Way more than just an "Intake". Timing, tune, rotational mass, tolerances, valve size.....

Sure you can get some power, but not that much. Comparing a newer vantage to our engines is NOT apples to apples. More like apples to cider blocks.

Now you are being a smart ass again...... and its more obvious to others than me, just so you know.

I want greg to do it as soon as he gets over his little fit.
I dont want anyone to design the product that doesnt know 928s.
All i DO know is that there can be a mix of solutions out there to form a perfectly addaquate intake. the details i have figured out are more like a reasonalble wish list.
1. make it bolt on.. meaning, just bolt it to the existing "U" of the S4 intake or have the intake have an air entrance in the stock position , using the stock MAF or enhanced MAF (larger diameter version).
2. use existing most difficult to design parts (like Carl's) to mate to some type of major plennum structure
3. make it for the amount of money that the CF intake was laid out to be.
($3k range)

this is not unreasonable or fantasy. sure, it takes a HUGE effort to do an intake from the ground up, but i believe what is out there today, could be used to fabricate an intake that could benefit all S4 and stoker owners.
for example.. its a wild concept, but what if you could hack off the legs of the AMV8 intake and weld up some intake runners that mate to Carls manifolds by use of rubber joiners?

so, instead of just getting your jollies trying to put anyone down with an idea here, why not come up with your own? or even crush the ideas with some reasonable logic.

again, remember where you are.... this is a discussion group

thats not entirely true. what does tollerances and rotational mass have anything do to with performance as well as timing, tune and valve size?

the vantage engine is less displacement has near the valve size as we do, with cam lift only slightly larger than what we have (1mm).
you put 5 liters of displacement under that intake, with a 1mm less cam lift, 1 point less CR and near the same valve sizes, and you will have near the same gains. we have MUCH more displacement to fudge around the losses of a non optimal intake.. the extra displacment gives better low end torque just by default, and all we reallly want is upper end HP which is around 6k.. so its not that difficult to design for our 5 liter long blocks!

all sorts of intakes of all sorts of configurations have gained more power per liter than we have. heck the BMW S54 or BMW E30 motors with were able to get near 240rwhp out of a 2.5 Liter without anything that radical and thats 1989 technology. it did it with intake,and cam.

yes.... apples to apples here! Like Macintosh to fuji! :)

you are answering your own question. the new mustangs vs the old mustangs are 450rwhp vs 200rwhp both with a 5 liter bottom end.
difference being, MOSTLY the intake, along with a bump in compression vs the old dogs of the 90s. the era that has mustangs that make 450rwhp is the same that has Vantage V8s with 4.3 liter , making 335rwhp from a 4.3Liter bottom end. (with just as heavy pistons, and a worse proportion of bore and stroke.. ) NO they are not surpercharged.
NO, these cars make the same with modern electronics as some due with a carburetor. its not that the modern stuff doestnt "extract "every last ounce, its just that the last "ounce" is for efficiency or MPGs... OR, wide breadth of the HP curve, with variable valve timing, etc. you can get all you need for big HP with just the intake . contrary to what even Jim said..the gear spacing isnt much differennt, with these cars vs ours, in fact i showed that our 1-2gear spacing is actually closer. I also showed that those engines preserve more hp post shift than our current motors, so they are not "high strung" by any imagination.

Now, your last question??? REALLY?? did you see what home depot quality did to his engine? sure it lasted for a while, but when it cracked , it leaned out one cylinder to the point where it grenaded the engine!!! BLOWN UP!!!!
Actually, this was not due to any home depot parts (joes still has those parts on his) but was due to the intake. you see that intake was in prototype form so it lasted about as long as it looked like it was going to last. i remember he had expoxy gluing some of the holes in it along the way. it was not a very production verion of anything you would put on a car. when he reved the engine it actually flexed!!! (like it was breathing) . however, joes was more durable. So, the net net... we need that thing productized or we need to coble something else together. every car in the world but ours seems to have a custom intake available.

so, I really think your pealing pipe organ can be reconstituted into something fire breathing... we just need to bolt something to the "u"s and use the stock stuff, and bolt to something like carls that starts with a custom manifold template structure.

Uh, Tune has a HUGE thing to do with power. you are say that if you take 2 engine, one has a stock tune, and the other has a better tune (more fuel/spark where its needed) that there will be no difference? that the stock "computer" systems we have on our cars are just as good as the new ones used by Aston?

they dont ADD weight to rotational parts. they take it off. more Rev's*

1mm of lift on an engine designed for it is a big deal. thats why they have that 1mm of more lift. and the car is tuned for that.

I am not saying adding a better designed intake can't be done and won't make some nice power on out engines. but comparing a newer engine with a modern EMS to our cars is just retarded. they dont make new engines with more power by just "adding a better intake". you dont make a cake by just using flower. there is more to it.

as Greg has proven, it can be done. but its all about the $$$$$$. Money=Speed, how fast do you want o go?

Look, I'm completely in favor of a bolt-on intake adding significant power. That would be great...but I just think you're drastically over-simplifying things. For one, you're just completely wrong about tune and computer controls being not that significant. Completely wrong. As to the Vantage...I'm not sure which models you're looking at...the ones I looked up were supercharged. But again...it'd be great if you were right. I just don't see it.

Bottom line is Kibort is getting tired of not WINNING races !! Desperately wants another 100 HP so is trying to rally the "we" to get someone, anyone to build a high RPM intake in the hope that his GTish camshafted stroker just might make more power. Without getting sharktuned....just twist up the fuel pressure regulator.
Along the way he seems to relish baiting Greg Brown with :) faced but very mean spirited comments. Like that in some way will make Greg want to work with him ???? All very bizarre in my opinion.
Now he wants an intake for $3,000 that possibly uses Carl's $1925 dollar bases...just needs a Plenum and a throttle body, fuel rails and maybe an Aston Martin intake......right that all makes sense !! No point debating the absurd....

Here's the link:

http://www.ozmoengineering.com/produ...take-manifolds

Work with these guys. Once you've got it engineered, I'm sure you can sell a few.

Why the need for the developer to know the 928? All they need to know are the intake port locations and you will tell them exactly what to build and that $3K is what they'll get when it's done. Did I miss something?

Naaah. They're from Down Under. Prob'ly wouldn't know anything. :D

Think you might be onto something there Imo000. :evilgrin:

[QUOTE=mark kibort;13094916 seriously, you are that barking little dog in the hand bag!
[/QUOTE]

:nono:


LOL.

there are always things that someone like greg brown or others would know about little things that could help the 928 make more power and be safe. the CF intake was a good first pass of this.

the stock tune is always worse than a custom tune, BUT can be risky as if the sensors are not adaquate to adjust to changing conditions , things blow up.

remember this.. anderson and fan did a "tune" with the shark tune and didnt get any more power and it probably made the car a little unsafe for racing . you start advancing timing in areas and pulling fuel out , sometimes when heat changes beyone what the sensors see or are used to seeing, problems can occure.. thats all, its that simple.

removing weight is not always good. the AM rotating assembly is no lighter than ours . the picture Jim posted was a mock up and was not the pistons used in the 06-08 vantage . plus, it does allow more RPM if you NEED it, it doesnt nessarily give more power.. thats a simple fomula for another day and depends on the acceleration rates.. in otherwords, besides reving in idle, lower mass doest really help 3rd gear acceleration.

and yes, bolting on the intake to mark and JOE'S engine gave them 100hp period!!! read again please! 100hp with no tuning and joes had the home depot intake parts (compelte with sewer adapters and elbows) :)

would they make with a tune? sure... point is, the intake is the main HP gainer

the models we are looking at from Aston martin is the the V8 vantage.. its not supercharged back in the '06-08 and had the 4.3 engine.. the supercharged version was the V12..
sure computer controls work, but the are not a requirement to make big power. its more like refinement.
again, joe and mark bolted on 100hp with ONLY an intake and it was not optimal but safe (until the intake cracked and marks engine went boom) but that was a physical failure, not tune.

:surr::surr::surr::surr::surr::surr::surr::surr::surr::surr::surr::surr: :surr::surr: