Gen 1 vs. Gen 2 insight after datalogging

X

XLRVIII

New member
Great post greg!

"smoothed intake" - The intake tube on our cars have these "things", described in your book as helmhotlz resonators, there are two of them.
I presume they put two of them on the car due to the "dual plane nature" of the intake.... would the longer and shorter runner combination dictate the use of "two of these devices" to eliminate standing pressure waves?

One is very large and easily removed and the opening plugged
The second has to be "cut" off the manifold.

This is the "smoothed" intake people here will speak of.

it is a "stock piece" that has been modified, maf remains in the stock location when using the stock air box..... most felt those resonators just caused turbulence and were there to keep the intake noise to a minimum so they were removed.

Your book described their actual function in much more detail.

FWIW: I followed the flock and removed the large one on my car, purely for asthetic reasons.

Again, thanks for stopping by Greg!

...and as Lonnie said you might/likely find people who are "resistant" to knowledge, but BELIEVE ME, your words are not falling on "deaf ears" by any means.
 
E

eficalibrator

New member
XLRVIII said:
most felt those resonators just caused turbulence and were there to keep the intake noise to a minimum so they were removed.

Your book described their actual function in much more detail.
Click to expand...
Quite the opposite, as you read. The standing waves are cancelled by these devices, which actually smooths the signal at the MAF under certain conditions. Don't feel bad, my cousin's brand new F250 5.4L has 5 (five!) of them on the inlet pipe.

Do you really think that the overally pipe diameter is small enough to be a restriction? The best way to tell is to put a pressure tap on it near the throttle body and see if you measure any vacuum at WOT. If there is no real pressure drop (vacuum), then there's no real reason to "improve" the pipe.
 
Last edited:
X

XLRVIII

New member
Actually the cross section of the intake tube is rather large, it's just an odd shape "smashed flat oval tube".

I really dont think it is an actual restriction.

I was very suprised when I ran across that little snippet in the book though.

I like the idea of a vaccum tap test.. that makes perfect sense!

Learning, Learning.. and Contrary to what you say Greg...
you are pretty good at "babysitting" these threads!
Thank you sir!
 
X

XLRVIII

New member
Ponyfreak said:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the gen 1's run better than the gen 2's.
Click to expand...
no it really doesnt, it's been "suggested" for many years, but never really TESTED or documented other than two people, sometimes on different sides of the country, comparing timeslips.

Since there are so many variables between different dragstrips or even the SAME dragstrip on different days, this does shed some light.

While it's not rocket science or even MODEL ROCKET SCIENCE, it is interesting... and the original poster is probably learning ALOT in regards to tuning in the process.
I know "I am".
 
X

XLRVIII

New member
touche'

But...I'm sure he was referring to stock or near stock comparisons between the generations.

Once you add a blower into the equation all bets are off.. IMHO.
 
X

XLRVIII

New member
I'd run a stock 93 against a 98 w/4.10s and I'd put my money on the stock geared 93.

Tiff's 93 ran 14.6 STONE STOCK and it usually takes "gears" to put a stone stock 98 into the mid 14's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top