Luxus Panzer

I am going to be re-installing my stock air box in place of this cone set up...

<a href="http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/pharoah007/?action=view&current=DSC03030.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/pharoah007/DSC03030.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

The cone is just too loud for me, and research shows the stock box has no air supply issues at all. Thus my desire to convert this box. It is form a early build 1993 90 hence then 2nd hole at right...
<a href="http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/pharoah007/?action=view&current=DSC03445.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/pharoah007/DSC03445.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

now as for the air intake in between the air box and the headlight I will be refering to the larger hole at left in the above picture.


I am going to make my own intake form the stock box to the area behind the head light. I had to remove the stock velocity stack for this.
I am wondering which of the following 2 options would be my best bet....

Stock MAF---&gt; Plenum pipe form a 95 90.
<a href="http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/pharoah007/?action=view&current=DSC03446.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/pharoah007/DSC03446.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
This pipe , as you can see in 2nd pic, fits the provided hole in air box rather well. downside is that it's I.D. is smaller than the next option..... the silicone pipe seen installed in the pic.
<a href="http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/pharoah007/?action=view&current=DSC03451.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/pharoah007/DSC03451.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>


Here are some pics of the respective fittings to the stick air box, however, I am not so much concerned with fitting as I am with flow. I say again, I am looking for opponions on flow not fitting or looks, or anything else.

<a href="http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/pharoah007/?action=view&current=DSC03447.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/pharoah007/DSC03447.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
<a href="http://s4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/pharoah007/?action=view&current=DSC03450.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/pharoah007/DSC03450.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

The I.D. of the silicone pipe is 3". I have not measured the stock 95 90 pipe.. but it as less than 3", best guess is 2.75" Other than that the only other difference is that the silicone pipe is smooth on the I.D. and the other pipe has "ribs" in it. Kinda like the "ribs" in stock PCV hoses.

So what does everyone think...?

1995Qsport

All i know is smooth i.d compared to ribbed flows alot better. not that the hose that ran by your headlight sucked in tremendous amounts of air.

nothing

I just run mine with both holes wide open - a bit loud but flows, although I'm sure I'm getting a fair amount of engine-warmed air (something to avoid, obviously).

If you just put the OE accordian hose there, then you have defeated the purpose of removing it and upgrading your intake path in the first place - remember, your system will only flow as well as the most restrictive piece.

I don't remember the pathway being straight, so I'm not sure a single piece of silicone tubing will be the best fit. I haven't seen many B4s with a good setup here, most have been on B5s.

IIRC, some have used dryer ducting, but I'm not sure about the durability.

Luxus Panzer

dryer ducting, now there is a simple option. Hummmm.

4AudiQ

Mance discovered years ago that the stock air box
with stock air filter media flowed better and had better dirt trapping capabilities.
All those posts have been deleted.

EDIGREG

They make nice stuff...much tougher than dryer hoses. And they have a duct which fits perfectly into the C4 foglight positions with slight trimming. (you can kind of see them in my sig)

I used MAF adapters (MAF cut in half) to connect the ram-air hoses to the airbox.

VAP

for some of that info and a search wouldn't pull them up. But going back to summer/fall of '03 I was able to find what I needed by culling the posts individually, one at a time til I found what I was looking for. Pics were deleted but the info is still there tho difficult to find since much of it is in other people's threads and not in posts I originated. I spent the better part of a day searching and was able to locate about 60% of what I needed but gave up on trying to find everything as it's too time consuming.

After retreiving some of that info I then made an effort to use search again but this time with certain "key words" that I didnt have access to before finding the posts. And even using my user ID/account# the search engine still would not pull those posts up.

VAP

<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/711/rs3airbox.jpg"></center><p>
which is what I started with over 3 years ago as you can see in this pic.

1. typical cone setup
2. typical OEM setup
3. RS3 airbox preliminary design.

The typical cone suffers from issues related to allowing dirt, debris and silica in. They start to filter better as they get dirty but it goes without saying they also become more restrictive as well. It's the BIG trade-off with cone setups. It also will see diminished flow from anything within 7" of it's outside diameter. And the "oiled" ones can wreak havoc in MAF sensor wires and there's the ever-present heat issues to contend with. Additionally they create SO much turbulence over the sensor wires that the shops that calibrate MAF sensor modules won't even touch them when mounted as in pic. They mount them so the filter is 11"-12" away from the MAF. I've tried em both ways and am still stymied why cone users insist on running them butted up against the MAF housing inlet. Even when a VS is used between cone and MAF the car idles better, has better part-throttle and WOT response when placed about a foot upstream of the MAF inlet. This also allows it to be placed in an area that is far more wide-open from things that compromise flow and/or create turbulence like fender wall, strut tower etc. All this makes perfect sense since when placed forward about a foot that ALL MAF module sensor readings are FAR smoother and more stabilized and tons less erratic!

The typical airbox is good but not great. I prefer it over any cone and haven't flowed a cone setup yet that will give me simultaneous cool charge air temps and/or "smooth" airflow that the OEM box does. But all that aside there is more air directional change going on inside the OEM airbox than I'd like to see. I can smooth that turbulence significantly via an airbox VS but I cannot alter the air path in front of the airbox VS which would be a boon to flow... "shortest distance between two points will always be a straight line."

The RS3 box never got off the ground due to many things. It's cost would be high as I would insist on a precision box with impeccable sealing characteristics. I would also want all interior surfaces to be smooth, radiused and flow-tested as they relate to angles, surface finish, turbulence, volume and velocity. And it would use a "vertically-mounted" small but high "pleat-count" paper element mounted vertically so there's no significant change of air direction within the sealed vessel (airbox). This, in and of itself would dramatically increase flow, volume and velocity. Also this box was going to be either dual-wall or an insulated design offering even further reduction in heat. And it would feature a dramatically smaller panel filter that would allow the box to be approximately the same width we now have but only be maybe 6"-8" front-to-rear. The filter that I tested in an early prototype was only 4" square and flowed over 30% better than the OEM airbox. And that prototype had no turbulence-reducing provision incorporated. Just a square box with a vertically-mounted smallish pleated panel paper filter. Done right I believe it "could" perhaps as much as twice the flow volume of an OEM airbox. However, with that said, just because it could "conceivably" flow twice as much air does NOT mean your, my or any other 12V engine could "pull" twice the volume of air thru it. But I have no doubt it would be a feelable difference and perhaps even a dramatic difference. But until and if I ever build one nothing more can be known empirically. I still believe it would likely be a MAJOR induction enahncement. But the buy-in would likely kill it for most as buying/making custom aluminum boxes like this in two pieces with a bullet-proof seal and another sealing provision for an air filter could easily run $400-$500 bucks a pop after all internal airflow enhancing provisions are implemented into it.

But, we can dream!

Lago Blue

...old articles in the Fall of '03 (it's eerily similar &amp; yet a completely different vehicle):

http://www.jagsthatrun.com/Pages/Parts_COL-high-flow-cold-intake.html

Doesn't anybody have some of the photos from this one...<ul><li><a href="http://step-by-step%20photos%20of%20Audi%2090%20Stage%203%20CAI%2 0installation...%20%20%20-%20%20UrS4%20%202003-07-10%2020:54:18%20(261%20views)">https://forums.audiworld.com/12v/msgs/5841.phtml</a></li></ul>

Lago Blue

<center><img src="http://www.bolhuijo.com/airflowtest/entry.jpg"></center><p>This old BMW (similar vintage ('82-'91) to our cars &amp; often had 2.7 ltr. 6 cyl. engines) has what looks like a proper sized <i>&amp; sculpted</i> inlet duct.

The air filter info also re-inforces some of Mance's other earlier work.<ul><li><a href="http://www.bolhuijo.com/airflowtest/">BMW E30 airbox &amp; filter flowbench tests...</a></li></ul>