In Reply to: Baffeling me about baffels posted by M3Steve on May 14, 2001 at 11:19:59:
As for the AA dyno. I talked to Karl and the Dyno was done on a 96 M3. All they did was take out the first baffle and left everything else in there including stock paper filter and water baffle and second baffle). As for the 95, AA also did a dyno but did not post pictures on the web. The 95 M3 got 5.5 HP (at wheels) alone from just first airbox baffle. so as you can see debaffling the airbox does help alot.
Sorry for the disjointed reply it wouldn't let me post to my previous reply below using my friends computer.
Omey Homey I already have a K&N air filter. Sorry I didn't mention it before. One of the questions I still have is, does JC or ECIS recommend that you remove the water ingestion front piece.
To Eurospeed, as for the laminar flow, I believe you in that the HFM likes to see laminar flow but how is it that the tube that they provide would add that? I say this because once the air get's past the tube it smacks the wall
4" in front of it turning into a turbulent mess. If the wall had some form of smooth curvature or something. Even something similar to what Dynomax does in their super turbo mufflers. Do you think that the added tube length is needed
to get the flow smooth. I'm definetly leaving the snorkle in because I believe that necessary to give the box pressure. I'm going to have to go back through my fluid mechanics books to look at what hemholtz has to say.
So then comes another question, AA removed the airbox baffle and noticed an increase as shown on their dyno sheet. Which airbox baffle were they talking about? The water ingestion or the one inside the box?
Thanks for all the help guys.