206 GTI 180 air induction IMPORTANT
  • Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 2 12 Last
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    Tadpole
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    17

    Icon3 206 GTI 180 air induction IMPORTANT

    hi guys new member and just thought i would share this info that i got from Alert Motorsports in NZ. The guy name is Armand...anyway, i have been doing my research to find out what mods i can do for my new 206 gti 180 that i bought (love it by the way ) and i was interested in the air induction and throttle body kit...and when i email Alert they sent me this really informed tech report that you will find (all gti 180 owners) is quite suprising. i want to say thanks for having me and will post tech and pics as i acquire them...here is the email that Armand sent me...

    Advertisement


    Hello Marcus,

    Good question on the induction kit as we have done a lot of research and testing here in New Zealand on the 206 GTI-180.
    The reply may be lenghty, but it warrants it as the system is quite well engineered:

    We have tested the VFC263 Viper Cold Air Induction System on a demo-car, and found the original airbox to be more effective (!) with the addition of the PP1585 Panel Filter.
    It has a rather complicated system, obviously well engineered by the people at Peugeot, with regulated Twin Air Intakes before the Airbox itself.
    A vacuum actuator on the seconday intake pipe (operated by a solenoid and vacuum booster) opens the valve when required and lets more air in,.
    The principle behind this is an old one: a slightly Restrictive Airflow can produce better torque with a certain plenum chamber set-up. However, as the rpm is increased, so is the Air-requirement. To lesson the increase in negative pressure and balance this, the computer regulates the second intake to optimise the airflow/pressure before the filter. Very clever though: The pressure is sensed from the actual Plenum Chamber itself, to lesson the effect of the Air Cleaner Element status.

    Conclusion:
    Although there was a gain in Torque, and 0-100 Km/Hr was 0.9 seconds better than original when using the VFC263, the best gain in Torque and BHP was made by replacing the ORIGINAL filter Element for a Pipercross Vortex Foam Panel Filter (Part No: PP1585).
    This bettered the 0-100 run by 1.2 seconds, and found an overall increase of 6% in BHP.
    Changing the Throttle body for a larger size butterfly type, would merely increase induction noise levels, not the actual performance.
    The only other option for greater power from this well-engineered system, would be by adding a Twin Helical Screw SuperCharger, with intercooled heatexchanger.


    The PP1585 is available ex our stock at $ 100.00 including GST.
    We also have the VFC263 in stock at a reduced price of $ 500.00 including GST.
    (Both prices exclude Freight)

    Best Regards,

    Armand Bueving
    Motorsport Manager
    ALERT MOTORSPORT

    if you guys get any infor on any more of this kind of tech stuff, let us all know

    cheers

    Marcus

  2. #2
    1000+ Posts gti138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    1,885

    Default

    Sounds positive - However I'd suggest that the claimed performance increase may be a little optimistic. If you go down that track it may be worth to either invest in a G-Tech or some dyno runs before and after to check their claims. But for $100 - it's not really a big ask and if it puts a bigger smile on your face go for it!

    I'd be wary of any turbo/supercharging kits for the 206's as the engine blocks arent engineered to handle the boost and usually end up in a spectacular & expensive blow up.

    If you get the filter let us know how it goes & welcome to AF!
    Murray : And there are flames coming from the back of Prost's car as he enters the swimming pool!
    James Hunt: Well that should put them out then!


    Mallala: 1:30.79





  3. #3
    1000+ Posts tekkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spaceghost

    We have tested the VFC263 Viper Cold Air Induction System on a demo-car, and found the original airbox to be more effective (!) with the addition of the PP1585 Panel Filter.

    Conclusion:
    Although there was a gain in Torque, and 0-100 Km/Hr was 0.9 seconds better than original when using the VFC263, the best gain in Torque and BHP was made by replacing the ORIGINAL filter Element for a Pipercross Vortex Foam Panel Filter (Part No: PP1585).
    This bettered the 0-100 run by 1.2 seconds, and found an overall increase of 6% in BHP.
    Im a little surprised that the OEM peugeot filter is that bad. I mean 6% is a HUGE increase. Did Peugeot overlook this simple mod...
    .
    1300cc's of jap buzzbox delivered the times below.

