTSBoy Grand Master

GTSBoy

Posted
Posted

I retained my stock (R32) airbox, opened up the roughly triangular shaped hole in the front lower corner, grabbed a 100mm 90° PVC stormwater pipe bend and heated it so I could shape one side and fit it into/onto the triangular opening. Flared it out, pinned it in place with pop rivets and sealed it with silicone. Then banged a 100mm hole in the inner guard straight down to the section where the SMIC used to be. Staight bit of 100mm pipe in the elbow, followed by 90° elbow facing to the brake cooling duct in the (GTR) front bar. Flared the front end of the elbow to make a bellmouth. Between that bit of plumbing (literally!) and the metal turbo inlet pipe, I get all the induction noise you could want, all the filtering you could want, all the cold air you could want, all the ram air pressure boost you could want (if you care) and all the flow restriction reduction you could want.

  • 3 months later...
RSFOURDayz Experienced

RSFOURDayz

Posted
Posted

Sorry to dig up an old post but have looking at shitloads of big horsepower skylines and other imports in fast fours and other mags and one thing I have noticed is that all the cars have a pod in the engine bay and no cold air feed going to them. I've always gone with the thought that cold air is good but that may just be on NA cars perhaps?

Godzilla34 Community Regular

Godzilla34

Posted
Posted

Well I've heard that with a bigger intercooler and just a pod there's not much difference with having a pod or cai. But everyone always says if you can have cold air induction obviously that's better. I always think cold air going into a turbo is better than hot air but I don't know how much difference it would actually make

GTSBoy Grand Master

GTSBoy

Posted
Posted

You have to ask the question though, how many of such cars are driven in traffic? And also, how much extra power would have been available if they'd used a cold air induction system and been able to add in a little extra timing here and there? Admittedly, once you have 500+kW, an extra 5% is not exactly going to be noticable unless you're in a tight racing class.

  • 7 months 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
 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...