3SGTE: What goes into a snorkel intake?

[mr.ac]

Originally Posted by Xenon676

Advantages of snorkels, allows drafting of cooler air to intercoolers, cools engine bay temperatures (especially if you run two) cooler air in engine bay also provides cooler air for intakes. And they don't look bad, they would provide some drag but the amount should be minimal. The guys got the installation down its nothing but a few screws and a grounding strap.

Nice joke!!
but really air flows from the bottom vent and out the top vent of the engine lid. (remember hot air rises) adding the snorkels does not do anything. the air flow created by those is very minimal and will most likly be blocked by the incoming air coming from the side vents....so its really just useless, its all for LOOKS, no preformance what so ever.

[Indysw20]

Silly mr2 snorkels are for land cruisers

[Sh0ty]

Yeah, if you really want to increase airflow to the engine bay, you're better off working on the underbody of the car.

[Levi_]

Originally Posted by Xenon676

Advantages of snorkels, allows drafting of cooler air to intercoolers, cools engine bay temperatures (especially if you run two) cooler air in engine bay also provides cooler air for intakes. And they don't look bad, they would provide some drag but the amount should be minimal. The guys got the installation down its nothing but a few screws and a grounding strap.

all wrong, the amount of drag is huge its acting like a huge parachute and it goes opposite to the engine bay airflow. Air flows from the bottom of the engine bay out the top and the snorkel goes opposite to that.

All the cold air the intake/intercooler could ever want is available via the side vents.

and they look terrible...

[RedStarr]

Originally Posted by David48

Tom's made a very limited production air box that goes on the passenger side of the engine bay for their scoops.

It's only for NA models, as seen on the TOM's T020 car. The air scoop would route air into the velocity stack cone air filter mounted in the airbox. I doubt it worked very well as only Bomex made a similar version but made it so slim that it was clearly for aesthetics (The only snorkel's that I think that actually look good -- As seen here). So for all those turbo ricers trying to rationalize their desire for a snorkel, you're better off with one of these:



Air scoops on the side vents make more sense, at least.





Or maybe that's how I rationalize my own ricey-ness

[LeePeyton]

My K&N filter is by my drivers scoop. So, why snorkle?
I just don't see the logic in it or why it would look cool.
But hey, I'm the same jack ass that doesn't agree with
bay fans. So, to each their own

[GENESIS]

Originally Posted by Scherm

They're a little bit ricey and not really good for performance, but lets face it, everyone secretly wants one.

If i wanted one on my imaginary MR2, how much am i looking at spending? what modifications are needed? How much/how difficult is it to move the intercooler?

I don't care what anybody says snorkel can look nice on a mr2 with the right body kits but I prefer oem body style.The snorkel really has no purpose other than if you like the style.The mr2 was design to suck air from the bottom and go out to the top.I just think the snorkel is too in your face.

The snorkel sucks when it comes to durability Im just shocked how there's only 2 bolts that's keeping it in place,fitment is good if you get the bomex one but most of them you gotta blend in.

Im not going to criticize you like everyone here,Im pretty sure they go for about 200-300 bucks without paint,Im pretty sure you can re-rout your intercooler for cheap if you know someone with a welder,you can just do some creative custom piping and there you go.If you don't know anyone just pay a muffler shop to do the welding for you.I ounce paid for a custom mandrel bend intake for only 60 bucks.Good luck !

[David]

I felt this would be the appropriate time to pull out a long lost image from my photobucket account.

[3SGTE-RHD]

I like the way the snorkel looks, and I would like to see some actual tests that have been done to show the increased drag and decrease in performance. Preferably with some sort of drag times. Less talking out of asses, more factual #s

[RedStarr]

Originally Posted by baktasht

For what it's worth. I used to own a 91 NA MR2 and had dual CF Tom's style scoops on it. I was living in SoCal at the time and drove back to Austin, TX quite often to visit family. One time while I was out in the desert somewhere in the middle of nowhere and was driving for a good 5-10 minutes at WOT at around 122-123mph as shown on the Speedo, I decided to take the scoops off and see if it makes a difference. It was suprising how much difference they make. WITHOUT the scoops on my top speed went up to around 128-130mph.

Those things cause quite a bit of drag, after that I sold the scoops.

[3SGTE-RHD]

N/A doesn't count, the increase air flow to the turbo could cause for cooler and better turbo performance.

I'm looking for drag #s, not top speed #s. There are too many variables, besides, if he just took them off, there would be holes in the trunk that would cause drag as well. I would like to see if an MR2 running 11s, would start running 12s with the scoops, or even an increase in .1 of the time.

I want to see some ACTUAL physical evidence, videos, or whatever.

I am not saying they do, I am not saying they don't. But all I ever hear is they are good and they are bad. I think people just say they are bad because they think it's ricey.

Until I see some actual evidence, my decision will stay neutral.

[RedStarr]

Behind the rear windshield is a low pressure zone that doesn't see wind resistance. Ever have a leaf on your engine lid and drove around and noticed that it doesn't blow off? Drag is the aerodynamic force on a body that reduces its forward motion. The engine lid side panels don't see any drag as they don't see any wind resistance.

If you're looking for an actual coefficient of drag for the scoop, you probably can find it. But remember that 1 is greater than 0 so having a scoop that's VERY NATURE is to "scoop" air is based on wind resistance since it doesn't operate on suction and it's going to increase drag versus the absence of any scoop.

The scoop would be functional with an NA. It was originally sold as part of a complete 3-piece kit -- TOM's scoop, block off plate, air intake box (for 3SGE motors) that seals to the bottom of the TOM's scoop. It was designed as part of a ram-air system, not for engine bay cooling. TOM's did not make this kit for the turbocharged models. Possibly due to the fact that NA cars benefit more with a CAI (Cold air is more dense) than a turbocharged car (Compresses air with pressure to create density).

The pictures that you want were in a thread that I found, but the pictures are no longer hosted. The thread where someone did this kind of experiment is dated from 2004 -- a 5 year old thread for a body item that is nearly 20 years old.

I think the best way to decide if the TOM's scoop work on a turbo car is by making it functional and conducting a test:

1) Measure the air temperature at the intake while putting leaf blowers to the underside (since 1 camp is saying that is where a lot of the air flows from) and both side vents of a stock body turbocharged MR2. Do 3 dyno pulls and record the average horsepower.

2) Measure the intake temperature inside the TOM's scoop on a car equipped with a custom intake box that seals off and surrounds the underside of the intake scoop. Put leaf blowers to the TOM's scoop, side vent by the intercooler, and underside of the car. Do 3 dyno pulls and record the average horsepower.

Be sure to make sure the ambient air temperature and humidity in both instances is similar. Also, make sure the car has cooled down before initiating the first dyno run of each session.

That way, we can record this data and no one will ever bring up this argument again.

Who's game to test it out?

[killermillermr2]

Well put

[328FTW]

Air is already being "rammed" on a turbo engine that is the nature of forced induction so an n/a is the only real thing that could be tested and the only advantage I can see is colder air going to the engine and you can get that from anywhere without putting a big parachute on your car. Testing the theory is kinda pointless unless you can control all the contributing factors including the dyno which is actually quite hard especially when you add airflow to the mix.

Even if you got a definative answer people are still going to argue so it would be a pointless test. I see them as a look good feature and convincing yourself they "add horsepower" is stupid I could spend $200 on a nice snorkel and look mad tyte and convince myself I have over 9000 more horsepower or I could go buy some new rear tyres and have a better handling car. Alternatively I could spend that money on petrol and drive around laughing at snorkels. You put them on for looks fine but the arguement that they add horsepower is just stupid imo.

Besides who on the street drives at speeds these things would be effective? If you are drag racing you are barely above a standstill unless it's a long ass strip and if you are at the track there are more important things to focus on and if there is an advantage you are better off incorperating the ram into the existing side scoop rather than adding drag. Plus depending on the size of the scoop any horsepower you make has to overcome the drag being created as well and you would then have to test for that as well and round and round the arguement will go.

[328FTW]

Double post

[MRH]

Originally Posted by 328FTW

putting a big parachute on your car. "add horsepower" I have over 9000 more horsepower

I love it! sounds just like the honda kids here!

-H

[LeePeyton]

OVER 9000!

[MRH]

-fin

[3SGTE-RHD]

Couple of good posts, and definitely some good reasons as to why it wouldn't work. But the idea behind a parachute is that wind gets trapped in it, it's like it's hitting a wall, where as the TOM's snorkel would curve the air into the engine bay, it's not the same as a parachute, not in the least.

I never once said that it added horse power, but would it create a cooler temperature of air, and allow the turbo to suck in that much more air. It may not be applicable to low psi applications, but what if someone was pushing 35+ psi on a FP3065 turbo, they would want to get as much air back there to the turbo intake as possible. Even if the air is already being rammed into the front of the filter, there is still a top, bottom, and side of the filter that could use that little extra.

I personally like the look of them, and I wouldn't be concerned if my car topped out at 130mph instead of 132mph. I'm an idiot for going that speed anyways.

But I honestly don't think that the drag coefficient is going to be changed that drastically. But I could be wrong as I've never tested it.

If someone would like to give me a TOM's snorkel, I would gladly take my MR2 to the trak, and do 3 runs with and 3 runs without. I would return the snorkel after the races were done as well.

I mean, if there was already a test done, and it proved 100% that the snorkels do actually cause a performance drop in the vehicle, when it comes to drag racing or track racing, then my argument is moot. I am just playing the devils advocate.

[LeePeyton]

moot you say?