JamesT5 (Wednesday 12th March 2014)
theres a huge difference between the elervate intake system and what your fitting james. for starters it needs to be bodged to fit and the route is terrible it will make air flow terrible. if you ever remove the intake pipe you realise wear the restriction is. the intake pipe gose down to around 1.5" near the turbo which is just stupid in my opinion.
s60 2.4 t5 eibach springs,up rated rear anti roll bar, poly bushed wishbones, poly lower engine mount, fmic, bmc air filter, 3" decat, 2.5" stainless exhaust,hlm remap 328bhp,
I don't agree with your comments at all. I happen to know a number of other members on here running exceptionally good performance figures using this Simota system. This system had been engineered and I'm sure PFV don't just stock any old crap that would make performance worse, nor make any false claims about the potential for increased power and performance. As Jamie has pointed out, the system won't be 'bodged' together, it just needs a little work and is superior to the set up I have now which in turn was superior to the original factory OE filter system.
this simota kit is very similar to the bma 'cda' closed filter system that quite a lot of people in Sweden use. but the bma kit doesn't use a pipe to connect to the original cold air feed. you dost get a flexi section to duct the intake from.
the only way I think the pipework could have been shortened with the simota kit is if they took the intake feed from the side of the round housing instead of the end, and then it could have fitted to the original intake with a much shorter route. other than that, there is not the room to do anything else if you want a closed system.
s60 2.4 t5 eibach springs,up rated rear anti roll bar, poly bushed wishbones, poly lower engine mount, fmic, bmc air filter, 3" decat, 2.5" stainless exhaust,hlm remap 328bhp,
here the pics to show the point i was trying to make last night. event he best airfilter is going to be usless with a intake pipe that reduced down to under 50mm. just think of it as a drink am mc donalds. you put a kink in the straw and what happens? youve got to work harder to suck it up. your turbo is exactly the same.
an heres what i think is a much better route for the airfilfter
s60 2.4 t5 eibach springs,up rated rear anti roll bar, poly bushed wishbones, poly lower engine mount, fmic, bmc air filter, 3" decat, 2.5" stainless exhaust,hlm remap 328bhp,
For what it is worth here's my 10p opinion.
I agree with graeme to an extent - however it does depend on the turbo & the map and subsequently the amount of air - cubic feet per minute that you are trying to draw.
You'd have to look at the flow map for the particular turbo in question to work that out. Luckily as we are mostly at sea level the pressure ratio will be unaltered.
GIYF but there are some articles I've read before to help understand this nonsense
From Garrett...
http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbob...ompressor_maps
Once you've worked out how fast the air is going at maximum flat out suction - you'll need to know that above .4 mach air become turbulent & less efficiently flowed.
I've also looked into that in some depth too.
According to what I've read .4 mach is the speed at which air becomes turbulent & does not flow as well.
2" piping
1.57 x 2 = 3.14 sq in
300 cfm = 156 mph = 0.20 mach
400 cfm = 208 mph = 0.27 mach
500 cfm = 261 mph = 0.34 mach
585 cfm max = 304 mph = 0.40 mach
2.25" piping
3.9740625 sq in = 1.98703125 x 2
300 cfm = 123 mph = 0.16 mach
400 cfm = 164 mph = 0.21 mach
500 cfm = 205 mph = 0.26 mach
600 cfm = 247 mph = 0.32 mach
700 cfm = 288 mph = 0.37 mach
740 cfm max = 304 mph = 0.40 mach
2.5" piping
4.90625 sq in = 2.453125 x 2
300 cfm = 100 mph = 0.13 mach
400 cfm = 133 mph = 0.17 mach
500 cfm = 166 mph = 0.21 mach
600 cfm = 200 mph = 0.26 mach
700 cfm = 233 mph = 0.30 mach
800 cfm = 266 mph = 0.34 mach
900 cfm = 300 mph = 0.39 mach
913 cfm max = 304 mph = 0.40 mach
Having the least number of bends is also more efficient - but I really don't see that the 16T is going to move enough air for the 50mm to be an issue.
I think there will be other more pressing bottlenecks to overcome before this is an issue.
Last edited by Wobbly Dave; Thursday 13th March 2014 at 13:51.
Volvo ABS ECU Repair
Join my projecteers tribe - Old Volvos Never Die - They just get faster.
Visit my VPCUK garage and my YouTube channel - WobblyDave72
The simple thing is no matter what size feed pipe you have or what filter you have everything is governed eventually by the size of the MAF for calculating the air mass and also the CFM size of the turbo.
Standard modified Airbox and filter are ok to about 400bhp so where does an aftermarket get you?........just an emptier wallet and noise!!.........Oh! and effort for nothing
Now when talking N/A motors that is completely different and all the homework and effort that goes into induction routes from the front of the motor come into there own to keep the airflow up for performance a turbo engine will just purely rely on the suction of the turbo and grab what it can to cram in and will overcome any difficult obstructions the main hinderance being hot air which all these non enclosed type of filters give successfully........one main reason the standard air box is so good, as it`s all enclosed.
Last edited by 960kg; Thursday 13th March 2014 at 15:40.
Mercedes C320CDI Sport Estate 3 litre V6 7 Gear Auto
Remap 290bhp 628Nm torque @ 1600revs 45.1mpg
graemewelch (Thursday 13th March 2014)
But you can't see it with the bonnet shut & it doesn't make any real difference and the seal to the bonnet is poor so it sucks in hot air from the engine bay.
The best thing is to renew the stock air filter more often ,and there is no problem with putting oil on the filter that can get onto the MAF sensor.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks