Yeah, I wouldn't recommend that either, the engine will fade faster. But, it's your car, do as you wish Gl

 

because not all cars need a vent because they don't generate as much heat. does a 1.6L NA civic really generate enough heat to warrant a vented hood?

ever notice that just about all race cars DO have vented hoods?

 

Well, what about other production turbocharged cars? I had a 2001 S4 that had 2 turbos and no hood vents...but still managed heat pretty well, even during track days.

 

I'm not going to keep answering inane questions that you could think through yourself. you should be asking Audi that, not me. I didn't design that car.

if we're going to get this stupid with the questions, then why didn't the hotel I stayed in a week ago in dallas have an elevator when all others do?

why do some ice machines dump ice continuously, while others batch it off?

see how dumb this is?

the bottom line is, the vent on the EVO's hood IS functional. is it 100% necessary, no. BUT, having it is better than not having it.

if you think about what's going on under the hood with the heat, and air flow, there's also benefits to your intake system for running with the vent, especially if you have an open filter element. I'm at work now so I don't have time to babysit you anymore. if you'd like to think that one through and figure out how it could benefit your intake system, be my guest.

if you've got more questions that don't actually pertain to the subject matter discussion, please direct them to someone else.

 

i took mine off to breath better, i think it should be a must with the ams manifold!

 

Well, when you get into the weeds about stating things that are fact with NO data and NO basis for your arguement other than what YOU think is right...nothing is stupid my friend...only your arguement. There is no doubt that it's functional for something (i.e. keeping things out of the engine bay). But earlier you got into the fluid dynamics of the design and just put your foot in your mouth with the "oh I don't have time to explain it or prove it" post. Heck, doing something as simple as logging IATs with EvoScan would prove your point.
My questions were to simply to add color to the situation. Since we weren't really supplying data to back up the scenario, my questions were simply to draw out more discussion about getting to the bottom of the OPs question. So do they apply, yes...as examples. So saying something like "having it is better than not having it"...with no explaination sounds more dumb than my questions.

That's like saying "because I said so".

Viva la Interweb

 

the basis is that I know how fluids flow. it's part of what I get paid to do. my college degree and experience with fluids in my field over the past 8 years is the basis for my argument.

where does yours come from?

if you have any basic comprehension of how fluids flow, and general basic mechanics, this is all common sense. use the example i gave earlier. when you put the window down on your car, what happens? does the air in your car try to get out? no. the air from outside rushes in and displaces it.

that's almost the same thing that is happening under your hood. i explained all of this in a previous post, so go back and read it if you want to understand what i'm talking about.

you're the one that needs to prove your side. show me some data to prove i'm wrong. i've got physics, fluid flow, and thermal dynamics on my side. you have nothing but your own baseless and inexperienced opinions.

also, you're not asking me to explain how/why mitsu's hood vent works. you're asking why audi doesn't use one. that's NOT what this discussion was about. that's the point i'm making. the point is, mitsu's design works. the fact that audi has their own design means nothing about whether the hood vent on the EVO is functional, so NO, your "examples" are merely unrelated questions that are distracting from the original subject.

 

no need to start a war in here... and in my post i never mentioned anything about it performing better while actually moving, which is the argument that seems to be going on here... all i said was that when the car is on ( not moving ) with a gaping hole on the hood, the temps should be lower because all the heat is escaping up out the vent.

 

Actually, my Audi response was to bring to light the fact that other production turbocharged cars produce just as much heat (if not more) than Evos, and they handle cooling/airflow in their own ways. I never asked you to explain how Audi engineers their cars. Like you said earlier, race cars use holes and vents to dissipate heat...so the Mitsubishi engineers must have seen a necessity for a huge opening right over the turbo.

I never made any statements about how the Evo vent works or whether or not I was right. I don't need to prove my side as I was leaning on YOU to prove YOUR point. I think it's funny how you're throwing around your engineering background, yet you have no interest in using data to prove your statements. All of the engineers I work with live for throwing data at people to make their point. I may only have a degree in business...but I know when someone is trying to cover their tracks.

So, ok...how do Mitsu hood vents work? Maybe tkkleman can help us since he's had the time/interest to document his findings.

 

in that case, yes. if there is no air moving over the hood, a big hole will work because the heat will rise and find a way out. the problem is tho, that you're not at a standstill when the engine is in use most of the time. when you are at a standstill, engine and oil temps steadily rise. pay attention to your oil temp gauge next time you're sitting still. the oil cooler needs airflow, and so does the engine bay.

As I said earlier, I never had the time, or desire to go test the EVO's hood vent. You don't need to run detailed experiements if you have any mechanical knowledge of how things work to get an idea of what's going on under the hood. for concrete data, yes, you need to experiment, but it's not hard at all to see looking at the design that the EVO's vent IS functional.

THAT's the discussion here. As for the Audi cars, it's goes without saying that the engineers found other ways to get deal with the heat. that's the point I was getting at with my post. i'm not going to sit here and explain why they did what they did.

mitsu went with a functional hood vent. it works, period. also, i've explained how the thing works already. if you get online and search, you can find the data mistu released about the car's aero a while back. someone already mentioned it in this thread.

 

http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/cor...003/15E_22.pdf

there is a link to the press release when the EVO VIII came out. It doesn't say much, but it does mention the cooling affects of the hood, and the vent itself.

the bolded text is the hood vent. the fact that they call it a venturi validates what I said about how it works, as well as Acree, White8, Bobash, AND tkklemann.

you just chose to overlook the fact that tkklemann was arguing with what he THOUGHT i said about the pressure, and not what i REALLY said. he's basically saying the same thing I am, along with the other people who understand how this works.

 

Haha, ok I think we're talking around the same thing here and getting our panties in a bunch for nothing. Yes, the opening in the hood is very functional...I think what the discussion is around is the thin piece of aluminum that is in place from the factory covering the opening...not the opening itself. So basically on vs. off. So if now you're saying (in general) the opening is functional...then yes I completely agree. But going back to the OPs question...does removing the aluminum affect anything, THIS is the point of the thread.

So to your point...in theory...removing this barrier would only help move the air out faster and more effectively. Then yes I agree and we can go get beers now.

 

that's exactly what we're talking about. welcom to the conversation. the removable part of the hood vent is a functional piece. it is more functional at removing heat from the engine bay than the open vent by itself.

so basically, you didn't read any of the explainations i posted. you just argued on nothing. you proved that just now because if you had read ANY of my posts, you'd have known that this discussion has been about the removable piece the ENTIRE TIME. that's what the thread is about! the removable hood vent.

what started this was the statement that just a gaping hole in the hoop would be more efficient for cooling than the gaping hole with the venturi piece in place.

the hood cools more efficiently WITH the piece than without.

 

I'm deleting it all together, making it flush then integrating a line of three vents on the left and right side... Somethin different.

 

I have mine off. Will be replacing my cracked one soon. I'm tired of the open hood look.