The Snorkel's relevance to North American overlanding

[Trikebubble]

I was going to get one for the Xterra, before I sold it and bought the Tundra. My sensible rationale was all about "water crossings, fresh air, blah, blah, blah...." but being honest with myself i wanted one 'cause they look the $h1te, right? I'll bet if their was an internal snorkel option, that was never seen.......everyone would still pretty much want the cool exterior one. Whether it's cool to be cool, or a way to signify yourself as part of a group of like minded individuals......I doubt anyone ever installed a snorkel, and didn't step back and comment "yeh, now that looks cool". I'm not saying I would be standing inline to purchase one of those idiotic overpriced spork like shovels and clamp it to my roofrack to show my dedication to the "craft", but everyone who owns a vehicle that they've modded puts some consideration into form as well as function.

 

[Airmapper]

If a normally aspirated motor can use more air it would suck it in if it were available.

No engine can suck more air in than is available at the intake. The only situation where an engine might suck air is if the intake valve is constricted to the point air can not flow to the cylinders fast enough to normalize to intake pressure before the valve closes. (try to breathe through a straw) In this case the engine would be creating a vacuum, and would starve itself for air and die or run very very poorly in short order. Adding fuel to an engine starving for air would flood it and it would die immediately.

Normally (or more appropriately, Naturally) aspirated means the cylinders are simply relying on atmospheric pressure (the kind you read on a barometer) to fill the cylinder. This is why you hear of some engines having difficulty running at altitude, or running weaker at high altitude, because atmospheric pressure decreases as you climb. Less dense air enters the cylinder, thus containing less oxygen, and thus less fuel to maintain the proper ratio, and less force from the explosion.

Ram air and turbochargers both put more pressure at the intake than atmospheric pressure. More pressure means higher density, more oxygen and more fuel can go into the explosion than could at atmospheric pressure. Ram air is weak and powered by the forward movement of the vehicle, a turbo uses mechanical means to pressurize the intake. In both cases the density of air that fills the cylinder is greater than the atmosphere. In both cases you rob Peter to pay Paul, the energy required to compress air comes from somewhere. For ram air it's increased aerodynamic drag, in a turbo it's robbing some power from the engine to compress air.

 

[MOguy]

No engine can suck more air in than is available at the intake. The only situation where an engine might suck air is if the intake valve is constricted to the point air can not flow to the cylinders fast enough to normalize to intake pressure before the valve closes. (try to breathe through a straw) In this case the engine would be creating a vacuum, and would starve itself for air and die or run very very poorly in short order. Adding fuel to an engine starving for air would flood it and it would die immediately.

Normally (or more appropriately, Naturally) aspirated means the cylinders are simply relying on atmospheric pressure (the kind you read on a barometer) to fill the cylinder. This is why you hear of some engines having difficulty running at altitude, or running weaker at high altitude, because atmospheric pressure decreases as you climb. Less dense air enters the cylinder, thus containing less oxygen, and thus less fuel to maintain the proper ratio, and less force from the explosion.

Ram air and turbochargers both put more pressure at the intake than atmospheric pressure. More pressure means higher density, more oxygen and more fuel can go into the explosion than could at atmospheric pressure. Ram air is weak and powered by the forward movement of the vehicle, a turbo uses mechanical means to pressurize the intake. In both cases the density of air that fills the cylinder is greater than the atmosphere. In both cases you rob Peter to pay Paul, the energy required to compress air comes from somewhere. For ram air it's increased aerodynamic drag, in a turbo it's robbing some power from the engine to compress air.

I agree with everything expect what you say about ram air where I have highlighted above. Ram air is not powered. It is basically a hole in the hood over or around a bigger airlifter. The air that may rush at or into that area doesn't mean it used by the motor. They can look cool, if a motor can use more air they cold provide that air but they are not powered and do not force at into the motor. If it were that simple every performance or want-to-be performance car would have a hood scoop with an air filter in or under it. Or have an air filter placed where huge amounts of air pass it.

 

[Stryder106]

My beating the dead horse comment was in reference to someone else earlier in the thread mentioning that same thing. I do think it is useful conversation because if you are exploring remotely chances are you will encounter these situations and a proper snorkel will help. And yes, I'm in SoCal - the land of the Mall Crawler $100K Jeep JKs that haven't done anything more extreme than go over a speed bump or drive the 91 FWY (short wheel base and lifted - it's an adventure).
//
MOguy - please explain the concept of a forward facing intake scoop on drag cars, Indy cars, IMSA cars, F1 cars, etc if it has no performance benefit (because the horsepower gained is more than the increased drag from the scoop). More air is available for the engine to take in compared to a stock setup. Cooler air is denser air which also equates to more air. Cleaner air is more air because it has less non-oxygen particles per square inch - which equates to more air. Air being pushed or "rammed" into an engine rather than sucked in does not take any horsepower to do so. If the engine is consuming the same amount of air then it is not using as much horsepower to do so. If the engine issuing the same horsepower to suck the air, then it is getting more air. There is less resistance to getting air in my vehicle with the snorkel than there was with the stock air box - that means more air available for the engine to consume, it's available at a faster rate, and it requires less force to get it (the less force used the less horsepower needed for the same result, which equates to more horsepower available).
//
And just because a stock motor is consuming X amount of air, don't assume for one second that that's all it's capable of - without a turbo or supercharger. Most are completely detuned by the manufacturer in order to keep MPG at a reasonable amount and reduce their own warranty costs. My 2002 LS 5.3L engine came stock with 285 horsepower from GM - do you really think that's all that engine is capable of without a supercharger or turbo? Adding a tune, changing the timing - increased the hp and torque. Adding the snorkel, headers, and exhaust increased the airflow - allowing more out allows for more in which increased the hp and torque (more importantly changed the torque curve drastically). Milling the heads would increase the compression - same volume of air in a smaller space = more power. Change the cam profile, etc - will bring a 5.3 to life. My point is - that engine will gladly take more air than it is getting. Your point about the super chargers and turbos is very valid - except that those provide MORE air than the engine can normally consume - which is why it compresses tighter in the chamber and you get a much bigger bang (you also can run really lean really fast due to so much air - which turns into exploded parts).
//
Trikebubble - completely and totally agree. I look for function on my vehicle - if I can get both function and form then that's the way I go. Nobody wants to build something that looks like complete crap.

 

[Stryder106]

I agree with everything expect what you say about ram air where I have highlighted above. Ram air is not powered. It is basically a hole in the hood over or around a bigger airlifter. The air that may rush at or into that area doesn't mean it used by the motor. They can look cool, if a motor can use more air they cold provide that air but they are not powered and do not force at into the motor. If it were that simple every performance or want-to-be performance car would have a hood scoop with an air filter in or under it. Or have an air filter placed where huge amounts of air pass it.

I didn't say it was better than a supercharger or turbo - that would be stupid and patently false. However, it is useful and it does aid in performance. And you are wrong about it passing over and not being used. On race cars - the underside of that scoop is sealed around the intake (carbs or throttle body) so that the air has nowhere to go except into the intake (which is exactly the same as a snorkel and sealed airbox concept). That increases the pressure on that air and it will get "rammed" into the path of least resistance - which is into the engine. The trick is having enough exhaust evacuation capability to actually make use of it - which I do in both my Demon and my Avalanche. But, what do I know..................

 

[MOguy]

//
MOguy - please explain the concept of a forward facing intake scoop on drag cars, Indy cars, IMSA cars, F1 cars, etc .

because they need allot of air in their motor.

 

[MOguy]

I didn't say it was better than a supercharger or turbo - that would be stupid and patently false. However, it is useful and it does aid in performance. And you are wrong about it passing over and not being used. On race cars - the underside of that scoop is sealed around the intake (carbs or throttle body) so that the air has nowhere to go except into the intake (which is exactly the same as a snorkel and sealed airbox concept). That increases the pressure on that air and it will get "rammed" into the path of least resistance - which is into the engine. *The trick is having enough exhaust evacuation capability to actually make use of it - which I do in both my Demon and my Avalanche. But, what do I know..................
View attachment 422970

Does a race car motor need more air their your vehicles? The path of least resistance is not into the engine. if that were the case then economy cars would use scopes to direct air into the engine to make the more aerodynamic.

*BINGO the engine is able to suck more in because it can push more out. If the engine/pump can't push it out it can't take it in. Will an air scoop help you get exhaust gases out?

 

[ericvs]

i fail to see how a snorkel would help when you're tail end charlie going down a dusty road,unless your snorkel is 30 feet tall.other than deep water crossings it serves little purpose,at least around my neck of the woods.you just don't see too many,and it's usually attached to a bro truck.if i need to cross deep water i crawl.plus a snorkel would look really stupid on my ram.

 

[Stryder106]

because they need allot of air in their motor.

But by your previous definition, they would get all they need without the forward facing scoop by sucking it in from the ambient air around it. The scoop serves to funnel air and direct it into a specific spot - directly into the intake. The forward motion of the vehicle packs that scoop full of air and thus forcing it or ramming it down the intake creating more air into the engine than would be possible without the scoop.
//
This is getting a bit off topic since in no way did I add a snorkel to my Avalanche to gain hp and we are all pretty much trail running at slow to moderate speeds not WOT. At 50mph plus - the snorkel is ramming air into the intake and gaining a performance advantage over not having it - not huge, but enough to notice. But, for practical purposes, on my vehicle it raises the air intake level to a point that is 4 feet higher than my previous intake opening - and that provides me an increased level of capability and reliability in dust/dirt/silt/water environments that I find myself in quite a bit (SoCal is desert and we do have a lot of washes).

 

[b9ev]

Exactly this. I have driven on dirt roads my entire life and dust is marginally less at the height of a snorkel than it is at the engine bay height/fender liner/wherever your stock intake gets air.

i fail to see how a snorkel would help when you're tail end charlie going down a dusty road,unless your snorkel is 30 feet tall.other than deep water crossings it serves little purpose,at least around my neck of the woods.you just don't see too many,and it's usually attached to a bro truck.if i need to cross deep water i crawl.plus a snorkel would look really stupid on my ram.

View attachment 422972

 

[ducktapeguy]

This isn't beating a dead horse, though if you think it is you're under no obligation to participate in the conversation. This is a legitimate question. I'm sure there are are plenty of 4x4 owners in North America who have a legitimate need for a snorkel due to where they live and how frequently they explore. However, I also think it's a reasonable proposition that there are many casual 4x4 enthusiasts who add a snorkel to their rig for looks more so than any real need. As I said earlier, in my several years of exploring parts of the northeast, I can only think of 1-2 instances where a snorkel would have been necessary, and in those cases there were nearby bypasses to the water obstacles. And yet, I've seen more than a few rigs in my neck of the woods running snorkels; maybe some of them are going to offroad parks where water crossings are a frequent occurrence, but I'm willing to bet that some of those rigs have never seen a water crossing and the snorkel was just one of many modifications in order to project a specific image. Just like I'm willing to bet some of the lifted Jeeps I see driving around my area have never actually been offroading.

Yes, North America has sand, silt, dust, mud and water just like Australia. The point the podcast was making was that the likelihood of the average North American 4x4 encountering enough of that stuff to warrant a snorkel isn't the same as it is for the average 4x4 traversing the Canning Stock route or some other remote track in Australia.

Also, I highly doubt an aftermarket snorkel is adding HP or fuel economy to a modern, electronically-controlled engine. The stock cold air intakes are generally well-suited to bringing in cold air; I doubt a snorkel is adding anything in terms of the amount of temperature of the air.

Sorry to say it kinda is beating a dead horse, but makes for interesting conversation anyway. This question and others like it have been asked and answered many times, and it typically always starts the same way. Person 1 starts a topic on a hotly debated subject, always in the form of an "innocent" question. Person 1 gets plenty of passionate replies for and against said opinion, but already has their mind made up on what is the "correct" answer. It seems like you're just fishing for people to support your opinion that snorkels are for looks only. You've already gotten a lot of legitimate responses from people with personal experience, but you choose not to acknowledge them or discredit their opinion. No matter how many stories or experience people tell you, you believe people who have them are posers, since you don't have one, you are convincing yourself that you are not a poser.

For the record, I don't have a snorkel, but I want to get one at some point.

I'll tell you what you want to hear. The real reason I want one is because I think they look cool, and that's it. I have absolutely no other reason for getting one. It brings back memories of when I was a kid watching those TV shows with the old land rovers and dreamed of owning a car like that. Do I need it? Nope, not at all, The deepest water crossing I've been through was still a good foot below my air intake, and I don't plan on doing anything over my hood. As for dust, maybe they help, maybe not, I don't really know, don't really care. I have been through dust bad enough that I was wearing a dust mask and sunglasses to just breathe and see, but at that point I rather just hang back and let the dust settle, mainly for my own comfort and not for my vehicle. They may negatively affect my power, but if I need a dyno to tell me that, then does it really matter? The only reason I haven't gotten one is because I know I don't really need it so it's pretty low on my priority list.

I'm sure some people who see me driving around with my RTT and snorkel, winch, and fuel cans probably rush home to their online forums to laugh about the poser they saw driving down the street without a mudhole in sight. I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a weekend warrior, just like 99% of the people on the internet, I don't pretend to be otherwise. Nothing we do to modify a vehicle is a necessity, EVERYTHING is just because we want it. Nobody really needs a winch, bigger tires or lockers, or even 4 wheel drive for that matter. Because in reality, you don't need to go to any of those places that these vehicles take you to, billions of people survive just fine without all of that. The real reason people do these things is because they want to and it make them happy. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[MOguy]

But by your previous definition, they would get all they need without the forward facing scoop by sucking it in from the ambient air around it. The scoop serves to funnel air and direct it into a specific spot - directly into the intake. The forward motion of the vehicle packs that scoop full of air and thus forcing it or ramming it down the intake creating more air into the engine than would be possible without the scoop.
//
This is getting a bit off topic since in no way did I add a snorkel to my Avalanche to gain hp and we are all pretty much trail running at slow to moderate speeds not WOT. At 50mph plus - the snorkel is ramming air into the intake and gaining a performance advantage over not having it - not huge, but enough to notice. But, for practical purposes, on my vehicle it raises the air intake level to a point that is 4 feet higher than my previous intake opening - and that provides me an increased level of capability and reliability in dust/dirt/silt/water environments that I find myself in quite a bit (SoCal is desert and we do have a lot of washes).

If your current set is restrictive than changing things could help, maybe a scoop. It you motor gets all the air it can use a scoop won't force more air in the motor.

As far as a snorkel? I would run one but I am concerned about vulnerability of a plastic tube run up the side of my jeep. Not for performance but for water and yes, the cool factor but I wouldn't do away with my stock airbox.

Unless your snorkel is Magic it's not raming air into your motor. Since your snorkel work so well for you I have another special magical item. it's this little black box. You set it in your glove box and it'll magically program your computer to get you another 45 horsepower. If you're interested p.m. me in your your contact information this item is kind of secret and I don't want the government to know about it so don't tell anybody. I'll make you a good deal for $300.this

 

[SoCal Tom]

Since 1980 I’ve been driving around the Socal deserts in crowds, with heavy dust and never found the need for a snorkel. I replaced my air filter more often than I needed to, but a snorkel in a dusty climate can only, in its best case scenario extend the life of an air filter. I drive a JK, and the stock intake is well above the top of the fender. I’m not going deeper than that anyhow. A snorkel in Socal is less helpful than a set of snow chains.
Tom


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[hemifoot]

Exactly this. I have driven on dirt roads my entire life and dust is marginally less at the height of a snorkel than it is at the engine bay height/fender liner/wherever your stock intake gets air.

so you would follow that close in that dust? why? and why right behind in stead of off to the side?.that's just dumb. say goodbye to your windshield and probably a headlight or 2.yes its probably rhd,but were talking north america,not north africa,or northern territories.the only desert we have up here are small pocket deserts.and we're smart enough to give some separation down a dirt road,again,windshields and headlights.

 

[SoCal Tom]

Depends on terrain, and who said i had a windshield? Usually we were a group traveling together, distance depended on the level of dust and how much visibility we had.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk