TeriAnn
Explorer
overlander said:
I know the snorkels British Pacific sells for Discoverys are a genuine Land Rover factory part.
Discovery snorkel kit
It never hurts to check with your manufacturer's accessory parts books.
Snorkel Wars
- Thread starter articulate
- Start date
I know the snorkels British Pacific sells for Discoverys are a genuine Land Rover factory part.
Discovery snorkel kit
It never hurts to check with your manufacturer's accessory parts books.
Antichrist said:
Mine is petrol, and has electronics.
I have disabled the fan on occasion, and forgotten to do so on others, with little difference between the results.
I have never shut the engine off in deep water, but have had it stall more than once. Never had an issue with water up the exhaust. It certainly did not stop the engine from restarting.
Much of the assumptions posted regarding exhausts below water line are just that -- assumptions. While it is probably bets to lift the exhaust if you intend to turn your vehicle into a boat, it is simply not necessary for off road work.
Antichrist
Expedition Leader
It's not having your exhaust underwater that's a problem, it's having the water level as high as your exhaust valves, that's when the water will come in if the engine isn't running. Though there may be some siphon effect at a bit lower levels. I've known people who hydrolocked their engine, but the water was up to the bonnet with the engine stalled.madizell said:
Unless you plan to leave a stalled vehicle submerged over night, water is very unlikely to migrate back to the motor. There is an awful lot of air trapped inside the exhaust system with nowhere to go but down and out the exhaust tubes. If they are under water, any water pressing back on the exhaust will simply compress the air in the system until it reaches equilibrium. The only time during a 4-stroke cycle when air trapped in the exhaust could escape back out the intake is during valve overlap. The valves overlap only a small fraction of a 720 degree rotational cycle.
Engines will generally hydro-lock on water that is ingested through the intake (which brings us back to the need for a snorkel.)
It just isn't a big deal to have your exhaust tips under water.
Engines will generally hydro-lock on water that is ingested through the intake (which brings us back to the need for a snorkel.)
It just isn't a big deal to have your exhaust tips under water.
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
For the warranty concerns, I believe it is a real issue if you have a new vehicle, and the dealer is inclined to deny warranty. Goodtimes' scenario is pretty close to it. It's exactly the same situation with performance cars. Yes, the Magnusson-Moss act is supposed to protect us, but the problem is "The Golden Rule": 'He who has the most gold makes the rules.'
The fact is, the dealer makes more money if they get you to pay for the repair. Warranty repairs are done at a lower shop rate, with lower billable hours for a flat rate job, and they also don't make any money on the parts like they do when a customer pays for them.
I believe that is a lot of the reason why dealers even care about the issue. There is of course the case that they'd get in trouble for doing warranty work when they shouldn't, but that doesn't explain the cases when the dealership has BLATANTLY violated the law by not doing repairs.
I remember one case with a guy who had a totally stock 2002 SVT Focus. He had a rear control arm snap in half at the swaybar mount. The dealership told him "There's no way that could happen unless you were abusing the car, so we won't warranty it." This despite the fact that this is a known issue, in fact the 2003 and 2004 SVTF's recieved reinforced control arms from the factory. The guy was up against a wall, he was moving 2000 miles the next week, and needed to have the car running, so he paid.
That's the typical reality for 99% of the people who do not know their legal rights.
The theory that it's just a money issue for the dealer is reinforced by the fact that in many cases, dealers will offer warranties on major engine builds (supercharger installs) as long as they do the work. Despite the fact that superchargers CLEARLY WOULD violate the engine warranty. I've also observed that "good customers" don't have as much trouble with this issue.
It's true that the claimant must prove the case. However, I think we have the roles reversed here. It's up to the CUSTOMER to file a claim that the warranty was justified. The dealer/OEM will use the terms of the warranty contract to defend themselves. That leaves the customer to use SEMA/Magnusson-Moss to attack the dealer/OEM, which will entail a lengthy legal battle.
I will admit however, that every case I've seen of warranty denial has been abandoned WAY too easily by the customer. They usually don't even go as far as getting a letter from a lawyer. The dealer doesn't want a lawsuit either, and it would easily eat up any money the dealer was going to make on the warranty work.
As is mine. I had no problems with the electronics, or the ignition system with water at levels that it got into the headlights. I also had the fan connected, and had no problems with it eating the rad. I believe it's a case by case basis on this. It appears LR designs their trucks with this in mind, as there is a huge amount of clearance between the fan and rad. Others makes, maybe not. Ditto on connectors. Older vehicles have crappy connectors. Newer vehicles are generally better and more weather resistant. GM typically has excellent connectors, other makes may vary.
Now, as for the exhaust... it makes me nervous. Roughly 50% of exhaust gas is H20 in vapor form. If you shut off your engine while it's in the water, the vapor will cool and condense into water with a volumetric ratio of 1000:1. This will act to suck water up the tailpipe. You can do a fun experiment with this. Take an empty pop can, put a bit of water in it and boil it. Quickly take the can off the heat and put it upsidedown in a bowl of water. The can instantly collapses. In this case, water would just get sucked up the pipe.
I believe AntiChris has the measure of it. It's great if you have a snorkel, but if you shut your engine off while the exhaust valves are below the level of the water... you're probably in trouble. I'd drag the truck out and pull the plugs before trying to restart it. Just to be safe.
The fact is, the dealer makes more money if they get you to pay for the repair. Warranty repairs are done at a lower shop rate, with lower billable hours for a flat rate job, and they also don't make any money on the parts like they do when a customer pays for them.
I believe that is a lot of the reason why dealers even care about the issue. There is of course the case that they'd get in trouble for doing warranty work when they shouldn't, but that doesn't explain the cases when the dealership has BLATANTLY violated the law by not doing repairs.
I remember one case with a guy who had a totally stock 2002 SVT Focus. He had a rear control arm snap in half at the swaybar mount. The dealership told him "There's no way that could happen unless you were abusing the car, so we won't warranty it." This despite the fact that this is a known issue, in fact the 2003 and 2004 SVTF's recieved reinforced control arms from the factory. The guy was up against a wall, he was moving 2000 miles the next week, and needed to have the car running, so he paid.
That's the typical reality for 99% of the people who do not know their legal rights.
The theory that it's just a money issue for the dealer is reinforced by the fact that in many cases, dealers will offer warranties on major engine builds (supercharger installs) as long as they do the work. Despite the fact that superchargers CLEARLY WOULD violate the engine warranty. I've also observed that "good customers" don't have as much trouble with this issue.
It's true that the claimant must prove the case. However, I think we have the roles reversed here. It's up to the CUSTOMER to file a claim that the warranty was justified. The dealer/OEM will use the terms of the warranty contract to defend themselves. That leaves the customer to use SEMA/Magnusson-Moss to attack the dealer/OEM, which will entail a lengthy legal battle.
I will admit however, that every case I've seen of warranty denial has been abandoned WAY too easily by the customer. They usually don't even go as far as getting a letter from a lawyer. The dealer doesn't want a lawsuit either, and it would easily eat up any money the dealer was going to make on the warranty work.
As is mine. I had no problems with the electronics, or the ignition system with water at levels that it got into the headlights. I also had the fan connected, and had no problems with it eating the rad. I believe it's a case by case basis on this. It appears LR designs their trucks with this in mind, as there is a huge amount of clearance between the fan and rad. Others makes, maybe not. Ditto on connectors. Older vehicles have crappy connectors. Newer vehicles are generally better and more weather resistant. GM typically has excellent connectors, other makes may vary.
Now, as for the exhaust... it makes me nervous. Roughly 50% of exhaust gas is H20 in vapor form. If you shut off your engine while it's in the water, the vapor will cool and condense into water with a volumetric ratio of 1000:1. This will act to suck water up the tailpipe. You can do a fun experiment with this. Take an empty pop can, put a bit of water in it and boil it. Quickly take the can off the heat and put it upsidedown in a bowl of water. The can instantly collapses. In this case, water would just get sucked up the pipe.
I believe AntiChris has the measure of it. It's great if you have a snorkel, but if you shut your engine off while the exhaust valves are below the level of the water... you're probably in trouble. I'd drag the truck out and pull the plugs before trying to restart it. Just to be safe.
Reality Check:
Situation -
Level of exhaust valves at or below water level with, simultaneously, engine shut off.
Examples I have access to:
1) '68 CJ-5, Buick V-6, 2" lift, 235x85x16 tires -- height of exhaust valves above ground, 31.5"; height of door sills above ground 29.5";
2) '91 F-150 4X4, 4.9L, stock ride, 265x75x16 tires -- height of exhaust valves above ground 37"; height of door sills above ground 21";
3) Audi A-6 2.7T Quattro, stock ride & tires -- height of exhaust valves above ground 21", height of door sills 12";
4) '85 CJ-7, Ford 5.0L HO, 7" suspension lift, 37x13x15 tires -- height of valves above ground 39.5", height of door sills above ground 37".
The examples run from German sedan to Challenge truck, and in each example, the door sills are lower than the exhaust valves, sometimes significantly lower. Except for the Quattro, each of these 4x4 vehicles has valves that are higher off the ground than the tops of the tires, and I would expect that for most of use, regardless of what you drive, the result is about the same. For expedition driving, I would posit that unless life hangs in the balance, driving into water that is over the tops of your tires is something that you are going to think long and hard over before attempting, and that shutting off the motor while in this condition would be insane. Simply stalling most vehicles in water, especially moving water, deeper than the tops of your tires could be extremely exciting if not outright dangerous, which is why for the most part I, at least, think about it before I try it. At the least, you are likely to flood the inside of your car or truck with stinky water, which will lower the resale value of your ride.
Come on now. If you haven't spent more than a few odd seconds in deep water in a vehicle, the whole process might seem likely to lead to disaster by myriad pathways. The reality is that you can drive through your average stream crossing without issues other than wet brakes, and that of all the things that can and will go wrong in deep water, dragging water back through the exhaust all the way to the cylinder heads is so far down the list that you need not concern yourself. Before water can get to your heads, it is going to have to take out your catalytic converters and O2 sensors, and any water that gets that far is going to be hot, so chilling your valves or locking the motor will be the last of your worries at that point. Just getting your honey and the 2 kids out of the vehicle without drowning is going to take all of your attention, trust me.
Situation -
Level of exhaust valves at or below water level with, simultaneously, engine shut off.
Examples I have access to:
1) '68 CJ-5, Buick V-6, 2" lift, 235x85x16 tires -- height of exhaust valves above ground, 31.5"; height of door sills above ground 29.5";
2) '91 F-150 4X4, 4.9L, stock ride, 265x75x16 tires -- height of exhaust valves above ground 37"; height of door sills above ground 21";
3) Audi A-6 2.7T Quattro, stock ride & tires -- height of exhaust valves above ground 21", height of door sills 12";
4) '85 CJ-7, Ford 5.0L HO, 7" suspension lift, 37x13x15 tires -- height of valves above ground 39.5", height of door sills above ground 37".
The examples run from German sedan to Challenge truck, and in each example, the door sills are lower than the exhaust valves, sometimes significantly lower. Except for the Quattro, each of these 4x4 vehicles has valves that are higher off the ground than the tops of the tires, and I would expect that for most of use, regardless of what you drive, the result is about the same. For expedition driving, I would posit that unless life hangs in the balance, driving into water that is over the tops of your tires is something that you are going to think long and hard over before attempting, and that shutting off the motor while in this condition would be insane. Simply stalling most vehicles in water, especially moving water, deeper than the tops of your tires could be extremely exciting if not outright dangerous, which is why for the most part I, at least, think about it before I try it. At the least, you are likely to flood the inside of your car or truck with stinky water, which will lower the resale value of your ride.
Come on now. If you haven't spent more than a few odd seconds in deep water in a vehicle, the whole process might seem likely to lead to disaster by myriad pathways. The reality is that you can drive through your average stream crossing without issues other than wet brakes, and that of all the things that can and will go wrong in deep water, dragging water back through the exhaust all the way to the cylinder heads is so far down the list that you need not concern yourself. Before water can get to your heads, it is going to have to take out your catalytic converters and O2 sensors, and any water that gets that far is going to be hot, so chilling your valves or locking the motor will be the last of your worries at that point. Just getting your honey and the 2 kids out of the vehicle without drowning is going to take all of your attention, trust me.
Last edited:
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
Well, I guess I'm young and foolish, because on my 2nd outting, I was in 38" water with 31" tires. And I didn't think that long and hard about it, didn't have time. I don't know where the exhaust valves were, but water came in under the door sills. I didn't stall, but neither was I even remotely concerned about risking life. It was still water, and worst case the occupants would get wet, smelly feet. The pin striping degrades the resale already, and since it's a Landrover, it leaks rainwater and the carpets smell already. 
Unfortunately, this is pretty much par for the course up here in the Canadian Shield. The terrain is very rolling, and water has nowhere to drain due to the bedrock. You can't go very far through a trail without encountering pools like this.
From your description, it sounds like most people are concerning themselves with water 24" deep? For me, that wouldn't even cause me to pause, even with a non-snorkel equiped Land Rover. 20" is the official design intent fording depth.
So, that's where I'm coming from. 24-36" is what I was talking about, and there is a definite risk of it coming in the exhaust valves if you stall at that depth. If most people are worried about 12-24", then I agree with you, snorkels and exhaust valves are much ado about nothing.
Unfortunately, this is pretty much par for the course up here in the Canadian Shield. The terrain is very rolling, and water has nowhere to drain due to the bedrock. You can't go very far through a trail without encountering pools like this.
From your description, it sounds like most people are concerning themselves with water 24" deep? For me, that wouldn't even cause me to pause, even with a non-snorkel equiped Land Rover. 20" is the official design intent fording depth.
So, that's where I'm coming from. 24-36" is what I was talking about, and there is a definite risk of it coming in the exhaust valves if you stall at that depth. If most people are worried about 12-24", then I agree with you, snorkels and exhaust valves are much ado about nothing.
Antichrist
Expedition Leader
Yeah, I was talking about technical worst case. For probably 90%, or more, of off-roaders, having the exhaust outlet underwater is a non-issue. Not many people submerge their vehicles in the Camel Trophy style.
As for valve overlap, it's a small range, but it does exist and if I had a stall in bonnet depth water without a raised exhaust I'd definitely pull the injectors (diesel) or plugs and crank it before trying to start it.
As for valve overlap, it's a small range, but it does exist and if I had a stall in bonnet depth water without a raised exhaust I'd definitely pull the injectors (diesel) or plugs and crank it before trying to start it.
I wasn't really thinking about puddles, however deep, since they are largely in and out situations, and if placed in the middle of a well defined trail, the depth of the water and the bottom terrain are largely readable from the rest of the trail. I have nevertheless seen some "puddles" in Alaska that might give you pause.
I was thinking of river crossings, where most expedition vehicles will find water to navigate. River bottoms can be hard to read, holes are easy to find but hard to see, rocks are slippery and can get you into trouble, and if you stop, upstream water builds fast on the side of the vehicle. The engine bay will flood, and getting started again if you stall can be a booger.
Still, tops of the tires is a practical working guide, especially if you don't have a snorkel, as flood water maybe won't get you while you are moving, but fan splash will. I have been stopped more times by tires-to-fan splash than any other water crossing issue, which is why the challenge truck has a snorkel. It is not so much about handling deep water as avoiding ANY water in the intake.
I have never personally had a motor stoppage in water deeper than 36" with the CJ-7. However, Alaska Mike had his CJ-5 float away in Caribou Creek one day in what might be thought of as relatively deep water, and while exciting to say the least (technical rescue ensued), I don't recall any damage to the motor, which I believe was shut down for a considerable length of time in fast water while Bob (the CJ) was jammed on the rocks at the head of a gorge waiting help. Wish I had a photo.
I was thinking of river crossings, where most expedition vehicles will find water to navigate. River bottoms can be hard to read, holes are easy to find but hard to see, rocks are slippery and can get you into trouble, and if you stop, upstream water builds fast on the side of the vehicle. The engine bay will flood, and getting started again if you stall can be a booger.
Still, tops of the tires is a practical working guide, especially if you don't have a snorkel, as flood water maybe won't get you while you are moving, but fan splash will. I have been stopped more times by tires-to-fan splash than any other water crossing issue, which is why the challenge truck has a snorkel. It is not so much about handling deep water as avoiding ANY water in the intake.
I have never personally had a motor stoppage in water deeper than 36" with the CJ-7. However, Alaska Mike had his CJ-5 float away in Caribou Creek one day in what might be thought of as relatively deep water, and while exciting to say the least (technical rescue ensued), I don't recall any damage to the motor, which I believe was shut down for a considerable length of time in fast water while Bob (the CJ) was jammed on the rocks at the head of a gorge waiting help. Wish I had a photo.
Overland Hadley
on a journey
madizell said:
I bet we all wish you had a photo, or video!
toyota_jon
Adventurer
I will be installing a snorkel on my first gen 4runner for cleaner air. i've seen enough proof in other rigs that supports this idea. however i will still avoid water at all costs. I've killed two alt's and i'm in no hurry for number 3.
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
Speaking of... yeah, something on my FEAD is on it's last legs due to the water, but I have figure out what, somehow.
Madizel, have you done much wheeling on the terrain type I'm talking about (very old eroded granite mountains, usually 1-2 feet of sand or soil over a bedrock base)?
The pools can be pretty treacherous. You absolutely cannot guess at the depth based on their size. You should never assume it's just a puddle, because it could end up being quite deep. You could have a pool only 20-40 feet wide, but that is easily 24" deep, or more. In fact, that was one issue I had. Some of the pools were "only" 36" deep, but had a very steep entry which put the nose down into it, with the intake being nearer the front.
And I guess I shouldn't have said earlier I did this without much thought... I did think about it, but my only option was to go home. And given we were in a large group, and I'd watched a few Jeeps cross before me, and knowing my intake is actually a little higher than a Jeep... I just went for it.
Madizel, have you done much wheeling on the terrain type I'm talking about (very old eroded granite mountains, usually 1-2 feet of sand or soil over a bedrock base)?
The pools can be pretty treacherous. You absolutely cannot guess at the depth based on their size. You should never assume it's just a puddle, because it could end up being quite deep. You could have a pool only 20-40 feet wide, but that is easily 24" deep, or more. In fact, that was one issue I had. Some of the pools were "only" 36" deep, but had a very steep entry which put the nose down into it, with the intake being nearer the front.
And I guess I shouldn't have said earlier I did this without much thought... I did think about it, but my only option was to go home. And given we were in a large group, and I'd watched a few Jeeps cross before me, and knowing my intake is actually a little higher than a Jeep... I just went for it.
Last edited:
R_Lefebvre said:
Yes, but since I was driving a lifted Jeep on 36 or 37" tires, locked and prepped for such things, I stopped worrying about puddles and creeks long ago. I have not always driven a challenge-prepared vehicle, and I understand the problems of entering water hazards with unreadable bottoms. But as you say, you were able to watch several others cover the same obstacle, which puts the water hazard out of the "unknown bottom" category and into a well-read bottom class. Nothing negative here, I also like to watch others go first. When there is no one else to go first, or when I am trail leader and can't determine bottom, I get out, walk around, probe the water, and make my best choice if the result of simply diving in is not assured.
And on that note, if we are talking about expedition driving rather than hard-core driving, and if anyone has doubts about their vehicle, their own skills, or the results of tackling a water hazard, let a more experienced person go first -- every time. Make your decisions about going forward, or what line to follow, from watching others. Trail-side repairs can be entertaining, but I don't seek them out. There is no shame in having your vehicle assisted across a difficult water hazard, by winch line or strap, if it saves you from a hydro-locked motor or dead electricals.
overlander
Expedition Leader
YES! The great debate lives on! Saw this picture today in the news from the Australian floods. :ylsmoke::smiley_drive:
http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/world/2011/01/04/australia-water/#slide=18
"Jan. 3: In this photo released by the Northern Territory Police, four German tourists are safely rescued from the flooded Magela Creek, near Jabiru, Australia. Drenching rain that started before Christmas has flooded an area the size of France and Germany combined."
http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/world/2011/01/04/australia-water/#slide=18
"Jan. 3: In this photo released by the Northern Territory Police, four German tourists are safely rescued from the flooded Magela Creek, near Jabiru, Australia. Drenching rain that started before Christmas has flooded an area the size of France and Germany combined."
Attachments
Mr. Leary
Glamping Excursionaire
:victory: GOing back to the first post... its for safety, right?