PDA

View Full Version : 5sfe Intake Manifold



MrTurrari
07-09-2009, 07:56 AM
It's been over 6 months since I started working on this but it is finally to a point where I am thinking it actually might work. :lolhittin I was a little worried the material was going to be too thin (0.060") to get good welds but my friend who did all the welding had very little trouble with it. He has a very nice tig setup and lots of experience with aluminum.

The runners are 11.25" long (14.25" to the valve) and 2" OD mandrel bent tubing cut and bent to taper down to the port. The runners go from 2" at the velocity stacks down to a little under 1-3/4" at the flange and it works out to be about a 2 degree taper. The plenum is about 3 liters and will have a gen3 3sgte TB attached to it once I figure out what angle it should be in the car. So I still have do final test fitting to place that and add some thicker plates for tapping in vacuum lines and throttle linkage but it is 90% done.

I can't find any of my pics from earlier in the building of it but here are some from when I finally had all the peices assembled with masking tape:
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-1.jpg
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-2.jpg
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-3.jpg

Getting the runners to fit through the holes after welding them together:
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-5.jpg

Velocity stacks needed a little help getting to the same height before tacking them in place:
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-6.jpg
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-7.jpg

Here it is all done except for the TB flange, vacuum ports and throttle linkage:
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-8.jpg
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-9.jpg

And lastly side by side with a stock manifold:
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-10.jpg

CriScO
07-09-2009, 08:21 AM
Interesting... I know you want to get into the physics of it, please do. :)

Once there's some good discussion I'm putting this in the Member Projects sticky if Grayscale and Hookecho aren't around.

MrTurrari
07-10-2009, 12:32 AM
Haha sure. Well the basic theory is that there is both flow through a pipe because of it's diameter and reflections because of it's length. If you really want to get into some detail then read this: http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/Howanengineworks.html It's a work in progress though so I will summarize for those who don't want the headache or reading through all that.

The flow is pretty easy to understand, every sized pipe has a peak flow where the least amount of energy is required to move the most air. I have read that happens when 70 degree air hits about 180fps. Hotter air will be higher then that up to about 260fps for exhaust gases. The formulas I used are found at www.grapeaperacing.com and they seem to be pretty close and in sync with what I have found elsewhere. Look in the Techincal Articles under Induction Systems. In any case, the rule of thumb is that a bigger pipe will flow better for a higher RPM. I think most people already know that but just like for exhaust a bigger pipe can also diminish your flow in the lower RPMs. You are trying to find a happy medium.

The other part of the theory is wave tuning caused by reflections up and down the pipes. Now the refections are mainly caused because when the intake valve closes the column of air has to suddenly stop and it creates a shockwave. That bounces back up to the top of the runner and becomes a low pressure bouncing back down it again. That then bounces off the valve again and goes back up to the top of the runner and reverses again to become a high pressure once again. This happens 2-4 times or more before the pulse gets too weak to matter. When the engine reaches a certain range of RPMs then just as the positive pressure reaches the valve it opens for the next filling event. This causes more air to get into the cylinder kind of like having momentary boost from a supercharger except you only have boost right at the valve. I have heard of built NA race engines with as high as 7psi at the valve during this time. The formulas that I used for runner length are also at www.grapeaperacing.com. In order to do the calculations you must have the specs of your intake cam. Each different cam will change the RPM at which that boost happens up or down the rev range just as the length of the runners do so it is best to match them so you get it where you want.

Also the stock 5sfe manifold appears to be tuned for the 3rd reflection. You can tune it to 2 or 4 if you like but your runners get a lot longer or a lot shorter if you do. I did mine to the 3rd reflection too because it is stronger then the 4th and pipe lengths for the 2nd were too long for easily fitting under the hood.

METDeath
07-10-2009, 12:51 AM
Doing before and after dyno pulls, I hope?

joe's gt
07-10-2009, 01:46 AM
wow! thanks so much for the links man. Almost everything you wanted to know about engine theory on a single site. I have never seen that one before. Thanks.

I would love to see a before and after dyno as well, since intake manifold modifications have potential for a huge impact, but they are so hard to custom fabricate that you don't see many attempts.

Nice work. Hope it works out well. Theory is great, but it can never substitute for actual modeling.

You must feel very proud and excited to design something on theory and get a chance to test it out in a real life situation. I envy that. lol.

CriScO
07-10-2009, 05:52 AM
So you customized them for your cams and head work, I take it?

