Whoa!!! Just desnorkled!!!

[rbarnes]

I desnorked my '99, and it sounds great. No real evidence of any other gains than the sound, but that's OK. I let the Z06 worry about the other stuff.

[JackG]

Actually, later bismoto posted that he repeated the dyno pulls, alternately putting the snorkel in and out, and said that he got the same results.

[z12358]

Do 987 models also have a snorkel, or is only there for early 986 models? I think someone mentioned that 2003+ models didn't have one.
Z.

[2000SoCalBoxsterS]

As far as I know desnorkling or a Cold Ram Air mod will not show any performance gain on a Dyno. The gains will only be noticed at highway speeds. Not much air will be forced through the air-intake side vent when the car is sitting on the Dyno.

[super66]

Originally Posted by z12358

Do 987 models also have a snorkel, or is only there for early 986 models? I think someone mentioned that 2003+ models didn't have one.
Z.

ummm, I'm going to say yes we have a snorkel....at least the instructions for removing the 987 side vents show the guy removing his snorkel....I am in the process of removing my vents right now, I think the snorkel is in the driver side vent.....I didn't attempt to get at it.....I don't think I nor my hands, shoulders, or neck wanted to endure further abuse......those vents are a pain in the &^&&%$& (*($*$*&^$^$* )()(*(&^&^%^!!!! to get off

[rkwei]

MNBoxster and Bisimoto,

Both of you have something to contribute here but this discussion is headed down the wrong path.

MNBoxster - I note a bit of disdain ...you have issues with the methodology/approach but it does read as both a personal attack and that you are attempting to "win" some knowledge war. You've made your point.

Bisimoto - You've responded to MNBoxster by defending yourself....PS. clean up your signature line act or become a sponsor.

Each of you appears to be on a soapbox....so since Bisimoto likes to research/experiment and Jim doesn't have a dyno - I suggest that you collaborate on the terms of an experiment to put this back/forth to rest. Another forum member near Bisimoto can agree to be the "guinea pig".

If you can't agree then both of you should stop participating in this thread.

RKwei

[Bisimoto]

RKwei, I agree. We can discuss the sponsorship via PMs. Thanks.

[surfbill]

greetings just desnorkled yesterday. no matter what anyone thinks it sounds better and louder. not like you did headers louder just louder i like it. i have a plastic screen back there already so the garbage doesnt come in and i dont think water is an issue if it wasnt already b 4 desnorkleing. just my 2 cents

:dance:


bill

[2000SoCalBoxsterS]

I just desnorkeled my Boxster. Havn't taken it for a good run yet. The weather was bad and I did the desnorkeling while doing other maintenance.

One thing I did notice is how vulnerable the vent is to water. What is that squared-off cup looking thing that hangs off the end of the snorkel close to the side intake vent? It looks like it would be great at catching and holding water when the snorkel is in place.

[MNBoxster]

Originally Posted by JackG

Actually, later bismoto posted that he repeated the dyno pulls, alternately putting the snorkel in and out, and said that he got the same results.

Hi,

If he didn't alter his methodology, that's not surprising. His original description left enough error on the table (and I mentioned just some of the ways error was/could be introduced) to make such a small reported increase inconclusive.

Again, the type of Dyno (DynoPak) he has is only really useful as a dynamic tuning tool, just like a Rolling Road, despite his claims to the contrary.

People flock to a Tuner or Aftermarket Supplier who claims Dyno results like Sailors on Liberty flock to Bordellos.

There are so many ways errors can be introduced, sometimes even unbeknownst to the operator. What is the Brake setting? How does the Software make it's corrections, Weather, Fuel Quality, and on and on.

Now, if the reported increases were beyond the probability of error, say 50 HP, I wouldn't be so adament.

But, he reported increases which were well below the possible error. He may have gotten a 5 HP increase, but that would be better expressed as 5 HP ± 15 or so HP (possibility of error) . That's a totally different thing...

Happy Motoring!... Jim'99

[Perfectlap]

unless noted, nearly all aftermarket makers dyno cars using higher than widely available gas-o-lean. The kind you and I never run on a daily basis.

[2000SoCalBoxsterS]

Guys, how do I insert a picture of my car in my posts or use an Avatar? I clicked the edit Avatar link and it's stuck on "don't use Avatar"?????????

Thanks,
Steve

Red 2000 Boxster S
only 37,800 miles and absolutely mint condition. I have babied it since new. Obviously not my daily driver.

[Travis]

I sent you a PM.

btw:
Your username is 2000SoCalBoxsterS, but you live in NY . . . wazupwitdat?

Originally Posted by 2000SoCalBoxsterS

Guys, how do I insert a picture of my car in my posts or use an Avatar? I clicked the edit Avatar link and it's stuck on "don't use Avatar"?????????

Thanks,
Steve

Red 2000 Boxster S
only 37,800 miles and absolutely mint condition. I have babied it since new. Obviously not my daily driver.

[JackG]

Originally Posted by MNBoxster

Hi,

If he didn't alter his methodology, that's not surprising. His original description left enough error on the table (and I mentioned just some of the ways error was/could be introduced) to make such a small reported increase inconclusive.

Again, the type of Dyno (DynoPak) he has is only really useful as a dynamic tuning tool, just like a Rolling Road, despite his claims to the contrary.

People flock to a Tuner or Aftermarket Supplier who claims Dyno results like Sailors on Liberty flock to Bordellos.

Since you weren't there, you are making a lot of assuptions in your comments. But this is true:

Bismoto has a dyno, and did some pulls with his 986. He saw, and reported, an increase in HP with the snorkle removed. He even posted that he repeatedly re-created the results. You continually smear his results.

Meanwhile, you don't own a dyno, and have made no pulls on one with your Boxster, at least that you've told us about. But you present yourself as the know-it-all about this mod, and how dyno results are to be interpreted. But that's not your field of expertise as you have described it. I believe you are an ex-pilot?

Bismoto had nothing to sell us. No kit to install. No special, magical parts to sell us. Just his dyno results to report. He repeated his results, and posted that he did, in conditions that would render your concerns moot. It appears that he has nothing to gain in mis-representing his results.

Unless you are calling him a liar, he's posted his burden of proof. You have not. What dog do you have in this hunt?

[blinkwatt]

Bisimoto also did a dyno of a desnorkeled 2.7L,NO CHANGE ANYWHERE IN THE POWERBAND! Why would the test on the 2.7L show no changes at all,then the 3.2L showing gains? It makes no sense.

[chaudanova]

Originally Posted by blinkwatt

Bisimoto also did a dyno of a desnorkeled 2.7L,NO CHANGE ANYWHERE IN THE POWERBAND! Why would the test on the 2.7L show no changes at all,then the 3.2L showing gains? It makes no sense.

Perhaps you misread the posting for this. That was my 2.7 baseline dyno of my car, and the only mod being the desnorkle. The dyno wasn't to show a baseline of before desnorkeling, versus after desnorkling. The "baseline" was of my stock 2.7 with the single mod of a desnorkle. The dyno test had nothing to do with the desnorkle debate, rather for the purpose of having a baseline number to compare with after adding Bisi's header in the future. Hope this clarifies for you....

[blinkwatt]

Originally Posted by chaudanova

Perhaps you misread the posting for this. That was my 2.7 baseline dyno of my car, and the only mod being the desnorkle. The dyno wasn't to show a baseline of before desnorkeling, versus after desnorkling. The "baseline" was of my stock 2.7 with the single mod of a desnorkle. The dyno test had nothing to do with the desnorkle debate, rather for the purpose of having a baseline number to compare with after adding Bisi's header in the future. Hope this clarifies for you....

O.K.,now that makes sense.

Originally Posted by blinkwatt

...Why would the test on the 2.7L show no changes at all,then the 3.2L showing gains? It makes no sense.

Hypothetically speaking, the restriction is under the 2.7 threshold, but over the 3.2's... i.e. the 3.2 sucks more air, and is more sensitive to intake restrictions. Just a possibility



@ Bisimoto, sorry I butchered your handle I hope the AEM venture is fruitful. What the world really needs is a user programmable 986 ECU that's pnp, and keeps all the DME functionality.