Notices
ScoobyNet General General Subaru Discussion

Resonator Removel

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 17 August 2006, 08:16 PM
  #31  
trails
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (41)
 
trails's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in the woods...........555 Wagon Sqn
Posts: 13,350
Received 55 Likes on 42 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by harvey
I had read on here that removing the snorkel ie. the inner wing resonator box was a performance mod. I had done it a couple of times in the past but could not determine any gain. (Unless you wanted more noise from the induction) On this occasion with an STi 3 Wagon I wanted to test various panel air filters and see what gains were to be had from the snorkel removal.
The tests were conducted on a Dyno Dynamics rolling road at TEG Sport on 2 consecutive afternoons. The best power run was 335.5 bhp with the snorkel. The best power run after removing the snorkel was 325 bhp. After refitting the snorkel I immediately got 335 bhp. For me this was conclusive and I think that with the snorkel removed the air flow was sufficiently disrupted to cause the power loss.
I had cut 2" off the original snorkel so that it butted in to the inner wing to facilitate best possible air flow. I had to obtain a replacement snorkel to go back to the original OE system.
As the car was on a standard ECU (with standard injectors and turbo) it was not possible to experiment with fuelling to determine if there would be any gains with a mappable ECU.
The result was contrary to what I had expected but worthwhile as far as I am concerned.

speak his name and he will appear

hope all is well up in your neck of the woods...

ian
Old 17 August 2006, 08:21 PM
  #32  
harvey
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (48)
 
harvey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Darlington
Posts: 10,419
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Cheers Ian : All good here mate, just not enough hours in the day. Thanks for highlighting the tests I posted up before.
Old 17 August 2006, 08:24 PM
  #33  
trails
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (41)
 
trails's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in the woods...........555 Wagon Sqn
Posts: 13,350
Received 55 Likes on 42 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by harvey
Cheers Ian : All good here mate, just not enough hours in the day. Thanks for highlighting the tests I posted up before.
pleasure harvey
Old 25 May 2007, 01:34 PM
  #34  
jasonius
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
 
jasonius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Half way up
Posts: 4,791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Just dragging this up again as a few people (myself included..) have recently been asking about it.

With regards to Harvey's findings, it would seem removing the 'snorkle' disrupted the intake air flow (presumably due to the indirect feed from the inner wing..?) hence the poorer figures.

However, what if you fitted an elbow pipe and retained the ram scoop, so the air flowed smoothly, retaining the 'ram air' effect, from the front of the car..?

Surely this can only have a positive effect, by essentially removing a restriction from the intake pipework..?

Thoughts on this approach as opposed to feeding from inner wing..
Old 25 May 2007, 01:43 PM
  #35  
dynamix
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (3)
 
dynamix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: near you
Posts: 9,708
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

.... or by removing the underbonnet scoop and fitting ducting straight from a fog light surround to the airbox- getting much colder air then.

This works if mapped for it.

Without the mapping .... I think i would go for Harvey's conclusion.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
powerwrx
Subaru Parts
11
28 February 2022 03:07 PM
Scott@ScoobySpares
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
55
05 August 2018 07:02 AM
Tarling
Subaru Parts
10
19 October 2015 07:58 PM
powerwrx
General Technical
4
26 September 2015 09:19 AM



Quick Reply: Resonator Removel



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:00 AM.