dougmeyer
Needs a job
moderated
Posts: 2713
|
posted January 14, 2006 09:11 PM
I think you'll find that there is no improvement by smoothing the inlet tubes through eliminating the "resonator" chambers (not to be confused with plugging the drain holes. which is a must) and you might find some on/off throttle "glitches" appearing without them.
(Think about pressure "bumps" in the system.)
D.
  
|
supra5677
Pro
Posts: 1279
|
posted January 14, 2006 09:41 PM
I have cut off the resonator tubes and sealed them off with plexi glass and marine strength sealer.. It SEEMS to run and pull a little bit better. I own an 02 it only comes with two resonator tubes..I did get a gauge to measure mb of pressure on a small gauge I have to plumb it into the system just to see what happens..
good thread
BTW Im a novice!!
|
Phantom Menace
Expert Class
Posts: 169
|
posted January 15, 2006 06:33 AM
 Edited By: Phantom Menace on 15 Jan 2006 06:38
Doug, have you tested this mod already for MPH gains? I only ask this because you said, "I think you'll find ..." implying that you're not exactly sure.
If you have tested this... what were your results (aside from the on/off glitches).
Do you think the on/off glitches may be cured by a/f tuning?
Supra- I've heard of a couple other guys doing this mod as well and both reported a slight increase in performance with the ram air on a SOTP feel (butt dyno). I'd like to investigate this mod further being that it's a basically FREE mod that all 12r guys could do.
|
supra5677
Pro
Posts: 1279
|
posted January 15, 2006 09:14 AM
I saw this mod on zx-12r.org years ago.. The intake roar is LOUD but its cool..
BTW my Wifes 03 ZX9R has no resonator tubes neither did her 02 6R. I dont think this means anything from an engineering stand point but I did notice. Also after I did this mod it seemed like the throttle would just "take over" on its own my bike never pulled so hard and easy especially on the top end..
I also noticed when I raced my buddy on his 04 Gixxer 1000 I was on my wifes 9R going to fresno. He would jump me a bike length on a roll on but at 150 could feel the ram air kick in on the throttle and I would walk him on the big end.. Ram air works on Kawasaki's.
supra
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted January 15, 2006 09:32 AM
Edited By: trenace on 15 Jan 2006 09:36
quote:
If the resonator tubes are there simply to reduce sound emissions (and catch rain) at the cost of increased volume to fill..... why wouldn't it be better to remove them and seal up the holes?
You'd think that less volume to fill would equate to pressure building up sooner.
How long does it take to add the little bit of air that pressures them? A hundredth of a second? Whatever the exact figure, then it's pressurized and that's that. Or more realistically, perhaps the pressure received by the airbox lags 1/100th of a sec (or less) behind the pressure it would have received without that small volume also being pressurized. So without it you might be getting, at a given moment, say the Ram Air effect of being at 100.2 mph instead of the Ram Air effect of being at 100.0 mph (your speed 1/100th of a second earlier) or 190.03 mph instead of 190.00 mph, etc. That doesn't seem like potentially much difference.
quote:
You'd also think that a straight path to the airbox would be cleaner than having air going into the resonators and them dirtying the air as it is force back up into the main track of air through the ram air.
Once it's pressurized, why would air have to go down into them and back up out again? No need, it could just pass alongside. There should be a trace of drag as opposed to passing past a smooth surface, but absolutely trivial compared to other sources of resistance in the intake tract. Going after the thing that's a millionth as much resistance as the major items (or a ten-thousandth, or whatever it is) doesn't tend to show up. I believe the findings that there's no performance difference, as it doesn't follow to me anyhow that that could be significant resistance.
|
Phantom Menace
Expert Class
Posts: 169
|
posted January 15, 2006 03:17 PM
Edited By: Phantom Menace on 15 Jan 2006 15:23
Trenace- thank you for the reply and insight, however I have a few questions that you may be able to shead some light on.
I'm under the impression that more volume requires more air velocity to achieve the same pressure. Assuming this is indeed correct, it would stand to reason that by decreasing unnecessary volume it would in turn build pressure sooner according to how much volume you decreased it by.
Now from your example, you're saying that it's simply a split second difference in which the volume would be filled with air. I agree with this but filling the volume isn't what builds pressure... it's air velocity that builds pressure as I'm sure you know.
