| Author |
Message |
    
cartner
| | Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 09:42 pm: | 
|
Anyone know where I can get the Mantec/Rovers north style snorkle for less than R.N. is asking? They seem a bit steep for a metal tube... |
M. K. Watson (Lrover94)
| | Posted on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 10:03 pm: |
|
its all that technology you are paying for cartner!
mike w |
cartner
| | Posted on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 09:25 am: |
|
Damn. Foiled AGAIN! Rovers North somehow always wins....but this time? anyone? |
John Cinquegrana (Johnc)
| | Posted on Monday, January 27, 2003 - 09:32 am: |
|
I purchased the top of the snorkel and will be making my own. I paid $65 for the Safari top. I am using 3" conduit pipe (I got it from the electricians in my building). Instead of bending it I will be cutting it at a 25 degree angle, turning the pipe around and welding it (this is for the top section). On the bottom section I think I'll be using a 60 degree elbow. I am installing it on my Rangie. if it works out well I'll try making one for my D1.
Hope this helps.
John |
cartner
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 07:16 am: |
|
let me know how it turns out, thanks! |
Dean Brown (Deanbrown3d)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 08:32 am: |
|
I got mine at Atlantic British, take a look there. |
Paul T. Schram (Paulschram)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 09:42 am: |
|
I know of several folks who have made them for their trucks using commonly available materials from Home Depot. So far, they all have looked at least as nice as the factory setups.
The big issue that seems to come up in these discussions is how much flow restriction can a 3.9 (or 4.0) withstand before you choke the engine off (stoichiometry raises its ugly head yet again). Personally, I feel that if one maintains the internal diameter greater than the smallest ID of the existing system, no major flow restrictions should occur, assuming gentle bends on any directional changes that need to be made, and there will be several. Notice the huge volume of the box where one of the commercial units enters the wing. Obviously, they were trying to minimize any restriction in that profile change. I think that what kills folks is the change of ID in the bends and the resulting drastic flow reduction. From my measurements, the smallest ID of the existing system on a DI is found at the air horn, and once the air horn is removed, the narrowest point is at the MAF sensor where the diameter is approximately 2", or slightly less (don't have my notebook at the office of the day job). There may also be a slight reduction in ID at the plenum-damned notebook!
Someday, I'll use all of that stainless tubing I got as scrap for a snorkel for my truck... Someday.
Yes, I have given this way too much thought.
Peace,
Paul |
cartner
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 11:06 am: |
|
Is the Atlantic British snorkel the same as the Mantec or is it the safari/ARB....how much was it if it was the mantec? |
Robbie (Robbie)
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 28, 2003 - 11:41 am: |
|
they have them for a little cheaper here
http://www.pangaea-expeditions.com/products/brand/mantecprodindex.html |
cartner
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 09:09 am: |
|
even better, and related, will this help gas mileage at all? power? |
Tom Rowe
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:00 am: |
|
Well..air flow is just like fluids, in fact fluid dynamics includes gasses, which I'm familar with from a past life as a pipefitter. Even maintaining the airhorn diameter for the length of the snorkle will cause more restriction. Add bends and it even more. [Ever wonder about those u-bends on long runs of chemical plant piping, for no apparent reason? It's to slow the flow]. Anyway, as long as you keep a slightly larger diameter in the snorkel tubing, which shouldn't be hard, you'll be fine. If you want exact figures on restriction of flow for a given diameter and bend, let me know, I can look it up in some of my old piping books.
I'll be interested in what you do, I want to make one for my D1
Cheers |
RonLF
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 10:53 am: |
|
Tom,
I thought the "u-bends" are for thermal expantion of the pipes?
RonLF |
Tom Rowe
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 29, 2003 - 11:43 am: |
|
That too Ron. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page