VFAD the myth

Any form of normally aspirated power mods.
Post Reply
User avatar
Lazar
Former Member
Former Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:23 pm
RX-8: R3
Colour: Sunlight Silver
Location: Brum
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 0

VFAD the myth

Post by Lazar » Thu Jun 04, 2015 4:04 am

Firstly apologies if this has been covered before I couldnt find anything definative on the matter.

Ive almost bought a racing beat revi intake and duct a few times now when I get new parts withdraw symptoms and had to stop myself by convincing myself for £500 its not worth it.

What put me off originally was after doing some research into RX8 intakes (which theres no shortage of threads on) most of what I found was people stating that the VFAD Variable Fresh Air Duct intake system fitted stock to the 231 engine 8's was just a system fitted to limit intake noise at low rpm.
With no end of people bunging the vacuum pipe to disable it or removing it all together and fitting a CAI. The general consensus seemed to be that all it did was restrict air flow at low rpm by only having the longer intake horn open to limit intake noise for day to day driving until you got higher in the revs to open the secondary intake a thus double the potential air available.

After reading all this i didnt see a down side to going straight out and buying the revi intake and duct, until i found another article on the VFAD system that sounded a lot more plausible but ive not been able to find the article since.

This said that the VFAD system is a tuned variable length intake, and the longer intake horn at low revs increased low down torque and the secondary intake opens at higher revs to deal with the increased air demands of the engine at high revs.
And the system is also design to work in conjunction with the variable intake manifold.
I wont go into the science of it but this sounds a lot more likely than, the system is just there to limit a bit of intake noise.


But then again i dont know for sure, maybe it is just to limit noise.


Just looking to see if anyones got definative information on the subject.
Last edited by Lazar on Tue Nov 24, 2015 10:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
SteveD
Former Member
Former Member
Posts: 5585
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:35 pm
RX-8: 231
Colour: Velocity Red
Location: Waltham Abbey
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: VFAD the myth

Post by SteveD » Thu Jun 04, 2015 5:26 am

So why did they design the Mazdaspeed one then?
Had a rebuild? Not needed one? Please vote in the Engine Survey thread

User avatar
Will66
Communications Team
Communications Team
Posts: 17936
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:45 pm
RX-8: 231
Colour: Metropolitan Grey
Location: Bury St Edmunds
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: VFAD the myth

Post by Will66 » Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:58 am

The VFAD is mostly about noise rather than performance.
RX8OC Met Advisor and Ex-Moderator!
Miss May 2013 with these modifications02 November 2012

Certified Tarmac Terrorist! Evading the colour police since March 2013 :ninja:

Mazda RX8 - The Liv Tyler's Lips of Motoring

User avatar
Phil Bate
Spin Doctor
Spin Doctor
Posts: 9256
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:49 am
RX-8: 231
Colour: Sunlight Silver
Location: South Wales
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 169 times

Re: VFAD the myth

Post by Phil Bate » Thu Jun 04, 2015 9:25 am

Having spent many hours testing and data logging I can quite confidently agree with the above. The tract before the VFAD valve does a lot to reduce intake noise, particularly at cruising speeds (3-4K) where the deep tone can resonate with the exhaust noise and significantly increase droning.

I could find no change in mass air flow below 5250RPM with the VFAD disabled, however throttle response in that range appears ever so slightly snappier.
Phil's subtle sunlight silver - stronger, faster, with added red bits and stuff engine donor!
Operation Mint - Kuro preservation project
The pimped out Glacier White XE - quintessential British motoring from Jaguar

User avatar
Elv73
Former Member
Former Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2014 10:47 am
Location: Cupar, Fife
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: VFAD the myth

Post by Elv73 » Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:39 am

Ive had mine disabled for a few months now and to be honest cant notice any difference in either throttle response or noise from when it was working.
My main reason for removing was so I could remove the vacuum chamber behind the airbox so I had room to mount my catch can :thumright:
LEE

2004 Velocity Red 231.
Rotary Revs Gold Engine Rebuild Jan 2015 / D585 ignition coils / Magnecor leads / Decat/ 6000k Cree LED Sidelights / 6000k HID's /20mm Super GT Wheel Spacers / XCarlink aux input & bluetooth / Oil Catch Can / Sohn Adapter / Partial Aero Kit

Premix & Sohn - Millers KR-2T
Engine - Millers Nanodrive EE 10W-40

NOW GONE BUT THINKING OF GETTING ANOTHER!

User avatar
warpc0il
Spin Doctor
Spin Doctor
Posts: 25625
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:56 pm
RX-8: 231
Colour: Lightning Yellow
Location: Groomsport, Co Down, NI
Has thanked: 457 times
Been thanked: 1837 times
Contact:

Re: VFAD the myth

Post by warpc0il » Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:31 pm

I have a copy of a Mazda technical document that states that the intake hose ahead of the airbox is indeed a tuned length/volume designed to prevent the reversal of airflow under conditions where the throttle valve is suddenly closed, at low/medium engine speeds, in conjunction with the resonance chamber.

On the 4-port engine the tube is longer and thinner compared to the shorter wider tube on the 6-port; though both are about the same volume.

Even the short and wide tube on the 6-port proved to be a limiting factor on the 6-port , at higher revs and load demands, hence the VFAD to bypass the tube in these conditions.

