Monday, Dec 03, 2012 at 13:09
Hi BW
To answer your questions - in general the effects of snorkel/no snokel are overated with the exception of 2 areas.
1/ The
water damage to fuel systems is much greater on diesel - many horror stories with up to $20k fixes have been outlined on this site so no need to go thru that again.
2/ In
river crossing where
snorkel has an obvious depth advantage - hence I concentrated on that aspect.
Dust is a bit different - and can be both better and worse with a
snorkel.
No
snorkel=more dust is true if travelling behind someone and visible dust is in the air , but there is less dust if travelling alone - using my Patrol as an example- the air intake is at the very front of the car - whereas the with a
snorkel behind the front wheels is subject to air billowing up from front wheels.
Its not much , but not as good from front guard - here is a test for you , place you hand outside A pillar when
driving and you will feel warm engine air billowing up.
Odd examples don't mean much on either side of the discussion but from interest , no detectable effects of dust have occurred in over 1/4 million kms in my last car and it drives every week in it(e.g. reduced comp ratio etc)
This is what counts as having less dust in air filter could just mean one isn't using a good enough filter for the really fine particles.
For me though what counts is the loss of max air flow - it is true that in some installation you can get
resonance effect that increases air flow at some rev point - but this has to be lost at other (usually higher) engine revs.
So typically one ends up with added an extra meter or 2 of piping to ones air inlet with 1 or 2 sharp bends and this has a nett constriction and hence less max air input.
I also don't like anything that reduces car flexibility like big
snorkel inlets which (as per 2 weeks ago)caused a driver with us to damage his as it caught on a branch on a narrow overgrown track.
Yep blinds are good.
FollowupID:
775695