Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

G day fellars, this is a serious question.

I know there is the constant debate about panel filters in the air box v pod filter.

I thought i'd summarise what i've found:

filtration: paper filter - best, apexi, pipercross - almost as good, rest e.g. hks, trust, blitz - shit

airflow - paper - shit - I find it does not rob top end power, but rather responsibility accross the rev range.

pod - good when running with the bonnet off

- with the bonnet on without a partition, it's slightly laggier until all the hot air is purged from the system

NOW FOR MY CRAZY IDEA!!!

For those of us running a low mount turbo still, why can't we just get a short pipe made up from the turbo that runs allows the afm to be attached. A pod can then be attached to that. This should prevent all heat problems, as the pod will basically be sucking in cold air from underneath the car.

Is this possible? Any thing I should be aware of (I am aware of water splash, but placing the pod in front of the wheels should prevent splash). The reason why i'm wondering about this, is since bass junky is making a turbo to afm pipe, this would solve the problem of the rubber getting sucked shut, as well as shorten the induction piping.

If you are going to comment, only give constructive comments. I don't care if you wanna flame my ideas. Go hit your head on a wall instead.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/56362-crazy-air-induction-mod/
Share on other sites

I saw it on a VL once, (fairly modded) worked, but yeah, dirt man. Its australia, we dont have clean roads or anything. Its a good idea in theory, but in practices for a road car its not practial.

I had mine installed where the original intercooler was, I installed a repco pod filter heatshield for use as a dirt shield, worked really well, yet still got a crap load of dirt, so I am going to box up the pod inside my engine bay and then run a cold air intake from the hole I made for the piping to the front bar and run like that.

Way better, police hate pod's so if you can hide it in a box they can't do crap and well I got sick of cleaning my pod every 2 weeks due to dirt even with a decent amount of protection...

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...