|
Newest Project - Lower Intake Manifold for Fabricated S4 Intakes
7 Attachment(s)
I have been toying around with this project for a while. For a long time I had my thoughts set a full cast part with an upper flange. It wasnt until this weekend that I went back to the drawing board. Spent all weekend testing various angles, and this is the "final" product. Dimensionally it is correct, but will add fillets, webs... etc as necessary as soon as I send models off to my machinist and foundry to see if it is more cost effective to machine or cast the part in the volume I think something like this will support.
First, to answer a question I know I will come up, the flange was taken from a S4 R2 head. I have no intention of doing a S3 or any earlier version. (the S3 and spider manifolds are slick anyway, why bother). Second, it is designed around the later plastic body injectors. I have inserted the new EV14 injector model, and it fits, as well as Siemens Deka. I do not believe the original fat Bosch injectors will work, but I am making the overreaching assumption that anyone taking on a project like this would use a modern injector. The upper "flange" is designed around a 2" OD 11g tube. This was selected for its nominal ID and structural support for some projects (like mounting ITB's or heavier plenums. There tube will sit inside the runner, providing a clean transition and collar for welding. There is a clean and organic transition inside the part from the round tube bore, to the oval S4 port. Care was taken to try and match the entry angle into the S4 head. The injector pintle is shrouded, but can be opened up to expose it to the airflow with a mill. This was left closed to support the newer extended injectors. You can see in the drawings attached that there is a 22.5degree bent tube in the assembly, but strait tubing could be used for a cross-runner system. The injector boss is designed to limit the travel of the injector, so a rail without clips can be used. This boss will intentionally be cast tall for cutting down on a mill to support multiple injector dimensions. I need to add some fuel rail hold-down provisions, which I will do today after considering the most modular approach, and hopefully will send this out tomorrow to find out if its better cast or machined, and then make the necessary final tweaks for the manufacturing method. Please note, the linked PDF is a 3D file to be used in Acrobat Reader. https://www.box.com/s/46gn29f56h5khafpm1ax Thanks, Hans |
1 Attachment(s)
Forgot a bottom view....
|
Very Nice Hans. Much more complex machining than the wedge shape Ben and I worked on.
|
Nice.
|
Is the auto shifter project dead?
|
Interesting.
What's your target price and quantity? Is the plan to use this with the stock intake gasket? How much pressure can those 11g 2" OD aluminum pipes hold, with a lot of pressure cycles like in a boosted motor? How much taper is there in terms of cross-sectional area from the head end to the runner end in this flange? Is there a individual throttle body model that easily fits this flange? How much room there is to match the flange if one has ported heads with much larger ports in the intake flange (I don't, just curious)? |
Very nice design work Hans.
Since getting my '83S i thought about what 4 DD Webers could do for it's performance. Has anyone done that? |
Hans, this is very cool. Have you done any flow modeling?
...an example of high res intake modeling is here: http://nsproj.googlecode.com/files/n..._velocity.mpeg |
Wow, that a lot of questions.
As it relates to the intake project: 11g tubing will hold up to any conceivable boost you can throw at it. 11g is ~.12" thick or a hair over 3mm. In my measurements, the stock intake gaskets did not match the head or intake very well. The stock gasket could be used, but this design matches the 2R head I had here, which was significantly different than the intake or gasket. I would provide new silicone gaskets that match this profile. The taper is not that great. Area at the port of the head (in my drawings) is 1867.8mm^2, area at the port on the proposed intake is less as there is the impediment of the injector bung at 1688.7mm^2, crossectional area of a 2"ID 11g tube is 1569.6mm^2. So the difference between the port at the entry of the runner and exit at the port (in the manifold) is ~119mm^2. It is the closest match in standard materials that I can find. Additionally the ID of the 11g tube is approximately 44.7mm, and there are several 45mm ITB available. Ross Machine Racing (over priced items, but convenient) has intake construction extrusions and accessories that would be compatible, including their 2"OD .125" wall thickness strait tubing and velocity stacks. I have not done any flow testing, as I dont have the FEA software to do this testing. However, I am not sure that I could improve much upon the design. There are certain constraints we are stuck with, like port size, injector placement... etc, plus the finite number of stock tubing dimensions which yielded this particular design. There is plenty of material here for port matching an enlarged port, but I cant see any reason why someone would want to enlarge the already over-sized 928 port apart from smoothing out casting issues. Regards, Hans |
5 Attachment(s)
Attached are some renderings and a 3D model of the lower intake revised with fuel rail hold down hardware. The standoffs are standard 3/4" round stock, and can either be attached with a stud, or a cap screw below.
Should be able to accommodate almost any fuel rail, including stock with a 1/4" plate bracket. Shown are some simple tabs on 1/4" flat stock. Thanks Hans |
Great job Hans. Why wouldn't this work with an s3? Aren't the intake ports pretty much the same as an s4?
Keep up the great work, |
Now we just need to make enough so that they aren't too costly.
|
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10385042)
Wow, that a lot of questions.
As it relates to the intake project: 11g tubing will hold up to any conceivable boost you can throw at it. 11g is ~.12" thick or a hair over 3mm. In my measurements, the stock intake gaskets did not match the head or intake very well. The stock gasket could be used, but this design matches the 2R head I had here, which was significantly different than the intake or gasket. I would provide new silicone gaskets that match this profile. The taper is not that great. Area at the port of the head (in my drawings) is 1867.8mm^2, area at the port on the proposed intake is less as there is the impediment of the injector bung at 1688.7mm^2, crossectional area of a 2"ID 11g tube is 1569.6mm^2. So the difference between the port at the entry of the runner and exit at the port (in the manifold) is ~119mm^2. It is the closest match in standard materials that I can find. Additionally the ID of the 11g tube is approximately 44.7mm, and there are several 45mm ITB available. Ross Machine Racing (over priced items, but convenient) has intake construction extrusions and accessories that would be compatible, including their 2"OD .125" wall thickness strait tubing and velocity stacks. I have not done any flow testing, as I dont have the FEA software to do this testing. However, I am not sure that I could improve much upon the design. There are certain constraints we are stuck with, like port size, injector placement... etc, plus the finite number of stock tubing dimensions which yielded this particular design. There is plenty of material here for port matching an enlarged port, but I cant see any reason why someone would want to enlarge the already over-sized 928 port apart from smoothing out casting issues. Regards, Hans Sure wish these were made up when I started my intake manifold project. Building this stuff out of billet aluminum is terribly time consuming. |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10385042)
11g tubing will hold up to any conceivable boost you can throw at it. 11g is ~.12" thick or a hair over 3mm.
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10385042)
In my measurements, the stock intake gaskets did not match the head or intake very well. The stock gasket could be used, but this design matches the 2R head I had here, which was significantly different than the intake or gasket. I would provide new silicone gaskets that match this profile.
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10385042)
The taper is not that great. Area at the port of the head (in my drawings) is 1867.8mm^2, area at the port on the proposed intake is less as there is the impediment of the injector bung at 1688.7mm^2, crossectional area of a 2"ID 11g tube is 1569.6mm^2. So the difference between the port at the entry of the runner and exit at the port (in the manifold) is ~119mm^2.
Still, I am curious why you didn't design this for 2.25" OD 0.125" wall thickness pipe, which would (conveniently from the math point of view) give a 3.14 sq inch or 2026 mm^2 CSA for the runner? Is it your view that the port is so much too large at the flange where the injectors spray that one is better off with a smaller diameter runner despite the non-uniform taper, and thats why you chose the 2" OD pipe for the runner?
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10385042)
It is the closest match in standard materials that I can find. Additionally the ID of the 11g tube is approximately 44.7mm, and there are several 45mm ITB available. Ross Machine Racing (over priced items, but convenient) has intake construction extrusions and accessories that would be compatible, including their 2"OD .125" wall thickness strait tubing and velocity stacks. I have not done any flow testing, as I dont have the FEA software to do this testing. However, I am not sure that I could improve much upon the design. There are certain constraints we are stuck with, like port size, injector placement... etc, plus the finite number of stock tubing dimensions which yielded this particular design.
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10385042)
There is plenty of material here for port matching an enlarged port, but I cant see any reason why someone would want to enlarge the already over-sized 928 port apart from smoothing out casting issues.
One simple calculator would give the peak torque rpm for 2.25" OD runner (3.14 sqin area) at 7300 rpm for a 5.0L engine and 5600 rpm for a 6.5L engine. For the 2" OD runner (2.43 sqin area), the 5.0L peak is at 5700 rpm and 6.5L peak at 4300 rpm. Since by far the most engines will be 5.0L and redline under 7000 rpm, the calculator agrees with your choice. |
Tuomo,
Gaskets could be waterjet cut out of whatever material was necessary for the application. I suspect a standard .125" silicone would be fine for most applications, but its very easy for me to have them made out of a number of materials. The CSA is greater at the mouth of the port on the head than anywhere else in the intake system proposed. There is a void for the injector and then the complete port profile. On the intake side, the injector boss displaces some of this CSA. I tried to keep the diameter someone constant between the exit port in the lower intake and the intake port of the lower intake. 119mm^2 is about equivalent to the same CSA of a drinking straw. When considering the range of materials and bends available in the 2"-11g format as compared to other tubing diameters, it was a clear choice. I think a 2.25" OD runner would be way to big, and kill any velocity for people interested in using this for single throttle NA applications. I wanted this to be useful for any S4 intake configuration. I am working on some drawings for you to help illustrate the CSA of the port. Will post that soon. Thanks Hans |
4 Attachment(s)
I hope this helps clear up the CSA issue.
Attached are some renderings, both of the manifold with a plane drawn parallel to the tube mating flange (but pulled 10mm closer to the head flange) and several slices of the internal cross-sections. I then used the plane to slice the model, and extract the internal cross-section of the port at that point. I then extracted the internal cross-section at the tubing interface and the exit port. There is a drawing of those in their actual location. Finally, I oriented and aligned all the cross-sections so you can see how similar they are. CSA from tube to exit is as follows: Tube - 1569.577mm^2 Internal (10mm down from the tube mounting face) - 1550.789mm^2 Exit port - 1688.672mm^2 Now here is something you may find interesting. Drawing a plane parallel to the head seating flange, and moving it perpendicularly 10mm, using it to slice the model and extract an internal cross-section (so this would intersect the internal cross-section above, just at a different angle) is much larger, at a CSA of 1714.078mm^2. These measurements are not illustrated, but I can attach some later if necessary. As the design of the insider of the port is complex and organic, it is not as simple as looking at CSA from one perspective. Hope that helps, Hans |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10384537)
I have been toying around with this project for a while. For a long time I had my thoughts set a full cast part with an upper flange. It wasnt until this weekend that I went back to the drawing board. Spent all weekend testing various angles, and this is the "final" product. Dimensionally it is correct, but will add fillets, webs... etc as necessary as soon as I send models off to my machinist and foundry to see if it is more cost effective to machine or cast the part in the volume I think something like this will support.
First, to answer a question I know I will come up, the flange was taken from a S4 R2 head. I have no intention of doing a S3 or any earlier version. (the S3 and spider manifolds are slick anyway, why bother). Second, it is designed around the later plastic body injectors. I have inserted the new EV14 injector model, and it fits, as well as Siemens Deka. I do not believe the original fat Bosch injectors will work, but I am making the overreaching assumption that anyone taking on a project like this would use a modern injector. The upper "flange" is designed around a 2" OD 11g tube. This was selected for its nominal ID and structural support for some projects (like mounting ITB's or heavier plenums. There tube will sit inside the runner, providing a clean transition and collar for welding. There is a clean and organic transition inside the part from the round tube bore, to the oval S4 port. Care was taken to try and match the entry angle into the S4 head. The injector pintle is shrouded, but can be opened up to expose it to the airflow with a mill. This was left closed to support the newer extended injectors. You can see in the drawings attached that there is a 22.5degree bent tube in the assembly, but strait tubing could be used for a cross-runner system. The injector boss is designed to limit the travel of the injector, so a rail without clips can be used. This boss will intentionally be cast tall for cutting down on a mill to support multiple injector dimensions. I need to add some fuel rail hold-down provisions, which I will do today after considering the most modular approach, and hopefully will send this out tomorrow to find out if its better cast or machined, and then make the necessary final tweaks for the manufacturing method. Please note, the linked PDF is a 3D file to be used in Acrobat Reader. https://www.box.com/s/46gn29f56h5khafpm1ax Thanks, Hans Very nice.. Congrats on making progress.. I can relate to the pain.. Cheers, |
I am interested in the csa of the plane normal to the flow, which I believe corresponds to a very close approximation to the first set of numbers you gave, right?
|
Very nice Hans!
Wish these were ready and available when I was making my manifold.... :p |
Did it miss it somewhere? What is the rest of the manifold solution that goes with these pieces? Or is the idea that these are meant to connect to any sort of manifold design people want to develop?
|
Tom,
I have a couple ideas I have been working on, but the idea was to create a part that would be usable across a wide range of applications. This could be easily used with ITB, short runners for a common plenum, front facing intake, or a long runner, dual plenum, twin-throttle setup like Phil Threshie's. I am not ready to show my ideas for uppers, but wanted to let people know that these are coming soon if they have a project or idea that can use them. Thanks Hans |
Do you need any support from us in the process of finding someone that will make these at a reasonable cost?
|
No no no, just when I decided to stop thinking anything else but stock intake with some modifications:surr:
Doing something like this is clever as there is nothing like one_fits_for_all intake. http://performancedesignllc.com/?page_id=247 |
I have a couple foundries in mind. Pretty sure this part is going to end up being cast.
I have a quote to get a 3D printed test part for $240 which would be the next step to check all the clearances and fit before signing for investment tooling. I am going to stare at it this week, double check everything, and then if nothing catastrophic happens in the next couple days, will put the order in for the 3d model out of Friday's paycheck. Thanks Hans |
The 3D printing price is amazing. I really wanted to do one for myself and it was like 1200 dollars. Ridiculous.
|
That price is for an SLA, so wont be usable structurally, but be very close dimensionally, which is what I am after for test fitting the injectors and testing the port matching and clearance with the waterbridge.... etc.
I will keep you guys posted. Thanks Hans |
I can guarantee you that if I could have had these made for $240 each, I'd have been all over it. I probably spent that much making the oval shaped pieces or getting them flat after the welding. Building pieces for these cars is a "love affair"...it makes no financial sense.
http://i1033.photobucket.com/albums/...pse6be32b6.jpg |
Greg,
That price was for 3D printing the test part, but honestly the cast part shouldn't be too far off that either. Sent out the file for review with two foundries I have decent relationships with, and should have an idea if there are any manufacturability issues, pattern and estimated production costs. My goal is to keep them under $500/set. I will apply to be a Ross Machine Racing distributor closer to, and should be able to supply all the bits to make some interesting intakes. I think that it should be possibly to have sheetmetal intakes under the $1k mark, but don't hold me to it yet. Thanks Hans |
Way cool Hans, keep up the good work!
|
Hans--
Did you give thought to including bosses for throttle shafts in the castings? Drill and bush those with inner o-rings, and no need for separate ITB's. You already plan for injector bosses separate from the throttles, so maybe not a tough add-on? |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10388076)
Greg,
That price was for 3D printing the test part, but honestly the cast part shouldn't be too far off that either. Sent out the file for review with two foundries I have decent relationships with, and should have an idea if there are any manufacturability issues, pattern and estimated production costs. My goal is to keep them under $500/set. I will apply to be a Ross Machine Racing distributor closer to, and should be able to supply all the bits to make some interesting intakes. I think that it should be possibly to have sheetmetal intakes under the $1k mark, but don't hold me to it yet. Thanks Hans I took my intake manifold "off the shelf" about two weeks ago and we've been "finishing' it up, for those two weeks. Now into our third week....and I had 4 weeks into it, when I put it "on the shelf". Sure, there were a couple of weeks of designs that got "tossed" for various reasons....but that had to be done, anyway....and everyone is going to "go though" that same learning curve. It's not a simple thing. Porsche did an amazing job of "packaging" what they needed to do, in a tiny space. Yes, not equal length. Yes, crazy turns. Yes, crappy flow for make huge power....but still had plenty of flow to make the power they wanted to make. Improving on that design isn't all that easy. Which is why, even though everyone thinks the intake manifold is the problem to making "big" horsepower, there are so few "aftermarket" intake manifolds that are actually done and tested. |
Dr. Bob,
I would reccomend welding the elbows, as shown in my renderings, and then a flat flange for use with Extrudabody or similar 45mm ITBs. They are already setup with the bushing, linkage.... etc. I dont have enough experience with ITB's to even consider designing them. Mike Simard is the guy you want to talk to if you want a ready-made ITB solution for the 928. I am trying to make a non-specific 928 "intake lego" for use with just about any configuration. This design is the most recent in versions going back to last May. It is the most versatile, so dont plan any major revisions unless I get some feedback from the foundry in regards to adding/removing material for a better quality casting. Thanks for the suggestion though, Hans |
If you can get the flanges and rails priced at $500 or under, you'll sell a lot.
If you can get somewhat configurable runners and trumpets included for another $400, you'll sell many of those as well. Those are cheap enough that people might buy them just to play with them and it would not be a great tragedy if the intake project sits on the shelf for some time. You may want to leave the plenum components for people to work on by themselves, as everyone seems to have an opinion, a****ole, and a plenum idea. Are you planning to use the S4/GT/GTS throttle body? Or is the plan to use an aftermarket throttle body? If the S4 throttle body element is not a binding restriction, the ability to use that would lower the total cost greatly. Does anyone know whether the whole cast throttle body element is a restriction or not? |
There is no reason why you couldnt retain the stock throttle, but I see the largest advantage as being able to relocate the throttle to the front of the manifold, and do something similar to what the LS series engines have with a filter in front of the radiator.
I do plan on offering a new throttle quadrant bracket, I need to work that out later the week and see if I need to include bosses on the flange or use points on the valve cover mounting. Thanks Hans |
As you suggest, just focus on this one design and bring down the production costs, and it will go great from there.
|
Well double disappointment on the intake project. I sent the drawing out to several foundries for bid in 356-T6, and they are coming back higher than I would like, even from people I have worked with in the past. If anyone has a reccomended source, I wold love to take a look. Patterns are running between $4700 and $7500 so far (still waiting on a few).
It was brought to my attention that there are several thin-spots from the way I made the tube/casting interface, so I will take a look at changing that a bit to thicken that area up a bit. It is pretty clear at this point, that there is limited hope for a my original hopeful $500/set of cast flanges... my cost is above that with every manufacturing technique I can think of. I should have done this a couple years ago when things were cheaper. I still plan on getting these made, but thinking they will be in the $750-$950/pair price range. Anyone interested in a set at a price around that area? Will help me figure out what kind of tooling I should be using. Thanks Hans |
Is there a chance it could be done with modern plastics , arent the chevy manifolds plastic ?
I know the holden ones here in Oz are , and they seem to last a long time. |
Hans, just out of curiousity, do you have designs where the fuel rails can be mounted inboard, or under the intake manifold?
|
Does the complexity of the manifold matter when you are casting? If you were to make it more, say, wedge shaped, like the one I sent you - would that make any difference?
|
foundry
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10408503)
Well double disappointment on the intake project. I sent the drawing out to several foundries for bid in 356-T6, and they are coming back higher than I would like, even from people I have worked with in the past. If anyone has a reccomended source, I wold love to take a look. Patterns are running between $4700 and $7500 so far (still waiting on a few).
It was brought to my attention that there are several thin-spots from the way I made the tube/casting interface, so I will take a look at changing that a bit to thicken that area up a bit. It is pretty clear at this point, that there is limited hope for a my original hopeful $500/set of cast flanges... my cost is above that with every manufacturing technique I can think of. I should have done this a couple years ago when things were cheaper. I still plan on getting these made, but thinking they will be in the $750-$950/pair price range. Anyone interested in a set at a price around that area? Will help me figure out what kind of tooling I should be using. Thanks Hans I share your pain.. The prices are now insane to build stuff properly.... :banghead: I wish I had this done years ago.. It would be so much cheaper.... Also why I don't think that the 928 bits I am making are suitable for a business.. Although, as promised, I will make a setup for anyone who wants, and is able to pay for it... (After I test it of course..) Anyway, Good luck with your setup.. I have a west coast foundry referred to me by a relative who used to be with Paxton and is now in aerospace. I'll be happy to refer the place to you after I get back to the USA and discuss my hill of beans with them if you still need it. Best, |
Very nice intakes Hans
Maybe one day I can put something like this on my SC GT |
Plastic would be an option if I wanted a more complete manifold, but there is already a part like this offered by 928MS. The part I propose is different, as it is the absolute minimalistic part I could design, allowing for any number of upper assemblies. Being cast in 356-T6 allows it to be welded to off-the-shelf tubes and bends.
I received a more feasible bid today, but still holding out for something better. |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10411124)
Plastic would be an option if I wanted a more complete manifold, but there is already a part like this offered by 928MS. The part I propose is different, as it is the absolute minimalistic part I could design, allowing for any number of upper assemblies. Being cast in 356-T6 allows it to be welded to off-the-shelf tubes and bends.
I received a more feasible bid today, but still holding out for something better. The intake flanges for the two valve engines were slightly better than that, I used one set successfully, I did eventually sell one set for around $250 and I still have another set unsold. Now these fit perfectly and allow the owner/fabricator to create their own design and factory fuel rails can bolt up with minimal modification. So their value is around $250. How do you think you are going to go at close to a grand? Also the market now knows that GBs manifold is about and it is difficult to produce. Personally the only spot in the market I see is for a flange plate adaptor to a throttle body setup. Maybe Mike would be interested in working with you on that, although it would compromise his existing setup by being a competitor but there is always price as a separator of products. These throttles I have in mind are the most advanced on the market. A 45 mm throttle will be all that is needed for standard sized 928 engines. The also make oval sized equivalent throttles that would be a good fit for the 928. That will take the engine well over 600 HP.To back that up a 2.5 litre Honda with 45 mm throttles did 313 axle HP at 8,000 rpm on a dynopack dyno. Here's an article by Renault F1, the reason it is relevant is that, it is the same style throttle just made for the street. The blade is alloy and is 2 mm thick but tapered. They have been experimenting with thinner carbon composite blade but there isn't a lot of low hanging fruit as they already achieve 99.5% efficiency versus losses in normal throttles of between 7 to 10%. The company making these throttles was started by ex F1 engineers. http://www.f1technical.net/features/...f5055981723661 I also know they put a set of their throttles on the new BMW M3. 4.0 litre, with the engine remapped it did 490 rwhp. No other changes were made. The range of cars these throttles have been offered for is getting quite big, a lambo v12 recently did 800 HP, a GT3 engine did 513 HP, a racing Honda 2.7 litre engine did 383 rwhp on a dynopack dyno (11,200 rpm) unfortunately no 928 package is offered, so a flange plate is needed to do that. Also I know they only recommend a full length runner, so any design needs to crossover the bank and be around 13 to 15" in length depending on the intended rpm range. |
As I think about it, these fabbed parts would come in handy for building a manifold for another Eaton type setup similar to Keel's Supermodel and 928 Spec's one.
|
Now you're talking. And if you could fabricate some rectangular boxes which connect to a Y-pipe in the rear that connect to an intercooler in the engine-V which then connects upwards into a twin-screw supercharger, you will have almost perfectly replicated an AMG setup. I wonder if an E55 intercooler would fit in the V of the 928 engine; I'm pretty sure it would...
http://image.europeancarweb.com/f/fe...ngine_View.jpg http://lh6.ggpht.com/_lbtYMre2TDo/S0...0/IMG_2168.JPG http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/...ps3260e4d4.jpg http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/...ps38b2098e.jpg Dan '91 928GT S/C :eek: 475hp/460lb.ft |
6 Attachment(s)
This is the set of intake runner that we make that Hans referred to.
The customer can add the plenum and throttle bodies he wants, or ITB's. http://www.928motorsports.com/parts/intake_runners.php Made in glass-filled nylon, it is half the weight of aluminum, and less heat conductive to maintain a cooler air charge into the cylinder. It has proven itself to be very tough for us, at 104 deg F track days and with pressures up to 20 psi in the plenum. |
Dan,
I have done some basic modeling, and an "AMG style" system will not fit very well. It could be done, but the injectors would have to be relocated and the intake runners vertical (like they are in the AMG setup). I can think of plenty of other interesting things do do with these though. Hans |
The setup of the M113 V8's supercharger is gorgeous on the AMG. That Manifold would definitely look good on a 928. I'm a little stumped on where to put the MAF and throttle body though. This setup may need to utilize a MAP type EFI and dual throttle bodies, which may not be too difficult to setup.
Originally Posted by dprantl
(Post 10412161)
Now you're talking. And if you could fabricate some rectangular boxes which connect to a Y-pipe in the rear that connect to an intercooler in the engine-V which then connects upwards into a twin-screw supercharger, you will have almost perfectly replicated an AMG setup. I wonder if an E55 intercooler would fit in the V of the 928 engine; I'm pretty sure it would...
http://image.europeancarweb.com/f/fe...ngine_View.jpg http://lh6.ggpht.com/_lbtYMre2TDo/S0...0/IMG_2168.JPG http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/...ps3260e4d4.jpg http://i1240.photobucket.com/albums/...ps38b2098e.jpg Dan '91 928GT S/C :eek: 475hp/460lb.ft |
^^^Oh to be able to just bolt that set up on!:banghead:
those are sweet Carl! |
Carl's runners will work but they may be a tad bit tall.
|
Anyone got pictures of the cowl induction hood from years ago ??? on the GT with the BIG rear WING...
|
Behold the power of the internet:
RL Search for Chris Lockhart led to this: https://rennlist.com/forums/928-foru...hood-pics.html With broken links, but the URL was there, which leads to: http://members.rennlist.com/pirtle/bigunn_hood.html |
That was a solution waiting for a problem.....
