Custom Im
#11
thats how my manifold is different...i can't say much without giving it all away, but it does not have a "traditoinal plenum" and each cylinder should get almost dead-on equal airflow.
and yes...i'm getting it tested
and yes...i'm getting it tested
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 1997 Tiburon
I wish you good luck as well, and I would like to see some flow charts when your all finished as well smile.gif
Heres a bit of what I know....Intakes and exhaust systems are voodoo black magic throw the chicken bones pieces of an engine and need to be designed as such. You could do Helmholtz http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/Helmholtz.html calculations to match the runner length to your desired operating band but in the end without a dyno to test various runner lengths you're just shooting in the dark at a target even the automakers can't theoretically hit.
For a force-fed application, runner design is less of a factor than for a N/A design. Plenum volume is the key---the rule of thumb is plenum volume >= engine volume when force-fed. A large plenum has a few draw backs though so it is not the magic bullit either. A large plenum breathing through a single butterfly will have a lag between throttle opening and engine response.
Basically...... there is no easy recipe for intake design. There are some rules of thumb---long thin runners=low end torque, short fat runners=high RPM power plenum volume=engine volume for superchared applications but there is no perfect solution nor is ther an easy formula (helmholtz calculations can get pretty scary when one takes valve timing exhaust pulse velocities, intake pulse velocities exhaust length and desired operating conditions into consideration....even then there are 12937492137 factors not even accounted for so you are nowhere near optimal indifferent.gif
Anyhow, I hopefully my experiance going through this proccess will help you out.
Heres a bit of what I know....Intakes and exhaust systems are voodoo black magic throw the chicken bones pieces of an engine and need to be designed as such. You could do Helmholtz http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/Helmholtz.html calculations to match the runner length to your desired operating band but in the end without a dyno to test various runner lengths you're just shooting in the dark at a target even the automakers can't theoretically hit.
For a force-fed application, runner design is less of a factor than for a N/A design. Plenum volume is the key---the rule of thumb is plenum volume >= engine volume when force-fed. A large plenum has a few draw backs though so it is not the magic bullit either. A large plenum breathing through a single butterfly will have a lag between throttle opening and engine response.
Basically...... there is no easy recipe for intake design. There are some rules of thumb---long thin runners=low end torque, short fat runners=high RPM power plenum volume=engine volume for superchared applications but there is no perfect solution nor is ther an easy formula (helmholtz calculations can get pretty scary when one takes valve timing exhaust pulse velocities, intake pulse velocities exhaust length and desired operating conditions into consideration....even then there are 12937492137 factors not even accounted for so you are nowhere near optimal indifferent.gif
Anyhow, I hopefully my experiance going through this proccess will help you out.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 2001 hyundai tiburon
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tanc @ Apr 5 2007, 12:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We'll it's very similar to a magnus manifold. Look it up.
Btw, it's not as simple as you think. You have to calculate your runner lengths, volume, plenum volume, how much room to leave on the side of the plenum, etc. It all has to do with the air waves bouncing through your whole set up down into your valves. All your ports also have to receive the same amount of air at the same time.
That is why I have got mine flow tested a cpl times.</div>
don't waiste your time on a flow bench , some intake flow less and give you more power . don t forget , there is also the velocity , too much flow kill the velocity .
''the runner length , go with the duration of the intake cam and induction waves '' 1 or 2 or 3 ''
the runner size , go with the size of the valves
and the plenum size , for the size of the engine ''
Btw, it's not as simple as you think. You have to calculate your runner lengths, volume, plenum volume, how much room to leave on the side of the plenum, etc. It all has to do with the air waves bouncing through your whole set up down into your valves. All your ports also have to receive the same amount of air at the same time.
That is why I have got mine flow tested a cpl times.</div>
don't waiste your time on a flow bench , some intake flow less and give you more power . don t forget , there is also the velocity , too much flow kill the velocity .
''the runner length , go with the duration of the intake cam and induction waves '' 1 or 2 or 3 ''
the runner size , go with the size of the valves
and the plenum size , for the size of the engine ''
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 1997 Tiburon
I wasn't using the flow bench to see HOW much the intake flows, but to see how it flows, where it flows, and the rate each runner flows. I used a wet flow bench.
"go with duration of the intake cam and induction waves for runner lengths" ...so your telling me 1" , 2" or 3" runners?
Show me some proof to your theory.
"go with duration of the intake cam and induction waves for runner lengths" ...so your telling me 1" , 2" or 3" runners?
Show me some proof to your theory.
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 1997 Tiburon
Good eye, but I hit the wrong reply button.
Warning a mod is a 25% warning increase... lmao.gif JK. Good thing you pointed it out, I wouldn't want to set a bad example for the young guns.
Warning a mod is a 25% warning increase... lmao.gif JK. Good thing you pointed it out, I wouldn't want to set a bad example for the young guns.
#18
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: N/A as in Not Applicable, not Naturally Aspirated
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>We'll see if ERAU's engineering courses are any good...lol</div>
Who was your Aerodynamics Instructor? Prescott Campus?
I'm building a 9hp shopping cart with Art Draut (flew F104's/test pilot) for our club. LOL, he's getting a kick out of it.
Who was your Aerodynamics Instructor? Prescott Campus?
I'm building a 9hp shopping cart with Art Draut (flew F104's/test pilot) for our club. LOL, he's getting a kick out of it.
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 1997 Tiburon
Are you referring to individual tb's with the velocity stacks?
It's a big gain for N/A engines, but I haven't seen a tib run with stacks. It's an expensive fab. I'm not sure the gains on a beta.
It's a big gain for N/A engines, but I haven't seen a tib run with stacks. It's an expensive fab. I'm not sure the gains on a beta.