Poor Snorkus, poor poor snorkus.....

[3382432]

I'm new here but I'll throw in my two bits. The snork had a few functions. It allowed cold air to be picked up in the fender well and it is a specific length for intake tuning. The special thing about it was it's inertial separator. The flow of goes downward into a box then reverses direction about 50 - 60 degrees and goes up thru the side wall into the airbox. That reverse in direction is no problem for air but any dirt, pebbles and water that get into the fender well cannot make the hard turn due to their mass and settle in the box section. They eventual fall out of the box thru some drain hole in the bottom of it. The cold air is collected and basically cleaned before going to the airbox. Pretty ingenious. Anyone who has removed the snork should periodically go into the fender well to clean the well area. It would decrease service intervals on the K&N for those that kept the stock airbox. There is a mod I've seen (after snorkectomy) that installs an air inlet at the bottom of the fender well cover to further cold air intake into the well. With no inertial separator this is equat to being a street sweeper. My snork is gone too but I kept it. Maybe there is a way to replace the duct work with larger diameter tubes for less restriction. Its a good unit, it deserves better.

[evolutionmovement]

I've observed no problems with dirt on the K&N with almost 100k miles using the intake in the bumper. At 50k service intervals it only appears a little dirtier than with the snorkel. I suppose i could move down to every 35 or 40k if necessary but I see no driveability issues either. As far as intake tuning, I disagree - the panel filter would reflect pulses in the intake system so any tuning thereafter would have minimal effect on scavenging. I noiced no loss of bottom end on mine, but slightly better mid and higher range throttle response. I do admit that water ingestion is a concern, so I don't ford 2 ft+ water crossings anymore (can destroy the steering rack anyway).

Steve

[3382432]

I guess how much foriegn debri is found in the sealed wheel well area will be predicated on the type of driving and where you drive. Once a year is good for my situation and it usually does need cleaning. I agree with you about the tuning. The filter is most likely the end of any tuning consideration which means the snorkel is just a restriction. Again, I like the purpose it has. I removed mine but kept it. I will tool around with it one day and put larger tubes in it thereby eliminating the restriction problem and reinstall it. With less restriction and no change in tuning plus the K&N drop in I should have the same perfomance as without it, minus the snarl at WOT. As for actual performance with or without it I wish someone would post some actual times. Even if it is a couple of tenths it should be documented. The WOT snarl can be pschologically deceiving. Numbers do not lie. I may have an opportunity in a few months to have access to track on some private land. Maybe I'll bring my snorkel and check the before and after for the record.

[evolutionmovement]

Actual times would be great. I timed different speed accelerations in my head and went by feel to determine if it was faster and I found it wasn't a huge difference even that way, although over 85 definitely picks up a little quicker. I live on the coast in Massachusetts, so we don't have much for dust around here - just sand in the winter.

Steve

[BAC5.2]

The snorkus does nothing. Some people claim it to be a harmonic resonator that actually increases velocity, but that's a lie. The particulate scavenger also seems false. Why? Because the air going into the airbox has to make a bend as well up through the panel. Any particulate matter increase in the filter would be marginal and could easily be attributed to a "dusty season". The snorkus provides nothing but a muffled intake tone (as opposed to the raw howl from a snorkus-less intake). There is no balancing of harmonic waves (which get disrupted through the bends and corregations of the intake line, as well as the panel itself).

You sacrifice throttle response for a muffled tone. That was the only increase in my 95 N/A. G-Tech confirmed, 5 runs pre, 5 runs post. No notable variations from the 8.2 0-60 of the pre snorkusectomy, and the 8.2 post-snorkusectomy. I did notice increased throttle response across the whole band (mostly while jabbing at it in parking garages to hear that beautiful boxer roar).

[Legacy777]

BAC,

I think you're getting things a little confused between harmonics, velocity, and volume.

Some people claim it to be a harmonic resonator that actually increases velocity, but that's a lie.

that statement just doesn't make any logical sense. The snorkle assembly most definitely alters harmonics (sound) of the intake tract. I believe we all know that. Take it out and you get the intake growl.

As for velocity of the air entering the airbox. You would have a slight difference, but I don't think it would be that great. The snorkle assembly adds more pipe, hence more parasitic losses in the intake tract, which results in a slightly lower air velocity. However it wouldn't be that big a deal, and isn't really too big an issue IMO.

Volume is something you didn't mention. Your engine requires air to work....the more air you get in with the appropriate amount of fuel, the more power you make. The shorter intake tract allows the engine to breathe better and take in more air...which gives you more power. Reduce the parasitic losses further in the intake tract and you'll get more air into the combustion chamber and more power.

I will also mention that the snorkle assembly does have a very slight velocity stack at the air intake. This is what some people may say increases air velocity. It's main purpose is to help the air transition from an infinate volume to a constrained volume. The velocity stack reduces the turbulance and promotes laminar flow. Laminar flow has less friction losses and will flow better through the intake tract. How much better will it make it flow.....couldn't tell you without testing it with more equipment then I currently have

[BAC5.2]

When I said harmonics, I meant air-wave harmonics. Any wave movement can be described as harmonics. When the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapsed, it was caused by harmonic resonance.

The theory is that the snorkus is a resonator that tunes the standing wave of the intake charge. The newly tuned intake charge, again supposedly, eliminates/reduces turbulence being sucked into the upper tract of the snorkus. This lack of turbulence effectively speeds up the intake charge.

From a physics standpoint, barring variables, this is true. Proper tuning of the resonator will exhibit higher output velocities. However, due to the real world variables, it's simply not reasonable to think that the resonator has any bearing on intake velocity (other than slowing it down). The sheer length of the snorkus assembly slows the intake charge enough that any harmonic differences would be impossible to notice. In addition, positioning the intake so far away from the throttle body, any increase would never be noticed under standard driving or even WOT runs.

The only time the snorkus would do anything improving performance or stopping debris would be at idle. Intake velocity would cancel anything out in terms of debris contamination or performance harmonics. Only at a certain temperature, only at a certain humidity, and only at a specific RPM (which is impossible to acheive a steady RPM).

Cliffs Notes: Snorkus does nothing but slow intake charge, slow throttle response, and mute the intake tone.

[evolutionmovement]

Even if the pressure wave in the intake weren't reflected and deflected a bunch of times by turns, changes in tubing diameter, or the filter, its shear length would mean that the pulse scavenging effect would only be tuned for extremely low rpms if not even engine speeds below idle.

Steve

[Legacy777]

When I said harmonics, I meant air-wave harmonics. Any wave movement can be described as harmonics. When the Tacoma Narrows bridge collapsed, it was caused by harmonic resonance......

I think we may be trying to say similar things but in a slightly different manner. I fully agree with the above statement, and what you posted above.

The main thing I was trying to get across was that the removal of the snorkle will improve things, but depending on the level of mods, turbo vs. n/a, etc will determine how big of an improvement one will see.

[BAC5.2]

I think we may be trying to say similar things but in a slightly different manner. I fully agree with the above statement, and what you posted above.

The main thing I was trying to get across was that the removal of the snorkle will improve things, but depending on the level of mods, turbo vs. n/a, etc will determine how big of an improvement one will see.

Agreed.

Like I stated, I did runs pre and post snorkusectomy and saw no change in anything. The only noticeable change was noise.