Car Audio Classifieds! banner

less port area with aero ports?

9K views 16 replies 4 participants last post by  Dbmonster 
#1 ·
I'm sure this has been asked before, but searching did not give me the answer I'm looking for, so here is my question.

from the builds i have seen it appears that when using aero ports most people don't necessarily follow the traditional rule of 16sqin of port per cubic foot of box volume. is this correct? if so, is there a formula for how much port area to use per cubic foot when using aeros?

I've seen a few people suggest using 1 6" aero port per 15" woofer, so for example a box for 4 15's @ 4.5cuft per woofer would be 18cuft, with a normal slot port i would go with approx 288sqin of port, but according to what i have seen suggested that box would only require 4 6" aeros, which is only 113sqin of port. how do you get the same or better performance with less then half the port area? are aero ports really that efficient?

I'm thinking of using aeros on my next build, but i would like to learn more about them first.

thanks for any input
 
#2 ·
I have had 2 boxes with aeros and they both are 4ish cubes with a single 6" aero and I think it fits nicely. It's not what or how many aeros per sub, but to the size of the box. I honestly think a 6" aero per 3-4^3 is sufficient for daily. 7^2/cube is a common ration. some say 8-10^2, other say 10-14. Anywhere from 7-10/cube DAILY is perfect IMO
 
#3 ·
Aeroports are more efficient because of the shape and less surface area per sq in of port.

The ratio of aero port area to slot port area depends on the application but 60% is a good place to start.

so for 4.0ft^3 with a slot port you want 48-64in^2 of port (12-16in^2 per cube) so an aeroport would be 28.8in^2 to 38.4in^2

A single 6" aeroport is 28.26in^2

3 4" aeroports is 37.68in^2

so for 4.0ft^3 you would want a single 6" or 3 4" aeros.

Again, your desired outcome for the enclosure will have an effect on whether you need more or less than that but it's a good place to start.
 
#8 ·
The only answer I have been given are that aeros are more efficient. This has been from quite a few LOUD record setting individuals as well. So I just don't ask questions. Its kind of like asking why the sun is bright. It just is.
I like that, and i have definitely seen lots of very loud setups using aero ports. i have just been reluctant to spend the money on them vs building a slot port if i wasn't sure i would get better results from the aeros.
 
#5 · (Edited)
thanks man.

so can I expect equal performance from a 4cuft box with a 6" aero port as the same box with a traditional 64sqin slot port? (assuming same net volume and same tuning)


edit: wow y'all answered quick. thanks guys, very helpful responses
 
#7 ·
Port placement as well as solidness (no vibrations due to movement, keeping it sterdy) affects alottt as well. External and internal mounting too. As well as the vehicle. Seen some trunk cars do comparisons with same size boxes but slot/aero ports and slot was louder on the mic. Just all depends
 
#11 ·
It's all install and vehicle dependent. This whole Car Audio game is about R&D. Tommy Mckinnie could come in here right now and say I should put this setup in this vehicle. Now lol he may get it right. But a better chance is that he's way off because of endless variables. Aero's are more expensive...it all depends on you and availablities.
 
#17 · (Edited)
the setup i'm working on now is for my suburban, it will be 4 AQ sdc2.5 15's on an aq2200 running 1/2 ohm. eventually it will be 6 sdc2.5 15's on 2 aq2200's strapped at 1.33 ohm. i'm trying to do a lots of cone area/little power setup since i have more room then money to work with.

the box for the 4 15's will be subs up/port back. once i go to 6 15's i may stick with that or maybe wall it behind the 2nd row, not sure yet.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top