I hate to sound like a nay-sayer, but take what the poster of that thread takes with a grain of salt. Due to the inherent characteristics of my profession, when someone says they don't have data and it just "works" I don't believe anything they say for a second. I like to look at data and if someone can't provide it they shouldn't be lecturing in the first place.
In response to the actual intake setup he made, it's a pretty resourceful idea. The fact that the factory panel filter difference between the turbo 4 and N/A 6 for the genesis had that extra air intake section is a cool idea to adapt to the car that doesn't have it.
Now, for outperforming another intake that leaves a lot more to be said.
Also, the factory air panel is the same size between both parts is identical. Therefore CFM flow between the two will be the same with a very small tolerance. (+/- a couple cfm)
Flow is largely determined by surface area of the filter material (provided filter material is the same).
This looks like a simple discussion that pretty much comes down to surface area. When designing a system, get the biggest air filter in there that the space allows.
This thread here is about evo owners and their discussion about intakes. This example doesn;t really apply in our case because they are talking about issues with their MAF sensor. When designing an intake that incorporates a MAF sensor, there are many more things to design around.
i cant find the panel vs cone threads ive seen before, but if you search in spare time im sure you'll find someone thats posted the technical reasons why a panel filter flows alittle more than a cone...
I have seen plenty of questions in google but no technical answers lol and I'm skimming thru threads and posts looking for references to any mentions fluid dynamic principles only to just find those mentioning just the filter's surface area.
i believe it has to do with the pleating... i would also think with a velocity stack molded into the stock air box lid coupled with a smooth pipe, it would really help the air's velocity
also with this, i guess because of the type of plastic that OEM's use for their air boxes, they resist heat better than after market metal pipes? im not sure if thats true, there are supposedly alot of talks about plastic vs metal over on the genesis forums...
Velocity stacks are nice to have. Every little bit helps. Not having them isn't too much of a big deal though. If it can be cheaply incorporated into the system I'm all for it.
Without getting too nerdy, I would say a velocity stack is a sort of improvement to what you call a minor loss in a pipe system. In this case it's what is called a 'sudden contraction.'
In fluid dynamics there is a loss coefficient for equations when determining losses in pipe systems. This is the coefficient K
and this value is used in conjunction with Moody friction loss calculations in piping systems.
Luckily I still have my Fluid Dynamics book from college and there is a chapter on this very subject and in this chapter there is a graph that plots K in relation to a radiused corner/pipe diameter. It does show that just a small radius goes a long way in helping in losses.
If the radius is only 20% of pipe diameter, K would be about 0.05 which is considered a negligible loss.
and im glad you saw this 6th... i think if this works out, it would be a good option for you to offer a short pipe incase some one wants this idea as an option. i would probably get one from you sense your pipe is a larger diameter than my AEM pipe. plus your wrinkle finish it more oem lol.
i just ordered a 2.75 to 3.25 silicone reducer so i can try this out this coming week.
with seeing the stock velocity stack and this
Velocity stack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
it makes me want to do it even more
I would want to see a system that is thoroughly tested and validated with a dyno comparison, vacuum readings at the turbocharger and temperature readings.
I personally think a system of this nature would benefit from the increased pipe size but might be hindered in further performance due to stock filter size.
Would it perform better than stock? In my opinion, absolutely. By how much, I cannot tell off the bat. It would definitely have to be built and tested.