    EC 1:54.6 , Wakefield 1:13.15 , OP (short) 52.00 , OP GP 1:24.40


  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Im far more suprised even a supposed 6% increase in HP has supposedly netted a 1.2 sec improvement 0-100....thats going from 180 HP to 191 HP has dropped a 0-100 time from 7.2 seonds to 6.0....even if he means ATW and not fly its still under 195 HP fly.
    Credit where its due hes actually trying to get you to buy the $100 part as opposed to the $500 one,but jeez.Maybe he means .12 of a second :/,either that or hes got some of them in stock hes got to get rid off.

    Dont get me wrong ive looked at it myself.But i wouldnt buy it on those claims as they are obviously false.Im more interested in finding out what'd happen if you got rid of that huge back box and went straight thru exhaust.

  5. #5
    sans witticism SLC206's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    North Parramatta
    Posts
    3,993

    Default

    Noise?
    Regards,

    Simon

    2018 308 GTi 2011 DS3 DSport
    ----
    2014 208 GTi 2007 207 GTi 2004 206 GTi180 2000 206 GTi 1995 306 XT

    www.peugeotclub.asn.au

  6. #6
    1000+ Posts U Turn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mandible
    Im far more suprised even a supposed 6% increase in HP has supposedly netted a 1.2 sec improvement 0-100....thats going from 180 HP to 191 HP has dropped a 0-100 time from 7.2 seonds to 6.0....
    My thoughts exactly.
    Take the long way home....

    - 306 gti6

  7. #7
    Tadpole
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    22

    Default

    I was going to replace the airbox with either the ITG induction kit or Carbon Dynamic Airbox kit. BTW, I have used the ITG carbon box on my previous 138 before and I am using the CDA in my other car. My only concern was how they would work with the regulated twin air intake system used on the 180.

    In order to maintain the low end torque, and for the time being, I have opt for the BMC panel filter which fitted in the OE airbox like a glove. The car breathes a lot easlier now (consider the amount of foam and paper element used on the OE item).

    I have also enquired about a custom made stainless steel rear box from Taipan XP down the coast who did my other car. Before they even measure up for any system, the car was dyno to see what is the likely power gain from just replacing the rear box. The only difference from the "with" OE rear box and the "without" rear box runs were 4kw. By the time they play with sound deadening and back pressure, I was told the best is probably only 2kw overall gain, if I am lucky, after spending a lot of money. Apart from the deeper exhaust note, there is only very limited gain from replacing the back box.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mandible
    Im more interested in finding out what'd happen if you got rid of that huge back box and went straight thru exhaust.

  8. #8
    sans witticism SLC206's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    North Parramatta
    Posts
    3,993

    Default

    Interesting discussion. It's nice to hear from people who have actually done some experimenting, as I can't be bothered

    I'm reasonably firm in the opinion that most induction/exhaust mods are fashion-related - but I'm very eager to be proven otherwise.

    So to summarize the thread as it stands, there is very little to be gained from modifying the induction system or the exhaust system?
    Regards,

    Simon

    2018 308 GTi 2011 DS3 DSport
    ----
    2014 208 GTi 2007 207 GTi 2004 206 GTi180 2000 206 GTi 1995 306 XT

    www.peugeotclub.asn.au

  9. #9
    who? when? huh? GTI124's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gordon, NSW
    Posts
    4,527

    Default

    This thread is getting too civil. Stop it!
    - Lincoln

    Contribute to the World Community Grid.

  10. #10
    sans witticism SLC206's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    North Parramatta
    Posts
    3,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTI124
    This thread is getting too civil. Stop it!
    Ha! It's not my fault if all the lively people aren't here, and only the boring 'ol farts like myself are left
    Regards,

    Simon

    2018 308 GTi 2011 DS3 DSport
    ----
    2014 208 GTi 2007 207 GTi 2004 206 GTi180 2000 206 GTi 1995 306 XT

    www.peugeotclub.asn.au

  11. #11
    1000+ Posts U Turn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GTI124
    This thread is getting too civil. Stop it!
    Where's jester when you need him? He'd tell you he's tested the '180 with no filter and that it revved quicker but he noticed no difference in acceleration.....
    Take the long way home....

