Fiesta ST Ram Air BIG MOUTH Intake Snorkel by Velossa Tech Engineering - R&D thread!

[D1JL]

All that is well and good.
However, when using this with a Mountune air box, the intent to gather fast moving air at the high pressure zones, and convert that high pressure air into static pressure in the air box is useless because of the lower inlet hose.
That's ok, I still like the outside air factor.


Dave

 

[VelossaTech]

All that is well and good.
However, when using this with a Mountune air box, the intent to gather fast moving air at the high pressure zones, and convert that high pressure air into static pressure in the air box is useless because of the lower inlet hose.
That's ok, I still like the outside air factor.


Dave

If the mountune intake also has a forward facing inlet, air will not exit through that tube since it sees the same source pressure as the big mouth. If the mountune tube is not forward facing, then what you are saying is correct.

Flow only goes from high pressure to low pressure, you can have 3 ram inlets all facing forward, all attached to your airbox, and you should bet your bottom dollar that flow will not exit any of the three.

 

[jeff]

I am happy with Dan and his products. Yes the first appeal of the BIG MOUTH to me and others is the look and custom colors. It fits the personality of this car to have a body-color-matched snorkel glaring at you behind the grille.

I'm not concerned about the radiator not getting it's share of air, there is plenty of flow and the exterior of BIG MOUTH is curved so air will flow around it and into the radiator where it is being covered. Maybe a small sacrifice but not something to worry about.

But I also feel it is surely more than an appearance mod. For beginners there is this article which explains why one would want cooler air; this product takes the idea at the beginning of this article to the max:

http://blog.modbargains.com/best-free-budget-fiesta-st-mods-for-maximum-power-on-the-cheap/

Then we do have some objective data, not from VelossaTech but from another member who made his own 3" cut/snorkel to the grille area and DID measure the temps, see page #212 of Boostbump's build thread, after 70mph cruise and 20 minute heat soak he found 6.2 degrees cooler intake vs. ambient temp and 6.6 charge vs. ambient.

This is no way gives us data on Dan's product, but it does make it obvious that he is moving in the right direction, and I'd estimate his gains would be even better than theHome Depot plumbing elbow Tom used to achieve the data above since it is shaped and scienced as Dan described above. I was planning my own DIY but I am happy with the quality and appeal of VelossaTech's products. I ordered one along with some of his other stuff and will install in a few months when I have my bumper off to install my FMIC.

 

[dyn085]

A small sacrifice in radiator cooling is actually a pretty big deal for anyone that needs performance because the FiST is well-documented to have issues with overheating on the track. And realistically speaking, ModBargains is a horrible source to cite because a lot of their 'articles' have been disproven by people that aren't trying to sell products. They're fun to read and have decent pics, but the a lot of the actual data within is pretty much nil or outright wrong.

As for BoostBumps' data, I would have to re-read it but I'm pretty sure that the comparison is against the closed intake directly to the custom snorkel and does not include a step in-between at the 'free' point of simply cutting a hole in the plastic that blocks the inlet. But again, that's my assumption based on what I remember-he's one of the few members that actually try to collect good data for comparison. I would be inclined to believe that the free cut will stack up favorably against either inlet when comparing both cost and effectiveness.

As I've already stated, this can possibly (and should, honestly) improve turbocharger efficiency-people are just interested in seeing some data to substantiate it. Whether it's enough of a difference to log is something entirely different. Like I've also said, FoST owners (who have had this product for a while now) don't even debate effectiveness anymore-there's just not enough of a difference to note.

I've noticed in this community that data becomes more important and closely looked at the closer we get to the new model year release. After the new MY, everyone buys everything and doesn't want proof until enough people start realizing that they aren't getting gains that they expected. Eventually someone will standardize their testing methods and show us something, we just have to wait until that happens.

I would be curious to see a comparison of logs between this and the free modification of simply cutting the hole. That's just me, personally.

 

[mercdank]

I will be doing logs, stock vs snorkel tomorrow. Stay tuned!

 

[jeff]

A small sacrifice in radiator cooling is actually a pretty big deal for anyone that needs performance because the FiST is well-documented to have issues with overheating on the track. And realistically speaking, ModBargains is a horrible source to cite because a lot of their 'articles' have been disproven by people that aren't trying to sell products. They're fun to read and have decent pics, but the a lot of the actual data within is pretty much nil or outright wrong.

As for BoostBumps' data, I would have to re-read it but I'm pretty sure that the comparison is against the closed intake directly to the custom snorkel and does not include a step in-between at the 'free' point of simply cutting a hole in the plastic that blocks the inlet. But again, that's my assumption based on what I remember-he's one of the few members that actually try to collect good data for comparison. I would be inclined to believe that the free cut will stack up favorably against either inlet when comparing both cost and effectiveness.

As I've already stated, this can possibly (and should, honestly) improve turbocharger efficiency-people are just interested in seeing some data to substantiate it. Whether it's enough of a difference to log is something entirely different. Like I've also said, FoST owners (who have had this product for a while now) don't even debate effectiveness anymore-there's just not enough of a difference to note.

I've noticed in this community that data becomes more important and closely looked at the closer we get to the new model year release. After the new MY, everyone buys everything and doesn't want proof until enough people start realizing that they aren't getting gains that they expected. Eventually someone will standardize their testing methods and show us something, we just have to wait until that happens.

I would be curious to see a comparison of logs between this and the free modification of simply cutting the hole. That's just me, personally.

I agree about the radiator, but speaking for myself I will never track my car so sustained high track temps will not happen.

I agree about Modbargains though the information they present about cutting a hole for cooler air is obviously sound, that is what I was referring to.

You might re-read Boostbumps info, his testing methods are beyond sound and the results are obvious.

Yes, it will lower temps a bit. For me as I said this is 50% an appearance mod, I am not expecting huge gains based on data nor any seat-of-the-pants increase. I just added an intake, am soon to remove my bumper and install my Cobb FMIC, then a custom tune; this is part of this set of mods for me to get as much cold air flow as possible to free up more power.

I will be doing logs, stock vs snorkel tomorrow. Stay tuned!

Thanks! This is exciting and I look forward to your results!!

 

[dyn085]

I agree about the radiator, but speaking for myself I will never track my car so sustained high track temps will not happen.

I agree about Modbargains though the information they present about cutting a hole for cooler air is obviously sound, that is what I was referring to.

You might re-read Boostbumps info, his testing methods are beyond sound and the results are obvious.

Yes, it will lower temps a bit. For me as I said this is 50% an appearance mod, I am not expecting huge gains based on data nor any seat-of-the-pants increase. I just added an intake, am soon to remove my bumper and install my Cobb FMIC, then a custom tune; this is part of this set of mods for me to get as much cold air flow as possible to free up more power.

Yes, I've seen his recently-edited post from last year, lol. I have ATR as well so I'm fully-aware of how many degrees the IAT compensation applies, and I was right in thinking that he didn't compare the free modification of just cutting the hole (though $7 is not a far stretch either). Everyone thinks you can just add-up a bunch of mods to a bigger number and, unfortunately, it just doesn't work like that. We know that because data shows us.

Definitely don't expect any SOP results-approaching it with a realistic mentality will keep you happy with it. I've already explained how it would work, how it would be measurable if there's a gain, why it's not a bad idea, and given enough clues as to why it will benefit the BT crowd significantly more than the OEM turbo crowd. It's only $140 so it will sell well.

A few third or fourth gear logs should give us a pretty solid idea of what's going on with/without it, and Mercdank will be providing those back-to-back datalogs tomorrow. I'm not sure how considering the fact that his plastic is now cut, but I'm curious to see.

 

[TyphoonFiST]

Speaking of cutting...how much are new shrouds anyways?

 

[me32]

I will be interested to see some data. I could see some benefit to it up top in the upper RPM.

 

[BoostBumps]

First let me say I'm excited to see VelossaTech's new Ram Air Big Mouth Intake Snorkel finally made available and believe this is definitely a step in right direction towards improving intake system efficiency and particularly for those folks with enclosed intake airbox systems installed....I would expect to see better results than those I've seen with my DIY snorkel approach...

Yes, I've seen his recently-edited post from last year... I have ATR as well so I'm fully-aware of how many degrees the IAT compensation applies, and I was right in thinking that he didn't compare the free modification of just cutting the hole (though $7 is not a far stretch either).

And yes, this is the updated pic (below) which I recently added to my original post....I wanted to be sure it was clear to others (since I was referenced a few times earlier today in this thread) that my snorkel approach was indeed a closed duct system feeding directly into the intake box...The high density foam block, which was added during my initial install (forgot to take pics of), was to ensure that when the cover plate was reinstalled there would be a good seal around the new grill duct into the OE snorkel...





Here was my initial write-up...

http://www.fiestastforum.com/forum/...Red-Build-Thread?p=81119&viewfull=1#post81119

[HR][/HR]
With respect to the "Hole in Shroud" (with no snorkel) approach outlined by ModBargains...I initially did this as well but quickly observed that intake temps rose far greater with just a hole punched in the shroud as compared to not having a hole at all and as such did not bother to test any further...I'm assuming this was primarily due to the heat radiating off the front face of the radiator being drawn up into the intake airbox causing temps to nearly double that of the conditions seen without a hole! I have not seen any other heat soak or cruise condition tests or actual results posted for just the "Hole in Shroud" approach...

[HR][/HR]
Shown below is my original Snorkel evaluation based on before and after comparisons of "Ambient" / "Intake" / "Charge" temps logged during both a 20 min idle soak and again at hwy (70mph) cruising speeds...Note that this was performed with COBB's CAI installed and since then I replaced my COBB CAI with CP-E's CAI system...



***On a side note... With this intake duct modification my primary focus was towards improving intake airflow efficiencies while keeping the airbox flushed with ambient air...I had no unrealistic expectations that this mod would in any way produce measurable gains in hp...

[HR][/HR]
Also interesting to note since there always seems to be quite a bit of discussion on intake temps not necessarily affecting performance in a turbo system where an IC plays a key role (which for the most part I do agree with)...However, keep in mind that within our ECU programming there are compensation multipliers for IAT where max allowable loads and closed wastegate (Boost) compensations are dependent on Intake Air Temps....

"Max. Load at WOT and Closed WG Comp." (IAT)

"This compensation is applied to the result of the Max. Load at WOT and Closed WG (Table 01-15 / Optimum Power) tables as part of the calculation to create the Load Max. Achievable monitor."

 

[Bluedrank]

I will be doing logs, stock vs snorkel tomorrow. Stay tuned!

This looks so good. I was going to do red for my black 16 FiST.

Interesting question that I haven't seen brought up. Have you noticed and change in engine sound with this installed? I doubt it would change it much if any, but I'm curious either way.

 

[VelossaTech]

first let me say i'm excited to see velossatech's new ram air big mouth intake snorkel finally made available and believe this is definitely a step in right direction towards improving intake system efficiency and particularly for those folks with enclosed intake airbox systems installed....i would expect to see better results than those i've seen with my diy snorkel approach...



and yes, this is the updated pic (below) which i recently added to my original post....i wanted to be sure it was clear to others (since i was referenced a few times earlier today in this thread) that my snorkel approach was indeed a closed duct system feeding directly into the intake box...the high density foam block, which was added during my initial install (forgot to take pics of), was to ensure that when the cover plate was reinstalled there would be a good seal around the new grill duct into the oe snorkel...

View attachment 8341

View attachment 8344

here was my initial write-up...

http://www.fiestastforum.com/forum/...red-build-thread?p=81119&viewfull=1#post81119

[hr][/hr]
with respect to the "hole in shroud" (with no snorkel) approach outlined by modbargains...i initially did this as well but quickly observed that intake temps rose far greater with just a hole punched in the shroud as compared to not having a hole at all and as such did not bother to test any further...i'm assuming this was primarily due to the heat radiating off the front face of the radiator being drawn up into the intake airbox causing temps to nearly double that of the conditions seen without a hole! I have not seen any other heat soak or cruise condition tests or actual results posted for just the "hole in shroud" approach...

[hr][/hr]
shown below is my original snorkel evaluation based on before and after comparisons of "ambient" / "intake" / "charge" temps logged during both a 20 min idle soak and again at hwy (70mph) cruising speeds...note that this was performed with cobb's cai installed and since then i replaced my cobb cai with cp-e's cai system...

View attachment 8343

***on a side note... With this intake duct modification my primary focus was towards improving intake airflow efficiencies while keeping the airbox flushed with ambient air...i had no unrealistic expectations that this mod would in any way produce measurable gains in hp...

[hr][/hr]
also interesting to note since there always seems to be quite a bit of discussion on intake temps not necessarily affecting performance in a turbo system where an ic plays a key role (which for the most part i do agree with)...however, keep in mind that within our ecu programming there are compensation multipliers for iat where max allowable loads and closed wastegate (boost) compensations are dependent on intake air temps....

