The Snorkel's relevance to North American overlanding

[hemifoot]

and i already told you.i live in bc.we don't have deserts here.maybe you should re read the posts.the question is relevance in north america.that's canada and mexico as well as the usa.how many of your northern/eastern states are desert? you don't speak for everyone.least of all someone who's been backroad exploring for 35 years without a snorkel.

 

[Dalko43]

Whatever you say - but I just finished a trip with a bunch of folks who do this for a living (and you read their articles) and they also have snorkels - and I 'm pretty damn positive which category they fall into. Take a look at Scott Brady's rigs, Graeme Bell, Dan Grec, Chris Collard, the Hema Maps rigs, etc.
//

Okay, but do the experiences of Scott Brady, Chris Collard, ect. represent what the average overlander will encounter while traveling through North America? You're comparing writers who do this sort of thing for a living to weekend warriors who are lucky if they can get out 2-3x per month. Is the average overlander going to be driving in areas or with enough speed to throw up the kind of silt you had in your example picture?

I do believe there is a legitimate case for a snorkel to be installed, for the right driver who is encountering the right conditions. However, I also believe there are lot of people who put snorkels on their rigs and will never encounter a true water obstacle and will have marginal dust intake through the course of their travels. The point of this thread wasn't to argue that the snorkel is a worthless accessory, but rather to point out that it may not be all that relevant for everyone who overlands, especially in North America.

 

[OmegaMan73]

I've lived in AZ my whole life and have wheeled out in the deserts since before it was legal to drive. Got to love living way out in the desert. You don't need to be Robby Gordon to get into silt. And you really don't need to be hauling *** like he does for silt to be a problem. You look at that stuff wrong and it's in the air. Dust out here is unavoidable. It will linger on the trail for hours if there's not a breeze. Those of you who don't have ac in your rigs will know that you will still have dusty boogers a week after a long off road trip out here.That's why prefilters are always big sellers, you just can't avoid the dust. Covering all of North America in a blanket statement is ignorant. Terrain varies from all ends of the extremes from North to South. And a snorkel will work in every area that a factory engineered air box will. These things are personal preference. Some like them some don't.
I've got 2 different types of off road vehicles a 89 K5 Blazer and a 2017 Tacoma. The first thing that was done to the blazer was a big open element 14" air filter with a k&n prefilter on it. Then a throttle body spacer. This opens up the air restriction to the throttle body and the spacer helps cool the fuel air mixture. This delivers gains that can be felt in the seat of the pants. Cooler and denser air makes more power. So does cleaner air. Now the factory air box on my tacoma has far more design engineering in it that probably half my blazer does. Resonance boxes and baffles and all sorts of other things that contribute to regulations, and efficiency. Putting a snorkel on it will effectively kill all that engineering. Is this a bad thing. Probably not. In our world of offroading losing a couple of horsepower will not be felt. So if the trade off of having a snorkel is that I can ford deeper water, plus get cooler and cleaner air, but it removes all the engineering to get the air in the engine as smoothly as possible in the first place then why not put one on? Besides the cost. They are expensive. I want one to get one and probably will eventually. If you're concerned of the appearance and having someone tell you "you don't need that thing" then there are some issues you need to square with yourself.

As for the ram air talk it was posted earlier that a forward facing scoop or ram will not pressurize the air going into the engine. All the gains the engine sees are from the cooler denser air not the positive pressure. When you stick your hand out the window at 65mph it gets pushed backwards that's from resistance. All that resistance is still being fed by one atmosphere of 14.7psi. Sure you can increase and decrease the resistance by making the intake track smoother and porting and polishing and adding free flowing exhaust but it's still not adding boosted pressure to the system.

 

[Stryder106]

and i already told you.i live in bc.we don't have deserts here.maybe you should re read the posts.the question is relevance in north america.that's canada and mexico as well as the usa.how many of your northern/eastern states are desert? you don't speak for everyone.least of all someone who's been backroad exploring for 35 years without a snorkel.

Settle down Francis. But - thanks for proving my point - the thread title is NORTH AMERICA - NOT BRITISH COLUMBIA ONLY. Get it? You equip for where you drive, don't try to tell others what's right or wrong for where they drive. Do I absolutely have to have a snorkel? No. But does the snorkel add capability to allow me to do some things I otherwise wouldn't attempt? Yes. Does the snorkel keep my air cleaner than my old stock intake? Yes. Did I only add the snorkel? No (I also added a sealed airbox, CAI tube (more air and straighter air), headers and exhaust to better evacuate the air). Does my truck run better with this? Absolutely. Am I more comfortable in the environments I find myself in the most? YES.
//
How many of the states are desert? Um, let's see: California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Colorado (eastern - and actually even in the high altitude Rockies the dust was quite surprising), Washington (eastern), Utah, Idaho (western). Now add in Mexico and all of Baja California (all part of North America). That's a pretty big ol' dusty environment to play around in don't ya think?

 

[Stryder106]

Okay, but do the experiences of Scott Brady, Chris Collard, ect. represent what the average overlander will encounter while traveling through North America? You're comparing writers who do this sort of thing for a living to weekend warriors who are lucky if they can get out 2-3x per month. Is the average overlander going to be driving in areas or with enough speed to throw up the kind of silt you had in your example picture?

I do believe there is a legitimate case for a snorkel to be installed, for the right driver who is encountering the right conditions. However, I also believe there are lot of people who put snorkels on their rigs and will never encounter a true water obstacle and will have marginal dust intake through the course of their travels. The point of this thread wasn't to argue that the snorkel is a worthless accessory, but rather to point out that it may not be all that relevant for everyone who overlands, especially in North America.

Exactly what environments do you think those guys are driving in that regular people aren't? (Antarctica is the exception). They do the same stuff we do: California (Death Valley, Anza-Borrego, Mojave Road), Utah (Moab, Escalante, Canyonlands, Burr Trail), Arizona (Canyon de Chelly, Kaibob), Colorado (Rockies, Continental Divide, Discovery Route), Baja (everywhere), and on and on. The only difference is they get to do it far more often than those of us with a different day job, and we get to read about their experiences from what they write; which in turn makes us plan trips to those destinations and do them (hence the whole Overland Routes and Hema Maps concept).
//
So, to answer your question - YES - the trails those guys do are the exact same ones that regular folks do. Now, if your definition of overlanding is people who drive predominantly on the roads and stick to Level 1-2 trails - then I would agree with you, they are not doing what the regular overlander would do. But, for those of us going more remote and willing to take on more aggressive and technical trails (not rock crawling technical), then NO - I don't agree that they are doing anything more. Exceptions being some exotic locales that require additional logistics support.
//
As far as silt goes - you do not have to be driving fast to throw up that dust cloud. As already mentioned, just look at it and you'll have grit in your teeth (and quite literally everywhere else). Speed and power come into play to make it through it. It's really hard to do it justice in a written description if you've never experienced it. It's not like sand, but rather it's finer than baby powder and can be very deep and silt beds are usually pretty big. You ever scuba dive in a lake? You can be in crystal clear water and merely get too close to the bottom - not even touch it - and all of the sudden your visibility is completely gone because of a big brown swirling cloud? That's silt - just in water. Now imagine how fast it spreads in the air. If you go through one - it will be EVERYWHERE when you come out.

 

[verdesard0g]

Denser= more molecules/volume=more air, geeze didn't you guys pay attention to high school physics? Probably not enough to make much difference with just the "ram" effect though.
I don't have a snorkel and probably never will, I have no dog in this fight but you guys are spending lots of time and energy on nonsense.
Who cares if it is relevant or not, if you want one get one, in you don't want one don't get one. What does it matter what anyone else is doing to thier own vehicle?

 

[BigSwede]

I think any possible "ram air" effect will be more than offset by the internal drag of the lengthier intake piping.

I have no interest in doing water crossings that require a snorkel. I've had water swishing around my feet once, and don't care to do it again as it was a PITA to deal with the cleanup/dry out and prevent da funk from growing.

As for dust, if the wind is from the right direction and blowing hard enough to matter I suppose a snorkel might afford some reduction in dust intake in a convoy scenario. But I suspect those instances will be rare. In my only silt driving experience I was the lead vehicle, and I couldn't see anything behind me but a huge dust cloud, no way was a snorkel going to matter for the trailing vehicles.

 

[MOguy]

snorkel dust people. Has anybody tied anything like this:

 

[Richie]

My favorite spot to camp here in NM is Goose Lake. The road to the lake is basically a rough forest road and starts with a river crossing. Now most of the year the river is shallow enough to not worry about flooding the intake. But during the runoff season, it’s considerably deeper and if you don’t know exactly which part to trek, it’s a recipe for disaster. Even with a lifted rig. My buddy crossed in his stock height ‘02 Grand Cherokee in mid-June when runoff was still somewhat high. Long story short, that was the end of his Jeep because he went through the deep end not knowing he should have veered to the right.

I used to be skeptical of the use of a snorkel in the lower 48. Just didn’t think there were any legal crossings that you’d benefit from using one. But lesson learned. You just never know.

 

[Dalko43]

Exactly what environments do you think those guys are driving in that regular people aren't? (Antarctica is the exception). They do the same stuff we do: California (Death Valley, Anza-Borrego, Mojave Road), Utah (Moab, Escalante, Canyonlands, Burr Trail), Arizona (Canyon de Chelly, Kaibob), Colorado (Rockies, Continental Divide, Discovery Route), Baja (everywhere), and on and on. The only difference is they get to do it far more often than those of us with a different day job, and we get to read about their experiences from what they write; which in turn makes us plan trips to those destinations and do them (hence the whole Overland Routes and Hema Maps concept).
//
So, to answer your question - YES - the trails those guys do are the exact same ones that regular folks do. Now, if your definition of overlanding is people who drive predominantly on the roads and stick to Level 1-2 trails - then I would agree with you, they are not doing what the regular overlander would do. But, for those of us going more remote and willing to take on more aggressive and technical trails (not rock crawling technical), then NO - I don't agree that they are doing anything more. Exceptions being some exotic locales that require additional logistics support.
//
As far as silt goes - you do not have to be driving fast to throw up that dust cloud. As already mentioned, just look at it and you'll have grit in your teeth (and quite literally everywhere else). Speed and power come into play to make it through it. It's really hard to do it justice in a written description if you've never experienced it. It's not like sand, but rather it's finer than baby powder and can be very deep and silt beds are usually pretty big. You ever scuba dive in a lake? You can be in crystal clear water and merely get too close to the bottom - not even touch it - and all of the sudden your visibility is completely gone because of a big brown swirling cloud? That's silt - just in water. Now imagine how fast it spreads in the air. If you go through one - it will be EVERYWHERE when you come out.

You're missing my point entirely.

I don't think most (key word is most) overlanders drive enough to encounter the same kind of conditions that people like Scott Brady and Chris Collard do. Maybe there are some, but not all.

The picture you provided does not seem indicative of normal driving conditions for most overlanders out west. Maybe it is for Baja, but not for the entire southwestern part of North America. I think you used it purely because it reinforced your point of view. From the responses here and feedback elsewhere, I gather that the are some people who have lived in and explored the southwestern US for years without a snorkel and their stock intakes have worked just fine.

That is my point. Whereas a snorkel seems to be a logical necessity in certain regions of Australia and Africa (among others), I think in North America its relevance very much depends on the driver's habits and location. I'm not even saying that it is a worthless modification for a typical North American overlander; I'm merely suggesting that in the grand hierarchy of overland wishlist items (which is a subjective topic unto itself) a snorkel may not have the same priority for the average North American overlander that it does for the average overlander on other continents. If you want one, go ahead and get one; no one is telling you what to do with your money. The outrage directed at this topic is unwarranted.

 

[lugueto]

You weren't presenting your statement as a guess, but rather as a fact:

Dude, I believe you're not getting the point of the message. The only fact is that naysayers will try to convince you that there's no utility or gain to a snorkel because they don't need it.

I'm not stating you'll gain power, I'm stating whoever says you'll lose one is lying because there are no facts.. The opposite is true, off course: I may be the one lying. I will gladly take back my words whenever a power loss is proven.

You can get stuck in technicalities all you like, this thread is absolutely subjective.

How many trucks are equipped with Ram air systems? Aside from the Ram?

All said, I don't install my snorkels as a performance mod. I install it as insurance.

I really don't think there is any snorkel maker claiming they make more power. I really don't think making more power is their intent. All they did was build an intake to get air into the engine that was out if harms way, sell it and make a buck. There is nothing wrong with that. There is a legit reason for a snorkel.

Indeed, they don't intend to make more power. But they do state that they improve performance:

Safari Armax

https://www.arb.com.au/products/safari-snorkels/

Airflow:

http://www.4wdworld.com.au/Airflow-Snorkels---everything-you-wanted-to-know.html

TJM Airtec

http://www.tjm.com.au/en-oceania/product/tjm-airtec-snorkel-suit-toyota-hilux-2015

 

[ckkone]

Is this horse beaten to death yet??

I don't think so, we can still chat about knockoff vs original manufacturer snorkels and which is better.

 

[hemifoot]

Settle down Francis. But - thanks for proving my point - the thread title is NORTH AMERICA - NOT BRITISH COLUMBIA ONLY. Get it? You equip for where you drive, don't try to tell others what's right or wrong for where they drive. Do I absolutely have to have a snorkel? No. But does the snorkel add capability to allow me to do some things I otherwise wouldn't attempt? Yes. Does the snorkel keep my air cleaner than my old stock intake? Yes. Did I only add the snorkel? No (I also added a sealed airbox, CAI tube (more air and straighter air), headers and exhaust to better evacuate the air). Does my truck run better with this? Absolutely. Am I more comfortable in the environments I find myself in the most? YES.
//
How many of the states are desert? Um, let's see: California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Colorado (eastern - and actually even in the high altitude Rockies the dust was quite surprising), Washington (eastern), Utah, Idaho (western). Now add in Mexico and all of Baja California (all part of North America). That's a pretty big ol' dusty environment to play around in don't ya think?

calling names now?.you lose bud.sorry,but you lost all credibility when you act like a child. maybe it's time for you to color in your book while the adults talk. anyway,i'm out.

 

[ExplorerTom]

calling names now?.you lose bud.sorry,but you lost all credibility when you act like a child. maybe it's time for you to color in your book while the adults talk. anyway,i'm out.

Calling someone out for calling you a name only to call them a child in return. And you said he lost credibility?

This thread has done a few laps around the toilet bowl now.

 

[Dalko43]

How many trucks are equipped with Ram air systems? Aside from the Ram?

You're really getting bogged down in the semantics of this "ram" air effect. In that regard there is no difference between a raised air intake and the typical cold air intake that draws in air from the front fender or grille...they both have some amount of air flowing/getting rammed into the intake ducting.

Ram isn't the only company that makes cold air intakes like that...it's a pretty common setup among most of the big car companies. Go do some google searching; it's not that hard to research this stuff on your own.

All said, I don't install my snorkels as a performance mod. I install it as insurance.

That's fine. I'm just pointing out that a raised air intake introduces more inefficiencies over the stock setup.

Indeed, they don't intend to make more power. But they do state that they improve performance:

Safari Armax

https://www.arb.com.au/products/safari-snorkels/

Airflow:

http://www.4wdworld.com.au/Airflow-Snorkels---everything-you-wanted-to-know.html

TJM Airtec

http://www.tjm.com.au/en-oceania/product/tjm-airtec-snorkel-suit-toyota-hilux-2015

Well which is it: do or don't these snorkels provide a performance boost? You just implied earlier that's foolish to expect a performance boost with a snorkel.

Also, no s%^t these companies are going to claim that their products enhance performance; so does every other aftermarket company which produces cold air intakes and "high efficiency" filters and exhausts. You should take what the aftermarket companies say with a grain of salt. They have no obligation towards journalistic integrity; their only focus is to make sales.