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 10415126)
Carl's runners will work but they may be a tad bit tall.
I had been thinking about doing runners for a while, and when Carl released his, I took a look at them and thought they were a very nice design, and that I probably couldn't have done any better. (I still think that if you needed an easy to work with part, and your design wasn't height or width constrained, that Carl's runners offer a quicker assembly time, with the added benefit if thermal isolation.) However, when I started taking a look at my original plans again this winter, I realized that I did need a considerably shorter setup, and something with more separation between the right and left flanges, so I would not be able to use the excellent parts that Carl developed. That is when I went back to my original drawings, and started the process which yielded the design I proposed recently. I can tell you that this is not a simple part to create, and I absolutely commend and applaud both Carl's runner design and Greg's manifold. I can personally testify to the amount of shear time that goes into a design like this. I do need a couple sets of these flanges for my own project, and will make them. If anyone else is interested, please let me know, as it will help guide the way in which I have these produced. Thanks, Hans |
Kudos to you, Hans, for taking on such an involved project.
We found injector placement in the runner to be quite a challenge too - to both optimize spray pattern but also to allow the plenum we wanted to fit over the top of the injectors, and connect them all to a common fuel rail. Too low - bad, too high - bad. Too far to the sides - bad. You know what I mean. I like your design, best of luck with it. Let me know if I can be of any help. |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10416330)
Exactly right. I have an idea that I have been working on which will require a controlled height.
I had been thinking about doing runners for a while, and when Carl released his, I took a look at them and thought they were a very nice design, and that I probably couldn't have done any better. (I still think that if you needed an easy to work with part, and your design wasn't height or width constrained, that Carl's runners offer a quicker assembly time, with the added benefit if thermal isolation.) However, when I started taking a look at my original plans again this winter, I realized that I did need a considerably shorter setup, and something with more separation between the right and left flanges, so I would not be able to use the excellent parts that Carl developed. That is when I went back to my original drawings, and started the process which yielded the design I proposed recently. I can tell you that this is not a simple part to create, and I absolutely commend and applaud both Carl's runner design and Greg's manifold. I can personally testify to the amount of shear time that goes into a design like this. I do need a couple sets of these flanges for my own project, and will make them. If anyone else is interested, please let me know, as it will help guide the way in which I have these produced. Thanks, Hans |
Just out of curiousity, why not make another supercharger manifold for an Eaton?
|
Carl
Thanks for the kind words. It really is exactly as you say - there is no room for those injectors. Trying to cast the manifold proved an additional challenge as most foundries will do a minimum wall thickness of 3.5mm, and almost any design kept interfering with the injector when maintaining walls with proper thickness and draft, which is why I had to switch over and use tubing for the upper portion. It really was a frustrating exercise of moving the clearance issue from one location to another. When researching injectors (ignorantly in the beginning I thought that perhaps the new short EV14 or Deka injectors would help solve the clearance issue) I found that the Siemens Deka used in GM applications, part number FI114357 is both quite affordable, and also has a split spray pattern with an angle that almost exactly points the spray cone at the back of each intake valve when installed in a stock position (height needs to be altered slightly). It does use a USCAR type connector, but converter plugs are available, and the price including the adapter is affordable. Its is the only affordable high-volume (44lb) linear injector i have been able to find with a split spray. The new EV14 have several split spray injectors, but they are over $175/each as opposed to this ~$50 injector. I still need to actually buy one, and install it in a clear mockup manifold to verify the spray pattern installed, but it models correctly in my software. I will be sure to share data when I get it, but if you happen to get a chance to take a look, it may be a good fit for your design as well. Here is a link to that injector datasheet. Mongo With a flange like this, all you would need to buy is a 45degree bend, cut it at a 22.5degrees, then weld it to both a flat plate and the flange, and you would have an optimized version of the original Keel concept - albeit with a slightly raised mounting height - but that is just added room for the intercooler and to clear the water bridge. The idea here was to make a building block that could be used for something like a supercharger installation, but also a cross-runner system like the old 928Developments intake. Its not a bolt-on part (we already have a great example of that available from Carl) but something more versatile for those who have access to fabrication equipment and an idea kicking around that they want to try. Hans |
Hans,
Not trying to rain on your parade here, but I did not have issues with the injectors. they are all available as solidworks models from Bosch, and you can fit them in your assembley file and have the software clearance them for you... I thought the more important items were height, and angle, based on spray pattern and expected flow of air.. The injectors were easy, all the other bits were difficult on my setup... Hmmmm, food for thought.. everyone's different.. cheers, |
|
Richard,
I do have a model for the injectors. the problem is the interference with the runner to the body if you want an acceptible entry angle for the runner. I dont think you had the same challenge, since you placed the runners in-board in your model. I do agree it is easy to have the modeler do an offset automatically, but doing so killed the shape of the internal port and exit angle when trying to keep the stock positions. I think your design is great too, but it didnt have the same challenge (plenty of other ones though). The challenge all related to injectors in the original location. Regards, Hans |
This may help illustrate the challenge, and also show where I had a problem that I didn't catch (corrected now, but just showing some of the hard parts).
As you can see in this drawing, the clearance between the fuel rail and the tubular runner measures at 2.2mm The clearance between the injector body and the recess made for the injector is only 1.4mm Trying to keep the injector in its stock location, the necessary recess for the body, exit angle of the port, and transitioning the port geometry to a round bore, PLUS still having room for a fuel rail was incredibly difficult. It did take over a dozen revisions (lost track) before coming up with a design that even had that 2.2mm clearance between the rail and the runner with port geometry that I found acceptable. Please note that the o-rings on the injector are the smaller diameter, as it was something I was playing with earlier, but you will notice the bore on the rail and manifold is setup for the standard 14mm. Also, please note that this is a cross-section taken from the middle of the runner, so you are seeing the injector boss protruding into the runner. the runner is much more open than this cross-section portrays. https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-0...824/Intake.png Regards, Hans |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10416846)
Richard,
I do have a model for the injectors. the problem is the interference with the runner to the body if you want an acceptible entry angle for the runner. I dont think you had the same challenge, since you placed the runners in-board in your model. I do agree it is easy to have the modeler do an offset automatically, but doing so killed the shape of the internal port and exit angle when trying to keep the stock positions. I think your design is great too, but it didnt have the same challenge (plenty of other ones though). The challenge all related to injectors in the original location. Regards, Hans Got it... I can see what issues you are having better now.. Like I said, everyone is having different issues. What I meant by it not being difficult, was relative to the other things that were set as parameters relative to injector position in the design... I did a sketch like you have it, but I moved the injectors inboard to solve that and some other issues.. I did not want to run up against those clearance issues, and I wanted to keep the ability to place a larger compressor in the valley at a later date... Cheers, |
1 Attachment(s)
Hans had previously mentioned the difference dimensionaly between Generation III and Generation II injectors. By using a Gen III injector, you can lesson the intrusion into the intake runner required for the injector because they are skinnier.
|
2 Attachment(s)
But using an injector that is thinner is not enough all by itself, we found.
We also canted our intake runners away from the injector, again so that the intrusion into the air stream could be as small as possible. This gave us a secondary benefit: we were aiming for max power between 4000 and 6500 (road racing) and needed slightly longer intake runner lengths to bring in the power there. When calculating intake runner length for Helmholtz effect, measure from apex of bell-mouth to reflective surface (back of valve). There is about 2.5" of intake runner in the head of a 928 all by itself - so getting a "long" intake runner for mid-range power isn't that hard! Note the taper from top to bottom of intake runner. You want to design-in some intake runner taper, or you are leaving some HP on the bench. 80#/hr injectors are straight up-and-down and aimed at the back of the valves, aluminum fuel rail, fuel rail stand-offs/mounts are Delrin. |
I may have finally found an affordable foundry to get these manifold flanges into existence. As much as I love domestic quality, in the volume the 928 community would use, the tooling was just too expensive. Best quote I got was around $5000 for the tooling and then another $1500 or so for the machining fixtures.
I have been in touch with an Asian foundry, and the numbers are considerably better. Smallest run they would do is 50 pieces (equals 25 manifolds). I thought I should check and see if anyone is still interested in something like this before going any further and paying for the tooling to get a sample. Thanks Hans |
What type of a cost would we be looking at per pair?
|
I am still working out a few things with the foundry, and just have an email with pricing, not a formal quote. I am very hopeful though, that I would be able to meet my original benchmark goal of around $500/pair.
I should know for sure by the end of the week. If this initial casting goes well, I will approach them about casting the plenums for the intake as well. Thanks, Hans |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10798133)
I am still working out a few things with the foundry, and just have an email with pricing, not a formal quote. I am very hopeful though, that I would be able to meet my original benchmark goal of around $500/pair.
I should know for sure by the end of the week. If this initial casting goes well, I will approach them about casting the plenums for the intake as well. Thanks, Hans Hans At $500, I am in for at least 1 set up fornt, and probobly a few more down the road. Victor |
Same here Hans...in for 1! Great work!!
|
After a short delay due to a holiday overseas, I have heard back from my contact at the casting facility. They are willing to comply with my requests, despite the small production run for a small fee (quite reasonable and well worth it in my opinion). They will pour from A356, which is considered to be one of the more easily weldable alloys, and provide a T6 heat treatment to the part. The raw body will be cast, and all critical features machined.
I will probably start another thread to gauge interest, but would need to do a run of 50 parts (25 sets) I can sit on some of those for personal use, mockups... etc, but for me to even consider laying out the funds for the molds, I would want to make sure I had 10 sets pre-sold. It will be very difficult for me to estimate the exact price for these, as shipping and import duties are yet to be determined. My original design goal was to offer these for $500/set, and reasonably certain I can still do that, even with the upgraded material and heat-treat. As with all my projects, that is with a VERY small margin, so not much room to absorb any unforeseen shipping issues. If there are, I would increase the price of each set according to the total amount over budget divided evenly across all 25 sets, so any deviation in price should be reasonable, and cant see any scenario where it would adjust the price more than 15% Can I get a show of hands who would be interested in a pre-order at $500/set I will have a current version sent out for SLA to triple check both against the 928 head, but also against several types of current injectors for clearance if we get to that 10 commitments. Thanks Hans |
Sounds good, i'm interested.
How about running it as a kickstarter project |
I wanna go to ITBs next year so scratch me down for 1 set Hans.
|
Good news. I had to get a couple things machined this morning, so while we were waiting for some Sharkwoofer bits to come of the CNC we took the mounting surface of the lower intake int0 the CAM program, and cut out at test piece from 1/16" clear plexi. The file for lack of a better word was perfect. It fits on all my loose head here better than any factory part.
I designed the new part to be symmetrical with tight tolerances, here are some interesting findings: The factory port profile/outline is remarkably close along the entire head both in centering and overall shape. *However* the centering of the injector itself is skewed/offset on most of the ports. The variation here is actually quite startling. I need to digitize a fuel rail, but this does beg several question, such as are the fuel injectors perpendicular to the head (properly seated with a good seal at the o-ring) or is the fuel injector spraying into an obscured/blind part of the head. I am close to the number of interested people to green light the casting. I am going to hold up the purchase order until the Ford Cobra injectors https://rennlist.com/forums/928-foru...discusion.html get here for me to include in the model. I will try and center these injectors over the average center of the ports in the head and modify the lower manifold if necessary. That said, I will have disposable templates made to assist in port matching for those interested. I will also have silicone intake manifold gaskets cut. I may even make a rental drill jig for truing the injector portion of the intake. Getting closer, can we get any more names on the list? Thanks Hans |
Still $500/pair right? Ah what the heck, I'm in.
Dan '91 928GT S/C :eek: 475hp/460lb.ft |
I so wish these would work for what I'm doing....it would make my life so much easier!
|
Check the 16v 944/968 crowd, they might be up for some.
|
Greg - thanks for the kind words.
I will try and take some pictures tonight, but its not easy to demonstrate as my test part is clear plexi. On my way out the door today, I grabbed an intake manifold off the shelf, and lined up the test flange with its bolt centers.... HUGE discrepancy there. Didnt have chance to measure it, but looked like almost 1/8" off. The port in the intake is "deeper" (the edge farthest away from the injector bung), almost like the pattern for the port was offset backwards for some reason. That absolutely has to kill the velocity and do all sort of bizarre things to flow as it exposes the head flange creating a shelf. As Greg demonstrated at Sharktoberfest this past weekend, I think there really is a lot of improvement on the table to be had with better intake manifold design. Moral of the story, if you are doing any head work, and planning on running the stock intake, do yourself a favor take the time to gasket match both the head and manifold. |
@jfrahm_ 968 has big ports.
|
Hey Hans... just a bump to put this up on the top of the list. I really want a set of these, so if there is anything else we can do to get this pushed forward, let us know.
|
I plan to do an intake refresh soon, and I'm not opposed to changing the stock configuration. Someone posted this:
http://performancedesignllc.com/?page_id=247 which I think would be interesting, but would it even work? I would be more interested in what you're creating if I knew what options were available for the end result (intake, throttle body, etc). I can't be the only one in this situation, maybe providing some end result examples or possibilities might drum up interest? It's also entirely possible that the fact that I don't know what the end result would be places this out of my league... |
I just got the Ford Cobra injectors in, which I just wanted to verify had the exact same dimensions as my model. I really think these will be the best injector for our needs... unless someone wants to shell out the ~$190/piece price for the Bosch Motorsport version of the injector.
I still dont have enough commitments yet to green-light the casting, so spending some time getting the fuel rail situation sorted out, so I can cast in bosses when the time comes. I should have access to our corporate 3D printer the week after I get back from Third Coast, so will print some small test sections to verify injector and rail clearances, and port fit. If I get enough commitments to justify the casting, I will send out the whole flange assembly for a full size print (my printer is too small at 8x8x6 to make the model). This will be available for inspection by any qualified potential "volume" purchaser to try and get some more of these pre-sold. I have some exciting things coming shortly as far as fuel rails go. Working on a unique OE style injector clamping plate, integrated fuel dampers and regulator to significantly reduce plumbing complexity and junctions. Less threaded connections and hoses means less of a chance for failure. All the connections to and at the rails will have o-rings in favor of tapered interfaces. There will be no aftermarket components, all Bosch OE parts that are readily available over the counter. So, if you happen to be driving to a national event, and your fuel pressure regulator fails, you should be able to walk into the local auto part store, get another one, and replace it without any tools in less than 5 minutes. Additionally, regulators are available in a number of different pressures, all are 1:1 referenced using the vacuum port, all have modern materials compatible with current fuel additives, and there are drop-in adjustable regulator elements for any custom application. I am working on drawings this afternoon, but they probably wont be ready to share until next week. I am waiting on a couple things. I am also looking at having a custom fuel pressure sender tooled as part of this project. I will start a dedicated fuel rail project thread as soon as the drawings are ready. Thanks, Hans |
1 Attachment(s)
I had an unexpected opportunity to use the 3D printer at the office on Friday before leaving for the weekend. I printed the the first port, and then half the second. It will allow for a test fit at the water bridge and rear coolant port covers. The physical cross-section port will show injector placement, and fit of the new manifold to the port in the head.
Attached is a picture of the start of the print. You can see the printer laying down the support raft for the part. It will be ready to toss in the wash station Monday morning and should have some good pictures for you guys Monday afternoon. Thanks Hans |
Hans,
Put me down for at least one set of these flanges. |
6 Attachment(s)
Here are some pictures I intended to post last week.
The first two are of the flange surface of the new part cut from a clear acrylic. Its hard to see, as the fit is almost perfect. I made all the ports symmetrical, so there is slight deviations port to port, but you can see it is very close. The last four pictures are the same acrylic flange laid over a factory intake manifold, centered on the bolt holes. You can see how well the factory located the injectors, but how the intake manifold port itself is offset inwards. There is a huge ledge there that the air would hit. I think its an amazing failure of quality control on the factory parts. That is a huge discrepancy. I would be interested to see the effect of simply port matching an S4 engine. |
Anyone that can share their plans of what they're going to do with this part?
|
Originally Posted by kaelix
(Post 10860966)
Anyone that can share their plans of what they're going to do with this part?
I personally will try to incorporate an intercooler that will work for all the supercharger and turbo setups I also believe you will see a lot of intakes that look like what on Mark Andersons race car |
Originally Posted by victor25
(Post 10861775)
I also believe you will see a lot of intakes that look like what on Mark Andersons race car
One doesn't need to get very far into intake theory to figure out that those two separate plenums with those extremely long runners are........not optimum. |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10860895)
Here are some pictures I intended to post last week.
The first two are of the flange surface of the new part cut from a clear acrylic. Its hard to see, as the fit is almost perfect. I made all the ports symmetrical, so there is slight deviations port to port, but you can see it is very close. The last four pictures are the same acrylic flange laid over a factory intake manifold, centered on the bolt holes. You can see how well the factory located the injectors, but how the intake manifold port itself is offset inwards. There is a huge ledge there that the air would hit. I think its an amazing failure of quality control on the factory parts. That is a huge discrepancy. I would be interested to see the effect of simply port matching an S4 engine. I've tried this, several times, on several different size engines. Your time is better spent flipping matches into a pool of water..... |
Greg, you are probably right, I am jut surprised that the port matching is so extremely poor. There are likely lots of other issue which have a larger effect, but its just startling to me when compared to the quality of materials and tolerances elsewhere in the engine. I have heard that there was closer attention to port matching on the GT and CS engines.... have you seen anything to support that? Just curious.
|
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10861947)
Greg, you are probably right, I am jut surprised that the port matching is so extremely poor. There are likely lots of other issue which have a larger effect, but its just startling to me when compared to the quality of materials and tolerances elsewhere in the engine. I have heard that there was closer attention to port matching on the GT and CS engines.... have you seen anything to support that? Just curious.
I've been waiting to see what Porken finds out....he's a man on a mission! |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 10860895)
The last four pictures are the same acrylic flange laid over a factory intake manifold, centered on the bolt holes. You can see how well the factory located the injectors, but how the intake manifold port itself is offset inwards. There is a huge ledge there that the air would hit.
I would be interested to see the effect of simply port matching an S4 engine. (This is why there is a TOP to the gasket.) On my early '88, I found the head ports to all be very close to the lower gasket opening. Some ports on the manifold had areas that needed to be matched to the upper opening, but it wasn't nearly as bad as all of the S3 manifolds I worked on. Gasket matching and cleaning up the trumpets did not make a significant difference in RW HP or TQ on my '88. :( I felt part throttle response was improved, though. It may make a difference with larger cams and/or more cubes...
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 10862127)
I've been waiting to see what Porken finds out....he's a man on a mission!
Yamabond on the (factory made) skinny sections (#1, #8). https://members.rennlist.com/porken/88_gasketmatch.jpg Outside horns nearest cover made 'tulip' shaped towards inside. Casting sprues and reinforcement ribs near closest horn (#5) reduced. Ribs strengthen covers for best sound/harmonic reflection (flappy effect). https://members.rennlist.com/porken/88_gasketmatch2.jpg |
I can take a set if it's needed to make the whole thing happen.
Going to need an overseas shipment, though (I'm in Moscow, Russia). |
In Soviet Russia, intake ports you!
|
So, I didnt have a chance to take pictures, but the fit is better than I could have ever imagined. The 3D print passed the fingernail drag test with flying colors. I still need to check the clearance to the waterbridge, which I will do tonight. Pictures will be up tonight, and I will take the part to Third Coast for inspection. Lets get this made, need a couple more hands, and then will collect deposits and get the tooling ordered.
Thanks Hans |
Awesome.
Have you spoken to Greg in depth to make sure there is nothing you are doing that can work with his needs? |
15 Attachment(s)
Here are some quick pictures I took in the parking lot. Not sure I will have time to post good ones later tonight. I have a lot to do before heading out for Third Coast.
Hope you enjoy them. Hans |
2 Attachment(s)
Injector bung
Note that there is a shoulder so the injector can not drop into the port. Also the pintle is shrouded in the casting, but the meat could easily be machined away if you wanted it to be exposed to the flow. These are also designed with the smaller bore for use with the original o-rings, not the large "S4" o-rings. |
It's too bad your 3D printer can't print that out in a plastic material that is suitable for use under the hood for an intake.
Dan '91 928GT S/C :eek: 475hp/460lb.ft |
Wow. Really clear imaging and a way to wrap our brains around what the interaction is like.
Great stuff. The other thread has some info about port volume. Has anyone read anything technical about injector placement? It starts to matter at higher rpms - but maybe too high to worry about here. I am not suggesting moving yours. |
Dan,
You can create functional parts from an SLS printer. The output of the printer I have access to is very durable, but not sure I would use it for this application. I may take a look at making a flanged version and outsource the printing to an SLS house I use. I do think that the cast aluminum version is the most practical application though, as welding is required either way. Brendan - it would be possible to move the injector higher, but there is a notch in the head that you would have go include. I do have a model that accommodates this feature, but think the factory location is fine, especially with the correct injector. |
Yes, I think we would see little benefit until after 7k rpm. And then you have packaging issues. Did you look at the injector dynamics units?
|
Amazing technology Hans, really is. Its great that you get to work with it. This process is going to revolutionize manufacturing as it trickles down in price and availablity. The time in which you can go from design to prototype has been cut literally to minutes.
Looks awesome!:thumbup: |
This sure beats the days when they would carve this stuff out of a large chunk of butter and put in on display at the state fair.
Great work Hans. I'd be very interested in the next stage as it relates to a new/better twin-screw design with a much better intercooler. Keep me in the loop. :cheers: |
Originally Posted by AO
(Post 10865338)
This sure beats the days when they would carve this stuff out of a large chunk of butter and put in on display at the state fair.
Great work Hans. I'd be very interested in the next stage as it relates to a new/better twin-screw design with a much better intercooler. Keep me in the loop. :cheers: |
Originally Posted by Tony
(Post 10865372)
you never have enough power there young man!;)
|
It's too bad your 3D printer can't print that out in a plastic material that is suitable for use under the hood for an intake. The complete story and the testing thread is here: https://rennlist.com/forums/928-foru...32v-928-a.html |
As Carl mentions, 3D printing with the proper equipment is possible. The part cost is just higher than I would like at this point in time. If someone needed a composite lower, I would reccomend looking at Carl's part if the trajectory is compatible with their project. However, if someone needed a different entry angle, I would be happy to work with them on a custom basis.
I am planning the first batch of aluminum lowers to sell for $500/pair. Custom composite manifold components would be closer in price to the 928MS part, as my cost for printing in these materials is considerably higher than the casting and machining even with amortizing the initial expense of the tooling. 3D printings is a great thing, but its still not as cost effective as other methods for "production" yet. My internal cost for printing on the ABS printer (not effective in this application) is a little more than $6/in^3 in raw materials, and the printer itself cost a bit over $20k as its a proffesional unit with heated build chamber and reasonably tight tolerances. Machine will last about 2000hours before an overhaul, and printing something like that manifold I posted took about 4.5 hours... so you can see how it adds up very quickly. I was quoted around $375/part to have a complete flange printed using FDM (again not useable under the hood). SLS is the only method I would use for a component like this, and it would be likely twice the cost as FDM. The day is coming, and sooner than we think. Patents expire on some key SLS technology next year, so expect to see some rapid developments in that area soon. |
Originally Posted by BC
(Post 10863152)
In Soviet Russia, intake ports you!
|
Last week was PRI (fortunately for me, it merged with IMIS and was back in Indianapolis this year). I spent over 20 hours at the show, talking to manufactures trying to line up some good partners for many of the designs I have laying around here just waiting for a good manufacturing fit (we have the most difficult requirement - low volume and low price).
I recieved several really good references, and one of them has paid off. There is actually a local shop with a 5-axis mill that is willing to do shortish runs of the flange design. It requires no-up front tooling costs for me, and while the piece price is higher than casting, it would be much better quality and far easier to weld. I had him quote me 20 sets, and the number was very fair, so going back to see if he will quote less (didnt want to scare him off only asking for 10 pieces to start). Can I get a quick raise of hands, who is still interested, and would you rather have a cast part from an Asian foundry, or a billet part from an American machinist. Pricing would increase but as it is right now, I think casting costs could be contained between $550 and $600 per set and machined parts would be in the $850-$950 range. If people were interested, I could do a matching run of fuel rails and mounting hardware to match either manufacturing method. Thanks Hans |
Did you talk to Erik Hans? We are back at the basic costs Todd found for his flanges.
|
Hans, why cant they just be made out of High temp plastics like all the new cars are?
|
Originally Posted by victor25
(Post 10992711)
Hans, why cant they just be made out of High temp plastics like all the new cars are?
Its not a whole solution, its a base for "your own" full solution. |
Bolt-on with gaskets? Kinda like an AMG:
https://i673.photobucket.com/albums/...6/DSCF0095.jpg https://i673.photobucket.com/albums/...6/DSCF0066.jpg Dan '91 928GT S/C :eek: 475hp/460lb.ft |
Dan
Very similar to the AMG lower manifold, just no flange. It can be used exactly like it though by cutting 45 degree bends in half to 22.5, then it will turn directly upward (perpendicular to the ground) for use in a supercharger installation like the AMG system. I have some renderings I can post of a configuration like that using the HPS supercharger. Like many other good projects, this will just have to wait until there are enough people to warrant the significant upfront costs for casting tooling, or that are interested enough to pay the higher price for machines parts in low volume. I am going to talk to the 5-axis shop here in town on Monday, and see if I can get him to make a short run just for me. Then I will make a couple test manifolds to show the potential of the pieces. If anyone else has access to a 5-axis shop, who thinks they can get better pricing, let me know. Thanks Hans |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Speedtoys
(Post 10992920)
How you plan to weld to it?
