Snorkel - Airflow or Murchison???
 

I would like to hear from people who have a Murchison or Airflow snorkel as to their thoughts about them. I will be fitting a snorkel and an auxiliary fuel tank on the new CG soonish.

I had an Airflow on the 2013 GC and in my case it seemed to increase fuel consumption slightly. There was also a fair bit of induction noise, and the styling is a little industrial...

What are people's thoughts?

Cheers
Numb Thumbs ;)

Sorry can't comment on which one as have had neither but a snorkel will increase fuel consumption due to change in aerodynamics and you have also increased the intake path length.

It was noticeable on the previous CG, but on the Terracan I had before that, the fuel economy was a little better.

Cheers
Numb Thumbs ;)

I have the Murchison, I prefer the look personally. Quality, fit and finish is all good and the install is pretty simple and neat. I haven't noticed any real difference in fuel consumption, performance or air filter cleanliness. A bit of induction noise which I quite like, not intrusive by any means though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks, Phoenie77. The Murchison does look a bit better, IMHO...

Cheers
Numb Thumbs ;)

A most unscientific opinion about snorkels! My XK was used as the Airflow development mule. Dozens of hours spent in development and on dynos resulted in improved airflow, an increase in horsepower at the rear wheels and a decrease in fuel consumption, all very carefully graphed and documented by Airflow at the time and put up on here for all to see.

I can't comment on the Airflow for a different car to my XK and I won't buy in to a debate about how thorough Murchison are in their development but I will say after that experience that I reckon aesthetics should be the least of the deciding factors.

This post might help:

http://www.ausjeepoffroad.com/forum/...83#post1529583