just remember fuel will not burn without oxygen.

the more oxygen the better the burn.

Sorry about taking issue but this does not make sense. The amount of power produced relates diretly to the amount of fuel burnt - it is fuel that produces power not air. It is theoretically impossible to get the fuel consumption stated at normal let alone higher power figures without a complete engine redesign from one end to the other way in excess of the mods you have listed. All very interesting. Are the fuel figures taken from the dash readout by any chance with larger injectors and no correction factor applied? Also if you are running below operating temperature your thermostat may need checking/changing as this can cause a dramatic increase not decrease in fuel consumption.

Dingah

I agree somewhat... but... I had an au2 xr6 that di around 350ks a tank on 98oct... then had extractors installed and was getting 450ks per tank... my only reasoning was that with the engine working far more efficiently, I was recieving more pwer per stroke on the same amount of fuel hence more fuel efficiency, hence more ks... and forced induction was originally designed for fuel efficiency and more power per stroke (before it was designed for pure power I.e acceleration) ... so it makes sense that by making the turbo more efficient milage would increase...no?

ASNU Posted on Sep 8 2004, 11:44 AM

GOD666.

You have a problem with your car mate.

Are you relying on what the readout tells you or is that actual consumption calculated by km travelled and fuel put in the tank. My digital readout tells me fuel consumption is way less however, as has been pointed out previously, with the larger injectors fitted, the digital readout is no longer accurate. My regular trip to Cbr from Syd twice a week consistently give me 62lt consumed in the 580 km round trip on 98 RON fuel. This is 10.7 lt/100 km which is about 26.8 mpg.

I sit on 117 kph on the freeway and drive like a bas*ard in the city.

Back to the original topic... I drilled a 60mm hole in the front of the air box using one of those hole saw attachments you can buy for a drill ($10). I was planning to attach an XR8 snorkel and source the air from under the headlight, but I was suprised with the initial results with just an open hole. I haven't dynoed it since but the throttle feels more responsive low to mid range and there is some added air induction noise .

IMO, a very effective, low cost mod. I plan to increase the size of the hole by drilling two smaller holes at opposite ends of the 60mm hole and filing the rest out to make an oval.

Back to the original topic... I drilled a 60mm hole in the front of the air box using one of those hole saw attachments you can buy for a drill ($10). I was planning to attach an XR8 snorkel and source the air from under the headlight, but I was suprised with the initial results with just an open hole. I haven't dynoed it since but the throttle feels more responsive low to mid range and there is some added air induction noise :banghead: .

IMO, a very effective, low cost mod. I plan to increase the size of the hole by drilling two smaller holes at opposite ends of the 60mm hole and filing the rest out to make an oval.

........Interesting XRtank, keep us posted :banghead:

God666 you are right on the mark I suspect and my figures almost exactly parallel yours, with Phase II injectors 13.8l/100km round town and shade under 10l/100km at 117 kph on Hume (hmm popular speed that!). If you are careful you'll notice that Sydney to Canberra is higher than the reverse as the increase of altitude by about 800metres AMSL shows up in the consumption readings.

If you use the dash readout a correction factor of 30% needs to be applied with the grey Phase II injectors noting that the readout uses the duty cycle of the injectors which being larger is less and hence the dash readout is completely misleading but impresses the Hell out of those who do not know - 6.7l/100km at cruise!

Back on topic - also placed an 82mm hole in the front of the airbox using most likely the same electric drill saw attachment, bolted on an air duct attachment on the outside of that hole, sealed the edges, sprayed matt black to match and placed a section of 82mm flexible pipe to ensure that it breathes fresh air (used the opening under the left headlight) rather than from the engine bay and have kept the standard intake in place as well - in all 30 minutes plus paint drying time.

On a dyno it might show a difference, can I really tell on applicaiton of the loud pedal? - no not really. Has the fuel consuption changed - you cannot refill a Falcon accurately enough to tell. Was it a good idea -the more a turbo is fed air rather than sucking it, the better.

I prefer to use Vik's performance calculation factor, it goes faster proportional to how much lighter my wallet is ...about $39 lighter and faster - that's the total cost of the second CAI and it it can hardly be seen unless you happen to be fiddling around the rear of the left hand headlight.

Back to the original topic... I drilled a 60mm hole in the front of the air box using one of those hole saw attachments you can buy for a drill ($10). I was planning to attach an XR8 snorkel and source the air from under the headlight, but I was suprised with the initial results with just an open hole. I haven't dynoed it since but the throttle feels more responsive low to mid range and there is some added air induction noise .

IMO, a very effective, low cost mod. I plan to increase the size of the hole by drilling two smaller holes at opposite ends of the 60mm hole and filing the rest out to make an oval.

I did 90mm hole saw,and used that black flexy plastic storm water pipe,under the head light

Cost $5.00 max,all that after market stuff :lol:

vik

So that's only $5 faster then Vik?

Dingah

All this is making me think of fitting a pipe to the front of my air box. Where'd I put my drill?