Its not a whole solution, its a base for "your own" full solution. Personally I would love to just make an adapter plate and mount something like this |
That would be sweet Victor.
Hans my cyl head looked worse then yours, thats why I ported it to the gaskets and then gasket matched the intake as well. Just check as I thought I had before and after pictures, looks like just after the porting. |
4 Attachment(s)
This project is back from the dead. Funds wont allow for casting, so I wont be able to offer the "cheap" flanges I originally envisioned, but I will be able to offer affordable flanges machined from 6061. I have profiles available for 2"OD-11g, 2"OD-16g, 2.25"OD-11g, and 2.25"OD-16g. First batch will be the 2"-11g as it will allow for easy integration with a number of aftermarket parts. I can offer any of the other profiles if I receive an order for 5-sets.
Here is one configuration (runners not yet optimized in length, but all the difficult geometry angles are solved) using off the shelf bends. The blue plane is a worse-case scenario hood line with brand new motor mounts based on the constraint of the original intake manifold. http://cloudviewer.spaceclaim.com/e8...8a4c51074.html I am placing a deposit for the tooling and programming, and will get an evaluation set in before accepting orders, but it will be fairly simple to make any number of intake configurations. |
Hans,
What are you personal plans for this i.e. what final solution do you have in mind? |
I *may* offer one type of manifold, just to show what you can do with the lower intake "lego". The plan is to offer flanges so people can make a manifold appropriate for their projects. Intake tuning is highly dependent on a number of variables. Thus an optimized intake for an 87 auto would be different than a 90 GT. Similar - absolutely, but not exact. This project is designed to be a fabrication aid and not a complete bolt-on part.
|
Lets start the roll call.
|
Bump
|
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 11399699)
This project is back from the dead. Funds wont allow for casting, so I wont be able to offer the "cheap" flanges I originally envisioned, but I will be able to offer affordable flanges machined from 6061. I have profiles available for 2"OD-11g, 2"OD-16g, 2.25"OD-11g, and 2.25"OD-16g. First batch will be the 2"-11g as it will allow for easy integration with a number of aftermarket parts. I can offer any of the other profiles if I receive an order for 5-sets.
Here is one configuration (runners not yet optimized in length, but all the difficult geometry angles are solved) using off the shelf bends. The blue plane is a worse-case scenario hood line with brand new motor mounts based on the constraint of the original intake manifold. http://cloudviewer.spaceclaim.com/e8...8a4c51074.html I am placing a deposit for the tooling and programming, and will get an evaluation set in before accepting orders, but it will be fairly simple to make any number of intake configurations. 1. Measure the ID of the stock S4 runners. You are going to need that ID....minimum. 2. Take that number and translate it into the OD of an aluminum tube. 3. Multiply by 8. Add in a minimum of 1/8" where the runners cross. Record that total on a tape measure. 4. Take that tape measure out to an engine compartment and lay it on top of the stock intake....just behind the stock chassis stiffing bar. 5. Enough said? It's a bitch of a job. Porsche did a fantastic job of "packaging" their intake manifold, in that space. While not perfect, it's pretty damn nice. |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 11411663)
That looks vaguely familiar. Been there.
1. Measure the ID of the stock S4 runners. You are going to need that ID....minimum. 2. Take that number and translate it into the OD of an aluminum tube. 3. Multiply by 8. Add in a minimum of 1/8" where the runners cross. Record that total on a tape measure. 4. Take that tape measure out to an engine compartment and lay it on top of the stock intake....just behind the stock chassis stiffing bar. 5. Enough said? It's a bitch of a job. Porsche did a fantastic job of "packaging" their intake manifold, in that space. While not perfect, it's pretty damn nice. The first question is whether one should use the stock S4 gasket and fasteners or not. If one will use those, then one does not need to build additional thermal expansion compliance into the manifold. If one will dowel pin the intake to the heads precisely and use gasket/attachment without any compliance, then one will need to build some compliance in the manifold itself, for example with silicone couplers. Both methods have their pros and cons. In a max effort racing engine, I would dowel pin the manifold to the heads and for a low-maintenance street engine I'd probably use the stock gasket. Others may end in a different conclusion. If one goes with the stock gasket and fasteners for the flanges, then in my opinion one doesn't need to leave any clearance between the opposing bank runners. In fact, one could even permanently attach them together to provide a part of the plenum ceiling - not a practical choice in welded manifolds but a common practice with cast manifolds. Some silicone couplers are likely needed when the runners are attached to a closed plenum top. For fabricated manifolds, this is because I don't think there are many humans or robots who are skilled enough to weld in blind spots under the runners with no access whatsover. For cast manifolds, the casting techniques are going to make it a lot cheaper to cast the runner top separately from the bottom plenum, which means one will still need some sort of coupling system to attach the plenum to the runners. One could in principle fabricate a plenum top with precisely located holes for the runners and weld them on from the inside before welding on the bottom of the plenum, but any adjustments would be pretty difficult after that point of no return. Round tubes are inconvenient in a manifold like this. Oval tubes would be much more convenient, but oval in the different ridection than the ports. This is because those oval tubes will cross in a lot smaller space. Fabricating the oval tubes from a larger diameter mandrel bent round tube while providing a transition back to smaller diameter round in the end is challenging. Having them cut from an aluminum blank is expensive. Having them cast is expensive for the series size we're talking about here. The required runner diameter is an interesting question. The stock manifold runners are large, as evidenced by the experience by people who have extrude honed the stock manifold. Just increasing the stock runner diameter will reduce power for most engines - my belief, not a fact. The runners can be relatively small diameter as long as they are very straight. It's the number of curves and the short radius of those curves in the stock runners that kill the top end power, not the so much the diameter. If one wants to keep the stock MAF in its stock location, that puts some serious constraints on runner placement. Basically, the rear runners need to run as high as possible and the plenum needs to have an irregular shape with enough clearance at the rear. Speed density or alpha-N or relocated dual MAFs would give more design flexibility but will add to the cost in various ways. If one wants to keep the stock air box or even the stock air box location for the filter, that puts some constraints on the rear primary runners. There's probably less than an inch of clearance between one of the rear primary runners and the air box, so one either has to move the filter or curve the runners in a very particular way. This is less of an issue for me, since I already have filters in the front - I could just replace the air box with a Y-pipe. With Y-pipe and MAF, getting the flow to fully develop to give consistent MAF readings is another challenge. Honeycomb flow straightener is one possible solution. In the end, with the possible runner lengths, one could come up with a manifold that underperforms the stock manifold below about 3500 rpm but outperform it above 3500 rpm. For my purposes (turbo car), a 6" primary runner manifold with as straight runners as possible makes a lot more sense than say 12" runners crossing into a plenum below. The 12" runner manifold (12" in the runner and 4" in the head for 16" total tract length) adds torque to mid range where I don't need it. I need more torque either at the top or the bottom, not in the mid range. |
Originally Posted by ptuomov
(Post 11411820)
I've been looking at the runner placement and packaging for a long (12") runner manifold. Mostly just as an academic exercise. It's pretty challenging and therefore fun. Here's what I've concluded after thinking about it, but not having tried it yet.
The first question is whether one should use the stock S4 gasket and fasteners or not. If one will use those, then one does not need to build additional thermal expansion compliance into the manifold. If one will dowel pin the intake to the heads precisely and use gasket/attachment without any compliance, then one will need to build some compliance in the manifold itself, for example with silicone couplers. Both methods have their pros and cons. In a max effort racing engine, I would dowel pin the manifold to the heads and for a low-maintenance street engine I'd probably use the stock gasket. Others may end in a different conclusion. If one goes with the stock gasket and fasteners for the flanges, then in my opinion one doesn't need to leave any clearance between the opposing bank runners. In fact, one could even permanently attach them together to provide a part of the plenum ceiling - not a practical choice in welded manifolds but a common practice with cast manifolds. Some silicone couplers are likely needed when the runners are attached to a closed plenum top. For fabricated manifolds, this is because I don't think there are many humans or robots who are skilled enough to weld in blind spots under the runners with no access whatsover. For cast manifolds, the casting techniques are going to make it a lot cheaper to cast the runner top separately from the bottom plenum, which means one will still need some sort of coupling system to attach the plenum to the runners. One could in principle fabricate a plenum top with precisely located holes for the runners and weld them on from the inside before welding on the bottom of the plenum, but any adjustments would be pretty difficult after that point of no return. Round tubes are inconvenient in a manifold like this. Oval tubes would be much more convenient, but oval in the different ridection than the ports. This is because those oval tubes will cross in a lot smaller space. Fabricating the oval tubes from a larger diameter mandrel bent round tube while providing a transition back to smaller diameter round in the end is challenging. Having them cut from an aluminum blank is expensive. Having them cast is expensive for the series size we're talking about here. The required runner diameter is an interesting question. The stock manifold runners are large, as evidenced by the experience by people who have extrude honed the stock manifold. Just increasing the stock runner diameter will reduce power for most engines - my belief, not a fact. The runners can be relatively small diameter as long as they are very straight. It's the number of curves and the short radius of those curves in the stock runners that kill the top end power, not the so much the diameter. If one wants to keep the stock MAF in its stock location, that puts some serious constraints on runner placement. Basically, the rear runners need to run as high as possible and the plenum needs to have an irregular shape with enough clearance at the rear. Speed density or alpha-N or relocated dual MAFs would give more design flexibility but will add to the cost in various ways. If one wants to keep the stock air box or even the stock air box location for the filter, that puts some constraints on the rear primary runners. There's probably less than an inch of clearance between one of the rear primary runners and the air box, so one either has to move the filter or curve the runners in a very particular way. This is less of an issue for me, since I already have filters in the front - I could just replace the air box with a Y-pipe. With Y-pipe and MAF, getting the flow to fully develop to give consistent MAF readings is another challenge. Honeycomb flow straightener is one possible solution. In the end, with the possible runner lengths, one could come up with a manifold that underperforms the stock manifold below about 3500 rpm but outperform it above 3500 rpm. For my purposes (turbo car), a 6" primary runner manifold with as straight runners as possible makes a lot more sense than say 12" runners crossing into a plenum below. The 12" runner manifold (12" in the runner and 4" in the head for 16" total tract length) adds torque to mid range where I don't need it. I need more torque either at the top or the bottom, not in the mid range. I've never had an S4 manifold "backwards" on a flow bench, so I'm clueless about this. |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 11412044)
How much is there to be gained in a fabricated manifold versus a stock manifold, if you are pushing air through those manifolds, versus drawing air?
I've never had an S4 manifold "backwards" on a flow bench, so I'm clueless about this. The long answer is that if everything is well functioning, the pressure differential between the cylinder and the intake plenum is not much higher for a turbo car than normally aspirated car. It's there between 0 and 2 psi, depending on various things. I think the factory conventions (when they still owned flow benches and not just computers) used to be 20 inches of water, which perhaps coincidentally is in the middle of the range. So both the turbo and the normally aspirated car "push" air to the cylinder, the NA car having a 14.5 psi absolute or something in the plenum and 13.5 psi absolute in the cylinder and the turbo car having say 24.5 psi absolute in the plenum and 13.5 psi absolute in the cylinder. The flow bench as a system also only "pushes" air, regardless of which way the motor is run. The plenum having 14.7 absolute and the cylinder 14.7 psi absolute minus whatever the test pressure, which for 20 inches of water adds up to 13.7 or so. Or the intake hooked up to the bench the other way around and the bench motor run the other direction, the plenum now having 14.7 plus the test pressure, say 15.7, and the cylinder head end seeing 14.7 of the ambient air. What is very different between turbo and normally aspirated cars is the density of the air in the runner. There's no way to test that on a standard flow bench, because whichever way you run the bench and the manifold it's always going to have about ambient air density in the intake runner (1.23 kg / m^3 or so). To realistically test a 10-psi boost turbo manifold, one would have to somehow have the plenum at 24.5 psi absolute and the cylinder at 23.5 psi absolute, which would then have a density of 1.6-2.0 kg / m^3 depending on the efficiency of compression and subsequent cooling. I don't know how to do that and I don't personally know anyone who knows how to do that. Someone like me is then left with some rules of thumb to make some guesses and look at other people's turbo manifolds and try to copy what works. What seems to work is that up to 20 psi boost any manifold that distributes about equally is going to work well on a 5.0L engine and the car is going to fly. At higher boost levels, 30 psi plus, extremely straight and short tapered runners seem to work well. Might have something to do with friction growing with density, and the denser charge generating adequately strong pulses even with a short runner. I don't know. |
Bump
|
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 11412044)
How much is there to be gained in a fabricated manifold versus a stock manifold, if you are pushing air through those manifolds, versus drawing air?
I've never had an S4 manifold "backwards" on a flow bench, so I'm clueless about this. Why cant we just adapt some of the awesome intake plennums and runners to our system as I joked about before by slapping the BMW M5 intake over my 928 intake. it seems that if you had that adapater shown here, and then some custom joiner tubes, you could have some mass produced, very efficient intakes, that could be bolted on to the 928 with minimal adaption. heck, even the Aston or Mustang intake, albeit a little too high would yield some big gains. they are now getting near 450rwhp out of a 5 liter, stock, with not much compression (11.1) and 8300rpm. :) I don't think it has a radical cam by any stretch and it's valves are not that huge. someday, one of those trick intakes will be put on the 928. I think your custom 928 intake did 360 rwhp on a stock 5 liter, right? I forgot what that even looked like, but It sounds like it worked well! |
Oddly enough, I have received three emails in the past week about flanges. I got a call last week from one of the shops I use looking for some work as they are running low on jobs in the off-season.
We spoke yesterday, and he thinks they can get some flanges made at a good price if I make some design changes to fit it in a 1.25" bar stock. Currently the part is about 1.28" tall, which would require the use of 1.5" raw stock, which would add to the price both at the material and machine time stages. I am supposed to get a +/-20% number today based on the original design assuming if it were modified to a height of 1.23" to fit inside the less expensive bar stock. If the numbers look good, I will redesign the flange from scratch over the weekend and put a PO in on Monday for 5-sets. |
I'm in. As I always have been. Either 1 or 2 sets.
|
I'm also in for 1 or 2 sets
|
So... finally have firm pricing from the shop to make these lower manifold flanges, and it looks good if we can get at least 5 sets in the first batch. I will take the time to make the small modifications to get them to fit in the less expensive bar stock this weekend if we get to 5 sets or more.
For the first five sets, I can get these done from 6061 billet for $600/pair +shipping. I will design them for the common stock 14mm Bosch lower o-ring, and they will have blank bosses where the stanchions are located for any number of fuel rail configurations. I can provide matching fuel rails if there is interest, and would have these quoted after the order goes in for the lower manifolds. The last detail is what size runner do people want. I can do either a 1.75" or 2" ID, but all sets would have to be designed for the same diameter. Lets get a raise of hands on who wants sets and what ID runner they want. If we get the 5 sets an agreed ID, I will collect the funds on Friday, modify the design over the weekend, and get the updated files to the shop Monday morning with the deposit to get the material ordered. Thanks Hans |
As ever, I am in.
|
I'll take two sets. I sent you an email on the preferred dimensions.
|
To share the conversation publicly, here are the highlights of email with Tuomo:
Critical 928 related dimensions: Cross-sectional area of the port at the sealing surface of the head - 1867.84mm^2 Cross-sectional area of the port at the sealing surface of the manifold (excluding injector bung)- 1688.67mm^2 Common material dimension: 2"OD-1.75"ID RMR extruded tube internal cross-sectional area - 1551.79mm^2 2"OD-16guage (1.87" ID) internal cross-sectional area - 1771.9mm^2 2.25"OD-2"ID RMR extruded tube internal cross-sectional area - 2026.83mm^2 2.25"OD-11guage (2.1" ID) internal cross-sectional area - 2047.15mm^2 My vote is for the 2.25" 11g tubing, as you can use it in mandrel bent form or use the 2.25"OD-2"ID extrusions from Ross Machine Racing depending on your application. The thicker wall will be much easier to weld to the flange without blowing through for those assembling manifolds at home. The 2"-16g is probably the optimal selection all things considered, but it could be a pain to work with. Thoughts? Hans |
I will always be pushing air through this, so those size ranges are fine.
|
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 11914754)
To share the conversation publicly, here are the highlights of email with Tuomo:
Critical 928 related dimensions: Cross-sectional area of the port at the sealing surface of the head - 1867.84mm^2 Cross-sectional area of the port at the sealing surface of the manifold (excluding injector bung)- 1688.67mm^2 Common material dimension: 2"OD-1.75"ID RMR extruded tube internal cross-sectional area - 1551.79mm^2 2"OD-16guage (1.87" ID) internal cross-sectional area - 1771.9mm^2 2.25"OD-2"ID RMR extruded tube internal cross-sectional area - 2026.83mm^2 2.25"OD-11guage (2.1" ID) internal cross-sectional area - 2047.15mm^2 My vote is for the 2.25" 11g tubing, as you can use it in mandrel bent form or use the 2.25"OD-2"ID extrusions from Ross Machine Racing depending on your application. The thicker wall will be much easier to weld to the flange without blowing through for those assembling manifolds at home. The 2"-16g is probably the optimal selection all things considered, but it could be a pain to work with. Thoughts? Hans Taking out the space for injector and fuel spray, the stock S4 port is about 1700 mm^2 in round numbers. To keep air happy, you definitely don't want the runner smaller than the port. But you don't want it much larger than that either, given that the port is pretty large for the air that most of us are asking it to flow. Pipemax, for example, wants a lot smaller port for a 100% VE 5.0L engine at 7000 rpm. Most people aren't going to increase displacement to 7L, get the VE to 120%+, or spin the engine past 7500 rpm. This tells me that we want a runner that is slightly larger than that 1700 mm^2, but only slightly. 2.25 OD and 2" ID runner has area of 2027 mm^2. That's about 19% more than the port. That's a lot. 2.0 OD and 1.75" ID runner has area of 1552 mm^2. That's about 9% less than the port. That's not going to keep air happy without epoxying or welding the intake port in the head smaller. Pipemax calls for much smaller runners. But there's no way to make them smaller without causing problems with stock S4 heads. So 1.75 ID is out of question and 2 ID is a bit big. 1.87" ID or something like that would probably be the best. That would give 1772 mm^2 and about 5% more area than the port. This is about as close to the Goldilocks situation as we can hope for. Now, how should we get to that 1.87" ID? We can go with a thinner wall 2" OD pipe or thicker wall 2.25" OD pipe. My vote goes to the thinner wall 2" OD pipe, for the following reasons: Both pipes have burst strength that is way above anything that they'll see in this application. A big advantage of the 2" OD pipe is that there's a better chance of getting a cross-ram manifold done. Compare seven times the runner width to three times the bore spacing. 2"x7 = 14" whereas 2.25"x7=15.75". The available space with 122mm bore spacing is 14.4". 2" fits while 2.25" won't. It still wont be easy even with 2" pipe. [Edit: this computation is wrong because it ignores the 25mm bore offset. 2.25" would fit in principle. It won't in practice because of water bridge, the top cross brace, and the air box.] 2"-16g (1.87" ID) tube is available in spades, mandrel bent, at the sources such as this: http://www.mandrel-bends.com/catalog...-bend-657.html Also, 2"-16g (1.87" ID) tube has about 47.5mm ID, right? Can we find out whether the Weber or Dellorto 48mm velocity stacks match with that? Because if they do, the knock-off velocity stacks are available for one third of the price that Ross Machine Racing is asking for their velocity stacks. The final advantage is that if someone wants to throw bigger money at this and fabricate tapered runners, then one is definitely better of starting with a smaller ID at the port end. |
Since Tuomo is in for two sets, 2"OD-16g wins.
I will source some 50mm velocity stack options for those who need them, or whip up a design to aid in fabrication and have them quoted so that option will be available. Can we get another two solid commitments to get his project rolling? I will collect funds Friday afternoon. Thanks Hans |
Looks like we are at four confirmed, we just need one more solid commitment. That said, if we get more than 5, the price may drop. I have asked the shop to quote at 10 sets (just in case).
Also, please let me know if anyone wants matching fuel rails. Thanks Hans |
I have been working on the redesign to fit in the 1.5x3" bar stock to keep the the quoted price at the low volume. As part of the exercise, I inserted the passenger side stock fuel rail into the design to see how it would fit. As the pictures show, the stock mounting tabs will interfere with most runner designs. Stock rails will require custom mounts, and removal of the original tabs.
I can design custom mounts if people would like them to use the stock rail, but even then the original plastic covers may provide additional clearance issues. I can also provide custom fuel rails and mounts. We will just need to have some consensus to get enough pieces to keep the fuel rail parts a reasonable price. Also, while I am working on it, is everyone alright with converting from studs to machine-screws? I think a nice M8 capscrew with corresponding countersunk relief on the flange would be considerably cleaner. Thanks Hans https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...1ed0473219.png https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...0534bf426e.png https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...3127eed258.png https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...d0440e7308.png |
Yep. That's what I did on my design with ben if you recall.
|
well i have carl's fuel rails so as long a i can clamp those down then i'm happy
|
In my opinion, the stock fuel rails are great. They are designed for batch fuel injection and work well with that, as long as there are enough dampers in the system. I am of the philosophy that one should not replace stock components unless there's a really good reason to do so. Furthermore, when changing one component to aftermarket component, it's better to try to make it work with as many stock components as possible, as long as performance isn't sacrificed in a meaningful way.
To that effect: Hans, can you show a straight 2" OD runner going up from the flange with the stock fuel rail attached to it? How much interference is there? If it's just a tiny bit, I'd be fine just cutting a corner off that fuel rail tab and be done with it. If it's more, then let's see how we can reuse the stock fuel rails with the minimum effort. |
Doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. No reason to complicate the issue
/design. |
It barely clears the bent runner, but you can see that the requisite mounting hole would be interfering with the base of the runner.
The offset is different between the front and rear mounts, so its not something I am willing to machine (or better yet something people are willing to pay for). As there would be fixturing fees for four different parts. https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...897ee08fba.png I can provide dimensions for those who would want to make a custom bracket to mount a stock rail. |
It's a custom manifold. Custom things will be done for fueling, from cutting off the rail end for an an fitting, to cutting the mountings off to make them work at whatever height the injectors will be at.
|
Intake runner airflows: circular cross section may not be the best way for curved runners:
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...e0eb2c1b68.jpg ----------------- https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...7e7f5a5a1c.jpg ----------------- https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...41fa4291f6.jpg ----------------- https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...d0fb9aebdf.jpg ----------------- https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...f543f7c4f4.jpg |
6 Attachment(s)
I had a bit more free time today than expected, so knocked out the redesign.
I am going to separate into two sets of images. One showing the flange with a stock fuel rail (modifications will be required to the rail, or custom mounts made). The second post will show a -8AN fuel rail option. I will print a test file tomorrow at the office, confirm everything looks good, and will get the file off to the machine shop. Here are download links for 3D PDF models if you want a closer look: https://app.box.com/s/hioolo987y8arvpzyoj8 https://app.box.com/s/fogczts8s17ikbeaqpet You will need to open these files with Adobe Reader. Thanks Hans |
How about fuel rail installation angle, has anyone checked whether the stock rails should be turned the way that fuel will be sprayed deeper to intake port?
Somehow I have a feeling that specially with multi-hole injectors, the fuel is sprayed too much towards the floor just before port divider. It could be that I remember wrong and there is always possibility of cutting little more from stock fuel rail tab and make the holes oval to adjust them a bit. Anyways, this is important thing for patch injection as first set of fuel should be sprayed against intake valve where the hot valve will vaporize the fuel before valve opens. Nice work Hans:) |
Part is in the printer, and will test it tomorrow.
I am PMing all interested parties regarding payment, and will get the funds to the machine shop by Monday. Thanks Hans |
Looks like my -10 will be fine too.
|
Here are pics of the test print. Injector fits (can see how tight it is to get it in there and get a nice entry angle).
I will test it on a head tonight when I get home. https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...4b4325936d.jpg https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...756492ab43.jpg https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...9eb5b92c4f.jpg https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...d7bfd51b07.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...138f503bf8.jpg |
Did you ever mock up with injector dynamics model injectors? They are basically the mini bosch.
|
thats a nice print, what printer+slicer are you using
|
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...a070fd158d.png
The InjectorDynamics use a Bosch EV14 housing. More info on this injector format can be found here: http://www.bosch-motorsport.de/en/de...s_1_171028.php The injector bore is 17mm, as the EV12 is 15mm. The only problem with an EV14 and this lower flange design will be the small locating nub. It does interfere with the injector bore slightly. You can see how little it protrudes past the outside surface in these renderings. A quick brush with sandpaper, and they would fit just fine. Image 5 shows just the piece of the locating nub that would interfere, and its thickest point, it is 0.05mm which is half the width of a human hair. Of course there may be manufacturing differences that would increase this, but quite literally a single pass of sandpaper should give enough clearance, or several would get plenty of room. Regards, Hans https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...ef96489f2a.png https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...14603980f5.png https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...9a74d46322.png https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...d4acb1a2f2.png |
Than you. He specs them in many different configurations, so I feel like its perfectly workable. He has worked with Bosch to create a somewhat modified 1300 with all stainless parts. I hope that's not just marketing. At normal pressures, 1300 is the perfect size for 800hp and alcohol.
|
Its interesting how he shows the nubs on the real pics, but the dimension drawing does not.
http://injectordynamics.com/injectors/id1000/ |
BC- You will be fine as long as you are alright "kissing" your pricey injectors with some ~350grit.
To all others, please note that compact injectors ARE required for this design. EV12 is optimal, and as shown above, EV14 will fit with a 10second modification. Modern "smooth-bore" Siemens Deka injectors also will work fine. As mentioned above, the injector pocket bore is 17mm so make sure your injector will fit in that footprint if its not in the above list. FYI- the blue Bosch 0280156127 injector, as pictured in the test part, is a nice ~40lb high-impedance injector with a split-spray pattern ideal for our port configuration also shown here: Regards, Hans |
Can you mock the - 10 rail in your drawings? It's the RMR ones.
|
Here are pictures of the part on the head
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...e6a0eddc4a.jpg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...5aef95b013.jpg https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...278e6fdd48.jpg https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...e956f5a65b.jpg https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...fa577c56d9.jpg |
Originally Posted by BC
(Post 11922528)
Can you mock the - 10 rail in your drawings? It's the RMR ones.
|
Thank you.
|
:bowdown:
|
I am glad to say that we reached the 5 sets, funds have been collected, and files are going to the shop Monday morning.
I made another round of edits this morning to try and add O-ring seals to the flange both sets of files are going to the shop Here is a quick preview: https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...75027ce089.png https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...f6718e431d.png https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...2102ce8cc6.png |
Are these intake manifold flanges intended to be run with or without the stock intake manifold gaskets, or either way?
The reason why I am asking is that the stock intake manifold gasket is thick and reinforced. It will hold against a lot of manifold pressure while still providing enough compliance for thermal expansions. If one is using the stock intake manifold gasket, then one can "just" weld the manifold together and not worry about the block and heads expanding slightly differently from the intake manifold. If one however uses the O-ring seals and bolts the intake manifold directly on the head, one has to at least think about the thermal expansion and the stresses. Likely one will have to build in some compliance into the intake manifold such that it will not crack over time. The benefit from having an O-ring seal is that one can locate the intake manifold precisely relative to the head. Does the stock intake manifold have dowel pins for location, I don't think so? By adding those dowel pins, then one could really precisely port match the manifold to the heads for the best flow. Both solutions work. From memory, Simard's ITB uses O-ring seals and Todd's turbo manifold uses stock intake manifold gaskets. Both setups have managed to make some serious power. For these flanges, the ability to use either the stock gasket or an O-ring seal to the head would of course be the best option. The bolt on solutions would use the stock gasket and more hard-core builds could use the O-ring seal. |
These lowers were not designed to be used with stock intake gaskets. The reason being is that that the stock gasket doesnt fit that well, and you cant modify it to match. They are also tapered, grow when compressed.... just too many variables to get them to work to my standards. I have the file to have gaskets cut, and could have some laser or waterjet cut flat gaskets from more predictable gasket material.
The bolt holes in the flange have plenty of room for thermal expansion, that wont be a problem. I like the o-ring solution best, but it does get close on the manufacturing side. |
Have the o-ring groove pretty well perfected. Its at 22.5% squish, and fits in the groove easily and retains itself for installation without any adhesive.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...a1f6f948fe.jpg https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...3563a7715b.jpg I think this will be much nicer than a traditional gasket. |
Here is the final design. I had to make a couple more quick edits, the largest (apart from the o-rings) was to remove the undercut that was on the bottom under the runner extension and replace it with an end-milling operation. Cost of the o-ring grooves bumped the price a bit, but I will cover this and the cost of the o-rings for these first five sets.
The O-rings that I tested were Viton, so perfect for the fuel exposure. https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...de9f1f9fa7.jpg https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...c31424cb58.jpg https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...f440a7be9e.jpg https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...b824fb716e.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...873de095f8.jpg https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...c928b4c980.jpg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...21ffdfa5fd.jpg Also available for those who may need it for their projects are coolant sensor relocation parts. This allows moving the temp sensor on the waterbridge used to send the signal for the dash gauge (not the critical EZK/LH sensor) to the rear driver port normally occupied by the factory block-off plate. There is also a M14 plug that installs almost flush in the waterbridge. I needed this for one of my projects, so I made several extra sets in case anyone else needs them. Price for these two components and o-rings will be $42. A stock gasket is required for install. I have 5 sets available. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...820fd2f9ca.jpg https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...8c63a7a724.jpg https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...a9e1bdfbad.jpg Thanks Hans |
Hans,
I'll take one of the coolant sensor relocators. |
Me as well Hans. Thank you.
|
Me too! Me too!
Thanks |
I ordered a stack of the factory gaskets for the temp sensor relocation plate so I can ship them with parts for people. Price will go up according the actual cost of the gasket and the pair of stainless install fasteners (approximately $3) but they will be ready to go when they arrive.
Also, I will be able to offer billet velocity stacks for the 2"-16g tubing. These will have the full variable radius profile for the bellmouth. I am working with the shop now to provide some additional features for easier installation in plenum materials. I will post drawings as soon as I have everything squared away. Thanks Hans |
The Force is strong with Hans, I can tell.
Rock on dude! |
Here are the proposed velocity stacks, and two configurations of them installed. There are designed to be installed in a 2.125" hole in .125" thick material for easy fabrication.
Thoughts? Thanks Hans https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...6d1613f0b3.jpg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...ae90650a4c.jpg https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...dbf5c5ac85.jpg https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...60ea58777e.jpg https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...bb1898929a.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...652b0fba57.jpg |
Lower manifolds are up next week in the queue at the machine shop. If anyone else wants a set, there is still time to get in on this batch.
|
Thoughts on the vstacks are:
How would these look with longer runners? Of course the short runners are for some, but for a more balanced rev range, it seems like the runners will need to be longer. |
BC,
That was just a quick mockup. The stacks are can accommodate any length. If you are talking about a longer flare, Its something I could do, but will end up costing a lot more per part. |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 11977170)
BC,
If you are talking about a longer flare, Its something I could do, but will end up costing a lot more per part. http://www.profblairandassociates.co...mouth_Sept.pdf |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 11977170)
BC,
That was just a quick mockup. The stacks are can accommodate any length. If you are talking about a longer flare, Its something I could do, but will end up costing a lot more per part. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by UpFixenDerPorsche
(Post 11977465)
And the (elliptical profile) flare will work better. I mean with a clean sheet build why not include the best proven principles at every opportunity? http://www.profblairandassociates.co...mouth_Sept.pdf
First, anyone can put whatever bellmouths on these flanges they want. Anyone can also fabricate tapered runners which have biased oval profile at turns. There's no requirement for using straight pipe or these bellmouths. Second, the flow rates between this kind of bellmouth and one with a longer major axis of the ellipse differ by some tenths of a percent. See some testing results by David Vizard below. So while they may not be perfect, at some point the best may become the worst enemy of good. Attachment 904982 (The differences are so small that I thought they'd deserve a very small image. The full-size image by clicking or in the below link.) http://forum.etypeuk.com/viewtopic.php?t=3394 |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 11976664)
Lower manifolds are up next week in the queue at the machine shop. If anyone else wants a set, there is still time to get in on this batch.
I'm in for a set if it's not too late. Go ahead in PM me payment information. I can get payment out to you tomorrow. |
Originally Posted by ptuomov
(Post 11977742)
Two comments:
First, anyone can put whatever bellmouths on these flanges they want. Anyone can also fabricate tapered runners which have biased oval profile at turns. There's no requirement for using straight pipe or these bellmouths. Second, the flow rates between this kind of bellmouth and one with a longer major axis of the ellipse differ by some tenths of a percent. See some testing results by David Vizard below. So while they may not be perfect, at some point the best may become the worst enemy of good. Attachment 904982 (The differences are so small that I thought they'd deserve a very small image. The full-size image by clicking or in the below link.) http://forum.etypeuk.com/viewtopic.php?t=3394 This is also the outlook of factory decision makers: "What? All those $$$ for that little bit? Naah". And so the path back to mediocrity begins, whereupon years later we find all these enthusiasts lambasting the factory over cheapskate compromises, whereupon one says: "The only way to fix this problem is to start afresh and design one of our own" ... ... |
My apologies. I have been far too dogmatic re this topic..
|
Originally Posted by UpFixenDerPorsche
(Post 11978770)
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...db417324cb.jpg
When I decided to modify my S4 manifold it was done not only as an experiment but also as a test of my understanding of the application of aerodynamic flow principles. There was a recent comment (can't remember which thread. 'porting by committee' maybe) that 'someone' had posted images of theoretical airflows but 'he wasn't building a manifold'. Possibly referring to me (as it happens I am designing a new manifold), and the CFD based flow images illustrate the air flow principles to be considered. Well these are the principles I incorporated in the changes I made within the S4 manifold and upstream airflow tract. I knew each would yield an improvement but how much from each I had no idea. As it was experimental and I had but one shot at it (you don't really want to remove that manifold every other day do you? LOL), I made every change in one fell swoop. I was confident of seeing an improvement but was not prepared for what I got: a 5-6% torque gain across the rev range. Might not seem much but here's a thought: will anyone on this forum show me any evidence of a gain of this magnitude without having spent upwards of $1000? More like $2000 if the truth be known. What can't be shown in the dyno results are the way the car now drives. :evilgrin: It now has throttle response and bite at all rpm. A second gear roll-on from 2500rpm will put a big grin on yer face. Guaranteed. Even going to the shops is FUN. :-))). Btw - everything else is stock: air intake, air filter, pump fuel, exhaust system, ports, S4 cams, ECU etc. This should shout a very clear message: YOU ARE ALL LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE !!! It won't be until you deliver high velocity, high volume airflow to the ports will you be able evaluate the effectiveness of port mods and valve shapes. Then there's the swirl issue ... More to the point, has any contributor to the porting / manifold design threads (which btw are full of great info - once enough air actually gets to the ports) successfully put their knowledge into practice on their own car and achieved a demonstrated improvement, because I haven't seen anything to show this? It seems to me that most contributors here are caught up in a culture of whizz-bang workshop machinery, thinking say, that if one takes a 1 cubic foot block of billet alloy and turns it into a toothpick then that toothpick must have next to supernatural properties. What bull****. And the sooner you all wake up to this the better. It's only once you have achieved a successful 'proof of concept' that you bring in the fantastic manufacturing technologies. I achieved my manifold performance mods using 2-part epoxy filler, a Dremel grinder, a piece of scrap alloy sheet, some RTV silicone, but most of all - a clear understanding of the airflow principles involved. Oh yes - there was also an engineering understanding of the suitability of application of all materials used. Easy for me to forget, as that 'world' is my normal, and usually quite foreign to others. At times I find myself getting very cranky at what I perceive as deliberate ignoring of my contributions, until I remind myself that the vast majority of listers probably didn't pass high school science. Not a criticism; only an observation. I know the simple basic implementation of my manifold mods actually offends some people, with one lister actually saying that my ideas would have more credibility were they made using exotic laser guided 'n' th degree GPS located blaah blaaah machinery. He knows who he is and I'm still waiting to see the results of his performance theories applied in real life to his own car. My only comment is if this is the understanding of my alterations by the exotic machinery mob then they should be banished to the cast iron piston era. All bravado, with bigger and shinier is better but not 2 cents worth of real understanding of what they are actually doing. So - back to the beginning - would the real owner of a 5% performance improvement for less than $100 please stand up. Nobody. Hmm. So there you have it. It would appear I'm the only one on the forum with a real life, low cost but high value bang-for-buck performance increase in MY OWN CAR. Let's see who can get their head out of the "shiny metal must be better" indoctrination and get on with bringing 928 up to this century's performance standards. Call me a stirrer or whatever, but do any of you realise that had you raised your head and looked around the rest of the 'airflow' world you would have found your answers years ago. Maybe it's about time many of you stopped worshipping a few sacred cows. UpFixen. |
5 Attachment(s)
UpFixedDerPorsche --
That was a proper misunderstood mad scientist rant! Attachment 905100 I don't know what exactly it was that caused your panties to lodge up so far up your crack that you think the whole world is disrespecting you and your manifold modifications. So people may be, but the whole world? Regardless of what it was, I suggest you go back to your lab and design something like the below tool to extract those panties out of your crack and view other people and their relationship with you with a more realistic eye. Attachment 905101 My advice to you is to stop lashing out to people who agree with you! Now that you've declared yourself the undisputed king of hp/USD modifications, consider the following modification. I had the idea of putting Eboost2 on top of John's turbo kit and using it to run an rpm specific boost profile. I tuned it myself in Framingham MA to use those profiles, and of course wasn't very good at it. Still, at the first try that was 70 extra hp for $600 or $8.57 per hp. I've got the dyno graphs in the twin turbo thread, in case you're interested. As far as the porting and polishing thread goes, in case it wasn't comprehensible from the flurry of posts, Ake who's porting those 928 heads is planning to build his independent throttle body system that has literally nothing to do with the stock 928 S4 intake. Obviously, with his ITB system, or Mike Simard's system, or the system that Greg Grey is building, porting the heads should be expected to help. When you are posting in a thread about sheetmetal intake manifold components, how does it make sense to shout that "YOU ARE ALL LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE !!!" when you think the stock intake manifold is the problem? Hello, does not compute!? Isn't the whole premise of this thread that the stock intake manifold _is_ the problem, why else would Hans be making flanges and us buying them? This is at least how someone from the planet Earth would interpret the situation. Just to clarify one more misunderstanding. You wrote: I know the simple basic implementation of my manifold mods actually offends some people, with one lister actually saying that my ideas would have more credibility were they made using exotic laser guided 'n' th degree GPS located blaah blaaah machinery. He knows who he is and I'm still waiting to see the results of his performance theories applied in real life to his own car. As far as my car goes, it's of course in pieces again so it's the slowest car around. However, when the Humpty Dumpty has been put back together again, I invite you to a performance comparison of your choosing. You'll have four months at least to perfect and implement your ideas in your lab.
Originally Posted by UpFixenDerPorsche
(Post 11978770)
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...db417324cb.jpg
When I decided to modify my S4 manifold it was done not only as an experiment but also as a test of my understanding of the application of aerodynamic flow principles. There was a recent comment (can't remember which thread. 'porting by committee' maybe) that 'someone' had posted images of theoretical airflows but 'he wasn't building a manifold'. Possibly referring to me (as it happens I am designing a new manifold), and the CFD based flow images illustrate the air flow principles to be considered. Well these are the principles I incorporated in the changes I made within the S4 manifold and upstream airflow tract. I knew each would yield an improvement but how much from each I had no idea. As it was experimental and I had but one shot at it (you don't really want to remove that manifold every other day do you? LOL), I made every change in one fell swoop. I was confident of seeing an improvement but was not prepared for what I got: a 5-6% torque gain across the rev range. Might not seem much but here's a thought: will anyone on this forum show me any evidence of a gain of this magnitude without having spent upwards of $1000? More like $2000 if the truth be known. What can't be shown in the dyno results are the way the car now drives. :evilgrin: It now has throttle response and bite at all rpm. A second gear roll-on from 2500rpm will put a big grin on yer face. Guaranteed. Even going to the shops is FUN. :-))). Btw - everything else is stock: air intake, air filter, pump fuel, exhaust system, ports, S4 cams, ECU etc. This should shout a very clear message: YOU ARE ALL LOOKING IN THE WRONG PLACE !!! It won't be until you deliver high velocity, high volume airflow to the ports will you be able evaluate the effectiveness of port mods and valve shapes. Then there's the swirl issue ... More to the point, has any contributor to the porting / manifold design threads (which btw are full of great info - once enough air actually gets to the ports) successfully put their knowledge into practice on their own car and achieved a demonstrated improvement, because I haven't seen anything to show this? It seems to me that most contributors here are caught up in a culture of whizz-bang workshop machinery, thinking say, that if one takes a 1 cubic foot block of billet alloy and turns it into a toothpick then that toothpick must have next to supernatural properties. What bull****. And the sooner you all wake up to this the better. It's only once you have achieved a successful 'proof of concept' that you bring in the fantastic manufacturing technologies. I achieved my manifold performance mods using 2-part epoxy filler, a Dremel grinder, a piece of scrap alloy sheet, some RTV silicone, but most of all - a clear understanding of the airflow principles involved. Oh yes - there was also an engineering understanding of the suitability of application of all materials used. Easy for me to forget, as that 'world' is my normal, and usually quite foreign to others. At times I find myself getting very cranky at what I perceive as deliberate ignoring of my contributions, until I remind myself that the vast majority of listers probably didn't pass high school science. Not a criticism; only an observation. I know the simple basic implementation of my manifold mods actually offends some people, with one lister actually saying that my ideas would have more credibility were they made using exotic laser guided 'n' th degree GPS located blaah blaaah machinery. He knows who he is and I'm still waiting to see the results of his performance theories applied in real life to his own car. My only comment is if this is the understanding of my alterations by the exotic machinery mob then they should be banished to the cast iron piston era. All bravado, with bigger and shinier is better but not 2 cents worth of real understanding of what they are actually doing. So - back to the beginning - would the real owner of a 5% performance improvement for less than $100 please stand up. Nobody. Hmm. So there you have it. It would appear I'm the only one on the forum with a real life, low cost but high value bang-for-buck performance increase in MY OWN CAR. Let's see who can get their head out of the "shiny metal must be better" indoctrination and get on with bringing 928 up to this century's performance standards. Call me a stirrer or whatever, but do any of you realise that had you raised your head and looked around the rest of the 'airflow' world you would have found your answers years ago. Maybe it's about time many of you stopped worshipping a few sacred cows. UpFixen. |
Originally Posted by slate blue
(Post 11978774)
You should post this information in the port polish thread. However I don't know who you are arguing with, I understand your points but don't want to get involved in that aspect. Well done on your results.
|
Here is a "properly designed" elliptical bellmouth for a 2"-16g runner.... its HUGE. In my opinion, completely impracticable for the 928 port spacing. However, if someone wants a set, and is willing to shell out the bucks for them, they are ready to go.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...5340089610.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...e43032fa74.jpg https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...3ede725ecd.jpg |
Until the dyno sheets reflect results in lbs/ft - HP, it didn't happen. :)
(Stated while chewing on billet alloy tooth pick.:cool:) https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...db417324cb.jpg |
Originally Posted by UpFixenDerPorsche
(Post 11978890)
Not arguing. Rather the confronting of herd mentality brainless non scientific mind sets for their own benefit.
Back to the beginning - would the real owner of a 5% performance improvement for less than $100 please stand up. Nobody. Hmm. So there you have it. It would appear I'm the only one on the forum with a real life, low cost but high value bang-for-buck performance increase in MY OWN CAR. While I appreciate your incredible effort, I think it important, when comparing costs, to include the many hours this effort took. While you obviously have skills in fabrication with glue, chunks of solid material, and a tiny grinder, many others do not. Certainly. If you had to pay someone to do this job, the actual cost would be thousands of dollars. That's the "real" cost that needs to be compared to the power increase. I think that you are completely missing this point, which I think is the reason that people are not jumping up and down with excitement. Anyone who looks at the pictures can easily see the huge time investment for your relatively small gain. |
Originally Posted by atb
(Post 11979330)
Until the dyno sheets reflect results in lbs/ft - HP, it didn't happen. :)
(Stated while chewing on billet alloy tooth pick.:cool:) Unfortunately I don't have a time machine to take me back to the foot pound second era. :evilgrin: |
Up Fixen -
What made you decide to hijack this thread 24 hours ago? If you don't like what Hans has designed, that's OK but please keep it to yourself! Many of us enjoy his contributions. I have his shark woofer and have heard his door speakers and think both are great improvements to my 928. I don't know the culture is in Brisbane but his thread isn't about you and what you designed. Start your own thread where you can blow your own horn if you desire but stop hijacking this one! I find your comments rude, out of place and uncalled for but then I'm from Texas and you're not! |
Originally Posted by UpFixenDerPorsche
(Post 11980197)
Harrrrrrr. :D
Unfortunately I don't have a time machine to take me back to the foot pound second era. :evilgrin: Well played sir. Hans, Paypal sent. How about a plenum solution? :) |
Yes. As Greg said: time.
Mods - maybe start a thread with his post. I like machined Billet aluminum. It makes me happy as when I see t/a but that's another thread too. |
Originally Posted by Andy Kay
(Post 11980289)
Up Fixen -
What made you decide to hijack this thread 24 hours ago? If you don't like what Hans has designed, that's OK but please keep it to yourself! Many of us enjoy his contributions. I have his shark woofer and have heard his door speakers and think both are great improvements to my 928. I don't know the culture is in Brisbane but his thread isn't about you and what you designed. Start your own thread where you can blow your own horn if you desire but stop hijacking this one! I find your comments rude, out of place and uncalled for but then I'm from Texas and you're not! I applaud Hans' work, but I'm both saddened and somewhat irritated, in that beginning with a clean white sheet lies the opportunity to come up with a no-compromise, top shelf design, but instead I see only a repeat of the old beliefs and understanding of intake airflows. So what do I do? Do I just spectate, or do I get in somebody's face with proven, up-to-the-minute airflow principles so that every 928 owner who buys a Hans' manifold will have the best base on which to add performance items such as cams, headers, chips etc? Even just using my modified S4 manifold these items will yield greater improvement than with the stock manifold. You comment that: "it's not about you and what you designed". Well then what is the point of this forum if it's not a place to share 'designs' with other Rennlisters? Is it a Hans Forum? Or a Kibbort Forum? Or a Greg Gray Forum? Or a "I've been doing it for the longest and I have the biggest shop filled with the best CNC stuff so I must be an expert" forum? Greg Gray commented on my obvious ability to use epoxy filler and bits of sheet metal and a tiny Dremel grinder (which I'm having difficulty in not taking as condescending), he forgot to mention the the most important ingredient: knowledge of the subject. You can see my comments either as insults, or pointers towards useful information. You be the judge. Look at today's superbike performances: they all meet European (EU) pollution and noise limits, but we have plenty of 1200-1600cc machines producing 180+ rwhp. There are plenty of Kawasaki 1300 Hyabusa machines (180 rwhp out of the box) running happily at 200,000 miles. Many have gyros that change ECU performance mapping as lean angles increase. :) BMW's 1600 Six has gyros that point the headlight around corners, adjusting for lean angle and speed. It's a true 250km/hr GT bike. So c'mon people! Is there not something you think we can learn from this machinery? Getting back to my situation: the message in "The World's Fastest Indian" is that with an understanding of the principles at work, great results can be had from the use of the simplest of materials. Check out Bert Monroe's achievements. Better still, watch the movie. :D Take particular note of the moment where Bert recognises both the cause of a high speed wobble and it's simplest of solutions. As far as I know, and acknowledging some of Greg Bird's observations, I'm the only person to have made sizeable performance gains with S4 manifold changes, so if everyone stops and thinks about it for a moment, I must understand something that they don't, and I must know how to put it to use. So to use an old expression, it's money for old rope if one cares to take it. As for starting my own thread: I did, but it got hijacked, not by a single post but by a few day's worth of posts. So I started another ... As I've stated often, I did what I did as a fun experiment. The results exceeded my expectations (and I'm not finished yet). My car has come alive, to the extent that it's a buzz to drive, even just down to the corner shops. I arrive home with a :D every time. It has a much faster throttle response, and even with the A/C on and a 70lb dog on board the performance is still better than the pre-mod car with the A/C off. So who would not want to know about this? After all ppl are happy to spend $000's to get a lesser performance gain. Maybe that's the problem: all this extra performance can't be so easy. Must be BS. Yeah well - their loss. I'm the one having the fun. One more point: what is the aim of a forum of this type? To share new knowledge and improvements (I would have thought), or is it a place where well established sacred cows can't be questioned? Seems to me it leans towards the latter. Is it an ego thing? A badge of honor thing? "Look at all the $$$$ I spent on all this performance bling. Without doubt I'm now the fastest guy on the track". Then he is overtaken by a drab looking car tuned by an owner who understands the key principles involved in say cornering/grip or engine performance or roll couple ... and so on. People can be funny old cattle at times. Anyway I've said my piece. As another saying goes: Don't give advice: the wise don't need it and the foolhardy won't heed it. Thanks. BTW, while I've not been to Texas I have heard of the Texan reputation for courtesy and good manners. It does not mean however, by implication, that every Texan is courteous and well mannered. You may well find some of my comments to be rude. I would say they might seem a bit confrontational but 'we' seem to be known for getting to the point without unude ceremony. Sorry. |
Seems to sum up the situation I have made for myself. My apologies.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...1c33def034.jpg |
UpFix --
Why don't you drop the "world misunderstands me" routine and do something productive for us. Please sketch us a manifold with pencil and paper (or whatever) that uses Hans's flanges, fits under the hood, uses as many stock components as possible (but not more), and meets your high standards of optimality in terms of air flow. |
I still fail to see the "witch hunt" here......... just the witch looking to be hunted. i don't think upfix, that anyone dissed your ideas/techniques in this thread until you chimed in. if you can't sit back and let others create stuff that differs from yours, then troll elsewhere.
Post up a for sale thread of your works with a cost/benefit comparison vs stock? |
Potentially interested in these.....
