Real cold air intake = cut out plastic behind grill

[Snacktime]

I rather just do Meth

Sponsored

 

[popo_patty]

I rather just do Meth

I’ll close my eyes.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

You’re trying to reinvent the wheel man … air is already drawn up through the grill on the drivers side. Also it doesn’t matter what your intake temps are, the air heats up in your turbo.. hence why you have an intercooler. If you’re worried about temps focus on your intercooler. Use ACT 1&2 to monitor charge air temps on you pro cal. Cheapest mod is just removing the shutters.. temps will never get above 110F unless your sitting in 90 degree + heat traffic then it’ll heat soak to 140f

Yeah I'm fully aware of how the air is drawn in on the Bronco and how poor of design it is overall. On other vehicles I have seen a hundred degree drop in exhaust temperatures with simply allowing fresh cold air in a big pressurized intake and a non-restrictive filter. I agree at jumbo intercooler would be a better way to go but that isn't the point here the point is that the intake is very restrictive and on the wrong side and the air travels across the top of the hot radiator before entering the filter. So at slow speeds when there is no air pressure, this air gets heated quite quickly as the intake air temperature sensor will show. And yes sitting in 90° heat in traffic is exactly what the problem that's when you pull away and have about 75% of the power that you really should have with nice ice cold intake air. I can't be the only one that's noticed this?

 

[Snacktime]

Posted the wrong picture... I have been looking at a progressive methanol kit as a octane booster and induction temp reduction. I like intakes but the price benefit is not really there. I might pop my hood and see what I can cut but I have Cali-smog crap.

https://www.snowperformance.eu/en/water-injection/boost-cooler-stage-2

 

[ScLeCo]

Posted the wrong picture... I have been looking at a progressive methanol kit as a octane booster and induction temp reduction. I like intakes but the price benefit is not really there. I might pop my hood and see what I can cut but I have Cali-smog crap.

https://www.snowperformance.eu/en/water-injection/boost-cooler-stage-2

Not without a very good custom tune you're not. The problem with that is if you can get the tuning necessary to add water/meth you have the ability to tune for e85 and it's a much better option.
Anyway if you do decide to try and do water/meth let me know. I still have 7-9 gallons of the Snow boost juice left over.

 

[Raptor Guy]

still no data on your original false statement,

That's it ....all the tuners and air cleaners and exhausts... every one of them is lying every one of their Dyno charts is fake....ROFL

seriously tho, with 23 turboed vehicles personally owned and tuned, I don't need your advice, for gods sake, even my airplane is turbocharged!!!

cold air is a plus for any engine, especially turboed ones....prove me wrong!

Ok, since you're obviously as dense as the coldest air, I'll make it simple for you. Adding atmospheric air into a turbo motor intake mixes with very hot charged air and therefore does NOT reduce the temperature enough to make anything but the slightest imperceptible difference in temperature. It's not rocket science, it's common knowledge.

 

[Brnzbronc]

Yeah I'm fully aware of how the air is drawn in on the Bronco and how poor of design it is overall. On other vehicles I have seen a hundred degree drop in exhaust temperatures with simply allowing fresh cold air in a big pressurized intake and a non-restrictive filter. I agree at jumbo intercooler would be a better way to go but that isn't the point here the point is that the intake is very restrictive and on the wrong side and the air travels across the top of the hot radiator before entering the filter. So at slow speeds when there is no air pressure, this air gets heated quite quickly as the intake air temperature sensor will show. And yes sitting in 90° heat in traffic is exactly what the problem that's when you pull away and have about 75% of the power that you really should have with nice ice cold intake air. I can't be the only one that's noticed this?

I get where you’re coming from but the intake on the 2.3 is honestly plenty big for its setup. I dug into all the aftermarket intakes and there was absolute minimal gain maybe 1-2 hp and if they claim more it’s BS but with the 2.7 it’s a different story. The 2.7 is definitely getting choked… I’ve been waiting for someone to freaking release a downpipe for the 2.3 but Ford changed the core design for the bronco for some reason. Talking with SPD, “supposedly” they were to release one but I doubt it. 100 degrees on egt isn’t that much.

 

[KABQ]

Living in NM with NM elevations and temperatures, and towing occasionally enough to have had high coolant and oil temps, I personally wouldn't mess with the grille. It's designed to force as much air as possible across the radiator and intercooler to keep intake and coolant temps down. Opening the grille to let cool air into the engine bay means less air directed over the radiator and intercooler, thus higher coolant temps AND intake temps at the throttle body. If I were concerned with lowering IAT I'd do it at the intercooler rather than the air box, and even then I'd recognize that pulling more heat out through the intercooler will mean hotter air through the radiator. (And since it was mentioned earlier in this thread, EGT is not necessarily a direct function of IAT.)

Obviously with 40s I'd want more power to move that extra unsprung mass, but I have a racecar for going fast. I'll prioritize cooling over power since the Bronco is my daily driver and I routinely tow a trailer at 6-9,000 feet in 100° temps.

I guess I said all that to express my opinion on my needs, not yours. I'm just putting this here so others who may want to do something similar recognize the compromise.

 

[kodiakisland]

Living in NM with NM elevations and temperatures, and towing occasionally enough to have had high coolant and oil temps, I personally wouldn't mess with the grille. It's designed to force as much air as possible across the radiator and intercooler to keep intake and coolant temps down. Opening the grille to let cool air into the engine bay means less air directed over the radiator and intercooler, thus higher coolant temps AND intake temps at the throttle body. If I were concerned with lowering IAT I'd do it at the intercooler rather than the air box, and even then I'd recognize that pulling more heat out through the intercooler will mean hotter air through the radiator. (And since it was mentioned earlier in this thread, EGT is not necessarily a direct function of IAT.)

Obviously with 40s I'd want more power to move that extra unsprung mass, but I have a racecar for going fast. I'll prioritize cooling over power since the Bronco is my daily driver and I routinely tow a trailer at 6-9,000 feet in 100° temps.

I guess I said all that to express my opinion on my needs, not yours. I'm just putting this here so others who may want to do something similar recognize the compromise.

Yeah, EGTs drop when going richer, or leaner than peak. I suppose on a carb engine that does not change the fuel mixture, CAI could cause lean of peak if you were already running at peak and thereby decrease EGT, but that would not be a good thing.

 

[KABQ]

Yeah, EGTs drop when going richer, or leaner than peak. I suppose on a carb engine that does not change the fuel mixture, CAI could cause lean of peak if you were already running at peak and thereby decrease EGT, but that would not be a good thing.

That can be true of injected engines, too. For example, the stock fuel pump on my Mazdaspeed 3 was already at its flow limit at full boost, so the engine could run lean with just a high-flow filter. Leaner than stoichiometric is ALWAYS bad. Ideally you run slightly richer than stoichiometric to keep combustion temps down, and the little bit of extra fuel helps cool the sharp edges of the valves to prevent preignition.

 

[kodiakisland]

That can be true of injected engines, too. For example, the stock fuel pump on my Mazdaspeed 3 was already at its flow limit at full boost, so the engine could run lean with just a high-flow filter. Leaner than stoichiometric is ALWAYS bad. Ideally you run slightly richer than stoichiometric to keep combustion temps down, and the little bit of extra fuel helps cool the sharp edges of the valves to prevent preignition.

I know the injected engines I manually adjust mixture for can do that, but figured most fuel injected vehicles also would adjust mixture based on EGT and O2 sensors. For my use, I try to run 100-125 degrees F rich of peak.

To the above reference though, I think I'd be concerned with a drop in EGT from just a CAI.

 

[KABQ]

what books are you guys' going to read?

I first read this in middle school (over 20 years ago, holy crap). While there have been some advancements in engine management, turbo design, etc., the function of a turbo motor is still the same and the means to gains still follow the same formula. It's a really good book to learn the basics of how turbo engines work and are managed.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

Ok, since you're obviously as dense as the coldest air, I'll make it simple for you. Adding atmospheric air into a turbo motor intake mixes with very hot charged air and therefore does NOT reduce the temperature enough to make anything but the slightest imperceptible difference in temperature. It's not rocket science, it's common knowledge.

What a retarded statement, everyone knows ambient air temperature and pressure both affect horsepower at any given sea level. That's why most turboed Vehicles feel just a little bit faster on a nice cold day. Even though the turbo mixes the hot air with the cold air there's still plenty of cold air to make a noticeable difference both on the dyno and on the track so your statements is false.

I'm my case,
The IAT was too way high already, so high it was throwing codes...as I mentioned.

when that happens the computer retards timing, changes fuel map, ect...This causes a reduction in power.

By keeping a nice cool consistent flow of pressurized air flowing across the IAT sensor (which is located BEFORE the innercooler) the computer does not retard timing, pull fuel, ect...

Not difficult to see how this affects driveability.

Additionally, I have moved the airbox mounting location up, along with completely removing the fender liners and radiator core support horns. and moved nearly everything attached to the inner fender to a newer higher location for maximum wheel travel... these changes allow more air turbulence underneath the hood. the air moves in non OEM ways. Also assum the big tires move air different as well.

So in my case, I have improved the IAT and reduced its air temps with these mods. both before the turbo and after.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

Yeah, EGTs drop when going richer, or leaner than peak. I suppose on a carb engine that does not change the fuel mixture, CAI could cause lean of peak if you were already running at peak and thereby decrease EGT, but that would not be a good thing.

correct, that reading was on a non intercooled turbo DIESEL engine.

the fuel type is not my point and that's why I did not mention it. On that truck I move the intake filter from under the hood to outside the grill with the filter catching full frontal air. In that case the EGTs dropped enough to raise the fuel preasure up alot (which combined, increased boost by over 3 psi) and power increased alot as well.

this improvement was gained from simply allowing the engine to draw in colder pre preasurized air.

 

[BigMeatsBronco]

Living in NM with NM elevations and temperatures, and towing occasionally enough to have had high coolant and oil temps, I personally wouldn't mess with the grille. It's designed to force as much air as possible across the radiator and intercooler to keep intake and coolant temps down. Opening the grille to let cool air into the engine bay means less air directed over the radiator and intercooler, thus higher coolant temps AND intake temps at the throttle body. If I were concerned with lowering IAT I'd do it at the intercooler rather than the air box, and even then I'd recognize that pulling more heat out through the intercooler will mean hotter air through the radiator. (And since it was mentioned earlier in this thread, EGT is not necessarily a direct function of IAT.)

Obviously with 40s I'd want more power to move that extra unsprung mass, but I have a racecar for going fast. I'll prioritize cooling over power since the Bronco is my daily driver and I routinely tow a trailer at 6-9,000 feet in 100° temps.

I guess I said all that to express my opinion on my needs, not yours. I'm just putting this here so others who may want to do something similar recognize the compromise.

I guess I don't worship the engineers ideals quite like that...

I feel the opposite. I think there wasn't much thought put into the cooling system at all, in fact the intercooler looks like an afterthought altogether from an engineering standpoint, ESPECIALLY when compared to other modern vehicles...ROFL

The radiator was a cost saver, (not an engineering marvel) and is meager in size at best and only uses about 2/3 of the grills available open surface area, the whole upper section is blocked off with plastic crap, just to do as you say, force the air into such a thin, small umdersized radiator to make it more efficient because it was undersized to begin with...cooling capability is mostly about surface area, then core thickness (directly related to surface area) and lastly air flow or velocity.

What was it you were saying again? oh that's right you had High Coolant issues huh? imagine that?

I guess you can thank the marvelous cooling flow engineering Ford gave us and the wonderful grill design.

I guess I'll throw a temp probe under the hood and check temps in various locations on both broncos, One is completely stock and the other is highly modified, and then I'll report back with real data ... instead of the pessimistic guesses I see in the responses.

Sponsored