13-01-2013, 04:06 PM
Yes, the intakes on Lemans are for restrictions, but it just shows how much air can be sucked through them still! And if that is 'sucking' rather than being rammed through, the intake vacuum will be high, so that obviously isn't always a bad thing?!
As said, fluid dynamics isn't my strong area really, lots of weird counter-intuitive stuff goes on so what you see or imagine as being right or logical might not be the case.
MAP sensor seems over-kill in my view. MAF sensor is more intuitive as it's logging the actual air mass pre-turbo. Not sure why MAP might be more preferable except on engines that will be making MEGA power and a MAF is just a restriction you can do without (ie, tractor pulling maybe?)
I was at ASI at the NEC yesterday and lots of the intake people these days seem to have those MAF sensors that slide into the pipe through a mounting hole. Seems a better approach in my view. The OEM's do that now but not always on the best pipes.
Also the filter people still use silly cones without proper ram air feeds, but I guess they need a USP and to stand out against OEM, otherwise why would people buy?
I also noticed they had the most flash stands with their products placed like crown jewels haha... even my wife was looking saying maybe I should get a K&N haha!
Marketing over substance? Hmmmm...
2.8 HDi maf does indeed sound good. But those slide in MAF seem better. Then you can run any size pipe and mount an adaptor plate for the MAF. Only issue would be calibrating, BUT, I think you could do that by running it in the car alongside a 2.8 MAF (upstream maybe), and log values from both and then plot the new calibration hehe
Oooor, get the calibration data from a car that uses that type of sensor with a similar pipe diameter to the one you want to use...
Aaron, the sensor will probably need a tweaked map... you won't benefit at all from it unless you are up over 185bhp, but in theory you can probably run standard sensor with "ok" metering to 200bhp.
I think any air-filter as we have seen, is no different to OEM. As said, at 150bhp on a 206 HDi FMIC, a range of filters from standard, cones, etc etc, all the way to no filter at all, made no difference at all really. All dynos were within a few bhp of each other.
Dave
As said, fluid dynamics isn't my strong area really, lots of weird counter-intuitive stuff goes on so what you see or imagine as being right or logical might not be the case.
MAP sensor seems over-kill in my view. MAF sensor is more intuitive as it's logging the actual air mass pre-turbo. Not sure why MAP might be more preferable except on engines that will be making MEGA power and a MAF is just a restriction you can do without (ie, tractor pulling maybe?)
I was at ASI at the NEC yesterday and lots of the intake people these days seem to have those MAF sensors that slide into the pipe through a mounting hole. Seems a better approach in my view. The OEM's do that now but not always on the best pipes.
Also the filter people still use silly cones without proper ram air feeds, but I guess they need a USP and to stand out against OEM, otherwise why would people buy?
I also noticed they had the most flash stands with their products placed like crown jewels haha... even my wife was looking saying maybe I should get a K&N haha!
Marketing over substance? Hmmmm...
2.8 HDi maf does indeed sound good. But those slide in MAF seem better. Then you can run any size pipe and mount an adaptor plate for the MAF. Only issue would be calibrating, BUT, I think you could do that by running it in the car alongside a 2.8 MAF (upstream maybe), and log values from both and then plot the new calibration hehe
Oooor, get the calibration data from a car that uses that type of sensor with a similar pipe diameter to the one you want to use...
Aaron, the sensor will probably need a tweaked map... you won't benefit at all from it unless you are up over 185bhp, but in theory you can probably run standard sensor with "ok" metering to 200bhp.
I think any air-filter as we have seen, is no different to OEM. As said, at 150bhp on a 206 HDi FMIC, a range of filters from standard, cones, etc etc, all the way to no filter at all, made no difference at all really. All dynos were within a few bhp of each other.
Dave
