post intake resonator removal: to plug or not to plug hole
#1
02-21-2011, 06:02 AM
post intake resonator removal: to plug or not to plug hole
I have searched many threads related to this but I have found only a small handful that discussed plugging the hole vs. leaving it exposed after removing the lower resonator under the airbox. After I removed the airbox resonator and the engine was fully warmed up, I felt distinctly cooler air coming from the exposed hole. This air was much cooler than the air radiating in the engine bay. Therefore the air coming from this area is most likely the same temperature as the air coming into the power duct. Also it is sealed decently well in that area with plastic from the engine bay heat.
That should settle any air intake temperature concerns.
Does anyone have any decent comparisons based on their experiences with covering the resonator hole or not?
After searching I concluded that leaving the "power-duct" in place is more beneficial then modifying or removing it. I am also leaving the above rad intake duct in place. I'm just stuck on the best method to deal with the leftover hole after resonator is removed.
I have a 3 inch diameter plastic tube(about 7 inches long) with a velocity stack type end that I was thinking of modifying the bottom of the airbox opening for.
Some people have mentioned that an extra source of air AFTER the power duct and over-rad duct will cause increased turbulence thus reducing air velocity and in turn, power.
However this extra source of air might be beneficial as the filter is getting the similar temperature air that is cooler than engine bay air and it is getting it from an extra 3 inch diameter source as opposed to just 2 sources.
Although the incoming air from the "power duct" and the over-rad duct is flowing at a different velocity than the new 3rd source air, the turbulence created might not be as detrimental to flow as theory states. It would be encountered before the MAF for one thing.
Also the filter is still getting extra air(from former resonator hole enlarged with 3 inch tube) and a ram air effect(generated at higher speeds from the power duct and over-rad intake duct) .
That should settle any air intake temperature concerns.
Does anyone have any decent comparisons based on their experiences with covering the resonator hole or not?
After searching I concluded that leaving the "power-duct" in place is more beneficial then modifying or removing it. I am also leaving the above rad intake duct in place. I'm just stuck on the best method to deal with the leftover hole after resonator is removed.
I have a 3 inch diameter plastic tube(about 7 inches long) with a velocity stack type end that I was thinking of modifying the bottom of the airbox opening for.
Some people have mentioned that an extra source of air AFTER the power duct and over-rad duct will cause increased turbulence thus reducing air velocity and in turn, power.
However this extra source of air might be beneficial as the filter is getting the similar temperature air that is cooler than engine bay air and it is getting it from an extra 3 inch diameter source as opposed to just 2 sources.
Although the incoming air from the "power duct" and the over-rad duct is flowing at a different velocity than the new 3rd source air, the turbulence created might not be as detrimental to flow as theory states. It would be encountered before the MAF for one thing.
Also the filter is still getting extra air(from former resonator hole enlarged with 3 inch tube) and a ram air effect(generated at higher speeds from the power duct and over-rad intake duct) .
Last edited by wpg_g35; 02-21-2011 at 06:22 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RA102223
Engine, Drivetrain & Forced-Induction
1
08-15-2015 09:24 PM
