![]() |
|
|
|
| View Poll Results: Cold air vs Ram air | |||
| Cold Air |
|
17 | 60.71% |
| Ram Air |
|
11 | 39.29% |
| Voters: 28. You may not vote on this poll | |||
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|
||||||
|
You can see what is an effective system by looking at what is/was being by NASCAR top level cars.
Even before NASCAR mandated how and where air got to the carb, most if not all were using much the same scheme. A good system for most apps could be called a "cool, still air" intake. It is more (but not all) about cooler air, than pressurized air, IMHO. Sometimes, in an attempt to get a "ram-air" effect, all that is accomplished is the carb gets turbulent air that ends up confusing it. |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||||
|
Its on a '72 and is not factory. It was mostly fabbed by my pop who has done a lot of sheetmetal work. Nothing was changed on the cars exterior when this was installed, not even a bulb. And while I still contend that it reduces drag (even though its only ever so slightly) and that it pushes air through the carb, although again only slightly, it has no real draw back other than the increased weight from the added sheetmetal. There is no advantage that a "cold air" intake would have over a setup such as this.
I in no way am trying to say this will add 100hp, but its advantages are nonetheless real albeit slight. |
|
||||||
|
Quote:
The same could be said about attaching a windmill to your car to generate electricity to power the wheels. The drag would be far greater than the electricity produced and the net energy gain is negative. Ram Air is a myth. If it generates positive pressure, it is generating more drag than it is power. Period. Any benefits you have from ram air are because you're getting cold air. Not to mention, if you were getting effective increases in pressure at the ducting, your carb would have to be retuned to accomodate the pressure. Adding positive pressure to a carb messes it up without a lot of modification. |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
I'm not saying everyone needs one nor that everyone can do a good job of building one, just that it is done. If it wasn't at all possible then you wouldn't see them on the tracks. |
|
|||||
|
I don't think you are understanding AP.
What everyone here is trying to tell you... even if say you put your ram air in place of your radiator. Air would typically flow through that area at a greater rate then the engine is drawing it in. Even if you replace any solid part of your car with ducting. Air would normally flow over that area more efficiantly, the ducting now creates negative flow characteristics. I did testing on a 40 ft wide duct in CFD software. Essentially it was a big cone with air coming in the big end. @ 50MPH hitting the front of the cone, do you know what kinda pressure increase there at the highest point over a 40 ft area? like 0.3 PSI and the air that was supposed to be coming into this cone saw this slightly higher pressure and tended to want to go around it. The results were really disappointing to the person who designed it. I know this isnt the same exact thing but if you look at the results of that and use critical thinking you should understand what the point is. And if you think 0.3 PSI is a mesureable gain of pressure @ 50MPH with a 40 ft wide cone that tapers down to 20 ft, you won't understand what is being said here. Ever Last edited by ChevyThunder; 04-18-2009 at 11:25 PM. |
|
||||||
|
Quote:
This is like the water-fueled car. People keep saying that we just need to make it more efficient, but that isn't the case. I don't care how big, small, or well-engineered it is, it will not create pressure without drag. Period. Not to mention, you need crazy speeds to generate any pressure... like 150 mph+. On the street there is absolutely no benefit to ram air over cold air. There physically can't be unless you have violated the first law of physics. Using the forward motion of the car in order to generate energy to add to the motion of the car is perpetual motion. It can't happen. Even if you manage to add 1hp of engine output at highway speeds, the drag involved would take more than 1 more hp, and the system is a net loss. |
|
||||
|
There is also confusion about some of the cold air kits and filters for the newer cars, and its reinforced by ambitious claims from K&N and other companies.
For example, there is a Ford Racing cold air kit for my 2005 Mustang GT, and it adds about 20-25 HP (which has been confirmed by several testers). However, calling it a "cold air kit" is misleading, because it also includes reprogramming the computer, and a mandatory switch to premium fuel. The cold air intake may work to lower air temps, but I think most of the HP improvement comes from the computer reprogramming (which probably advances timing to get the HP). Bruce |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
This is the mistake I was affraid of. The best cold air has never beaten a well designed ram air induction, or cowl induction for that matter. |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|
||||||
|
If you look at how the NASCAR cup cars do it, that's as efficient as you're gonna get- IMO.
Newton's laws of motion, et al- seem to negate any free lunches, as it were. But I'm SAH no physicist, either.
|
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
| Recent Engine posts with photos |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Martin Senour Tech Sheets? | unstable | Body - Exterior | 42 | 03-12-2011 09:09 PM |
| 1969 GTO Ram Air IV | Croz | Engine | 5 | 09-20-2006 06:37 PM |
| respirators and supplied air | robs ss | Body - Exterior | 12 | 08-30-2006 07:44 PM |
| anbody run this cold air system | spinn | Engine | 6 | 05-08-2005 08:49 PM |
| Ram Air Intake - 67 Mustang | hot rod jerry | Engine | 4 | 06-26-2003 04:38 PM |