Factory air intake modification

[evanj1997]

Was messing around with the bronco today and noticed how the intake inlet on the 1.5 is routed to the front of the vehicle. It is attached right behind the grille yet the only openings allowing air flow are on the bottom half of the grille. It looks like if I cut out one section of the grille to match the bottom half it would line up almost perfectly with the air inlet. Has anyone looked at this? If it wasnt a brand new vehicle I wouldn't hesitate cutting into it. Attached 3 photos, one has the air inlet unattached and you can see the "squares" that allow air from the grille.

Sponsored

 

[Warpious]

What are trying to do with the air intake

 

[evanj1997]

What are trying to do with the air intake

Better/cooler air flow with factory parts. Could be like a ram air intake to help our little turbo

 

[Warpious]

Better/cooler air flow with factory parts. Could be like a ram air intake to help our little turbo

I may not be following but the biggest bottleneck is at the intercooler not so much the air intake. Also with the turbo you're probably not going to help yourself as much as you think by cutting into the stock air flow.

 

[Streaking Banana]

Nice observation I will check out my 2.0 L badlands

 

[evanj1997]

Better/cooler air flow with factory parts

I may not be following but the biggest bottleneck is at the intercooler not so much the air intake. Also with the turbo you're probably not going to help yourself as much as you think by cutting into the stock air flow.

Right, I don't think it would hurt though to open up the grille and create a more direct path. Could help with air temps, possible help turbo spool but wouldn't be enough to notice anyway.

 

[Osco]

Right, I don't think it would hurt though to open up the grille and create a more direct path. Could help with air temps, possible help turbo spool but wouldn't be enough to notice anyway.

Careful not to let in water,,,
I think it’s a bad idea to go dickin around the air box making holes for crap to get in.
The fuel mapping decides how much air is needed.
You make bigger holes the ECM throttles back the air intake to simply re establish the optimum fuel air ratio as determind by the fuel maps.
Just like it does as your air filter clogs up slowly over its normal service life.
A multi Million dollar R&D research facility at Ford and people think they can do better by poking holes in an air box ? I don’t see it happening.
If I was buying a used vehicle and I saw home made holes there I’d walk away from that one.

 

[evanj1997]

Careful not to let in water,,,
I think it’s a bad idea to go dickin around the air box making holes for crap to get in.
The fuel mapping decides how much air is needed.
You make bigger holes the ECM throttles back the air intake to simply re establish the optimum fuel air ratio as determind by the fuel maps.
Just like it does as your air filter clogs up slowly over its normal service life.
A multi Million dollar R&D research facility at Ford and people think they can do better by poking holes in an air box ? I don’t see it happening.
If I was buying a used vehicle and I saw home made holes there I’d walk away from that one.

Aftermarket intakes have been proven many times to be better than what the multi-million dollar R&D teams put on in plenty of vehicles. My wife's focus for example, gets between a 5-8hp gain on a dyno by simply removing a piece from factory intake that was placed there just to reduce intake noise. Never really thought about drilling holes in the intake, the idea was to open up the grille to match the bottom whether that is an aftermarket grille eventually or removing a piece of plastic. Allowing more airflow behind the grill directly into intake would most likely lower intake temps.

 

[evanj1997]

I've been heavily modifying cars for a long time and have seen hundreds of do-dads that don't do anything except lighten the owners' wallets. I've also seen many examples of "engineering" that were questionable. There's a lot of truth to the statement above-car companies put a lot of time into R&D on their products. Unless value can be demonstrated through testing, it's best not to try to reinvent the wheel. The exception is when you have the time, money, and gear to experiment and test properly.

Right, and I don’t plan on doing anything yet. Mostly just bored because I just sold the truck I built and don’t have a project right now. It just seemed like it would make sense to have a more direct path. On the other hand, this was sort of marketed as an off-road vehicle and if you went through too much water too fast with your intake open right at the front of the vehicle you’d definitely end up sucking up water.