    - 306 gti6

  12. #12
    1000+ Posts gti138's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    1,885

    Default

    What we really need here to spice up this thread is a heap of RSC & 180 owners to debate about who's car is best and who can get the biggest gain out of an air filter change.

    Seriously though. I'd love to see some hard technical data on the filter change. Either dyno results or even a g-tech or similar analysis would be good to see if their claims can be backed up.
    Murray : And there are flames coming from the back of Prost's car as he enters the swimming pool!
    James Hunt: Well that should put them out then!


    Mallala: 1:30.79





  13. #13
    1000+ Posts kermit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Inner city, Brisbane
    Posts
    2,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by U Turn
    Where's jester when you need him?
    Got banned.
    Cheers Simon
    >8-]

    Rendezvous Adelaide 2005

    Polo Green '01 406 Coupe (5spd Man)
    Tuscany Green '00 206 GTi (Croaked!)

    My Flickr Photos

    206gti.net
    peugeot-206gti
    peugeot-307
    peugeot-407
    peugeotclub.asn.au

  14. #14
    who? when? huh? GTI124's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gordon, NSW
    Posts
    4,527

    Default

    I have a g-tech...well it's Brenno's. Happy to volunteer it for the purpose of this test.

    BTW, both the RSC and 180 are rubbish. No torque down low Oh yeah, and that GTi6 J4RS engine... yeah... no torque on that either. Let's not let the facts get in the way re: the fact the Mi16 doesn't run the same engine, shall we? I had a Mi16 once and it was crap down low, so the J4RS must be too. Shame they're different engines...
    - Lincoln

    Contribute to the World Community Grid.

  15. #15
    1000+ Posts kermit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Inner city, Brisbane
    Posts
    2,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gti138
    What we really need here to spice up this thread is a heap of RSC & 180 owners to debate about who's car is best and who can get the biggest gain out of an air filter change.

    Seriously though. I'd love to see some hard technical data on the filter change. Either dyno results or even a g-tech or similar analysis would be good to see if their claims can be backed up.
    No way in the world is a simple air filter change on a 180 going to give you 1.2sec. More likely the timing was done with a hand held watch.
    Cheers Simon
    >8-]

    Rendezvous Adelaide 2005

    Polo Green '01 406 Coupe (5spd Man)
    Tuscany Green '00 206 GTi (Croaked!)

    My Flickr Photos

    206gti.net
    peugeot-206gti
    peugeot-307
    peugeot-407
    peugeotclub.asn.au

  16. #16
    Budding Architect ???? pugrambo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Parkes - N.S.W - Australia - Earth
    Posts
    12,256

    Default

    well at least the bloke selling the parts is pretty close to bieng fair dinkum

    why can't they all be like that

    oh that's right their customers won't have bragging rights when they are at maccas
    3 x '78 604 SL

    1 x '98 306 GTi6

    1 x secret project

    1 x '98 406 STDT troop carrier and i don't care if it stinks, i don't sniff it's arse Death by wank tank

    1 x '99 406SV 5spd wagon, time to burn more fuel

    1 x 1994 605 SV3.0


    WTD long range fuel tank for 605

  17. #17
    Tadpole
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Hi guys. I've owned a 180 for a while, just found this site, and then read this thread. Just a couple of questions -

    1. If reducing the density of the air filter improves air flow and seems to gain power, then why wouldn't removing the air box as mentioned in U-Turns post? I can understand how removing a restriction in air flow might make an unloaded engine seem to rev up faster, but under load it might make no appreciable difference, perhaps resulting in tenths of seconds improvement from 0-100km/h. Obviously that sort of thing means nothing on the road... but it matters in some fields of motorsport.
    2. If reducing the density of the air filter does not effect the longevity of the engine components, why didn't the factory do it? A lot of these after market filters rely on the fact they have a lower density of material, and so less ability to filter the air. It improves air flow at the expense of your rings and bearings.
    3. If all of these induction kits and exhaust mods make no difference, why are there rally teams and race teams basing their modifications around such simple 'improvements'? I mean, it's certainly not a huge gain in power, but if these mods are used in conjunction with other things to improve VE, then why wouldn't they help?

    Just a final comment about the rear silencer on the 180. Has anyone noticed how big it is? I mean, youd think at something like 35L's, they might have considered the restriction a smaller silencer would impose on air flow and have used a larger volume to provide a resevoir for gas flow. I've also seen on the Peugeot sport site there is a group-n GTi180 (they call it RC, but i guess thats another story??) exhaust system that claims 6-10kW improvement ATW. Thats nearly 10% extra power from the engine by retuning the system to allow inflow and outflow of gasses... surely you guy's cant be saying the factory doesn't know what they are talking about??

  18. #18
    1000+ Posts tekkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleanup_754
    1. If reducing the density of the air filter improves air flow and seems to gain power, then why wouldn't removing the air box as mentioned in U-Turns post? I can understand how removing a restriction in air flow might make an unloaded engine seem to rev up faster, but under load it might make no appreciable difference, perhaps resulting in tenths of seconds improvement from 0-100km/h. Obviously that sort of thing means nothing on the road... but it matters in some fields of motorsport.
    Airbox forms a part of the tuned length pipe. Removing the portion of it changes the character of the intake system. Generally longer pipe gives smoother idle and better response and low speed. At high RPM throttle bodies are best withoutany piping.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleanup_754
    2. If reducing the density of the air filter does not effect the longevity of the engine components, why didn't the factory do it? A lot of these after market filters rely on the fact they have a lower density of material, and so less ability to filter the air. It improves air flow at the expense of your rings and bearings.
    Most filters flow the same when clean. KN or similar type filters seem to flow better when dirty due to honeycomb construction where dust is trapped but air gets through. A lot of reports "I gained squillions of kW when I replaced my paper filter" are from people that replaced their 100,000 kms filter with a brand new aftermarket filter. I have seen dyno graphs from a performance company in Perth that were building a monaro drag car one mod at a time. they tested 5 different types of filters on a dyno (including brand new Holden panel filter). biggest spread was 2kW at peak power (thats 1%).
    .
    1300cc's of jap buzzbox delivered the times below.

    EC 1:54.6 , Wakefield 1:13.15 , OP (short) 52.00 , OP GP 1:24.40


  19. #19
    Tadpole
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Thanks for the reply. Just some questions about your answers...

    Quote Originally Posted by tekkie
    Airbox forms a part of the tuned length pipe. Removing the portion of it changes the character of the intake system. Generally longer pipe gives smoother idle and better response and low speed. At high RPM throttle bodies are best withoutany piping.
    So, from my understanding, if you effect the tuned length and hence resonance points, you have the potential to interfere and remove/decrease power or torque depending on the rev band the intake was tuned for. But, if i simplify the way i'm thinking down to a garden hose analogy with say a hydraulic pump on the end - i reduce the length of pipe between my working fluid resevoir and the pump, so the time to get the pump to speed reduces. I increase the length, and the time to get the pump to speed increases. I understand the resonance points effect the gas intake flow differently to my non-resonating example, but wouldn't the effect on resonance produce the greatest variations in Torque and not power? Wouldn't this mean the time to rev up at idle might be reduced without load, but under load the reduction in available torque (or the miniscule gain) produces no net beneficial effects? I've had a good look around the 180 intake, being an overly curious owner, and it just seems very complicated and long. It appears to be designed more at complying with emission and noise laws than gaining outright power. I think it's pretty clever they can get more power and torque out of the 180 at lower revs than say a GTi6 (atleast by the figures i've read on a few websites - the 180 is up by 30Nm at 1000rpm lower, and has 7-10kW more at 700RPM higher...), and still manage to comply with ever more stringent emission laws, but it does lead to question what could they do if they did away with trying to comply!
    Quote Originally Posted by tekkie
    Most filters flow the same when clean. KN or similar type filters seem to flow better when dirty due to honeycomb construction where dust is trapped but air gets through. A lot of reports "I gained squillions of kW when I replaced my paper filter" are from people that replaced their 100,000 kms filter with a brand new aftermarket filter. I have seen dyno graphs from a performance company in Perth that were building a monaro drag car one mod at a time. they tested 5 different types of filters on a dyno (including brand new Holden panel filter). biggest spread was 2kW at peak power (thats 1%).
    My experience with after market filters is that they normally use lower density materials to achieve the claimed performance gains. This led me to conclude that if the dust isn't getting trapped in the filter... it must be going into the engine. I mean, i think even the K&N published grades (in microns) of their filters is higher (orthe holes in the fabric are bigger) than for equivalent OEM products i've seen specs for. I haven't seen specs for the 180, but i'm assuming it would be a similar scenario. Still, i guess 2kW in a drag car could mean the difference between a victory and second place. Can't see the point for a road car, can't see an extra 10kW being of much value in a road car... but i guess some people want what they want without reason.

    Thanks for taking time to answer my questions. I'm a much appreciative Newbie

  20. #20
    who? when? huh? GTI124's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Gordon, NSW
    Posts
    4,527

    Default

    First of all, welcome to AF!

    Good to see such quality posts and valid questions from the outset!

    You bring up a good point re: emmission laws. I'm wishing for a "politically incorrect" button to be fitted to all sports cars, where we can switch off such efficiencies! I'm gunning it, I don't want to save fuel now!!!

    From what I've read on filters, not much can beat the paper filters for filtration efficacy. The stuff I've read is a few years old now, so not sure if much has changed.
    - Lincoln

    Contribute to the World Community Grid.

  21. #21
    1000+ Posts tekkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cleanup_754

    So, from my understanding, if you effect the tuned length and hence resonance points,
    Im not sure on resonance points (I know they are important to have the nodes at the junctions to reduce power loss). But the length of the pipework (and the diameter) are for air flow. Or to be more precise the mass and forward velocity of that air. The designer strives to achieve the maximum gas velocity at all rev ranges. Pulsating large masses of air are the enemy. Unfortunately the large intake tubing which is so great for high end air delivery fails miserably at low RPM by creating a mass of air which moves forth and back out again. Interstingly though the longer the pipe the better the air flow as even the large pipe will maintain forward velocity overcoming the pulsations. Then again the large length of the pipe will cause poor throttle response (larger mass has to be accelerated). So back to my original post about removing the air intake. Fully closed intake still forms part of the tube even if it is a larger reseviour.

    Now this would be a really good time to hear from an engineer to either shoot my ideas down or to confirm them before I dig myself an uneducated grave.



    My experience with after market filters is that they normally use lower density materials to achieve the claimed performance gains. This led me to conclude that if the dust isn't getting trapped in the filter... it must be going into the engine. I mean, i think even the K&N published grades (in microns) of their filters is higher (orthe holes in the fabric are bigger) than for equivalent OEM products i've seen specs for. I haven't seen specs for the 180, but i'm assuming it would be a similar scenario. Still, i guess 2kW in a drag car could mean the difference between a victory and second place. Can't see the point for a road car, can't see an extra 10kW being of much value in a road car... but i guess some people want what they want without reason.
    interesting. I thought the K&N filters relied and prided themselves on stoppping 99.??? % of air particles regardless of the dirt factor whilst still being able to flow to within a percentage point of when they are clean.
    .
    1300cc's of jap buzzbox delivered the times below.

    EC 1:54.6 , Wakefield 1:13.15 , OP (short) 52.00 , OP GP 1:24.40


  22. #22
    Tadpole
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tekkie
    Im not sure on resonance points (I know they are important to have the nodes at the junctions to reduce power loss). But the length of the pipework (and the diameter) are for air flow. Or to be more precise the mass and forward velocity of that air. The designer strives to achieve the maximum gas velocity at all rev ranges. Pulsating large masses of air are the enemy. Unfortunately the large intake tubing which is so great for high end air delivery fails miserably at low RPM by creating a mass of air which moves forth and back out again. Interstingly though the longer the pipe the better the air flow as even the large pipe will maintain forward velocity overcoming the pulsations. Then again the large length of the pipe will cause poor throttle response (larger mass has to be accelerated). So back to my original post about removing the air intake. Fully closed intake still forms part of the tube even if it is a larger reseviour.
    Yeah, the idea with achieving resonance, from my understanding, is to achieve standing waves. If you get standing waves, you maximise airflow by stopping the 'in/out' flutuation you're speaking of. Resonance is achieving static node points. So, different wavelengths have different frequencies, which means different lengths are required to achieve the desire resonance (standing wave/static nodes) to maximise airflow at certain revolutions. Thats my understanding of tuning intake systems on cars and resonance in general.

    I see your point Re: the 'air reseviour' (i thought my spelling was wrong... and it's a french word too ) and how it forms part of the tuning, but at what point does the resonance intereference generated by the removal of the intake have a net detrimental effect? I mean, the length of pipe on the 180 to the filter and first reseviour is about 10cm. The fact the pipe diameters vary throughout the 180's intake system mean the points of resonance will change at every variation in diameter, and the length of that varied diameter needs to be tuned to the new resonant frequency. The airbox where the filter lives is probably the biggest hurdle with this, and i thought that was why throttle bodies where used. Can't say i'm to sure of that as i've never built an engine with throttle bodies. I mean, the fact there is such a large opening prior to the bulk of the piping changes/destroys whatever tuned nodes where acheived with the correct length pipe. I don't know... i guess if someone has done it and said they observed a difference, it's hard to argue without either recalculating the exact resonant frequencies required for that intake structure and throttle assembly, or doing the experiment yourself. That said, the 'going by feel tests' are all just opinion, you'd need a dyno or some timing aparatus thats accurate. Anyone got access to the factory design drawings for the EW10J4S?
    Quote Originally Posted by tekkie
    Now this would be a really good time to hear from an engineer to either shoot my ideas down or to confirm them before I dig myself an uneducated grave.
    Yeah... maybe we both need a wet fish slapping!! Anyway, it's been a nice discussion... thanks very much. I know a mechanical engineer who builds rally cars and stuff, i might email him this link and see what he says. Maybe even ask him to make a post or two. Guess we'll see how bored he is at work

    GTi124: Thanks for the howdy. I don't think complying with polution laws is a bad thing these days. After all, we are breathing the same air, and i'd like mine as clean as possible. The 180 has got the PC "ESP", but atleast unlike a lot of the more expensive euros fitted with it (and even the Megane 225 from what i've read), it can be fully deactivated. Atleast that means the limited polution your making while breaking traction can be enjoyed

  23. #23
    Fellow Frogger! Dr_Pug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spaceghost

    Conclusion:
    This bettered the 0-100 run by 1.2 seconds, and found an overall increase of 6% in BHP.
    Hmm, that kinda perfomance increase just from adding a filter is hard to believe, but i guess when you have a skilled driver compared to an amature driver this could make a big difference on 0-100km/h.

    For what its worth, there is a pipercross distributor here in sydney. And for $100 NZL (roughly $85 AUD) im willing to give it a try. Ill be going around tomorrow to see if they acutally have that filter in stock.

    For those who are interested, here's the store.

    http://shop.fabre.com.au/
    04' GTi 180

  24. #24
    1000+ Posts U Turn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tekkie
    Im not sure on resonance points (I know they are important to have the nodes at the junctions to reduce power loss). But the length of the pipework (and the diameter) are for air flow. Or to be more precise the mass and forward velocity of that air. The designer strives to achieve the maximum gas velocity at all rev ranges. Pulsating large masses of air are the enemy. Unfortunately the large intake tubing which is so great for high end air delivery fails miserably at low RPM by creating a mass of air which moves forth and back out again. Interstingly though the longer the pipe the better the air flow as even the large pipe will maintain forward velocity overcoming the pulsations. Then again the large length of the pipe will cause poor throttle response (larger mass has to be accelerated). So back to my original post about removing the air intake. Fully closed intake still forms part of the tube even if it is a larger reseviour.

    Now this would be a really good time to hear from an engineer to either shoot my ideas down or to confirm them before I dig myself an uneducated grave.




    interesting. I thought the K&N filters relied and prided themselves on stoppping 99.??? % of air particles regardless of the dirt factor whilst still being able to flow to within a percentage point of when they are clean.
    Some excellent posts. Completely agree with tekkie's explanation of air flow. For a given volume/pulse, there is an ideal diameter that maximises flow i.e the ideal combination of air speed and cross-sectional area. Going above this 'ideal' diameter will increase the cross-sectional area, but decrease air speed for an overall decrease in flow, and going below this 'ideal' diameter will decreases cross-sectional area and increase air speed again for an overall decrease in flow. How the good manufacturers balance this to achieve useable power across the rev range is amazing.

    cleanup, welcome to the forum. I'm a little behind with the standing waves theory. I know that standing waves are what's used to harness the scavenging effect in extractors, but it's been a while since I learnt it. Hasn't it something to do with sound energy rather than flow, where a positive pressure pulse when it hits a node, gets inverted to a negative pressure pulse that is reflected back up and draws out spent gases?

    Would definitely be great to hear from the mechanical eng who builds rally cars and hear about what works and what doesn't.

    You mentioned websites which showed torque outputs comparing the EW10J4S engine with the XU10J4RS engine, could you post the links?

    btw the gti180's I've driven, the ESP could not be turned off completely. They still exhibited some selective braking when I tried to seriously provoke some oversteer. Not bad though, still allows a fair degree of rear slide, plenty enough for me, especially on bitumen.
    Take the long way home....

    - 306 gti6

  25. #25
    Tadpole
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by U Turn
    cleanup, welcome to the forum. I'm a little behind with the standing waves theory. I know that standing waves are what's used to harness the scavenging effect in extractors, but it's been a while since ..... to a negative pressure pulse that is reflected back up and draws out spent gases?
    Pressure will effect flow, wont it? If you create pressure deficiencies in the exhaust/extractors, then just like you suggest, there is a tendancy for more gasses to be 'sucked' into the piping, and so a higher out-flow achieved. Likewise, without forced induction, the vacuum created during the intake cycle of the engine draws in the air and fuel to be compressed prior to ignition. The valves are not 100% open for this entire cycle, and as the components continue to move there will be resonances set up by the moving air. So, if you establish the appropriately tuned resonance this way, the pressure deficiency occurs in the cylinder and the tuning effects the draw of air into the combustion chamber. Gasses in... gasses out.

    Resoncance does not just relate to sound. It relates to any moving 'fluid' object. Sound mearly uses air as it's medium to travel, and so resonance of sound can be esablished in air. Sound is an observable energy in our engines, and represents frequency shifts in the air's movement within our ability to detect them. But, if you've ever mucked around setting up fountains in round ponds, or throwing stones into small ponds, you'll notice the traveling waves and how for breif periods they appear to stand still or resonate. Great experiment for the weekend with the kiddies
    Quote Originally Posted by U Turn
    Would definitely be great to hear from the mechanical eng who builds rally cars and hear about what works and what doesn't.
    Yeah, it's not his full time job, and his firewall is blocking this site. So, i'll print and email him the page... see what he has to say about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by U Turn
    You mentioned websites which showed torque outputs comparing the EW10J4S engine with the XU10J4RS engine, could you post the links?
    The sites don't compare them, i did. They only provide peak torque and power figures, and no dyno plots showing torque distribution over rev range, but here you go:

    EW10J4S:
    http://search.carsguide.news.com.au/...ake_id=PEUGEOT
    http://www.supercarsite.net/206_rc.htm
    and obviously my owners manual confirms this information.
    XU10J4 RS:
    http://members.fortunecity.com/306gti6/specs.htm
    http://www.carsales.com.au/pls/goauto/!goauto_content.new_specs?vehicle_code=20031127.10 :58:37&sort_type=&current_rec=16&make_name=CITROEN
    There are a couple of others, but i'm sure you know how to use google... Oh, and i was wrong, there's only 6Nm of torque difference. My dislexia reading the sites lead me to have the 180 as 220Nm and not 202Nm that it is. Still, it's there 750RPM lower than a GTi6, so i'd call that an improvement in their engine design under the new Euro emission standards.
    Quote Originally Posted by U Turn
    btw the gti180's I've driven, the ESP could not be turned off completely. They still exhibited some selective braking when I tried to seriously provoke some oversteer. Not bad though, still allows a fair degree of rear slide, plenty enough for me, especially on bitumen.
    Obviously thats a bit different to my experience as an owner. If you try to brake during cornering, then you will activate the ABS system and it will apply brakes to differing extents. If you drive the car allowing liftoff oversteer, then there is no electronic interference. Sounds to me like you're trying to brake mid corner, or you're just not use to how tight the 180's rear end is compared to earlier Peugeots. It's certainly much harder to get to 'step out' than other Pug's i've driven.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •