Patrol 4x4 - Nissan Patrol Forum banner

61 - 80 of 114 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,388 Posts
Live out of town on dirt road. Thoughts?
View attachment 519687
Interested in the dust distribution on the pod filter. Looking at how there is less dust on the first nose section and then increasing dust, bugs and debris further to the rear, it suggests the entry is straight in front of the flat end of the pod and air is being deflected out and around the end of the pod then coming back further down the length.

519714
 

·
Registered
Was known as JT54_Y61 GU IV 08CRD Wag ST
Joined
·
985 Posts
Discussion Starter #62 (Edited)
Hey mate
Im not sure what state you are in but i do know in Vic the backwards louvers and backwards scoops are illegal and the heat/steam ends up on the windscreen and if you have a hose blow or oil leak it will also end up on the windscreen. So just keep that in mind.
Also be mindful that if you do get a steering line burst or major oil leak don't use your wipers and washers to try and clear the windscreen as it will only make it worse
Have read of similar discussion and the last rego check(NSW) it was not an issue. Not not saying it complies with the ADR or state rule. Had it made with holes symmetrically positioned so guess can rotate it 180° if an issue arises(roadworthy). Had it manufactured by a company in Vic that do louvers for many vehicles and for industrial application, will check with them out of interest.
 

·
Registered
Was known as JT54_Y61 GU IV 08CRD Wag ST
Joined
·
985 Posts
Discussion Starter #63
Interested in the dust distribution on the pod filter. Looking at how there is less dust on the first nose section and then increasing dust, bugs and debris further to the rear, it suggests the entry is straight in front of the flat end of the pod and air is being deflected out and around the end of the pod then coming back further down the length.

View attachment 519714
G'day Geordie, guess a pod box arrangement will never be a good as a panel type filter(LS1). The base clearance of 55mm with the 9"pod would cause a bit of entry air turbulence that could be detrimental to efficiency. Pod neutral axis is approx 1/3 centre offset to 4" inlet spigot. The box tapers to front, tries to set up a cyclonic flow, does pretty well for debris distribution and guess the larger bugs and to some degree the dust particles are being carried to fwd section (outlet/larger end), resulting from the induction air velocity and being buffered by end of box closure face..

When I was first looking at this type of pod / box design, spoke with Fatz about welding the outlet spigot off at an angle (kick the pod with more axial offset to promote more cyclonic action, time and cost drove the decision made. Maybe try a shorter pod but am pleased with current performance. John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,388 Posts
G'day Geordie, guess a pod box arrangement will never be a good as a panel type filter(LS1).
Yet it is still far better than a standard airbox.

I wondered if there was a pod with a rounded nose cone like a rocket tip to spread the flow evenly around the end and do it with low turbulence.

My airbox, I wanted to improve flow but mainly I wanted to get better filtration efficiency. I stuck with the traditional round barrel type filter and with some helpful technical advice from Old Mav, I got it looking sort of like a proper cyclonic action air box. I will see how dusty it is on the weekend and take a photo of dust distribution. So far I have been happy that all the bugs and any sand are no longer wedged into the filter pleats. Instead they are tangled together in a ball on the bottom of the box below the filter and they do constant laps of the bottom of the airbox accumulating more seed or grass fluff, sticks, wings and bug bits. Seems to work to keep the big stuff separated from the filter.
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
45,238 Posts

·
Registered
Was known as JT54_Y61 GU IV 08CRD Wag ST
Joined
·
985 Posts
Discussion Starter #66
Yet it is still far better than a standard airbox.

I wondered if there was a pod with a rounded nose cone like a rocket tip to spread the flow evenly around the end and do it with low turbulence.

My airbox, I wanted to improve flow but mainly I wanted to get better filtration efficiency. I stuck with the traditional round barrel type filter and with some helpful technical advice from Old Mav, I got it looking sort of like a proper cyclonic action air box. I will see how dusty it is on the weekend and take a photo of dust distribution. So far I have been happy that all the bugs and any sand are no longer wedged into the filter pleats. Instead they are tangled together in a ball on the bottom of the box below the filter and they do constant laps of the bottom of the airbox accumulating more seed or grass fluff, sticks, wings and bug bits. Seems to work to keep the big stuff separated from the filter.
Might trial a shorter conical shaped pod filter (ie: provide greater base clearance).
Some turbulence may be beneficial with the pod/box design (eg: pod cone taper and box profile closing in), may cause a compression zone to promotes an improved radial air flow around pod.

Agree, a true cyclonic flow, utilising a snail type scroll action (ie: deflector / compression zones) generating centrifugal forces, that cause the foreign particles to throw radially outwards and drop to bottom of the can with particle deceleration. Yrs ago I ran 3.0l N/A diesel in SWB cruiser, using a donaldson cyclonic with a pre-filter(mounted external on guard_worked real well, the pre-filter grabbed majority of bugs, moisture and other debris) before entering filter can. No good here with req'd CFM flow but suited application then.

Agree, this pod type design is a significant improvement on std can type filter assy. IMO it is detrimental to have the inlet flow directed perpendicular to the barrel filter circumference, debris witness mark say all to me (have had stock and 3" thru).
 

·
SUI GENERIS UTE
GQ Ute 1990 Silvertop
Joined
·
5,899 Posts
The centrifugal action of the type of air box Geordie designed is very difficult to beat for filtration and flow if design is good. The panel filter system advantage is max flow / filtration for their size. and they tend to use all the element compared to round can type air boxes. Pod elements as said were not designed to be in a box but do work well if in a round tapered box with equal clearance of say 30mm everywhere with a good space for entry air. A rectangular odd shaped box is only going to induce different air speeds in the box. Air will always take the least resistance path, which is very evident with the dirt deposits on the pod in the photo above.

At the end of the day the the pod works and its better than a STD air box. But for moderate power levels with mods the ZD30 air box can work fine. The best measure to flow effectiveness is to fit a manometer in the induction ducting. Less than 0.5 inchHg in all conditions of flow is your effectiveness measure. This is also a measure of resistance to your turbos spool capacity hence driveability.
 

·
Registered
Was known as JT54_Y61 GU IV 08CRD Wag ST
Joined
·
985 Posts
Discussion Starter #68 (Edited)
Agree that Geordie design solution is good, followed the development phase and also has good filter accessibility.

Filter access was one reason why I stayed away from eg: Radius round and Millweld type airbox.

As you pointed out many times, the design only has to meet the operational / performance requirement of the tune level (mine nom 135rwkw /500N-m) .

Unlikely for me to fit a manometer, so at sometime I will do back to back MAF rate / eng performance comparisons with and without pod fitted.
 

·
Registered
09 ZD30 CRD Wagon
Joined
·
290 Posts
The centrifugal action of the type of air box Geordie designed is very difficult to beat for filtration and flow if design is good. The panel filter system advantage is max flow / filtration for their size. and they tend to use all the element compared to round can type air boxes. Pod elements as said were not designed to be in a box but do work well if in a round tapered box with equal clearance of say 30mm everywhere with a good space for entry air. A rectangular odd shaped box is only going to induce different air speeds in the box. Air will always take the least resistance path, which is very evident with the dirt deposits on the pod in the photo above.

At the end of the day the the pod works and its better than a STD air box. But for moderate power levels with mods the ZD30 air box can work fine. The best measure to flow effectiveness is to fit a manometer in the induction ducting. Less than 0.5 inchHg in all conditions of flow is your effectiveness measure. This is also a measure of resistance to your turbos spool capacity hence driveability.
Thanks @OldMav. Panel would have been good, but the pod looks like it will suit my needs in terms of cost, desired power output (std turbo etc) and ease of install.

What's your thoughts on 8" vs 9" to increase the space from opening of box to start of filter from 55mm to 80mm?
 

·
SUI GENERIS UTE
GQ Ute 1990 Silvertop
Joined
·
5,899 Posts
The extra space 25mm at the entry will only help distribution and allow more even flow around the element. It would be better if it was the same diameter with a bit more taper. The extra clearance around the element will not do much. From experience and book smarts once you go past 30mm not a lot happens until air velocities go past 7 m/sec. It seems that 30mm is the critical turn clearance needed for air elements we use for engines.

To note, tapered pod elements were designed to have even air supply around the filter face, the design premise was to promote vortex action created by the turbo. The shape and taper is suppose to enhance the vortex action in the induction tubing which should increase flow into the turbo compressor. Just a bit of random info that might help understand. And a tiny bit more info, a bell mouth at the outlet under the element (panel element) does a better job at promoting vortex action for the turbo compressor for one of those 1% in driveability.

Remember most of my ramblings are never about absolute power numbers, probably never about power to be precise. The better you can get or promote that cyclonic action into the compressor with the least restriction or bends the more volume you are going to pump. Just to be clear here its never about bloody boost pressure, Boost pressure is simply only the carrier of air Density. Density is king and promoting cyclonic action created by the compressor wheel is king of flow volumes.

This cyclonic action in the induction system is a big 1%er. Gale Banks stumbled upon this in his last "Killing the Duramax" Vid. He took the bend out of the induction tubing but he will one day realise if he uses one big pod rather than his 2 pods he will promote more cyclonic action into his compressor for probably even more power than he got from removing the bend. Just a thought to consider.
 

·
Registered
09 ZD30 CRD Wagon
Joined
·
290 Posts
The extra space 25mm at the entry will only help distribution and allow more even flow around the element. It would be better if it was the same diameter with a bit more taper. The extra clearance around the element will not do much. From experience and book smarts once you go past 30mm not a lot happens until air velocities go past 7 m/sec. It seems that 30mm is the critical turn clearance needed for air elements we use for engines.

To note, tapered pod elements were designed to have even air supply around the filter face, the design premise was to promote vortex action created by the turbo. The shape and taper is suppose to enhance the vortex action in the induction tubing which should increase flow into the turbo compressor. Just a bit of random info that might help understand. And a tiny bit more info, a bell mouth at the outlet under the element (panel element) does a better job at promoting vortex action for the turbo compressor for one of those 1% in driveability.

Remember most of my ramblings are never about absolute power numbers, probably never about power to be precise. The better you can get or promote that cyclonic action into the compressor with the least restriction or bends the more volume you are going to pump. Just to be clear here its never about bloody boost pressure, Boost pressure is simply only the carrier of air Density. Density is king and promoting cyclonic action created by the compressor wheel is king of flow volumes.

This cyclonic action in the induction system is a big 1%er. Gale Banks stumbled upon this in his last "Killing the Duramax" Vid. He took the bend out of the induction tubing but he will one day realise if he uses one big pod rather than his 2 pods he will promote more cyclonic action into his compressor for probably even more power than he got from removing the bend. Just a thought to consider.
Thanks mate. Really interesting understanding the theory behind it all
 

·
Registered
Was known as JT54_Y61 GU IV 08CRD Wag ST
Joined
·
985 Posts
Discussion Starter #72
Taking on board some points made by Peter, decided to take a Stanley knife to the clamp mouth section of the 9" K&N conical pod(cut back mouth length by 10mm and at angle so to centralize the pod in box(OK not round but it will do), Have increased base clearance from 55mm to a good 60mm, and provides for a minimum 40mm radial clearance all round pod to box "@ small end" (inlet) and tapers off to 20mm at outlet spigot end(pod larger dia). A good comprise with what I had to work with_see how goes.

Original
9in K&N Pod in 330mm Box_55mm base clearance.jpg


Modified
Mouth _40mm base radial clearance_60mm base clearance.jpg
 

·
Registered
09 ZD30 CRD Wagon
Joined
·
290 Posts
Taking on board some points made by Peter, decided to take a Stanley knife to the clamp mouth section of the 9" K&N conical pod(cut back mouth length by 10mm and at angle so to centralize the pod in box(OK not round but it will do), Have increased base clearance from 55mm to a good 60mm, and provides for a minimum 40mm radial clearance all round pod to box "@ small end" (inlet) and tapers off to 20mm at outlet spigot end(pod larger dia). A good comprise with what I had to work with_see how goes.

Original
View attachment 519768

Modified
View attachment 519769
looks great
 

·
Premium Member
2016 CRD wagon
Joined
·
1,059 Posts
Taking on board some points made by Peter, decided to take a Stanley knife to the clamp mouth section of the 9" K&N conical pod(cut back mouth length by 10mm and at angle so to centralize the pod in box(OK not round but it will do), Have increased base clearance from 55mm to a good 60mm, and provides for a minimum 40mm radial clearance all round pod to box "@ small end" (inlet) and tapers off to 20mm at outlet spigot end(pod larger dia). A good comprise with what I had to work with_see how goes.

Original
View attachment 519768

Modified
View attachment 519769
Interesting John.

I'm keen to see how this works out.

If I'm observing correctly, it looks as though the inlet is slightly offset to the pod in the 'before' pic, and now the end of the pod pretty much inline with the inlet.

I'm curious if the slightly offset inlet encouraged some conical (axial(?)circling) air flow? Maybe not because the box is square(ish)?

I have the same airbox made by Ben in prep for my next intake upgrade but it only has a pod thats 6 to 7 inches long (depending where you measure from).

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 

·
Administrator
GUII ZD30DI Wgn
Joined
·
45,238 Posts
Interesting John.

I'm keen to see how this works out.

If I'm observing correctly, it looks as though the inlet is slightly offset to the pod in the 'before' pic, and now the end of the pod pretty much inline with the inlet.

I'm curious if the slightly offset inlet encouraged some conical (axial(?)circling) air flow? Maybe not because the box is square(ish)?

I have the same airbox made by Ben in prep for my next intake upgrade but it only has a pod thats 6 to 7 inches long (depending where you measure from).

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
I would be interested in before and after numbers.
 

·
Registered
Was known as JT54_Y61 GU IV 08CRD Wag ST
Joined
·
985 Posts
Discussion Starter #76 (Edited)
If I'm observing correctly, it looks as though the inlet is slightly offset to the pod in the 'before' pic, and now the end of the pod pretty much inline with the inlet.

I'm curious if the slightly offset inlet encouraged some conical (axial(?)circling) air flow? Maybe not because the box is square(ish)?
Firstly Ben Lipscombe make two different length air boxes, 300mm(CRD) and 330mm(orignally intended for TD42). Mine was the first 330mm length box that went into a CRD_requires some of the radiator shroud to be cut away to allow box fitment. Ben suggested the K&N pod filter(KNRE-0870) and is fitted. This filter has 9" length pleats "filtration area" and the top dia (inlet end) is 4.625" and large dia(outlet end) is 6".

Off the shelf pod, in 330mm airbox has approx a 1/3 centre offset to 4" inlet spigot. I use to clamp the pod so that it would kick in a little to gain more clearance around on that close box side face. If the axis offset would induced a cyclonic effect _ not sure. I think the pod axis offset (outlet spigot placement), came about as the 4" silicon elbow attached to box outlet needed to clear the radiator cowl. The pod has a convex end cap so this may help with with a cyclonic result:unsure:, but could help to improve airflow distribution around pod circumference.

Wonder if the pod pleats promote a cyclonic effect_anyone? @OldMav

Went into town this morning and is too early to report on findings yet but not disappointed. One thing noted is that there is a bit less induction noise coming from the box(maybe less turbulence), at the higher end air flow rates. This airbox act like a speaker that amplifies induction noise, and is exacerbated by the 4" SS snorkel. This is one reason why I wrapped the box with sound deadening material and foil wrap (acoustic and thermal barrier).
 

·
Premium Member
2016 CRD wagon
Joined
·
1,059 Posts
Firstly Ben Lipscombe make two different length air boxes, 300mm(CRD) and 330mm(orignally intended for TD42). Mine was the first 330mm length box that went into a CRD_requires some of the radiator shroud to be cut away to allow box fitment. Ben suggested the K&N pod filter(KNRE-0870) and is fitted. This filter has 9" length pleats "filtration area" and the top dia (inlet end) is 4.625" and large dia(outlet end) is 6".

Off the shelf pod, in 330mm airbox has approx a 1/3 centre offset to 4" inlet spigot. I use to clamp the pod so that it would kick in a little to gain more clearance around on that close box side face. If the axis offset would induced a cyclonic effect _ not sure. I think the pod axis offset (outlet spigot placement), came about as the 4" silicon elbow attached to box outlet needed to clear the radiator cowl. The pod has a convex end cap so this may help with with a cyclonic result:unsure:, but could help to improve airflow distribution around pod circumference.

Wonder if the pod pleats promote a cyclonic effect_anyone? @OldMav

Went into town this morning and is too early to report on findings yet but not disappointed. One thing noted is that there is a bit less induction noise coming from the box(maybe less turbulence), at the higher end air flow rates. This airbox act like a speaker that amplifies induction noise, and is exacerbated by the 4" SS snorkel. This is one reason why I wrapped the box with sound deadening material and foil wrap (acoustic and thermal barrier).
Interesting re noise.
Did you have the 4" SS snorkel before the change of air box?
I've had a 4" SS snorkel for 3 years. Had it before any intake mods were done. It's always been loud and intrusive. Originally it was shaped and facing backwards but at cruising speed (100-110) the reverberating noise was too much to bear! So got it changed to a ram head facing forwards and now its tolerable with the windows up. Hope it doesn't get any worse with a change in airbox!
 

·
Registered
09 ZD30 CRD Wagon
Joined
·
290 Posts
Interesting re noise.
Did you have the 4" SS snorkel before the change of air box?
I've had a 4" SS snorkel for 3 years. Had it before any intake mods were done. It's always been loud and intrusive. Originally it was shaped and facing backwards but at cruising speed (100-110) the reverberating noise was too much to bear! So got it changed to a ram head facing forwards and now its tolerable with the windows up. Hope it doesn't get any worse with a change in airbox!
I did the same, swapped from rear facing to ram head. I've since learned that the slight increase in pipe size compared to a safari style snorkel probably would make no real power difference. Expensive lesson really but looks cool.
I don't think the induction noise is too bad now, and I have a stainless patrol docta airbox currently.

I think sound proofing the cab would make a good difference though, including wind/tyre noise etc
 

·
Registered
Was known as JT54_Y61 GU IV 08CRD Wag ST
Joined
·
985 Posts
Discussion Starter #79 (Edited)
Interesting re noise.
Did you have the 4" SS snorkel before the change of air box?
I've had a 4" SS snorkel for 3 years. Had it before any intake mods were done. It's always been loud and intrusive. Originally it was shaped and facing backwards but at cruising speed (100-110) the reverberating noise was too much to bear! So got it changed to a ram head facing forwards and now its tolerable with the windows up. Hope it doesn't get any worse with a change in airbox!
I installed the airbox and 4" SS snorkel (fwd facing) at the same time. Yes the 4" SS snorkel is loud and over the top sometimes(but draws well). I should have said that the thin walled alloy airbox and SS snorkel exacerbates the induction noise (resonance_ caused by induction air turbulence). Reducing turbulence and dampening bodies (airboxes and pipework), will help reduced acoustic resonance.

If I had my time again, would have fist tried out the 3.5" Safari snorkel with 3-4" silicon to box. Thought about a new guard but expense still have snorkel.

This is a document(1976) googled, good read:

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/02whole%20(1).pdf

Need to copy and paste/go into browser address bar(PDF link not working for me):

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/02whole.pdf
 

·
Premium Member
2016 CRD wagon
Joined
·
1,059 Posts
I did the same, swapped from rear facing to ram head. I've since learned that the slight increase in pipe size compared to a safari style snorkel probably would make no real power difference. Expensive lesson really but looks cool.
I don't think the induction noise is too bad now, and I have a stainless patrol docta airbox currently.

I think sound proofing the cab would make a good difference though, including wind/tyre noise etc
I did my snorkel when Patrol was new. It cost the same installed as a safari, so went with the SS 4".
Cost a little more in hindsight because I had it modified to accept a 4" ram head, but still looks good in SS.
 
61 - 80 of 114 Posts
Top