75/76 Cold Air Induction

Vetman

CCCUK Member
I have posted before about my 1975 cold air only induction where I got rid of the solenoid/flap and underhood warm air snorkels. I did wonder if the reduced total air flow area would hurt performance and I thought about a second intake from over the radiator to supplement the air available. Now I have it using the 1976 type forward ducting. I bought the plastic front piece and flexible connector on eBay and then had to modify the 1975 fan shroud top section and make an air cleaner enclosure to seal to the cowl hood and connect to the forward flexible. All done now and I had a test drive today. All good but perhaps a little adjustment required to the cowl induction seals. The reasons for GM swapping cowl induction to forward induction were never clear. Reasons discussed include costs, fire safety, ram air benefit. I believe the later L82 cars had a twin forward snorkel which might suggest that the higher reving engine needed more air induction area. At present I have gone for more cold air and my radiator is not sealed to the engine bay to prevent pressure loss. I may try this next to capture any ram air available. The paradox is that sealing the radiator will probably caused the underhood temperatures to increase and the cold air benefit to increase compared to a cooler and draughty engine bay.
Photo attached.
E0FA8F19-29C2-4A7A-94F7-D0BE00A577E6.jpeg
 

Forrest Gump

CCCUK regional rep
Nice job.

Im not sure about “rammed“ air for a carb, wether it actually helps or just messes up the carb operation. Probably at least have to careful to not get swirling air.

Years ago I fitted a K&N filter and induction kit to a fuel injected car that I had. It was just a cone filter on the end of the throttle body and a cold air feed pipe taking air from in front of the radiator. I remember the instructions said to direct the pipe at the filter but it was important that the end of the pipe should be at least 6”” away, there was no air box. I guess the idea there is providing a supply of cold air but letting the engine draw only what it wants.
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
The windshield has low pressure area, so GM used that with the cowl induction and set it, so the carb would pull in that better charge to the cylinders for better performance
In designing the hood for my 1999 C5 I took GM experience to do the same with the rear ducting of the hood and then set 2 more up front angled so that as air flows front to rear it sucks the hot air out of the engine bay

extracthd.jpg

Testing I then did would show it did not take too much speed for the increased colder air to be seen flowing into the ducts at the rear and flowing that hottest air out the front ducts

hood3.jpg

All my thermal testing really shows how the temps can really be different from one part of engine bay to another and how to even lower those temps

thermal.jpg

Should be considered is how to deflect and protect your incoming air path from outside to inside your carb
I did a lot of thermal testing and for deflection found silver or best case is gold does the best in reducing air temps in the air intake path

goldwrap.jpg

My concern in your case is the air volume may be limited in that reduces size from the snorkel to the carb and if the air from outside is heated up by radiator and A/C condenser
Rather, rigging up a sheet angled so that lower ground air is being directed into the air cleaner
Also have to consider if the design is forcing air to swirl and effecting charge into cylinders


E6.jpg
 

Vetman

CCCUK Member
You have lost me. Enclosed circular containment causes carb to suck air from two higher pressure and cold sources only, the cowl and the area ahead of radiator. The air filter should prevent turbulence in the carb.
558183CF-4CB3-464E-8BC1-41F79F95EDF4.jpeg
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
Yes, the view from that photo shows the inlet to carb area is not restricting down the air path

Starting with the C4 GM had learned that it was better to have a flat air cleaner and any circular type would cause the
airflow to swirl and cause the charge to the cylinder to mix colder and hotter air
By going with a flat surface filter causes the air to straighten out and better charge to cylinders

Not as big an issue with a carb as not having an engine controller to respond to change of AFR
But you notice when people are "porting" heads, MAF, TB, that done incorrectly and causing swirling has a
ill effect to charge to cylinders and loss of performance
 

Forrest Gump

CCCUK regional rep
This video is worth a watch, comparing various air filters, including the one you have Vetman.
I’m off to get a salad bowl now!

 

Vetman

CCCUK Member
Great video. My ‘fly eye’ filter was good for up to 350 bhp so ok for my power at say 320 max. Also worth noting that in the tests the engine sat in a large room so direct downward airflow and filtered top types worked best and drop base filters were poor. In real C3 situations the results would be somewhat different I expect.
 

Forrest Gump

CCCUK regional rep
Great video. My ‘fly eye’ filter was good for up to 350 bhp so ok for my power at say 320 max. Also worth noting that in the tests the engine sat in a large room so direct downward airflow and filtered top types worked best and drop base filters were poor. In real C3 situations the results would be somewhat different I expect.
Surface area limits your filter I reckon. It’s perhaps 10” diameter if you flattened it out and if you were to calculate the area taken by the mesh it would be significant. Does the job nicely for your motor though. I’ve seen one a 600hp LS converted C3 btw!
 

Vetman

CCCUK Member
The reasons I use it are: open top to take advantage of cowl induction, high flat base that fits my upturned cone air sealing enclosure. I did consider K&N open filter top of say 12” dia. but I think it would sit too high in my case.

I fitted sealing around the radiator today using diy pipe insulation. Four pieces one for each side, top and bottom. Dead easy.

3B1D3D08-5CA0-4588-A2D5-9D1CF3B91436.jpeg
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
The hot coolant temps (190 F deg or more) from that top radiator hose is raising, heating up that good outside air coming into the air bridge
I would make some type of heat deflector under it
Idle and low speeds would be really heat soaking in that area effecting AFR
 

Vetman

CCCUK Member
Thanks. I have temperature sensors inside and outside the enclosure. In the past with cowl only air I have seen typically about 15 deg C drop in induction air compared to outside the enclosure. Maximum about 20 deg C in traffic hold ups. I will see how the new situation compares in future runs. I am only pottering around most of the time. It’s just the theoretical improvement that excites me.
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
Of course, I look at this as to performance and the AFR
A good charge to the cylinders that also reduces engine knock is the cooler the air is, the more molecules (better burn) there are to cylinder volume

As the air heats up and expands, there then is fewer molecules per same amount of cylinder volume
This leans up the AFR, exhaust temps raise and effect to sparkplug arc and may require 1 step colder plug
 

Vetman

CCCUK Member
I find my plugs are lighter at the bulkhead and blacker going forward. Is this common? I have AFR sensors in both exhausts and the values seem ok to me. About 14.7 on an overall run out and richer when I put my foot down. Twin peaks would describe the data on a run where I cruise to a place where I can put my foot down.
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
Bulkhead - meaning the firewall ?
What is "Twin Peaks" ?
Are you using wideband O2s for the AFR readings, and how far are they from the heads ?
 

Vetman

CCCUK Member
Yes firewall/bulkhead.
Yes wideband O2 Innovate Dual Gauge.
Bulkhead - meaning the firewall ?
What is "Twin Peaks" ?
Are you using wideband O2s for the AFR readings, and how far are they from the heads ?
Yes, Firewall/Bulkhead.
Yes, Dual Wideband O2 AFR Sensors/Gauge by Innovate.
Sensors placed in pipes after header collectors. Not quite as upstream as I would like but ahead of cross member.

AFR plot. These vary depending on traffic, etc.

image.jpg
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
I assume the 17:1 AFR is during decel (lifting off gas pedal)
Average of 13 which is too lean, keep in mind IF using E10 or E15 gas burns leaner so best is to shoot for
14.2:1 for non WOT conditions and about 12:5:1 AFR for WOT as Ethanol contains less energy than gasoline

For us techie thinkers :

Specific heat is the amount of energy required to raise 1 kg of material by one degree K (Kelvin, same as Celsius but with 0 point at absolute zero). Different materials have different specific heats. The energy is measured in kJ or kilojoules:

Air ~ 1 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Gasoline 2.02 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Water 4.18 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Ethanol 2.43 kJ/( kg * deg K)
Methanol 2.51 kJ/( kg * deg K)

Fuel and other liquids also have what's called latent heat. This is the heat energy required to vaporize 1 kg of the liquid.
The fuel in an internal combustion engine has to be vaporized and mixed thoroughly with the incoming air to produce power. Liquid gasoline does not burn.
The energy to vaporize the fuel comes partially from the incoming air, cooling it.
The latent heat energy required is actually much larger than the specific heat. That the energy comes from the incoming air can be easily seen on older carburetor cars, where frost can actually form on the intake manifold from the cooling of the charge.

The latent heat values of different liquids are shown here:

Gasoline 350 kJ/kg
Water 2256 kJ/kg
Ethanol 904 kJ/kg
Methanol 1109 kJ/kg

Most engines produce maximum power (with optimized ignition timing) at an air-fuel-ratio between 12 and 13.
Let's assume the optimum is in the middle at 12.5.

This means that for every kg of air, 0.08 kg of fuel is mixed in and vaporized.
The vaporization of the fuel extracts 28 kJ of energy from the air charge.

If the mixture has an air-fuel-ratio of 11 instead, the vaporization extracts 31.8 kJ instead. A difference of 3.8 kJ.
Because air has a specific heat of about 1 kJ/kg*deg K, the air charge is only 3.8 C (or K) degrees cooler for the rich mixture compared to the optimum power mixture. This small difference has very little effect on knock or power output.

If instead of the richer mixture about 10% (by mass) of water would be injected in the intake charge (0.008 kg Water/kg air), the high latent heat of the water would cool the charge by 18 degrees, about 4 times the cooling effect of the richer mixture.
The added fuel for the rich mixture can't burn because there is just not enough oxygen available. So it does not matter if fuel or water is added.

So where does the knock suppression of richer mixtures come from?

If the mixture gets ignited by the spark, a flame front spreads out from the spark plug.
This burning mixture increases the pressure and temperature in the cylinder.
At some time in the process, the pressures and temperatures peak. The speed of the flame front is dependent on mixture density and AFR.
A richer or leaner AFR than about 12-13 AFR burns slower. A denser mixture burns faster.

Richen up the mixture results in a slower burn, moving the pressure peak later where there is more leverage, hence more torque.
Also, the pressure peak is lower at a later crank angle and the knock probability is reduced.
The same effect can be achieved with an optimum power mixture and more ignition retard.

Optimum mix with “later” ignition can produce more power because more energy is released from the combustion of gasoline.

Here’s why:

When hydrocarbons like gasoline combust, the burn process actually happens in multiple stages.
First, the gasoline molecules are broken up into hydrogen and carbon.
The hydrogen combines with oxygen from the air to form H2O (water) and the carbon molecules form CO. This process happens very fast at the front edge of the flame front.

The second stage converts CO to CO2. This process is relatively slow and requires water molecules (from the first stage) for completion.
If there is no more oxygen available (most of it consumed in the first stage), the second stage can't happen. But about 2/3 of the energy released from the burning of the carbon is released in the second stage.
Therefore, a richer mixture releases less energy, lowering peak pressures and temperatures, and produces less power.

A secondary side effect is of course also a lowering of knock probability. It's like closing the throttle a little. A typical engine does not knock when running on part throttle because less energy and therefore lower pressures and temperatures are in the cylinder.

This is why running overly-rich mixtures can not only increase fuel consumption, but also cost power
 

Oneball

CCCUK Member
That graph looks like AFR frequency. So I wouldn’t say that average afr on the graph is cruise state.
 

Vetman

CCCUK Member
Impressive. However, in UK ethanol is generally at 5% now increasing to 10%. I try to buy fuel with zero or less than 5%. If I drove with minimal throttle then I would expect a single AFR peak of say 14.7, but who buys a Corvette to drive like that. I like plenty of boot when conditions allow so richer AFR expected.
Generally spark plugs are blacker than I would like but this could be because I am stuck behind a cyclist rather than on an open road.
 
Top