Page 1 of 3
PD160 Intake Mod
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:01 pm
by KennyPOLO_Gti
Anyone looking to do this mod in the near future will have to fork out a lot more cash! Seat have realised there is a demand on these and hiked up the price!!!
I emailed them just to find out:
Just to advise we do not have stock of these parts but we would be able to order them.
£13.09 + Vat
&
£49.40 + Vat
Please contact Martin Pearson 0141-551-5152,
Thanks.
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:36 pm
by chrisash32
I believe Dino has one of these for sale if anyone needs one!
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:02 pm
by KennyPOLO_Gti
Cheers mate. Someone I know was looking for one but waasnt keen in forkin out over 60 quid!!
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:26 pm
by andy947
Are VAG Parts not cheaper? And its listed on their site if i remember right.
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:45 pm
by olop_chris
Nope VAG parts aren't any cheaper, infact they worked out like £1 more expensive than Seat!
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:59 pm
by Dink
can i ask what this part actually is?
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:42 pm
by olop_chris
Yeah, It's a larger air intake into the airbox that is used on the seat cupra pd 160 engine.
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:46 pm
by Dink
thought it was something like that just wasn't 100%
think i might have to put one of these on the xmas list to santa lol
Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:27 pm
by KennyPOLO_Gti
Heres a pic . . ..
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:55 am
by dave0109
Does anyone actually have "dyno" proof that this mod makes a difference?
My worry is that although the aperture that allows the air in is larger, the point at which it connects to the airbox looks to be a very similar size.
My argument - how can anymore air get in?
Dave
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:01 am
by BeezerDiesel
I'm at a sort of halfway house here.
I've had two of the things fitted to re-mapped PD130 TDIs (Ibiza and Fabia) and noticed no difference what so ever.
BUT I'm pretty darned certain that SEAT wouldn't go to the trouble and expense of making it if it didn't do
something.
Unless it allows a bit more air into the engine at turbo spool up speed (around 1600-2000rpm) to keep the emissions down????
I've got one ready to fit to my Polo but haven't got round to it yet due to above scepticism. So if someone wants to offer me loads of money for it...........
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:39 am
by shanethb
OK here is whsat a guy did in OZ to compare both intakes. Its a bit of reading but in my opinion worth it.
And i dont have the pics so if you have any questions ill try and answer them for you.
Splashed out and got a mannumomtr...manumumeter........ vacuum gauge as I wanted to know what the standard intake was actually like and where improvements could be made.
The points tested were
1. Just behind grill where the intake tube starts
2. Rear end of intake tube just before airbox
3. Top of airbox
4. Turbo side of airflow meter
Then I did several runs, 2nd gear wide open throttle to 6500rpm to get the max reading for each point.
The readings I got (in inches of water) averaged out were
1. 19.5 (bit surprising how high that was! Thats just the air trying to get past the grill into the intake tube)
2. 28.5 (a 10 inch drop from the front to the back of the tube)
3. 29.0 (thats across the air filter - seems like a pretty good filter, not much to be gained there)
4. 44.7 (through the airflow sensor - another big drop. Theres the flow straightening grid, a wire mesh then another plastic grill)
I then fitted the SEAT intake, and after stitches and a blood transfusion, began to test.
You may recall from the first exciting episode, that I had a connection for the vac gauge at the rear of the intake tube, just before the airbox. This is where I connected it for the next set of tests.
With the standard intake I'd had a reading of 28.5.
With the new intake I got 11.2 - pretty pleased!
I then cut away the deflection flap in the intake just behind the grill (see Shanes pics in anther thread).
With this done I got 5.2 !!!! (You were right Shane!)
This was a huge improvement from 28.5
I then measured from the top of the airbox (to get a reading across the filter) and got 7.2 This is pretty damn good for any filter, let alone a stock one. So I dont think there'd be any improvement with an aftermarket filter.
Next was the turbo side of the MAF where I got 23.9
Big frustration, really poorly designed grills in the MAF, but still a hell of a lot better than the 44.7 with the standard inlet.
So, seeing as 44.7 equals about 1.6 psi, with the original intake I was feeding the turbo with air at 13.1psi. With the new inlet, its about 13.9 psi.
And I figure if you're feeding the turbo denser air, its going to do a bit more, despite any limitations of its performance envelope, and this was born out by the dyno results and the Butt-o-meter.
Before, 114.1 kw atw
After, 120.1 kw atw
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:19 pm
by Dink
so it's about an 8bhp increase at the peak?
also it sounds like it wasn't the only mod he did.
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:26 pm
by shanethb
Dink wrote:so it's about an 8bhp increase at the peak?
yes and thats at the wheels
also it sounds like it wasn't the only mod he did.
the only other mod he may have is a apr flash, other than that nothing else was added fpr the test.
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:35 pm
by Dink
I then cut away the deflection flap in the intake just behind the grill (see Shanes pics in anther thread).
i was just wondering what this was?