 

[Kritas]

Right, and I don’t plan on doing anything yet. It just seemed like it would make sense to have a more direct path. On the other hand, this was sort of marketed as an off-road vehicle and if you went through too much water too fast with your intake open right at the front of the vehicle you’d definitely end up sucking up water.

I'm the last person to say "don't try it" since I come from the Smokey Yunick school. Just be prepared to go backwards a few times trying to get it right and be willing to buy new parts.

 

[Osco]

Aftermarket intakes have been proven many times to be better than what the multi-million dollar R&D teams put on in plenty of vehicles. My wife's focus for example, gets between a 5-8hp gain on a dyno by simply removing a piece from factory intake that was placed there just to reduce intake noise. Never really thought about drilling holes in the intake, the idea was to open up the grille to match the bottom whether that is an aftermarket grille eventually or removing a piece of plastic. Allowing more airflow behind the grill directly into intake would most likely lower intake temps.

I believe you completely but that 5-8 Hp is at max power. WOT and if I go by percentages we are talking, 5-8 Hp is 10% on a 50 or 80 Hp engine right ?
So on your wife’s car that’s a 5% gain felt only as the tach approaches that magical 5200 rpm where HP and TQ meet ?
I tend to drive under 4,000 rpm when passing and under 3k for 99% of my accelerations.
I really don’t think I’d feel a 3 to 4% gain in power.
Now if I would have sprung for the bigger Bronco Sport engine
Maybe some tinkering with the fuel maps on a dyno might might give useable gains right ?
I don’t know.

 

[Osco]

Somebody some day will open the 2.0L and bore it out. Maybe put a better Turbo in or polish up the thing. Build a real header and such.
But even then In the Sport ? No,
No way.
If you had that kinda money and skill or vision you’d do it to the big Bronco right !

 

[Mark S.]

. On the other hand, this was sort of marketed as an off-road vehicle and if you went through too much water too fast with your intake open right at the front of the vehicle you’d definitely end up sucking up water.

Ford publishes a maximum water fording depth of 22 inches for the Bronco Sport.

 

[sajohnson]

I've been heavily modifying cars for a long time and have seen hundreds of do-dads that don't do anything except lighten the owners' wallets. I've also seen many examples of "engineering" that were questionable. There's a lot of truth to the statement above-car companies put a lot of time into R&D on their products. Unless value can be demonstrated through testing, it's best not to try to reinvent the wheel. The exception is when you have the time, money, and gear to experiment and test properly or someone else has done it for you.

I agree.

I've been working on cars, trucks, and power equipment since the mid-1970s. Back then, it was often fairly easy to get an engine to 'breath' better, using: headers; dual exhaust; a more radical cam; better intake manifold; bigger carb; larger/less restrictive air filter, etc.

Of course, there were no electronic sensors and controls -- engines were 'dumb' air pumps.

These days, it's hard to get any significant improvements in hp & torque from bolt-on parts. Aftermarket parts mfrs make wild claims, and many car guys want to believe them, but they are almost always very exaggerated. Take 'high flow' mufflers for example. Usually the stock muffler is not a big restriction to begin with, so even a straight pipe would not make much difference. The most that can be expected is usually +1-2% -- and that's only toward the top of the rpm range. In short, not worth it. The owner ends up with a loud cop magnet.

The output of some engines, particularly turbocharged ones, can be boosted with a 'tune' (reprogram the ECU). Of course it's best to wait until the warranty expires, and it's important to confirm that the maker of the tune knows what they are doing. Engine life is inversely related to power output.

My 2002 WRX was not helped much by a Cobb 'stage 1' tune, but stage 2 -- which involved replacing the downpipe after the turbo -- made a ginormous difference. Both power and drivability (quicker turbo spool up) were dramatically improved.

So it is possible to get some improvement, but it depends on the engine.

Sponsored