Range rover snorkel, extractors on fuel economy/power

oversite
Need to get out more
Posts: 2499
Joined: January 30th, 2012, 3:41 pm
Location: Armidale, NSW

Range rover snorkel, extractors on fuel economy/power

Unread post by oversite » April 28th, 2013, 1:09 pm

Hi all,

Does anybody have first hand knowledge of what effect extractors and a snorkel will do to fuel econeomy and power on a 1990 range rover classic V8.

Thanks,

garrycol
Avid Poster
Posts: 734
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 8:32 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Range rover snorkel, extractors on fuel economy/power

Unread post by garrycol » April 28th, 2013, 2:56 pm

First hand experience - but owned V8s for a long time and looked into such issues.

Extractors provide minimal improvements to the V8 as the originals are pretty good so on this aspect - maybe just a little power increase so if you drive the same you should get a spoofteenth better fuel consumption but not really noticeable.

The jury is out on snorkels and the argument is pretty well the same for any vehicle. Some think the ram effect if pointed forward is advantages but others no. Likewise if pointed to the rear there are the fors and the against - again on balance probably not measurable different one way or the other - I think the snorkle head makes the difference - did see a test somewhere that tested the "normal" head, the round one and the pre filter - overall the normal head was best but depends on whether going fast or slow etc.

So overall I don't believe there is a lot to be gained with either where fuel consumption is concerned.

Garry

oversite
Need to get out more
Posts: 2499
Joined: January 30th, 2012, 3:41 pm
Location: Armidale, NSW

Re: Range rover snorkel, extractors on fuel economy/power

Unread post by oversite » May 2nd, 2013, 9:49 am

Thanks gary,

Is there anybody out there with first hadn experience with range rover V8's?

garrycol
Avid Poster
Posts: 734
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 8:32 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Range rover snorkel, extractors on fuel economy/power

Unread post by garrycol » May 2nd, 2013, 1:03 pm

Well I have - have owned two discos with 3.9s (one for 12 years) and have a 3.5 v8 in one of my current landies and building a 4.6 to replace it - just no direct experience with a snorkel or extractors - looked into extractors and chipping the 3.9s but investigations showed the power/torque improvements to be so small to not be worth the cost.

Good luck

Garry

oversite
Need to get out more
Posts: 2499
Joined: January 30th, 2012, 3:41 pm
Location: Armidale, NSW

Re: Range rover snorkel, extractors on fuel economy/power

Unread post by oversite » May 2nd, 2013, 1:50 pm

seriously thanks Gary,

are you on the land rover forum?

The reason Im asking there is that I have a pretty good argument going there and Im trying to get some help from people who know first hand is all.

garrycol
Avid Poster
Posts: 734
Joined: February 5th, 2006, 8:32 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Range rover snorkel, extractors on fuel economy/power

Unread post by garrycol » May 2nd, 2013, 4:56 pm

Yes I am on AULRO - you are quite correct to in trying to get information from people who have first hand experience - that is why I have qualified my responses that I have no first hand experience. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who are happy to pass off hearsay as first hand experience.

I just went over and had a look at your post on AULRO and I see you are generally getting consistent advice over there. In my view obviously you can get improvements internally in the engine (cams, heads etc) but if you are looking at bolt on improvements I would look at the actual exhaust from the manifolds back - larger exhaust, one better muffler rather than the two strangle boxes will bring better improvements than extractors or snorkel - though a snorkel will obviously keep less dirty air going into the air filter and help with deep water crossings.

Again I did not do this with my 3.9s as they remained standard - my current 3.5 101 already had a big exhaust and a single Lukey Sports Muffler when I got it so I do not how better (or worse) it is, However you do not mention 101s and good fuel consumption in the same sentence.

AULRO should be able to provide all the answers you require - they do not sugar coat responses.

Garry

amtravic1
Been here a while
Posts: 286
Joined: April 12th, 2007, 10:20 pm

Re: Range rover snorkel, extractors on fuel economy/power

Unread post by amtravic1 » July 3rd, 2013, 12:06 pm

First hand experience with Pacemaker extractors on Rangies. Dont waste your money. You may as well just tear it up and throw it away. I could find no improvement in economy or power, just made more noise. Of course they look cool when the bonnet is open!

ti4.8
I'm new, be nice!
Posts: 1
Joined: January 19th, 2011, 3:54 pm

Re: Range rover snorkel, extractors on fuel economy/power

Unread post by ti4.8 » February 5th, 2016, 9:32 pm

Just opening a old thread,
I've put redback extractors on my 1991 3.9 (dual fuel)Vogue and found it improved drivability especially when on gas (it went as well as though you were still on petrol) mind you I already had 2.5" hiflow exhaust, the original Y pipe burnt out and thought it was a good time to fit Extractors. Petrol economy has improved slightly at low cruising speeds (80-90km/ph) but the big change is the LPG, I"m getting an extra 80km out of the 70ltr tank, 336km is now my cruising range when towing the camper (1Ton) between 90-100km/hr so happy even though it was expensive ~$770

Return to “Range Rover”