mark kibort

I think someone should engage with who owns the tooling for the Anderson /Fan Threshie stuff, and make some new intakes for the S4!!

mk

GregBBRD

I've got a stock intake that is "really carved" up, sitting on a really nice stroker that we just finished. We will tune and then dyno...to find out, what is possible, with a stock intake. We blended in the "spacers" that we used on that engine....to let the air see a rounded edge, not the square edge....as Mark K. suggested. I think Rob Edwards posted pictures of this, on "his" thread. There are no pictures of the lower plenum, we "really carved" up....it is just too much work and too much time invested to even show someone a picture. To understand, you need to know that I welded on this thing for about 6 hours....

We've also got a complete new 32 valve intake...with about 200 hours of development on it...sitting on a shelf...ready to test. We put this "on the shelf" until we "really carved" up a stock intake and tested that. The "stock" look is so clean...someone needed to take that as far as it could go, before making alternative intakes.

GregBBRD

Junk. Runners too long. Separate plenums don't work. We dismissed that in the first week of intake development. Sure, makes more power on the big end, but kills the low end torque. And we all know that torque is what wins races...horsepower only sells engines.

Tom. M

What ever happened to the Geljak 6.5 stroker intake....I remember it sitting on a shelf at 928 Int'l a few years back at Sharktoberfest......I heard there were no real gains on Marks car at the time..but perhaps..things have changed?...or might work better for a boosted motor?

ROG100

Normal service is resumed - 8>)

blown 87

If it makes really big numbers, have you own spacers made and embossed

Precision Motorwerks Clydesdale

A really big pony

mark kibort

Like a race motor should. I dont know about you , but I wouldnt mind 510rwhp vs 420rwhp at the sacrafice of low end torque that you might never need at a race track. Ill have to look at Mark's curves again, but If I remember correctly, I thought it gained in most of the useable range, didnt it?

And by the way, its not torque that wins races its rear wheel force at any speed, and that can be determined by more rear wheel torque which IS more HP!

mk


PS edit: there is a pretty big drop in power below 4500rpm though!

GregBBRD

Why did I know that you'd have something to say about torque and horsepower?

Actually, there are many problems with those manifolds...let's just say they are junk and move forward, from there.

mark kibort

Ha ha!

I think the balancing act would be one of them. we had a guy that split his crank with a 650hp 350z that was supposed to dominate the SCCA ITE class this season. (bi turbos )

anyway, I know they were junk for the one most important reason (it flexed and cracked and cost an engine) but, I would think that the low torque, high hp might be good for our fragile 928 transmissions in the higher torque ranges.

So, what is the next holly grail for intake manifolds? Im thinking the stock stuff you "carved up" might be our last hope!

mk

hacker-pschorr

The only way to fly - every "performance" car should come from the factory like this.

My new project

GregBBRD

If you could see the stuff "on the shelf" you'd be happy.

Rob Edwards

You have our attention, Erik. Putting a 355 motor in yer '81?

mark kibort

now we are talking!!!!!! Oh Yeah! Bigger is better!!!!

928SS

ITB's. or just copy what is on the new GT3. porsche is getting 136hp/liter NA with that little motor. I'm sure we could learn a thing or two from what they are doing... and of course there is professor ott's itb setup that has proven to be a nice powermeister...

FBIII

Come on Erik. Photographing/building a non 12 cylinder Ferrari engine. I thought you knew better than that.