When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Either you are incapable of understanding English or you are intentionally twisting words to try to synthesize a statement I never made. Either way, it's sad.
I get that you don't agree with my approach, and I acknowledge that it likely isn't necessary, but it literally takes 5 seconds to do, so there really is no meaningful argument against it.
Forgive me, in your post where you said the keys go in the ziploc BOX I read too fast an thought you said ziploc BAG. Many apologies for my sad lack of command of English.
I think the "meaningful argument" against the method is that any time you start putting objects in the intake of an expensive engine there's a [very small] chance something will get sucked into the engine and do some damage. So it's something to keep in mind and balance against the [also very small] chance of water getting sucked in and destroying your engine.
In fairness I think this was a successful thread. You asked whether others were putting something over their intake while washing their cars. Most said no, a couple said yes, and many explained various reasons why it is or isn't reasonable to do so. An effective poll.
The problem with your statement above, and all of the non-constructive comments in this thread, is that this is an automotive forum. The entire purpose of the forum is to discuss details that non-automative enthusiasts probably wouldn't care about. If there are topics you don't care about -- and there always will be some -- then just don't ****ing post. To come into a thread and label it as "tin foil hat theory" totally kills the discussion and kicks off a snowballing stream of non-constructive comments.
For your "crank" tin foil hat theory, do you know how much sag it would take for a crank to perform poorly at 7000 RPM? Almost none. People spend thousands of dollars and invest many hours of time to balance their motors because it increases horsepower and increases durability. If the crank isn't perfectly aligned, the car will not run as well as it should because there will be an imbalance that shouldn't be there and, even if you can't feel it, the engine will wear itself out much faster than it should. If you are going through all the work and expense of rebuilding an engine down to replacing the crank, don't you think you would want to know if placing the crank on its side will affect it? Even if you are personally replacing a crank and you aren't curious about the topic, that's your own decision to ignore it, but don't pollute the thread by attacking the person who clearly wants to know. Does a crank sitting on its side actually harm it? I don't know. Is it an important topic? It absolutely is if you are the person that is in the middle of that job. It's also of interest to many others who may not be replacing a crank but simply want to learn. It's also important to somebody who might be having a shop rebuild their motor.
If you don't care about a topic, don't post. If you think a topic is too trivial to discuss, don't post. If you don't have something constructive to say, don't post. But don't demean other people's topics because you don't understand the implications of the question.
The same applies to this topic. If you understand what happens inside the engine with hydrolock (which results in bent rods, bent valves, internal corrosion, and an engine that is basically toast), then you should automatically understand that it is reasonable to discuss the topic, even if there is only a 0.1% chance that something you could do could make that happen. If that discussion isn't of interest or concern to you, you should know what to do at this point: don't post.
I think you could have said this differently. As I due care about this topic and wish to dispel irrational fear from the neurotic masses, I will continue to poast in this thread. The reality is that the OEM airbox is well-engineered. It drains very well & keeps water on the bottom half of the intake box, while keeping airflow steady for the MAF. Aftermarket intakes can interfere with the fuel mixture and led to running lean or rich, as well as inferior water management in situations like the car wash. Put it all together and I decided to sell my expensive aftermarket intake despite nice sound gains. A Helmholtz resonator and the corresponding silicone hose are low risk and highly reliable parts that can improve the sound coming out of the OEM intake without the downstream risk to fuel mixture & operational integrity of the engine. As you say, it's an expensive engine that has a high output per litre ratio - it is to be respected and not treated like a Civic motor. A few items about the aftermarket intakes that are worth considering relate to the filters and the design. Unlike the OEM airbox, aftermarket filters rely purely on gravity to allow excess moisture to drain out of the bottom tube that connects to the filter. This strategy works and doesn't represent a critical risk from what I understand, however, aftermarket intakes do allow moisture intrusion to advance much higher in the system than the OEM airbox. In double blind field testing performed at a local carwash space station, I observed thick soapy residue approximately 8" from the throttle body, inside the intake tubes on my aftermarket unit. Following this discovery, I began draping shop towels over my aftermarket intake when washing the car. Problem solved, but it's a bit of a pain to mess around with shop towels every week at the car wash. Later on, I learned that filter socks are available for this exact porpoise. In hindsight, I probably could have continued to use the ottermaket intake while eliminating the issue with moisture intrusion. The remaining unknown of misfires following washing was initially assumed to reflect moister intrusion into the throttle body & intake system. An experience with a golden shower in the rear last winter changed that perception. After finishing a spirited highway drive, where local speed ordinances were diligently ignored, I realized there was, in fact, a large fountain of moisture coming out of the back of the car. This was immediately diagnosed as a compromised coolant system and my car was shut down immediately - prior to any dangerous rise in temperatures. Follow up by a local indy revealed cracked coil packs that needed replacement. This ended up fixing the serious misfires that followed the coolant system repair. It also demonstrated that prior issues with post-warshing misfires could have actually been coil packs that were cracked, rather than moisture intrusion from the aftermarket intake. But the remaining issue of an unsettled air/fool ratio meant that my beloved aftermarket intake was likely the culprit for at least one batch of codes. Personally, when an aftermarket part throws codes that cannot be easily addressed, I prefer to restore the OEM parts and live with whatever performance compromise might result. Luckily this case it really just impacted induction sound at WOT in higher RPMs. And beyond that, using the Hemlock resonator too allow induction sound to flow trough the OEM airbox allows some of the induction sound to pass through where previously it was muffled by the Heimlech resonator. Now you might just look at all this and think it's just a mixed bag of lollies, but there are some colonels of truth to be taken from my grand spearmint with intakes. Firstly, the OEM airbox provides superior induction moisture control relative to the aftermarket units. Secondarily, the OEM airbox provides superior air flow management that is less prone to causing lean or rich fuel mixture ratios from popping up. Lastly, the OEM airbox can be modified by deleting the Heisenberg resonator and replacing that section of the OEM airbox with a silicon hoes and a plumbing plug. These parts are not terribly expensive and can still provide good value for the dollar - especially when viewed in the context as aftermarket parts that are safe & effective for a Porsche. For all in tents and porpoises, I can only surmise that there are no material weaknesses in the stock airbox when it relates to the operational integrity of the m96 engine series.
