Wow talk about a blast from the past……but when I search all my posts are gone…..must of been a server error.
__________________
So , let me get this straight…..your Honda has 1.6 liters, whereas my bottle of Mountain Dew has 2?
Change…..it’s what is left after taxes.
- Shaken....Not Stirred 2003 Mach I Auto Torch Red - Sold
-1988 Ford Mustang GT Convertible, 331 Trick Flow Stroker with a Tremec 3550....oh yea and a 1.6 liter V-TECH motor to work the convertible top.
- 1966 Inline 6……..the pile of parts car!
The truth is that the name is the only draw back to a ram air system because it reall wont ram air into your engine, thats forced inductions job. BUT ram air will always bring cooler air into the engine even more than a CAI. Colder air is denser (contains more oxygen) than warmer air. So in that sense ram air does increase HP a little more than a simple CAI from BBK or what ever.
I removed my right fog light (which didnt work anyway) and I now channel that cooler air into the intake.
Do I think I instantly picked up HP? NO I dont but after a dozen passes down the track that air out side is much cooler than the air inside my bumber and way cooler than air under the hood. Which probably does increase my HP by a pony on two. Not bad for free.
Last edited by oneFASTmustang; 09-26-2008 at 07:56 PM.
Reason: error
-Ram Air a myth? = NO, but at normal speeds YES
-Does it work on a road car = NO
-At 150mhp there is next to no gain.
-Significant gains arn't seen until 300mph+
-The air box is the key, not the ducting.
-When buying a CAI/induction kit look for the one that uses air box resonance
-Ram Air a myth? = NO, but at normal speeds YES
-Does it work on a road car = NO
-At 150mhp there is next to no gain.
-Significant gains arn't seen until 300mph+
-The air box is the key, not the ducting.
-When buying a CAI/induction kit look for the one that uses air box resonance
No doubt you have a slew of runs on the salt flats as empirical evidence to support these statements? I am anxious to hear the details on your 300+mph capable vehicle and what it was like driving from 150 to over 300mph.
No doubt you have a slew of runs on the salt flats as empirical evidence to support these statements? I am anxious to hear the details on your 300+mph capable vehicle and what it was like driving from 150 to over 300mph.
"This was discovered by Rolls-Royce in the late 1920s as the company developed its R Schneider Trophy air racing engine. At speeds above 300 mph, it was noticed that the R’s fuel mixture leaned out enough to cause backfiring. When the mixture was corrected for ram-air pressure gain, the engineers realized they had a "free" source of power. At 350 mph the gain from ramair is almost 15 percent. Similar mixture correction is necessary when ramair is used on drag-race and Bonneville cars and bikes."
"This was discovered by Rolls-Royce in the late 1920s as the company developed its R Schneider Trophy air racing engine. At speeds above 300 mph, it was noticed that the R’s fuel mixture leaned out enough to cause backfiring. When the mixture was corrected for ram-air pressure gain, the engineers realized they had a "free" source of power. At 350 mph the gain from ramair is almost 15 percent. Similar mixture correction is necessary when ramair is used on drag-race and Bonneville cars and bikes."
You can't compare the technology and results of a 1920's experiment with today. That was 90 years ago. Did the RR car have a computer that measured air flow and temperature etc. in order to determine how much fuel needs to be added to the incoming air? Any modifications would need to be done manually and would require hundreds of runs to determine any pro's and cons.
There is a reason that car manufacturers moved the IACT from the lower intake manifold to just behind the airbox. They figured out that the decreased temperature of the air resulted in an air fuel mixture that was better for power.
Technology and advances in every facet of our world are now coming so fast that what was accepted fact last year means nothing today. In order to determine if there is any benefit for todays cars, the test would need to be performed on todays cras.
You can't compare the technology and results of a 1920's experiment with today. That was 90 years ago. Did the RR car have a computer that measured air flow and temperature etc. in order to determine how much fuel needs to be added to the incoming air? Any modifications would need to be done manually and would require hundreds of runs to determine any pro's and cons.
There is a reason that car manufacturers moved the IACT from the lower intake manifold to just behind the airbox. They figured out that the decreased temperature of the air resulted in an air fuel mixture that was better for power.
Technology and advances in every facet of our world are now coming so fast that what was accepted fact last year means nothing today. In order to determine if there is any benefit for todays cars, the test would need to be performed on todays cras.
Yea I agree with you on that... 1920's is a long time ago and the results can't be exactly compared side by side but physics can be taken from this experiement.
"While it's appealing to imagine the forward velocity of a car being converted into free supercharge, the actual air pressure gain is extremely small at normal speeds. For example, at 150 mph, the pressure gain when air is efficiently brought to rest is 2.75 percent. Because this is a dynamic effect, it is proportional to the square of the air velocity. At a more realizable automobile speed of 75 mph, the effect (again with 100 percent efficient conversion of velocity into pressure) will be only one-quarter as great — that is, just under seven-tenths of one percent.
In fact, velocity energy is not converted into pressure at 100 percent efficiency. A figure of 75 percent efficiency is usual, which reduces our notional ram-air gain at 75 mph to one-half of one percent."
Maybe we should just go out at test it that solves it...
Lol i've never had a ram-air intake... science and physics say it is not possible and cannot condense air like a turbo or supercharger.. but maybe something is being over looked?
Only solution dyno it up and see increases or improvements w/ it and w/o it...
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there is going to be some magical gain from air being "rammed in".
I believe the true gain is from the reduced temperature of air coming in and the effect that cold air has at higher speeds. On my 3.8, I have deleted the EGR and installed spacers between the upper and lower intakes and the TB. This has dramatically increased the effect and the temperature drop is easily measurable with an infrared thermometer.
When those compoents are colder, the IACT is reading the colder air and when the computer receives that information, it reads a denser air mixture and it adds fuel resulting in more power.
Much the same as how a car feels stronger when you first start driving but gets sluggish when the heat soaks in.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there is going to be some magical gain from air being "rammed in".
I believe the true gain is from the reduced temperature of air coming in and the effect that cold air has at higher speeds. On my 3.8, I have deleted the EGR and installe spacers between the upper and lower intakes and the TB. This has dramatically increased the effect and the temperature drop is easily measurable with an infrared thermometer.
When those compoents ar colder, the IACT is reading the colder air and when the computer receives that information, it reads a denser air mixture and it adds fuel resulting in more power.
Much the same as how a car feels stronger when you first start driving but gets sluggish when the heat soaks in.
I've been thinking about doing that in fact because my EGR has been giving me problems and at one point I was considering replacing it.
But deleting it sounds more efficent. How would I go about that?
You could try dyno testing in a wind tunnel, if you've got some major $$$ laying around. Ram air works, but how much depends on the design of the inlet, airbox, ducting, and air velocity. Its never going to compare to a blower, but it can net a few ponies. Is it worth the cost? Not really, but I've done enough flowbench testing and more than enough fluid dynamics to know that it does work. There are better ways to spend your time and money, but it does work at vehicle speeds as low as 45 mph, just not much.
__________________
That hunk of junk? Yeah, well I've made a few special modifications to that yellow 99 Gt, it makes the Kessel run in 12 parsecs and eats turbo japs and poops chevy's
I've been thinking about doing that in fact because my EGR has been giving me problems and at one point I was considering replacing it.
But deleting it sounds more efficent. How would I go about that?
Basically you remove the EGR tube and cap the fitting on the header and on the intake or remove the EGR valve and install a block off plate. You will need to delete the egr function from the computer or you will get a CEL. Your SCT should have that capability if I am not mistaken.
if it was a myth would all the drag cars use it??, on my grand prix I have a snorkle and air pan and I can tell you that my mph went up 1-2 mph with no other mods done.
__________________
1988 mustang 5.0 LX, Edelbrock performer manifold, mac headers, off road H with high flow cats welded in, AC/smog eliminator, frpp 9mm wires, bbk CAI, msd cap and rotor, Flowmasters dumped, steeda tri ax, 3.73 gears, and mickey thompson DR's 13.91@101
1983 pontiac grand prix, weekend car, 355sbc 11.5.1, world heads, forged internals, th-400 with transgo shift kit, 8.5 rear with 4.56's and auburn posi unit, 11.96@115 on et streets. (SOLD)
its pretty interesting
