Front Storage Intake Vs Side Cowl Intake

[FXSlowKroozer]

Anybody tested a front storage intake setup versus a side cowling in the same conditions BOTH without air filters ? I have a feeling the front compartment intake would turn more rpms but I would rather not chop up a friends ski if its just going to slow him down lmao.If anybody has done any testing without any difference in variables I would be interested in hearing the results Thanks

[BLASTER 1]

What model and yr ski are you modding?

I know with my 17 GP I first did direct connect to both cold air intakes and my seat would shudder or almost flap like wings by my knees. It would also whistle at idle to maybe 4500-5000 rpm

I’ve been using a homemade version of the ultimate cold air mod and all those negatives went away. I also added 2 more additional air intakes to the front compartment. I did pick up some rpm but can’t tell you exactly how much

I much prefer the ultimate air intake much better
Sorry I couldn’t be of more help

[Yoffer2490]

Running a Macsboost intake with the hull vents redirected at it. Very simple, effective and cost efficient.

[FXSlowKroozer]

Running a Macsboost intake with the hull vents redirected at it. Very simple, effective and cost efficient.

Thank you for sharing.Unfortunately we use to run similar short ram intakes many years ago and its not even close in comparison.Both of the setups I previously mentioned outperform it by 200 to 250 rpms across the board.What I dont know is the exact rpm difference between those two but my educated guess is it is a very small difference maybe only 50 to 100rpms.Still waiting to see if anyone whos tested both back to back same day same conditions can confirm

[Yoffer2490]

Thank you for sharing.Unfortunately we use to run similar short ram intakes many years ago and its not even close in comparison.Both of the setups I previously mentioned outperform it by 200 to 250 rpms across the board.What I dont know is the exact rpm difference between those two but my educated guess is it is a very small difference maybe only 50 to 100rpms.Still waiting to see if anyone whos tested both back to back same day same conditions can confirm

That’s funny, on the seadoo’s this style intake outperforms any other intake by a wide margin.

[Yamafzs]

Anybody tested a front storage intake setup versus a side cowling in the same conditions BOTH without air filters ? I have a feeling the front compartment intake would turn more rpms but I would rather not chop up a friends ski if its just going to slow him down lmao.If anybody has done any testing without any difference in variables I would be interested in hearing the results Thanks

Havnt tested the front storage but have extensive testing on short ram filter wit both factory vents directed to it. Standard cold air offering (riva,worx) power filter, then with left side cowling intake direct to charger with foam blocks removed,, Spent about 3 hrs same day same temp,same air. My fzs was consistently .8mph faster with left side cowling kanaflex direct to s/c 90-100rpm average gain. The short ram direct on the charger with both hull vents redirected was the slowest sorry this wasnt exactly the comparison you were lookin for, but just figured i would share

[FXSlowKroozer]

Havnt tested the front storage but have extensive testing on short ram filter wit both factory vents directed to it. Standard cold air offering (riva,worx) power filter, then with left side cowling intake direct to charger with foam blocks removed,, Spent about 3 hrs same day same temp,same air. My fzs was consistently .8mph faster with left side cowling kanaflex direct to s/c 90-100rpm average gain. The short ram direct on the charger with both hull vents redirected was the slowest sorry this wasnt exactly the comparison you were lookin for, but just figured i would share

Similar testing was done years ago with and without filters, velocity stacks, air scoops, different size elbows, etc and the results where always the same.The further away you got the intake end from the nearest obstruction the more rpms the engine turned every time.The extra 2 feet of space in the front storage is why its possible for that intake to turn more rpms than one with only 4 inches of space behind a side plastic.The bigger the wheel the more rpms you pickup every time you add air.One day pull the side plastic over your cowling intake and make a run its worth +100 rpms.Then if you attach a 90 degree air scoop its worth another +75 rpms

[ultramaxracing05]

Running a Macsboost intake with the hull vents redirected at it. Very simple, effective and cost efficient.

This is a hot air intake, not even sure why he sells this junk, compare this to it sucking thru the side vent and you will notice the acceleration difference, also if your ski ever takes on too much water it will ingest water easier with this set up.

[Yoffer2490]

This is a hot air intake, not even sure why he sells this junk, compare this to it sucking thru the side vent and you will notice the acceleration difference, also if your ski ever takes on too much water it will ingest water easier with this set up.

Considering I’m running the same speeds if not higher than other 19+ fx svho’s with the stock impeller I’d say it’s doing it’s job. I think it has the same chance of ingesting water as the side air intake would.

[Yoffer2490]

This is a hot air intake, not even sure why he sells this junk, compare this to it sucking thru the side vent and you will notice the acceleration difference, also if your ski ever takes on too much water it will ingest water easier with this set up.

Im going to quote this from another member. Maybe you should try it and compare results before jumping the gun.

* I am also now using the new Macsboost intake airfilter. I gained about 110 rpm by replacing the Riva power intake with Mac's new filter. Bolts directly on the supercharger and has a nice large internal velocity stack. A pro racer on a stock class FXSVHO said he gained 200 rpm doing the same thing.