NEW INtake BOX for Z4M and Z4 Project

[GP20]

Thisisdudewhoru, do a bit more research on CAI, the ram-air effect and cone filters before you start talking out of your ass. The OP sure knows more than you do. For those who are bashing the OP and saying it's a stupid idea, just look into the Dinan CAI and the original Streamline carbon-fiber CAI.

I'd be more willing to pay $500 for a well designed true CAI that uses the OEM style intake box and a good quality cone filter than a $300 (or however much it costs) hot-air intake like the AFE or such that sounds good and robs power at the same time.

[inTgr8r]

^WHS +1
I agree. the OP is onto something here.
Yes, not proven, but the concept is promising.

[shitbrownMcoupe]

just get a gruppe M intake, if that's all you want is sound. it's double the price, but you get what you pay for.

I'll get one down the road after my car is fixed.

[Thisisdudewhoru]

Originally Posted by GP20

Thisisdudewhoru, do a bit more research on CAI, the ram-air effect and cone filters before you start talking out of your ass. The OP sure knows more than you do. For those who are bashing the OP and saying it's a stupid idea, just look into the Dinan CAI and the original Streamline carbon-fiber CAI.

I'd be more willing to pay $500 for a well designed true CAI that uses the OEM style intake box and a good quality cone filter than a $300 (or however much it costs) hot-air intake like the AFE or such that sounds good and robs power at the same time.

Where did I let on that cai,ram air and cone filters were bad? The venturi effect has been proven time and time again, i'm not arguing it. Please quote me where I did, otherwise stfu. All I was asking for were flow characteristics of the box he said he had designed or just to merely look at the charts his program had produced...Btw my dad was an engineer for the svt division of ford...I know a little bit about cars I'm sure the op knows oh so much. LOL at insisting that airbox and cone filter were responsible for making that rx7 sound like it does. See, already trying to mislead you all. Good thing he's contracting this out to people who hopefully know what they're talking about and doing.

[nmulax]

+1 on GP20's comments.

Originally Posted by shitbrownMcoupe

just get a gruppe M intake, if that's all you want is sound. it's double the price, but you get what you pay for.

I'll get one down the road after my car is fixed.

The OP isn't just looking for sound. The whole idea in using a closed box is to alleviate the heat-soak that hurts the AFE and Gruppe M intakes.

[Serious]

Originally Posted by GP20

Thisisdudewhoru, do a bit more research on CAI, the ram-air effect and cone filters before you start talking out of your ass. The OP sure knows more than you do. For those who are bashing the OP and saying it's a stupid idea, just look into the Dinan CAI and the original Streamline carbon-fiber CAI.

I'd be more willing to pay $500 for a well designed true CAI that uses the OEM style intake box and a good quality cone filter than a $300 (or however much it costs) hot-air intake like the AFE or such that sounds good and robs power at the same time.

neither the dinan nor CF streamline intake have ever proven to make more power then the stock intake with an aftermarket filter + charcoal filter removal.

There is no was to make an improvement on the stock airbox, you may squeeze more power out of the last 15% of the rev band but once you take into account reliability, driveability, filtering efficiency, cost, heat soak, and overally performance the OEM box is unbeatable.

[The__J__Factor]

I'm fairly certain he speaks about 8 languages so hes doing pretty good :P

Willing to sit back and see how this pans out. GL

[GP20]

Originally Posted by Serious

neither the dinan nor CF streamline intake have ever proven to make more power then the stock intake with an aftermarket filter + charcoal filter removal.

Ugh. Neither has proven? You need to find a time-machine and go back to 2005 and do some readings on the old z4um.com. The fact that you couldn't find the proofs doesn't mean the proofs haven't existed already, which they have.

[The__J__Factor]

Also i wouldn't mind seeing the effects of a larger intake diameter compared to stock.
Might prove beneficial for top end.

[Z4Murder]

just curious why he said he wasnt selling anything but then offered a price tag?

[hansaysso]

all in all, i'd be interested in the product, still don't know why OP got flamed though. gotta give it to him for actually going about getting this idea and product together

[Diokaef]

Originally Posted by shitbrownMcoupe

just get a gruppe M intake, if that's all you want is sound. it's double the price, but you get what you pay for.

I'll get one down the road after my car is fixed.

It is not for sound, the sound is good with a box but is not loud is muffled. like the video you almost don't hear it

[Diokaef]

Originally Posted by Serious

neither the dinan nor CF streamline intake have ever proven to make more power then the stock intake with an aftermarket filter + charcoal filter removal.

There is no was to make an improvement on the stock airbox, you may squeeze more power out of the last 15% of the rev band but once you take into account reliability, driveability, filtering efficiency, cost, heat soak, and overally performance the OEM box is unbeatable.

Also airplanes would never fly.

[Diokaef]

Originally Posted by Z4Murder

just curious why he said he wasnt selling anything but then offered a price tag?

Because one day it will be.

[Z4Murder]

Originally Posted by Diokaef

Because one day it will be.

good luck with your project

[Diokaef]

"As with so many things, the relationship depends on how precise you want
your answer to be.

If you are looking for a precise mathematical relationship to calculate air
flow in a pipe, things get very complex very quickly. There is no one single
X, Y, Z relationship that can be used universally. There is a thing called
'turbulence'. At low enough velocity, fluids (such as air or water) flow
uniformly (called 'laminar' flow -- 'in layers'). As the fluids speed up
though, they start to flow chaotically, forming vortexes and eddies as they
move down the pipe ('turbulent'). The equations for laminar flow are quite
different than turbulent flow; the relationships for X, Y, and Z depend on
what X, Y, and Z are. And, the flow can transition from one regime to the
other during flow, so you might have to make three calculations: one for
each regime, and one for the transition phase. Several practical factors
also affect your answer. The geometry of your pipe, the roughness of the
sides, the purity of the air (is it oil-free?) all affect your answer. Thus,
you not only need X, Y, and Z, but also A, B, C, D, and E (so to speak).
Want more? Air (unlike water) is compressible. At high pressures, and high
pressure drops, compressibility affects flow. Also, as air flows, compresses
or decompresses, it can change temperature, which affects pressure and
therefore flow."

[Diokaef]

In an effort to help lower the cost of pumping fluids through pipelines, U.S. and German scientists have discovered an unlikely solution: adding more turbulence.

By injecting puffs of water into a water pipe, the team completely eliminated turbulence in the pipe.

The research could have huge implications in a wide variety of fields. The most immediate beneficiaries could be water utilities and oil companies, but aerospace and ship engineers could use the method to make vessels more fuel efficient. Cardiologists could even tap the findings to keep arteries clear and save lives.
"There is a way to completely destroy turbulence for a minimal cost in energy," said Tobias Schneider, a scientist from Harvard University and co-author of a study about the research in the current issue of the journal Science. "I hope it has implications in other fields where people want to reduce turbulence."

The idea to eliminate turbulence was somewhat counter intuitive: To destroy turbulence they would add more. The idea was that the two areas of turbulence would annihilate each other.

To test their theory, the scientists pumped in a stream of water into a nearly 20-foot, clear Plexiglas pipe. As turbulence traveled down the pipe, it encountered another area of turbulence, provided by a a jet of water piped in downstream.

The second area of turbulence acted like a wall. When the original area of turbulence struck the second, the two canceled each other out. Instead of a series of localized, chaotic currents, the water became smooth.

Less energy to pump
The benefit of smooth flow is that it requires less energy to pump than chaotic, turbulent water — a lot less energy. Other experiments had previously shown that turbulence could be eliminated, but it took more energy to cancel the turbulence than it saved in pumping costs. The U.S. and German research is the first to show a net savings in energy by canceling turbulence.

The energy savings were significant in even narrow pipes. The bigger and wider the pipe and the faster the flow, the more energy will be saved, said Schneider and Beverley McKeon, a scientist at the California Institute of Technology who wrote an accompanying article in Science. For the large, buried pipes that supply clean drinking water to cities across the world, the energy savings would be huge.
Other beneficiaries
Water utilities could be the first beneficiary of the technology, but they won't be the only industries that could benefit from the research.

Oil and natural gas companies also pump large amounts of liquids in large pipes over long distances. Eliminating turbulence in oil and liquefied natural gas will help these companies save money, which should lower the price of oil and gas for consumers.

Even cardiologists could be interested in the research, said Schneider. Smoothing out the flow of blood around blocked arteries could reduce the number or severity of heart attacks.

[Diokaef]

A fluid problem is called compressible if the pressure variation in the
flowfield are large enough to effect substantial changes in the density
of the fluid. Flows of liquids with pressure variations much smaller than
those required to cause phase change (cavitation), or flows of gases
involving speeds much lower than the isentropic sound speed are termed
incompressible.

For flow of gases, to determine whether to use compressible or incompressible
fluid dynamics, the Mach number of the problem is evaluated. As a rough guide,
compressible effects can be ignored at Mach numbers below approximately 0.3.
For liquids, whether the incompressible assumption is valid depends on the fluid
properties (specifically the critical pressure and temperature of the fluid) and
the flow conditions (how close to the critical pressure the actual flow pressure
becomes). Acoustic problems require allowing compressibility, since sound waves
can only be found from the fluid equations which include compressible effects.

The incompressible Navier-Stokes equations can be used to solve incompressible
problems. They are simplifications of the Navier-Stokes equations in which the
density has been assumed to be constant

[Diokaef]

"What is Poiseuille's Law?" If you do a Google (or other
search engine) search, you will find numerous sites, deriving and explaining P's
Law at any level of mathematical sophistication you care to use. Two points worth
making is that the resultant equation is different for "slow" and "fast" flow,
for turbulent flow, and for bends in the tube. So there is not a "universal"
equation.

[Diokaef]

[The__J__Factor]

On the other Z4 forum they are trying to get Simota to make us an intake. Should be a cheap alternative to the cf Gruppe M.

[Serious]

Originally Posted by GP20

Ugh. Neither has proven? You need to find a time-machine and go back to 2005 and do some readings on the old z4um.com. The fact that you couldn't find the proofs doesn't mean the proofs haven't existed already, which they have.

I've been around e46 m3's a hell of alot longer then that and still no aftermarket intake has proven to be a worthwhile improvement over the stock unit.

Now im sure you can go make 5 more whp @ 8000rpm on a dyno with the hood open with 3 huge fans directing air at an open filter, but out in the real world it's not superior to the stock intake + aftermarket filter.

Then you take into account the sensetivity the s54 has to aftermarket intakes and it's tendency to stall from clutching after high speed high rpm pulls, and you have a genuine safety factor to consider.

Basically if something worthwhile and superior was possible it would've been created years ago for the e46 m3.