That being said, the less volume the greater the pressure when given the same quantity of air at any given speed. Meaning, that if the same amount of air is flowing through a small bag and a large bag... the small bag will not only fill up faster, but also begin to build pressure sooner because there's less volume for the same amount of air as the larger bag.
Maybe I'm wrong? If so, please educate me.. I'm no physics guru nor do I claim or pretend to be. Always willing to learn new things.
Thanks.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted January 15, 2006 03:39 PM
Well, no.
If no air were being drawn from the engine, then the pressure throughout the airbox would be identical to the inlet pressure, completely regardless of the volume of the airbox and ducts -- well, completely regardless except that if pressure at the inlet is changing, there will be a very slight lag effect as a very small amount of air must physically enter for the pressures to equalize.
The engine running makes it a little more complex but I don't see where it really changes the conclusion. If the resistance to airflow within the ducts and airbox were zero, then the draw from the engine would not matter. Of course, it's not zero. Instead, there's a pressure differential sufficient to flow a volume of air matching the draw of the engine. But that comes out the same regardless of how much volume the airbox is.
|
Phantom Menace
Expert Class
Posts: 169
|
posted January 15, 2006 05:09 PM
Edited By: Phantom Menace on 15 Jan 2006 17:25
So what you're saying is that the pressure in the airbox is the same as the pressure at the inlet? Correct?
And that the volume of the airbox/tubing doesn't make a difference in the air velocity required to achieve a certain pressure in the airbox?
See, I'm not so sure I understand that...
I mean... let's say you conduct this experiement..
Take a small balloon and a larger balloon (this will represent airbox/tubing volume)
Poke an equal sized hole in both (this will account for the drawn in air from the motor)
Attach both balloons to a faucet side by side. (the water will simulate air)
Open both faucets equally, allowing the same speed of water (this will simulate inlet press.)
Increase water flow on both faucets slowly.
The smaller balloon will fill up sooner than the larger balloon when given the SAME inlet pressure and given the SAME draw from the hole you placed.
Not only will it fill up sooner, but will create more pressure in the balloon sooner. You can see this when the water shooting from the hole in the smaller balloon is stronger than that of the larger balloon. Of course, the larger balloon will eventually build the same pressure as the smaller balloon when given the same inlet pressure (assuming the inlet pressure is pushing in more water than what's exiting through the hole). But that's eventually. The lower the inlet pressure, the more obvious it becomes that the smaller balloon is more efficient.
Why? My guess is because the same amount of water forced into a smaller volume, creates more pressure.
It's my belief that airbox/tubing volume is VERY important to the ram air system's efficiency and how soon it begins to build pressure. At the end of the day... we're looking for more power via ram air and the sooner it comes online, the better!
Again, if I'm wrong and way off base.... my appologies in advance.
Thanks.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted January 15, 2006 05:30 PM
quote:
So what you're saying is that the pressure in the airbox is the same as the pressure at the inlet? Correct?
Correct if the engine were drawing no air.
A slight pressure differential if it is, such that that pressure differential results in that amount of air flow. E.g., if it takes 0.5 inches of water to flow that much air through the system, then there would be a drop of 0.5 inches of water, or about 0.07 psi, just as an example for some unknown amount of airflow.
quote:
And that the volume of the airbox/tubing doesn't make a difference in the air velocity required to achieve a certain pressure in the airbox?
Not that I can see a reason for except where the volume of the airbox changes the resistance to flow. E.g. if it were a very narrow tube and therefore having little volume, then it would have more resistance to flow, so there would be more drop of pressure when the engine is drawing air, whereas if it's wide and therefore a greater volume, the drop would be extremely small for any given airflow.
quote:
See, I'm not so sure I understand that...
I mean... let's say you conduct this experiement..
Take a small balloon and a larger balloon (this will represent airbox/tubing volume)
Poke an equal sized hole in both (this will account for the drawn in air from the motor)
Attach both balloons to a faucet side by side. (the water will simulate air)
Open both faucets equally, allowing the same speed of water (this will simulate inlet press.)
Increase water flow on both faucets slowly.
The smaller balloon will fill up sooner than the larger balloon when given the SAME inlet pressure and given the SAME draw from the hole you placed.
Yes, this is true.
But it takes very little air to change the pressure of the airbox significantly. For example, adding in or subtracting only 1/15th the volume of the airbox would (if it's got nowhere else to go such as the engine) change the pressure by a full pound per square inch. That's a pretty small volume of air and, if there were a pressure differential between the airbox and the inlet, it wouldn't take much time at all for the air to flow in and equalize it. Any change in the inlet pressure will rapidly, very rapidly, manifest itself as corresponding change inside the airbox, as it takes very little volume of air to do that .
quote:
Not only will it fill up sooner, but will create more pressure in the balloon. You can see this when the water shooting from the hole in the smaller balloon is stronger than that of the larger balloon.
There, I would have to disagree.
If the balloons have their bottoms on a surface on the same level and are sealed to the faucet, the pressure will be the same as the faucet pressure, plus the pressure created according to the depth of the water, so many inches of water. Which would be independent of whether it's a narrow small balloon or a wide large one.
If you're comparing balloons not sealed to the faucet, but having their bottoms at different heightsw, then yes the one with the lower bottom will have a greater pressure at the bottom due to the more inches of water weight above it, but that doesn't correspond to the airbox.
Or if talking about how high the balloons might squirt the water once released from the faucet, I would attribute that, if it occurs that way, to the larger balloon having a wider neck and so having less resistance to the squirting water, but again not matching up with the airbox problem.
quote:
Why? My guess is because the same amount of water is being forced into a smaller volume, creating more pressure.
Again, if I'm wrong and way off base.... my appologies in advance.
Thanks.
For sure no apologies needed, I'm sure it's not intuitive!
Basically, if there's a pressure difference between one point where air is and another point, and little resistance to flow, air molecules rapidly move from the higher pressure point to the lower pressure point, and equalize it.
So yes, it does take a tiny bit of time, as pressure increases a touch from say your accelerating from 99 mph to 100 mph, for the air within the resonance chambers to likewise pressurize, but this is very little time. But even if the Ram Air pressure increased a full pound per square inch from that one mph speed increased -- actually it's probably more like a few hundredths of a psi for that one mph if even that -- it would take only a tiny, tiny amount of air movement into those chambers to do that. For one psi, 1/15th the volume of air of those chambers -- and that's not much air.
If the chambers were truly vast then the effect you describe would indeed be important. If say they were the size of an aircraft hangar, then it might take several minutes at 100 mph to get the Ram Air pressure usually associated with 100 mph, because an entire hangar would have to be pressurized, and it will take a fair bit of time for that much air to flow through the inlet. So there would be a big time lag between inlet air pressure increasing and the airbox air pressure increasing in that case. But just a few cc of air needing to flow into those chambers, that can't be more than a tiny fraction of a second lag.
|
Phantom Menace
Expert Class
Posts: 169
|
posted January 15, 2006 06:33 PM
interesting stuff....
I'd venture to say that the resonance tubes equate to roughly 15% of the total volume of the ram air system.
So that's 15% less volume to fill?
So the airbox/tubing should fill up equally with 15% less air?
So the airbox/tubing should fill up sooner with 15% less volume?
You used the airplane hangar example to explain this effect on a large scale. So in a way we're sort of on the same page, just on different paragraphs.
Now I understand that the 15% reduction in volume is very very tiny... BUT isn't the engine constantly drawing more and more air as the rpm's increase? Meaning that every time the intake valves open, there is 15% less air that is required to equate the pressure in the airbox/tubing. Now multiply that fraction of a second by the number of times the intake valves open... and it compounds into a substantial difference.
No?
Again, thank you for taking the time to discuss the matter. I do appreciate it. Hopefully, through questioning we can all learn and better understand how ram air works, maybe even discover a way to modify it to our gain.
|
psycho1122
Pro
Posts: 1608
|
posted January 16, 2006 06:58 AM
WOW! You two......You may be over thinking this just a little. I will quote my self again from earlier in the thread to simplify this and keep the thread on track......
quote:
If you read page 51 in Kevin Cameron's book "Sportbike Performance Handbook", you will see clearly why the Hans does not give "FREE BOOST" at high speeds, it will acctualy LOOSE pressure. It is it design that causes the loss! I witnessed this myself during my testing as I watched the Voltage DROP off at High Speed.
____________
You say PSYCHO like it's a BAD thing!!
|
psycho1122
Pro
Posts: 1608
|
posted January 16, 2006 07:01 AM
Edited By: psycho1122 on 16 Jan 2006 07:05
Here's another Quote to help here....
quote:
This basic rule of a pressurised airbox's "intake pipes" as stated in Kevin Cameron's "Sportbike Performance Handbook",pg 51-line c. states.............................
"The intake pipes MUST enlarge gradually as they approach the box, not enlarge suddenly from a small diameter. Sudden enlargements waste alot of ram pressure. The angle of ENLARGEMENT should not exceed 10 degrees."
This is where the Hans was built WRONG!!
The stock snorkels mouth area is @7531 sq/mm. As the volume of air comming in from the mouth approaches the two tubes at the frame, the square area of both tubes is @8748 sq/mm.
The air slows down as it pesses through the tubes, thus pressure will RISE.
Unfortunately, the Hans has a mouth area of @11,487 sq/mm. AS a result the air has to speed up to pass through the same two tubes in the airbox/frame, thus pressure DROPS!!
This is exactly what I saw on my road tests as rpm's and speed increased!!
The System appears to be based more on Air Volume and the need for the incomming velocity to slow down.
____________
You say PSYCHO like it's a BAD thing!!
|
Phantom Menace
Expert Class
Posts: 169
|
posted January 16, 2006 01:11 PM
psycho, maybe I read that last sentence wrong....
but are you implying that it's air volume and not air velocity that builds pressure.
Also, from the quote you posted, it says that "when the air speeds up, the pressure drops".
I was under the impression that it's the exact opposite...
maybe I misread it or missing something?
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted January 16, 2006 01:16 PM
Edited By: trenace on 16 Jan 2006 13:18
It's correct depending on the situation.... for example, at the nose of a vehicle moving at speed, e.g. at the Ram Air inlet at speed, pressure increases with the airspeed that's APPROACHING the vehicle though in fact the airspeed at the SURFACE of the vehicle is near zero, or in the case of the inlet is near zero except for the rate that the engine draws air in.
Or, for example, one could hypothetically seal a car, and driving it to 100 mph would not cause air pressure to be lost inside, simply from the velocity. And if the cabin were opened to the outside via for example induction in front of the windscreen, if anything pressure would increase, rather than decrease. So moving faster does not always mean losing pressure of air.
However, within a venturi for example, the faster the air flows through it or past for example a carburetor jet, the more the pressure drop.
On your previous post, yes that's right that a bigger airbox helps deal with fluctuations from the engine's uneven draw of air with time. In other words, as the engine is "gulping" air faster than usual at a particular moment and air hasn't had time to rush through the inlet ducting into the airbox to fill it, a small airbox would lose more pressure as it loses air to the engine momentarily faster than the inlet is filling it, compared to a larger airbox that, for the same amount of air, represents a smaller proportion of the airbox. So the psi change is less. This is a big part of why a pretty big airbox is generally a helpful thing.
|
dougmeyer
Needs a job
moderated
Posts: 2713
|
posted January 16, 2006 03:16 PM
Just a couple points here.
As usual, when it comes to fluid dynamics you tend to lose sight of the difference between pressure and flow. In order to achieve a desired pressure and a required flow you will need a certain volume of a fluid (liquid OR gas).
llustration: put the same size hole in a skinny bike tire and a truck tire inflated at the same pressure. The truck tire will sustain the same pressure flow for much longer due to the greater volume.
(Those pesky resonators increase airbox volume in addition to damping noise freqs)
higher velocity = lower pressure and vice versa.
This is why airplanes fly. The air molecules over the top of the wing are traveling faster (in relation to the surface) than the air under the wing due to the greater distance created by the curvature of the top of the wing, creating a lower pressure over the top than the pressure under.
Actually the relative motion is all that counts. The air isn't moving at all, of course, the wing is. The air in front of the bike is not moving into the inlet, the inlet is impacting the air. Same difference.
The ram air pressure is constant (for a given temp / pressure) because it is created by the mass of the air (the atomic weight of the air molecules and how many there are in a given "parcel" of air) being impacted by a moving object (let's say my ZX-12). Newton takes over and creates a force (psi-remember) due to the inertia of the unmoving air being impacted by the moving object (me). At some point the impact force is insufficient to cram (scientific term...) anymore air molecules on top of one another and the pressure stabilizes.
What's happening in the airbox? The air is slowing down and the pressure is going up. If you let the air "out" it would speed up until it was the same as the speed of my ZX-12 and the speed difference would be zero and ther would be ?????? Right, ZERO presssure .
(Or really ambient pressure). What if you could acutally accelerate the air into then out of the airbox until the velocity of theair through the airbox was GREATER than the bike?
Right you are, the pressure would be LOWER than ambient.
But, maybe that's just me.....
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted January 16, 2006 05:30 PM
Edited By: trenace on 16 Jan 2006 17:31
Not just you, your last point seems entirely correct. If the airbox were not a box open at only one end, but rather analogous to a venturi with accelerated flow through it, and the velocity stacks were positioned as jets are in a carburetor, indeed the velocity stacks would suffer reduced pressure.
Fortunately that isn't the case with modern airbox design. However, hypothetically it could be the case with an older, no-airbox design with the intake trumpets, or seperate filters, just sticking out in back of the engine as with for example a KZ1000. Such a design in some cases, having an open back, at least in principle could suffer such an effect in some conditions.
Perhaps that's why in some cases crosswinds introduced problems with such set-ups, but I don't know.
|
Phantom Menace
Expert Class
Posts: 169
|
posted January 16, 2006 05:57 PM
Edited By: Phantom Menace on 16 Jan 2006 18:08
Mr. Meyer... thanks for the reply. Very interesting stuff to say the least. However this information has sparked a few questions, hopefully you can answer them.
quote:
Just a couple points here.
As usual, when it comes to fluid dynamics you tend to lose sight of the difference between pressure and flow. In order to achieve a desired pressure and a required flow you will need a certain volume of a fluid (liquid OR gas).
llustration: put the same size hole in a skinny bike tire and a truck tire inflated at the same pressure. The truck tire will sustain the same pressure flow for much longer due to the greater volume.
(Those pesky resonators increase airbox volume in addition to damping noise freqs)
I understand and 100% agree with this principle. Using your tire example... it takes longer and more air to fill the truck tire than the skinny tire. Right? Meaning that although there's less volume in the skinny tire, it will reach a certain pressure sooner and with less air than with the truck tire. Now using that same tire example.... let's say both tires had an equal sized hole in them where air was escaping (like when the motor draws in air). If both tires are being filled with the same air pressure... the skinny tire will build pressure inside the tire sooner than with the larger truck tire. (assuming the pressure from the compressor is greater than the pressure that's exiting the tire.)
Right or Wrong?
If I'm right, then why would it be better to have more volume?
quote:
higher velocity = lower pressure and vice versa.
This is why airplanes fly. The air molecules over the top of the wing are traveling faster (in relation to the surface) than the air under the wing due to the greater distance created by the curvature of the top of the wing, creating a lower pressure over the top than the pressure under.
Actually the relative motion is all that counts. The air isn't moving at all, of course, the wing is. The air in front of the bike is not moving into the inlet, the inlet is impacting the air. Same difference.
The ram air pressure is constant (for a given temp / pressure) because it is created by the mass of the air (the atomic weight of the air molecules and how many there are in a given "parcel" of air) being impacted by a moving object (let's say my ZX-12). Newton takes over and creates a force (psi-remember) due to the inertia of the unmoving air being impacted by the moving object (me). At some point the impact force is insufficient to cram (scientific term...) anymore air molecules on top of one another and the pressure stabilizes.
What's happening in the airbox? The air is slowing down and the pressure is going up.
Again, I understand and agree 100%
quote:
If you let the air "out" it would speed up until it was the same as the speed of my ZX-12 and the speed difference would be zero and ther would be ?????? Right, ZERO presssure (Or really ambient pressure).
Yup.
quote:
What if you could acutally accelerate the air into then out of the airbox until the velocity of theair through the airbox was GREATER than the bike?
Right you are, the pressure would be LOWER than ambient.
But, maybe that's just me.....
Doesn't that create a vacuum?
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted January 16, 2006 06:00 PM
(just so as you get a possibly quicker reply)
Yes, lower than ambient, but still some pressure, is called a partial vacuum.
|
Phantom Menace
Expert Class
Posts: 169
|
posted January 16, 2006 06:18 PM
I knew taking that physics class in highschool would pay off someday!!
Well, not really... but at least I'm able to barely follow what you guys are saying. (had to read it a few times to fully grasp it all)
|
tuusinii
Pro
Posts: 1031
|
posted January 17, 2006 05:09 AM
quote:
If I'm right, then why would it be better to have more volume?