In the artificial environment of a dyno-test, the revs and load can be applied at a greater rate than on the road (due to reduction in inertia and lack of air resistance) this is why test graphs usually show a dip just before the VFAD opens.

On the road the VFAD should open in time with the demand, without any dip in power, though there is hysteresis (backlash) in the algorithm to prevent hunting if the engine was held at or near the trigger point.

I have come across two cars where the VFAD was "sticky" and sometimes didn't open at all or only opened after a longer (variable) delay. In one case it was the valve itself and on the other it was the operating solenoid.

The addition of the intake tubes has the added advantage, from a type approval perspective, of reducing intake noise, and this is further enhanced by the use of non-resonating materials.

Based on all the above, reversing the one-way vacuum valve (or any other any means) to keep the VFAD open should have the following impact;
- an increase in intake noise below the engine revs/load at which the valve would normally open.
- a perceived increase in power, as most equate engine noise with power.
- a reproducible smoothing of the dip in power shown on dyno test results, which would seem to "prove" that power has been increased.
- no impact on high rev/load power delivery in real world conditions, unless the system was previously faulty.
- a slight hesitation in on/off power delivery at low revs, under conditions that can cause reversal of airbox airflow. This may be difficult to reproduce and the kick after such hesitation may even be perceived as an increase in power; smooth power delivery is less impressible than a step change; such as a turbo kicking-in.

Replacing the VFAD and airbox with a well-engineered aftermarket system could add a small percentage to the power above mid-revs and slightly increase maximum power, to the detriment of power delivery at low revs. Note that both the increase in noise and the less smooth delivery would both give the impression of an increase in power at low revs.

Replacing the VFAD and hose with a RB Revi Ram intake (standard airbox or RB intake) also increases the intake noise but only very slightly.

The ram air effect should prevent airflow reversal, as long as there is forward airspeed, it also provides a positive pressure within the airbox which significantly reduces pumping losses and therefore increases available power and reduces fuel consumption. This is a free implementation of light-weight forced induction.

Vehicle manufacturers usually avoid using ram air effect because it introduces variables that might not be acceptable to its customer base, mainly related to impacts of reduced pressure under different road conditions and the complexity of reproducing the forward airspeed when testing on a static rolling road. Current type approval testing, including power output and fuel consumption are all performed under static rolling road conditions with only sufficient airflow to provide engine cooling.

The impact of loss of forward airspeed can be theoretically anticipated and demonstrated under real world driving conditions, for example;
- in a headwind there is a further increase in available power, especially felt at low road speeds, but this becomes undermined at higher air (wind/road) speed as the air resistance increases by the square of the airspeed.
- in a tailwind the engine is slightly down on power (no more than it would be as standard) until the road speed becomes greater than the wind. However the tailwind also reduces air resistance, so the overall impact is still positive.
- in crosswinds the power delivery can be slightly variable, especially when passing larger vehicles, where eddies can cause local variations in forward airspeed.
- when approaching the rear of a (large) vehicle and picking-up the slipstream effect, the drop in local air pressure reduces the FI effect, just as your car is pulled along by the slipstream so less power is required to maintain the road speed.

All of the above effects are quite subtle and can be masked by all the other variables such as inclines etc.

While I said most manufactures avoid using ram air for a free increase in power, that's not across the board for motorcycles, where some sports bikes used ram air to great effect.

However, even this isn't common these days as bikes also have to conform with emissions regulations and the testing is all done on static rolling roads, where the ram benefits are totally lost.

In conclusion you are all (nearly) totally correct, it's just that nothing is ever quite that simple...
These users thanked the author warpc0il for the post (total 6):
tractorboy (Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:43 pm) • Lazar (Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:06 pm) • HwAoRrDk (Thu Jun 04, 2015 4:02 pm) • Ninja-7 (Fri Jun 26, 2015 4:47 pm) • jp91 (Fri Mar 11, 2016 11:17 am) • JeradRx8 (Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:59 pm)
Dave
The Spin Doctor ™
uǝǝɹɔs ɹnoʎ ʇɹǝʌuı ǝsɐǝld :ɹoɹɹǝ

User avatar
kopite72
Club Member
Club Member
Posts: 11350
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 8:30 am
RX-8: R3
Colour: Diamond Grey
Location: Cork Ireland
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: VFAD the myth

Post by kopite72 » Thu Jun 04, 2015 12:51 pm

Now that is how you explain something!! :shock: =D>
R3 GONE, FUN WHILE I HAD HER BUT NOW LOVING MY 25TH ANNIVERSARY MX5.... MODS INBOUND 8)

User avatar
Aido 8
Former Member
Former Member
Posts: 610
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:57 pm
RX-8: 13B 6-port
Colour: Galaxy Grey
Location: Sligo,Ireland
Has thanked: 23 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: VFAD the myth

Post by Aido 8 » Thu Jun 04, 2015 1:10 pm

The man is a class act =D> . Posts like this makes this forum what it is, awesome :thumleft:
Hayward stage 2 Port,Full RB Exhaust, RB L-Flywheel,Michelin Pilot Super Sport,Bola B1, Aero Kit,Light weight Pulleys,More To Come :thumleft:

Post Reply

Return to “Naturally Aspirated”