For a GT or GTS motor with Colin's cam's would these adaptors support 45-50mm ITB's? BMW E39 M5 ITB's (like Alex used on his racer) are 50mm IIRC? |
Dear Up Fixen,
Your broadcast statement that none of the RL forum users understand anything about airflow and what you have done is quite frankly absurd at best. If you are frustrated by comments on this thread to your posts, that is one thing. But to blatantly spew broadcasts about the lack of knowledge by people who choose not to reply to your post puts you and what you say into the category of mass insulter here. It is physically and theoretically impossible for you to know what knowledge of airflow theory and practice all RL users have. Especially the ones who choose or simply don't comment on your thread. (Irrespective of the value of your contributions) Key is ALL users.. If you're so knowledgeable, I invite you to describe in full ALL the aerodynamic, airflow and charge management principles were used in my CAD model of my supercharged inlet system. If you are indeed that knowledgeable please have at it. Prove to the forum that you know what you are looking at. (As you claim to have the theoretical and practical knowledge, FYI, I have posted lots of cutaways on RL of the CAD, so a search will provide you with lots of images.) On another note, even if I disagree with Hans, or another manufacturer of 928 parts, does not mean I have to insult the entire forum or that manufacturer. That is just silly 5 year old behavior. The civil adult thing to do would be to agree to disagree and explain why for the benefit of all on the forum.. As far as cost per HP, you have clearly demonstrated that for some of us who can afford to finance our ideas without regard to cost or harm to anyone clearly escaped your grasp. We do it because we can.! Cheers! Sent from my iPhone using Rennlist |
Originally Posted by UpFixenDerPorsche
(Post 11984002)
Hi Andy. You are correct in a general sense. I did not consciously set out to hijack the thread, but it does overlap the aera in which I've been working viz improved intake breathing, and, where I've achieved demonstrated improvements.
I applaud Hans' work, but I'm both saddened and somewhat irritated, in that beginning with a clean white sheet lies the opportunity to come up with a no-compromise, top shelf design, but instead I see only a repeat of the old beliefs and understanding of intake airflows. So what do I do? Do I just spectate, or do I get in somebody's face with proven, up-to-the-minute airflow principles so that every 928 owner who buys a Hans' manifold will have the best base on which to add performance items such as cams, headers, chips etc? Even just using my modified S4 manifold these items will yield greater improvement than with the stock manifold. You comment that: "it's not about you and what you designed". Well then what is the point of this forum if it's not a place to share 'designs' with other Rennlisters? Is it a Hans Forum? Or a Kibbort Forum? Or a Greg Gray Forum? Or a "I've been doing it for the longest and I have the biggest shop filled with the best CNC stuff so I must be an expert" forum? Excuse me, but here in Australia we are known for having good BS antennae, and right now mine are flailing about at light speed re your argument. Greg Gray commented on my obvious ability to use epoxy filler and bits of sheet metal and a tiny Dremel grinder (which I'm having difficulty in not taking as condescending), he forgot to mention the the most important ingredient: knowledge of the subject. And I'll state it unequivocally right here and now (again): NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT. And all the most amazing workshop machinery won't help you with performance improvements until you do. Which is why, after who-knows how many hours of analysis and effort, no one on this forum has produced a 400+ hp 5-litre normally aspirated street motor, as have the Europeans. Yes - the rpm limit must be raised (titanium rods and valve gear. And slippery coatings and ceramic coatings and vortex generators and use of surface turbulence is needed). None of which will be but a fleabite of use unless the motor can breathe. But you know that. You can see my comments either as insults, or pointers towards useful information. You be the judge. Look at today's superbike performances: they all meet European (EU) pollution and noise limits, but we have plenty of 1200-1600cc machines producing 180+ rwhp. There are plenty of Kawasaki 1300 Hyabusa machines (180 rwhp out of the box) running happily at 200,000 miles. Many have gyros that change ECU performance mapping as lean angles increase. :) BMW's 1600 Six has gyros that point the headlight around corners, adjusting for lean angle and speed. It's a true 250km/hr GT bike. So c'mon people! Is there not something you think we can learn from this machinery? Getting back to my situation: the message in "The World's Fastest Indian" is that with an understanding of the principles at work, great results can be had from the use of the simplest of materials. Check out Bert Monroe's achievements. Better still, watch the movie. :D Take particular note of the moment where Bert recognises both the cause of a high speed wobble and it's simplest of solutions. On a similar theme, a friend of mine - a tatty-looking one-man machine shop owner (both Fred and his shop:)) were approached by a sub-contractor to a NASA component supplier to find a way to make a particular type of UHF cavity resonator. Only happened because Fred was a well known as a far-outside-the-box solution finder. Fred worked out a successful machining method and produced the goods. Unless NASA has retired a lot of satellites in recent years the odds are that some of Fred's resonators are still in service. As far as I know, and acknowledging some of Greg Bird's observations, I'm the only person to have made sizeable performance gains with S4 manifold changes, so if everyone stops and thinks about it for a moment, I must understand something that they don't, and I must know how to put it to use. So to use an old expression, it's money for old rope if one cares to take it. As for starting my own thread: I did, but it got hijacked, not by a single post but by a few day's worth of posts. So I started another ... As I've stated often, I did what I did as a fun experiment. The results exceeded my expectations (and I'm not finished yet). My car has come alive, to the extent that it's a buzz to drive, even just down to the corner shops. I arrive home with a :D every time. It has a much faster throttle response, and even with the A/C on and a 70lb dog on board the performance is still better than the pre-mod car with the A/C off. So who would not want to know about this? After all ppl are happy to spend $000's to get a lesser performance gain. Maybe that's the problem: all this extra performance can't be so easy. Must be BS. Yeah well - their loss. I'm the one having the fun. One more point: what is the aim of a forum of this type? To share new knowledge and improvements (I would have thought), or is it a place where well established sacred cows can't be questioned? Seems to me it leans towards the latter. Mostly I believe, because there is insufficient understanding of the topic by all involved. I have a BMW R110S sports bike. I made similarly simple changes to the intake runners and airbox. This is the result (again what is not shown by the dyno curves is the snappy throttle response and the 20% mileage improvement): https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...5ddef67205.jpg I'm trying to comprehend what / why owners don't seem to be seeing. As in this forum, ppl in the R1100S forums seem happy to pay $2k to $4k for all the same type of mods that show very average dyno chart improvement. ????? Is it an ego thing? A badge of honor thing? "Look at all the $$$$ I spent on all this performance bling. Without doubt I'm now the fastest guy on the track". Then he is overtaken by a drab looking car tuned by an owner who understands the key principles involved in say cornering/grip or engine performance or roll couple ... and so on. People can be funny old cattle at times. Anyway I've said my piece. As another saying goes: Don't give advice: the wise don't need it and the foolhardy won't heed it. Thanks. BTW, while I've not been to Texas I have heard of the Texan reputation for courtesy and good manners. It does not mean however, by implication, that every Texan is courteous and well mannered. You may well find some of my comments to be rude. I would say they might seem a bit confrontational but 'we' seem to be known for getting to the point without unude ceremony. Sorry. Sometimes, to get the attention of a cantankerous Longhorn, you need to crack it firmly between the eyes with a lump of 4 x 2. Which I have done. Not a Longhorn but a Brahman. What else are you to do when he 'corners' you in open country without a tree in sight? Maybe this is what I've done here and maybe it's what was needed on behalf of other 928 owners looking for improved performance. Ciao. And I didn't want to point this out, but you are so far "over the top" on what you think is a radical improvement that you really need to stop and apply some simple logic and realistic data interpretations. I see your results as being virtually the same....before and after. Certainly nothing statistically significant. Dynojet results/general guide for all people: 1. I've got a file with hundreds and hundreds of Dynojet tests. Literally hundreds. I always have a minimum of 3 tests done, for each change I make. Those results vary by 1-2+%. The transmission temperature changes. The tire temperature changes. The fuel temperature changes. The engine temperature changes. The outside temperate changes. I can show you literally dozens of dyno tests that vary this much, taken minutes apart! 2. Dyno operators generally (almost always) are trying to show customers what they want to see....improvement. They will inevitably print the worst run from the original test with the best run from the second test and compare these. If each one of these tests vary by 2+%.....well you do the math. Print your first results (all) with you second results (all). 3. Your dyno results are virtual copies of each other....at different starting places on the paper. This points towards "dyno variance", not real life improvement. Look at the two graphs....lay them over each other. If these results were actually about an improvement in airflow, wouldn't you expect there to be changes in particular areas (high rpm) while there not being any change in other areas (low rpm)? I would! I seriously doubt that at 1500 rpms, the shape of the entrance to the runner, is even remotely an issue. The airflow speed is simply too low to matter! The fact that the two graphs are exactly the same, from 1500 to 6,000, tells everything. Your statement "And I'll state it unequivocally right here and now (again): NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT." seems to lead people to think that you know what you are talking about, yet even a novice person doing the very basic port work knows that power increases from airflow improvements are never linear....it just doesn't work that way! 4. The longer between tests that are being compared....the less valid the results. Weather changes. Temperature changes. The fuel companies change the vapor pressure of the fuels as these things occur. Power results are affected by these changes. When I am trying to compare things (and really want to know what is going on), I generally run tests within days of each other. I have what I want to test ready to go, make my first test, go back and make the changes I want to do, and immediately return. I'm assuming that you removed your manifold, made the changes, and went back and retested months later? This affected your testing results. 5. Tests must be exactly the same...with only one change made. Did you change anything else, when your manifold was off? Replace the knock sensors? Replace leaking vacuum hose? Clean the injectors? Replace the spark plugs? Change a fuel pressure damper or regulator? Change anything else? Anything "extra" you do completely invalidates any individual component tests. Understand I'm not trying to negate or put your effort "down". I'm just trying to point out that sometimes conclusions are not valid. You put on a stock manifold one day, go test it and print all three results. You then go home, change that manifold and retest it the next day (no other changes) and print all three results. At that point, if you've got a 6% change....from the "best" run compared to the "best" run.....and you've got some valid data! |
Greg, thanks for your patient reply (given the circumstances). I'll get back to it in the very near future.
Quickly: Had I achieved only a very minor improvement (or even gone backwards lol) I wouldn't have bothered with the cost of a dyno test. As it happens there as this :D :D :D moment when I pushed the accelerator. And still is. I didn't need a dyno run to know there was an improvement and it was to satisfy my curiosity that I went ahead. The charts don't show it but the engine response is now so quick and sharp. To me it gives the car a 3 x :D fun drive factor. Yes - the charts appear show just a solid S4 performance - but it's more than that. Can't wait to see what serious cams will do. :evilgrin: BTW - manifold was the only item changed. Cheers UpFixen |
Originally Posted by UpFixenDerPorsche
(Post 11985750)
Greg, thanks for your patient reply (given the circumstances). I'll get back to it in the very near future.
Cheers UpFixen It's possible that if you took the highest "first test" (before the modification) and the "lowest" second test (after the modification), that the results might actually be more impressive! The door swings both ways! |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 11985911)
One point I forgot to mention in there. That 1-2+% change (point #1 and point #2) can also be "additive" to the results, not always a negative thing!
It's possible that if you took the highest "first test" (before the modification) and the "lowest" second test (after the modification), that the results might actually be more impressive! The door swings both ways! I don't think it's altogether surprising that both charts are virtually identical (I was surprised as well, when I saw them btw) because I've done nothing to change resonant frequencies nor added any new shapes. My changes simply made it easier for air to flow by reducing the level of restriction within the manifold. The dyno operator / owner is John Gill (a Rennlister) who lives nearby. He's a take-no-prisoners dyno operator so you get no favours, and more to the point I didn't want any, as the result had to stand on it's merits. http://www.dynotuning.net.au/dyno-tu...dified-engine/ One change I forgot to mention: from a K&N air filter to the OE paper filter, and well before the manifold changes. But I must keep returning to what I think can't be seen in the charts: the 'personality change' in the engine: instant response to the smallest touch on the accelerator and the eagerness to get up and go. :D Cheers. |
Originally Posted by UpFixenDerPorsche
(Post 11988402)
I don't think it's altogether surprising that both charts are virtually identical (I was surprised as well, when I saw them btw) because I've done nothing to change resonant frequencies nor added any new shapes. My changes simply made it easier for air to flow by reducing the level of restriction within the manifold.
|
Originally Posted by UpFixenDerPorsche
(Post 11988402)
Thanks Greg. Yes, the fun and games of measureing errors.
I don't think it's altogether surprising that both charts are virtually identical (I was surprised as well, when I saw them btw) because I've done nothing to change resonant frequencies nor added any new shapes. My changes simply made it easier for air to flow by reducing the level of restriction within the manifold. The dyno operator / owner is John Gill (a Rennlister) who lives nearby. He's a take-no-prisoners dyno operator so you get no favours, and more to the point I didn't want any, as the result had to stand on it's merits. http://www.dynotuning.net.au/dyno-tu...dified-engine/ One change I forgot to mention: from a K&N air filter to the OE paper filter, and well before the manifold changes. But I must keep returning to what I think can't be seen in the charts: the 'personality change' in the engine: instant response to the smallest touch on the accelerator and the eagerness to get up and go. :D Cheers. I'm simply pointing out that people (not only you) need to be careful when drawing conclusions from dyno results. People need to make sure that they are comparing apples with apples and not apples with oranges. Everyone wants positive results on everything they do....it's human nature. People will spend hundreds of dollars on pieces that don't work and claim that they "feel" a tremendous difference...even though the dyno results show minimal gains or no gains. Certain "performance chips" immediately come to mind.....there's "snake oil" by the gallons involved there. One thing that is always worth noting....dyno testing only tells so much....that's why people race. |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 11988657)
One thing that is always worth noting....dyno testing only tells so much....that's why people race.
|
There's no racing series for 928s, which is one of the reasons why some of the bull**** that we hear and read floats on the surface seemingly indefinitely. In the normally aspirated 944 world, there at least was some racing that would filter out some of the chunkiest misconceptions.
I'd be happy if people with their 928s would show up at dyno days to compare results. A modest proposal, could we achieve that? |
Originally Posted by ptuomov
(Post 11988438)
I don't think that's true. You did change the resonant frequency of the manifold, in the flappy closed mode at least, by filling in part of the plenum with epoxy. The stock size is about 1.9L per side. If you reduce the plenum volume, then you move the resonant frequency up. I tried to estimate the effects in some other thread and they aren't huge but they are meaningful.
I was thinking about this while making the alterations and estimate I've reduced the volume by about 500cc per side. I also wondered how much the TB plenum volume plays in the Helmholtz resonance calculations given the size of the opening to the TB plenum, which is partially closed by the butterfly plate for much of the time. As I was doing it all for fun and interest I didn't delve any further and took the view that if everything went pear shaped I'd just hve to get back in there and play dentist again. As things have turned out it's a case of :D :D :D |
Originally Posted by ptuomov
(Post 11989044)
There's no racing series for 928s, which is one of the reasons why some of the bull**** that we hear and read floats on the surface seemingly indefinitely. In the normally aspirated 944 world, there at least was some racing that would filter out some of the chunkiest misconceptions.
I'd be happy if people with their 928s would show up at dyno days to compare results. A modest proposal, could we achieve that? |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 11988657)
Over the years I have communicated with John, at length, and appreciate his methods and tenacity. I'm not questioning the accuracy of his dyno results....he's as "standup" a guy as I've ever communicated with.
I'm simply pointing out that people (not only you) need to be careful when drawing conclusions from dyno results. People need to make sure that they are comparing apples with apples and not apples with oranges. Everyone wants positive results on everything they do....it's human nature. People will spend hundreds of dollars on pieces that don't work and claim that they "feel" a tremendous difference...even though the dyno results show minimal gains or no gains. Certain "performance chips" immediately come to mind.....there's "snake oil" by the gallons involved there. One thing that is always worth noting....dyno testing only tells so much....that's why people race. LOL. We talk about forthright people as those "who call a spade a shovel". John calls a spade a @#^%%*?> xyz shovel. People will spend hundreds of dollars on pieces that don't work and claim that they "feel" a tremendous difference...even though the dyno results show minimal gains or no gains. My work background has made quite dispassionate re evaluating changes and I call it the squinty eye effect - you know, where if you you really squint hard as a certain rpm is reached .... yes... you're sure there was a bit extra there. Definitely. I don't have to squint with this one; it's as obvious a pie in the face. The changes I made to my Beemer (bike) cost $35 for second hand intake runners and took about an hour to implement. When I posted the results on a forum I got all manner of vague reasons why it probably would not work for them. Yet the same crowd boasted about the $2000+ they spent on I performance bling. After a while I felt like someone trying to give away free money. Maybe if I duplicated those runners in carbon fibre, added some bling, and charged $750 I would probably have been rushed off my feet. Right now I have a leaky oil cooler to fix. :) |
Originally Posted by ptuomov
(Post 11984190)
UpFix --
Why don't you drop the "world misunderstands me" routine and do something productive for us. Please sketch us a manifold with pencil and paper (or whatever) that uses Hans's flanges, fits under the hood, uses as many stock components as possible (but not more), and meets your high standards of optimality in terms of air flow. |
bump
|
Been having a tough time getting a hold of the shop that was cutting these for us. Its a small 3-man operation, which is how I was able to get them done in low volume cost effectively, but sometimes they are a pain to get to answer the phone. I hope to have some answer shortly, as I need them too.
Thanks Hans |
Got in touch with the shop, and they have been having problems cutting the o-ring grooves. I was able to print them, but its a bit more challenging to follow the path with a cutter. I am working with them to try and change some of the geometry to get o-rings to fit. If not, I will just get them on the way with the flat bottoms and have some custom gaskets cut.
Sorry for the delay. I just received this information from the shop. I am working on it tonight, and hope to have an update soon. Thanks Hans |
Thanks for the update.
|
I haven't looked at your CAD file admittedly, but I do know they sell O-ring cutters for CNC's. (an undercut tool essentially) As with most things, the right tool can make all the difference for your shop.
edit: When we do parts like these we often ask for the mating part so we can test it on the mill and make any depth changes etc. at that time. If you can supply them with the o-rings it might save some headache later on if they don't fit. Just thinking. :) Best, Ben |
It looks like the o-ring grooves are officially out. The material just got too thin in several places and was causing issues. I have a gasket file laid out, and will include a set with all flanges. It is an industrial gasket stock made from Buna-N and Aramid fiber rated to 400degrees and 1000psi of sealing. If this presents an issue for anyone, please contact me and we can discuss options.
Thanks all for your patience and support. I hope to have these in my hands in the next week or so. Hans |
Here is the long overdue update. First the bad news: the shop that was lined up to cut these flanges fell off the face of the earth. I tried calling them and emailing them relentlessly, and when there was a response, it was always, they are going to be done next week. The shop was up in Michigan, so it would have been over 8 hours in the car to physically get up there, which further complicated things.
I finally got a call about 10 days or so ago from the owner of the shop. He apologized, but said they just cant cut them. They are supposed to send me a refund check so lets all hope that happens. Now the good news: I scrambled as soon as I go that phone call, and blanket RFQed the greater Indianapolis area, and all the previous remote shops I had used in the past. I finally found two new shops I can work with, but one really stands out. They have some really nice equipment, including a 5-axis mill, EDM, full QC department with great CMMs, and they even have injection molding in-house. Best part is, their quote was only $15/part more than the old bid (obviously I am absorbing this, but it demonstrates the pricing at the new shop). I took a shop tour last Monday, and sat down with their Solidworks/Mastercam operator, the shop owner, and had a chance to watch their machine operators work and look at some of the output. We are in really good hands. We looked at the o-ring groove, and they are able to cut it with no issues, so we have that back! They also quoted me the matching velocity stacks and fuel rails. Does anyone have any interest in either the matching velocity stacks or fuel rails? I already approved the quote for the lower manifolds, but dont want to send in for the other pieces if there is not any interest. Also, if anyone is interested in ordering a set of lowers, I asked, and I can add pieces to the order up until they start the machining process. Price on the velocity stacks is dependent on the quantity ordered. On the high-end, they are $35/each, but in a larger quantity, they ramp down to under $25/each. The stacks are designed with fabrication aids to make assembly faster. The stacks will fit into a 2.125 standard hole (holesaw) in plenum material upto .25 thick. The inside is designed to locate a 2 tube. I am still working on the cost for the fuel rails. There is a component in the assembly that requires more machining operations than I like. I am trying to see if there is a way to redesign it and reduce that cost. So, my personal apologies that this is overdue. I appreciate your patience and support. I think we are on the final track with this one, and hopefully have found a manufacturing partner to make future items promptly and correctly. If you have interest in another set of lower, velocity stacks, or matching fuel rails, please let me know. All the best! Hans |
Great work Hans on getting on top of that. Hope that money comes back!
I like the fuel rail idea - I would need to see the V stacks to understand how they may fit into my systems. |
+1
Originally Posted by BC
(Post 12481513)
Great work Hans on getting on top of that. Hope that money comes back!
I like the fuel rail idea - I would need to see the V stacks to understand how they may fit into my systems. |
Brendan - thanks for the kind words.
Here is a cross-section of the assembly with the velocity stack installed. It provides a clean transition of the 2" tubing and keeps all the welding on the underside of the plenum. https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...f13aec9877.png |
Hans,
I'm in for the V-stacks. |
Here is the updated (hopefully) lower cost fuel rail. We should see some economies of scale on the fuel injector retaining clips, and the stanchions. Fuel damper has been removed. Radium Engineering now has nice in-line units available if necessary. I hope to have pricing Monday. Anyone interested in a set to match their new lowers?
File can be viewed here in 3d: http://cloudviewer.spaceclaim.com/81...43e2117ee.html Thanks Hans https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...f29a5b3e8c.png https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...a42695b9f8.png https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...8d4329c536.png https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...658ed35df9.png |
I'd be in for that. Is that a - 8?
|
Yes, they will be tapped for -8 ORB fittings.
Thanks Hans |
The stainless injector retaining clips add a significant expense to the rails. The least expensive vendor quoted a bit under $5/each in the low quantity required.
I can offer rail kits to anyone who purchased lower intakes for $405 with clips, and $360 without. This is a one-time price at just a smidge over my cost) to take care of the handling/shipping of the extrusion and hardware). Who wants them? |
Do you think there is a big difference between the -8 and -10 as to total fuel flow? I have two -10s but never dealt with the retaining (had the same idea as you with the clips).
But I think I would be in. The rail itself for me was 150 or so all machined, so this is not bad with the mountings, etc. |
I need to get the initial rail order in to the shop this week. They are expecting to have the flanges back to me no later than next friday, so dont want the rails to far behind the flanges.
I am also working on an intake design, so hopefully by the time the rails are back, there will be an example manifold. Was trying to have a finished manifold for show and tell at Frenzy, but time is slipping quickly.... So, if you want a set of rails, please email or PM me. Thanks! |
Emailed you today Hans.
|
They exist....
Finally!! Been a tough start with these things. Ended up taking a massive loss on the whole project, but it does my heart good to see them in the flesh (metal?)! https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...9548394153.jpg Just picked up the box today. Also sent in the PO for the matching fuel rails last week. Hope to have them back soon and get to some physical manifold mockups soon. Contact me with your shipping information if you pre-ordered flanges, as well as if you would like rails. More pictures to come when I get home. Thanks Hans https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...30d5b626ba.jpg https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...a24deffa28.jpg |
Hans,
I've been following this thread since it's inception since I'm always interested in your new products for the 928. Question regarding this product: What demographic within the 928 group are you targeting and which group will derive benefit from this product? My understanding is that this product is not for the basic stock 928. Is that correct? Or is this something that can be bolted on a basic stock 32 valve engine? Or am I just all messed up and it's for everybody. :) |
Newest Project - Lower Intake Manifold for Fabricated S4 Intakes
Looking good Hans!! :thumbup:
|
Fvkcing spectacular. Now lets get this intake strategy group going.
|
John,
These are just building blocks for custom intakes. It take a large portion of the difficult fabrication out of the process. It transitions the factory intake port to an easy to work with common 2" 16g tubing boss. You can buy off the shelf mandrel bends and build whatever you want with them. There is a small lip in the flange to help center the tube, tack it in, fab the rest, and do a finish tig buzz around the bottom. I am probably going to model one ready-to-go complete intake manifold, but with intake tuning, its not a one-size-fits-all strategy. You may want to tune for specific cams, or build your own supercharger kit... etc. With these flanges and a tool like the Ice Engine Works kit: http://www.icengineworks.com/ You can mockup an intake in a matter of hours for whatever project you have. Regards, Hans
Originally Posted by soontobered84
(Post 12612962)
Hans,
I've been following this thread since it's inception since I'm always interested in your new products for the 928. Question regarding this product: What demographic within the 928 group are you targeting and which group will derive benefit from this product? My understanding is that this product is not for the basic stock 928. Is that correct? Or is this something that can be bolted on a basic stock 32 valve engine? Or am I just all messed up and it's for everybody. :) |
Sometimes you just have to settle for perfect....
Didnt have a lot of time to take pictures last night or this morning, but the -193 orings fit perfect. Injector with the standard Bosch O-ring fits perfect. Injector clears as it should. Bottoms out right at the correct height, and the match to the head port and injector placement are spot on. https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...38e6b26bbd.jpg https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...c9f029f281.jpg https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...3b92fa6006.jpg https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...c9e8332b13.jpg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...028afa6130.jpg |
Nice!
|
Well done! Seeing parts become reality after staring at them in the virtual world for so long is so gratifying, isn't it?
Would you be so inclined to share with us the machine shop that made these for you? Finding a qualified, willing, and affordable machine shop is not easy to come by... |
Its the first thing out of their shop for me. I have them making a batch of fuel rails now. If those come out alright I will have no problem passing the name along. I just dont want to recommend a shop until I have had them do more work. They also have another couple of my projects in there which I will share soon. They are here in Indy, which makes my life easier.
|
Another beautiful creation Hans, congrats. Look forward to hearing what you and others come up with now as new manifold concepts ...
|
Thanks for the clarification, Hans. I suspected what you posted, but was just a little unclear where this was ultimately headed.
As always, I wish you great luck with this and all your products, but I know luck has little to do with it. |
Fuel rail parts are back. Here is one of the -8 rails (tapped for ORB fittings) The stainless retainer tabs are also keyed to hold injectors in the correct clocking if they have a twin beam spray pattern.
I think I have 10 sets ready to go for those who want them shipped with their flanges. https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...b2a27fd375.jpg https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...9e2e4bc2e7.jpg https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...62ba815553.jpg https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...fb4576c2f6.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...b8461ad8bb.jpg https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...82f80ca5a2.jpg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...64d3436564.jpg https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...8bc6326f8a.jpg https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...0ae4b622ea.jpg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...4fded691a8.jpg |
Those look great. You will send Together?
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 12763356)
Fuel rail parts are back. Here is one of the -8 rails (tapped for ORB fittings) The stainless retainer tabs are also keyed to hold injectors in the correct clocking if they have a twin beam spray pattern.
I think I have 10 sets ready to go for those who want them shipped with their flanges. https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...b2a27fd375.jpg https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...9e2e4bc2e7.jpg https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...62ba815553.jpg https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...fb4576c2f6.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...b8461ad8bb.jpg https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...82f80ca5a2.jpg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...64d3436564.jpg https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...8bc6326f8a.jpg https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...0ae4b622ea.jpg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...4fded691a8.jpg |
More inspired work ... can't wait to see what kind of designs people think up to make with these starter pieces ... maybe a v-mounted supercharger?
|
OK. These are now ready for shipping. Eveyrthing instock and ready to go for those that pre-ordered. Future sets will be available at a higher cost, but leadtime should be around 3-weeks start to finish.
If you would like to upgrade your order to include rails or a coolant sensor relocation kit, I have those on hand as well. Please contact via PM and we will get shipping sorted out. Thanks Hans |
One set is available from the first batch if anyone wants to make their own manifold before the driving season starts. Send a PM for more details.
|
I'll take the set. Thanks Hans.
|
Hans, you mentioned a couple of times or more in this thread about "off-the-shelf mandrel bends" that will work with these flanges. Whose Shelf might they be off of?
|
2" Mandrel bent tubing is pretty common. There is likely someone in your area that can supply you, but one of the most cost effective online suppliers is Columbia River - http://www.mandrelbends.com/
The exit angle is 22.5 deg (relative to the ground plane) so for a vertical or horizontal exit, split a 45deg bend in half and rotate it accordingly. Regards Hans |
19 Attachment(s)
Hans was great about sending me the last of this batch of his beautiful intake bases. They really are. I wanted these to form a basis for the intake I need to redesign for the engine that I'll be putting in the Radical Custom 928 that I hope to do over the next several months. With the 2 inch section planned for that 928 I need to lower the stuff on top of the engine and that translates to a lower induction. I'll be doing all of this with an S4 so I will need something to replace an S4 intake, but overall two inches lower.
So far I have kind of decided on intake runners out the top of the Hans bases and running up and over into an intake plenum. I hope to retain the S4 throttle body under the intake so that and the Hans bases pretty much will dictate the floor of the box. I have also decided to try to use some 6061 aluminum mandrel bends that are bent on a centerline radius of 3 inches. All 8 runners will be equal length, and about 6 and 3/4 inches long above the bases, but the bend will come at a different height from the base since the back of the intake box will be two inches taller than the front, just as with the original, just lower. The bell mouth inlet will be in addition and about 3/4 inches deep. I don't have my mandrel bends yet, but I went ahead and made myself some of the bell mouths out of some 3/4 inch stock I had around here. I haven't figured out just how the inlet tubes and bell mouths are going to nest together in the plenum, but I'll work on that as I progress. It looks like this intake is going to be pretty much an organic process, since I don't actually yet have a good image in my head about the base, the sides, front or back, but I do have a picture of what I want the top to look like--in my head, that is. Here is a bunch of pictures of the progress in making 8 bell mouths: |
1 Attachment(s)
Oops, I skipped the one showing using sandpaper after the file.
|
http://m.ebay.com/itm/261247834851?_mwBanner=1
|
Yes, I know. That's for you guys who didn't take the shop classes, so you can't do it for yourself.
|
3 Attachment(s)
Jerry, your bellmouths looks good. It is good to have a lathe being able to fabricate velocity stacks in any custom design to make it fit where ever you like. Here pictures of one I made for flow testing. Made out of a solid bar of aluminum.
Åke |
That's cool, Ake. I wonder just how far out from the central bore/hole the shape stops making any difference.
|
Jerry and Ake, beautiful work!
|
1 Attachment(s)
Theoretical discussion how to optimise the design of an engine air intake bellmouth.
http://www.profblairandassociates.co...mouth_Sept.pdf Flow testing of three differently styled bellmouths. http://www.performancebyie.com/blog/...ght-bellmouth/ The elliptical profile as shown in picture is the optimal bellmouth design however more difficult to fabricate compared to a simple radius. Åke |
Originally Posted by Strosek Ultra
(Post 13274300)
...
The elliptical profile as shown in picture is the optimal bellmouth design however more difficult to fabricate compared to a simple radius. Actually, eccentric chucks and lathe adapters allow you to turn all sorts of roundish shapes. I don't know if the precise elliptical profile shown in the drawing is possible to turn on a lathe, but ovals are fairly easy with the right equipment. At least that's true for woodturning and I assume the same is true with a metal lathe. |
Perhaps the best currently known velocity stack shape. It allows the flow coming also from behind the entry..
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...23caaa835e.jpg |
Wow, that is some great information about these bellmouths. I'm sure glad I didn't have access to that before I made mine, or I would have driven myself nuts trying to figure out what to do with it. For my purposes I think mine will do just fine, even if I have to reduce the radius a bit to get them to nest together the way I plan.
I am making a bit of progress with my overall design with the layout of the tubes and the air box starting to come into view in my mind's eye. I am going to fabricate an aluminum platform to build this on so that I can begin to bolt the bases down and then cut, fit and weld the pieces as I get them made. My next problem is to see what there is on the front of the engine just under the front of the current intake that I am going to have to either design around or redesign to fit under my intake. |
Originally Posted by DKWalser
(Post 13274325)
Couldn't you turn a round bellmouth on the lathe and then, ever so carefully, step on it? :rolleyes:
Actually, eccentric chucks and lathe adapters allow you to turn all sorts of roundish shapes. I don't know if the precise elliptical profile shown in the drawing is possible to turn on a lathe, but ovals are fairly easy with the right equipment. At least that's true for woodturning and I assume the same is true with a metal lathe. (see picture #12, post #249). For the outside radius/rounding you have to make another cutting tool with the right profile. Another approach if you do not have a CNC machine is step turning http://oxtool.blogspot.se/2012/10/step-turning.html Åke |
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13274832)
Wow, that is some great information about these bellmouths. I'm sure glad I didn't have access to that before I made mine, or I would have driven myself nuts trying to figure out what to do with it. For my purposes I think mine will do just fine, even if I have to reduce the radius a bit to get them to nest together the way I plan.
I am making a bit of progress with my overall design with the layout of the tubes and the air box starting to come into view in my mind's eye. I am going to fabricate an aluminum platform to build this on so that I can begin to bolt the bases down and then cut, fit and weld the pieces as I get them made. My next problem is to see what there is on the front of the engine just under the front of the current intake that I am going to have to either design around or redesign to fit under my intake. Åke |
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13269731)
Yes, I know. That's for you guys who didn't take the shop classes, so you can't do it for yourself.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Here is a little progress. I couldn't find one on eBay so I had to make it myself. I made a forming base for my new manifold by using an original S4 intake as a pattern for the bolt pattern on a plate of quarter inch aluminum then drilled and tapped the holes. Then I have bolted up the new Hans bases and have layed out the bellmouths in their approximate locations. They are laying flat in the picture but will be much more upright in their final position.
Next I'll make a fairly heavy base for the dual inlet S4 throttle body and place it on this base in position. Then, on top of that and around it I'll begin to form the bottom and sides of the air box. Inside of that, of course, I'll have the velocity stacks cut and welded to the bellmouths and put in location. I still have to see just what needs to be worked with or around under the front of the airbox. There is a little in the rear, but that is not too much of a concern since the stacks will be taller in back than in front. |
Looks nice. Can you sketch a drawing what it'll look like?
|
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by ptuomov
(Post 13276668)
Looks nice. Can you sketch a drawing what it'll look like?
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13276816)
I tried, but its really rough. Its going to have a top cover out of 3/8 inch aluminum plate that is machined with fins and is trapizoidal in shape being about 10 inches wide in the front and 6 inches in the rear.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...6388e2407.jpeg https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...a0bd8bf7e.jpeg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...7edbeacc5.jpeg https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...880c78d03.jpeg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...4c67889a3.jpeg |
My runners will be made out of 2 inch aluminum tube with 3 inch mandrel bends at 90 degrees. They will be cut just 1/8 inch off the point of tangency on one end and 2 5/8 inches out from the curve at the other end, for the very front tube. The short end will be fixed to the Hans base. Then each progressive one going back will be longer by 5/16 inch on the short end and shorter by that much on the long end until they last one in the rear will have the long end in the base and the short end with the bellmouth on it. They will be right at about 8 inches long at the centerline of the tube and including the 3/4 inch depth of the bellmouth. I don't now if that make mine short or medium length, but I think they will be shorter that yours.
As I mentioned, my main criteria is to have the top of the airbox overall 2 inches lower than the S4 intake so I wont have to have any lump in the hood when I section the car. |
Nice plenum sketch Jerry, looking good.
Thinking of S4 throttlebody, it may be little restrictive but allows to use stock MAF and air filter system, which will lower the total price. Following is another possibility but it also has it's own drawbacks. Making Y-pipe in place of one single large allows to use two throttle plates and separate piping to front. The air filters can be Blackbird style or located in front of rad like John K. is doing. Also, Alpha-N is mandatory in this setup. Just throwing random ideas here;) https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...8864901b31.jpg |
Hans,
This development work and the finished parts are SO BEAUTIFUL that I may just need to buy a 928 so I can have these parts on my engine. They don't look like they'll fit on the BMW M30 engine. WELL DONE. Gary |
My mandrel tubing bender was on the fritz so I had to order some bends from the source that Hans referred me to. They appear better than the ones I saw on eBay and were a bit less expensive. I expect they will be here about the middle of next week. In the meantime I have designed a little cutting jig so I can accurately saw the tubes to exact length. They will be the exact same length but the bend will be located farther up the tube as they go from front to back in the plenum. I have the formula worked out for that.
I think I have figured out how to locate and cut the holes in the sides of the plenum for the tubes to pass thru. I have also looked at the front of the engine and see that I am going to have a issue at least with the front runner and how to either relocate or shorten it, or both. or how to design and fabricate a new water bridge. I'll wait until I have some of this mocked up and maybe even then try fitting it to one of my engines on a stand to see which way I will need to go. I have read through most of this thread again and reminded myself of some of the very useful information that many have posted. One of the things that I notice is conspicuously missing, except for my meager efforts here, is almost anything about anyone else's manifold efforts based on Hans' flange bases. I wonder what other projects are in any kind of progress. |
Boxes. That is usually my progress.
|
Originally Posted by BC
(Post 13280459)
Boxes. That is usually my progress.
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13280204)
My mandrel tubing bender was on the fritz so I had to order some bends from the source that Hans referred me to. They appear better than the ones I saw on eBay and were a bit less expensive. I expect they will be here about the middle of next week. In the meantime I have designed a little cutting jig so I can accurately saw the tubes to exact length. They will be the exact same length but the bend will be located farther up the tube as they go from front to back in the plenum. I have the formula worked out for that.
I think I have figured out how to locate and cut the holes in the sides of the plenum for the tubes to pass thru. I have also looked at the front of the engine and see that I am going to have a issue at least with the front runner and how to either relocate or shorten it, or both. or how to design and fabricate a new water bridge. I'll wait until I have some of this mocked up and maybe even then try fitting it to one of my engines on a stand to see which way I will need to go. I have read through most of this thread again and reminded myself of some of the very useful information that many have posted. One of the things that I notice is conspicuously missing, except for my meager efforts here, is almost anything about anyone else's manifold efforts based on Hans' flange bases. I wonder what other projects are in any kind of progress. |
Thanks, Hans. That is a great offer. However, since the front tubes will start with the point of tangency right at the base top flange and the rear ones will be straight up from the base to inside the plenum where the bend will be located, and since I don't yet know the angle at which they will be located in opposition to each other from side to side, I think I am going to pretty much do it by feel.
I plan to do each one individually by milling a hole through a piece of aluminum sheet large enough to work with and at the 45 degree angle of the sheet and 22.5 for the tubes, but with the bends taken into consideration for each one. Then, I'll simply put the sheets over the tubes and locate them in the flange bases and then clamp or cleco them together to form the pattern for each side. Then I can mill the holes in the finish material and hand fit them to each tube, then do the folding needed to make the sides. The tubes will ultimately be welded to the sides. At the end I am pretty sure that I am going to fit the tubes in the flange bases with epoxy. I can't quite bring myself to have these messed up with welding. I also think I will make some different stands for the fuel rails that also have a place on them at a 45 degree angle that I can bolt the plenum sides to for additional hold-down structure rather than just the epoxy, which otherwise will be the only thing holding the plenum/tube assembly to the bases. |
Originally Posted by ReDesign by FEATHER
(Post 13281857)
Thanks, Hans. That is a great offer. However, since the front tubes will start with the point of tangency right at the base top flange and the rear ones will be straight up from the base to inside the plenum where the bend will be located, and since I don't yet know the angle at which they will be located in opposition to each other from side to side, I think I am going to pretty much do it by feel.
I plan to do each one individually by milling a hole through a piece of aluminum sheet large enough to work with and at the 45 degree angle of the sheet and 22.5 for the tubes, but with the bends taken into consideration for each one. Then, I'll simply put the sheets over the tubes and locate them in the flange bases and then clamp or cleco them together to form the pattern for each side. Then I can mill the holes in the finish material and hand fit them to each tube, then do the folding needed to make the sides. The tubes will ultimately be welded to the sides. At the end I am pretty sure that I am going to fit the tubes in the flange bases with epoxy. I can't quite bring myself to have these messed up with welding. I also think I will make some different stands for the fuel rails that also have a place on them at a 45 degree angle that I can bolt the plenum sides to for additional hold-down structure rather than just the epoxy, which otherwise will be the only thing holding the plenum/tube assembly to the bases. Why the hell do you have two RL accounts? Are you trying to pull a Kibort? :) |
Hans, I might have misled you about how my tube runners are going to be situated. When I said that the ones more toward the rear, (it is actually all of them aft of the very front one) are going to point straight up, I mean that they are going to point straight out from the flange opening which puts them at a 22.5 degree angle from straight up. Under my current plan the front one will start from the flange opening with its 3 inch radius curve and each one after that will have successively an additional 5/16 inch of straight tube before the curve. That will put the curve of the rear one or two, maybe three, entirely inside the plenum.
I don't have the tube bends yet and that is probably good because I might be changing my formula a bit to raise the whole plenum up a bit to give me a little more clearance in front. I did some measurements and find that there is probably about an inch of clearance now between the hood and the top of the S4 plenum if the motor mounts are up to snuff. That means that I might be able to justify raising my plenum about half inch and not get into a clearance problem that I am trying to avoid. I also looked at the issue about the water bridge and the oil filler neck and find that most likely both of them are going to have to be completely redesigned. Raising my plenum half inch gives me a little more room to do that but not enough to avoid it. One question I have, Hans, is why in one of your posts above in this thread where you have shown a drawing of how you might nest the tubes together crossing over in the middle, you have put the number five, I think, the front one on the right, behind the front one on the left, when in fact the front one on the right is already farther forward. At this point I anticipate putting number five in front, but my design is still open for additional thoughts. When my tube bends arrive I'll do some layout/mockup and post some pictures of what I have in mind. |
Cant really say, I think I have over 50 revisions of various manifold uppers, so cant recall that one specifically. If you want to take a look at the work going on with Greg's intake, that is the direction I am currently going (make sure to load the 3D model so you can look around):
https://rennlist.com/forums/928-foru...l#post13202688 I have a bend table for runners like this using the original billet lowers as well. Happy Fabricating Hans |
Thanks, Hans, for the link. I had lost interest in that thread early on, mainly because the information just seemed way over my head, but I wasn't impressed with the amount of personality conflict and bickering that was going on there. I haven't now read the whole thread, but see that it seems to have turned a corner about when you and Greg B seemed to get on the same page with your respective developments.
I did glean some things from what you and Greg are doing and enough to help me make some possible changes in my direction. The big question now is with the changes I am anticipating whether or not I will have to redesign the water bridge and oil inlet. I think I am going to order some more bends. |
4 Attachment(s)
I had hoped that my first order of tubing bends would arrive today and I could start cutting and fitting some of them. They didn't come. Even then I could have fabricated my two tube cutting jigs. Instead, I reviewed some of the other thread and learned a few more things about this project. Since I am going to be using the S4 throttle body with the dual outlets I was interested to note that someone has found that is has a significant inbalance of output from side to side. After thinking about that for awhile I figured out why, so now I am working on some means to counteract it.
Then I learned that it is going to be impossible to make a plenum floor to mount the S4 TB, so I decided that I better spend a little time on the impossible and get busy with my own. Here is my progress: It isn't ready to fit yet, but I have it very close and will do a little more machine work on it tomorrow and get it to nest with the base flanges like it will need to. It is going to become a major part of the floor of my plenum. I am going to corner round the inboard edges of the inlet opening to the plenum for a little better flow; so that's I why I have the picture with my corner rounding mill bit. I made this mounting plate mostly in my rotary table. I found that the oval or elliptical openings are basically two arcs. One is about 1 1/16 inch diameter at the small ends and the sides are about 3 1/16 inch radius. They came out very close and I can hand match them with some files when I get closer to finished. |
8 Attachment(s)
Well, I think I have accomplished this part of the impossible tasks associated with this intake project. I have the TB base part of the plenum nesting nicely with the flange bases and I have the inside inner edges roughly radiused for good air flow. The shape of my openings in this piece do not match perfectly with the TB I am using. I had to user this gasket as a pattern so I guess it is a little off from the TB opening shapes. With a bit of die grinding and filing it will work just fine I'll wait to see which one I end up using in fact before I do the finish fitting.
Here are some pictures of this little bit of progress. |
Thanks for the pics of the progress.
Are you planning to use the stock MAF in stock location? It comes surprisingly high up there. I played with my ICE lego blocks a while, and came to the conclusion that in order to use as many stock components as possible, I would need to bend the corner runners inwards on their own side. |
The stock throttlebody can be lowered by placing thicker machined pieces of oval tubes between throttle body and plenum.
By doing this way the extra pieces of machined oval tubes can be modified for more flow friendly shape. This will help the flow to turn against the most far intake tubes. This was one of the steps I did for my stock S4 intake plenum, however there wasn't enough material to flatten the turn from oval port to plenum to make it perfect. With oval tube turn the situation is even worse than round tube. Perhaps this will help to understand the idea: Round ports will flow more volume if the round port is straight and the cross-sectional area is constant. The minute that a turn occurs in a round port, the air will ''glue in'' harder against the bottom of the port turn and increase surface friction or drag, Fig. 11-45. If this area is flattened out, the air will spread out, allowing more of the air to short cut the turn, thereby reducing boundary layer friction and increasing air flow through the turn. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...1d7a1aee8e.jpg Good work, keep posting the progress. |
Originally Posted by ptuomov
(Post 13291311)
Thanks for the pics of the progress.
Are you planning to use the stock MAF in stock location? It comes surprisingly high up there. I played with my ICE lego blocks a while, and came to the conclusion that in order to use as many stock components as possible, I would need to bend the corner runners inwards on their own side. I do think that with my rear most tubes being 2 inches taller than the fronts there might very well be room under them to put a rounded slot in the plenum floor to accommodate the MAF. I too will likely be bending the direction of the tubes as much as I can to accommodate the MAF in the rear and the water bridge in the front--I hope. When I get some tube bends I'll be able to cut some of them to partial length and then start configuring them to see where the bottom ends will need to be, then the next order of tubes will let me start locating the upper ends to see where the bell mouths might be rotated and located to both stay out of the way and receive some air from the TB. I have pretty much abandoned the idea of equal length tubes; and I may be reducing the radius of the bell mouths I made to get some better fits and locations. We will see. If I do get to use the MAF in its original position I see that I am going to need to redesign and fabricate a new, lower, air filter box. It too will have to come down to fit the 2 inch section. |
Originally Posted by simos
(Post 13291402)
The stock throttlebody can be lowered by placing thicker machined pieces of oval tubes between throttle body and plenum.
By doing this way the extra pieces of machined oval tubes can be modified for more flow friendly shape. This will help the flow to turn against the most far intake tubes. This was one of the steps I did for my stock S4 intake plenum, however there wasn't enough material to flatten the turn from oval port to plenum to make it perfect. With oval tube turn the situation is even worse than round tube. Perhaps this will help to understand the idea: Round ports will flow more volume if the round port is straight and the cross-sectional area is constant. The minute that a turn occurs in a round port, the air will ''glue in'' harder against the bottom of the port turn and increase surface friction or drag, Fig. 11-45. If this area is flattened out, the air will spread out, allowing more of the air to short cut the turn, thereby reducing boundary layer friction and increasing air flow through the turn. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...1d7a1aee8e.jpg Good work, keep posting the progress. As to lowering the TB, I have to wonder just how much room there is in the valley to do that. I'll take another look at that aspect of the original configuration; and it might be that some movement there will help to fit the original MAF as I hope. Even a half inch there might be enough to make a difference and it might be enough to put the air flow thingy (item 2 in the drawing shown elsewhere) on top of the TB back in its original location rather than somewhere else which is what I think I might have to do with the TB where I have kind of put it. |
Since all this is "eyeball engineering", why not just adopt an 16V intake manifold and be done with it?
|
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13292730)
Since all this is "eyeball engineering", why not just adopt an 16V intake manifold and be done with it?
|
2 Attachment(s)
My first order of tubing bends came today. I found that by flaring one open end a bit they will kind of stand up alone in the flanges; but not well enough to allow for me to stand more than two of them up. Here are a couple of pictures to show the raw bends standing up in the alternate configuration. The first picture is most likely how they will be oriented with each other.
I'll be cutting each of them off to my design length for the mounting ends and then I'll be able to try to stand more of them up together. They will be cut progressively taller by 5/16 inch, front to back. Then I'll probably cut all of these off right at the upper end of the curve. Then, with the next batch of these I'll be able to cut some straight and some curved material out of those and try to figure just how to nest the intake ends down a bit and kind of under their neighboring tube, in such a way as to keep them above the floor of the plenum as much as possible and sort of pointed toward the outlets from the TB. |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13292730)
Since all this is "eyeball engineering", why not just adopt an 16V intake manifold and be done with it?
Putting a 2v manifold on a 4v port, the air would basically just crash straight into the floor, and not go towards the valves. |
I devised a couple of jigs to be able to cut my tubing bends in my bandsaw and do it accurately--one to cut straight across the straight tangents on the tubes and one to cut within the curved part on the radial and at particular angles on 11.25 degree intervals. anything in between I will just have to eyeball, and probably in my disc sander. I have the jigs about 80 percent complete having only 8 more holes to tap for bolts and 6 holes to drill in the flat body of each. I'll post pictures of those tomorrow.
I was hoping to get them done tonight and try to cut one or two of my tubes, but I ran out of time and steam. |
Jerry,
This guy makes some nice tubing tools if you need some inspiration to make something similar: http://www.icengineworks.com/#!home/mainPage I am sure you can create a very similar marking/cutting system. Regards, Hans |
3 Attachment(s)
Thanks Hans. I was kind of a bit ahead of this link, but my approach is a little simpler, but narrowly focused on these 90 degree bends on 3 inch radius. That's all I needed to plan for so I don't need such a complex system.
I finished mine up this afternoon and cut a couple of the first tubes with one of them. The other one will be needed for the add-on tube between these stubs and the bell mouth, when I figure out some of the positioning and whether or not I will need to size my bell mouths down a bit. Here are a couple of pictures on my jigs and the tubes I have cut. |
When I cut these two tube bends I was planning to cut them all right at the upper end of the curve, and progressively longer at the lower ends by 5/16 in in order to have them rise from about 4 inches tall in front to just under 6 inches overall in the rear. I was also planning to graft another curve and perhaps bit of straight tube on the ends in such a way as to kind of aim the bell mount of each one toward the center of the plenum, front to back, and under the tube next to each one. However, I find that the front ones are so short that there is really no room to articulate the inlet ends under the next tube.
Therefore. I am back to my original idea of having only one bend in each tube and having the bell mouths just end in between the two adjacent tubes. To do that I am going to machine the bell mouths a little smaller in diameter and I am going to kind of make up for that by changing the profile of the inner radius making if more eliptical than circular. That will also help with the transition from tube to bell mouth. Now the tubes will end up more nearly equal in length and there will be only two welds to each one--one connecting them to the plenum wall and one joining the bell mouth. I glad I cut only two of my tubes because I still have 8 left and I wont need the second order of bends since I haven't gotten around to ordering them yet With this current design idea there may also be room to notch the front bottom of the plenum for space for the water bridge. I'm not sure yet about the oil inlet. I still need to figure out a good way to flare the ends of the tubes once they are cut, for a couple of reasons. On is that they need to be a bit larger to match my bell mouths, and the other is for a more snug fit in the flanges. Too, I find that even though these bends are mandrel made, they are not quite fully round in the bend area, having collapsed some in the bending process. I suspect that is a result of springback in the aluminum, which is fairly common. To flare the ends I am thinking of looking for a round steel ball of 2 inches diameter and simply placing it in the ends and hitting it with a hammer and few times, or more when more flare is needed. |
14 Attachment(s)
After drawing tubes on paper and studying them for a while I decided that it was time to cut the remaining 8 tubes from my first order of ten. I cut all but one of them and that is the front one which I think is going to be a bit different or at least a little outside of my formula. Then, I cut only the flange end leaving the intake end where the bell mouth goes to a little later when I decide just where each of them needs to be cut.
Then I found that I could flare the ends of these that are long enough for my cone to fit in. The the shorter ones will have to wait until my new steel ball arrives next week. I have some of the tubes flared a bit on the flange end so that they will stand up on their own, so I put them in position and took a few pictures of the arrangement. They look pretty neat, but will almost all be enclosed in the plenum that will be built around the whole arrangement. Anyway, you can see how the arrangement is only about 4 inches tall at the front and rises to about 6 inches in the rear. I think that will be overall short enough to fit under the hood of the sectioned car when I get there. The overall length of these tubes, when the upper ends are cut off some, will be about 9 inches, more or less, or more and less, since the fronts ones will be just under 9 inches and the rear ones over 9 and half inches. This runner length will be in addition to the three or four inches below the top edge of the flanges down to the back of the intake valves. You can see in the pictures where I have put some marks which is about where I'll be cutting to weld on the bell mouths. |
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13306428)
Then I found that I could flare the ends of these that are long enough for my cone to fit in. The the shorter ones will have to wait until my new steel ball arrives next week.
Great work Jerry, looks like your back isn't getting in the way too much. Looking forward to pics before the outer case of the plenum goes on. |
Excellent question about the cone. First, I have a jillion unfinished projects and I occasionally get back to them to try to finish up. The cone I made for one of those, but I don't remember which one; but when I find some tooling that I have made for a project I usually leave it alone and start over even it it might be modified for a new project. The other reason is that it doesn't work real well in flaring the ends of the tubes and I think the ball will work better, especially on the inlet ends which have to be flared quite a bit more than the outlet. Although as shown with the piece of straight tube I flared in the pictures I can probably successfully flare the inlet ends with the cone. The third reason is that I decided on the steel ball when I had first cut two tubes at the short ends and discovered that the cone would not work. It was not until I cut some longer that I realized I could still use the cone for most of them.
As to the bellmouths, I am going to reduce the radius so that they are about 3 1/8 inch in diameter down from just under 3 1/2 inch. From the top they will just fit between the neighboring tubes, but they will be opened mostly below them and pointing a bit toward the floor of the plenum, and that is where the intake air is going to be coming form. I think they will be sufficiently unshrouded to work just fine. I will also point out that to the length of the runners, as I posted just earlier, I can add the depth of the bellmouths which is 3/4 inch; so the runner length, to the back of the valves is going to be right around 13 to 14 inches. I'm not sure just what that will mean in the end, but that is as much as I think I can put in this intake. P.S. Martin, as to the location of the bellmouths, you may have overlooked the fact that they will not be on the ends of the tubes as now shown but rather quite a bit back of there since I still have to cut the inlet ends of these tubes off quite a bit. That will bring the bellmouths back toward the center of the plenum and right at or about the apex of the bends in the two neighboring tubes. I think that is going to leave them almost completely opened to the plenum air beneath the tubes. |
that project needs it own thread! :-)
|
Originally Posted by Tom in Austin
(Post 12763593)
More inspired work ... can't wait to see what kind of designs people think up to make with these starter pieces ... maybe a v-mounted supercharger?
|
9 Attachment(s)
Here's a little bit of work on the bell mouths. I have reduced the overall diameter by about 3/8 inch down to 3 1/8 inch. I think they will fit where they go just fine and still assist the airflow adequately. One pictures shows how they will fit between the neighboring tubes and a bit below, but the tube shown has not yet been cut to length. I am just now determining with some finality just how long the inlet ends of the tubes will need to be, and that is coming out pretty close to my formula. I have also changed and refined the contour of the bell mouth inner surface to make it more eliptical. Surprisingly, or maybe not, I found that the previous contour was not very consistent and in fact two of them required almost no machining to meet the new contour I had ground in my lathe bit for this.
Now I have to make a trip to the P.O. to mail another Cowl Cover and then I'll be forming some WW Liners, so that will likely be all with this intake for now. |
Jerry, That looks like some great work but you could have done what atb did a few years ago:
https://rennlist.com/forums/928-foru...ake-horns.html |
Jerry, thanks for the explanations! One great thing about using a ball as the "cherry" (I know you're a gunsmith) is the fairly radical progression of the curvature of contact from oblique to tangential, which seems to me to be just right for this app. Also thanks for the pics, I really enjoy seeing your machine setup and in process pics, very informative. Setup:machining = prep: paint, but you don't often get to see that part of the process.
|
Originally Posted by 928sg
(Post 13308280)
Jerry, That looks like some great work but you could have done what atb did a few years ago:
https://rennlist.com/forums/928-foru...ake-horns.html |
Originally Posted by M. Requin
(Post 13308324)
Jerry, thanks for the explanations! One great thing about using a ball as the "cherry" (I know you're a gunsmith) is the fairly radical progression of the curvature of contact from oblique to tangential, which seems to me to be just right for this app. Also thanks for the pics, I really enjoy seeing your machine setup and in process pics, very informative. Setup:machining = prep: paint, but you don't often get to see that part of the process.
|
7 Attachment(s)
I cut the inlet ends of 7 of the tubes off at the length that I finally decided on. The very front one, and maybe the second one back, are going to require a bit of the 90 degree bend to be removed so as to raise the inlet end up a bit off the floor of the plenum. The tops will still be in the correct sloping plane, but the bell mouths will not exactly line up with the rest, which wont effect anything that I can tell, except the length, but only by about 5/16 of an inch, although I have not yet cut the very front tube, so I can add as much length as I might need to even it out. The front tube, the "A" tube as I have it marked, is the one I cut originally and that I cut off right at the top of the bend. I still have the raw tube bend for this one and will cit it with more of the straight tangent tube on the upper end, out to where the bell mouth will need to fall.
|
I think this intake is going to meet my first criteria which is to FIT under the 928 hood when it gets lowered. That aspect of this effort was pretty much based on some careful design and planning. The next part of the FIT criteria will be to fit the other stuff around and under it that I will need to to make it work.
The next criteria is FINISH. (I don't intend the caps to represent shouting, but rather just boldness.) It looks like finish is going to be much more organic in nature, although there is some design necessary for the plenum, but even that is turning out fairly organic. I have changed the sides from being at a 45 degree angle to being 60 degrees, mainly because of the need to clear the fuel rails at about where the sides will need to "turn north." I still plan to use the S4 TB and that is going to fit under the intake in its usual position, but I am not too sure about the MAF. I am going to use the original one, but I may have to articulate it a bit and maybe move it back some to fit under my plenum, but I don't think that is going to matter since I am sure that I am also going to need to design and fab a completely new air filter box. If so I think I can design it around wherever I move the MAF, at least if not too far. Then I'm going to have to design and fab the method of getting the air from in front of the engine to the air filter box. That will have to be in the same location as the original, but also low enough to clear the hood. It may also be a little different at the front ends on top of the radiator, but I think not too much since the radiator is likely to be custom and not as tall as the original. |
Jerry, nice work as always with the intake, however I am writing to you about your back. I've had three spinal operations and they are not for the faint of heart. I hope they have mentioned the risks because they are very real.
As I have no idea what issues are troubling you, I will just be general in advice. Get a second opinion, make sure it's the same as the first opinion. If it's not get another opinion. You can't undo the doctors errors. Hence the required caution. When I started seeing surgeons there was several worrying aspects. They said I may make you worse. They said I can't fix everything wrong with your back so we have to pick the worst issues to address. Because of the area my wife works in, she hears about the ones that go wrong. Sometimes quite young ones, she was recently dealing with a fellow who went in for a disc replacement in the neck and she knew the doctor who did the op and he was well regarded. Anyway that fellow woke up a quadriplegic, now lives in a nursing home and is in his forties. We have friends who gave us some fire wood. I said I don't want to lift it. "Why not" I explained the ops and he said they had just been to a fund raiser for a friend who was made a tetraplegic by an op that went wrong. Make sure you are certain you are going down the right path with the right people is my message and to anybody else who is reading this and may be thinking of taking this step. Others might not be in that position now but remember what is written here before they commit to an operation. If you are overweight, lose the weight, get fit by non weight bearing activities like swimming. My back and neck improved further after the surgery as I was then able to spend time getting back to work hardening through steady paced exercise. It took well over a year to do that. In fact I say I probably took two years. Good luck if you must go down that road, I hope you make a speedy and steady recovery and don't over do it if it works out, spinal surgery is just patch up surgery. |
Thanks Blue for your concern and suggestions. I have spondylolisthesis of L5 which is where the central part of the vertebra is broken away from the dorsum part in back and then moves out of position toward the front. I was either born with it or I have had it since I was about 10 when I crashed my bicycle. It was not diagnosed until several years ago when I was in Law School and I was told then that I would eventually have to have my back fused. Now I do. The forward displacement of L5 is about 50 percent from a side view and the nerves are pinched. The surgeon is going to pull L5 back mostly into position and then fuse it with L4 and S1. I have great confidence in him. He is also a race boat pilot, and I will not be surprised to learn that his boat is powered by two 928 stroker motors.
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13311890)
Thanks Blue for your concern and suggestions. I have spondylolisthesis of L5 which is where the central part of the vertebra is broken away from the dorsum part in back and then moves out of position toward the front. I was either born with it or I have had it since I was about 10 when I crashed my bicycle. It was not diagnosed until several years ago when I was in Law School and I was told then that I would eventually have to have my back fused. Now I do. The forward displacement of L5 is about 50 percent from a side view and the nerves are pinched. The surgeon is going to pull L5 back mostly into position and then fuse it with L4 and S1. I have great confidence in him. He is also a race boat pilot, and I will not be surprised to learn that his boat is powered by two 928 stroker motors.
That's a severe condition you are putting up with, I'm surprised you can still get around. I'm no doctor but from what you say you are getting the appropriate treatment. I'm a bit surprised your surgery is delayed, normally once the decision is made it is quite quick for serious cases like yours. Mine, not that it matters was backwards 'retro' . You'll feel much better after its done. All the best Greg |
Thanks again, Greg. The delays are kind of a long but not very interesting story. When I am on my feet for about 10 to 15 minutes doing something like standing in the courtroom, shopping at Sam's club or such or just standing talking to someone, my right foot starts to malfunction and I get pain in my back. However, I find that I can work on my feet for a few hours at a time in my shop without issue. I think that is because I am always slightly stooped over in the shop and that seems to be just enough to alleviate some of the pressure on the nerves.
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13311978)
Thanks again, Greg. The delays are kind of a long but not very interesting story. When I am on my feet for about 10 to 15 minutes doing something like standing in the courtroom, shopping at Sam's club or such or just standing talking to someone, my right foot starts to malfunction and I get pain in my back. However, I find that I can work on my feet for a few hours at a time in my shop without issue. I think that is because I am always slightly stooped over in the shop and that seems to be just enough to alleviate some of the pressure on the nerves.
|
Thanks again, Greg. I'm glad you finally came out well; and thanks for being concerned that I will do the same.
Now, back to the intake. I cut the final tube off, the one for the very front, but I think I cut it off too short. I'll going to order a couple more bends and do the front two tubes over. I think I have it right, now. I also received the steel ball and it works pretty well to flare the ends except the ones that need flaring right at of within the bend area, which I think has been work hardened enough to make the tubing very resistant to flaring this way. |
Jerry--
Have you looked at the tubing expanders that the muffler guys use? Fits inside, tighten a bolt on the end to force expanding fingers out to stratch the tubing. It's what they use when a slip-over fit is needed, plus it "rounds" slightly distorted or collapsed tubing. Better auto parts stores have them, or you can probably talk a local exhaust place into letting you use one. |
1 Attachment(s)
Thanks Dr Bob for that suggestion, but that is not the kind of flare that I am wanting on the ends of these tube bends. Take a close look at the end of the tube in this picture and you can see what I mean.
|
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13314472)
Jerry--
Have you looked at the tubing expanders that the muffler guys use? Fits inside, tighten a bolt on the end to force expanding fingers out to stratch the tubing. It's what they use when a slip-over fit is needed, plus it "rounds" slightly distorted or collapsed tubing. Better auto parts stores have them, or you can probably talk a local exhaust place into letting you use one. better off going to an exhaust shop with a hydraulic flaring machine and handing the guy $20 or so for his time.
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13314493)
Thanks Dr Bob for that suggestion, but that is not the kind of flare that I am wanting on the ends of these tube bends. Take a close look at the end of the tube in this picture and you can see what I mean.
|
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13315088)
maybe worth making a die and pressing the tubes into shape?
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13314493)
Thanks Dr Bob for that suggestion, but that is not the kind of flare that I am wanting on the ends of these tube bends. Take a close look at the end of the tube in this picture and you can see what I mean.
|
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13315246)
I was thinking that you were trying to expand the end to solve a loose fit in the flange adapters. Using the tubing expander would give you a straighter run to the joint at the head, plus clean up some of the tube collapse at the transition from the curve to the straight run, such collapse inevitable even with DOM bends.
|
3 Attachment(s)
I'm not doing much on this intake right now since I am waiting on some more tube bends that I had to order a few days ago. I finally got around to cutting the last tube that I was saving for the very front tube, the one lettered "A," that was going to be cut kind of in a different way. I cut it in the different way, but made a mistake in doing so, so now it needs to be done over.
When I impose my overall cutting formula on the A tube and cut it it puts the bottom of the bell-mouth low enough to interfere with the slightly elevated base of the plenum. I could probably use it that way and just cut the bottom off of it, but I figured out that it can be cut a bit differently so that the inlet end is not so low. I calculated that since the beginning of the A tube is cut for the Hans base flange right at the beginning of the tube bend, I could cut it up the curve about 11.25 degrees, or one eighth of the 90 degrees total, which then rotates it so that the inlet end elevates above the plenum floor. So I cut it there. Then I cut the inlet end according to the formula used for the other 7 tubes. However, what I found then was that the inlet end does not line up with the others by quite a bit. Then I realized that the reason for that is that when I cut the 11.25 degrees off the curve that also shortened the tube by about 9/16 inch, and that is about the amount that it doesn't now line up with the others. That's why I ordered some more bends so I can do it over. It looks from the pictures that I will need to cut a new front A tube about an inch or so longer than the one shown that is too short. That will put the end pretty much in line with the others on that side and let the bell-mouth nest in the curvature of the B tube. The front A tube is the only one that I can adjust in this manner since it is the only one which has the curvature right at the base flange. All the others have some straight tube between the flange and the curve or tube bend. Therefore, cutting anything off any of the rest of the tubes merely raises or lowers it and does not rotate it around the curvature as with tube A. I need the top of the curvature to remain on the plain of the tops of all of them. |
Pictures of the topic of discussion always seem to be of great interest. I find that the pictures that I have posted of my progress are also of great benefit to me since I can sit in front of my computer and study them rather than standing in front of the intake as I have it mocked up to try to figure out certain things.
One of the things I am trying now to figure out now is why, when I hand place my bell-mouths at the ends of the tubes as presently cut and placed, they seem to get tighter in their respective nesting places as they progress from front to back. Each tube, except the front one, is cut on the base flange end across the straight segment of the tube, and the upper ends are also cut within the other straight section. Each tube rises by 5/16 of an inch taller than the tube immediately in front of it and 5/8 inch taller than the one in front of it on the same side of the manifold. Since they are rising at 22.5 degrees, the tops or apex of the curves at the top of each is getting closer to each other from side to side. I cut the upper ends of the tubes off shorter by 1/4 inch with each successive one, but that does not seem like enough since the area where the bell mouth is supposed to nest seems to change too much as I move back. I think I am going to take another quarter inch off successively of the tubes on each side and see if that opens up the nesting place like I think it should be. That means that the second one on each side will be 1/4 inch shorter, the third one half inch and the rear one 3/4 inch shorter. From the pictures that looks like what I need to do. |
Ah, the pictures really do help. I finally figured out why the bell-mouths are getting tighter within their respective "nests" as they move back. Not only are the tops of the bends getting closer to each other from side to side, and the inlet ends are getting shorter as they progress to the rear; but when the inlet ends get shorter, they are also getting taller because the cut moves up the inlet end of the tubes which are not level but at a 22.5 degree downward angle. That moves the bell-mouth upward a bit each time I cut off the inlet end.
I'm still going to study the upper ends to finally decide if they need to be cut off a bit more toward the rear. |
12 Attachment(s)
I was waiting on the new tube bends to arrive before I worked on the intake again, and then they showed up about midday today. So, I made a little progress. First I turned the base stand I had fashioned into an actual stand. I did that by simply machining some legs for it and tapped them to screw onto the bolts holding the flanges down. Then I was able to take it all apart and drilled some holes to mount the TB under it and I cut a big chunk out of it in the back where I hope the MAF will fit.
Then I was able to refine the A tube in front to a suitable length. Then I re-measured all the other tubes and corrected their inlet length so that the ends pretty well line up with each other on each side. Now I am ready to have the bell-mouths tack welded to the tubes and then I'll start making the plenum and the pattern for the openings on each side for the tubes to pass through. Here are a few pictures. |
1 Attachment(s)
At this point this intake may look like it is well on its way to being finished, but actually I think it is only a good start. I think it will meet my first criteria, and that is to fit under the hood. I have been trying to visualize the plenum, and have a pretty good general idea of what it will look like, but I have been unable to put the design down on paper. I think that is going to be sort of design as you go.
What I need to do next is develop some more tooling. I am going to fabricate the plenum out of .063 6061 T6 aluminum sheet and that is pretty hard stuff. I am going to need to fab a bend radius bar for one of my brakes. I think I'll work on that this morning, and if I work something up I'll make the plenum base plate. Then I can start making the patterns for the plenum sides which will have the tube openings in them. Here is one picture of my attempt at a three view drawing of the plenum, but it is off quite a bit and I only got to two of the views. Instead of the rounded look that I put in my previous sketch, I think I am going with something more faceted. That's mainly because it will be easier to form and fit together with numerous flat surfaces instead of rounded, and I can form it easier than trying to find various large aluminum tubing to make the rounded sections. |
I found a bend radius form that I had made some time ago that I thought would work even though it is a tighter radius than I was planning. However, when I set it up in my 24 inch brake I found that the sheet is too tough for me to bend in my brake. I'm going to have to have these bends done for me in a press brake..
I also find that I am still having trouble flaring the ends of three of my tubes. The end that is closest to, or in the bend, is work-hardened enough to make my system unsuccessful. What I am doing is placing my 2 inch steel ball in the end of the tube and hitting it with my mill draw bar wrench/hammer. However, because of the nature of the material and the bend in the middle of the work piece, I have to hold it in my other hand while I am striking it with the hammer. Otherwise I'll damage the tube if I try to place it on something solid. My hand hold is absorbing most of the hammer blow. I think I'll go buy myself a dead-blow hammer and see if that will do the trick. |
maybe i missed it, but why are the runners different lengths front to back?
|
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13330019)
maybe i missed it, but why are the runners different lengths front to back?
I think what you are really asking is why are the runners in front not as tall as the ones in back? If that is your question, it is because the angle of the axis of the engine is not parallel to the under side of the hood, so, just as with the S4 intake, the front is short and the back it tall. They could all be short, but they cannot all be tall. Here, with the tall ones in the back I think there will be more room for the MAF to fit very close to its original position, or at least not so far off that I can't use it. |
so the centerline of the runner length is all the same then? from the base plate to the opening? (san the bell mouths of course) . they do look to be longer/shorter in the front, and shorter/taller in the rear. thats why I'm asking. :-)
|
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13330213)
so the centerline of the runner length is all the same then? from the base plate to the opening? (san the bell mouths of course) . they do look to be longer/shorter in the front, and shorter/taller in the rear. thats why I'm asking. :-)
|
4 Attachment(s)
Here are a couple of pictures of the S4 intake next to my project. This shows why mine slopes down back to front.
I think my runners are much closer to equal length that the S4 intake, although somewhat shorter overall. |
Heat up the aluminium and let it cool down on it's own, this will anneal it and make it soft again.
|
4 Attachment(s)
I like to make tooling when it is going to be helpful to do certain jobs and/or to help with accuracy. I made a simple piece of tooling to use by the welder when I take my tubes and bell-mouths to have them tack welded together. First the bell-mouth slips over it and then when the tube end is flared just right it slips over the top and they are automatically lined up for welding.
|
1 Attachment(s)
The morning before I left for surgery in the Denver area I left off a piece of aluminum sheet to be bent on the sides for the bottom of the plenum chamber. I was able to get out a bit and go by and pick it up yesterday and it looks perfect. I have some errands to run today and will need to go by the office for a while to return some calls and sign some things, but If I continue to improve in my pain and swelling I may be able to go out the the shop and take a picture of the plenum bottom approximately in place.
Then I can start laying out the shape and size of the plenum sides so I can take them to have them bent. I may also be able to fabricate the fitting pieces that will help me locate the holes that the tubes must pass through into the plenum. I pretty much have them designed in my mind and I think I can make them myself in the shop. Here's the plenum bottom as it is bent, simple as it is. The aluminum alloy I am using is stiff enough that I could not bend it in my own brake. |
Jerry--
Glad to hear you are recovering from the knife and saw. Keeping in mind that the plenum will see about 15 PSI of external pressure under trailing throttle, have you considered stiffening ribs in the larger sections? These could be rolled in pretty easily. If the bends are made on a press brake, it's similarly easy to to strengthen them with some formed-in ribs to stiffen the corners. |
Excellent thoughts, Dr Bob. I have thought about it a bit but did not come up the any need. Here are the reasons:
1. The bottom will be screwed the the TB plate which is 7 inches wide front to back. In back of it there is going to be a rounded tunnel for MAF clearance under it. In front it will extend about 5 inches forward to where the front sides begins. 2. The left and right sides will consist of the same sheet material that is bent longways at a 90 degree angle and the widest part of either of its flats will be only about 4 inches. The bottom flats of each side will have the 4 holes through them with the tubes welded to them. The upper flats going from the 90 degree angle over the the top flat flange will be the largest plain flat surfaces on the plenum. Given that they are going to be pretty narrow I don't think they will need stiffeners. 3. The front and back will each consist of 6 facets plus the flat flange along their tops for the top to mate to; and the back will also be intersected by the curved MAF tunnel. I'm pretty sure that none of the facets will need to have a stiffener on it. 4. The top will be made of a 3/8 inch aluminum plate that is machined to lighten it and to make it look like something resulting in ribs longways that are about 1/4 inch deep. I think that will be pretty stiff in itself. |
Hi Dr Bob. I have given your concern some more thought and have kind of done some rough math associated with it. The math suggests that with a vacuum created inside the plenum the atmospheric pressure on just the top side of this thing will be upwards to 2700 pounds. When I run that through my mental pressure chamber I can envision this plenum looking much like an empty beer can laying on its side on the ground and being stomped on. Therefore I am deciding to put what I will call some pressure posts inside the plenum between the top rim and the bottom surface. There will be at least four of them and probably 6 if I can find the right locations for them so that they are screwed in place at least at the top with the series of socket head screws holding the top plate on.
On another note, I find that the guy who bent the plenum floor for me has missed my 60 degree angle by about 3 or 4 degrees. I'm going to have him adjust those bends and then have him put the bends in the two sides of the plenum. If I find the strength to go out to the shop later I'll cut the sides out and mark them for bending. Then, depending on how I feel I'm going to devise the pattern holes for locating the openings in the plenum sides for the tubes to pass through and then I can start working on that pattern. It all depends on how much time I can spend on my feet. |
... Then, depending on how I feel I'm going to devise the pattern holes for locating the openings in the plenum sides for the tubes to pass through and then I can start working on that pattern. It all depends on how much time I can spend on my feet. Glad the discomfort from the back work hasn't dampened your spirit of progress and development. However (sounds so much more pleasant than "but"), I and others (like your surgeon) will warn you about overextending yourself during your early recovery period. Pain meds can easily make you think you are in better shape than your body would otherwise signal. Pay careful attention to the recovery guidance from the MD's, and the signals you receive when you are moving around. Needless to say, you don't want to go back for rework if it can be avoided. |
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13370701)
Glad the discomfort from the back work hasn't dampened your spirit of progress and development. However (sounds so much more pleasant than "but"), I and others (like your surgeon) will warn you about overextending yourself during your early recovery period. Pain meds can easily make you think you are in better shape than your body would otherwise signal. Pay careful attention to the recovery guidance from the MD's, and the signals you receive when you are moving around. Needless to say, you don't want to go back for rework if it can be avoided.
|
Thanks Dr Bob and Martin. I had the surgery on Wednesday the first and it lasted from about 9am to about 3pm. Then I think I woke up about 3:30 or so. I didn't have a lot of pain and they had me rigged up to an IV drip which I thought was giving me some small dosage of pain med.
Then they explained that they also had it rigged up so that when I felt the need for more pain med I could push a button and get another dose and that it would reset itself when I was eligible to push it again. Thinking that at what was already in the the drip and that I could tolerate the level of pain I was having then I didn't push the button for about a day and a half. They were always surprised that I had not pushed the button and finally told me that pushing the button was the only pain med I was going to get that there was none otherwise in the IV drip. Then it occurred to me that they were not going to let me out of there until the pain was minimal, so I started pushing the button. I was there over three nights. They gave me a prescription for a heavy narcotic and I got it filled, but I am relying mostly on Aleve (Naproxen sodium) for pain relief, and not much of that. I'm going to have a lot of dope left over for the next party we have. Yesterday I finally made it out to the shop but only briefly. I cut out the two sides of the plenum and brought them in and marked them for bending. I think I"ll take them to town this morning and see if I can get them bent. I received a large tablet of graph paper so I can sit here and work on the drawings for the front and back of the plenum. I can see them in my mind but it is real difficult to put all the bends and facets on paper in three view. I asked again about PT for my back and they were a little more positive this time, but sounds like it will be more after the fusions have solidified. I have a good one in mind, so maybe I can get a prescription for him when the time comes. The Surgeon did say that he is going to have me walking a mile a day after surgery, but that is not going to start very soon since I can't be on my feet for very long yet. I saw my local regular doctor last week and he thought there might be some infection in my incision, but he cultured it and it turned up negative. He took me off the antibiotic he had prescribed. |
7 Attachment(s)
I'm not spending much time on my feet yet, but I have been able to put in spurts of effort here and there. I had cut and marked the sides of the plenum and taken them to be bent. I picked them up yesterday and then found that I had made a small mistake in them. I was able to correct it by simply cutting the mistake off. I took what I have so far out to the shop and kind of mocked it up a bit to see where I am with it I found that I think I need to remake the plenum base a little bit narrower, but I don't think that will require me to change the sides. I'm going to draw it up narrower and check the fit with my patterns.
Here are some pictures of what I have going now, including a picture of how I am going to pattern the holes in the sides of the plenum for the tubes to pass through. I think these pictures will give you a better idea of the general shape of the plenum, although the bottom and sides are about a couple of inches longer that they are going to end up. As mentioned before, the top will be a heavier aluminum plate machined to fit and look cool. The front and back of the plenum will be pretty complex and it is still pretty hard to put into a drawing. |
When I temporarily clamp these three pieces of the plenum together I find that the the whole thing is too wide at the base. When I put one of the tube hole patterns onto one of the tubes and put it into position it pushes the plenum base too far against the tubes on the other side. Therefore I have cut and marked a new piece of material for the narrower base and hope to get it bent early this week. Then I can start marking, cutting and bending the ends of the base and making provision for the two elliptical intake holes in it.
Based on my drawings I have also allowed about a quarter inch of extra material along the bottom edges of the two sides just to have a little bit of fudge factor. That is in addition to the ability to move the sides fore and aft about 3 inches which also gives me height flexibility since they are tapered. I think overall the pieces as they are currently designed will fit well within the height restrictions I have set for myself. I can't do too much else until I get the new base bent, except work on elongating the tube holes in the hole pattern pieces I have partially devised, |
2 Attachment(s)
I got the new narrower base for the plenum bent last week and put it kind of into place and started working on patterning the location of holes through the plenum sides for the tubes. I cut some pieces of scrap aluminum sheet and put holes through them to use as patterning pieces and have clamped a few of them in place. When I get them all in place I'll clamp the tops of them firmly together then try to figure out how to use it as a pattern to cut the tube holes in the plenum sides.
|
5 Attachment(s)
I put the rest of the pattern pieces on the intake and then sheared and folded some sheet metal to clamp them all too and did the clamping. This is real rough so far since some of the tubes are loose from their respective holes in the base flange.
I think next I will have the rest of the tubes welded up with their bell-mouths and then work them over a bit more to fit more snugly in the flanges then try the method of clamping them all together with their pattern pieces. I expect this process is going to end up with about three different patterns before I finally cut the tube holes in the already formed plenum side pieces. And still I think the plenum side pieces are about a quarter inch taller than they will need to be. |
Hans, I made this assembly/fabrication stand using the mounting bolt pattern off of one of my spare S4 intakes. I wonder how much difference, if any, there might end up being from using the matching bolt pattern off of the cylinder heads as mounted on an engine. Given some of the significant differences in port matching found in a factory engine, I would hate to find that my intake is an eighth of an inch off from matching the ports in the heads.
|
Jerry. You will note that there is some play allowed in the mounting with the included bonded washers, but not a lot. I have seen some deviation between engines, so its a good idea to check before locking it down for good. I can give you the XY coordinates between the four corner bolts that I am using on my layouts if you want to compare.
|
Thanks, Hans. That would be great.
|
The kind of mock-up shown in the pictures above are just that. I have taken that all apart and am now starting to put it back together much more accurately. I think I am going to get the hole patterns on each side correctly lined up then locate the right angle top flange of the plenum in just the correct position so that I will know where to put the final holes from the pattern pieces. Then I think I have kind of devised a method to fly-cut the holes in the sides of the final plenum. I do't want to have to make them over since they are pretty well finished accurately except for the tiny bit of extra material I left along the bottom edges for a fudge factor.
Then I think I am going to have to take some time and finally teach myself how to run a decent bead with my tig welder in aluminum. I can weld with it, but my welds look terrible. The shop where I have always had such welding done for me is getting so expensive that I think this manifold will break me up before I get it finished up. The cost to finish up many of my projects is one of the main things that leaves me with so many unfinished. |
Jerry, aren't you supposed to be taking it easy? Get a little total relaxation time in over the 4th at least, PLEASE!
|
Thanks Martin. I hope I have the post op instructions worked up into a usable format for now and will find out more next thursday at my first post-op session with the surgeon.
|
8 Attachment(s)
I had taken the previous mock-up apart and then started putting it back together more accurately. It looks like it is all going to fit as I intend. I have most of it back together and have the pattern pieces clamped in place. When I can figure out how to get it off the assembly stand I'll be able to make another pattern from what I have so far then use that for cutting holes in the final pieces of the plenum.
I also have a piece of 5 inch irrigation tube to use part of for the MAF tunnel at the bottom rear of the plenum. I'll need to figure just where to put it, but I can get it as high under the rear runners as three inches above the plenum base. |
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13420290)
I had taken the previous mock-up apart and then started putting it back together more accurately. It looks like it is all going to fit as I intend. I have most of it back together and have the pattern pieces clamped in place. When I can figure out how to get it off the assembly stand I'll be able to make another pattern from what I have so far then use that for cutting holes in the final pieces of the plenum.
I also have a piece of 5 inch irrigation tube to use part of for the MAF tunnel at the bottom rear of the plenum. I'll need to figures just where to put it, but I can get it as high under the rear runners as three inches above the plenum base. (been out of circulation for a couple of months with health issues and on my return I find this). Obviously very keen to see the working result. Cheers Upfixen |
1 Attachment(s)
Hi Upfixen. Sorry to hear that you too have been under the weather, or, since your are "down under" already, does that put you above the weather? (Actually I don't know what it is that puts us at the top and you at the bottom.) Anyway, it is good that you must be on the mend.
There is way too much in this thread about my own health issues but they are improving also. I am able to spend a few short periods of time on my feet out in the shop, and yesterday I changed the manner of holding some of the plenum patterning pieces together so I can take them off the mock-up and try to use them to make another one piece pattern for the tube holes on each side. These fasteners I am using are called Clecos. Some are called side-grip and some are used by drilling a hole and slipping them through before releasing the spring pressure that holds them in place. The ones through the holes are much more accurate since they both squeeze the material together and hold it in shear. |
3 Attachment(s)
I started making another pattern off the first. Here is a picture or two of my MAF tunnel.
|
I had measured and determined that I could make the MAF tunnel about 9 inches long, so I made it 10. Then I measured and found that at 3 inches tall it would fit under the runners, except that that is with the runners without the bell-mouths. So I am gong to go out and cut another one out of what was left from the first one cut and make it 2.5 inches tall and maybe even 11 inches long and that will be long enough to allow me to move it in and out to gain the clearances I will want without cutting off parts of any of the bell-mouths. Here I go.
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13425280)
I had measured and determined that I could make the MAF tunnel about 9 inches long, so I made it 10. Then I measured and found that at 3 inched tall t would fit under the runners, except that that is with the runners without the bell-mouths. So I am gong to go out and cut another one out of what what left from the first one cut and make it 2.5 inches tall and maybe even 11 inches long and that will be long enough to allow me to move it in and out to gain the clearances I will want without cutting off parts of any of the bell-mouths. Here I go.
Sorry to hear that you've been in hospital as well. :-( They certainly are clever little clamps. Couldn't work out what they were at first. Re the bellmouths: I wouldn't be concerned about trimming the bellmouth where it meets the MAF tunnel, as the MAF tunnel 'roof' will take its place. Although it's not bellmouth shaped, it's 95% as good as over that short distance. Will be back later Jerry. Not a lot of energy at the moment. Cheers John C. |
2 Attachment(s)
Upfixen, that is a good thought. Actually I am not too sure where my MAF is going to want to end up so having some choices is good. I went ahead and cut another one 2 1/2 in tall and a bit longer; now either one can be reshaped quite a bit to fill the need.
I suspect that I am going to wait until I build the engine and put it in the modified car before I will be able to do much with the redesign of the filter air box. But, I did want to get the intake finished now so I can get it out of the way and start on some of the major body work. My next major task is to try to refine my aluminum welding skills since that too is going to come in very handy when I get to the body work. I found my bag of aluminum scraps that I was intending to take to the recycle place, so now I have lots of pieces to practice on. |
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13425960)
Upfixen, that is a good thought. Actually I am not too sure where my MAF is going to want to end up so having some choices is good. I went ahead and cut another one 2 1/2 in tall and a bit longer; now either one can be reshaped quite a bit to fill the need.
I suspect that I am going to wait until I build the engine and put it in the modified car before I will be able to do much with the redesign of the filter air box. But, I did want to get the intake finished now so I can get it out of the way and start on some of the major body work. My next major task is to try to refine my aluminum welding skills since that too is going to come in very handy when I get to the body work. I found my bag of aluminum scraps that I was intending to take to the recycle place, so now I have lots of pieces to practice on. |
3 Attachment(s)
I took the clamped-together pattern off one side and then transferred the hole pattern locations to a single piece of sheet aluminum cut to the approximate size and shape of the part of the plenum side where they need to be and then cut them out in the mill with a small fly-cutter. Then I finished each one with a file until it would make a tight or snug fit onto the plenum base and with the tube runners through it in their near finished locations.
That took quite a bit of time, so it was a two or three part project with some rest off my feet in between. It came out much more accurate than I expected it would; so I think it is going to be very useful to locate the holes on the pre-formed sides of the finished plenum. I'll do the other side in the next day or two and then try to refine the locations on the finished pieces. |
7 Attachment(s)
What I did first thing this morning was to take the multi-piece pattern off the B through H side of the intake and then use it as the pattern for the single piece pattern of the tube holes for that side of the plenum. I first did the front and back and then after resting for a while I did the middle two holes. I now have that pattern complete and clamped up on the assembly stand with the tubes in place. The pattern holes are getting more accurate as I go so I hope that when I transfer this pattern to the finished sides on the plenum they will be very close and tight enough to get clean looking welds.
I also remade the little welding mandrel I had made for the welder to use to line up the tube runner bellmouths with the tubes. The original one I made I had made out of tubing which is all I had handy but it is too thin and he had to beat it to death to get it out after the aluminum shrunk onto it. I made the new one out of a chunk of stainless bar that I found on eBay and I think that will work much better both since it will soak up more of the heat but also I'll make a little wooden rack that he can use to simply drop it on the bench top and have the mandrel fall out. Or, if I get to work on my own welding skills I'll be doing it myself. |
I know that this thread, and my small project part of it, seems to have slipped into the past, but I haven't abandoned it at this point. Life, and now a death in the family, just seems to be getting in the way of most of my 928 stuff. I have been able to fab and ship some of my plastic parts, but dealing with the rest has held me up in working on my TIG welding and the rest of this fab. Don't give up on me on this one.
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13504323)
I know that this thread, and my small project part of it, seems to have slipped into the past, but I haven't abandoned it at this point. Life, and now a death in the family, just seems to be getting in the way of most of my 928 stuff. I have been able to fab and ship some of my plastic parts, but dealing with the rest has held me up in working on my TIG welding and the rest of this fab. Don't give up on me on this one.
Best Wishes. John C. |
Hi Jerry--
Sorry to hear about the death in the family. Just a reminder that family always comes first, and that the fun project pieces will be waiting patiently when your attention is again available. ---- I'm fascinated by the amount of pictures you are sharing, and hope that others get an idea of the amount of thought and then work that goes into a project like this. As far as working on your TIG welding skills for the aluminum, can I gently suggest that you learn on something that has a lot less prep and fab time upstream of the welding? Like any skill, welding aluminum looks like something easy when you watch the folks who are good at it. Like driving at 11/10 or landing a helicopter without that annoying sound of rending metal, it looks easy until you try it yourself. I can't tell you how many melt-throughs and blowouts I managed as I was trying to just learn to join two plates. That was with an excellent teacher talking me through the process, with a good water-cooled torch. Learn on scrap pieces, working your way up to the various combinations of shapes and positions. Soft-drink cans are good fodder. Learning on production pieces will frustrate you as you damage and try to recover from mistakes as you learn. Don't overlook that there are plenty of amazing UV-cure adhesives that can replace welding in these applications. Using adhesives solves a lot of warping issues during fabrication, saves from having to do stress-relief and Blanchard grinding on flange faces so pieces will mate with the heads, for instance. No need for gas purge during fabrication. It takes a little adjustment in design to make all the connections adhesive-friendly, but in the end it can dramatically ease a lot of challenges that welding brings to the process. Stupid stuff like how to get the end of the TIG torch into those tight corners suddenly go away too. |
I am in awe of your persistence with this great project ! Keep up the good work when other commitments are satisfied.
I really enjoy you excellent progress reports. |
Thanks to each of you for your thoughts, concerns, appreciations, instructions and suggestions. My own health is getting better with surgery recovery, but I am still limited to very light lifting. The pain is now minimal and very controllable without the narcotics. My oldest daughter, 39, died in a small fifth-wheel trailer fire the other night in a little place just south of Tillamook, OR.
On the up side, my rental that had flooded last winter is now with intact plumbing and new carpeting, and my Secretary who is getting a divorce is moving in as my new tenant. The washing machine that failed is going to be replaced next thursday; and the part that I think failed on the secondary one a long time ago, that I have put off repairing because we didn't need it, just arrived. If my son can help with the lifting and such I think I might even have that one going this weekend. I have done some successful TIG welding, but it is very ugly. I am sure the reason is that I was doing it without a foot pedal or finger/thumb power control, so I could not make the stack of dimes look. I have been watching U-tube vids about how to do it and have a finger control to try. If that doesn't do it I'll get a foot control. I have a bag of scraps to practice with. I won't do any of it on this project until I am very pleased with the look of what welds I can ultimately make. I am also on the coasting side of some fairly successful cases at the office that will mature financially in the near future. Overall, we are back on the down side of the curve, I think. |
So sorry to hear about your loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.
|
Jerry, you have suffered about the worst thing that could happen to any parent, along with all the other things you have gone through. But I am really happy to see that you are feeling so positive about life now! But do take it easy...
Your manifold project is coming along really well, and I admire your confidence about learning TIG welding- I'm still a sputtering pre-novice :) |
Gosh Jerry, my heart aches for you and your loss. Terrible tragedy. Heal quickly my friend.
|
Thanks Dan, Martin and hlee96.
|
My condolences Jerry to you and your family. Your loss is imaginable. As a parent I wouldn't begin to know how to cope. Have faith.
|
Jerry, first I am so sorry for your loss is as hessank stated "just unimaginable". Jerry, thank you for the fast shipment on the spare tire cover and it is awesome and a perfect fit. I need another one..lol...no I did not break the first one, I bought another 928S4 without a good cover. I'll send a pm later today to order another. Sure wish that center console was ready. :-) Take good care of yourself as we find you a perfect gentleman and not replaceable to us gear heads. All the Best, Gary
|
Thanks Gary and thanks Fred. Gary, Fred actually said the loss is "imaginable," and I think he is right because anyone with children probably has something like this in the back of there mind just about all the time. I know I always have. Then when it happens you kind of accept it even though you can't maybe even talk about it. I know I still can't verbally without being very choked up, but it helps to be able to write it down in various ways.
I'll work on another Cover for you Gary. I think I still have another open order to fill very shortly. |
Jerry, I have children and grandchildren and you are right. When they are growing up and even grown it is in the back of your mind but you pray it doesn't happen to anyone, unfortunately it does.
No hurry on the next one Jerry. I'll go to pay pal and send shortly. Gary |
So sorry to hear.....
|
Sorry for your loss Jerry. I just cant imagine. Thought and prayers for you and your family.
|
1 Attachment(s)
What happened to the Jerry Feather intake? Any updates?
Have received my AT Power 55mm shaftless throttle bodies. Åke |
OMG, that's beautiful Ake!!!
|
The Jerry Feather Intake is just about where the last posts show it. I have not gotten set up yet to try to refine my TIG welding technique on aluminum, and, as usual, something else must be done first. Actually several something elses in this case. My intake project is intended as a one-off and purposed for the radical custom that I still have not cut any sheet metal on. Just about all of that seems to be waiting on my ability to do some dirt work outside, then park a 20 foot shipping container that I bought recently, then clear out some of my shop space, then move my car components around to get the rolling tub inside where I can block it up and get started. Then, in the process I'l be progressing on the Intake. I may end up having a friend do the welding for me on the Intake if I am not readily able to fashion some very good looking welds on it.
AKE? are you going to build a similar intake for your TBs? I hope some of my design and fab thoughts in this thread will help stimulate your design efforts. |
Originally Posted by Strosek Ultra
(Post 13939436)
What happened to the Jerry Feather intake? Any updates?
Have received my AT Power 55mm shaftless throttle bodies. Åke |
so sorry for your loss,i can't imagine
|
Thanks Ray. And, if I have not adequately thanked all of you who have expressed your thoughts and concern about the loss of our daughter, I do now. The outpouring of sympathy from so many of you was and is truly valuable and very highly appreciated. Thanks so much. Jerry Feather, and on behalf of my entire family.
|
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13939586)
The Jerry Feather Intake is just about where the last posts show it. I have not gotten set up yet to try to refine my TIG welding technique on aluminum, and, as usual, something else must be done first. Actually several something elses in this case. My intake project is intended as a one-off and purposed for the radical custom that I still have not cut any sheet metal on. Just about all of that seems to be waiting on my ability to do some dirt work outside, then park a 20 foot shipping container that I bought recently, then clear out some of my shop space, then move my car components around to get the rolling tub inside where I can block it up and get started. Then, in the process I'l be progressing on the Intake. I may end up having a friend do the welding for me on the Intake if I am not readily able to fashion some very good looking welds on it.
AKE? are you going to build a similar intake for your TBs? I hope some of my design and fab thoughts in this thread will help stimulate your design efforts. Understand you like to have your intake under the hood. My priority is best possible power making the intake a straight shot to the valves. From my avatar picture you can see how it looks at the other engine having four Dellorto DRLA 48 carbs. At this time I am not sure how I like to modify the hood, it might be some kind of scoop. Also I need to finish the last iteration of the racing intake port having the large 42mm valves spread apart by 3mm in order to enhance flow. I have done all the machining necessary. Installation of the valve seat rings and the valve guides as well as the porting job remains to be done. https://rennlist.com/forums/928-foru...ughout-19.html (Post #283). Åke |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by ptuomov
(Post 13940021)
Nice looking parts there, Ake. I'm looking at the angles on those throttle bodies, will the runners curve in towards the block valley or out towards the valve covers? Maybe it's an optical illusion, but in the picture the throttle bodies appear to be curving away from each other.
Åke |
Originally Posted by Jerry Feather
(Post 13940632)
Thanks Ray. And, if I have not adequately thanked all of you who have expressed your thoughts and concern about the loss of our daughter, I do now. The outpouring of sympathy from so many of you was and is truly valuable and very highly appreciated. Thanks so much. Jerry Feather, and on behalf of my entire family.
|
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13941744)
I'm very sorry for your loss.
|
My Deepest Condolences. T
|
Originally Posted by 77tony
(Post 13941966)
My Deepest Condolences. T
|
I dusted off the intake project, in between the stages of the Gas Cap project, and hammered the intake ends of the tubes out to match the bell mouths and decided to take them to the welder and have them welded together. I just don't have the time to try to perfect my own welding, and if I hire it done a little at a time the cost won't seem like so much.
When I get these back I think I'll be able to set most of it up and try to get the plenum sides opened up for the tubes so I can then start to design and fab the front and back of the plenum. I still haven't decided whether to weld the tubes to Hans' beautiful bases or to try to epoxy them together. I think that decision will still wait a while. I'm kind of anxious to get the sides and bottom of the plenum completed so that the final shape of the ribbed top will come into clear focus for me. I'm going to make the top out of a 3/8 inch thick aluminum plate and will machine some nice looking ribs or grooves in it in the mill. I think that will set it off real nicely on top of the engine. |
1 Attachment(s)
Jerry, will follow the progress on your intake project with interest. I would weld the tubes to the bases. Do not think epoxy them will be reliable in the long run. From welding the bases will warp to a certain degree, flycutting of the bases will probably be necessary. Picture showing the intake I made for the other engine.
Åke |
OK, Ake. I think I'll stay with it for a while now. I have the tubes at the welder's and will probably pick them up later today or tomorrow. Although not needed in the Radical 928 project right now, or even very soon, it will be needed toward the end of that and having it done will be an advantage to completion then. A couple of things that I don't think I have mentioned before is that when the intake is finished I'll then need to redesign and fab a new water bridge and oil inlet. I'll also need to completely redesign and fab the air intake system from the top of the radiator back the the filter box, including the filter box, and then to the MAF. I have some thoughts in mind for all of that, but most of it will have to wait until this manifold is done, and the MAF is relocated.
As to welding the tubes to the Hans Bases, I am not sure what you have in mind about the flycutting. The tops of the bases are already recessed or flanged to accept the 2 inch tubing I'm using, although I wish the flanges were about 1/4 inch tall rather than about 1/8 inch. Do you have something else in mind? I am leaning toward welding, now especially since I have reviewed the concerns in this thread about pressure differentials. Welding may be needed to help add the stiffness required for that. Some of it is going to be hard to get to is one problem though. Your picture looks like I have seen it before. Your shop is way way to neat. How do you get anything done there? |
3 Attachment(s)
I picked up the welded tubes this afternoon and this evening I put thim kind of in place on the bases, but without the plenum side patterns, since I need to get them to stay in place with friction better so the patterns can be adjusted. I found that I had apparently marked one of them incorrectly so the bell mouth got welded on the wrong end. I made a new tube bend for that one and will take it back. I also find that one of them seems to have the bell mouth a bit out of alignment with the others on its side of the intake, so since I am going to have to have one welded I think I'll cut the other one apart and take about a quarter inch out it and have it rewelded.
Then when I get them all fitting snuggly and in alignment I'll make some progress with the sides of the plenum and then the front and back. Here's what they look like as sort of fit right now. |
Next I think I'm going to try to cluster these tubes a little tighter toward the center mainly to pull the front one back as much as possible so that I will have more room for a new water bridge, but it will also put the open end in a better presentation to the flow of air. The flow of air advantage will also be present with respect to the rear tube. It might even be an advantage to put a notch in the front and rear tube bell mouths so they cluster more closely to their neighbor tube. I'll see how that looks a little later, probably this evening.
(Edit) Well, that didn't amount to much. I guess that since the individual ports in the base are fixed, any rotation of the tubes at the base simply doesn't give much change in the space between for the upper ends to rotate enough to change the position at the front and back. I don't really need any more space at the back and I think I can get up to about a half inch at the front by simply notching the front tube's bell mouth, but even that may not be worth the effort. I'll think on that for a while. |
While sitting here looking at the pictures I have most recently posted and looking at the lines I have drawn on the plenum base, it finally occurs to me that the back of the plenum simply needs to be finished straight across. That will help the back coordinate much better with whatever I have to come up with for an intake filter air box and will simplify the fabrication (of both) that much.
As to the front, I still need to try to finish it as far back under the tubes as possible in order to save space for whatever I'll need to do with the water bridge and the oil fill neck. I may still notch the A tube in order to pull it back at least that much for the same reason. I think I will also put a sort of tunnel under the A tube to gain some space above the water bridge for the oil neck. It will be sort of like the bigger tunnel in the rear of the base for the MAF. |
It looks to me like I have strung Hans' Intake Base thread out way too far. Although I think I got in it by invitation about what folks might be doing with his great intake bases, I think my project might be a bit much at this point. I'm going to start my own thread about my intake design and development, and maybe cap it off in this thread when I have something finished. Thanks for watching. See you over there.
|
Clearing out some old inventory, and found one last set of these flanges if anyone wants to build their own intake.
|
I haven't recieved mine yet
|
Anyone have off these plates sets that they may wish to sell , in need of 1 set for a project thanks .
|
Wow, these are amazing, if any are still floating around I'd be interested.
|
Originally Posted by bergerac
(Post 19079426)
Wow, these are amazing, if any are still floating around I'd be interested.
Originally Posted by john gill
(Post 14944246)
Anyone have off these plates sets that they may wish to sell , in need of 1 set for a project thanks .
This? https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...e28645ec5c.jpg |
Originally Posted by john gill
(Post 14944246)
Anyone have off these plates sets that they may wish to sell , in need of 1 set for a project thanks .
Edit: Never mind. I think I should keep it since it worth much more than gold! |
I bought mine from a Canadian owner and am willing to sell mine.
My project is going in another direction. |
Thanks guys, I was hoping to use one of these on a 16V 944 head but on closer inspection the bolt pattern is different
|
Originally Posted by bergerac
(Post 19080538)
Thanks guys, I was hoping to use one of these on a 16V 944 head but on closer inspection the bolt pattern is different
JG |
| All times are GMT -3. The time now is 07:38 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands