Neil is the second buddy of mine that locked up with a "backfeeder" system like this (there are other manufacturers). Steve's the other one. Neil I hope you are lucky like Steve, he took out his plugs and cranked it and got going again, that engine lived for years after that.

Sif I have a theory that the "back feeders" are worse than the front feeders - if you look at the car, there is a very low spoiler to direct air up into the radiator. My theory, from talking to Steve in great detail (he's an ASE certified BMW tech by the way, with all certifications) is that he was in just about 3" of inches of water, above the spoiler level, moving slowly but apparently not slowly enough, and the spoiler scooped up the water like a bow wave and forced water up into the cavity of the radiator...and the car has no choice but to suck up that water like sucking through a straw.

The front feeder, like my Vararam, has to be completely submerged to suck up water - try sucking up water from a straw only partially submerged. I think you have to be in some REALLY deep water for that to happen, as the top part of my vararam is about 7" or more off the ground. The bottom of the vararam might be in water, but the car won't actually suck the water up until it can get complete suction.

Some import cars have a "pop off valve" you can install in the intake tract that won't allow the car to pull enough suction to draw water up to the throttle body, it "pops off" and lets air in first - like trying to suck water through a straw with a hole in it. Unfortunately I've been unable to buy one of a size we'd need for our 6 liter engines (our cars "suck" much more than a 2 liter engine each second so you need a bigger valve to break the suction I guess...).

Anyway, I'm not a mechanical engineer, this is just my uneducated theory and observation of a "n" of two down here who sucked up water with their backfeeders. Obviously, and if the water's deep enough, any intake will suck up water, I just theorized that the "front feeder" may give me a little more leeway on a puddle if I hit one. YRMV

Neil I'm still hoping for you!!

 

JG-the above is just a quick search of Vararam sucking water horror stories on this very forurm, one of which at least contradicts your theory. I'll bet you that we will find more for Vararam than all the backfeeders combined. One reason among many is the backfeeder cut shroud area has to be at least a minimum 8" higher than the bottom of the front feeder.

It is very easy to ingest water from the road surface in to the Vararam it goes straight to the engine when you do. The Vararam intake by design mounts very low to the road surface (in your front fascia opening below the headlights and above the fob lights. It doesn't need to be rain that gets in. A sufficient puddle and either a splash from another vehicle (beside or in front) as well as the motion of your car hitting the puddle can raise up a wall of water that the Vararam intake will just suck in.

 

Good points Mr. Siffert.

That is why we at Vette-Air designed our unit with an accute up stream slope, it also allows for any possible water to scape to the side if need be. It is also mounted up and back in the high cavity/velocity area of the vettes; you will have to litereally submerge your car into a puddle 2 feet deep and then floor the gas for water to get in and do damage.

Many of our customers are daily drivers and road racers, those guys and/or gals drive and race thier vettes rain or shine and to this date, we have not had ONE case of water ingestion issues...not one!

In fact, we have report of customers who were forced to drive in the middle of hurricanes such as Katrina and Ike and none, I'll repeat none suffered any water ingestion damage.

Thanks,
Carlos

 

Has anyone ever sued Vararam or any of the other aftermarket CAI manufacturers for this obvious design defect?

I've read many of these threads claiming hydrolock caused by driving through heavy rain, or relatively shallow puddles. I would think that a legitimate loss caused by this product would be reason for a damage claim to the manufacturer.

On the other hand, I measured the bottom lip of my Vararam and it sits 10" above the roadway. The "s" shape of it also would require water to travel upwards another 10", pass through the air filter and then another 7" vertically to reach the level of the throttle body. This

I always heard that the real value of the Vararam was it's abillity to "scoop" air into the intake "ram-air" fashion when the car is travelling at speed. At low speeds, (like driving slowly through standing water) the Vararam effect is negligable. Yet we are told that these intakes have enough "vacuum power" to suck water that is at least 4" below the Vararam opening, all the way into the engine.

Frankly, I think all of these claims of hydrolock caused by aftermarket CAI's when the car is driving in heavy rain or through small puddles are crap.

If a product caused me $6000 or more in damages, when installed and used per manufacture recommendations, you damn well better believe I would be on the doorstep of the manufacturer for reimbursement. So, until I see someone sue one of these manufacturers for damage caused by a defective product, I think it's all internet BS.

Please prove me wrong and I'll go back to stock immediately.

 

Link? Ive never heard of it and never seen it on this board.


I am kind of curious if the OP measured the water or how he knows it was only 6 inches deep. Based on the described amount of water that came out of the motor, my first thought is that it was considerably deeper than 6". If you look at the surface area of the Honker filter, to start actally sucking water into the intake and create a vacuum effect the majority of the intake would need to be submerged.

 

Well, if you dont believe anybody's hydrolock claims here, I think its more of a question of what you refuse to listen to, rather than those proving it to you. Finally, your own owners manual tells you to avoid standing water. Time to sell the C6! cheers: & puddles to you!

 

Would drilling a couple of 1/2" holes as high up as possible but still below the filter element highly reduce the possibility of hydolock occurring? Short of driving through enough water to reach that height or applying enough throttle to produce high vacuum I think it would work -- assuming it's a real problem.

--Dan

 

You have little to no chance of sueing a CAI manufacturer if you hydrolock your engine. It is not a defect of material or workmanship. It's simply a design based on improving air flow and power. For that it meets it's intended purpose. To hydrolock the engine, the car and CAI must be in a very specific set of circumstances. Circumstances that the driver whether intentionally or othwerwise, puts themselves into.

