Screw it: "Sheet Metal" intakes
Rennlist Member
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,871
Likes: 41
From: Puyallup, WA
I talked to an M5 owner about it and he said the Dinan Stacks were serious $$$. I don't remember the amount, but it was over $1K. I've looked on the Dinan website but didn't see them listed.
And I think your are right Sterling, they should be 50mm. I'll know soon enough.
And I think your are right Sterling, they should be 50mm. I'll know soon enough.
Nordschleife Master
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,601
Likes: 39
From: Abbotsford B.C.
Thank you for that Louie, it did help.
However what I am seeing from the factory intake with the standalone is that there is alot to be gained by freeing up the restrictions, and equalizing the flow between all the cyl.
With my 86 engine that I have standalone on I could run two plenums with no issues and pretty much guarentee that I had equal flow.
But I am also thinking about an intake for an S4 engine that I could use the stock MAF on (requiring a single plenum) to see how much could be gained just by an intake change.
In the attached pic this is something like I am thinking, and may play about with it once I get home. But this would be looking from the FOE, and the runners (red and green) would point to the airbox (green) on the passenger side of the engine.
The only thing about this is that the area under the hood may require too tight of a bend in the passenger side runners and cause a serious imbalance in flow between banks. The throttlebody would then go on the end of the airbox right at the front of the engine, but in front of the crossmember, or behind for a SC car.
The fuel rails could be either left in facotry locations with proper location of the runners, or could move the injectors further up the runners in hope of abit better atomization. The airbox would be attached the same way the factory attaches the 85/86 boxes.
However what I am seeing from the factory intake with the standalone is that there is alot to be gained by freeing up the restrictions, and equalizing the flow between all the cyl.
With my 86 engine that I have standalone on I could run two plenums with no issues and pretty much guarentee that I had equal flow.
But I am also thinking about an intake for an S4 engine that I could use the stock MAF on (requiring a single plenum) to see how much could be gained just by an intake change.
In the attached pic this is something like I am thinking, and may play about with it once I get home. But this would be looking from the FOE, and the runners (red and green) would point to the airbox (green) on the passenger side of the engine.
The only thing about this is that the area under the hood may require too tight of a bend in the passenger side runners and cause a serious imbalance in flow between banks. The throttlebody would then go on the end of the airbox right at the front of the engine, but in front of the crossmember, or behind for a SC car.
The fuel rails could be either left in facotry locations with proper location of the runners, or could move the injectors further up the runners in hope of abit better atomization. The airbox would be attached the same way the factory attaches the 85/86 boxes.
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 13
From: Mosier, Oregon
Thank you for that Louie, it did help.
However what I am seeing from the factory intake with the standalone is that there is alot to be gained by freeing up the restrictions, and equalizing the flow between all the cyl.
With my 86 engine that I have standalone on I could run two plenums with no issues and pretty much guarentee that I had equal flow.
But I am also thinking about an intake for an S4 engine that I could use the stock MAF on (requiring a single plenum) to see how much could be gained just by an intake change.
In the attached pic this is something like I am thinking, and may play about with it once I get home. But this would be looking from the FOE, and the runners (red and green) would point to the airbox (green) on the passenger side of the engine.
The only thing about this is that the area under the hood may require too tight of a bend in the passenger side runners and cause a serious imbalance in flow between banks. The throttlebody would then go on the end of the airbox right at the front of the engine, but in front of the crossmember, or behind for a SC car.
The fuel rails could be either left in facotry locations with proper location of the runners, or could move the injectors further up the runners in hope of abit better atomization. The airbox would be attached the same way the factory attaches the 85/86 boxes.
However what I am seeing from the factory intake with the standalone is that there is alot to be gained by freeing up the restrictions, and equalizing the flow between all the cyl.
With my 86 engine that I have standalone on I could run two plenums with no issues and pretty much guarentee that I had equal flow.
But I am also thinking about an intake for an S4 engine that I could use the stock MAF on (requiring a single plenum) to see how much could be gained just by an intake change.
In the attached pic this is something like I am thinking, and may play about with it once I get home. But this would be looking from the FOE, and the runners (red and green) would point to the airbox (green) on the passenger side of the engine.
The only thing about this is that the area under the hood may require too tight of a bend in the passenger side runners and cause a serious imbalance in flow between banks. The throttlebody would then go on the end of the airbox right at the front of the engine, but in front of the crossmember, or behind for a SC car.
The fuel rails could be either left in facotry locations with proper location of the runners, or could move the injectors further up the runners in hope of abit better atomization. The airbox would be attached the same way the factory attaches the 85/86 boxes.
Nordschleife Master
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,601
Likes: 39
From: Abbotsford B.C.
Interesting on that, maybe it is worth a go then.
Louie, it was a rough drawing but yes making it as much in line with the current opening would be the plan. I as well have thought long and hard about putting a throttlebody on either of the two end tanks. However the issue that I see with doing that is #1 you will still have imbalance in flow between ports with the long runners and the short. The other thing which has prevented me from doing this is that I dont think that simply bolting a throttlebody on the end of it is such a good idea, I think that putting a slot all the way along the outter parts and welding a pipe to the outside so that it gets even airflow at the rear cyl as much as the fronts, and then have the TB off that runner.
The main reason that I scrapped that idea is that the end caps are a mag compound and welding aluminum to magnesium can be tricky esp when one is cast material which will be fairly soaked in oil.
I also dont have a tig yet, and I really dont think that mig is upto the job, esp seeing as I doubt I can get the appropriate wire to mate the two.
Louie, it was a rough drawing but yes making it as much in line with the current opening would be the plan. I as well have thought long and hard about putting a throttlebody on either of the two end tanks. However the issue that I see with doing that is #1 you will still have imbalance in flow between ports with the long runners and the short. The other thing which has prevented me from doing this is that I dont think that simply bolting a throttlebody on the end of it is such a good idea, I think that putting a slot all the way along the outter parts and welding a pipe to the outside so that it gets even airflow at the rear cyl as much as the fronts, and then have the TB off that runner.
The main reason that I scrapped that idea is that the end caps are a mag compound and welding aluminum to magnesium can be tricky esp when one is cast material which will be fairly soaked in oil.
I also dont have a tig yet, and I really dont think that mig is upto the job, esp seeing as I doubt I can get the appropriate wire to mate the two.
Administrator
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 27,595
Likes: 3,104
From: Up Nort
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 13
From: Mosier, Oregon
Interesting on that, maybe it is worth a go then.
Louie, it was a rough drawing but yes making it as much in line with the current opening would be the plan. I as well have thought long and hard about putting a throttlebody on either of the two end tanks. However the issue that I see with doing that is #1 you will still have imbalance in flow between ports with the long runners and the short. The other thing which has prevented me from doing this is that I dont think that simply bolting a throttlebody on the end of it is such a good idea, I think that putting a slot all the way along the outter parts and welding a pipe to the outside so that it gets even airflow at the rear cyl as much as the fronts, and then have the TB off that runner.
The main reason that I scrapped that idea is that the end caps are a mag compound and welding aluminum to magnesium can be tricky esp when one is cast material which will be fairly soaked in oil.
I also dont have a tig yet, and I really dont think that mig is upto the job, esp seeing as I doubt I can get the appropriate wire to mate the two.
Louie, it was a rough drawing but yes making it as much in line with the current opening would be the plan. I as well have thought long and hard about putting a throttlebody on either of the two end tanks. However the issue that I see with doing that is #1 you will still have imbalance in flow between ports with the long runners and the short. The other thing which has prevented me from doing this is that I dont think that simply bolting a throttlebody on the end of it is such a good idea, I think that putting a slot all the way along the outter parts and welding a pipe to the outside so that it gets even airflow at the rear cyl as much as the fronts, and then have the TB off that runner.
The main reason that I scrapped that idea is that the end caps are a mag compound and welding aluminum to magnesium can be tricky esp when one is cast material which will be fairly soaked in oil.
I also dont have a tig yet, and I really dont think that mig is upto the job, esp seeing as I doubt I can get the appropriate wire to mate the two.
Rennlist Stories
The Best Porsche Posts for Porsche Enthusiasts
Genius Porsche-Themed Gifts That'll Make Any Dad or Grad Smile
Joe Kucinski
10 Used Porsches Are Selling for Way Too Cheap
Joe Kucinski
Tuner Is Converting Porsche 911s Into Shooting Brakes
Verdad Gallardo
This Coachbuilt Creation Is A Modern Take on the Legendary Porsche 917
Verdad Gallardo
Is This Convertible Cayenne A Steal, Or A Returnless Investment?
Verdad Gallardo
10 Best Non-Flat Six Porsches You Can Buy For Under $100K
Joe Kucinski
Porsche's Top 5 Most Questionable Naming Decisions
Verdad Gallardo
Pogea Racing's 964 Porsche 911 Reimagination Stands Out in a Crowded Field
Verdad Gallardo
6 Convertible Top MYTHS Most People Don't Understand!
Michael S. Palmer
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 13
From: Mosier, Oregon
Nordschleife Master
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,601
Likes: 39
From: Abbotsford B.C.
I had thought about using adhesives as supposed to welding as well, but with high heat, and boost am concerned about the adhesive leaking or fully seperating, as well as taking a fair amount of surface prep time to ensure a perfect seal. I personally find welding to be a much much more acceptable solution.
However could you recommend an adhesive that you think would do the job? If you can and I can locate another set of sideboxes to be able to use I will open them up and give them a try before I take the engine all apart. I may even do a before and after dyno to see how much of a gain there is to be had from that, and to see if there is any restriction in the rest of the manifold.
However could you recommend an adhesive that you think would do the job? If you can and I can locate another set of sideboxes to be able to use I will open them up and give them a try before I take the engine all apart. I may even do a before and after dyno to see how much of a gain there is to be had from that, and to see if there is any restriction in the rest of the manifold.
Nordschleife Master
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,601
Likes: 39
From: Abbotsford B.C.
I would consider having a slight raise in the middle, or remake the cross brace so it sat low, and run the intake lines above it, this would possibly require two little ridges like the cayenne turbo though, imo that would also be liveable.
Administrator
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 27,595
Likes: 3,104
From: Up Nort
The one I pictured above does not sit any higher then the stock Ford unit. The SB Ford is a very narrow engine compared to a 928 block, so how much would you lose from the runner length by making the base wider, stretching it out while at the same time making it lower?
Take a look at the 16V intake, what about making a 32V version? IIRC the runners are about 7" long.
Maybe push the plenum down quite a bit, mount the TB on top so you could have the intake go up and over the radiator bridge. The V is sure deep enough, DR puts an intercooler down there!
Sorry if I missed this data, what runner length are you guys shooting for?
Take a look at the 16V intake, what about making a 32V version? IIRC the runners are about 7" long.
Maybe push the plenum down quite a bit, mount the TB on top so you could have the intake go up and over the radiator bridge. The V is sure deep enough, DR puts an intercooler down there!
Sorry if I missed this data, what runner length are you guys shooting for?
Nordschleife Master
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,601
Likes: 39
From: Abbotsford B.C.
Eric, for myself I am less worried about runner length, as supposed to equal lengths and more importantly equal flow.
as we hear from other people the S4 intake has upto a 25% variance in flow between cylinders, this means some will run lean and be more detonation prone, and others will run overly rich and rob power.
This would bring in the necessity of doing what tod did with 8 WB O2 sensors, I would rather get away from all that complexity, and equalize the flow as much as is possible between all the runners so the need for trying to tune each cylinder is reduced as much as is possible and each cyl perfoms to its fullest. By going to a single plenum and throttle body I could run the factory EFI and see just how much could be gained just from swapping the intake out.
As said previously I believe there is a fair amount to be gained on these engines from intake work. NA as well as boosted.
as we hear from other people the S4 intake has upto a 25% variance in flow between cylinders, this means some will run lean and be more detonation prone, and others will run overly rich and rob power.
This would bring in the necessity of doing what tod did with 8 WB O2 sensors, I would rather get away from all that complexity, and equalize the flow as much as is possible between all the runners so the need for trying to tune each cylinder is reduced as much as is possible and each cyl perfoms to its fullest. By going to a single plenum and throttle body I could run the factory EFI and see just how much could be gained just from swapping the intake out.
As said previously I believe there is a fair amount to be gained on these engines from intake work. NA as well as boosted.
Administrator
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 27,595
Likes: 3,104
From: Up Nort
Todd has mentioned cutting up a stock 16V intake to see if he could make it fit a 32V. Since bore spacing is the same (fuel rail's are interchangeable) it's not that far off.
I agree a new equal length runner intake would be an excellent upgrade with very few downsides. We should be looking at what's available for the Chevy's versus Fords (especially the big blocks) since the overall engine size is closer.
This would be ideal, but hard to do with sheet metal:
Three Wheelin'
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,611
Likes: 13
From: Mosier, Oregon
I had thought about using adhesives as supposed to welding as well, but with high heat, and boost am concerned about the adhesive leaking or fully seperating, as well as taking a fair amount of surface prep time to ensure a perfect seal. I personally find welding to be a much much more acceptable solution.
However could you recommend an adhesive that you think would do the job? If you can and I can locate another set of sideboxes to be able to use I will open them up and give them a try before I take the engine all apart. I may even do a before and after dyno to see how much of a gain there is to be had from that, and to see if there is any restriction in the rest of the manifold.
However could you recommend an adhesive that you think would do the job? If you can and I can locate another set of sideboxes to be able to use I will open them up and give them a try before I take the engine all apart. I may even do a before and after dyno to see how much of a gain there is to be had from that, and to see if there is any restriction in the rest of the manifold.
I don't have a specific adhesive recommendation. Check 3M Scotch-Weld products. I use an epoxy resin with a temp rating up to 450F for underhood composite layups . I has to be oven cured over about 6 hours to get it to withstand that temp. I only cure it to about 250F as I figure that's good enough. So far, no problems with it. I also use 3M Scotch-Weld 1838. It can be force cured at up to 200F. It works for underhood apps. There is plain old JB Weld. that stuff is amazing and shouldn't be discounted just because you can get it almost anywhere and relatively cheap. My pressure washer motor had a connecting rod fail and it went out through the side of the block. Big hole. I cleaned up around the hole, got a piece of glass cloth and slathered it with JB Weld and put it over the hole. I replaced the rod and have used the engine a lot for over 5 years. There is no oil leakage, or other evidence of the JB Weld patch. Other good product is "The Right Stuff". It remains flexible and seals against oil at underhood temps. If you ever had to take apart something sealed with it you know how well it bonds.
I don't have any '85/'86 side plenums, or other parts for those manifolds. One possible source for TBs is from junk yard Fords. Many have plastic TBs that work ok, and have round stub tube ends so can be adapted to hose connectors easily. The V8s and V6s have different sizes.