|
|
|
|
|
|
BMW Garage | BMW Meets | Register | Today's Posts | Search |
|
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum
>
Not enough turbo noise!
|
|
01-09-2012, 06:25 AM | #23 |
Major
111
Rep 1,487
Posts |
My personal experience with open cone filters was that when installed with insufficient heat protection or a decent air feed, the car felt boggy and unresponsive low down in the revs in comparison to an airbox and performance panel filter. At WOT the car felt better at high speed and more free revving than the airbox with performance panel filter.
I then installed a heat shield for the open cone and enhanced the air feed pointing to it, the results were improved response at all points in the rev range. I pulled over after a few WOT runs, lifted the bonnet and laid my hand on the filter, it was very cool to the touch. Based on this I'd only go with an open cone filter without a shield if my car spent a lot of the time higher up in the rev range. For town driving and short spirited runs, the air box proved to be better. Best of both worlds is a heat shield or to locate the filter into the bumper i.e. Stett Intake. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2012, 06:40 AM | #24 |
Lieutenant Colonel
76
Rep 1,518
Posts |
The title made me laugh as I had to remove my dual cones due to too much noise
I was running with no cats, Borla catback exhaust, Evolution Racewerks charge pipe and a dual cone intake with heatshield and air feed. I'm running the standard airbox with K&N panel filter now and can't really feel a difference in performance. It is however much quieter and I don't have to turn the music up so loud. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2012, 07:53 AM | #26 |
Major General
1545
Rep 8,970
Posts |
Do you mean BMC filter?
I've had one in the stock air box for 25000 miles, which reminds me I should give it a clean. No difference over standard IMO, its the piping / ducting / airflow route etc that are the overriding restriction in our airbox rather than the filter element itself I would think. TBH the standard airbox is great, but us modders just love to tinker.... |
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2012, 09:44 AM | #28 | |
Major
53
Rep 1,272
Posts |
Quote:
Yea no one will really notice 10bhp day-day but if you want max performance then you want cold air, The totally enclosed cone filters that have a cold feed duct you put down on the bumper somewhere are probably fine however people tend to put the cold air feed at the bottom of the bumper, first time they hit a big puddle they hydraulic their engine hence why most cars have it near the slam panel as high up as possible in front of the radiator. I've had my hand on a cone filter, on a cosworth running a stg3 setup so (330bhp, 25-30psi boost) and I couldn't hold my hand on the cone filter for more than 4-5seconds as the manifold/turbo was glowing red...and that's with the fan on full, bonnet open and a heat shield round the manifold. I don't know how car planet test their cars but our dyno is also 1000bhp capable and we test our cars with bonnet open to further aid cooling and try and replicate road conditions as best as possible, it will never be as much airflow as on the road however. (fastest car we've saw in the 30yrs of running the company was an R34 skyline we mapped at 650bhp, and also a 550bhp sapph road car that we developed/built/mapped which for some reason kept up & passed on track a 'claimed' 750bhp stripped out mk6 fiesta cosworth )
__________________
Monte Carlo Blue M3 Comp |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2012, 10:04 AM | #29 |
Major General
1545
Rep 8,970
Posts |
In its favour, the 335 air box is on the 'cool' side of the engine right behind the rad and next to the cold feed duct.
I had a 1993 (K plate) Sapphire Cossy 4x4, and if I remember the air filter (I fitted a foam open filter with a Turbo Technics stage 1 map) was on the offside wing right next to the turbo? In fact I sold it to a Scot who came down from Glasgow in 1998, its still listed on forums, so it may be running still hopefully. (reg K191 CMJ) |
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2012, 10:06 AM | #30 |
Major
53
Rep 1,272
Posts |
Yep that's true, the filter on a cos is on the same side as the turbo
I don't recognise the regi, probably saw it before though on RSOC forums or Passionford, what colour was it? I've always fancied getting one but they're just so expensive to run!
__________________
Monte Carlo Blue M3 Comp |
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2012, 02:30 PM | #31 |
Major General
1545
Rep 8,970
Posts |
Sorry OT...
Mine was Smokestone Blue, a kind of dark metallic purple, in fact exactly like this one: http://passionford.com/forum/cars-fo...ssie-sold.html Identical K plate and spec to mine, even fitted the same old 3 spoke cossy steering wheel to replace the 4 spoke minger that was standard. Shot 4 is nice. Beauty |
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2012, 02:44 PM | #32 |
Major
53
Rep 1,272
Posts |
Ah I knew a guy with a 4by smokestone K plater, was mint. He resto'd the underside to but recently sold it, i'll ask about it's a lovely colour, comes to life in the sunshine, any other time could be mistaken for black!
__________________
Monte Carlo Blue M3 Comp |
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2012, 02:56 PM | #33 |
The Tarmac Terrorist
949
Rep 29,345
Posts
Drives: 997.2 GT3
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: ''Fandango Towers''
|
Wanted a Saff Cossie for years when I was younger!
__________________
997.2 GT3
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-10-2012, 03:14 AM | #35 | |
Major General
1545
Rep 8,970
Posts |
Quote:
Found my actual car!!! http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/i...x4/K191CMJ.jpg (notice the added gauge pods on the A pillar ) Done a bit of digging, in 2009 it was owned by someone called Stu at Motorsport Developements in Blackpool - heard of them? Wouldn't mind buying it back now! Last edited by doughboy; 01-10-2012 at 03:22 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-10-2012, 01:24 PM | #36 | ||
Major
53
Rep 1,272
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Monte Carlo Blue M3 Comp |
||
Appreciate
0
|
01-10-2012, 04:01 PM | #37 | |
Lieutenant
7
Rep 436
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-10-2012, 05:02 PM | #38 | |
14
Rep 454
Posts |
Quote:
Mr 5s own testing along with Burgers testing shows the DCI being better than stock. The Mr 5 stock box with cold intake was better but for the cost vs the gain was not worth it for the majority. BMS have tuned over 10,000 N54s x number running DCI's gained 1000's of real world logs to say the DCI are better. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-11-2012, 12:54 PM | #39 | ||
Major
53
Rep 1,272
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Generic in the fact that, oil and dust particles kill airflow meters though! I don't doubt they've tested and re-tested, but it's obviously in BMS's interest to tell people these filters work and make you're car faster... The enclosed cone filters will be fine, but an open cone, won't work as well as a standard air box other than MAYBE high speed runs where MAYBE the airflow is sufficient to feed an open cone filter cool air. but for lower speed/mid range I'd be willing to eat my boxers and say the std box makes more power where airflow isn't enough to feed the cones. ? If it's better all through the revs from the word go, then the standard setup has to be restrictive, which I doubt. Have you tested a standard airbox vs BMS DCI on a rolling road back to back? Anyhoo, enough cone filter arguing, there's only so much we can take I have my views and you's have your's!
__________________
Monte Carlo Blue M3 Comp |
||
Appreciate
0
|
01-11-2012, 06:03 PM | #40 | |
LSD - No, you're not seeing things
72
Rep 3,302
Posts |
Quote:
Compressor efficiency from the TD03 at high rpm is low. And so reducing the PD in the inlet tract to the compressor will realise more gains than the losses incurred from a small IAT rise at the compressor INLET. DAVs1 - are you sure you are comparing apples with apples? Increasing the VE by reducing the compressor OUTLET temperatures surely outweighs any small losses from the slight increase in inlet temps to the compressor right? The point being that most of the heat handled by the IC comes from heat input by the turbo. The more efficient the turbo, the less heat it inputs. Reducing the energy required to 'suck' through a filter increases turbo efficiency (VE) and the turbo outlet temps could be expected to be LOWER with those less restrictive intake filters, even though you begin with an engine bay inlet 10C higher... Seems we agree to some degree. The same rings true for N/A. Gains from dropping IAT 8C with a 'snorkle' or CAI are lost due to the huge pressure drop in the pipework. In some cases they LOSE power for this reason. Energy required to suck down a huge pipe can be greater than the energy realised from the temperature drop they give. Traditionally this is why high output cars forgo inlets and cold feeds and simply bolt a huge cone right onto the compressor... and I'm sure you have tested a few of those? The reason for the convoluted and complex oem airbox is almost always simply noise reduction. Steve
__________________
Last edited by m1bjr; 01-11-2012 at 06:31 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-12-2012, 01:33 PM | #41 | ||
Major
53
Rep 1,272
Posts |
Quote:
The only way i'd have thought to reduce compressor outlet temps is to lower the compressor intake temp or run less boost? Do you know for a fact that the cone filters are any less restrictive than a standard airbox setup? other than people saying "my car feels more responsive/faster up top" or "the manfufacturor sais so" ?? Quote:
I reffer back to the 550bhp cosworth we built/tuned/developed, and we always run it on an airbox setup, RS500 to start with until it started to become restrictive to which we made a larger box as a cone filter wasn't an option....as we were looking for horsepower Why has this focus WRC got an expensive airbox when they coulda just used a cone filter?
__________________
Monte Carlo Blue M3 Comp |
||
Appreciate
0
|
01-12-2012, 03:22 PM | #42 |
Major General
1545
Rep 8,970
Posts |
The BMW parts list name for a 335i air box system is 'intake silencer' which kind of shows what BMW regard its main function to be.
The extra length of an intake system makes it more restrictive, even with the same diameter, so cones HAVE to be less restrictive as they remove a chunk of tract length and direction changes. Re compressor outlet temps, the temp increase is dependant on the pressure increase, so if you start with a higher pressure i.e. less partial vacuum from sucking through a factory airbox system, the you can get the same boost with less compression and heat. But DavS1, your experience shows there is much more to it than just flow resistance. Last edited by doughboy; 01-12-2012 at 03:28 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-13-2012, 12:51 PM | #43 |
Major
53
Rep 1,272
Posts |
Yea, I see what you mean doughboy..I guess the only way to settle this discussion is to test them back to back, I don't have a 335i (yet ) so can't do the test unfortunately !
I'd be quite prepared to eat my boxers (nice clean pair) if I was wrong, I don't have an axe to grind just from what I have saw on hundreds of other cars. If the 335i intake is called that, then it could well be restrictive to supress noise!
__________________
Monte Carlo Blue M3 Comp |
Appreciate
0
|
01-15-2012, 02:26 PM | #44 |
14
Rep 454
Posts |
This is the Mr 5 testing using VBOX equipment and parameter logging...
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=352077 Hot Air Myth from BMS... http://www.n54tech.com/forums/showpo...99&postcount=1 Whilst BMS do have the DCI to sell they have said the N55 is limited gains using after market intake. Think these have MAF to a lesser degree with the later ECU firmware. They only offer a panel intake as customers request them. BMS have built there rep off providing tuning products that deliver. Last edited by neil@JuicedUpTuning; 01-15-2012 at 02:34 PM.. |
Appreciate
0
|
Bookmarks |
|
|