That being said, I am not denying that the CAI had nothing to do with someone hydrolocking their engines. I can only speculate that perhaps their account of the story is somewhat skewed. How often in an emergency or during some type of traumatic experience (Don't kid yourself. Hydrolocking the engine on a $50k car is very traumatic) do we accurately remember every detail? You're immediate reaction is, "OH F*CK!". Then you recover and do what is needed until it is over. Aftwerwards you will subconsciously start to rationalize everyhing you think you did right. I was only going 10 mph. The water was only 4" deep, etc. I'm not saying the facts aren't true but in a situation like this the details can be blurred very quickly and easily. What I am saying is that with the thousands upon thousands of cars with back/front/bottom feeder CAI, a lot of which are driven in heavy rain on occasion, the reports of hydrolocking are very small. Not insubstantial because I would hate to label anyone's Corvette as such, but I think the detais around these occurances need to be more thoroughly examined. Unfortunately all we have are driver renditions of the mishap.

To the OP, I sincerely hope everything works out for you and you get your car back in as good a condition as before, or insurance helps you with a new one. For anyone else with an open shroud CAI, what can I say? Just be careful.

 

I suggest you drive in hard rains on purpose, at night, and see how well your theory holds up. Like you I thought it would take some HUGE wall of water.......nope ankle deep is all it took to give me a scare.......vararam came off the car and sits in my basement now. Not worth the risk.

In the fine print no manufacture states hydrolock CAN'T happen.

Also why do some of you think water can't get to the filter routinely in heavy rain? My Vararam filter was full of bugs/sand/other crap getting sucked up all the time......water magically doesn't though!

 

Touche!

 

When someone makes a "claim" that makes little scientific or logical sense, I am naturally skeptical until I actually see proof of the validity of the "claim."

It's called CRITICAL THINKING. (I know, it's in short supply nowadays.)

Does the owners manual warn against standing water because of potential "hydrolock" or for some other reason, like electrical or handling or flooding problems?

I am very much open to the concept that "X" happened and that "Y" is the cause, but not just because a few people (without proven credibility) post something on a forum. It takes actual EVIDENCE.

All I have seen is ANECDOTE, which is not evidence.

And, by the way, the person who makes the claim is responsible for proving the claim, not the other way around.

 

I live in OREGON! I drive in heavy rains and thru standing water ALL THE TIME. (even at night when it's really scary!!)

What does "ankle deep" even mean? 2", 4", 6", 8", 10"?

I'd be concerned about anything over 6" because wake from a vehicle going the other direction could definately create a wave that might completely cover the opening.

As to the fine print "argument" it probably does not say that hydrolock CAN happen either, so what's your point?

Last time I checked, a filter was supposed to keep bugs etc out of the intake manifold. But I've found dirt and bugs in the filter of my Chevy P/U that is about 5 ft off the ground. So what?

None of this is EVIDENCE!! In fact it's all anecdote.

Therefore, my own anecdote trumps yours. I've had a Vararam on my car for more than 3 years, driven in all sorts of crappy, rainy weather and through standing water at night and I have NEVER suffered hydrolock.

You must all be lying because my personal experience contradicts yours.

Can you understand how this type of discussion gets totally out of hand without real evidence? It digresses in to the silly arguments that 5 year olds have. (Yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesnt ad nauseum)

I guess that's what constitutes rational argument today...

 

Do you ever do critical reading like reading your owner's manual? (I know, this is in short supply nowadays too).

Yes, it advises that water can come through your engine's air intake and badly damage your engine.

I dunno..since you doubt all of this, do us all a favor and drive 5-10 mph per hour through 2 inches, then 4", then 6" and let's see how it comes out! In the meantime I choose to believe the Vararam hydrolock experiences here. After all, if the owners manual says it can happen to the stock intake, you must believe it can happen to the Vararam too. Well, maybe not-do you think the earth is flat?

 

Considering that GM writes the owners manual for a factory stock car(no CAI), your arguement and the GM owners manual basically back up the fact that there is no correlation between hydrolock and a CAI. There is no evidence that the CAI has anything to do with it.

End of the day its most likely the driver's fault...plain and simple. If you hydrolock with a CAI you have done it without one too.

 

The stock C6 comes with an air intake that is a good few feet off the ground. The only diff between the stock intake and cold air intake , is the cold air intakes require a cut in the shroud for the air filter. Cold air intake drawing air from areas other than under the hood. Thus, if water can be ingested by the stock intake, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that water can be ingested from CAI's that have their filters much lower on the car than the stock intake. Thus, the chances for hydrolock by any front or back CAI would be much higher than for the stock intake simply based on height of the filter where water can enter. This is why I have yet to see a "Hydroock With Stock Intake" thread on CF (except for a flood damaged car). Is that such a difficult concept to understand? I guess so, so we'll just agree to disagree.

 

I'm more or less agreeing with this. Two of my friends have had hydrolock driving through shallow puddles with back feeders, I think all of my other friends have Vararams and nobody's gotten unlucky, I've driven through torrential S. Fla daily storms with no problem. I have not tried to ford streams or deep puddles, small puddles yes.

Think about the physics I wrote about and try to suck up water in a straw without having the entire straw submerged....it's nigh impossible. As Occam's razor wrote, you have to be in some serious deep water to stick the straw of the vararam under water. At that level, I think the factory intake would fail too.

All that said I've got a 4x4 pickup I drive when I expect big rains...no need to tempt fate!

 

snappy comeback. Hard to debate logic isn't it.

 

One could hydrolock an engine w/ a stock filter. But let's not allow the facts get in the way of a good witch hunt

 

Yes, its very logical that water is much more likely to reach higher level stock filter on the C6 than lower aftermarket ones.

 

Just curious, has this happened to anyone with a stock intake? Getting all paranoid now.