Whats the best type of snorkel moulded or tube

Need to know what's broken and maybe how to fix it ? Post here
dave willard
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Shepley Huddersfield

Whats the best type of snorkel moulded or tube

Postby dave willard » Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:10 pm

I will be getting a snorkel for my new 300tdi 90

Looking there seem to be a lot around mainly the moulded one piece & the tube metal/plastic with felexible joints

Anyone know which might be better
Dave

Dave
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:18 pm
Full Name: Dave Barker

Postby Dave » Tue Apr 02, 2013 9:28 am

The moulded one piece cuts your BHP down less than the older style metal one does.
Dave

dave willard
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Shepley Huddersfield

Postby dave willard » Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:11 pm

Dave wrote:The moulded one piece cuts your BHP down less than the older style metal one does.
Dave


Hi
Do they cut the power much

The CSA will be bigger on the moulded which should possibly explain the less p[ower loss
DAVE

Dave
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:18 pm
Full Name: Dave Barker

Postby Dave » Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:30 pm

A few years back for the magazine we did some performance checks on a rolling road, adding a high flow filter, silicon turbo pipes, better exhaust etc etc. The safari type snorkels cut bhp down by around 5bhp, the standard Land Rover metal one about 8bhp if I remember. I've still got the figures somewhere I think.
Dave:

User avatar
tecnick
Posts: 969
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Leeds
Full Name: Nick Adams

Postby tecnick » Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:06 pm

Do those figures change as the vehicle gets up to speed? Testing on a rolling road would not emulate this would it?

Just a thought Nick
If it ain't broke, I'd be bloody suprised.

Dave
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:18 pm
Full Name: Dave Barker

Postby Dave » Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:17 am

No the bhp figures stayed the same, so no road speed wind blowing into a safari snorkel like yours with the air intake facing forward (or as many would say the wrong way, allowing dust and water into the filter). The later mantec 'plastic' snorkel did better with a less bhp drop if i remember.

nicks90
Posts: 735
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:48 am
Location: wakefield
Full Name: Nick Clayton

Postby nicks90 » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:00 pm

i wonder if those results would be the same if the engines had retained the standard more restrictive air filter and exhausts?
Bugger!
Another bloody dent...

Dave
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 4:18 pm
Full Name: Dave Barker

Postby Dave » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:31 pm

The snorkel test figures were done with standard filter and exhausts etc, we only tested one modification at a time, the idea being to get a figure for each modification on its own. I'm sure we must have done a bhp test with all the mods done I'm still looking for the figures.
Dave:

User avatar
Matthews
Treasurer
Posts: 1234
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:45 pm
Location: Leeds
Full Name: Matthew Sykes

Postby Matthews » Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:08 pm

If you use basic physics and basic common sense then unless the diameter is huge any form of ducting prior to the turbo inlet will cause a restriction , the longer the ducting (i.e snorkel over standard short intake pipe from wing) the greater the restriction, the more bends in the ducting will also have a similar effect , it's not rocket science for gods sake !
Matthew


Return to “Technical Info”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron
Copyright © 2017 Yorkshire Off Road Club