Author Topic: Air Canister - Clearing room in Engine bay (Read 4705 times)

Cody · « **on:** January 06, 2009, 12:11:02 pm »

I have a 1991 TD Syncro Transporter and am wondering if anybody knows of anyway to replace the big air cleaner canister with something smaller.

I would like to clear up some room in the engine compartment to make room for an ESPAR coolant heater and an intercooler (down the road)

Cheers,

Cody

Smokey Eddy · « **Reply #1 on:** January 06, 2009, 12:56:25 pm »

cone filter
http://motors.shop.ebay.com/items/one-filter_W0QQ_trksidZm39

TurboJ · « **Reply #2 on:** January 06, 2009, 01:17:29 pm »

I'd be very careful about fitting a cone filter to a rear-engined car.
A cotton filter will let more particles through, and with a R/R car there are a lot of particles flying around! Maybe go to a breaker's yard and see which OEM filter box would suit you?

the caveman · « **Reply #3 on:** January 06, 2009, 04:02:22 pm »

100 % agreement with TurboJ. Most after market replacement and "performance" air filters go more harm than good, unless more induction noise and the look is more important than engine life.
If i were you why not install an air filter box above the transmission and connect it with a long tube. May not be good if you are going to do any water fording though. The other option would be to mount/shove the air box up into the d pillar above where it is now. Or how about on the other side with a corressponding tube to connect it.

Smokey Eddy · « **Reply #4 on:** January 06, 2009, 11:08:33 pm »

I was thinking you could possibly add a foot or two of pipe to the intake and route it elsewhere? that's what i was thinking with the cone filter.

I don't know rear mounted engines. Sorry!

Cody · « **Reply #5 on:** January 07, 2009, 07:38:37 am »

How about a K&N type of fiulter and is there a way of sticking it up the air passage in the rear panel where the snorkel is? It'd be sucking in the cleaner air from 6 eet up off the ground like the snorkel does now.

arb · « **Reply #6 on:** January 07, 2009, 07:52:39 am »

Not all after market filters are cheap evil filters. Some are made to exceed OEM requirements. The K & N filter I'm using is one such. My filter alone was about $65. It is reusable, and is a "wet" filter so it does a better job of cleaning the air than paper OEM filters. It also has much more surface area so it is less restrictive.

Here's a review http://www.autoanything.com/air-filters/60A2090A0A0.aspx

the caveman · « **Reply #7 on:** January 07, 2009, 12:23:49 pm »

Quote from: "arb"

Not all after market filters are cheap evil filters. Some are made to exceed OEM requirements. The K & N filter I'm using is one such. My filter alone was about $65. It is reusable, and is a "wet" filter so it does a better job of cleaning the air than paper OEM filters. It also has much more surface area so it is less restrictive.

Here's a review http://www.autoanything.com/air-filters/60A2090A0A0.aspx

I'm sure a search will pull up some of the tests done on aftermarket air filters and in some cases the K&N's were the worse of the bunch. After reading a couple it gave my friend an OEM VW one to replace the K&N i had installed on the car i sold him. The test results were so bad it was scary. A few years ago i didn't understand why the INSIDE of my air filter housings of my 2.2 liter 71 beetle were dirty. I just thought that there was a leak where the surfaces met. I sod my webers for some bigger ones which came with smaller housings and filters, So far the inner parts of my housings are clean [and my carbs and motor].

theman53 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 07, 2009, 04:22:53 pm »

I'm up in arms about this as well. I have K&N filters on just about everything I own and they make a HUGE difference, but I only have about 50,000 miles on the longest one installed the rest are probably below 15,000 miles each. I ran them on my quad for years without ring damage. And every circle track car I worked on, but they usually got rebuilt everyother year anyway. But the one I got for my NA diesel rabbit didn't look as well built as the others. I don't know if I got a bad one or what. It was just the cotton didn't look as thick as my others.
All that being said I know the filtration system on the old John Deere B-type is the best of all. The oil bath system. K&N uses oil on the pleats which isn't quite as good as pulling air through a puddle of oil, but it should be better than a dry one. I think this is why my K&N filters are much dirtier every 3,000 than paper ones.
I will watch this as I still need to make a decision on the filter I will run. My feeling now is if I can get a "quality" one like in my older vehicles I will probably go with the K&N

jtanguay · « **Reply #9 on:** January 07, 2009, 05:10:21 pm »

i'd trust these filters... but $$$$$$$$$$

http://www.amsoil.com/StoreFront/injen.aspx

spencebm · « **Reply #10 on:** January 07, 2009, 06:32:28 pm »

Air boxes are more over-rated than mufflers.

Jasonsmack · « **Reply #11 on:** January 07, 2009, 09:34:18 pm »

I also have K&N filters on everything I own. I have never had a problem on any of them, we even have alot of gravel roads around here.

I did take the time to do a internet search about the evil K&N filters. All I could find was references to people that had done scientific tests, but strangely there was no link or indication on who did these tests. There is about as much scientific evidence on the search engine as there is here in this thread. If K&N was costing people engines they would have been out of business years ago.

In all my years of schooling and experience as a certified mechanic, the only people that have bad things to say about cotton filters are the ones that are either too lazy to do the maintenance on them or too cheap to buy one in the first place.

Just to add to my experience, I own a rear engined Fiero with a K&N filter that was used for a 2 way 250km trek to school for three years, and many more years of reliable driving. I also have one on a Polaris quad that does not have an easy life. Still no dirt injestion problems on either unit. I currently operate a Superflow SF901 engine dynomometer which primarily tests circle track engines in hobby, street, IMCA modified and sprint car engines. The engine builder that builds and maintains these engines uses mostly K&N. Still no dirt related problems turning up there. I do not know what else I can say here...

Sorry if this upsets people with opposing experiences or opinions.

turbosyncrobus · « **Reply #12 on:** January 08, 2009, 09:54:27 am »

On my 86' Westy Weekender Syncro that I'm running a Turbo PG motor (Corrado motor sans G60 charger) I plumbed the K&N into the empty space forward of the driver side tail light assy. where it draws from the fresh air inlet, I then closed it in with a sheet metal panel so that it doesn't draw from the dirty air in the engine compartment. I have had absolutely no problems associated with it and have run it like this for about 15k miles.

arb · « **Reply #13 on:** January 08, 2009, 10:11:06 am »

None of the out board engines I have ( 6hp - 90 hp) have any kind of filter - the idea being there's little dirt over the water. But, you _know_ there is some.

Our chrome-molley rings were developed for the air craft engines of WWII - also no air filters. They had a big problem prior to that of injesting sand on take-off.

My point is, I would not be too excited about using any type of filter that was designed to be wet (oil) as it has got to be better than nothing, especially if well maintained.

arb · « **Reply #14 on:** January 08, 2009, 10:12:10 am »

None of the out board engines I have ( 6hp - 90 hp) have any kind of filter - the idea being there's little dirt over the water. But, you _know_ there is some.

Our chrome-molley rings were developed for the air craft engines of WWII - also no air filters. They had a big problem prior to that of injesting sand on take-off.

My point is, I would not be too excited about using any type of filter that was designed to be wet (oil) as it has got to be better than nothing, especially if well maintained.