Discussion
I always think theres so many variables to be taken into account, that its not possible to ever calculate gains from induction, and indeed exhaust systems, except trial and error. you can have some basic factors to think about, but its always a bit of a guessing game as to the results until its tested and proven 
even the most advanced modelling engineering software cant accurately predict results of these things, like i say, too many variables! no substitute for hearing actual proven results, hopefully someone here on the forum can provide them! my main concern with the enclosed cones was the weight of the units - they appear to dangle supported only by the manifold airbox, which was only designed to hold a light plastic hose, right? They just look like they need more support, I guess that shouldnt be difficult to add for the concerned!
even the most advanced modelling engineering software cant accurately predict results of these things, like i say, too many variables! no substitute for hearing actual proven results, hopefully someone here on the forum can provide them! my main concern with the enclosed cones was the weight of the units - they appear to dangle supported only by the manifold airbox, which was only designed to hold a light plastic hose, right? They just look like they need more support, I guess that shouldnt be difficult to add for the concerned!Edited by AlVal on Sunday 15th July 18:32
When I bought mine it had green cone filters (they were fitted at Joospeed in 2004 for 100 dabs according to the receipt). They support themselves without any problem.
The airbox is still in place with just the flexible hose taken off and obviously the foam filter. This means that cold air is still being forced into the area of the cone filter so I don't think the air will be that hot.
I was thinking of removing them when I find some flexi hose and clamps to fit. Any other thoughts on power increase/decrease.
The airbox is still in place with just the flexible hose taken off and obviously the foam filter. This means that cold air is still being forced into the area of the cone filter so I don't think the air will be that hot.
I was thinking of removing them when I find some flexi hose and clamps to fit. Any other thoughts on power increase/decrease.
None of the filters are in any way restrictive, whether we're talking about the cone filters or the standard foam. The biggest concern is induction tuning lengths. Reduce those secondary lengths and you move the torque around, effectively losing power into the bargain.
You want LONGER secondary lengths than even the standard ones. I've a couple of ideas how this could be achieved without sacrificing the current plumbing, although one idea requires a pair of cone filters and the other requires my chopping up the airbox a little.
You want LONGER secondary lengths than even the standard ones. I've a couple of ideas how this could be achieved without sacrificing the current plumbing, although one idea requires a pair of cone filters and the other requires my chopping up the airbox a little.
JensenA said:
Cone filters will actually reduce power, all they do is increase the noise - induction roar. Air being sucked into the engine should be as cold and dense as possible, cone filters will just be sucking in hot air from the engine bay, so don't waste your money -it's a Cerb not a Nova!
I think theres an assumption there that the cone filters are going to be exposed inside the engine bay? Many installations I've seen pictures of show the cone filters completely encased within the pipe from front airbox to manifold airbox (with various methods/containers used for the purpose of widening the hose to accept the cone filter, see pics.
Mars has just about answered the original question correctly.
Con filters enclosed or not will produce less power / torque than the standard filter set-up.
Gains can be had by extending the lengths of the secondary air inlet pipes. What is needed then is for a couple of cones (near the front of the engine bay preferably at the front of the bottom of the rad) or a redisgned from airbox to be fitted, this should see gains of between 5-10bhp through the range.
There are a couple of threads present and past that covers this subject.
Jules.
Con filters enclosed or not will produce less power / torque than the standard filter set-up.
Gains can be had by extending the lengths of the secondary air inlet pipes. What is needed then is for a couple of cones (near the front of the engine bay preferably at the front of the bottom of the rad) or a redisgned from airbox to be fitted, this should see gains of between 5-10bhp through the range.
There are a couple of threads present and past that covers this subject.
Jules.
its interesting that the cerbera gt car here seems to shorten the induction system lots, although this is for other reasons also, i guess there could be a "sweet spot" at a very short length, and another "sweet spot" at a longer length
thanks to all the brave souls who have gone before and tried different things and come back here to report! guess we should wait to see some results of the proposed "long" system
thanks to all the brave souls who have gone before and tried different things and come back here to report! guess we should wait to see some results of the proposed "long" system
You want as short as possible a primary system (from the throttle bodies to the plenum/airboxes) and as long a seconday system as possible (from the plenum/airboxes to the filter).
It's likely that the filter, whilst isn't restrictive, may alter the tuning effect, so even those enclosed cone filters may damage the tuning length. I'd say the idea behind enclosing those cone filters as shown is to continue to benefit from cold air induction, which in itself is a worthy goal. People pay a fortune for intercoolers to do just this (in a different environment, I acknowledge). Under-bonnet temps are quite significant, specifically because the rad is the main source of heat.
Now, taking the example above... it's possible that having short primary induction through the bonnet is all you need. The secondary induction only complicates the system really. The goal of the secondary system in production Cerbs is to avoid having to cut the bonnet out like that, and therefore tuning the secondary lengths becomes a by-product of *that* requirement.
It's likely that the filter, whilst isn't restrictive, may alter the tuning effect, so even those enclosed cone filters may damage the tuning length. I'd say the idea behind enclosing those cone filters as shown is to continue to benefit from cold air induction, which in itself is a worthy goal. People pay a fortune for intercoolers to do just this (in a different environment, I acknowledge). Under-bonnet temps are quite significant, specifically because the rad is the main source of heat.
Now, taking the example above... it's possible that having short primary induction through the bonnet is all you need. The secondary induction only complicates the system really. The goal of the secondary system in production Cerbs is to avoid having to cut the bonnet out like that, and therefore tuning the secondary lengths becomes a by-product of *that* requirement.
Mars said:
Now, taking the example above... it's possible that having short primary induction through the bonnet is all you need. The secondary induction only complicates the system really. The goal of the secondary system in production Cerbs is to avoid having to cut the bonnet out like that, and therefore tuning the secondary lengths becomes a by-product of *that* requirement.
I think that Joolz has already looked at the short primary option as above and it actually lost power and torque (although the car above may be running a totally different set-up to a std 4.5), extending the secondaries was where we saw the only really significant gains.Jules.
There was some interesting work done at Emerald another Julian some time back. I think there's still a Walker's World on the Emerald website... hang on... yep here:
http://www.emeraldm3d.com/em_walkers_6.html
The pics sort of suggest they were only testing the primaries, particularly as they have bothered to stick some bellmouths onto the ends. However the power from what is supposed to be a Red Rose isn't worrying the Silver Beasty.
http://www.emeraldm3d.com/em_walkers_6.html
The pics sort of suggest they were only testing the primaries, particularly as they have bothered to stick some bellmouths onto the ends. However the power from what is supposed to be a Red Rose isn't worrying the Silver Beasty.
Mars said:
There was some interesting work done at Emerald another Julian some time back. I think there's still a Walker's World on the Emerald website... hang on... yep here:
http://www.emeraldm3d.com/em_walkers_6.html
The pics sort of suggest they were only testing the primaries, particularly as they have bothered to stick some bellmouths onto the ends. However the power from what is supposed to be a Red Rose isn't worrying the Silver Beasty.
Yes that's Julian Rowntree 4.5RR (cerbhead on here), he did some excellent work on it a few years back and has been the inspiration for a few more recent ideas.http://www.emeraldm3d.com/em_walkers_6.html
The pics sort of suggest they were only testing the primaries, particularly as they have bothered to stick some bellmouths onto the ends. However the power from what is supposed to be a Red Rose isn't worrying the Silver Beasty.
His 4.5 has had to be rebuilt since then and the spec of the rebuild was very special. He hasn't posted for a while so not sure if it's been completed yet. He had moved away from the induction system as per the article on Walkers World but was still looking at short induction combined with a larger bespoke front mounted airbox (you can see it in the pic).
The testing that Joolz and I did was quite crude but it didn't bode well for the very short primaries, I am sure there was a significant torque loss as well, however a different set-up tested under less crude conditions may see different results?
Jules.
Edited by Cyclone1 on Monday 16th July 11:52
Joo mentioned to me that the bend in the primaries was important and I think I understood that a crease in the inner part of the bend provided useful results too.
It's amazing what you can do with calculation but more so with experimentation. I wish I could afford a rolling road in my garage.
It's amazing what you can do with calculation but more so with experimentation. I wish I could afford a rolling road in my garage.
That's exactly one of the ideas Jules and Joo previously discussed. The problem will be with the entry angle of the main central airbox, so I thought you could probably cut off the two entry "pipes" and stick them onto the opposing sides.
Although it might work if you simply put longer pipes on, and manage with the awkward entry angle. You'd probably end up with a longer pipe this way, and less hassle to boot.
Alternatively, leave them alone, but extend them *inside* the airbox, down into the nose area. You could make a pair of pipes permanently installed in the nose and swages inwards at the top to allow the removable top of the airbox to slot onto their open ends. You'd need a pair of cone filters at the nose-end or to fabricate another airbox with a similar filter to that already used, in the nose itself.
I might try a few ideas out towards the end of the Summer... when I have a bit more time.
Although it might work if you simply put longer pipes on, and manage with the awkward entry angle. You'd probably end up with a longer pipe this way, and less hassle to boot.
Alternatively, leave them alone, but extend them *inside* the airbox, down into the nose area. You could make a pair of pipes permanently installed in the nose and swages inwards at the top to allow the removable top of the airbox to slot onto their open ends. You'd need a pair of cone filters at the nose-end or to fabricate another airbox with a similar filter to that already used, in the nose itself.
I might try a few ideas out towards the end of the Summer... when I have a bit more time.
dkennedyvxt said:
I currently have cone filters however still have all the original parts. Would the advice be to remove the cones and return to standard then?
Danny,Your question is answered in this thread - http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...
If you want another 5-10bhp then revert back to std, if not then leave the cones in place.
Jules.
Edited by Cyclone1 on Monday 16th July 15:50
Cyclone1 said:
dkennedyvxt said:
I currently have cone filters however still have all the original parts. Would the advice be to remove the cones and return to standard then?
Danny,Your question is answered in this thread - http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...
If you want another 5-10bhp then revert back to std, if not then leave the cones in place.
Jules.
Edited by Cyclone1 on Monday 16th July 15:50
I'll revert back.....Should be getting the Whirlwind from Joo at TCS soon so would ideally like as much power as possible....
dkennedyvxt said:
Cyclone1 said:
dkennedyvxt said:
I currently have cone filters however still have all the original parts. Would the advice be to remove the cones and return to standard then?
Danny,Your question is answered in this thread - http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0...
If you want another 5-10bhp then revert back to std, if not then leave the cones in place.
Jules.
Edited by Cyclone1 on Monday 16th July 15:50
I'll revert back.....Should be getting the Whirlwind from Joo at TCS soon so would ideally like as much power as possible....
Jules.
Gassing Station | Cerbera | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff