Squeezing out the power on a ZT 190+

[The_Monk]

Can anything be tweaked or added to squeeze some more horses out of the V6 engine on my ZT? Ive been reading the "The Two Sixty Super charged? 400 big ones" thread and wondered if anything could be done to the 190?

[Keith]

All things are possible
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/04-54-MG-ZT-Supercharged-260BHP-Estate_W0QQitemZ130050432064QQihZ003QQcategoryZ182 62QQtcZphotoQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[The_Monk]

Doesnt say what has been done to it, unless i'm missing it. Would this be a nos system?

[GreyGhost]

Doesnt say what has been done to it, unless i'm missing it. Would this be a nos system?

Sprintex supercharger, we know this car personally. It is a bit of an animal.

[The_Monk]

Wow £3000 piece of kit! That price looks pretty good on ebay or am i being decieved?

[The_Monk]

Just a thought, what would happen if you put a nos system on that car??

[GreyGhost]

Wow £3000 piece of kit! That price looks pretty good on ebay or am i being decieved?

That's about all he can ask for, I doubt it will sell even at that price the lad selling it bought it as a toy, so I would guess anybody buying it would have to have the same mind set. It's definitely not an everyday driver. It is a one off by the unmentionable one, so there is only really PTP to look after it, if they would take it on.

NOS on that car would probably produce a loud.

**BNAG**

and a puff of smoke, it's already on the edge as far as cams and pistons go

[The_Monk]

Think i'll leave my car as it is!!

[GreyGhost]

Think i'll leave my car as it is!!

Superchip will give you approx 12 BHP £ 300.00
An Induction kit correctly installed with an unobstructed cold air feed wiil give approx 2 BHP. £ 120.00 (upgraded panel filter instead from ITG £ 30.00 better deal)
SS dual exit exhaust system approx 5BHP £ 400.00

[The_Monk]

Superchip will give you approx 12 BHP £ 300.00
An Induction kit correctly installed with an unobstructed cold air feed wiil give approx 2 BHP. £ 120.00 (upgraded panel filter instead from ITG £ 30.00 better deal)
SS dual exit exhaust system approx 5BHP £ 400.00

I quite like the dual exit exhaust! I would have bought that for looks alone! Don't suppose you know anywhere in the Birmingham area that would supply and fit?

[GreyGhost]

I quite like the dual exit exhaust! I would have bought that for looks alone! Don't suppose you know anywhere in the Birmingham area that would supply and fit?

Go and have a word with the XPF bunch this sort of thing is much more up their street. They don't bite :) Much :)
http://forums.xpowerforums.com/

[The_Monk]

Go and have a word with the XPF bunch this sort of thing is much more up their street. They don't bite :) Much :)
http://forums.xpowerforums.com/

Top Stuff! Thanks!

[MartinW]

Over on XPF there's a thread regarding the Sprintex option. The ZT was offered as a ZT220 in Australia from the dealer with this s/c unit. Some suggested that the output could have been higher but was limited for the sake of the 260 coming out.

According to Rincewind, though, when evaluated here in the UK, it was found to be of insufficient quality to be able to factory back it. It was only ever developed by Sprintex for the ZT although there's been an attempt at fitting it in a ZS which ended in tears. As far as the car in the EBay advert goes I assume Grey Ghost's comment to the unmentionable one is related to the character behind the badge on the rocker cover! :)

I think the basic power gains listed above have covered most of the approaches to minimal gains, but a few points should be noted.
http://www.brit-cars.com/content/view/208/36/
The above link shows the differences between the 160/75 and the ZT180/190 units. Apart from some discussion as to whether there really was any difference between the 160/75 and 180/190 engines regarding bearing and gudgeon pin material, the main issue appears to be the 190 has the 10mm bigger inlet diametre air feed, and the cams are advanced 4°. In addition, the 190 backbox has a valve, which at lower revs allows for quieter drive-by noise, but opens at higher revs.

According to what I have seen as feedback from rolling road days, the 160 makes a little more power than the figures quoted, somewhere on average in the order of 163-166bhp, whilst the 190 just about makes it at 187 on average (allowing for a few issues with VIS problems, which to my knowledge the VIS being inactive on the ZT 160 - part of it's detuning from the 175 put out by the same engine in the 75.)

Another thread on XPF is looking into buying cams on a group discount which includes vernier timing pulleys. It is a very reasonable purchase at £600 in total, maybe less, but the fitting is the main cost, although if you are nearing a cambelt change that may be easier. I don't think there's any definitive answer on what extra power will be achieved, but presumably a re-chip would enhance the benefit from the new cams.

As to other ways to eek more power, I have used Mobil1's 0W40 since the first scheduled service at 12k miles, and it's generally had Shell Optimax. I know many claim not to see a benefit with this, but I certainly notice a lack-lustre performance when switching back to standard unleaded. Of course, given that I like to use the revs, I do notice this, but I am sure there are times when many drivers simply will not see the benefit - although Optimax/V-Power offers other benefits beyond a performance gain.

I also fitted the Moto-build backbox which I think enhances the performance slightly in my case with the 160 and the cold air feed I adapted, it certainly sounds and looks nicer.
These can be seen here:
http://www.brit-cars.com/content/category/10/15/36/

[Rincewind]

Yes, personally I would avoid the Sprintex kit like it has the plague!

[DJO]

Apart from some discussion as to whether there really was any difference between the 160/75 and 180/190 engines regarding bearing and gudgeon pin material, the main issue appears to be the 190 has the 10mm bigger inlet diametre air feed, and the cams are advanced 4°. In addition, the 190 backbox has a valve, which at lower revs allows for quieter drive-by noise, but opens at higher revs.


Just to hijack this thread a little (sorry), would changing the air intake on a 160 V6 have a bigger effect compared to changing the air intake on a 190? I know without the cams and exhaust it won't bring it up to 190, but surely helping the engine to breathe more would help increase the output?:drool4:

Cheers
David

[MartinW]

David, I gather that this is one of the best courses to take. One complaint of the 75 is it's breathlessness at higher RPM, whereas the 190 appears to benefit with the valved back-box and bigger air inlet. I have heard of a ZS owner fitting a Rover 800 air inlet system and getting more power accordingly.

The ECU can adapt to some extent, so any improvements in airflow will help.
In my case, the main improvement has been the ITG panel filter and removing the restrictive reverse trumpets at the inlet and in the airbox, as well as sourcing cooler air through the front bumper vent which I unblanked. However, the next benefit would be a bigger tubing to get more air through. From what I have read, the cone filters are not quite as effective as they at first seem, apart from being noisier, they tend to draw too much warm air, so the cone really needs locating in a cooler place such as in the inner wing.

I am also investigating having my cams re-timed at the belt change, but this may not be so simple, and of course re-chipping would help, but there is some arguement it seems over whether the 190 has different cam profiles or are the same as the 160 but just advanced by 4°.

The truth is you will never make a 160 into a 190, the 190 had differing gear ratios to improve acceleration, although the 160 offers better economy and longer legged gear ratios - hence you can hit 70mph in second whereas the 190 can't (oh, and in Germany it's possible to get to 100mph in 3rd in the 160!).

[DJO]

The truth is you will never make a 160 into a 190, the 190 had differing gear ratios to improve acceleration, although the 160 offers better economy and longer legged gear ratios - hence you can hit 70mph in second whereas the 190 can't (oh, and in Germany it's possible to get to 100mph in 3rd in the 160!).

If I wanted a 190 I would have got one, the 160 is good enough for me. But having said that, if there is a relatively easy way (and relatively cheap!) to get a bit more power, then I'd probably have a go.

Thanks
David

[Rincewind]

If I wanted a 190 I would have got one, the 160 is good enough for me. But having said that, if there is a relatively easy way (and relatively cheap!) to get a bit more power, then I'd probably have a go.

Thanks
David

If you have the 160 V6 then get someone to download the standard 177 tune into the engine and that will give you and instant 17ps increase!

Nic

[DJO]

If you have the 160 V6 then get someone to download the standard 177 tune into the engine and that will give you and instant 17ps increase!

Nic

Now that is interesting, thanks Nic.

I have two independent Rover specialists within 10 mins drive of me (I live in streatham, SW London), so I imagine one or other of them would be able to do it.

That, coupled with a change in air intake would make it even more lively!:drool4:

David

[Simon]

Also hijacking this thread... Sorry everyone!

I too have a ZT160 V6, what's this 177 program you talk of?! I presume its an ECU program for the V6v engine (?). Would I presume that any ex-MGR dealership should be able to oblige in re-programming my car with this programme?

As for air-intake, I'm currently investigating inreasing the breathablility of my car. What's this "reverse trumpet" you are on about? Is it some sort of restricting device somwhere in the air intake system?

[MartinW]

Simon
177 map refers to the 177PS for the 75's V6 2.5L engine, which, unlike the 160, has an active VIS. As discussed above the 160 is a detuned 75 engine, although it is mistakenly thought to be a tuned 2.0L V6 by many!

Therefore, downloading the map for a 75 into a 160 V6 theoretically wakes up the VIS system. However, my understanding from Roger Parker is that this may not be as easy as it sounds unless you know a technician able to overwrite the system. The ECU and all the sensors are coded with the VIN number of the vehicle so that when the T4 diagnostic unit is connected only the map for the 160 can be loaded. However, there is a workaround from what I gather, although I don't know what this is. Roger's comment was that it was probably easier to get the ECU re-chipped independently. But since I shall be in at the MGOC w/shops in the new year to get my belts done I am hoping that they will be able to load the 75 map.

As to the reverse trumpet, I think these are part of the air inlet system on both the 160 and the 75 and reduce inlet noise - and also breathing, but are not present on the 190.
You can see both here http://www.brit-cars.com/content/view/76/36/
and the modification I made.

[Simon]

Thanks for the info Martin.

You mention a 'catch box' in your modifications. Have you implimented this and what would it involve to fit? (I've not done any tuning of any sort so all this is new to me, so bear with me!)

I think tomorrow I will have a look at the air filter, etc. Perhaps implimenting a cold-air feed as you did through the 'gap' in the front bumper.

I had a quick poke around the car shortly after I got it but couldn't figure out how to remove the air-filter box from the car. I couldn't even get the lid of properly so I guess I missed a catch or two. Any special nack in removing this from the car so I can carry out said mods?

[MartinW]

Simon
A catch tank is a means of trapping oil. All cars have a venting system from the sump to the inlet manifold. This ensures that harmful vapours (moisture/acids/fuel) are drawn out of the sump and burnt out via the exhaust eventually, and with the vacuum in in the inlet, this helps draw the fumes out.

On the ZT, the pipes used are very small, and despite my best attempts at using a low volatility oil, the vapours of oil mist seem to be more readily drawn through to the inlet plenum and proof is in the fact there always appears to be oil dripping back from the throttle body if you remove the air inlet connection from the filter housing.

Moto-Build (from whom I purchased my new exhaust back-box in February this year) have, from what I saw in a recent copy of MG Enthusiast magazine, developed an oil catch tank for about £65. I shall probably buy this in the next few weeks and fit it. The tank is about a litre, and has a small sight gauge on the side, but the air coming into this tank is slowed, allowing the oil mist to condense out, whilst the air then picks up again before continuing to the inlet, but free of oil. Oil will reduce the effective octane rating of your fuel, hence my desire to remove it, plus it keeps the sensors in the inlet nice and oil free. There is also discussion that oil is fouling the VIS and balance valves, thus creating the thorny issue of failed VIS systems.

As to removing the air filter housing - you need to remove the top cover, which is a combination of screws and clips, and then disconnect the hose from the inlet throttle body. The filter can lift out. Then, you should be able to pull the bottom of the filter housing out. It is held in by rubber grommets that grip the feet of the filter box.

To get at the hosing in the inner wing you need to undo 5 screws from underneath to remove the 1/4 panel to allow you to get up and at the inlet hose. A big plus to this mod is that changing the headlight bulb (Halogens) is now much easier without the inlet hose end in the way in the inner wing.

But be warned, AVOID puddles of water if you modify the inlet like I did!

[Simon]

Thanks for the info Martin, both on this thread and the other you have just posted on!

I'm sitting here thinking of a way to try and prevent water from entering the inlet pipe once the mod is in place. Possibly by positioning the pipe slightly differently but I will have to see for myself how much room there is and what I can come up with.

[DJO]

Thanks for the info Martin, both on this thread and the other you have just posted on!

I echo Simon D's thanks Martin, have looked at your guide, and has really got me seriously thinking about uprating the air filter stuff now!:D

Checking with insurance, changing air intake is something I'll need to declare BUT it is not a very big change to premium.

However if the ECU is remapped to 177ps, I imagine it would have to be declared, BUt how easy is it to tell and ECu is "adjusted"?:confused:

David

[M47Rman]

Simon
A catch tank is a means of trapping oil. All cars have a venting system from the sump to the inlet manifold. This ensures that harmful vapours (moisture/acids/fuel) are drawn out of the sump and burnt out via the exhaust eventually, and with the vacuum in in the inlet, this helps draw the fumes out.

On the ZT, the pipes used are very small, and despite my best attempts at using a low volatility oil, the vapours of oil mist seem to be more readily drawn through to the inlet plenum and proof is in the fact there always appears to be oil dripping back from the throttle body if you remove the air inlet connection from the filter housing.

Moto-Build (from whom I purchased my new exhaust back-box in February this year) have, from what I saw in a recent copy of MG Enthusiast magazine, developed an oil catch tank for about £65. I shall probably buy this in the next few weeks and fit it. The tank is about a litre, and has a small sight gauge on the side, but the air coming into this tank is slowed, allowing the oil mist to condense out, whilst the air then picks up again before continuing to the inlet, but free of oil. Oil will reduce the effective octane rating of your fuel, hence my desire to remove it, plus it keeps the sensors in the inlet nice and oil free. There is also discussion that oil is fouling the VIS and balance valves, thus creating the thorny issue of failed VIS systems.

As to removing the air filter housing - you need to remove the top cover, which is a combination of screws and clips, and then disconnect the hose from the inlet throttle body. The filter can lift out. Then, you should be able to pull the bottom of the filter housing out. It is held in by rubber grommets that grip the feet of the filter box.

To get at the hosing in the inner wing you need to undo 5 screws from underneath to remove the 1/4 panel to allow you to get up and at the inlet hose. A big plus to this mod is that changing the headlight bulb (Halogens) is now much easier without the inlet hose end in the way in the inner wing.

But be warned, AVOID puddles of water if you modify the inlet like I did!

I should point out that the harmful vapours that Martin is talking about are blow by gases, i.e. gases left over after combustion in the combustion chamber, which pass by the piston rings into the crankcase. The harder you work the engine, and the more power that you try to extract from it, the higher your blowby rate will be, and therefore the greater the risk of oil pullover, whether it be in the form of vapour (normal) or liquid (bad news). All engine breather systems have some form of oil seperation in them, such as cyclones or labrynths, which attempt to remove the oil from the breather gases, and return them to the sump. An oil catch jar is typically used on development vehicles, to protect an immature engine design from catastrophic engine failure (runaway) due to oil pullover. In all cases it will need regular monitoring for oil level (a sensor would be a good idea) as if it becomes full , the engine will have a full jar of oil to pull over, and this would most likely result in some very expensive noises!
Equally, as Simon points out any low mounted direct ait intake is BAD news where water is concerned, as it does not take very long to hydraulic an engine, and again this would cause extensive damage. I spent many months on the original Rover 75 developing the cold air intake duct, which sits under the slam panel at the front of the car, to ensure it passed wading and spray tests.
Andy:)

[MartinW]

Thanks for the feedback, Andy.

What are your thoughts on the amount of oil that seems to accumulate in the inlet plenum?

I did notice though that the original hose on my car up in the inner wing was a cloth reinforced wire type that disintegrated in my hands, and did not appear to be water proof such that at the lowest point where it connected to the solid up-pipe to the air filter box, it could have allowed water in. At the minute I have a 60° bend from a drain pipe on that low point as teh diametre is a perfect fit, but this is aimed upwards (not high enough in all honesty) but having removed the vent blanking plate and fitted a mesh, I was aiming for just a little bit cooler air in Summer. I think I shall put a longer length of solid pipe in and move it to a higher point in th einner wing which should give me a safer arrangement. The downside is that it does obstruct access to the lh light unit for bulb change. Rather that than a busted engine!

[M47Rman]

Thanks for the feedback, Andy.

What are your thoughts on the amount of oil that seems to accumulate in the inlet plenum?

I did notice though that the original hose on my car up in the inner wing was a cloth reinforced wire type that disintegrated in my hands, and did not appear to be water proof such that at the lowest point where it connected to the solid up-pipe to the air filter box, it could have allowed water in. At the minute I have a 60° bend from a drain pipe on that low point as teh diametre is a perfect fit, but this is aimed upwards (not high enough in all honesty) but having removed the vent blanking plate and fitted a mesh, I was aiming for just a little bit cooler air in Summer. I think I shall put a longer length of solid pipe in and move it to a higher point in th einner wing which should give me a safer arrangement. The downside is that it does obstruct access to the lh light unit for bulb change. Rather that than a busted engine!

Hi Martin
unfortunately oil in the intake system is common across all engines I have ever worked on, be they petrol or diesel, diesels usually being worse due to the higher cylinder pressures.(Many) years ago the breather system used to vent into the dirty side of the air cleaner, which led to fouled air cleaner elements, but did have the effect of removing some of the oil. I have only had my 177 KV6 75 for a few weeks, and have yet to pull the intake off, so could not say how much or little oil there is in my intake system. Some breather systems are more effective than others at removing the oil. The system on the M47 engine is very good, and yet over a period of time we still got a build up of oil residue in the intake system, and this can lead to hoses coming off due to oil impregnation etc. I would not worry too much unless the oil is literally pouring out, in which case I would suggest you have a problem some where. For example badly worn cylinder bores/ piston rings and skirts will lead to increased blow bys and therefore potentially more oil pullover. I am afraid to say I am not familiar with the breather system on KV6, but I can tell you that the system on the M47 used a PCV valve (positive crankcase ventilation), a labrynth, a cyclone drain, but also a woolen like filter, which can be changed. When the filter became clogged with oil, the performance of the breather system was impaired. It may be that KV6 has a filter, or gauze type flame trap somewhere, and if this is clogged it could be adding to your problem.
As for the hose that you mention, it is called a shannon duct, and as you say it is probably of the fully breathable type. It is not designed to be fully immersed in water, and if it was it would definitely pull water in through the material. Normally however a partial immersion, or water spalsh would only result in air being drawn in through the end of the pipe, as it is easier to draw the air rather than the water. However full immersion of both the pipe along its length, and its inlet would result in the obvious! We did also use a partially sealed shannon, I think on L series, which had a water proof coating applied to it along say 75% of its length, typically at its lowest point in the vehicle. This protected against water ingress, but as the pipe then has the characteristics of a solid pipe, as opposed to a breathable one, the entire accoustics of the intake system are changed - and not for the better!
I saw the pictures of your air cleaner box after your Mk1 upgrade, showing the road salt. This is what led to many AFM failures for us on M47, and led to the slam panel duct being fitted - although as many owners will testify, the AFM failure is still an issue in service! We were never able to get a totally dry place to draw in the dirty air.
As a further thought, on Defender Wolf, which is the military version of Defender, we developed a twin intake system, which had two dirty air intakes, one in each wing, joined into a t piece, before going into the air cleaner. The theory here was similar to the shannon pipe, in that if one intake became immersed (during wading) the engine could still breathe from the other. Along with some special louvered vents, I can report that this was mostly successful. You could always try something similar, although I realise space is at something of a premium under a ZT bonnet! As a final thought, it is always a good idea to try and get the dirty intake up as high as possible, pointing backwards so as to avoid direct splash intake, and if you could get it away from the left hand side of the car ( i.e. the puddel side) so much the better. Unfortunately, as you will appreciate all of these things can alter your accoustics, and restrict your air intake, and thus affect your engine performance/durability. And now I think we have come full circle!!
Andy:confused:

[Simon]

Thanks for all your knowledgable info, Andy. I appreciate all your work on developing engines for Rover and I'm not trying to 'better' your design but rather trying to find a cooler air source with a feed from out side.

I was thinking of the following set up, I appreciate it may not be perfect but I would like your thoughts on it:

Remove blanking plate in lower left wing.
attach upward-pointing pipe to draw air upwards from outside.
Have the air-intake from the filter pointing towards this outside air flow but allowing a gap inbetween the two.Hopefully, this will allow any water to 'miss' the engine intake because if the lower pipe should become immersed in water then the air filter pipe would simply draw air from around the engine instead.

I'm not planning on driving through deep puddles and I always try to avoid them whilst driving so water-immersion should be (hopefully) avoided.

As for rain and spray entering the lower pipe, I'm hoping that it does not have sufficient kinetic energy to travel upwards once inside the pipe and that the 'suction' from the filter pipe is not sufficient to suck this water up any higher.


Do you think this set up is workable?

[M47Rman]

Thanks for all your knowledgable info, Andy. I appreciate all your work on developing engines for Rover and I'm not trying to 'better' your design but rather trying to find a cooler air source with a feed from out side.

I was thinking of the following set up, I appreciate it may not be perfect but I would like your thoughts on it:

Remove blanking plate in lower left wing.
attach upward-pointing pipe to draw air upwards from outside.
Have the air-intake from the filter pointing towards this outside air flow but allowing a gap inbetween the two.Hopefully, this will allow any water to 'miss' the engine intake because if the lower pipe should become immersed in water then the air filter pipe would simply draw air from around the engine instead.



I'm not planning on driving through deep puddles and I always try to avoid them whilst driving so water-immersion should be (hopefully) avoided.

As for rain and spray entering the lower pipe, I'm hoping that it does not have sufficient kinetic energy to travel upwards once inside the pipe and that the 'suction' from the filter pipe is not sufficient to suck this water up any higher.


Do you think this set up is workable?

Hi Simon
I hope I wasn't sounding off before! I am always keen to hear of any potential improvments that could benefit us, and even though we did loads of work as I mentioned before, we still didnt get a perfect set up, so things can always (hopefully be improved). It sounds as though your idea might work, although to test it properly, ideally it would have to be set up, and thermocouples put into the intake in startegic places, to measure the temperature difference in the intake, between your modified set up, and a standard set up. We would then be able to tell if there was a tangible benefit.
If you can engineer in a gap, this should help, although it will obviously also allow in warmer air. An offset gap would be even better, i.e. not a straight line between the two pipe ends, but again this would allow in warmer air. It might also be a good idea to try to introduce some form of gauze, to help catch water spray, and remove it from the air, and/or some form of labrynth, again to try and remove some of the water droplets.
It is some time since I did any of this work, and I have yet to really start pulling my car to bits (watch this space) but is there any scope for getting behind the wheel arch liner in the direction of the rear edge of the wing?
What we are (obviously) looking for, is air at ambient temperature (rather than underbonnet), in a dry position. I wonder if there is any way of squeezing in an adapted M47 dirty air intake duct? The problem would be getting the piping from the air cleaner box across and up to the centre of the slam panel. I will give this some more thought, and have a poke around under my bonnet this weekend. If you want to talk about this again you can always PM me.:lol:
Good luck with your mods and keep us posted
Andy

[Simon]

Don't worry Andy, I wasn't thinking you were sounding off. I realise you have a good deal of background knowledge having worked with car engines before and I would rather suspect my knowledge pales into nothing in comparison to yours! :p:

I haven't yet had time to poke around in my engine bay and see exactly how much room there is. Hopefully on Sunday I'll get the chance to have a play around.

I've had a few ideas of how to over come the water-intake problem. Labrynths and gauzes have featured in them. The final design may very well depend on how much space we have to play with in the engine bay.

I'm going to (attempt) to draw my initial idea for the air feed and I'll post it on here when I'm done. Watch this space... ;)

[Simon]

I've just emailed ITG (whom I have a filter on order from) asking how much water vapour/droplettes their filters can handle.

Waiting for tomorrow to have a look inside engine bay but I think the principle of slowing the incoming air down as it enters the air feed would allow water droplettes to fall out of the air stream as they no longer have the kinetic energy to carry them forwards. I may also impliement a 'gap' in the system to allow excess water to drain out of.

Schematically it could look similar to this:
http://www.donottumbledry.co.uk/mg_img_bin/airflowbox.gif

In practice, the inlet/outlet pipes would be offset (similar to an exhaust silencer box) to allow the air to 'circulate/settle' in the large box rather than it causing it to flow straight through the box without slowing.

Hope this makes sense (and appologise for my poor diagram!)

Thoughts anyone?

[M47Rman]

I've just emailed ITG (whom I have a filter on order from) asking how much water vapour/droplettes their filters can handle.

Waiting for tomorrow to have a look inside engine bay but I think the principle of slowing the incoming air down as it enters the air feed would allow water droplettes to fall out of the air stream as they no longer have the kinetic energy to carry them forwards. I may also impliement a 'gap' in the system to allow excess water to drain out of.

Schematically it could look similar to this:
http://www.donottumbledry.co.uk/mg_img_bin/airflowbox.gif

In practice, the inlet/outlet pipes would be offset (similar to an exhaust silencer box) to allow the air to 'circulate/settle' in the large box rather than it causing it to flow straight through the box without slowing.

Hope this makes sense (and appologise for my poor diagram!)

Thoughts anyone?

It looks like it makes sense Simon
As always with these things the proof of the pudding will be in the eating as they say. There is no substitute for making it, fitting it and testing it!
Andy

[Simon]

Had a poke around under the bonnet just now and it seems the lower part of the filter box is stuck. I can't seem to shift it.

Doesn't look there's a lot of space to play with though.


Gotta go and do some errands for swmbo now so i'll have a think on it. Perhaps when I'm back I can take the wheel arch liner out and that'll give me some more room to look and play with.

We shall see..! :pepsi:

[MartinW]

The lower part of the box is quite tricky, but it is held iirc by two barbed legs that pass through rubber dough nuts so takes a bit of pulling to loosen and remove.