In fairness I think this was a successful thread. You asked whether others were putting something over their intake while washing their cars. Most said no, a couple said yes, and many explained various reasons why it is or isn't reasonable to do so. An effective poll.
I agree. I legitimately did not know whether people covered it or not, so now I have a good idea and I understand that there is little or no risk in not covering it.
I still don't feel like the question is completely answered, and this is the reason I will continue to cover it despite the fact that it doesn't appear to be necessary.
I stated in the original post that it obviously must be designed to drain or else the car couldn't be driven in rain. The real question is not whether it will drain, but the rate at which the holes allow water to drain.
In natural rainfall, the amount that goes into the intake is going to be minimal, both because the rainfall itself is very, very, very low volume (on an "inches of rainfall per hour" basis) and because the grill will also tend to block rain drops from going directly into the intake. If you've ever had a rain gauge, the gauge inlet is roughly similar to the intake snorkel and you know how slowly it fills even when there is a lot of rain.
Even at the peak of Harvey, I think that the maximum rate that rain that came down was 2 inches per hour - or 0.03 inches per minute, and again the grill will block much of that. So the drainage rate that the car had to be designed to to cope with weather is minimal.
When you wash the car, if you spray downwards from the roof towards the engine lid at the intake area, the full stream of water can go through the grill and directly into the intake, which would fill the entire snorkel in only a few seconds at hose output volume. Nobody would intentionally spray it in that location, but it could happen by accident. Would even a completely full intake snorkel eventually drain? I'm sure it would, but I don't know how long it would take. I also don't think it's safe to assume the drain holes could never get clogged or partially blocked to make it drain slower. I also don't know if the air cleaner would become submerged in water during the process because the drain rate is so much slower than the rate of water coming out of the hose. I don't know if the entire paper air filter element being soaked would cause it to deteriorate after it eventually dried out, causing junk to go into the engine over time. I also don't know if the water held in the paper filter element -- which is essentially a sponge that would hold a lot of water and would take a very long time to dry out even if the air filter housing drained somewhat quickly -- would be enough to cause engine damage.
Given the above, I'd much rather spend 5 seconds before washing it to seal the intake than spend the entire time washing it trying to make sure I never accidentally direct the hose towards the intake. I don't expect anyone else to do what I do, but I think you have to ignore a lot to think it's reasonable to deride my conservative approach.
Given how much time you've devoted to your post and the importance of fluidity removal rate, I expect a graph detailing each location of drainage with flow rates and duration of time. Also, I'd like to see a control between natural spring water from the store, verse rain water which has impurities which could reduce the amount of natural flow.
OP, sorry I have not read all the long posts but let me show you how the inside of the airbox looks like so you can determine by yourself whether it's an issue. Note there are some holes close to the bottom of the airbox (however, the holes are NOT at the lowest part of the box). However, note the filter hangs at the upper portion of the box. Also keep in mind where the snorkel snaps onto the airbox is NOT water tight so water leaks out from there as well.
My take is unless you aim a fire hose at the snorkel and start your engine the same time, regular water from a garden hose or even pressure washer (I use one) won't be an issue. Of course unless you're targeting the snorkel with the water jet.
The problem with your statement above, and all of the non-constructive comments in this thread, is that this is an automotive forum. The entire purpose of the forum is to discuss details that non-automative enthusiasts probably wouldn't care about. If there are topics you don't care about -- and there always will be some -- then just don't ****ing post. To come into a thread and label it as "tin foil hat theory" totally kills the discussion and kicks off a snowballing stream of non-constructive comments.
For your "crank" tin foil hat theory, do you know how much sag it would take for a crank to perform poorly at 7000 RPM? Almost none. People spend thousands of dollars and invest many hours of time to balance their motors because it increases horsepower and increases durability. If the crank isn't perfectly aligned, the car will not run as well as it should because there will be an imbalance that shouldn't be there and, even if you can't feel it, the engine will wear itself out much faster than it should. If you are going through all the work and expense of rebuilding an engine down to replacing the crank, don't you think you would want to know if placing the crank on its side will affect it? Even if you are personally replacing a crank and you aren't curious about the topic, that's your own decision to ignore it, but don't pollute the thread by attacking the person who clearly wants to know. Does a crank sitting on its side actually harm it? I don't know. Is it an important topic? It absolutely is if you are the person that is in the middle of that job. It's also of interest to many others who may not be replacing a crank but simply want to learn. It's also important to somebody who might be having a shop rebuild their motor.
If you don't care about a topic, don't post. If you think a topic is too trivial to discuss, don't post. If you don't have something constructive to say, don't post. But don't demean other people's topics because you don't understand the implications of the question.
The same applies to this topic. If you understand what happens inside the engine with hydrolock (which results in bent rods, bent valves, internal corrosion, and an engine that is basically toast), then you should automatically understand that it is reasonable to discuss the topic, even if there is only a 0.1% chance that something you could do could make that happen. If that discussion isn't of interest or concern to you, you should know what to do at this point: don't post.
I have a tin foil hat and several beers, I will donate to alleviate your obvious stress.
Given how much time you've devoted to your post and the importance of fluidity removal rate, I expect a graph detailing each location of drainage with flow rates and duration of time. Also, I'd like to see a control between natural spring water from the store, verse rain water which has impurities which could reduce the amount of natural flow.
You really could be on to something here.
I don't understand the purpose of your post. If it is an attempt at comedy, I wouldn't give up your day job. If you don't understand the importance of input rate versus drainage rate, that says more about you than anything else.
If you want to tell me that the airbox will always drain faster than a hose can fill the intake, that would be useful information and would go a long way towards answering the question. If you want to tell me that the air filter housing is designed so that it is impossible for the air filter element to get soaked no matter how much water goes down the intake, that would also be useful information.
If you have nothing meaningful to say, just don't post so you don't waste my time or anybody elses. Is that a difficult or unreasonable request?
You know there have been literally millions of experiments of the design over the past 18 years and not a single report of a car going kaboom because of failing to cover the snorkel while washing it under typical car washing conditions?
So, yeah, this question is idiotic. Keep pretending you have stumbled onto some issue that us hicks haven't considered, but you're just either intentionally being dense or... well, if it isn't intentional it must be something else.
OP, sorry I have not read all the long posts but let me show you how the inside of the airbox looks like so you can determine by yourself whether it's an issue. Note there are some holes close to the bottom of the airbox (however, the holes are NOT at the lowest part of the box). However, note the filter hangs at the upper portion of the box. Also keep in mind where the snorkel snaps onto the airbox is NOT water tight so water leaks out from there as well.
My take is unless you aim a fire hose at the snorkel and start your engine the same time, regular water from a garden hose or even pressure washer (I use one) won't be an issue. Of course unless you're targeting the snorkel with the water jet.
Thank you very much for your post. This helps a lot. The small holes at the lowest point, I think, very clearly could not keep up with the hose output at all, but the large number of holes on the higher section should be able to drain much more quickly and should act as a "relief valve" to minimize the chances of the filter element getting wet.
When I have the air filter apart for the motor mounts, I will definitely check out the flow rates with water to get a better understanding of exactly how well it flows, but I now see exactly how the airbox design does help minimize the risk.
I don't understand the purpose of your post. If it is an attempt at comedy, I wouldn't give up your day job. If you don't understand the importance of input rate versus drainage rate, that says more about you than anything else.
If you want to tell me that the airbox will always drain faster than a hose can fill the intake, that would be useful information and would go a long way towards answering the question. If you want to tell me that the air filter housing is designed so that it is impossible for the air filter element to get soaked no matter how much water goes down the intake, that would also be useful information.
If you have nothing meaningful to say, just don't post so you don't waste my time or anybody elses. Is that a difficult or unreasonable request?
Some of us are just trying to keep others from falling into your rabbit hole.
With real things to check and be concerned about like IMS bearings, rear main seals, AOS's, cracked heads, camshaft end plugs, and suspension bushings, I don't want others laying awake at night afraid to wash their car. Knowing there is one of you out there is already disturbing enough.
My car is a DD, I also use the brushless car wash all the time and had this issue whenever I left the carwash with it being right at the freeway entrance, I would get a CEL upon accelerating onto the freeway, so I took a rain sock from the Harley and place it over the snorkel when I do a carwash and left it there till I return home, also no more CEL. works for me and I think you have a legit ?.
09-07-2017 | 10:33 AM
