Ram Air Induction

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.

Is Ram Air Induction a good idea for a road car

Yes, free extra power at higher speeds
3
43%
No. waste of time/money for small gains produced
4
57%
 
Total votes: 7

EKE
EKE
0
Joined: 09 Jan 2006, 16:50
Location: London

Ram Air Induction

Post

I'm thinking of making a Ram Air Induction system for a road car.
Can anyone give me any advice/suggestions

Cheers
If its too loud, you're too old

Carlos
Carlos
11
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 19:43
Location: Canada

Post

Eke There was a lot of American roadcars featuring this in the seventies --- The book The Scientific Design of Intake and Exhaust Systems mentions it -- but F1technical ran a long thread on forced -ram induction for FSAE formula cars indepth and a link to another forum that offers math and a complete treatment of the subject. This is all from memory-- someday I'll learn to "link & quote."

Regards Carlos

Saribro
Saribro
6
Joined: 28 Jul 2006, 00:34

Post

Why would a road car need more power at high speed anyway?

BreezyRacer
BreezyRacer
2
Joined: 04 Nov 2006, 00:31

Post

If the goal is to provide cool air, then by all means go ahead. If it's to achieve a Ram effect don't waste your time. This road has been well researched many times by many people decades ago.

Carbon
Carbon
4
Joined: 19 Jan 2004, 19:02
Location: Vancouver, BC

Post

Why not bother? Current superbike manufacturers (Honda/Yamaha/Suzuki etc) all make claims that ram air effect increases HP when the vehicle is traveling over a certain velocity. Why would this same principle not hold true for automotive engineering?

EKE
EKE
0
Joined: 09 Jan 2006, 16:50
Location: London

Post

I'm going to put a performance air filter on my car and I'm thinking about routing the intake duct to the front of the car so that as I drive it forces (rams) the air into the engine. The faster I drive, the higher the pressure.
It seems like such a good simple idea I wonder why I've only seen it on US Muscle cars and Japanese motorbikes. How high a risk is hydrolock?
I'll have a look on this site for the info you suggested Carlos.

Thanks all
If its too loud, you're too old

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

The muscle car era intakes were decorative, if I believe the comments I've heard on the subject.

"Modern" ram intakes were developed in the 80's by companies like K&N or AEM. On a quick search, I could not find figures for performance improvement.

The idea is to use a less restrictive intake filter and a conical entrance that takes "cold" air outside the engine compartment.

There are two problems with this approach: first, the engine is sort of an air pump and probably the manufacturer has optimized it around the geometry of the intake. Apparently the result you get is that the engine is going to give you more power at a certain rpm and less power at others.

Second, a popular place for the intake is the wheel well (!?). This is kind of strange, first because of the low pressure at that place (and the brake heat) and second because of the "hydrolock" you mention: this means that if its raining and you go over a puddle, your car can take a gulp of water through the ram intake. Water is practically incompressible, which can lead to a damage to the engine, that halts suddenly when it tries to compress the water with the valves closed. This kind of damage happens for real: in my life I've seen a couple of jeep engines broken this way trying to pass a creek or river.

So, I would limit this for racing, where its application is no small feat, as Saribro points out.

My advice (this could be the good advice you just can't take, I guess) is not changing your street car, save the money in the bank and buy a kart instead.

After a little karting, you'll improve (or "modify") the part of your car more important to go faster (according to latin americans, at least): you yourself... ;) Ooooommmmmm.......
Ciro

DaveKillens
DaveKillens
34
Joined: 20 Jan 2005, 04:02

Post

Theoretically, a ram air intake has great performance potential. But as Ciro has stated, one good shot of water, and the engine is an expensive paperweight.
I would suggest that instead of seeking out an exotic performance alternative, you focus on eliminating current handicaps in your engine's breathing. Higher efficiency intakes, good, large air filters, new ignition components like plugs, wires, and distributor. Sometimes it's the details that give the largest rewards.

West
West
0
Joined: 07 Jan 2004, 00:42
Location: San Diego, CA

Post

You should probably go to a forum specific for your car before you buy an intake.

I own a 350Z and see all these nice intakes out there, but everybody told me a lot of performance gains can be found in a K&N drop-in air filter. Just 30 bucks. Aftermarket intakes cost around 100-1000 dollars for my car and they will not make significant gains over just a filter.

I have also looked at the top tuners in Japan in a 350Z shootout... they all keep the stock airbox. Funny how that they will sell you something completely different than what they use.

Join a forum specific to your car... and start asking away. I'm sure there are people w/ years of experience to help you. Besides... I heard the ram air effect applies over 150 mph in a road car, and it's not that much HP.
Last edited by West on 27 Nov 2006, 18:01, edited 1 time in total.
Bring back wider rear wings, V10s, and tobacco advertisements

Carbon
Carbon
4
Joined: 19 Jan 2004, 19:02
Location: Vancouver, BC

Post

I understand the theory behind hydrolock, but how does an F1 engine get past this limitation in the event of rain? The airbox must suck a massive amount of rain water into the system at high speed, which I assume would only be compounded if it's following another car.

West
West
0
Joined: 07 Jan 2004, 00:42
Location: San Diego, CA

Post

Bring back wider rear wings, V10s, and tobacco advertisements

RH1300S
RH1300S
1
Joined: 06 Jun 2005, 15:29

Post

Quite a few bikes use ram-air intakes; but in terms of performance gains (when magazines compared projected top speed from a dyno run to real life) the gains are clearly at the top of the speed range (heading beyond 150mph). In some cases I seem to remember the gains were questionable. Also, they tend to have all sorts of electronically controlled flaps and stuff - so, I'm guessing that there are times when a full blooded flow may not be a good thing.

Perhaps a more useful aim would be to give your engine a good supply of clean, cold air. Mounting the inlet high up and in a good air-flow would be good from that point of view (low down near hot tarmac the air temp has to be higher?).

Otherwise, you can't beat Dave's advice..............

User avatar
Ciro Pabón
106
Joined: 11 May 2005, 00:31

Post

@West: I can't see the link you post. Could you check it, please?

You might find thisinteresting. They (PREPS) mention that hydrolock can occur with as little as 40 cc of water into the air intake (two or three ounces). Of course, they might be exaggerating: they sell curious spark plugs that work as a pressure safety valve (!?).

They also mention that injection engines tend to have a low intake (or cold air intake) which has made it more frequent (old cars had a high intake). Hydrolock is not covered by your engine guarantee. This is supposedly an engine distroyed that way:

Image

Sorry, I couldn't resist to post another photo, "slightly" out of thread: this time a block split in two by detonation... allegedly. Next time you adjust the spark timing, beware! :lol:

Image
Ciro

West
West
0
Joined: 07 Jan 2004, 00:42
Location: San Diego, CA

Post

Here's the thing I wanted to show, Ciro:

Hey guys, I found this artice related to Ram Air. I couldn't get the link to work; therefore, I just copied it. The link however is: http://www.vetteguru.com/ramair/
Since this is a pretty long article, I'm going to have to break it into 2 e-mails.

What do you guys think?

Dispelling the Myth about "Ram Air" in Automobiles
There are many air intakes on the market today. Many claim "superior" performance over others.

Air intakes can be seperated into specific catagories:

- Those that take in warm engine bay air
- Those that are exposed to cooler/fresher air from the front.

The biggest bennefit of adding an aftermarket air intake is unshrouding the factory air box.

The last bennefit is exposing it to fresh air.

Ram Air is a myth, and many intake manufactures use the word Ram Air strictly for propaganda. They also try to show track results compared to other intakes that simply incur too many variables to make a meaningful and empirical determination. 60 foot times, atmospheric changes, shifting, etc, etc. So do not beleive anything you hear regarding such claims regarding air intakes.

Lets take a look at the "Ram Air" Myth in automobiles:

The Ram Air Myth by Dave Rodabaugh

The Ram Air Myth is the most mythical of them all. It differs from the other myths, in that the other myths are misinterpretations of physical phenomena, whereas ram air simply does not exist.

MYTH: Use of a scoop on the front of the vehicle to collect intake air, or provide “ram air” can raise engine performance.

TRUTH: At automobile velocities, there is no ram air effect.

SIMPLE EXPLANATION

The "Truth" statement says it all. How much simpler can it be? The Ram Air effect is a total myth because it simply does not exist. “But Pontiac uses it on the Trans Am, and they know more than you do.” To those who offer this, tsk tsk. Careful reading of Pontiac’s statements on the matter reveal that the HP increase of the WS6 package are a result of a less restrictive intake, and a freer-flowing exhaust, NOT any ram air effect.

So why does Pontiac use Ram Air? Easy! To make people buy their cars! And they are quite effective with this strategy.

DEEPER EXPLANATION

Of all of the applied sciences, fluid mechanics is among the most difficult for many people to comprehend. It is a relatively youthful applied science as well, meaning that it has not had two or three centuries of work to mature into an applied science on par, with say, chemical combustion. To make matters worse, it is mathematically defined almost entirely by experimentally-determined mathematics.

This last point is the true differentiator between those who only understand concepts, and those who can quantify what they are discussing. Truly, quantification is the real skill of the engineer. It is one thing to speak about qualitative issues (the “what” of the physical sciences); it is entirely another to quantify them (the “how much” and “to what extent” of the same). In grade school, students are first taught about “closed form mathematics” and then that these mathematics are typical of scientific expression. A good example of this is Newton’s famed “law of action and reaction”, the mathematical expression of which is a succinct F=MA. So straightforward. So simple. Three variables in perfectly-defined harmony. Given any two of them, the third is easy to nail down.

Unfortunately, a vast, vast majority of the mathematics used in engineering are NOT closed form. Instead, they are multi-variable correlations valid only for a narrow set of circumstances. Deviate from those narrow circumstances, and a new expression must be experimentally derived. Fluid mechanics is almost entirely defined by these experimentally-determined expressions, further muddying an applied science not well understood.

And if there ever were an applied science for which common sense is wholly inappropriate, it is fluid mechanics. Virtually nothing obeys the “common sense” rules of observation, explaining why those who believe in ram air have extreme difficulty in believing that is simply does not exist.

The Deeper Explanation begins with a basic explanation of engine principles. Air and fuel must be combusted at a specific ratio, namely, 14.7 parts air to 1 part fuel (this is a chemical ratio). Stuffing more fuel into the cylinders without increasing the amount of air they also swallow will get no gain whatsoever. So the hot rodder’s adage “more air = more power” is proven correct. Figure out a way to stuff more air into the cylinder at any given RPM and throttle setting, and you can burn more fuel. Since burning fuel is what makes power, more air truly does create more power.

The amount of air which is inducted into a cylinder is a function of the air’s density. As the air flows through the intake tract, it loses pressure, and as the pressure decreases, so does the air’s density. (Denisty is mass divided by volume. Since cylinders are a fixed volume, increasing the density will also increase the mass of the air in the cylinder.) There are two ways to increase the pressure and density of the air inducted into the cylinders:

- Decrease the pressure drop from the throttle plate to the cylinders

- Increase the starting pressure at the throttle plate.

Ram air is an attempt to do the second. Under normal circumstances, the air at the throttle plate is at atmospheric pressure, and this pressure drops until the air reaches the cylinders. Ram air would start the process at some pressure higher than atmospheric, and even though the drop is the same, the cylinder pressure is higher because of the increase at the start.

Just how would this increase in pressure at the throttle plate occur? The oft-wrong “common sense” says, “If a scoop is placed in the airstream flowing around the vehicle, the velocity of the air ‘rams’ the air into the scoop, thus increasing the pressure.”

Why is this incorrect? There are two types of pressure: static and dynamic. Placing of one’s hand in front of a fan, or out of a moving car’s window, clearly exerts a force on the hand as the air diverts its path to flow around it. Most people would say “See? This is a clear indication that ram air works. Clearly there is pressure from the velocity of the air.” Well, this is correct, but only to a point. This is an example of dynamic pressure, or the force any moving fluid exerts upon obstacles in its path as the gas is diverted around the obstacle.

What an engine needs is static pressure. This is the pressure the same fluid exerts on any vessel containing it at rest. For those who were physics/chemistry geeks, it is the pressure caused by the force of the molecules bouncing off of the walls of the container. The key to understanding the difference between static and dynamic pressure lies in the velocity of the gas. Dynamic pressure is only a momentum effect due to the bulk motion of the fluid around an obstacle. Static pressure is an intrinsic property of a gas or fluid just because the molecules of the fluid are moving around. Any fluid which is moving can have BOTH dynamic and static pressure, but a fluid at rest only has static pressure.

The point of ram air would be to increase the static pressure, which would correspond to an increase in the in-cylinder air density, and of course, more air. Superchargers and turbochargers do what the mythical ram air purports to do. A supercharger trades the power of the belt and uses it to compress the air in the intake tract. This energy trade-off results in an increase in intake air pressure, more air in the cylinders, more fuel burned, and more power. A turbocharger trades the power of the hot gases and uses it to compress the air in the intake. The overall effect is the same – an increase in intake static pressure.

For ram air to work, it would have to trade the energy of the air’s velocity (as the vehicle moves through the air) for an increase in static pressure (since static pressure is a part of a gas’s internal energy, we see this is TRULY a trade in kinetic energy for an increase in internal energy). Now for the true reasons why ram air is a myth:

- The way for air velocity to be traded for an increase in static pressure is to actually SLOW IT DOWN in a nozzle of some sort. This is easily the MOST counterintuitive part of fluid mechanics for most people. The “common sense” mind says “In order to increase the pressure of the intake, the velocity of the air needs to be increased, just as increasing the speed of a fan exerts more force upon the hand.” Not only does this confuse dynamic with static pressure, but is also misses the point, which is to trade the kinetic energy of the gas for an increase in internal energy. How can this trade occur if the kinetic energy of the gas is increased? It cannot, and in fact, the only way to trade it is to use the velocity of the gas to compress itself – by slowing it down.

- Below about Mach 0.5 (or about half the speed of sound), air is considered “incompressible”. That is, even if the correct nozzle is selected, and the air is slowed down (the official term is “stagnated”) there will be zero trade. No kinetic energy will be traded in as work capable of compressing the air. The reasons for this are not discussed here; the reader may consult any reputable fluid mechanics textbook for confirmation of this fact. In plain English, a car is just too slow for ram air to work.

Still not enough evidence? Here is a little test. For ram air to work, the nozzle must be of a specific shape. The “Holley Scoop” for the Fiero is the wrong shape, by the way. The fact that it has no net shape at all immediately means it cannot effect any kind of energy trade off, so it cannot possibly create ram air. This is also true for the hood scoops on the Pontiac Firebird WS6 package as well, by the way.
Bring back wider rear wings, V10s, and tobacco advertisements

G-Rock
G-Rock
0
Joined: 27 Jul 2006, 20:05
Location: Ridgetown, ON

Post

F1 cars use the ram air system and it does work. I think it was 93 or 94 when, to slow the cars down, the FIA imposed holes of a certain diameter in all of the cars intakes (behind or beside the roll hoop) This according to the FIA was supposed to reduce up to 30 hp and slowed the cars down by 10 km/hr down the straights.
Also if Ram Air is indeed a myth, then why do brake scoops work on all kinds of race cars and road cars?
The Deeper Explanation begins with a basic explanation of engine principles. Air and fuel must be combusted at a specific ratio, namely, 14.7 parts air to 1 part fuel (this is a chemical ratio). Stuffing more fuel into the cylinders without increasing the amount of air they also swallow will get no gain whatsoever. So the hot rodder’s adage “more air = more power” is proven correct. Figure out a way to stuff more air into the cylinder at any given RPM and throttle setting, and you can burn more fuel. Since burning fuel is what makes power, more air truly does create more power.
True but todays electronic fuel injection systems work with the airflow sensor to keep the fuel mixture at the correct stoichiemetric ratio. So inrceasing the static pressure will increase power if your fuel injection system can adapt to it.
--------------------------------------------------------