[Simon]

Progress update:

Right. Unfortunately other events took hold during the afternoon so I never got the opportunity to go down to the local builders merchants to get some drainpipe :(

Will pop down tomorrow during my lunch hour from work and pick up a few pieces. What I'm looking for is to construct something resembling my theorectical schematic from drainpipe (as this is a cheap and accesible source of pipe material) . Hopefully they'll be able to help, even when confronted with the question "I want to build a cold air intake for a petrol engine - what have you got?" :rofl:

[Simon]

Had a one of those "monents of inspiration" this morning whilst at work. Apart from engineering the above schematic I have conjoured up another (ingenious) way of helping prevent water-ingress into the air box.

The blanking plate on the bumper - don't remove it completely! :eek: (bear with me...!)

I reckon, by spacing it using longer screws and a few washers (say about half inch or so) you can create enough of a gap to allow air to flow in but preventing major-water intake through splashes and spray.

Using the orginal shannon tubing from the airintake, but positioning the open-end just behind the now semi-closed vent AND bending the tubing in such away that water is forced to seep out of the tube you can create an almost-dry cold air feed.

Using my not-very-good-drawing skills I will come up with another schematic shortly.... watch this space. :cool:

[MartinW]

Excellent Simon, keep it coming! Actually, my Halfords Barry-Boy Maxpower mesh does much the same! Well sort of! The Mesh I used is quite coarse so should stop direct hits and minimise spray and droplets, but your idea sounds a little more effective.

[Simon]

Ok, here go's.
(Again sorry about the use of overlly large arrows and poor drawing! :rofl:)

http://www.donottumbledry.co.uk/mg_img_bin/airflow2.gif
Thoughts gentlemen? :pepsi:

[GreyGhost]

[QUOTE=Simon D;12557]Ok, here go's.
[I](Again sorry about the use of overlly large arrows and poor drawing! :rofl:)


A transverse inverted U bend, looks pretty good to me. (seriously). Mounting of plate number 4. is the only real difficulty I can see, I've not had a good look in that area so it may be easier than I think.

[Simon]

I've got to actually get to that area of the car myself. As MartinW suggestes, taking the lower qauter-pannel off from the underside of the car and/or wheel arch liner would give you access without having to remove the bumper.

I would suppose it would be fairly easy to use some longer screws and some fat washers to space the blanking plate away from the bumper. I know I've got loads of screws and washers in my garage. I'm sure I can find something that will work. Hopefully I will get chance to play in the next couple of days. ;)

[MartinW]

Simon, great drawing!
Indeed, the mounting of the blanking plate is done simply with two screws into the back of the central (horizontal) divider across the vent.

Now, here's the big question! Do we need a vent at the top of the wing? Surely this whole area is really going to be a positive pressure cell without the venting? I have been thinking about this a lot recently and wondering whether I am getting the cooling benefit or not of the out side air?

Perhaps we need to add slots in the access panel in the front wheel arch to let air out so we get through flow of the cooler air. Your idea works if air is moving in at speed, but in reality it isn't, and this is something I noted with my mod, there's very little water ingress in reality at this stage with positive pressure build up.

[Simon]

Well. That is indeed a good question.

My plan: Buy a multimeter with a thermocouple and run a few tests ;)

I'm also toying with the idea of making the blanking plate perforated using a small-size drill bit to increase flow-thru but I will trial it without holes first and meaure air temperature entering shannon duct. Will also measure cars OEM setup too.

Looking on ebay right now for multimeters! :cool:

As for flow-through then the inside pannel is removable - this could be perforated but would allow water to enter the headlamps. Which would be a bad thing.

Possibility to vent the chamber with another duct leading out under car??? Need to investigate the possibilities for this or other outlets for a vent pipe.

[davediamond]

HI

Any of you guys made any progress on the water ingress issue ?

Cheers


Dave

[MartinW]

I am going to have to take off my front bumper to deal with a cooling fan issue so I'm hoping to look at a cone filter mounted in the inner wing high enough to avoid water ingress. I'll look at the hose that JPMB has mentioned from Demon Tweeks as they are just down the road from me.

[davediamond]

Hi Martin

If you have time and a camera a nice detailed how to would be great...

Dave