Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Classic Morgans (pre-CX) Airbox - Help needed to identify this picture

I found this picture in the net. Is anyone here who knows about this solution, or even has created it? If so, does it work properly? I currently make some research which way to go for a good working cold air intake for my Sigma 4/4 which is efficient, not too loud and at reasonable costs.
Regarding the picture the "half" of an airbox could protect against too much noise, the filter seems to get cold air via the side louvres. I'm wondering if the airflow is sufficient.

I think that's the system that was sold by Russell Paterson up in Perth. Now Revolution.

The S1 Roadster takes air from the same place Heinz but tests have shown that the airflow in that position is very turbulent. The box will keep hot engine bay air away but the cone filter would probably work as well without it. A side scoop might be a bit more effective but the best high pressure area is in front of the screen where the heater box is.

I believe Williams have worked out a cold air intake system that has a carefully tuned length to maximise torque and power.

Thanks guys. I know this topic has been discussed for ages. But I'm motivated to search for a "best compromise".

Do you think it could make sence if I find a new position for the cooling fluid reservoir and free the place for the air filter? But that could become very noisy inside the cabin.......

I know about the Williams development which seems to become a longer story. If the lenght of the tube is appropriate they make a good job if they eliminate the existing heating up of cold air issues as they will use the source of cold air at the front above the cowl more effectively.

On the other hand If you see a Ford Fokus or Fiesta engine bay, the distance between airbox and TB is not too long. May be they have no other possibility due to space issues, may be also they have undertaken correct maths.
If so the very long travel way of the 4/4 air flow could mean an issue as well. I don't know which length is best or if Morgan and Ford just use what is a given space.

The standard solution means that the air warms up a lot. The MAF sensor is placed at the airbox and allways shows significant less temperature to the ECU than the TB will see. This means a too fat mixture. Lamba 1 wants to reduce this mixture. At the end you have not enough petrol injected when revving high.

Basically to find out the correct length of travel way combined with a good working filter delivering cold air is the task before I would start to play with a new mapping etc. I must say I'm not in trouble at all. It is the enthusiam to play and research.

I have a Williams supplied ITG Cold Air Induction kit which I have just fitted prior to possibly getting an ECU remap.

It takes air from just above the radiator and through a flexible pipe to an oiled filter metal can fitted just above the exhaust manifold, which gets too hot to touch.

I thought I would modify it to get the coldest air from the front of the car (taking care with water ingress) and fully thermal wrap the filter can.

To try and understand the whole process of CAI I did a lot of internet research (99% of which is rubbish!).

My best take (so far) of the data available is;

1. Turbulence is not an issue for air intake as the vacuum pumping effect of the pistons overcomes it.

2. Turbulence can affect the temperature of the outside air intake, updrafts from hot engine areas etc.

3. Local turbulence (over the MAF) can affect it's accuracy but the greater MAF error effect is contamination (say from an oiled filter). Some cars have a cleaning cycle where a high current is passed through the hot wire to burn it clean.

4. Does CAI give a power increase?. I found very little data on this that could be regarded as objective and follows good experimental practice.

There is an argument that the colder air is denser (true) and thus has more Oxygen (also true) so it will produce more power by promoting a better burn (not true). The problem with that argument is that the fuel is already fully burnt as the ECU monitors the exhaust gases as a closed loop system.

It is possible that the ECU could be programmed to insert a little more fuel if the air is colder and thus give a little more power during acceleration (but only on wide open throttles) but that would also reduce the MPG of a standard car. So I suspect it is not done.

The only objective data I could find was an Australian YouTube channel that did a lot of different CAI tests on a rolling road. With most configurations they saw no change. The only repeatable increase they found was a 1HP increase (on a 200HP car) if they took the air intake hose out through the bonnet and in front of the rolling road air fan.

My gut feel is that low restriction air filters and "tuned" cold air intakes are probably not going to give any noticeable increase in power even with an ECU remap, But I did it anyway!

Yup, sounds right to me - but nevertheless, when I drive to work on a cool morning with a higher than average humidity, my engine subjectively runs smoother and crisper than on a hot summer's day.

I had always put that down to cold damp air being denser and allowing the ECU to bung in an extra dollop of petrol to take advantage of the extra oxygen available.

I recall reading that water vapor that ends up with the air aids combustion for some reason.

Can you remember 'water injection'.It never caught on but kits were available.

I think it is a fact that on cold days and also at low elevations (denser air) you do get more power when the throttle is wide open.

The question is whether a CAI will help to a noticeable degree.

From what I can find online it seems that the temp difference at the throttles and ambient can be fairly high when in start - stop traffic.
However as soon as you open the throttle and the revs increase the rate of air sucked in by the engine becomes very large and it does not have time to be heated by passing over a hot engine.