In a message dated 3/11/99 3:12:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu writes:
<<
> OK, thanks for the input. Remember I told you I would build a similar
project
> to your for a lot less money from local shops? And that once I did I'd post
it
> on my site? Well, that is what I was talking about. And I was simply
keeping
> my word. As far as having a mandrel bent air-intake...I think that is more
> humorous and appeal to the eye than functional. By the way have you done
any
> dyno tests with your setup compared to stock and even more...a drop-in K&N
> with the $1 S-bolt? I'd bet its less than 1 HP over a drop-in style. I've
had
If I may interject... It seems to me that a dyno isn't nescessarily
the best place to test an air intake. The reason being that the truck
is sitting still, so its only sucking hot air. It isn't a good simulation
of "real world" conditions. I think you'd have to stick the dyno in a wind
tunnel, then do the test. Either that, or test at the dragstrip, but there
are so many variables at the strip that it may be hard to come to any solid
conclusions there either. (Maybe with an ultra-consistent car and
driver...)
-Jon- >>
The comparison would be between a stock air filter, a K&N Drop-in and a Quick
D style air-intake or equivalent. All would have the non-moving handicap so,
the results should be similar to real world performance numbers... in a ratio
aspect. All three would most likely yield better numbers when moving and
allowing fresh air to enter but, the moving numbers would most likely be
similar to the non-moving numbers just higher. Possibly the stock air box with
a drop-in K&N may even yield the best numbers because out of the three it is
taking in the coldest air where the tube style is taking in from just above
the headers.
Just a thought.
Charles
P.S. My site is now Quick D friendly... I need to upload it to the server
tonight.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:13:07 EDT