You have to have (relatively) big air box because when the motor takes air it takes it in pulses. So the air demand is fluctuating. And this fluctuation is so fast that the air dosen't have time to get from the atmosphere to the motor, but the air is taken from the airbox. The tubes have (air) resistance and therefore there will be partial vacuum generated to the airbox. And because the engine has same cc regardless of the airbox, it is better to have a big airbox where the same amount (cc) of air makes less vacuum than in a small one. Thus there will be bigger pressure difference between airbox and engine and thus more air will go to the engine and so more HP:s.
The idea of the ram-air is to stop the air so the pressure rices as said like in a venturi (Bernoulli's equation). The volume is needed to maintain this high pressure when the engine draws the air in in pulses.
Then there is this whole another world of pulses working in the airbox. These depend on airbox volume, form and engine RPM. And in fact they can be much bigger than the ramair efect - even when the engine isin't moving. But the problem with them is that they work only on some RPM when they are in the right phase to the engine. And so on other RPM:s they rob power. This is the reason why it is better to have airbox even if it isin't ram-air box.
That said Cevin Cameron Performance Bike Handbook is really good to talk about these - if You haven't seen it - get it.
|
psycho1122
Pro
Posts: 1608
|
posted January 17, 2006 06:44 AM
The Beauty of the 00-01' Ram Air Systems is (From my on the road tests) that the engine never really has to draw from a Vacuume environment after 40 mph. Even at W.O.T.!!
Impressive!
____________
You say PSYCHO like it's a BAD thing!!
|
Phantom Menace
Expert Class
Posts: 169
|
posted January 17, 2006 12:55 PM
tuusinii- Thanks for that information, makes good sense.
But I wasn't necessarily talking about airbox volume, more so the total volume in the tubes.
Reason being, I'd like to see if removing and blocking off the resonator tubes would increase the ram air efficiency.
Being that the resonator tubes are mainly there to catch rain and reduce noise.... I don't think they serve a purpose with the ram air, if anything it may hurt.
In the Silver Book offered to owners of the 2000 ZX12R, it states that they could have produced more HP via the ram air if it wasn't for noise emmissions. This suggests that perhaps removing the resonators could produce a gain in peformance. Even if it's a slight gain like 0.5mph... it's a FREE mod and for some people 1/2 a mph could mean the difference between winning or losing a race.
|
supra5677
Pro
Posts: 1279
|
posted January 17, 2006 01:29 PM
In addition to cutting off my resonators which I already did I was considering having Hans design another pair of ducts for me, adding 1 inch in the diameter to the tubes..(making them wider) just a thought
|
tuusinii
Pro
Posts: 1031
|
posted January 18, 2006 05:37 AM
quote:
tuusinii- Thanks for that information, makes good sense.
But I wasn't necessarily talking about airbox volume, more so the total volume in the tubes.
Reason being, I'd like to see if removing and blocking off the resonator tubes would increase the ram air efficiency.
Being that the resonator tubes are mainly there to catch rain and reduce noise.... I don't think they serve a purpose with the ram air, if anything it may hurt.
In the Silver Book offered to owners of the 2000 ZX12R, it states that they could have produced more HP via the ram air if it wasn't for noise emmissions. This suggests that perhaps removing the resonators could produce a gain in peformance. Even if it's a slight gain like 0.5mph... it's a FREE mod and for some people 1/2 a mph could mean the difference between winning or losing a race.
Good to help. I think that when they were talking about noice limits they mostly meant exhaust. And when You think about the resonators. It dosen't matter if they have extra volume because those resonators don't flow air to anywhere, so they don't have to be filled. So it dosen't take time to pressurize them (remember Ram-air works so that it recovers the "lost" pressure by stopping the air). Brobably there is some fluctuating pressure on them and so they're - at least to some extent - counted to the total volume and so work for the benefit of the system. And in fact it has to be like this because noice is pressure differencies and these resonators just resonate so that they fluctuations will be smaller and thus making less noice. And this is purely a speculation but they may even help the Ram-air efect because they can prevent the system for going to "lock". But probably they're mostly for the noice reduction and for extra volume.
Of course it would be nice to no if it helps to remove them but proving it will be difficult. Probably You don't notice any difference that added noice. This can - how ever - make You feel like You have more power, especially on but dyno 
|
tuusinii
Pro
Posts: 1031
|
posted January 18, 2006 05:47 AM
Oh and sorry - wasn't it (in silver book) that they said over 200hp with out noice and EMISSION regulations. And if You think that stock ones are pulling 175-185 hp (crank) the modded with exhausta and PC are putting over 200hp (crank)?
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC