i need your permission now?
The Snorkel's relevance to North American overlanding
- Thread starter Dalko43
- Start date
i need your permission now?
Buliwyf
Viking with a Hammer
Some of ya'll need to get on a dyno. And "ram air", haha, no. Snorkels can be a huge restriction. Don't tow across death valley with them. Everything else is GTG. Modern trucks have pretty good air boxes, you'd have to be more than bumper deep and unlucky to flood one.
I've got no problem with them on regular little jeeps, but we've had issues towing with them on big trucks. Or overloaded jeeps with trailers. Especially with today's sensitive fuel systems.
I took a stock F350 with a locker to Katrina and Irma. A snorkel was never on my want list. I didn't make it to Houston where such would have been more handy. Too much unemployed cheap labor in Texas that can pose as my profession there.
I've got no problem with them on regular little jeeps, but we've had issues towing with them on big trucks. Or overloaded jeeps with trailers. Especially with today's sensitive fuel systems.
I took a stock F350 with a locker to Katrina and Irma. A snorkel was never on my want list. I didn't make it to Houston where such would have been more handy. Too much unemployed cheap labor in Texas that can pose as my profession there.
Neosapian
Innate Outdoor Co
I will be mounting a snorkel on my 4th Gen 4runner along with breather extensions and other methods of improving water-resistance in key areas. Why? Because I fully expect to encounter scenarios where a Snorkel will be absolutely necessary to access or exit a location, or avoid any situation where critical systems failure due to water is even remotely possible.
I want to reach areas that a stock vehicle cannot. A Snorkel is one important part of the truck build that enables this capability. It's a pretty straight-forward concept in my opinion.
I want to reach areas that a stock vehicle cannot. A Snorkel is one important part of the truck build that enables this capability. It's a pretty straight-forward concept in my opinion.
Last edited:
I would be very surprised if a snorkel were able increase air flow, simply because anytime you increase the length of the duct and add bends, air flow goes down. To compensate, the diameter of the duct has to go way up. It's fundamental flow dynamics.
As far as needing one, I will probably add some sort of snorkel, but it will only be insurance against the absolutely unforeseen. Crossing deep water is a huge risk. You never know what is on the bottom, or where the bottom really is. If the water is moving, the risks multiply. Moving water can create valleys on the bottom. It is a risk that I am not willing to take with an investment like my truck. It's not just possible hydro-lock, but possible damage to electronics, bearings, interior, and gear boxes. Problems that can be surfacing for years. If you get jammed up on something submerged, like the last guy who tried such a stunt, you could lose a tire. Submerged wire is a huge and common risk. Try dealing with wire wrapped around a wheel in 4 feet of muddy water! In my younger years I have crossed water a few times. Once it came up to my knees inside the cab in a lifted Ford. The water was close to 5 feet deep. The clean up from these messes was substantial. So, .... no,... nothing short of a T-Rex on my tail is going to get me into deep water. If I can put on water shoes and walk the course first, then fine. If I can't, then no.
As far as needing one, I will probably add some sort of snorkel, but it will only be insurance against the absolutely unforeseen. Crossing deep water is a huge risk. You never know what is on the bottom, or where the bottom really is. If the water is moving, the risks multiply. Moving water can create valleys on the bottom. It is a risk that I am not willing to take with an investment like my truck. It's not just possible hydro-lock, but possible damage to electronics, bearings, interior, and gear boxes. Problems that can be surfacing for years. If you get jammed up on something submerged, like the last guy who tried such a stunt, you could lose a tire. Submerged wire is a huge and common risk. Try dealing with wire wrapped around a wheel in 4 feet of muddy water! In my younger years I have crossed water a few times. Once it came up to my knees inside the cab in a lifted Ford. The water was close to 5 feet deep. The clean up from these messes was substantial. So, .... no,... nothing short of a T-Rex on my tail is going to get me into deep water. If I can put on water shoes and walk the course first, then fine. If I can't, then no.
MOguy
Explorer
Stuff to think about. The snorkel is probably killing power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkpsydS8JXI&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkpsydS8JXI&feature=youtu.be
Hillbilly Heaven
Explorer
I want dual snorkels with salad bowls on top.
Utah200
Adventurer
Actually it's probably not. There's no additional restrictive filter in a snorkel and it's not really altering the direction the air moves over the filter compared to the already convoluted OEM air intake pathways. to the OEM airbox.
MOguy
Explorer
and straight into the throttle body or carburetor. I am still curious about variations when drawing from outside the engine compartment vs under the hood.
