If you are referring to that guide I posted, the author said that Porsche added it for the 987 because of the cigarette incident...

You can see it in that list you posted. The guy did not remove it for some reason. He only removed the restrictor plate and retaining ring. Not sure why he stopped there. Look at the part sitting next to the dyno in the picture below in the original post. That's the SNORKLE part. It's just shown sitting straight up instead of the way you would normally see it inside the vent area. Hope this helps. :cheers:

Thanks. My final noob question on this matter (hopefully) is can it be removed from the vent or only from the engine?


:)

That's funny, because I heard that was the reason for the CUP shaped part. :cheers:

I wonder if the shape of the snorkle tube being a long smooth part leading up to the intake had some type of airflow/aerodynamics pupose. Therefore it would have been better to test it on the dyno with a fan blowing on the intake vent to simulate the car moving forward, since it was sitting still when you did the before and after test. Just a thought to consider for future testing. :cheers:

From what I've heard it can be done from the outside on both 987 & 986 models. Still wish someone would direct me to the how-to post on removing the SNORKLE part. I know someone recenlty just yanked on it and it came right out after some effort. But I want to make sure I don't break anything, so I'm not recomending that way. :cheers:

No, I do not blue, since the software is only as good as the engineers who designed it. In addition, my experience dictates that most exhaust modifications defy logic and the dyno is a key component to finding hidden power.

Many premier race teams use their own software, as well. I have many algorithms in my arsenal that I keep top secret, and those equations will point me in the right direction and allow me to get to my goal fairly quickly. If the is a market for such advanced headers for the Boxster, I may even pursue it. Only time will tell.

This board is great! Thanks for the kind words, and warm welcome everyone.

http://www.ppbb.com/boards/ppbbphp/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=ARCHIVES&Number=820409&For um=ARCHIVES&Words=10min&Match=Entire



Here is a good guide on how to remove the snorkel.



So removing this little thing will really make that much of a difference. Nice.



EDIT: For you, porsche986spyder :cheers:

I did use a fan in 2 areas: the front for the heat exhanger/radiator, and the rear driver's side vent, but only to provide cool air. A single cylinder in our P-car engines demands air at 2000RPMs that none of my industrial grade fans can generate. As a matter of fact, a NACA duct (superior to our Porsche side vents) is only efficient as a ram at above 200mph.

2 weeks ago i performed a test using a fully radiused intake pipe on single cylinder induction tubes, and gained 12whp on a 320whp engine. Infusing such technology in our induction may prove benefitial, but the factory ram tube, incorporated with the "deflection cup" is a restriction, and hence, the power gains seen in the upper RPM range.

Thanks for the suggestion...great minds think alike!

Thanks man! :D

I know the engineers who designed it. Ricardo knows what they're doing and GT suite is an off-shoot of them. It's an open ended code so you need to input alot of parameters to get an accurate model.

Wow! Thant's amazing. Thanks for all the info. Sounds like you know what your doing for sure. Please keep us posted with any more dyno test you do with other mods. :D

Ram air vent ducts???
 

So what is your opinion of these "Ram" air vent ducts? I've seen 2 designs and was thinking of buying them before I de-snorkle my car. Any thoughts as to if these would realy work/help any more?
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y15...eFlash/381.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y15...eFlash/405.jpg

This is much appreciated Bisimoto! I hope you can get us a few mod dynos in the future as well. :cheers:

I am going to do this on the week end and remove both the restrictor plate and snorkel.


I'll report back w/ some test results.

Hi,

Just caught this thread - see: http://www.pca.org/tech/tech_qa_question.asp?id={5628EC8F-3626-40D2-8AE0-E9F524E0718F} . I'm still not totally convinced, I think there's an error in the methodology. That's an approx. 6 CHP gain, and I'm just not convinced this part robs 6 HP. I can hold a thermometer in my hand and watch the Mercury rise, that doesn't mean I've made the room any warmer, or conversely, that I have cooled the room when I release the thermometer. There's no reason for Porsche to do it...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

I'm not sure if the thermometer analogy conceptually applies here.

Bisimoto!!

Welcome to the board! You are definitely the kind of Boxster guy we need on here.

I would love to drop by your place and test my engine. There are some great roads through the hills in Hacienda hts. I have transplanted a 3.4l 996 carrera engine in my car. I have revo software, the K&N intake and a somewhat screwed up set of headers, 200 cell cats and muffler from a shop in Maryland that was supposed to be designed for the swap. Alas, the exhaust system sounds really great, but there are fitment issues with suspension. I would love to see what you come up with for the 3.2 engine exhaust wise. The 3.4 and 3.2 are (almost) the same engine.

If you need/want a guinea pig for exhaust system work, I would be happy to volunteer!!

BTW nice work on the desnorkleing. I did this a long time ago, and decided it was worth it just for the sound. Glad to see it does add a bit of torque.

Monte

I agree. I look at the dyno results. I think it speaks for itself. By the way the link the other guy posted by PCA says he thinks by doing this we are removing the cooler air from the outside!?! Makes no sence, all we are doing is removing something that is restricting the air flow, not REMOVING the air flow all together, nor are we re-directing it from some place else, like from the inside of the engine. It will still pull the air from the outside! Look how close the opening is to the vents. :cheers:

Hi,

Dyno results can be funny and not always verifiable or repeatable. The Lister must admit this if he's the kind of engineer, he seems to be.

So many variables must be exactly the same on each run for any results to be meaningful, especially since you're claiming a very small % gain of overall power (1.9%). Some, but not all include: Ambient Temp, Barometric pressure, Fuel flow, Octane, Alternator Output, each line of code in the DME operating w/o fault on each run, Engine Temp, Tranny Temp, Bearing Temp, and on and on.

For example, an Alternator (whose power draw is variable and not constant) alone can draw as much as 4-30 crank HP because of the inefficiencies in a Belt & Pulley system, so if it was filling demand on the 1st run, but not the 2nd, this alone could account for the variance seen.

The best method is to do multiple runs exactly duplicating the conditions of all previous runs and then averaging the results. Then, you reverse it, put the snorkel back on and see if you consistently achieve the previous Baseline numbers over an average of multiple runs. If these results aren't duplicated to within a pretty narrow degree, there is some variable not being accounted for.

Just because you get a graph from a single run which supports your theory, isn't in, and of, itself proof of anything...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99