H3D3 Ridgid Cold Air Intake - Jeep Garage - Jeep Forum

Go Back   Jeep Garage - Jeep Forum > Jeep Platform Discussion > Grand Cherokee - WK2 - > Engine Performance/Intakes/Exhausts

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 04-25-2016, 12:21 PM
f1anatic's Avatar
Premium Member
My Jeep: 2014 3.6L WK2
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,820
Thanks: 89
Thanked 237 Times in 172 Posts
Rep Power: 160273
f1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond repute
H3D3 Ridgid Cold Air Intake

I made that name up. There is no manufacturer that makes that intake. Ridgid is in fact a Home Depot brand of vacuum and other accessories. But unknown to them, they make air intakes.

H3D3 Ridgid Cold Air Intake
Home Depot Heavy Duty Home Developed Ridgid Cold Air Intake
(see the PDF)

I am sure somewhere in those logs there's proof of increased air flow. For the time being, I only included proof of actual colder temperatures. All those other intakes on the market - most closely resembled by running the factory air filter box without the factory snorkel, just suck in hot air from inside the engine bay. Where would the factory setup be...likely somewhere in between the two lines, perhaps closer to the H3D3 intake in terms of temperatures and farther away in terms of air flow.

As for what performance gains of some 10 whp that result from the regular hot air intakes with a cone and straight pipes? Probably most of that increase comes from running straighter pipes, improving air flow by elimination of the noise baffles.

And yeah...it really drives differently: a little faster off the line,, a little more economical, a little noisier, a litter more responsive in part throttle application.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 2016-04-25 RIDGID H3D3 RAM Cold Air Intake.pdf (1.77 MB, 131 views)

Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old 05-01-2016, 09:46 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 34
Thanks: 1
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Rep Power: 491
npickle12 is on a distinguished road
Re: H3D3 Ridgid Cold Air Intake

Cool. I love to see this kind of prototyping. I'm guessing people will make fun of this and poke holes in your concept. But you've taken a first cut at a true cold air intake and shown the results. This is the early concept stage of engineering. Provide a quick and dirty prototype for testing to see if your idea works. Fail fast and inexpensively...that's the goal with first prototypes. Yours did not fail...in fact it provides real reductions in intake air temp. Thanks for sharing.

Next steps should be to increase the diameters of all of that tubing. It looks restrictive. Remember that the engine will pull air from the source of least resistance. So decreasing the resistance for you cold air path will be beneficial.
  #3  
Old 05-01-2016, 12:49 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 516
Thanks: 7
Thanked 63 Times in 57 Posts
Rep Power: 3019
Nonstop is on a distinguished road
H3D3 Ridgid Cold Air Intake

Maybe I'm not seeing this right, you replaced the stock airbox inlet approximately 1.5" x 3.5" and a short path, with a 1 1/2" diameter 1.5' long corrugated hose?

As an additional air source I would see this as humorous but likely functional, if plumbed into the air box in an additional location. However to replace the factory source this way is restrictive and likely to cause a problem. Air volume will change running conditions more than air temp. I don't think the OE path has such extra capacity built in to the point where that hose could supply the needed volume.
Unless I'm missing something, math would help here.


Seriously nice job on it though.
__________________
2011 X 3.6
2000 WJ 5.2
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #4  
Old 05-01-2016, 01:19 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 34
Thanks: 1
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Rep Power: 491
npickle12 is on a distinguished road
Re: H3D3 Ridgid Cold Air Intake

Did you read his pdf instructions? It's definitely a secondary source...
  #5  
Old 05-01-2016, 02:12 PM
f1anatic's Avatar
Premium Member
My Jeep: 2014 3.6L WK2
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,820
Thanks: 89
Thanked 237 Times in 172 Posts
Rep Power: 160273
f1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond repute
Re: H3D3 Ridgid Cold Air Intake

Quote:
Originally Posted by npickle12 View Post
Cool. I love to see this kind of prototyping. I'm guessing people will make fun of this and poke holes in your concept. But you've taken a first cut at a true cold air intake and shown the results. This is the early concept stage of engineering. Provide a quick and dirty prototype for testing to see if your idea works. Fail fast and inexpensively...that's the goal with first prototypes. Yours did not fail...in fact it provides real reductions in intake air temp. Thanks for sharing.

Next steps should be to increase the diameters of all of that tubing. It looks restrictive. Remember that the engine will pull air from the source of least resistance. So decreasing the resistance for you cold air path will be beneficial.
Thank you for your comments. I am unable to increase the hose diameter because of the tow hooks that are in the way. Kindly refer back to the PDF. The hose is as short as it will ever get - about 2 feet unless custom PVC piping will be made. I initially tried with a 3 inch diameter hose but no luck - the tow hooks were in the way. Also please note that I deleted the factory snorkel and walled off any air path from inside the engine compartment. The path of least resistance is this snorkel behind the bumper, which provides colder air and in fact more air flow, dekivering it to air filter box via the nearly 2 inch diameter hose.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonstop View Post
Maybe I'm not seeing this right, you replaced the stock airbox inlet approximately 1.5" x 3.5" and a short path, with a 1 1/2" diameter 1.5' long corrugated hose?

As an additional air source I would see this as humorous but likely functional, if plumbed into the air box in an additional location. However to replace the factory source this way is restrictive and likely to cause a problem. Air volume will change running conditions more than air temp. I don't think the OE path has such extra capacity built in to the point where that hose could supply the needed volume.
Unless I'm missing something, math would help here.


Seriously nice job on it though.
Thank you for your feedback. Let me address both things:
1) "plumbed into the air box at an additional location". I ran this way with a small box mounted in the area of the left tow hook. It helped. I noticed real gains in both fuel economy and part throttle response.

2) "replacing stock air box with a hose" - yes but there is a scoop attached to the end of that hose. The scoop's dimensions are 3.25 x 9 inches.

I will also calculate the math and also provide evidence (data logs via the Torque App) of increased air flow over the stock snorkel. I just need to get together with my buddy, with a stock Overland. Maybe even some acceleration tests. Also please note that testing in Chicago is not really possible due to traffic and cops. The volume of air needed by the engine can be calculated with known formulas as will the efficiency of the whole system. One can account for the number of elbows in the duct, the material, duct diameter, losses, etc. - occasionally I do these calculations for a living. But I have a real job and no real free time.

---
I spent my week-end at my cousin in Wisconsin (Racine county, outside Milwaukee). I came back "racing" my dad in a quest of fuel economy. This pitted the Grand Cherokee (ORA 2; Lux 2; Adv. Tech Plus) ~ 5000 lbs loaded with me and a bed frame against my Dad's Subaru Forester (3,300 lbs 5 speed manual, 2.5 L NA H4) plus 85 lbs dog plus wife plus mother plus my father. All in all at least 1000 lbs difference in weight between cars, and different aerodynamics, none in the favor of the Jeep.

We both set the cruise control on 70 mph. From Racine to Northbrook IL (some 60 miles) we really drove 70 mph but then we hit traffic. At the end of the day, the Jeep was capable of 29.3 mpg vs 29.1 mpg on the Forester. These are trip computer - reported numbers, we did not start with full fuel tanks, and no pen-paper calculations were made. For those unfamiliar with this stretch of I-94, it is not really a severely downhill ride like from Independence Pass into Aspen: the altitude difference is about 120 feet over 70 miles.

Before, I could get 30 mpg (trip computer) at 60 mph (on cruise control). Looks like I messed up the car with my contraption, as now I seem to get 29 mpg at with ACC set for 70 mph. A few quick runs (undocumented) at 60 mph clearly showed that I am capable of above 30 mpg. My trip computer reads about 1 mpg higher than pump, pen, paper calculations.

The first two pictures show the fuel economy mentioned above. The TRIP A computer includes in town daily driving since filling up the tank full on Wednesday morning (there's no traffic jams in Chicago ha ha ha) and the trip on the highway going to Wisconsin on Saturday in severe rain storm and today's trip back. Overall, needless to say, I am extremely pleased with my fuel economy.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20160501_124438.jpg (195.8 KB, 28 views)
File Type: jpg 20160501_124444_HDR.jpg (228.4 KB, 32 views)
File Type: jpg 20160501_124819.jpg (195.9 KB, 28 views)
  #6  
Old 05-03-2016, 12:36 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 516
Thanks: 7
Thanked 63 Times in 57 Posts
Rep Power: 3019
Nonstop is on a distinguished road
H3D3 Ridgid Cold Air Intake

1) "plumbed into the air box at an additional location". I ran this way with a small box mounted in the area of the left tow hook. It helped. I noticed real gains in both fuel economy and part throttle response.



2) "replacing stock air box with a hose" - yes but there is a scoop attached to the end of that hose. The scoop's dimensions are 3.25 x 9 inches.




1) I meant if you left the factory inlet and plumbed this in an additional location as a supplemental supply. I'd buy that as good.

2) What effect do you think the "scoop" has on the maximum volume the hose can handle? It doesn't increase anything past the hoses ability. Your ram air at speed comment that I'm sure I'll hear is fine I'll equate that to the butt dyno gains of a CAI. there's no way a small decrease in temp is going to Trump the loss in volume or availability. Keep driving. Also take some readings of combined mileage over two tanks.


Half a cookie is still good half a lesson can be very bad.
__________________
2011 X 3.6
2000 WJ 5.2
  #7  
Old 05-03-2016, 02:13 PM
f1anatic's Avatar
Premium Member
My Jeep: 2014 3.6L WK2
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,820
Thanks: 89
Thanked 237 Times in 172 Posts
Rep Power: 160273
f1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond repute
Re: H3D3 Ridgid Cold Air Intake

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonstop View Post

2) What effect do you think the "scoop" has on the maximum volume the hose can handle? It doesn't increase anything past the hoses ability. Your ram air at speed comment that I'm sure I'll hear is fine I'll equate that to the butt dyno gains of a CAI. there's no way a small decrease in temp is going to Trump the loss in volume or availability. Keep driving. Also take some readings of combined mileage over two tanks.


Half a cookie is still good half a lesson can be very bad.
I removed the factory inlet because, while not restrictive, it doesn't do anything except allow the engine vacuum to draw air from a colder area. If I left it there, I would have "diluted" any benefits from it.

The temperature decrease is not small. Please look again at the units. I reported it in degrees Celsius.

The hose diameter is not ideal but it is not as big of a problem as you make it.



These laws of physics have not changed lately: the flow (volume per unit time) doesn't change. The law of conservation of mass dictates that the fluid velocity increases as it passes thru a constriction. Yes, with the increased speed and hose constriction, there is increased friction and turbulence (and increased temperatures of the fluid) but the flow is the same.

In surface area alone, you have earlier provided an estimate of 1.5 x 3.5 inches for the snorkel. That gives a surface area of 5.25 inches square.

The hose has a cross-sectional surface area of roughly 2.76 sq. inches. However the scoop behind the grille has a surface area of 29.25 sq. inches.

If both "sailed against the wind" at the same speed, and we applied the principle of mass conservation, my home made scoop would flow nearly 5.6 times as much as the factory snorkel which is not placed in an ideal position to channel cold air.
Because the speed would be the same, we are left with 29.25 sq. inches / 5.25 sq. inches = 5.6


A (cross sectional area, e.g. meters square) x V (speed of the car, e.g. meters/second) = Q (meters cubed per second)

Volumes of air passing through combustion engines are estimated using the engine cylinder’s displacement in litres (L) x engine rpm x number of minutes of operation. 4-stroke combustion engine calculations require the rpm be divided by two since air is exhausted from the cylinders every second revolution.

A 4 stroke Pentastar Engine working 1 min @ 3,000 rpm therefore uses: 3.6 L x 3,000 rpm/2 x 1 min =5,400 L air per minute

A 3.25 inch x 9 inch (0.018871 square meters) "scoop" traveling against the wind at 30 mph (822.6 m/min)
0.018871 meters square x 822.6 meters/minute = 15.523 meters cube/min or 15,523 Liters/min
Assuming 50% losses due to friction, leaks, restrictions, elbows, it still amounts to 7,700 L/min which is more than what the engine needs. That's the quick calculation. The actual calculations are more complicated and most professionals resort to tabulated values for fittings/connections/ducts and tabulated values don't even start below 5-6 inches in diameter.

I am sure that when you put your finger on the garden hose, obstructing partially the orifice, your house plumbing doesn't protest, the hose doesn't burst; the faucet doesn't leak; rather the water jet flows faster and farther.
  #8  
Old 05-03-2016, 02:24 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 516
Thanks: 7
Thanked 63 Times in 57 Posts
Rep Power: 3019
Nonstop is on a distinguished road
H3D3 Ridgid Cold Air Intake

It's not under pressure, the hose is corrugated, and I'm still betting the jeep will loose in this contest.

The engine has requirements and your not meeting them, you're Right though.
__________________
2011 X 3.6
2000 WJ 5.2
  #9  
Old 05-03-2016, 03:51 PM
f1anatic's Avatar
Premium Member
My Jeep: 2014 3.6L WK2
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,820
Thanks: 89
Thanked 237 Times in 172 Posts
Rep Power: 160273
f1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond repute
Re: H3D3 Ridgid Cold Air Intake

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonstop View Post
It's not under pressure, the hose is corrugated, and I'm still betting the jeep will loose in this contest.

The engine has requirements and your not meeting them, you're Right though.
Please do explain using technical arguments how I am failing to meet the engine requirements and how the data I presented so far (temperature reduction, better fuel economy) supports your assertion and not mine. I will try to keep up.

I also cannot be both right and wrong about law of conservation of mass or in this case, the flow.

The corrugations contribute to an increased resistance to the flow, slowing it down and with friction comes the increase in temperature. I recognize that. I also would have liked a larger diameter. But it is not a limiting factor. I have also made those connections as tight as I could but I recognize there will be some minimal losses.

For as long as the car moves forward, at a constant speed, there will be a constant pressure, measurable. Take a transparent hose, bend it in a U shape, put some water in the U and then place it in front of a fan. Does the water level move? Now take a kitchen funnel and connect it to the U shaped hose. Place it again in front of the fan, with the funnel facing the fan. Stand behind the U shaped hose...

The difference between the two water levels in the U shaped hose shows the inches of water column pressure exerted by the fan. Same concept applies here.
  #10  
Old 05-04-2016, 07:24 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 60
Thanks: 3
Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
Rep Power: 661
peteyturbo has a reputation beyond reputepeteyturbo has a reputation beyond reputepeteyturbo has a reputation beyond reputepeteyturbo has a reputation beyond repute
Quote:
Originally Posted by f1anatic View Post

Please do explain using technical arguments how I am failing to meet the engine requirements and how the data I presented so far (temperature reduction, better fuel economy) supports your assertion and not mine. I will try to keep up.

I also cannot be both right and wrong about law of conservation of mass or in this case, the flow.

The corrugations contribute to an increased resistance to the flow, slowing it down and with friction comes the increase in temperature. I recognize that. I also would have liked a larger diameter. But it is not a limiting factor. I have also made those connections as tight as I could but I recognize there will be some minimal losses.

For as long as the car moves forward, at a constant speed, there will be a constant pressure, measurable. Take a transparent hose, bend it in a U shape, put some water in the U and then place it in front of a fan. Does the water level move? Now take a kitchen funnel and connect it to the U shaped hose. Place it again in front of the fan, with the funnel facing the fan. Stand behind the U shaped hose...

The difference between the two water levels in the U shaped hose shows the inches of water column pressure exerted by the fan. Same concept applies here.
I am going to blow your mind here, but i can assure you there are no measureable improvements in fuel economy or hp by doing this. Sure it makes some sense on paper but with the way the ecu compensates for intake air temps, output will remain the same over a much wider range then you think, and when you couple that with a strategy the basically operates off the knock sensors, you are looking at even less of a chance of this having any effect at all and certainly nowhere near large enough to be measured by an odometer or trip computer. And i come from experience doing epa certified fuel consumption testing and mopar performance tuning for over 10 years. IAT reduction will not increase feul economy unless calibrated to do so, and it just so happens the factory calibration does the opposite..
  #11  
Old 05-04-2016, 09:12 PM
f1anatic's Avatar
Premium Member
My Jeep: 2014 3.6L WK2
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,820
Thanks: 89
Thanked 237 Times in 172 Posts
Rep Power: 160273
f1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond reputef1anatic has a reputation beyond repute
Re: H3D3 Ridgid Cold Air Intake

Quote:
Originally Posted by peteyturbo View Post
I am going to blow your mind here, but i can assure you there are no measureable improvements in fuel economy or hp by doing this. Sure it makes some sense on paper but with the way the ecu compensates for intake air temps, output will remain the same over a much wider range then you think, and when you couple that with a strategy the basically operates off the knock sensors, you are looking at even less of a chance of this having any effect at all and certainly nowhere near large enough to be measured by an odometer or trip computer. And i come from experience doing epa certified fuel consumption testing and mopar performance tuning for over 10 years. IAT reduction will not increase feul economy unless calibrated to do so, and it just so happens the factory calibration does the opposite..
I don't doubt your experience but generally I am skeptical of several categories of people, including those who read a single book and those who want "to blow my mind". Please go tell it to the guy who installed an intake and dyno'ed an additional 10 whp and 8 lb-ft from his K&N CAI.His thread is also here somewhere.
Regardless, while in general I do not disagree with your assessment about the ECU operation, I trust my results with the Jeep and previous attempts and results at cooling the air by installing a larger intercooler, first without, and later with the benefit of tuning, more than I trust your statement.
  #12  
Old 05-04-2016, 09:25 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 516
Thanks: 7
Thanked 63 Times in 57 Posts
Rep Power: 3019
Nonstop is on a distinguished road
Re: H3D3 Ridgid Cold Air Intake

It really doesn't matter what I say, many years ago I'd indulge but I'm watching golf. Even when you find out your wrong you'll forget that you once said you weren't. You're headstrong and intelligent but your the worst kind of smart, youthful, half informed, and closed minded when you are in your comfort zone. I still said smart..
I don't dispute you're data minus your understanding of it.
The engines air requirements are not being met and the computer is adjusting for your ineptitude.

Because one K&N dynoed at +10hp doesn't mean all will, that was a 5.7 and I assure you the 3.6 doesn't do the same, dozens of other applications loose power from them.

Keep up the good work and experimentation though, pioneers never stop.
__________________
2011 X 3.6
2000 WJ 5.2
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Volant Cold Air Intake w/ Integrated Ram Air Scoop? bmrisko Grand Cherokee SRT - WK2 11 05-11-2015 09:23 AM
custom cold air intake for the 3.7 Micallef Performance Modifications 28 11-12-2009 12:17 PM
My cold air intake. AcidCold Performance Modifications 20 11-02-2009 12:08 PM

» Premium Vendor Showcase
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2012 - JeepGarage.Org
The Jeep Grand Cherokee Owners Community

JeepGarage.org is in no way associated with or endorsed by FCA US LLC. Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Mopar and SRT are registered trademarks of FCA US LLC.