MOguy
Explorer
I am now 150% convinced that snorkels are restrictive, no doubt whatsoever, not even the slightest. What I saw in the video and what the ARB representative stated about certain vehicles loosing power makes me a firm believer snorkels and about any other intake system can be restrictive. We did see in the video how certain intakes can provide more useable air for the motor they tested. HOWEVER I think the loss of power it is expectable based on the protection the snorkel can offer, if you are in an environment that needs that protection.
Last edited:
Hillbilly Heaven
Explorer
A static power test proves nothing when testing snorkels and even cold air inlets. Duct work does increase flow restrictions but you are also increasing air velocity and pressure at inlet point. TOO A POINT. Not going to get into the whole ram air effect discussion other than this. Use two 1 bar pressure sensors one mounted at the snorkel inlet and the other at top of carb or opening of throttle body. If the snorkel is not restrictive they should always read very close unless you are coasting. If the lower one reads a vacuum then the system is restrictive. Datalog various operating conditions such as vehicle speed, throttle position, engine vacuum, and the 2 additional sensors. Then analysis that data. You may find that when you are climbing a steep hill with a heavy load and lots of throttle that you see a vacuum in the snorkel. If you do then yes you are losing power. You could increase the overall size or have less bends.
Each system is different and untill someone does actual Dynamic testing it is all just marketing hype. There are scientific calcs for duct flow based on air velocity, pressure, and duct size but hard to apply to a moving dynamic object like a vehicle.
Each system is different and untill someone does actual Dynamic testing it is all just marketing hype. There are scientific calcs for duct flow based on air velocity, pressure, and duct size but hard to apply to a moving dynamic object like a vehicle.
MOguy
Explorer
But regardless of what type of intake you won't have more volume of air at the end of you intake the you will at the beginning. You may be able to have an intake that can provide more air compared to another type of intake. One intake may be better at allowing more air to pass through it but no intake can force air into a normally aspirated engine.
My bet is the less or shorter and straighter the intake is the less restrictive it will be and the more air it can flow.
Hillbilly Heaven
Explorer
You are correct in your bet BUT you can create a positive pressure above the throttle if you can flow more cfm than the engine is consuming. Think in simplistic terms. A large 4-5 inch diameter very short duct or 90 with opening facing vehicle direction of travel. You can actually measure an increase in pressure. You will not increase the volumetric efficiency of the engine but you sure will help it breathe better.
Put duct tape over your mouth, now poke a pin hole in the tape. Try breathing! Now take the tape off, jump in a wagon being towed at 60 mph. Which of three is easier for you to breathe, sitting still with no tape, pinhole tape, or 60 mph wagon ride?
Put duct tape over your mouth, now poke a pin hole in the tape. Try breathing! Now take the tape off, jump in a wagon being towed at 60 mph. Which of three is easier for you to breathe, sitting still with no tape, pinhole tape, or 60 mph wagon ride?
MOguy
Explorer
If you can provide more air for the engine and it can suck it in there will be gains. I am not disputing that at all. I just don't think a snorkel can do it. It is too long and too many curves. I suppose if the current air take is so horrible there's a possibility that the snorkel could be better but it definitely will never be the best option for providing more air TO the engine.
I am not saying this to be anti snorkel. I think they serve a very very good purpose and look cool. Unless you driving wide open throttle why does it matter if you lose a little bit of power especially when you can gain some protection.
Regardless of how much power your an air intake could gain you I would never give up protection for my engine.
Here is an experiment people can do. Next time you're going 70 miles an hour down the road stick your head out of the window and face it into the wind and breathe turn your head around backwards and breathe and then stick your head back in the car and breathe. Hold each position for a minute or two if you can.
Last edited:
Hillbilly Heaven
Explorer
Most aftermarket snorkel are designed for vehicles that have engine less than 5 liters some and probably most are between 3.5 and 4.5 liters. Doesn't take much to deliver that small amount of air. Especially at highway speeds. Where it is going to hurt is slow speeds and high rpms. For the average 5 liter engine it needs a minimum dual 3 to 3.5 inch duct with as few a bends as possible.
I like your testing method better lol. I will ask my dog next time we go for a ride.
Try feeding a 7.5 liter engine that can run 6000 rpms! That's a lot of air. 7.5 x 3000=22,500 liters per minute if volumetric efficiency was 100%. Dual 5" ducts would be straining.
I like your testing method better lol. I will ask my dog next time we go for a ride.
Try feeding a 7.5 liter engine that can run 6000 rpms! That's a lot of air. 7.5 x 3000=22,500 liters per minute if volumetric efficiency was 100%. Dual 5" ducts would be straining.