Your 5S is already ridiculous, I'm very interested to see how this turns out.

MrTurrari
07-12-2009, 01:21 AM
Yes the runners are design to improve power around 6000rpms with the 101 cams. We'll see if it really works in a few weeks when I am done.

I probably won't have a before dyno with the 101 cams because the nearest working dynojet I know of is an hour away. I have one with the 763s though that can be compared to. Either way it won't be useful to most except to prove the theories. I'm convinved that the difference will be noticeable though.

Lonestag
07-12-2009, 06:26 AM
That thing is sick.

I would love somthing like this...

After I finish my own intake projects...

nuclearhappines
07-12-2009, 11:03 AM
even if you don't have a dyno... if you have an A/F gauge and something like an emanage for tuning ... a 15% correction up top to keep the same A/F you had before will tell you exactly how much air you've gained...

if u just log your AFR before you install it
and see how that changed after you did (on the initial run before your street tune) ... that is unless you have to abort a run for being too lean ...etc then you pretty much now how much more air is in they system.

I know air doesnt' always translate to HP (there are factors like afr, egt, timing...etc but it's still a good measure of what the manifold did flow wise).

MrWOT
07-12-2009, 05:53 PM
Also the stock 5sfe manifold appears to be tuned for the 3rd reflection. You can tune it to 2 or 4 if you like but your runners get a lot longer or a lot shorter if you do. I did mine to the 3rd reflection too because it is stronger then the 4th and pipe lengths for the 2nd were too long for easily fitting under the hood.

The stronger the pulse the peakier the torque curve, remember that double edged blade. I think your manifold just screams "turbooooooo meeeeeee!" ;)

Smaay
07-14-2009, 06:10 PM
my best friend in Houston has a flow bench setup, he can test each runner and the entire manifold and compare it to stock for you....

MrTurrari
07-15-2009, 01:00 AM
The stronger the pulse the peakier the torque curve, remember that double edged blade. I think your manifold just screams "turbooooooo meeeeeee!" ;)
That's true you have to give some to get some. Why do you think it screams turbooooooo meeeeeee? lol You probably already know this but the intake manifolds on turbos work the same as they do on NAs except the speed of sound is a little higher from hotter air.


my best friend in Houston has a flow bench setup, he can test each runner and the entire manifold and compare it to stock for you....
Thanks for the offer but I don't want to have to wait to put it on once it is done. :) Anyway to be really meaningful it would need to be tested with my ported head attached. :D

MrWOT
07-15-2009, 07:38 AM
They work on the same principles, but are not designed similarly when purpose built. You can make an n/a manifold work with a turbo, but it will never work as well as one designed with a turbo in mind (two plenums with a balance for example).

Yours should do both judging by plenum volume and taper. Should have good pressure recovery. :) I just think it's a waste on an n/a 5s ;) :hehe:

Would be interesting to log throttle position vs. g-forces in a corner with that installed n/a.

MrTurrari
07-18-2009, 01:55 AM
They work on the same principles, but are not designed similarly when purpose built. You can make an n/a manifold work with a turbo, but it will never work as well as one designed with a turbo in mind (two plenums with a balance for example).

I completely disagree. :laugh: They work the same in all respects except for the temperature of the air and its effect on the speed of sound. As a matter of fact if you could intercool the air back down to ambient before it went into the manifold they would even add and take away torque at the exact same rpms. So the double plenum does work on the turbo but it also works on the NA and does the same thing.

One way to think about it, when it comes to the intake side of a turbo motor, once it spools up it acts like at NA at a few thousand feet below sea level. The flow characteristics do not change with pressure, you still have the same volume of air that must make its way through the same sized pipes.

joe's gt
07-18-2009, 06:57 AM
I completely disagree. :laugh: They work the same in all respects except for the temperature of the air and its effect on the speed of sound. As a matter of fact if you could intercool the air back down to ambient before it went into the manifold they would even add and take away torque at the exact same rpms. So the double plenum does work on the turbo but it also works on the NA and does the same thing.

One way to think about it, when it comes to the intake side of a turbo motor, once it spools up it acts like at NA at a few thousand feet below sea level. The flow characteristics do not change with pressure, you still have the same volume of air that must make its way through the same sized pipes.

I guess I am kind of confused. I thought with the turbo motor, you can go with a bigger intake manifold than a N/A because that greater pressure allows you to have a greater volumetric flowrate than possible with N/A.