"max. Load at wot and closed wg comp." (iat)

"this compensation is applied to the result of the max. Load at wot and closed wg (table 01-15 / optimum power) tables as part of the calculation to create the load max. Achievable monitor."

View attachment 8342

you are amazing!

 

[BoostBumps]

you are amazing!

Aww shucks...thanks Dan!

I thought that info might be helpful to others trying to decide...


Your new Snorkel looks great on the FiST!

 

[me32]

Aww shucks...thanks Dan!

I thought that info might be helpful to others trying to decide...


Your new Snorkel looks great on the FiST!

Will you also be testing this new ram air setup?

 

[BoostBumps]

Will you also be testing this new ram air setup?

If I decide to get the new bigmouth snorkel setup then yes I would run similar comparison tests...

 

[Quasar]

If I decide to get the new bigmouth snorkel setup then yes I would run similar comparison tests...

Sorry if I missed this earlier or in another thread, but do you still have your DIY duct setup with your CPE intake? Have you noticed any water in your sealed airbox and do you have any concerns with water getting into the airbox with this (VT) snorkel? I know someone previously commented that water would have to travel up quite a ways but the stock airbox is different than the CPE box and I would be a little concerned with the CPE filter being closer (I think) to the snorkel.

 

[BoostBumps]

Sorry if I missed this earlier or in another thread, but do you still have your DIY duct setup with your CPE intake? Have you noticed any water in your sealed airbox and do you have any concerns with water getting into the airbox with this (VT) snorkel? I know someone previously commented that water would have to travel up quite a ways but the stock airbox is different than the CPE box and I would be a little concerned with the CPE filter being closer (I think) to the snorkel.

Yes, I still have snorkel setup with CP-E intake....And yes, I heard those "speculative" concerns before regarding water possibly getting into airbox with a ram snorkel setup and the short answer is no water in airbox...Understand that its very difficult to get water to travel up, over, and down underneath and splash onto the filter or accumulate in the airbox from the snorkel...Also those with stock air-boxes have a small pinhole at the bottom to allow for condensate (caused by high humidity conditions) to drip out the bottom of the box...CP-E's CAI has an additional 3" lower snorkel tube exiting the bottom of the their airbox...

That said, I suppose any thing is possible...If you stuck a garden hose up in the ram air duct perhaps water could manage to splash onto the filter ...however I haven't seen any water or condensate accumulate in the airbox while driving through rainy conditions...This past week we had some heavy rains and I checked a few times and still dry as a bone!

Hopefully this pic will help illustrate why shown with old Cobb CAI I had installed...

 

[Quasar]

Yes, I still have snorkel setup with CP-E intake....And yes, I heard those "speculative" concerns before regarding water possibly getting into airbox with a ram snorkel setup and the short answer is no water in airbox...Understand that its very difficult to get water to travel up, over, and down underneath the filter and accumulate in the airbox from the snorkel...Also those with stock air-boxes also have a small pinhole at the bottom to allow for condensate (caused by high humidity conditions) to drip out the bottom of the box...CP-E's CAI has a 3" lower snorkel tube exiting the bottom of the their airbox....

Hopefully this pic will help illustrate why shown with old Cobb CAI I had installed...

View attachment 8347

Yes, the illustration helps, thank you. I am not that mechanically inclined and was envisioning droplets of water on a heavy rain day potentially making their way into the box. I suppose my concern was not whether water would accumulate in the box but if the droplets would be sucked into the filter, if that makes sense.

 

[BoostBumps]

Yes, the illustration helps, thank you. I am not that mechanically inclined and was envisioning droplets of water on a heavy rain day potentially making their way into the box. I suppose my concern was not whether water would accumulate in the box but if the droplets would be sucked into the filter, if that makes sense.

You can always purchase a hydro-shield to cover your filter if you think misting water is going to be a concern for you....Personally, I have not found an evidence after driving through heavy rains of water mist making its way into my airbox and don't see this to be a problem myself...

 

[Quasar]

You can always purchase a hydro-shield to cover your filter if you think misting water is going to be a concern for you....Personally, I have not found an evidence after driving through heavy rains of water mist making its way into my airbox and don't see this to be a problem myself...

That is what I was looking for, just wanted some reassurance from someone with a similar setup. Thank you!