It is my understanding that an N/A motor won't benefit from as big a manifold as the turbo because there is not enough pressure to create that volumetric flowrate needed for the bigger manifold so air velocity drastically slows down. Where as with the turbo motor, there is enough pressure to keep the air velocity up.

Idk. Just curious.

MrWOT
07-18-2009, 07:40 AM
Nah, the head is the limiting factor ordinarily...

I've been puzzling over how to word this, so bare with me...

first, there is NO such thing as what most think of as 'flow', things move three dimensionally, starting and stopping, mostly stopped as the intake stroke is only 1/4 of the total cycle.

the job of the intake manifold is twofold, to evenly distribute the incoming air, and to do so in the MOST efficient manner. This means with minimal internal volume

the reason for the minimal volume is pressure recovery, which basically equates to throttle response, it's how fast the conditions in the manifold change vs. demand... sorta... :s

what i meant above is that when air density rises, so does inertia. You can get away with things with low density gas that you cannot get away with when dealing with high density gas. generally that means larger internal volume to allow the air to decompress properly. using the same manifold in a low density application would work, but it just has wasted internal volume that slows down pressure recovery.

...

i'm rellly tired and more than a little sauced atm, but thats making sense right now :laugh: I'll check this over tomorrow when my parents are gone (visiting from hawaii atm, hence the drunken revelry)

joe's gt
07-18-2009, 08:01 AM
I am close to understanding your point...I am just a little confused by the term pressure recovery? What do you mean when you say that?

MrTurrari
07-18-2009, 08:10 AM
I can see how people might think that because obviously turbos make more power and people associate that with better air flow. All you have to do to prove that false though is to look at a dyno of the same engine at sea level vs one at say a mile high. What you will see is that although the overall torque is lower at altitude the torque curve stays the same. The engine makes proportionally the same power as it did before because the volumetric efficiency stays the same. You do not see cars at sea level getting more top end then those at altitude. Also the altitude corrections of a dyno couldn't work if it wasn't so. Now it is true that most turbos from the factory are designed with more top end in mind, hence the larger manifolds, they are usually in higher performance cars after all and designed for more top end.

Also something to think about... the higher pressure does create a higher pressure differential that creates more force to move the air. But EDIT: there are more molecules trying to get through the same space (not the air has more mass) so it cancels out. It's the reason sound travels the same speed at sea level as it does in the mountains as long as the temperature is the same. Temperature is the only thing that significantly changes the way air moves. Research the ideal gas law if you want to verify all this for yourselves.

MrTurrari
07-18-2009, 08:50 AM
Any loss of pressure, except when it is part of wave tuning, results in a loss of power. It happens with things like intercoolers but it is an accepted loss because the temperature change gives you more back. You cannot recover pressure unless wave tuning is involved or you send the air through another compressor. Remember that most pressure drops happen because of the restriction of the air.

The purpose of a plenum is to keep the runners from starving each other by having a bank of air so the pressure can more easily equalize for the next intake event. It is basically a buffer. Smaller plenums keep wave tuning pluses stronger and also make the waves going up the intake and back stronger too. But they are not good for higher RPMs because the air is more restricted and can't equalize as quickly. Larger plenums support higher RPMs but weaken the waves. The Toyota engineers knew what they were doing when they designed these motors. The plenums are small because they were looking for midrange torque and a good solid powerband, not high RPM power. You will also notice that the plenums on the 5s and 3s are very similar in size. It is no accident.

joe's gt
07-18-2009, 07:22 PM
I think I see what your saying. Newton's law is F=MA.

So even tho there is a higher pressure from the turbo, the turbo also forces more air in the plenum. So the increase in FORCE provided by the turbo forcing more MASS into the plenum results in approximately the same acceleration because because both mass and force have increased proportionally resulting in the same value of acceleration (which of course equivocates to increased velocity).

So you are essentially saying the N/A and Turbo flow at the same speed (because "A" is the same) there is just more mass that flows at that speed in a turbo application with results in a higher density mixture in the cylinder?

So basically the turbo is increasing air density by forcing more mass into the plenum where as lowering altitude has the same effect because of the increase in air density?

But either N/A or Turbo will flow generally the same speed, just the amount of air that flows at that speed is different which contributes to the higher density in a smaller space that you see as a result of the turbo.

balang_479
07-18-2009, 08:53 PM
I think I see what your saying. Newton's law is F=MA.

So even tho there is a higher pressure from the turbo, the turbo also forces more air in the plenum. So the increase in FORCE provided by the turbo forcing more MASS into the plenum results in approximately the same acceleration because because both mass and force have increased proportionally resulting in the same value of acceleration (which of course equivocates to increased velocity).

So you are essentially saying the N/A and Turbo flow at the same speed (because "A" is the same) there is just more mass that flows at that speed in a turbo application with results in a higher density mixture in the cylinder?

So basically the turbo is increasing air density by forcing more mass into the plenum where as lowering altitude has the same effect because of the increase in air density?

But either N/A or Turbo will flow generally the same speed, just the amount of air that flows at that speed is different which contributes to the higher density in a smaller space that you see as a result of the turbo.

F=ma really does not apply, the mass is so small that its not accurate.

The ideal gas law applies.

MrTurrari, temperature isnt the only thing that affects air density, if you look at the ideal gas law, the pressure also affect it. I dont know where youve heard about engines producing the same power in the mountains and at sea level, there is a difference. The curves is the same but theyre constantly lower. Even if the temperature is the same in the mountains or at the sea level the pressure is greater at sea level, meaning the air is denser so more power.



Also something to think about... the higher pressure does create a higher pressure differential that creates more force to move the air. But the air has more mass so it cancels out. It's the reason sound travels the same speed at sea level as it does in the mountains as long as the temperature is the same. Temperature is the only thing that significantly changes the way air moves. Research the ideal gas law if you want to verify all this for yourselves.

The air mass doesnt cancel the higher pressure difference gain out... the change in air mass compared the change in pressure is almost negligible. higher pressure outside = more power (at constant temperature). In the Ideal Gas law its not Mass, its Molar mass.

When designing intake plenums you need to look at Helmholz Resonance. And because its very complicated most people resort to your usual ITBs and simply maximise airflow instead of using the airs resonance in an air box...

MrTurrari
07-19-2009, 12:20 AM
So even tho there is a higher pressure from the turbo, the turbo also forces more air in the plenum. So the increase in FORCE provided by the turbo forcing more MASS into the plenum results in approximately the same acceleration because because both mass and force have increased proportionally resulting in the same value of acceleration (which of course equivocates to increased velocity).

So you are essentially saying the N/A and Turbo flow at the same speed (because "A" is the same) there is just more mass that flows at that speed in a turbo application with results in a higher density mixture in the cylinder?
Almost... the velocity and volume do not change. The mass is higher because of the increase in pressure as you said.


So basically the turbo is increasing air density by forcing more mass into the plenum where as lowering altitude has the same effect because of the increase in air density?
Exactly.


F=ma really does not apply, the mass is so small that its not accurate.

The air mass doesnt cancel the higher pressure difference gain out... the change in air mass compared the change in pressure is almost negligible. higher pressure outside = more power (at constant temperature). In the Ideal Gas law its not Mass, its Molar mass.
That is a good point. I take that statement back. :) I know better then to resort to what would seem to be common knowledge but in actuallity is misinformation. The mass is so small that it has very little effect but there is still a larger pressure moving the air. The point is though that it does not change the volume of air that moves into the cylinder and the speed at which it moves so does not change the RPM at which it is most effective. The air moves at the same speed because the pressure is higher but because their are more molecules that must move through that same limited space, it takes more force to move them at that speed.


The ideal gas law applies.

MrTurrari, temperature isnt the only thing that affects air density, if you look at the ideal gas law, the pressure also affect it. I dont know where youve heard about engines producing the same power in the mountains and at sea level, there is a difference.
It isn't the only thing that effects it but as I said, it is the only thing that significantly effects it. The differences that you will see because we are not dealing with an ideal gas and the minute changes to the speed of sound because of pressure will not be detectable in this situation.


The curves is the same but theyre constantly lower. Even if the temperature is the same in the mountains or at the sea level the pressure is greater at sea level, meaning the air is denser so more power.
That is what I said. :lolhittin The torque curve doesn't change it's shape you just don't have as much power across the board.


When designing intake plenums you need to look at Helmholz Resonance. And because its very complicated most people resort to your usual ITBs and simply maximise airflow instead of using the airs resonance in an air box...
Absolutely. That deals more with the length of the intake however. The volume and design of the plenum determines how strong the helmholz effect will be though.

balang_479
07-19-2009, 02:46 AM
That is what I said. The torque curve doesn't change it's shape you just don't have as much power across the board.

Ah right, misunderstood.



The mass is so small that it has very little effect but there is still a larger pressure moving the air. The point is though that it does not change the volume of air that moves into the cylinder and the speed at which it moves so does not change the RPM at which it is most effective. The air moves at the same speed because the pressure is higher but because their are more molecules that must move through that same limited space, it takes more force to move them at that speed.

Agree.

joe's gt
07-19-2009, 04:02 AM
I think I get it now. So in short, N/A and Turbo flows at pretty much the exact same speed, just Turbo forces more molecules through the same amount of space due to the higher pressure, resulting in higher air density, resulting in more power.

So one last question...Sorry if I'm being annoying, I just thirst for information about engine theory. lol

We know that wave tuning can only be done for a specific rpm range, and compromise is inevitable. So what are ways to counteract that specific rpm range and get that broad power band that everyone wants?

MrTurrari
07-19-2009, 09:03 AM
I think I get it now. So in short, N/A and Turbo flows at pretty much the exact same speed, just Turbo forces more molecules through the same amount of space due to the higher pressure, resulting in higher air density, resulting in more power.

So one last question...Sorry if I'm being annoying, I just thirst for information about engine theory. lol

We know that wave tuning can only be done for a specific rpm range, and compromise is inevitable. So what are ways to counteract that specific rpm range and get that broad power band that everyone wants?
Yes you got it. Yeah I thirst for knowledge of how things work too. It has taken me lots of time researching, reading and just working it out to begin to wrap my head around this stuff.

Well ACIS, TVIS and VVTI come to mind. :) But without tricks like those that make parts multi-resonant you have to just create parts that emphasize different parts of the rev range that are next to each other. Take cams for instance. You could use a longer duration intake cam with a shorter exhaust cam to get a peak at or near the same RPM like Jim Snodgrass did on his 5sfe a few years back. But when you use cams of the same duration on intake and exhaust, because of the different properties of each, they peak at different RPMs. Stock 5sfe cams peak at about 3800 and 4300rpms, 294s peak around 4200 and 4700rpms and 101s peak up around 5000 and 6000rpms. I don't have dynos for the 101s so that is just a guestimate.

So if you make your headers scavange well at 3800 because of a longer primary runner length, your intake cam peak at 4200, your intake manifold runners tuned to 4500, your exhaust cam peak at 4700, your header diameters and exhaust flow well at 5000 and your intake manifold flow well at 5300 then you get a pretty broad powerband. You of course do not get as much peak HP or torque as is possible but it is all a trade off. And there is still some trial and error involved because of the way things interact. But Toyota designed their motors to have broad powerbands from the factory so just by shifting everything up a few hundred RPMs you should get more power and more torque and still retain the broad powerband.

joe's gt
07-19-2009, 07:43 PM
Thanks MrTurrari I really appreciate all your input as well as everyone else who responded to my questions. For a street car, I have no idea why anyone would want peak horsepower. I'll take the broad power band and lower peak any day of the weak.

balang_479
07-19-2009, 08:28 PM
Thanks MrTurrari I really appreciate all your input as well as everyone else who responded to my questions. For a street car, I have no idea why anyone would want peak horsepower. I'll take the broad power band and lower peak any day of the weak.

Fair point, I can see why people would want broad power, but personally Id rather have peak power simply because I dont mind having small power at low end when Im driving around, If i want to drive hard i can simply keep the rev in the high end... rather have more horsepower up top then more torque low down. Its just as easy to shift down.

joe's gt
07-19-2009, 08:35 PM
Cool. I see what you mean.

MrTurrari
07-23-2009, 08:08 AM
I finished the rest of the welding tonight and port matched it to the TB. I also drilled and tapped most of the vacuum ports and the place where the throttle cable attaches. All that is left on the manifold itself is for me to get a couple of 1/8" vacuum ports and drill and tap for them. Here are more pics:

http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-12.jpg
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-13.jpg
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-14.jpg
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-15.jpg
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-16.jpg

I'm hoping I can finish this project up this weekend but we'll see.

joe's gt
07-23-2009, 09:29 AM
What tool did you use to match port it?

Can't wait to see the dyno.

balang_479
07-23-2009, 11:31 AM
Nice... must be hard to weld on thin alu.

MrTurrari
07-23-2009, 09:32 PM
What tool did you use to match port it?
Just a fine tipped marker to mark where things don't line up and a file.


Nice... must be hard to weld on thin alu.
Suprisingly the thin stuff is not that hard to weld. It's welding the thin stuff to the thick stuff that gets difficult. My friend has been doing this a very long time though so he made it look easy.

Razors_Edge
08-11-2009, 07:24 PM
What happend to the progress of this thread? Id love to see this thing installed and maybe a video of the car running, even more so a dyno run video.

MrTurrari
08-12-2009, 05:57 AM
Been working on getting it installed in my spare time but have had very little of that the last couple of weeks. Found some vacuum leaks, had them welded, some new ones appeared, fixing those now. Also had to have the head flange milled because it was not quite flat after all the welding. Note for next time, use a steel jig to keep it flat or maybe go with 1/2" aluminum.

The car runs with it on though it just wouldn't idle with all the leaks. Hopefully I will have it all working by this weekend.

rizin
08-14-2009, 03:43 AM
I want numbers! No can not wait to here how the design worked like you expected.

beingblueeyes
08-14-2009, 09:47 PM
Peek numbers really donít really interest me, what I would like to hear if you got the time MrTurrari is a over all "driving impression" when installed

MrTurrari
08-16-2009, 04:58 AM
Finally got all the vacuum leaks sealed and took it for a spin. Definitely makes a difference. It pulls all the way up past 7000rpms without a noticable fall off in torque. I may need to try to overclock some more to get the redline a bit higher now. :hehe: It's now just smooth power from 4000-7000 and even up to the rev limit it doesn't sound like it is struggling anymore. I haven't tuned it yet but AFRs are about 13-13.6:1 up top. It was tuned with the previous manifold to be 12.5-13:1 so there is definitely more air getting in.

There are still a few things to finish up. Currently the throttle cable adjustment is keeping my idle speed up so it won't stall as I am missing a idle adjustment screw, the A/C idle up valve is pulling unfiltered air from atmosphere, the intake is just hanging there and I need to rerun all the PCV lines so they don't look like spaghetti.

Overall I am very pleased but man it was a lot of work. If I had to do it again I would change a couple of things and planned it out a little more thoroughly.

Here's some pics installed:
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-17.jpg

http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-18.jpg

http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-19.jpg

jaydog82
08-16-2009, 08:03 AM
looks good man

MrTurrari
08-17-2009, 05:12 AM
Videos with sound...

http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/Videos/Freeway.mpeg
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/Videos/1stgear.mpeg
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/Videos/Sounds.mpeg

CriScO
08-17-2009, 06:22 AM
Hmm... Video won't show for me, what codec did you use? Audio works though, which is the main point. Anyhow...

That's a throaty little beast now. :) Awesome. How's throttle response? If you can judge with the cable like that, anyway.

Razors_Edge
08-17-2009, 07:08 AM
None of the vids worked for me and i didnt hear any sound either.

nuclearhappines
08-17-2009, 08:28 PM
12.5 to 13.6 is about an 8% gain up top ... great job man...

your gearing is perfect when u shift at the current redline... because it always lands 4500+ and that seems to be where the power really kicks in ...

your 3k to 4500 seems a bit flat power wise though...

Is there any way you can get a ~700cc resonator branched off your intake ?
Junkyard visit ?

Good luck...

nuclearhappines
08-17-2009, 11:32 PM
sorry , my mistake, you want roughly a 1.6 liter resonator ...

rizin
08-18-2009, 05:29 AM
I just compared your video on your reclocking the ecu thread and this one. Your top end seems to be a lot stronger with the cams and the intake compared to that video. Also sounds quite a bit louder. Good job.

MrTurrari
08-18-2009, 05:56 AM
CriScO, throttle response is still good. I haven't really noticed a difference but I'm sure there was a minor loss because of the increase in volume.

Nuc, the highest AFR I saw was a 13.6:1 and the highest before was a 13:1 so I don't think it was quite 8%. Still noticable though. I agree the MR2 s54 is about perfect for using the higher revs that this motor makes. Yeah and it does feel flat on the low end comparitavely but it still makes enough for daily driving not to be anoying. That might be something interesting to try with the resonator idea. I would need to find or make a 2.5" T. By your calculations where would that help power?

The videos are mpeg so you may have to download them to your computer to watch them. I uploaded a couple to Youtube for comparison sake. The first is with the 763 cams, stock manifold and stock turbo exhaust.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nc_Kiw7s1XY

This one is the 101 grind cams, new intake manifold, 2.5" KO Racing exhaust. I was babying the shifts more then the other video but just notice the difference in sound above 6000rpms and how the engine accelerates up there. I am sure I could take this setup to 7500 or higher if I can somehow raise the rev limit again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELI7RZ0bztw

nuclearhappines
08-18-2009, 11:06 AM
not calculated... more rule of thumb to be completely frank with you...

You'd have to model your car on some solid modeling software to get a more perfect result but read this:


"The magazine wanted to try some dyno testing for itself and see if they got the same results as the Society of Automotive Engineers paper. The test car used in the test was a 1500 cc 4 cylinder 12 valve engine with a standard 710 cc inlet resonator (The 1UZ-FE is a 4 litre 32 valve engine with a 1200 cc resonator).

Complete removal of the resonator saw a steady loss of power throughout the rev range of 4kW (7% loss!! peak power was 55kW). 5 resonators were tested, 245cc, 600cc, 710cc, 950cc and a 5000cc coolant bottle. 30 dyno runs showed a trend of small resonators best for high rpm power and large resonators good for low down torque with no straight line relationships between the different sizes. (our 1200cc resonator would look to be designed for low down torque, common for large heavy automatic cars).

The best compromise was the 950cc resonator which gave an increase of 4kW at 3000 rpm over the stock resonator (13 % increase at 3000 rpm!).

So overall the intake resonator is a good thing!"

So they end up with a 950cc resonator on a 375cc cylinder. About 3:1 the cylinder volume, Teed off the main intake pipe.

So for a 2.2 I4 5sfe, I'd start with a 1.65 resonator to target midrange (where you are currently flat) and then you can try smaller to go higher, or larger to go lower...

Again watch your a/f ... if it leans out then you've got the right effect going on , the TONE will also change... listen to your own car right now and look at how your tone changes above 4500 where the car goes 'deep'????

if u can get that tone change earlier with a resonator you know you're on point.

Best thing is just go to a junkyard and grab a bunch of resonators ... maybe even take an empty water bottle (junkyards have water to wash your hands off... ) you can pretty much fill the resonators you pull, and measure them at the yard ... and bring home 3 resonators (small , med , large) around the 1.65 figure and try all 3 out... won't be expensive at all ... and the science is there.

nuclearhappines
08-18-2009, 11:09 AM
since we're on intakes and you're pretty much the only one going all out on your car...

http://www.bpinitiatives.com/

blox has a replica too (maybe cheaper)

the guy modeled the surface pressure differential of air entering the intake and designed a velocity stack with the exact curvature to minimize the transition pressure differential which improves flow.

The thing outdynos ANY filter on the same intake pipe so long as the car is N/A (the intake pulses reach the filter)... on turbo and S/C cars he's shown time and time again no difference with it or without it...

Pretty cool to see a mechanical engineer apply his education and come out with a proven product ... guy lives on honda-tech.com

jaydog82
08-20-2009, 04:46 AM
cool

MrTurrari
08-20-2009, 06:14 AM
http://www.bpinitiatives.com/


I actually have something like that inside my filter made out of the plastic packaging from a 3" velocity stack. Ghetto engineering at it's best. :D They do help superchargers and turbos too but only a little in spool time and on the high end where the intake pipe passes it's optimum flow. Since boost is controlled by a wastegate or other means unlike an NA, when flow isn't as good through the intake, the compressor just spins up more to make up the difference so through most of the range you won't see a difference except slightly more back pressure before the turbine.

I can't see how the volume of a resonator would be a determining factor in where it helps or hurts power? The volume is just incidental to the diameter and length of the resonator. Since air is not actually having to flow through the resonator the only effect it can have is in creating wave reflections. The length (and distances from the runners and filter) should determine at what RPMs it helps and hurts power and the diameter should influence the strength of the waves and how much it helps or hurts.

It would be pretty easy to try out new resonator lengths though if it is something you want to play with. Just create (or scrounge) a Y pipe for your intake with a long silicon hose, another pipe, a coupler and some kind of end all held together with pipe clamps. You could then change the length an try different shaped ends to see what you would get. You can turn the waves around 180 degrees too by putting a chamber on the end like the stock resonator. A flat end should give you a peaky effect at the RPM it resonates at and a cone or dome should spread it out a bit.

Actually coming right back around to the topic of intake velocity stacks, a velocity stack will do the similar thing as a cone but 180 degrees out and spread out the effect of your hemholtz resonance in your intake.

MrTurrari
08-20-2009, 06:32 AM
I just compared your video on your reclocking the ecu thread and this one. Your top end seems to be a lot stronger with the cams and the intake compared to that video. Also sounds quite a bit louder. Good job.
Thanks Rizin and everyone else for your comments and props. Have we met before Rizin? The KO exhaust makes it much louder, especially at about 3000rpms.

MrWOT
08-20-2009, 07:03 AM
I can't see it affecting output, I've mulled it over, just not seeing a resonator affect output. Sound, sure, but power?

jaydog82
08-21-2009, 07:22 AM
what do you guys think about velocity stackers?

rizin
08-21-2009, 08:10 AM
No we haven't meet maybe we should sometime. I like what you have been doing n/a. hopefully you will add some bracing on your intake. I promise it will break a weld before you want it to. But with the tig weld it will last a lot longer then wire feed.

JDMjosh
02-18-2010, 10:48 PM
We know that wave tuning can only be done for a specific rpm range, and compromise is inevitable. So what are ways to counteract that specific rpm range and get that broad power band that everyone wants?

How about an intake manifold who's interior volume and dimensions increase and decrease mechanically in direct response to the amount of throttle given?

Picture the mechanics of a simple hose clamp.. only thicker, and wider, and longer, and sealed at one end. An enclosure that could constrict and un constrict its interior volume mechanically...

Or sequential turbos...

Or have I missed the boat.

joe's gt
02-19-2010, 03:55 AM
How about an intake manifold who's interior volume and dimensions increase and decrease mechanically in direct response to the amount of throttle given?

Picture the mechanics of a simple hose clamp.. only thicker, and wider, and longer, and sealed at one end. An enclosure that could constrict and un constrict its interior volume mechanically...

Or sequential turbos...

Or have I missed the boat.

Holy thread revival Batman! For the varying intake manifold volume that is exactly what the purpose of TVIS is on the 3sgte. So yeah, your on the right track. I don't know much about sequential turbos, so I can't really comment on that.

JDMjosh
02-19-2010, 06:59 AM
No doubt! I stumbled on this thread only today...I've been MIA from Celicatech for a couple of years...

Anyway, yeah TVIS works. It's kinda low-tech in comparison with what I was imagining. And I personally took those butterfly valves out entirely when I swapped my 3SGE... and I was happy with the results.

And ever since that day, I dreamed of doing what MrTurarri did... only he actually did it.

Carbonfibre would be sweet

KoreanJoey
02-19-2010, 07:18 AM
How about an intake manifold who's interior volume and dimensions increase and decrease mechanically in direct response to the amount of throttle given?


I haven't seen it done with manifold volume but i have seen one with adjustable runner lengths (adjust throughout the RPM range) on an RX-3. Was pretty vicious actually. He'll be my competition whenever I get the damn Celi back together.

Hookecho
03-11-2010, 09:14 PM
yeah, we need updates.

Doory
03-05-2015, 04:56 PM
How come the velocity stacks are sticking up like that inside the plenum?


It's been over 6 months since I started working on this but it is finally to a point where I am thinking it actually might work. :lolhittin I was a little worried the material was going to be too thin (0.060") to get good welds but my friend who did all the welding had very little trouble with it. He has a very nice tig setup and lots of experience with aluminum.

The runners are 11.25" long (14.25" to the valve) and 2" OD mandrel bent tubing cut and bent to taper down to the port. The runners go from 2" at the velocity stacks down to a little under 1-3/4" at the flange and it works out to be about a 2 degree taper. The plenum is about 3 liters and will have a gen3 3sgte TB attached to it once I figure out what angle it should be in the car. So I still have do final test fitting to place that and add some thicker plates for tapping in vacuum lines and throttle linkage but it is 90% done.

I can't find any of my pics from earlier in the building of it but here are some from when I finally had all the peices assembled with masking tape:
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-1.jpg
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-2.jpg
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-3.jpg

Getting the runners to fit through the holes after welding them together:
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-5.jpg

Velocity stacks needed a little help getting to the same height before tacking them in place:
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-6.jpg
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-7.jpg

Here it is all done except for the TB flange, vacuum ports and throttle linkage:
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-8.jpg
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-9.jpg

And lastly side by side with a stock manifold:
http://warp.scl.utah.edu/mr2/IntakeManifold/IM-10.jpg

Murgatroy
03-05-2015, 08:19 PM
Smooths the airflow so that it isn't as turbulent it also speeds the air up the longer the stack.

Doory
03-06-2015, 03:01 AM
Perfect that's all I needed to know.. I found some @ 4 for $70 usd. Seemed like the best price. Im going to use stacks in my setup. I think I'll start a new thread when I'm done..