|
Gain 100HP with an intake manifold change?? - Cross post from Ferrari Chat
With all the talk of performance options for the 928, this thread really hit home to show what you can do with an intake manifold and a tune.
I would really like to see enough interested generated in Greg's intake to justify him spending the time & money to develop it for the 5 liter: https://rennlist.com/forums/928-foru...-study-hp.html Since Ferrari Chat photos are only available to registered members, I asked Ernie on Ferrari Chat if I could upload his images to Rennlist to share this project. Ernie said yes, as long as I link to the original thread Here is the original thread on Ferrari Chat: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/348...-yes-real.html Long story short, this intake manifold was computer modeled and designed for a larger engine. The builder decided to run it on a bone stock 348 just to see what would happen. This is a copy / paste of Ernie's posts from that thread: The naturally aspirated 400+hp 348, yes for real For a long time I have been of the opinion that the F119 engine is restricted in it's breathing. Because of the restricted breathing it can't reach its full power potential. I had been talking with different engine builders about how they achieve more power with different intake systems they had used. Some of you may remember the twin turbo 348 Challenge I made a thread about a couple of years ago. It put down over 600+hp to the wheels. Well this time I bring you a naturally aspirated 348 that produces over 400hp. It was designed and built by none other than Mr. Steve Maxwell, the same mad genius the built the 348TT. Steve designed and engineered a new intake plenum that truly releases the breathing potential of the F119. Here it is sitting inside the engine bay of Steve's 348. https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...d1c6fb9b42.jpg A look inside Steve's car reveals an interior built for business, complete with racing seats, racing harnesses, a roll cage, and yes, a 6 speed from a 355. https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...be169d026f.jpg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...db6954a849.jpg A peak though the read window gives a nice view of Steve's latest creation. https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...e2601080a7.jpg Steve opened up the engine cover to reveal the master piece. And yes you are reading that correct, it does say 375 on it. I ask him what the deal was with the 375, and he tells me that's the displacement of an individual cylinder for a new engine he's working on. Another engine?!?!?!? Yup another engine. He bolted this intake, on the engine seen here, to test it out an see what it could do on a bone stock F119. https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...facc8de1dd.jpg Turbos need air, and lots of it. Like wise, naturally aspirated engine need plenty of air too. To give you an idea of how restricted the F119 is, here is a side by side of Steve's intake plenum versus the factory plenum. Steve ran loads of calculations, simulations, and testing before he finalized his design. You can clearly see how his plenum dwarfs the stock unit. It also shows how badly the engine is being choked in stock form. https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...62df5c8bdd.jpg Another choking point is the throttle bodies. Not only did Steve manufacture the intake he also manufactured new throttle bodies. The stock throttle bodies are tiny, measuring 54mm at the throttle plate. Steve TBs are 80mm, and there are two of them. Yeah that will free up breathing. You can see the stock tb is so small that the entire thing can fit inside the opening of Steve's tb. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...295129eb98.jpg https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...9db0cde9b0.jpg Then I get to play with some goodies!!! Steve was kind enough to allow me to see the individual parts, and to mock up an intake. I was like a kid in a candy store. He pulls out a box full of runners. Each runner is machined from billet in his personal CNC machine. The craftsmanship, engineering, and design he put into all these parts was simply AWESOME!! Forgive me if some of the pics are blurry, I was using the camera on my cell phone. https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...207ae64d89.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...7af59dc939.jpg To enable air to flow into the runners efficiently Steve designed velocity stacks of various lengths. You can run all one length, or stagger the lengths, run all short, all long, or half an half. The purpose of this is to take advantage of different harmonic resonances at different rpms. The way the velocity stacks are arranged in this pic was just us playing around with the arrangements. https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...bd13ab7d6f.jpg To give the engine bay a clean look Steve incorporated the fuel delivery system inside of the Intake. Here you can see the fittings machined into the bottom of the intake. https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...7467a90c88.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...da8d0f36d2.jpg But the real reason is that he is running F1 style rain injectors. The fuel rail runs inside the plenum housing the injectors. This place the injectors in the optimum location for atomization. The one injector pictured here was just held there to give an idea of how they would squirt down the runner. They actually sit dead center and above the v-stacks when everything is screwed down properly. You can also see how we changed the location of the v-stacks, again playing around with configurations. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...1cb1ef3cec.jpg https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...ad7d2eaba2.jpg The attention to detail, thought, and engineering Steve put into this is something you would see in a F1 race team. Check this out. He even engineered and machined all the linkage for the throttle bodies. I'm telling you the ENTIRE thing is engineer, machined, and built by Steve in his shop. He is truly a master at what he does. https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...1c4c735e8a.jpg Steve had a stock F119 engine he was planning on rebuilding, so he wanted to test the outer limits of the stock engine. Just what would it do with modern technology? He didn't care if it blew up because it was gonna get torn apart anyway. So he bolted everything on, tuned it, then strapped it to the dyno. The result? 340.9hp to the wheels. He said that was more power than a stock CS on the same dyno, and I believe it. https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...89486171cd.jpg Here is a dyno sheet from my 348 on the exact same dyno Steve ran his car on. Mine put down 259hp. On a Dynapack I managed to do 305hp at the hubs. That would put Steve's car in the 385-390hp range at the hubs on a Dynapack. That translates into solid 400+hp at the crank for his car. https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...ec29caa64a.jpg I would like to extend a huge thanks to Steve for giving me the pleasure of hanging out with him for practically an entire day, and for sharing his work of beauty with me. One more thing. You can see on Steve's dyno that he made peak power at 8000rpm. This was on a bone stock bottom end. Stock pistons, stock crank, stock rods, stock valves, stock cams. Everything outside the engine was up to date and custom. He did have to change the cam timing some, but the long block was bone stock. This proves to me that the F119 348 engine is one potent little power plant, and is severely restricted in stock form. Keep in mind there is more that can be done to extract even more power from the F119. Bigger valves, better cams, more revs, bigger bore, longer stroke, etcetera. Thanks Steve for doing the 348 Brotherhood proud! Here are a couple more pics I dug up. A look down the throat of the runner reveals the superb blend job he did. You can see how the shape transitions from round to oval as it meets the intake port on the head. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...56e096ba1a.jpg This picture shows the how the rain injectors sit when everything is properly in place. It also displays the varied length velocity stacks that account for the nice power up top. An absolute work of beauty, meticulously thought out and implemented. https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...40cf433514.jpg |
awesome work, a little CAD work and a CNC machine can produce impeccable parts
|
Those are impressive results... I know I would lay down some cash for a real solid intake upgrade for a 5L 928...
|
That"s not a manifold....that's art.
|
I just noticed there is a load of CNC stuff elsewhere in the vehicle too
shifter housing, exhaust tips, hatch frame sides, hatch frame hinges etc. |
thanks for the cross post. im a member over there from when i was looking at a purchase but am not active at all.
|
the carbon fiber intake on Mark andersons engine and Joe Fans, both gained near 80hp .... no other tuning changes.
yes, this is what we need to have available, and I cant believe someone hasn't productized an intake that can bolt on sad! |
interesting dyno charts..... 5252 RPM is oddly not the crossover... Are you sure this was stock camshafts ?? and it is aftermarket ECUs.
home grown Titanium exhaust as well..... |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13082261)
the carbon fiber intake on Mark andersons engine and Joe Fans, both gained near 80hp .... no other tuning changes.
yes, this is what we need to have available, and I cant believe someone hasn't productized an intake that can bolt on sad! Divide that by the three or four people that will actually step up and buy one... I also can't believe someone hasn't done it already, since the market is SO huge and the payback for the investment is....well....NEVER. I'm doing this, strictly for my own edification....and so that I can make one of the final steps forward in my engine developmental program. Financially, it's probably the absolute pinnacle of stupidity. |
Also worth mentioning that the big jump in horsepower with the carbon fiber individual runners for Fan and Anderson was the LAST STEP of the process on big stroked, big cammed, race exhaust engines.....far, far from a "stock" 5.0 engine !!
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13082418)
Also worth mentioning that the big jump in horsepower with the carbon fiber individual runners for Fan and Anderson was the LAST STEP of the process on big stroked, big cammed, race exhaust engines.....far, far from a "stock" 5.0 engine !!
Or because they never made it past the prototype stage and the pieces were literally held together with glue and bondo? |
Both actually....... just did not wish for Kibort's post to make people with stock S-4s think there was an easy 80 HP out there just waiting for them with a simple manifold swap and "no other tuning changes" .
Too much like the guy with a 305 cu inch chevy bolting on a huge 1050 CFM Holley on a tunnel ram and wondering why it did not work out so well :) |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13082502)
Both actually....... just did not wish for Kibort's post to make people with stock S-4s think there was an easy 80 HP out there just waiting for them with a simple manifold swap and "no other tuning changes" .
Too much like the guy with a 305 cu inch chevy bolting on a huge 1050 CFM Holley on a tunnel ram and wondering why it did not work out so well :) http://www.hotrod.com/features/1507-...ifolds-tested/ |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13082277)
interesting dyno charts..... 5252 RPM is oddly not the crossover... Are you sure this was stock camshafts ?? and it is aftermarket ECUs.
home grown Titanium exhaust as well..... |
Right but that was no stock engine....custom rods, pistons, alloy heads and ....big camshaft ! and netted about 60 HP. Note how ALL their dyno runs hp tq cross at 5252 RPM :)
Originally Posted by Wisconsin Joe
(Post 13082594)
Scales aren't the same for TQ & HP (HP on left, TQ on right). Makes it look odd.
|
Right. But the TQ scale and the HP scale aren't the same.
So, in the top graph (the max 340 one), you see about 225 hp at about 5252 RPM. You also see about 225 Ft-Lbs of TQ. It's just that the 225 HP is a lot lower on the page than the 225 Ft-Lbs. In the bottom one, you see about 205 at 5252 RPM. On both. It's odd, but it's how it's presented, not how it's calculated. |
Originally Posted by Wisconsin Joe
(Post 13082660)
It's odd, but it's how it's presented, not how it's calculated.
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13082607)
Note how ALL their dyno runs hp tq cross at 5252 RPM :)
again the 5252 RPM is where the two, torque and horsepower must cross because of how it is calculated..... I just made these using one of my dyno files. https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...00065edf9b.jpg https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...fdfae5e18f.jpg |
^Yeah. That.
I'm used to seeing dyno charts where the TQ and HP use the same scale. (bottom one) On those, the TQ & HP cross at 5252. They have to. It's part of the definition of "Horsepower". On the top one, the scales are different, adjusted so that each curve has a "best fit". But if you read closely, HP & TQ are the same at 5252, that number is just in a different place on the "paper". Which is how the ones up thread are presented. So they look odd to me. And apparently to Jim too. :) |
O K a deviation from the norm.....and makes it look very odd indeed :) Much like Euro dyno charts with the different units of measurement and different normal crossover RPM.. different definition. different formula.
|
Pretty, pretty stuff.
Those velocity stacks will be highly efficient at one frequency (RPM). That's great if you've got the gears to run near that peak. Don't get me started on graphing data. Oh, wait, you did. People like pictures and there's a lot of information is the graphs but it can be deceiving depending on the scales. What units? Zero based or just the range? What's the max value? The traditional HP vs. Ft*lbs graph works surprisingly well as the units are in the same numerical range. |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13082277)
interesting dyno charts..... 5252 RPM is oddly not the crossover... Are you sure this was stock camshafts ?? and it is aftermarket ECUs.
home grown Titanium exhaust as well..... cross over only happens at 5250 when both the tq and HP are the same scale, and tq is measured in ft-lbs. |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13082418)
Also worth mentioning that the big jump in horsepower with the carbon fiber individual runners for Fan and Anderson was the LAST STEP of the process on big stroked, big cammed, race exhaust engines.....far, far from a "stock" 5.0 engine !!
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13082446)
You mean because these manifolds signifcantly reduced the low and mid range torque on a 6.5 liter engine and would have turned a 5.0 into a joke?
Or because they never made it past the prototype stage and the pieces were literally held together with glue and bondo? bolt one of these intakes on a stock 5 liter and it will be a monster. we have been talking about this for 10 years now and i cant believe no one has done it!! Carl and you have made them, but no one has put it on a stock 5 liter! it will work and work well!! yes.... the "prototypes" were crappppy "bondo" construction like........ but keep in mind, just bolting them on with home depo tubing, a hand carved MAF assembly and more "bondo" they bolted on 100hp!!!! with NO other changes!! 420rwhp from marks to 520rwhp for both mark and Joe's
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13082502)
Both actually....... just did not wish for Kibort's post to make people with stock S-4s think there was an easy 80 HP out there just waiting for them with a simple manifold swap and "no other tuning changes" .
Too much like the guy with a 305 cu inch chevy bolting on a huge 1050 CFM Holley on a tunnel ram and wondering why it did not work out so well :) again, anderson got 520rwhp on his last dyno runs with no tuning. it was a rag tag set up, with piping from home depot!! PVC piping for a MAF with a MAF hot wire , glued in it...... It made more gains that the entire greg brown stroker made on the stock set up!! 100hp!!!!
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13082607)
Right but that was no stock engine....custom rods, pistons, alloy heads and ....big camshaft ! and netted about 60 HP. Note how ALL their dyno runs hp tq cross at 5252 RPM :)
again the 5252 RPM is where the two, torque and horsepower must cross because of how it is calculated..... they only cross if the two scales are the same and you are using ft-lbs as torque. otherwise, they might NEVER cross as they do iin may European metric dyno programs! ;) |
Originally Posted by GlenL
(Post 13084313)
Pretty, pretty stuff.
Those velocity stacks will be highly efficient at one frequency (RPM). That's great if you've got the gears to run near that peak. Don't get me started on graphing data. Oh, wait, you did. People like pictures and there's a lot of information is the graphs but it can be deceiving depending on the scales. What units? Zero based or just the range? What's the max value? The traditional HP vs. Ft*lbs graph works surprisingly well as the units are in the same numerical range. as far as gears, thats a 1st and top gear issue.. all the middle gears will work regardless as thats more of a spacing (closeness) issue. |
If 99 out of 100 dyno charts is scaled the same and 5252 is the crossover due to the formula it is a convention...... You have to admit when looking at the first two dyno charts the first one LOOKS way better ...and NOT simply because IT MAKES MORE HORSEPOWER !
I can understand your frustration with running your stroker engine with a "restrictor plate" not sure that means the S-4 intake is garbage just not suited to your big modified engine which of course makes perfect sense as it was designed and engineered for a stock 5 liter with stock exhaust and cats.....so what was your point ?? |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13085146)
If 99 out of 100 dyno charts is scaled the same and 5252 is the crossover due to the formula it is a convention...... You have to admit when looking at the first two dyno charts the first one LOOKS way better ...and NOT simply because IT MAKES MORE HORSEPOWER !
I can understand your frustration with running your stroker engine with a "restrictor plate" not sure that means the S-4 intake is garbage just not suited to your big modified engine which of course makes perfect sense as it was designed and engineered for a stock 5 liter with stock exhaust and cats.....so what was your point ?? However, I agree it is extremely odd to have results using two different arbitrary scales. Mixing different scales, which makes results look way better than they actually are is a bit of a "snake oil salesmanship" tactic. When I see people fussing around with results to visually amplify their efforts, I instantly become very suspicious....which is the point I believe that Jim is making. Regardless of his tactics, if the results were completely from this guy's intake change, that is good stuff. (I know less nothing about the cars he is working on....are the original results from a stock engine, or from the engine in the picture with the titanium exhaust? (Are the results actually only about the intake system or is the exhaust also a part of the equation?) Like I said....I instantly become very suspicious. |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13085146)
If 99 out of 100 dyno charts is scaled the same and 5252 is the crossover due to the formula it is a convention...... You have to admit when looking at the first two dyno charts the first one LOOKS way better ...and NOT simply because IT MAKES MORE HORSEPOWER !
I can understand your frustration with running your stroker engine with a "restrictor plate" not sure that means the S-4 intake is garbage just not suited to your big modified engine which of course makes perfect sense as it was designed and engineered for a stock 5 liter with stock exhaust and cats.....so what was your point ?? It makes more hp and my being impressed, ends there. I can understand how intuitively, once curve looks like its better than it really is if your focus is not in the right place. if you train yourself to look at HP only, you solve much of this issue. no need to look at torque, as its incorporated into the HP curve. your second comment,i have to reply, "what is YOUR point". yes the S4 intake is very restrictive. doesnt matter if its designed for a stock 5 liter bottom and cats and exhaust, but ill tell you this, there is little difference in MANY of the 4 to 5 liter bottom ends in the world for production cars... the diff is MAINLY the intake. just look (as i said, again) the vantage you bought for your daughter..) 4.3 liter making 80 more HP than our 5 liter? why is that.. compression isnt that much higher. cams are not much more radical... heads dont flow that much more.... ITS ALL INTAKE for the most part. we can solve this debate if ANYONE puts on an improved intake like the CF intake and we dont see stellar results!! we willl and i hope its done very soon. Greg should do it, Carl should do it... and do it so its a bolt on affair. you wont need fancy "tuning" to get safe fuel air ratios and the timing , as moderate as it is, is safe as well. sure, you wont get the 100hp that mark and Joe got, but i bet you get 50! does or will, that prove the intake is restrictive for the "stock S4" ? you bet!
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13085278)
I'm not sure what Kibort is saying, because I have him "shut off". (Nor do I care.)
However, I agree it is extremely odd to have results using two different arbitrary scales. Mixing different scales, which makes results look way better than they actually are is a bit of a "snake oil salesmanship" tactic. When I see people fussing around with results to visually amplify their efforts, I instantly become very suspicious....which is the point I believe that Jim is making. Regardless of his tactics, if the results were completely from this guy's intake change, that is good stuff. (I know less nothing about the cars he is working on....are the original results from a stock engine, or from the engine in the picture with the titanium exhaust? (Are the results actually only about the intake system or is the exhaust also a part of the equation?) Like I said....I instantly become very suspicious. anyway as i always say, i hope you can apply the intake solutions to the stock 928 world, after all, you are self proclaimed best at it all. personally, i think it woudl be a smart move and would be a HUGE sucess to make a bolt on intake that uses stock components. most other marques have it, but we dont! :( you or carl can chance that! |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13085513)
I guess when you look and deal with performance curves for a living for over 12 years,
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13085513)
no need to look at torque, as its incorporated into the HP curve.
For real analysis just look at torque. It shows the changes in BMEP which includes VE, timing and mixture issues. Much more clear. Period. |
Originally Posted by GlenL
(Post 13085640)
I thought Greg was in business a lot longer than that.
That's backwards. The multiplication by RPM obscures the data. For real analysis just look at torque. It shows the changes in BMEP which includes VE, timing and mixture issues. Much more clear. Period. if you know what you are looking for, its all on the graphs and there should be no surprizes. I dont think greg spent much of his time looking at dyno graphs, and if he did, he was looking for specific things or heck, maybe too general things. the fact that he thinks that there are differences in dynojet 248e should be telling to you. Glen, as far as being clear, "period"... reallly? it all depends what you are lookinig for in those curves. and what do you call" real analysis"? for example, if i was going to find best shift points... HP curve wins if i was going to find who would win vs another car HP wins looking at efficiency areas, is where you are right. but thats now what most look for in their "analysis " of the power/torque curves of their cars. so, in summary, torque is NOT the most "real" analysis... that depends what you are looking for. with HP, it already includes torque and the RPM, so you get more information to be utilized in making an informed decision. RPM doesnt obscure ANYTHING... in fact, without it, you would have 0 ability to take any information other than your BMEP points. I you mean torque RPM plots, and yes, i have no issue with only using it as well, but for things i look for, its another stage of multiplication i have to use, to find things like shift points ,where i can just use gear spacing to find it quickly, rather than multiplying it all out. both ways work.. for example... i can look at the 340rwhp ferarri plot and see 315hp average from 6000rpm to redline 8900. pull out my 335rwhp stock S4 with GTcams and headers and see 320rwhp. I can see its much more streetable due to the wide HP band. sure, you cand find that same info but it will take MUCH more work to do the "analysis". :) |
Kibort is correct again peeps. Why do you insist on arguing with him all the time?
|
The Gladiator is spot on, I have to agree...
Mark, I have something in mind - If you remember, I managed to get 438rwhp out of a 5.4ltr GTS based bottom end with higher compression, Colin's cams and BMW ITBs. The engine is streetable and there is tons more power left on the table. Why am I confident in saying this - because I am not running an airbox! BMW spent countless hours giving the bellmouths the required radius and to take advantage of the plenum around them. I am running them FORD GT40 style, which robs power. Two reasons - packaging and time/money. Now though, I have access to someone who is cheap and keen to make a plenum out of carbon/Kevlar. I have also been able to glean some airboxes on Tuscan race cars. Last but not least, we have been experimenting with molds and silicon hoses with "funny" shapes. Stay tuned (pun intended) |
Something tells me that any new design intakes will require a revised cam profile in order to maximize on gains. I am tempted to see something very similar to an LS (or even a Cayenne) manifold on these cars. There is gain there and the intake is not exactly a modern design.
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13088049)
Something tells me that any new design intakes will require a revised cam profile in order to maximize on gains. I am tempted to see something very similar to an LS (or even a Cayenne) manifold on these cars. There is gain there and the intake is not exactly a modern design.
|
I am familiar with his intake setup. Production would be nice but sadly the market demand is low.
Cost would be high I am sure, but how about going polymer???? Maybe that is a question for Greg to answer if he has not done so already (either on this thread or his old one). I am on a droid right now and it is slow. Search is not my friend today. :mad: |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13084819)
............,, it will help the 5 lter too.. but , the question is by how much. i predict that a bolt on intake , like the CF intake, would make a stock 5 liter to make near 400rwhp, at least 400rwhp at the crank. ...........
i did no real "tuning " and went from 280ish to 335rwhp with only a twist of a RRFR. AND, the 84 went from 177rwhp to 290rwhp with the same twist and NO other changes....... ;) You say above stock S-4 400hp with "proper" intake then later say well at least 50hp it is like you contradict yourself as much as you argue with others. Also pretty clear that you do not realize that a carburetor on a tunnel ram means a complete intake system and is NOT like just a throttle body but it matters little. However read the entire Hotrod link on the LS engine and you really would learn a lot. Like how they think $1,000 for an intake is too expensive. How the carbs made nearly as much horsepower. How some intakes lost power at lower RPM.... But mostly how you as an individual would learn more by reading than by writing....probably have more friends too. You may now have the LAST words on this "debate" as I no longer find it amusing. |
For anyone else wondering why a 4.3 v-8 Vantage makes more power...11.3 compression , vario cam and more lift, dry sump, sequential injection , and most important it peaks at 7,000 RPM vs the 6,000 rpm or so of a 928. But other than that just like a 928 :)
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13088110)
I am tempted to see something very similar to an LS (or even a Cayenne) manifold on these cars.
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13088110)
I am familiar with his intake setup......
:surr::surr::surr: |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13088417)
For anyone else wondering why a 4.3 v-8 Vantage makes more power...11.3 compression , vario cam and more lift, dry sump, sequential injection , and most important it peaks at 7,000 RPM vs the 6,000 rpm or so of a 928. But other than that just like a 928 :)
Vario cam - nothing there, just makes it more driveable lower down, the 5.0 will have more torque by default More lift - difficult to argue with, Colin's cams address the issue for not a lot and are a simple drop in. PorKen's tool make timing them easy Sequential injection - better fuel economy, but almost nothing for maximum power 7000 rpm - even a stock street 928 will happily spin to 7000, but if it ain't breathing and "exhaling" well, not much happens. If you are to change the intake, you will make it breathe better, the tubular stock exhaust is ok-ish, ergo, you will make more power higher up. Should you change the exhaust you will make even more. A bone stock GTS with GT cams, 928 Intl headers, X-pipe and custom 2.5" dual exhaust just dynoed at 308rwhp on a real dyno. |
Colin's cams require the springs to be changed and then the spring compression dimensions have to be measured. Not exactly what I would call a drop in.
|
I'm just curious, what are the injector flow rates for that Aston Martin? 928s being stock at 19lbs/hr after 1987 are maxed out. Ken's 24lbs and chip clearly wake the car up, but who here has actually fudged around with even bigger injectors on an NA application? Why not 30lbs, **** why not 36-40lbs?
I've been hanging out in the LS1Tech forums lately, and those guys just throw gas at everything, regardless of forced induction or naturally aspirated and keep making power. I'm sorry, but a new intake HAS to happen for these cars to make more power. If I have to grovel to the wife for the new product, I will. :p |
3 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Cheburator
(Post 13088483)
11.3:1 - difficult to argue with against a 9.5:1 S4 and even the GTS and the S2 are only 10.4:1
Vario cam - nothing there, just makes it more driveable lower down, the 5.0 will have more torque by default More lift - difficult to argue with, Colin's cams address the issue for not a lot and are a simple drop in. PorKen's tool make timing them easy Sequential injection - better fuel economy, but almost nothing for maximum power 7000 rpm - even a stock street 928 will happily spin to 7000, but if it ain't breathing and "exhaling" well, not much happens. If you are to change the intake, you will make it breathe better, the tubular stock exhaust is ok-ish, ergo, you will make more power higher up. Should you change the exhaust you will make even more. A bone stock GTS with GT cams, 928 Intl headers, X-pipe and custom 2.5" dual exhaust just dynoed at 308rwhp on a real dyno. yes, vario cam.... no factor here. thats only down low.. who cares. 10:1 is plenty of compression. 11.3:1 is responsible for less than a 5% gain sequential injection?? so what.. means litterally nothing.. agreed it needs an intake.. I dont know why anyone would fight this. tell jim to look at the specs for the stock boss 302 mustang!!! 430rhwp with nothing more than chip changes, headers and ECU flash
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13088417)
For anyone else wondering why a 4.3 v-8 Vantage makes more power...11.3 compression , vario cam and more lift, dry sump, sequential injection , and most important it peaks at 7,000 RPM vs the 6,000 rpm or so of a 928. But other than that just like a 928 :)
dry sump?? that means nothing either... Joes car always made more HP than marks and he was wetsump... drysump doesnt gurantee any power at all, and now you say, "MOST IMPORTANT, RPM OF 7000"?? really?????? ugg the S4 revs up to 6600rpm and the GT up to 6800rpm. there is NOTHING in the advantage here. again, more reasons for gettting the intake!!! so, please find something that really stands out over the 928.... OH JIM< did you notice that the vantage is only a 4.3LITER!!!!! 4.3 LITERs!!!!!!!! Its all intake....... please believe me!!!
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13088516)
I'm just curious, what are the injector flow rates for that Aston Martin? 928s being stock at 19lbs/hr after 1987 are maxed out. Ken's 24lbs and chip clearly wake the car up, but who here has actually fudged around with even bigger injectors on an NA application? Why not 30lbs, **** why not 36-40lbs?
I've been hanging out in the LS1Tech forums lately, and those guys just throw gas at everything, regardless of forced induction or naturally aspirated and keep making power. I'm sorry, but a new intake HAS to happen for these cars to make more power. If I have to grovel to the wife for the new product, I will. :p the reason you dont want to use 30lb'ers, on the 928, is that the fuel pressure would have to be pretty low and is the problem i have with even the stroker. now, if you can change duration with the chip, its better off, which would be better for me, but i think with the 5 liter, the 24lbers would be optimal for some mods geting near the 350rwhp range , and the strokers would be better here too, or with chip mods to get the injector duration down and the fuel pressure in the optimal zone (near 50psi) (EDIT: below ) below are HP curves from the vantage V8 with 4.3 liter engine notice that the curve is pretty nice.. bigger is better! we need to learn from this!! RPM is not that high on the test, though the redline is really in the 7800rpm range actually! first curve is back box upgrade which is a muffler change only and is mostly stock!! second curve is with power upgrade from aston martin.. ( power upgrade package which is new air box plennum and air filter) picture below! |
I don't understand how the fuel pressure would be an issue with the flow rate in this application. Can you please clarify?
|
1 Attachment(s)
Those are 31mm and 35mm valves on the AMV8 too. smaller than the S4 (S4 VALVES 37mm and 33mm) !!!!!!
with no other changes the intake mod below, gives the power of the V8 vantage 4.3 as much as the v8 vantage 4.7L.... thats the equivilant of 400cc.. kind of like the S4 to the GTS, just to change an already awesome intake plennum to a little larger one. Just imagine what would happen to the S4 with a PROPER air box plennum!!!!!! im predicting 300-320rwhp on any S4 for just slapping on a proper intake manifold. |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13088417)
For anyone else wondering why a 4.3 v-8 Vantage makes more power...11.3 compression , vario cam and more lift, dry sump, sequential injection , and most important it peaks at 7,000 RPM vs the 6,000 rpm or so of a 928. But other than that just like a 928 :)
thats on the race Vantage 4.7 V8.. i think the 4.3 has the 10mm lift , like the GT cams. i still dont understand why the peak hp points have anything to do with anything arguable? maybe that the intake wouldnt be as effective? hardly a theory here, considering that the engine we are talking about has 5 liters vs the small 4.3 liter of the vantage. trust me, and you know this deep down... a nice intake will make the S4 5 liter come alive!! |
Of course, this has been proven with Greg's intake and those carbon fiber intakes a while back. It's just no one has jumped on the bandwagon of mass-production due to cost. I assume a polymer intake is staggeringly expensive to produce too due to the investment into injection molding and new templates.
|
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13088513)
Colin's cams require the springs to be changed and then the spring compression dimensions have to be measured. Not exactly what I would call a drop in.
You would think that I would have noticed by now if there was valve float? :D P.S. The Pistons have been notched for the 968 intake valves, but even with the crescents, they are still 12:1. Yet again, if there was contact due to inadequate springs, given that the car is really driven by an animal (my co-driver) only on track, I would have known |
I was recommended a change in valve springs before installing Colin's cams too. My car is a stock S4.
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13088993)
Of course, this has been proven with Greg's intake and those carbon fiber intakes a while back. It's just no one has jumped on the bandwagon of mass-production due to cost. I assume a polymer intake is staggeringly expensive to produce too due to the investment into injection molding and new templates.
or even if a production version was retrofited? BMW? Aston Martin, Mustang? sure, those all have slightly more narrow intake ports, but im sure we could make something to make one of the biggest ones fit.. i think the AM vantage intake is a great candidate for that.....or , Carl, just fabs a round corner box around his intake runners and puts some velocity stacks on them.... either way, we would have a monster HP 5 liter with a proper intake for the S4 5 liter
Originally Posted by Cheburator
(Post 13089039)
I respectfully disagree. Colin's cams work with stock valve springs pretty well. I have them in my race motor, which has now been flogged mercilessly for about 20hrs, redline of 7000rpm, 12:1 compression on non stock JE Pistons. I don't short shift it at all. Never.
You would think that I would have noticed by now if there was valve float? :D P.S. The Pistons have been notched for the 968 intake valves, but even with the crescents, they are still 12:1. Yet again, if there was contact due to inadequate springs, given that the car is really driven by an animal (my co-driver) only on track, I would have known :) |
Has anyone actually busted any springs on this board using aftermarket cams, or custom ones?
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13089127)
Has anyone actually busted any springs on this board using aftermarket cams, or custom ones?
it broke the outer spring, the inner spring was still in tact. thankfully, the shop didnt fully tighten the head bolts, so it had a blown head gasket.... this led us to pull the motor to find the sping issues, and put the 5 liter short block back on. that was more than a silver lining!! :) However, i may brag about how my engine is still running after being flogged for many years, but the old original valve springs still worry the heck out of me! |
Originally Posted by Cheburator
(Post 13089039)
I respectfully disagree. Colin's cams work with stock valve springs pretty well. I have them in my race motor, which has now been flogged mercilessly for about 20hrs, redline of 7000rpm, 12:1 compression on non stock JE Pistons. I don't short shift it at all. Never.
You would think that I would have noticed by now if there was valve float? :D P.S. The Pistons have been notched for the 968 intake valves, but even with the crescents, they are still 12:1. Yet again, if there was contact due to inadequate springs, given that the car is really driven by an animal (my co-driver) only on track, I would have known If you haven't had a problem yet, count your blessings. |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13088160)
OK so no changes simply a aftermarket rising rate fuel pressure regulator and you get from 55hp to 123 hp at the rear wheels ?? Where can we buy one ???? Do you see where you have credibility issues ?
You say above stock S-4 400hp with "proper" intake then later say well at least 50hp it is like you contradict yourself as much as you argue with others. Also pretty clear that you do not realize that a carburetor on a tunnel ram means a complete intake system and is NOT like just a throttle body but it matters little. However read the entire Hotrod link on the LS engine and you really would learn a lot. Like how they think $1,000 for an intake is too expensive. How the carbs made nearly as much horsepower. How some intakes lost power at lower RPM.... But mostly how you as an individual would learn more by reading than by writing....probably have more friends too. You may now have the LAST words on this "debate" as I no longer find it amusing. 1. the 55hp (actualy 45-50hp ) gains of the RRFR was for the S4 equiped already with GT cams, with no changes other than headers, RRFR and removing the MAF screens 2. the 123rwhp gain was made on the stock '84 4.7 liter. that was made in steps. cams and intake gave 40hp, headers exhaust , 20hp and the displacement was a direct bolt on and gave 50hp. (total 123) both # 1 and #2 were to show that the Ljet and LHjet are incredibly adaptable to major changes , NOT that only a "twist on the Fuel reg" made the gains. it was to address how to tune the system with that kind of dramatic gain (edited to be more clear). 3. when i talk about the "proper intake" im talking about , ONLY an intake mod to the S4... im guessing that most get 275rwhp and it goes to 325rwhp which i near the 400flywheel hp mark. the reason i say this is that , joe and mark got about 100hp on the mod, based on your "pushback" im taking only half of those gains to the smaller S4 5 liter...... make sense now?? no contradictory statements!! 4. as far as your "bolting on a carburetor" or even a tunnel ram... this is good, but no where near as effective as the flow efficiency gains on FI motors. putting a 650 double pumper on some anemic old ford 289, isnt going to do much. i see where you are going, but we are not in that ball park. we are talking about something that has already been proven on the 928S4 with a stroker to make near 100hp. sure, its not a 100hp adder to the 5 liter, but it also doesnt mean that the 5 liter has no restirction in the intake!!! you must have read my points to the contrary there. the vantage is a great example we have 2 valve 4.7s with more lift, more duration , near the same compression 10.5 , and more displacement, bigger valves 45mm vs (4 valve 35mm on vantage and yes, i know, its 2 valve vs 4 ), and still making only 275rwhp. the vantage is a great example of really, only an intake giving he majority of the differences here. The S4 with GTcams has only 1mm less lift, 600cc more displacement, 10:1 compression vs 11:1, and a horibly restrictive intake making the difference! thats my only point Jim.... so, if im not making friends saying that the S4 has HUGE potential for an intake only change for big HP..... those are not freinds to begin with. you remember when i was the first to bolt on the euro cams on to the 4.7 and no one knew it would work or how much hp the euro intake would make on the 4.7 US?? i think i made quite a few friends showing that this was not only possible, but a HUGE improvement over stock. we are on the same team here Jim.... just trying to make the S4 better by doing things that are easy and dont cost much. Now, if you would prefer i would stop typing and do more reading, thats find. but i think what im actually doing and will be doing, is actualy interesting to those that like to see improvements at a reasonable cost. you see, i have no horse in the bolt on game here... only for the love of the car and the group here.... thats it. |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13089238)
Unless someone re-shimmed the stock springs to allow for the additional lift, before installation of the cams, the springs are operating very close to coil bind.
If you haven't had a problem yet, count your blessings. |
Originally Posted by Cheburator
(Post 13087938)
The Gladiator is spot on, I have to agree...
Mark, I have something in mind - If you remember, I managed to get 438rwhp out of a 5.4ltr GTS based bottom end with higher compression, Colin's cams and BMW ITBs. The engine is streetable and there is tons more power left on the table. Why am I confident in saying this - because I am not running an airbox! BMW spent countless hours giving the bellmouths the required radius and to take advantage of the plenum around them. I am running them FORD GT40 style, which robs power. Two reasons - packaging and time/money. Now though, I have access to someone who is cheap and keen to make a plenum out of carbon/Kevlar. I have also been able to glean some airboxes on Tuscan race cars. Last but not least, we have been experimenting with molds and silicon hoses with "funny" shapes. Stay tuned (pun intended) sounds like you have found someone that I have been searching for a while to make up something that could be amazing!!!! keep us posted!! i know it sounds more simple than it is, but a big rounded box around some fat intake runners with bell mouthed inlets, and a rear outlet feeding the stock TB from say, a vet or even our 85 928 would be great. then we could use the stock MAF and maybe even the stock air box and it would be a bolt on affair! conceptually, its an easy build.. just wish all the R and D wasnt only applied to the stroker or boosted cars. |
Had a similar concept worked out with my 944 but using Suzuki GSX-R throttle bodies 10 years ago. I scrapped the project when I put the car up for sale.
The ITB idea is still a great concept, and the fact that the Alpha-N is out, makes it easier to tune to factory fuel injection. How much gain are we really talking about with a simple changeover for cars that are not the GTS? I see these induction modifications as various stages to an increase in performance. 1) Custom or Updated Intake Manifold or Individual Throttle Bodies as an alternative are a good start. 2) Cam upgrades would make more efficient use of the dramatic increase in airflow. 3) Sharktuning would be next to optimize the efficiency of the engine and add bigger injectors into the setup. Let's be honest here though... How many of us are willing to drop $10,000 for a 70-100HP increase? In my case, I just want to get as close to 400HP as I can, whether it's Ken's S300 chips or Colin's cams and a Sharktune. |
2 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13089445)
Had a similar concept worked out with my 944 but using Suzuki GSX-R throttle bodies 10 years ago. I scrapped the project when I put the car up for sale.
The ITB idea is still a great concept, and the fact that the Alpha-N is out, makes it easier to tune to factory fuel injection. How much gain are we really talking about with a simple changeover for cars that are not the GTS? I see these induction modifications as various stages to an increase in performance. 1) Custom or Updated Intake Manifold or Individual Throttle Bodies as an alternative are a good start. 2) Cam upgrades would make more efficient use of the dramatic increase in airflow. 3) Sharktuning would be next to optimize the efficiency of the engine and add bigger injectors into the setup. Let's be honest here though... How many of us are willing to drop $10,000 for a 70-100HP increase? In my case, I just want to get as close to 400HP as I can, whether it's Ken's S300 chips or Colin's cams and a Sharktune. But, the cam and exhaust mods willl get you to that point, at least very close. (and take those screens off the maf.. they are restrictive too) I think someone could take carls intake runners , after alll, this is the most critical part , and mount it to some custom or modified plennum. this is not a 10k$ proposition, we are talking 2-3k and i would be all over it. one of the nice things about this, is that all the worries about strength of the gear box and clutch , go away, because the one thing the S4 intake is GREAT for, is making low to mid range torque and we dont care about that, we want power..... So, like the CF intake that stole a bunch of torque down low, it gave 100hp up high where you use the car when it matters. 4500rpm to 6500rpm. its not going to be for street totlers, but it will for the more decerning that undersand, if you want the car to pulll hardest, you put it in a gear that gets you over the 4500rpm range to start! :) I just hope someone makes one soon!! has anyone see the mustang manifolds? they might work.. heck, the vantage stuff is similar.. bottom line, these cars are getting stupid HP with not much more than an intake! http://www.americanmuscle.com/boss-i...ld-2011gt.html |
There have been a couple of stock valve spring failures with reg round cams. The widow had one let go that took out the engine.
The Lindsey racing springs we were using turned out to be using offshore steel and failed at way too high of a rate. :( The PAC springs we are using now are great and have not had a single failure. They are drop right in, but I still recommend measuring how much play before coil bind they have. Cheb has said he is running stock springs, I have no idea what his machine shop might have done to make them work. The stock intake spring will hit bind near max lift. The exhaust as shimmed from the factory will hit bind before max lift is achieved. But there are no permanent modifications made to the head to run my camshafts, so therefore I consider them plug and play. They will start and run with the stock chips as well. |
There are no aftermarket intakes that can be adapted.
Our bore spacing is simply too large. If you'd be all over an intake for $2-3k Mark, why not get a set of my cams and springs and get a large bump in power! |
Originally Posted by Lizard928
(Post 13089638)
There are no aftermarket intakes that can be adapted.
Our bore spacing is simply too large. If you'd be all over an intake for $2-3k Mark, why not get a set of my cams and springs and get a large bump in power! can you change the springs with out pulling the motor? I know .. the bore spacing is HUGE in our cars. i guess the only chance we have is for carl to make his simple two box set up! http://www.enginelabs.com/news/video...00-horsepower/ |
Mark,
Intake: Lift .437" duration @.050" 230 Exhaust: lift .437" duration @.050" 228 LSA 114. Springs can be changed with engine in the car. Use a leak down tester to pressure up the cylinder, this hold the valves up allowing you to remove and install the valve springs. GT is Intake: lift .393" duration @.050" 211 Exhaust: lift .353" duration @.050" 200 |
Originally Posted by Lizard928
(Post 13089746)
Mark,
Intake: Lift .437" duration @.050" 230 Exhaust: lift .437" duration @.050" 228 LSA 114. Springs can be changed with engine in the car. Use a leak down tester to pressure up the cylinder, this hold the valves up allowing you to remove and install the valve springs. GT is Intake: lift .393" duration @.050" 211 Exhaust: lift .353" duration @.050" 200 anyway, if we would have been talking before i did the timing belt, i might have done them .... i guess, now i have to psych up to do the job again, and while im in there, ill put on your cams.. what do you think it will give me hp wise? you can PM me about the cost. thanks! |
Well TerryGT stock GT, with MSDS header put down 352RWHP with a rich tune (12:1) (orignially 290rwhp).
Cheb with 5.4L a compression bump, and M5 itbs sees 438RWHP. Yours should see a substantial bump.... |
Originally Posted by Lizard928
(Post 13089746)
Mark,
Intake: Lift .437" duration @.050" 230 Exhaust: lift .437" duration @.050" 228 LSA 114. Springs can be changed with engine in the car. Use a leak down tester to pressure up the cylinder, this hold the valves up allowing you to remove and install the valve springs. GT is Intake: lift .393" duration @.050" 211 Exhaust: lift .353" duration @.050" 200 Is this normal procedure for changing valve springs without pulling heads?? I seriously had never thought about this before. |
i have done that on a few cars. it makes the job quick
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13090342)
Holy crap Colin, you can actually do that with a leakdown tester???
Is this normal procedure for changing valve springs without pulling heads?? I seriously had never thought about this before. Valve springs, guides & seals. Easy as anything on a Chev small block. |
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13088516)
I've been hanging out in the LS1Tech forums lately, and those guys just throw gas at everything, regardless of forced induction or naturally aspirated and keep making power. I'm sorry, but a new intake HAS to happen for these cars to make more power. If I have to grovel to the wife for the new product, I will. :p
944 DOHC manifolds bolt up to 928 head. Here is a 944S2 manifold bolted to a 928S3 head. https://rennlist.com/forums/attachme...d-928-head.jpg |
the hood clearance is one of the main limiting factors for us.
|
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13091185)
the hood clearance is one of the main limiting factors for us.
Obviously the engine parts locations are different but... A 2-v 928 spider intake would stick above the 944 hood almost 10 inches, if bolted to the 944 head. |
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13091221)
I think in this case, whatever fits under a 944 hood will fit in a 928 :)
Obviously the engine parts locations are different but... A 2-v 928 spider intake would stick above the 944 hood almost 10 inches, if bolted to the 944 head.
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13091093)
Cut up a pair of 944S2 intake manifolds and use the runners, DIY your own plenum system...
944 DOHC manifolds bolt up to 928 head. Here is a 944S2 manifold bolted to a 928S3 head. https://rennlist.com/forums/attachme...d-928-head.jpg im game! :)
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13090342)
Holy crap Colin, you can actually do that with a leakdown tester???
Is this normal procedure for changing valve springs without pulling heads?? I seriously had never thought about this before. |
Originally Posted by Lizard928
(Post 13089746)
Mark,
Intake: Lift .437" duration @.050" 230 Exhaust: lift .437" duration @.050" 228 LSA 114. Springs can be changed with engine in the car. Use a leak down tester to pressure up the cylinder, this hold the valves up allowing you to remove and install the valve springs. GT is Intake: lift .393" duration @.050" 211 Exhaust: lift .353" duration @.050" 200 |
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13090342)
Holy crap Colin, you can actually do that with a leakdown tester???
Is this normal procedure for changing valve springs without pulling heads?? I seriously had never thought about this before. |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13091512)
.............thats the best idea yet!! just cut them off at near the base, enough to mount some velocity stacks and cage it with some kind of box. Carl could do that easily, and then , figure out how to mount the TB and MAF on the firewall side.
im game! :) |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13091574)
Well if it's just that simple, why don't you get your hand dirty and make one. Then report back.
Oh, but how about i will......... I dont have the abilities or patience to build something as intricate as an intake. ive seen the work of others here and this, not only has been done by others, but can be done much better than i would ever be able to do. Its not a matter of "hands" dirty, its a matter of abilities, knowledge and skill. so, if someone builds it, i will buy it and test it. I just cant believe someone hasnt built one yet. its the MOST common modification of most all marquees, yet, we dont have a product. the closest thing was the CF intake, but incorporated a little too many custom/ (home depot) parts. ;) |
Why don't you commission an intake build?
|
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13091848)
Why don't you commission an intake build?
I dont know why this isnt a more positive and popular discussion. heck putting a custom intake on a blown motor is more of a silly build, as you can just turn up the boost to make up for losses in the stock intake. ;). im thinking there should be a pretty easy way to get an intake on the 928S4. if it means chopping up a couple of S2 intakes, that would be a cheap and easy start with parts that fit our heads naturally. then, the only challenge is doing some aluminum welding of a box, fitting some nice inlets to them and putting them in a place under the hood that fits the stock MAF and an aftermarket TB. I dont think this is impossible, or should take hundreds of hours as Greg B's intake did....BUT, i bet this can be made from near existing parts... maybe the intake runners and air box from another car also made from aluminum so it can be merged together. dont know, but there are lots of possibilities. |
You definitely need to read good books on volumetric efficiency, runner length and flow when it comes to the construction of an intake.
By no means am I an expert in this, but I do believe runner length and tapering may have a lot to do with how Greg was able to create the gains he did with his setup. Hell, with any setup this is imperative to have knowledge on. |
Shameless bump:
https://rennlist.com/forums/928-foru...4-intakes.html Intake design is not that hard for a 928. Plenty of space... its just trying to get enough people together who want to pay for it. Took me years to just get enough people together to do a run of flanges. |
2 Attachment(s)
Im willing to bet, this is the answer
since greg doesnt want to partake, and carl already has the foundation, I can see a version of his design that maybe uses a EURO 2 valve U , with throttle body and the maf attachment pont that would feed right into the stock air box. there is lots of room in the "valley" of the 928 engine block, so isnt this a possibility? more info on his intake development http://www.928motorsports.com/instal...oldarticle.pdf the entire idea i have here is to make it near plug and play. the stock throttle body mechanisms mount to the side of this thing, as do the vacuum lines etc. stock MAF, and maybe a way to use the euro 2 valve U and some after market throttle body, although i think the 3.5 " euro TB should be adequate, unless the 85 us TB is better. |
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13092167)
You definitely need to read good books on volumetric efficiency, runner length and flow when it comes to the construction of an intake.
By no means am I an expert in this, but I do believe runner length and tapering may have a lot to do with how Greg was able to create the gains he did with his setup. Hell, with any setup this is imperative to have knowledge on. again, im no expert either, but you can see what the other manufacturers desingns have brought as far as power to some small street type engines, making 330rwhp, out of 4.3 liters and near 440rwhp out of 5 liters. we dont need to match the gains in all areas, but its a good sign that we can approach those gains . heck, even 50% of those gains would be worth it , if most of it is coming from the intake, which it is. |
Stop using "We", you are not the representative of all of us.
|
How about "WE" all cobble our heads together to create a feat of engineering using the wealth of knowledge many have on the boards, even if it is the most miniscule.
Leave the bickering in the HS girl's bathroom about what tampon is better. |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13092250)
Stop using "We", you are not the representative of all of us.
read mongo below... he describes you perfectly...... "i want the one with the wings" you say?? ;)
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13092271)
How about "WE" all cobble our heads together to create a feat of engineering using the wealth of knowledge many have on the boards, even if it is the most miniscule.
Leave the bickering in the HS girl's bathroom about what tampon is better. |
Here is a sample of a sectioned intake manifold by FAST for LS applications. I think something similar can be done with the 928..
http://images.machinedesign.com/imag...0000037524.jpg Here is the link to the article providing the pic. http://machinedesign.com/archive/com...ne-performance |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 13092182)
Shameless bump:
https://rennlist.com/forums/928-foru...4-intakes.html Intake design is not that hard for a 928. Plenty of space... its just trying to get enough people together who want to pay for it. Took me years to just get enough people together to do a run of flanges. Yours are truly works of art !! Like most fabrication once it IS DONE it looks so simple and easy...... :) very nice. |
Another great pic... this is the cutaway of an intake manifold on an Aston Martin V8 Vantage.
Take careful notice of the tapering of each runner. http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/a...ine=1374173674 |
note how the rectangular shape twists 90 degrees from the top to the bottom wonder what the port shape and size is ?? Quite a nice piece of work there....and very short pistons for lightweight. No wonder it can spin up so well. I rather enjoyed driving it but never really punched it hard.
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13092183)
the entire idea i have here is to make it near plug and play. the stock throttle body mechanisms mount to the side of this thing, as do the vacuum lines etc.
stock MAF, and maybe a way to use the euro 2 valve U and some after market throttle body, although i think the 3.5 " euro TB should be adequate, unless the 85 us TB is better. the key is equalizing (or as close as you can) runner length so they all tune to your high RPM target, for peak power gains. S4 has a mix of long and short runners to broaden the curve... find the RPM your cams make peak power, and set runner length accordingly. |
As a point of order, in another thread where Kibort (the consummate expert on all things 928) appears to be running amuck.
Again. Apparently, from what I can gather, Kibort is altering what I said about an intake system being both difficult and expensive to produce into me not building one, at all. Nothing is farther from the truth. I am full scale production, with Hans's extremely skilled help (and patience), and fully intend to have a production version of my prototype intake, which I tested on a 6.5 liter and a 5.0 liter 928 engine making impressive power output gains ready for use by summertime. This intake will have runner sizes and plenum volumes that should make it suitable for both 5.0 and 5.4 engines in stock form, as well as high performance applications. Earlier in this thread, I made a post about this being an expensive undertaking. That is still true. I'm going to have a huge amount of time and money invested (50K?) in this effort. I've got 3 or 4 people that will buy a manifold, for sure (none of those people are Kibort, BTW.) Not exactly a sound financial basis.... So, the point I was making still remains....this will be an incredibly difficult effort to ever break financially even on.....for the tiny 928 market. Regardless, I need this manifold for my own purposes, which is why I chose to continue with this development. |
Any luck for sourcing a company to do injection molds and a jig/template? I remember you said it was very costly, but at least if the demand is HOPEFULLY there, a polymer version can be available for street operated cars.
|
thats exactly my point... its not worth your time... (your words), and those words confirmed below. never said you didnt build one.. quite the contrary... you have one on the stroker and i would LOVE to see that made again, even if done with lower cost techniques. you didnt say( or maybe i didnt see this) that you were in full scale production! :)
so to help us (928ers) out, what do you think is the best way to get an intake on the 928S4? lets not make this personal.. its just a question? can we use /buy your technology to get this done? by the way... did my words hurt you? i have no beef with you Greg.. I would always be willing to buy that intake if you wanted to sell me one, with no strings attached. dont go School-Girl on me. you know i would get the best use out of it too! :)
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13092405)
As a point of order, in another thread where Kibort (the consummate expert on all things 928) appears to be running amuck.
Again. Apparently, from what I can gather, Kibort is altering what I said about an intake system being both difficult and expensive to produce into me not building one, at all. Nothing is farther from the truth. I am full scale production, with Hans's extremely skilled help (and patience), and fully intend to have a production version of my prototype intake, which I tested on a 6.5 liter and a 5.0 liter 928 engine making impressive power output gains ready for use by summertime. This intake will have runner sizes and plenum volumes that should make it suitable for both 5.0 and 5.4 engines in stock form, as well as high performance applications. Earlier in this thread, I made a post about this being an expensive undertaking. That is still true. I'm going to have a huge amount of time and money invested (50K?) in this effort. I've got 3 or 4 people that will buy a manifold, for sure (none of those people are Kibort, BTW.) Not exactly a sound financial basis.... So, the point I was making still remains....this will be an incredibly difficult effort to ever break financially even on.....for the tiny 928 market. Regardless, I need this manifold for my own purposes, which is why I chose to continue with this development. |
6 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13092359)
note how the rectangular shape twists 90 degrees from the top to the bottom wonder what the port shape and size is ?? Quite a nice piece of work there....and very short pistons for lightweight. No wonder it can spin up so well. I rather enjoyed driving it but never really punched it hard.
the vantage doesnt have the cool pistons of the model...they look as ive captured below. stuff looks like stock porsche stuff. and the familiar girtle of how the crank bolts in...very 928ish maybe the model was a new version of the V8 vantage engine, but it certainly is not the one you or i have driven. (you with your daughters 4.3 liter 2006-7) also Jim, the vantage is like a stroker stroke! 91mm stroke!! (91mm bore) on the 4.7L, BUT, your daughters is a 89mm bore with a 86mm stroke... still near stroker rod angles!! not a high rever like ours can be !
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13092378)
howabout 2 plenums with a balancing port, and a 944TB (55mm) on each?
the key is equalizing (or as close as you can) runner length so they all tune to your high RPM target, for peak power gains. S4 has a mix of long and short runners to broaden the curve... find the RPM your cams make peak power, and set runner length accordingly. |
I look at that FAST LSX intake pic again and wonder if a 3-piece setup would be easier to mold and make to fit our cars. :confused:
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13092597)
I look at that FAST LSX intake pic again and wonder if a 3-piece setup would be easier to mold and make to fit our cars. :confused:
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13092597)
I look at that FAST LSX intake pic again and wonder if a 3-piece setup would be easier to mold and make to fit our cars. :confused:
Let me know how practical it is, for the tiny 928 market.....where you might sell ten of them....only if they are less than $2,000. You guys dreaming, at home or at work, have no idea what it takes to accomplish designing, testing, and then making a new manifold. You guys think, for a minute, that the manifold on that Aston Martin was simply sketched out and produced, before months of design work and testing was done? |
thats why we want to chop off its legs and mount it to Carls stuff!
yes, the market is tiny , but we can make something MUCH better for the 928 than the stock S4 intake. we meaning, you and others that can do this..... Already, phil did the work on his intake that gave 100more HP to mark and Joe. sure, made out of bubblegum, but that can be fixed. i know what this stuff costs to make and turn into product molds.... very very expenstive. thats why im suggesting bolt on , frankenstein projects that use stuff that is already developed and then modified for our use. now, your question regarding Aston martin's intake.... the answer is yes... it was just bolted on.. wanna know why? .... it came from the efforts of Ford! its near the same design. they didnt do much RandD there. much of what they have is bolt on.. fancy parts in a jaguar block, ford heads, granzano transmissino, volvo electronics, etc etc. the rest is auston martin, meaning hand made and hand painted/polished and beautified. :) take a look at the Aston martin V12... it has SVO Ford pistons and rods.... looks like parts you can find at Kragens Auto Parts.
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13092709)
Price out the engineering to get something like that to fit on a 928 engine, build a few prototypes to test, price out those three molds, and then get a quote on how much it costs to make a minimum run at the injection mold shop.
Let me know how practical it is, for the tiny 928 market.....where you might sell ten of them....only if they are less than $2,000. You guys dreaming, at home or at work, have no idea what it takes to accomplish designing, testing, and then making a new manifold. You guys think, for a minute, that the manifold on that Austin Martin was simply sketched out and produced, before months of design work and testing was done? |
Well I'll tell you guys what... pray I win Powerball or CA's Megamillions and I'll put money up to do this and even make sure it's carried not only at Dave Roberts' and Mark Andersons' shops, but even on Jegs.com and Summit Racing. :D
|
I wish this happened. If it does count me in.
|
It will not be practical to make the entire manifold out of polymer, but perhaps the plenum. When I priced out a mold for a polymer manifold similar to the Cayenne, the molds came in around $35k. There are room temperature PA66/GF30 processes that can use a much less expensive urethane mold, but the piece price is pretty high.
If anyone wants to play at home with their own design, I can have more weld-style flanges made in about two weeks. I would have to get them re-quoted, but can tell you they would be under $1,000 for the pair, and I still have fuel rails to match in stock from the first batch. Holley makes modular intake parts, which could be used to make something quickly: https://www.holley.com/products/inta.../parts/300-218 https://www.holley.com/products/inta.../parts/300-217 https://www.holley.com/products/inta.../parts/300-220 Jenvey and Reverie also offer pre-made plenums if someone wanted to build a cross-ram style intake. That said, just using the easy parts off the shelf wont necessarily get you better performance than the engineered stock manifold; there are critical relations between runner length and volume, internal resonance, pressure pulses.... lots goes into calculations for runner length. I have modeled some parts for Greg's project, they are different than the weld-style currently available, and will be a proprietary part for his use and development. The lower intake flanges that are available to the public are designed for 2" tubing exiting the head at a 22.5 degree angle. I have modeled several welded designs, and it is not difficult to get a long-runner manifold with off the shelf 3" CLR mandrel bends. the plenum design is a bit tricky to work with the factory throttle and hoses though. |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13092709)
You guys dreaming, at home or at work, have no idea what it takes to accomplish designing, testing, and then making a new manifold.
There are some really smart guys working to improve these cars and creating cool stuff. No two ways about that. |
Yes this stuff is EASY...AS Long as you have no clue about what is going on........ I think my IQ dropped about 50 percent just by reading this.....Right the factory ....any factory just copies someone else's work mods it SLIGHTLY and claims it as its own.....major manufacturers leave 50-100 horsepower on the table because they can not canniblize another intake. Like who cares about horsepower :( Does no one else realize how stupid this entire thread really is
Now change the cams change the displacement install headers no cats. Up the rev limiter and YES the stock manifold is no longer optimal for top end horsepower.... |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13092359)
note how the rectangular shape twists 90 degrees from the top to the bottom wonder what the port shape and size is ?? Quite a nice piece of work there....and very short pistons for lightweight. No wonder it can spin up so well. I rather enjoyed driving it but never really punched it hard.
The rectangular cross section allows them to make the runners much larger in size and still fit together in the available space. Those things are absolutely huge in size at the entry and then gently taper down to the size of the ports (which are also huge.) I'm guessing that this car has more than 5 gears to choose from and that they are close ratio gears, so that they can keep the engine in the higher rpm range. I'm also going to guess that they have variable valve timing over the entire rpm range, to help the port velocity and cylinder filling efficiency....otherwise this thing would be really lame on the bottom end and through the midrange. "Let's trade some low and mid range torque for horsepower on the top end, because we have lots of gears that are really close together to compensate." We can throw in some variable cam timing to make up some of the losses, but we will never get back to what the engine would do with a smaller port and runners. Not so good for a 928..... |
Correct variable intake timing . 7800 rom rev limiter, high compression and lots of development, coupled to a six speed manual trans..... Fun car now in Dallas with my daughter :)
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13092682)
complete redesign though, due to our crazy wide cylinder spacing, right?
|
Guys guys....
I have an intake manifold that produces over 200 hp. I'm not the only one either. There are a few others out there. No hood clearance issues. Works great. I know it's not really what you're talking about, but it does provide some perspective. |
Mark,
You and Mongo are full of excellent what if ideas. Reminds me of a manager that barks out commands and doesn't have the faintest idea what it takes to make it happen. Since you said you are willing to commission an intake, get your wallet out and call Greg, see if he is willing to take your money. It's easy to tell others to build something that you might buy, something else is to fork out the money to finance a product and it's development. Time to pay up or shut up. . |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13094423)
Mark,
You and Mongo are full of excellent what if ideas. Reminds me of a manager that barks out commands and doesn't have the faintest idea what it takes to make it happen. Since you said you are willing to commission an intake, get your wallet out and call Greg, see if he is willing to take your money. It's easy to tell others to build something that you might buy, something else is to fork out the money to finance a product and it's development. Time to pay up or shut up. . Mongo and I are here to discuss and bounce ideas... see what others have done and point to a direction that might get us an intake. we are not "barking orders" . I know what it takes to make these things. FULLY aware. Now, YOU sound like one of those little fluffy dogs that are in some rich bitch purse that just wont stop barking, and you want to snuff it out with a small pillow while she isn't looking! ;) |
3 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13093499)
That manifold is a work of art....no wonder they cross sectioned it to show it off!
The rectangular cross section allows them to make the runners much larger in size and still fit together in the available space. Those things are absolutely huge in size at the entry and then gently taper down to the size of the ports (which are also huge.) I'm guessing that this car has more than 5 gears to choose from and that they are close ratio gears, so that they can keep the engine in the higher rpm range. I'm also going to guess that they have variable valve timing over the entire rpm range, to help the port velocity and cylinder filling efficiency....otherwise this thing would be really lame on the bottom end and through the midrange. "Let's trade some low and mid range torque for horsepower on the top end, because we have lots of gears that are really close together to compensate." We can throw in some variable cam timing to make up some of the losses, but we will never get back to what the engine would do with a smaller port and runners. Not so good for a 928..... if you look at the dyno run here, you can see if we used a 928 gear box, the RPM would be from 6600rpm to 4500. the vantage gear box (maseratti) keeps the RPM from 5500 to 7500rpm. not a huge differecce and you can see the average HP that results. bottom line, its not much of a trade off. the intake will help our cars in a HUGE way. if optimized as you will probably do, im sure it will be even better. also keep in mind that this is a very narrow bore stroker. the stroke is greater that our GTS's, at 89mm and the bore is only 86mm, more than 10% less than our 4.5 928s. so, that is a HUGE reason why the engine is less torque. 4.3 liter vs our 5 liter. the intake would give exceptional gains on our car again the gear ratio drop in say 3-4 gear shift is 78% of the RPM with the vantage with 3.91:1 rear end, vs 71% of the RPM for the 928S4 2.2:1. the result is 7500rpm to near 6000rpm, and s4 goes from 6600rpm to 4600rpm as a note. I have shown two dyno runs.... one with the flappy not working on the original cams, and the new 85 cams before I had the timing set. this shows the S4 intake and resonance advantages to mid range torque. |
Mark, Mark you not only want to suggest how to build it......but ALSO WANT TO SET THE PRICE !! So Han's flanges are about $1,000 some alloy tubing and the Salsbury 4850D plenum for $100 add on a single mustang throttle body just might hit your price point..... some assembly required :)
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13094849)
Mark, Mark you not only want to suggest how to build it......but ALSO WANT TO SET THE PRICE !! So Han's flanges are about $1,000 some alloy tubing and the Salsbury 4850D plenum for $100 add on a single mustang throttle body just might hit your price point..... some assembly required :)
3-4 K doesn't sound reasonable? yes its a guess on my side, but it also is a price point im acceptable with. call it "market research" Jim! Gezzzz!! what would you pay? 10k 20k... im sure its going to cost Greg this much to do the first one....right.. but if he can produce a lot of them, maybe the next runs go for a lot less. (plus being able to recoup his devel costs) Carls really nice intake runners are $2500? so we are talking finishing the job here. (that seems like the most expensive part anyway) you don't think there is anyway to adapt an existing work of art to our cars? by the way, where is the salsbury intake .. I cant find a picture anywhere thx |
Mark,
"....will commission..". There is no "will". Either you do or do not, everything else is BS. Put the money behind it. You and Mongo and the "bouncing off ideas". It's easy to bounce off ideas when you have no idea what you are talking about. Even worse when the ideas comes from some " internet research". Fn' bench racing. |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13093499)
That manifold is a work of art....no wonder they cross sectioned it to show it off!
The rectangular cross section allows them to make the runners much larger in size and still fit together in the available space. Those things are absolutely huge in size at the entry and then gently taper down to the size of the ports (which are also huge.) they are close ratio gears, so that they can keep the engine in the higher rpm range. I'm also going to guess that they have variable valve timing over the entire rpm range, to help the port velocity and cylinder filling efficiency....otherwise this thing would be really lame on the bottom end and I'm guessing that this car has more than 5 gears to choose from and that through the midrange. "Let's trade some low and mid range torque for horsepower on the top end, because we have lots of gears that are really close together to compensate." We can throw in some variable cam timing to make up some of the losses, but we will never get back to what the engine would do with a smaller port and runners. Not so good for a 928..... the vantage using a wide spaced gear box like the 928 and a giving 71% of the RPM post shift results in: 370hp down to 310hp or an average of 340hp. (with S4 gears) (with Vantage gears that number goes up to 355rwhp) the S4 is 320 down to 250 with the flappy working or average of 270rwhp In FACT, the shape of the curves are near identical... might even favor the vantage. the vantage peak hp of the vantage is 20% greater than the S4... with the S4 gears, its average would be 25% greater than the S4 engine. proves that the intake is even BETTER regardless of the gears! EDIT: surpringly Greg, the gear spacing for the Vantage is actualy wider until you get to 4th gear.. 4th 5th and 6th are .8 apart. but 1-2-3rd gear are almost the same as the 928... there goes that theory! ;) |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13094877)
Mark,
"....will commission..". There is no "will". Either you do or do not, everything else is BS. Put the money behind it. You and Mongo and the "bouncing off ideas". It's easy to bounce off ideas when you have no idea what you are talking about. Even worse when the ideas comes from some " internet research". Fn' bench racing. Yes, I will put up the cash.. greg and I have to hug it out first. I don't think he wants to build one for me... could be wrong... but I have NO problem with greg. he takes the bantering too seriously here. we see eye to eye on much more than just clutch adjustment and oiling issues! :) |
Let's get something clear in this thread. I am in no means an 'expert' on intake manifolds. However, I do have numerous books at home I used to learn about manifold designs when I was doing my ITB project for the 944. You need to have a grasp of the concept and the whole purpose one intake is designed in order to meet the proper respiration requirements of the engine. Yes I am tossing around ideas with Mark, but I do know that THIS WILL NOT BE A CHEAP INTAKE MANIFOLD IF DONE RIGHT. However, price ranges of $2500-$4000 would just be ridiculous for a production manifold that would be better spent on cams, injectors and Sharktuning.... or in my case, that figure is my 4L60E swap I want to do with 3.90 gears.
On a side note, there have been some tuners out there who have designed their own sheet metal intake manifolds that have made more power than the factory manifolds. I'm not saying that a 'sheet' manifold is the solution to gains on this car, but if you don't know what you're doing, you can easily reverse course the opposite way, losing 50HP rather than wanting to gain it. Porsche knew what they were doing when designing the 928. Some have had better luck designing intakes for it, and some just said 'screw it', slap a blower on, and problem solved. |
Perhaps everyone should return to their garages, play with their 928s, and wait to let Greg and Hans do their thing? Probably a better use of everyone's time...
I'm really excited by what they've got cooking, they're a great team to make it happen. |
in the time since this thread started, somebody could have fabricated a rough but functional prototype manifold...:p
i like the look of the lexus LS400 intake manifold, check it out... |
You can like the look, but how will it function on a 928? Design is CRUCIAL.
|
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13095024)
in the time since this thread started, somebody could have fabricated a rough but functional prototype manifold...:p
i like the look of the lexus LS400 intake manifold, check it out... I think we are on to something with Carls intake .. it only needs a box.. heck, we might even be able to use the entire lower TB and MAF areas with air box, if we mount that to a plennum that fits carls air box.... think about that one for a second. you take the stock bottom of the 928 S4 intake. its pretty good. big diameters, decent throttle body and the maf is right there. to mount to the stock air box..... makes this a bolt on affair.... THEN, you take Carls box'es and mate them to it. sure the short runners will not be optimal, but im sure it would be a HUGE improvement. |
The aftermarket parts business is frankly often more about looks than function....much like fishing lures which are made to look good to fishermen not fish !! Part of why I proposed the extruded aluminum plenum based on the readily available Salsbury 4850D.......it may not be flashy or cool looking....
|
If it's functional, screw looks. We aren't dating supermodels now are we.
|
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13093499)
I'm guessing that this car has more than 5 gears to choose from and that they are close ratio gears, so that they can keep the engine in the higher rpm range. "Let's trade some low and mid range torque for horsepower on the top end, because we have lots of gears that are really close together to compensate." Not so good for a 928..... PLUS, look at the HP torque crurve. from redline to 70% of redline (post shift in a 928) the VAntage has 81% of its HP. the porsche 928 for the same % drop in RPM, has 78%. its better than the much larger 928 engine. sure, much of the lower end gains could be due to variable valve timing. but dont forget we are talking a stroker (89mm) engine with 86mm pistons. any intake would be a blessing for the 928, even one made from sheet metal. you cant get any worse that we have with the S4 intake. However, there are things that are good about it. i do like the MAF, and Throttle body with the lower "U" area feeding the plennum with two large openings. Im thinking we need to bolt something to that..... Carl? can you fab something up to your runners and plennum design?? :) |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13095084)
The aftermarket parts business is frankly often more about looks than function....much like fishing lures which are made to look good to fishermen not fish !! Part of why I proposed the extruded aluminum plenum based on the readily available Salsbury 4850D.......it may not be flashy or cool looking....
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13095091)
... We aren't dating supermodels now are we.
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13094916)
can I put a pillow over your face? seriously, you are that barking little dog in the hand bag!
Yes, I will put up the cash.. greg and I have to hug it out first. I don't think he wants to build one for me... could be wrong... but I have NO problem with greg. he takes the bantering too seriously here. we see eye to eye on much more than just clutch adjustment and oiling issues! :) |
Originally Posted by DKWalser
(Post 13095127)
Speak for yourself.
With regard to the intake, I don't care how ugly it is, if it works, it works. |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13095115)
..........
any intake would be a blessing for the 928, even one made from sheet metal. you cant get any worse that we have with the S4 intake. :) |
I was looking at some of Greg's manifold pix. His plenum box reminds me of a sheet metal style, with some trickery inside of it to get the gains we saw in his dyno sheets. I'm sure there is some sort of velocity stack incorporated into it. The throttle body needs to be bigger with any of these custom manifolds though and NOT the S4 one. Say 90mm+ maybe???
|
When at the Silverstate Classic Challenge in Ely Nevada last year there were some very "creative" vehicles entered as just about anything goes....did observe what appeared to be Salsbury 4850d or at least very similar replicas while I was there . But again this was an open country road high speed event so no real surprise. I actually lost count on the number. But with a $100 price point no wonder.
|
Funny Jim, I googled that intake and got mailbox pictures. People sure are creative. :p
|
Like they say it pays to think outside the mailbox.....
|
From some of the comments in this thread, I have to assume that Porsche actually tried to put out 50-100 hp less than they could have. Which strikes me as kinda dumb, but what do I know...
|
Originally Posted by bureau13
(Post 13095337)
From some of the comments in this thread, I have to assume that Porsche actually tried to put out 50-100 hp less than they could have. Which strikes me as kinda dumb, but what do I know...
|
Originally Posted by bureau13
(Post 13095337)
From some of the comments in this thread, I have to assume that Porsche actually tried to put out 50-100 hp less than they could have. Which strikes me as kinda dumb, but what do I know...
|
Exactly ^^^ just look at the stock S3, with no factory knock sensors they were really detuned, however PKen fixed that for us :)
|
Originally Posted by davek9
(Post 13095541)
Exactly ^^^ just look at the stock S3, with no factory knock sensors they were really detuned, however PKen fixed that for us :)
|
It's really funny reading this thread when two of them are blocked. I can't imagine the pain some of you are going through.
|
Originally Posted by SeanR
(Post 13095618)
It's really funny reading this thread when two of them are blocked. I can't imagine the pain some of you are going through.
|
Did locate an alternative stainless sheet metal plenum ... Polder 216204 should fit better in the V but might transfer too much heat.... again not plug and play.
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13095691)
Did locate an alternative stainless sheet metal plenum ... Polder 216204 should fit better in the V but might transfer too much heat.... again not plug and play.
|
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13095667)
And the really great part....I don't feel like I've missed a single thing!
you too Sean! you guys are SO juvenile:bigbye:! |
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13095091)
If it's functional, screw looks. We aren't dating supermodels now are we.
Looks great and built for speed my friend!! :) |
Originally Posted by GlenL
(Post 13095703)
I think the Polder 210201-30 will be faster.
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13095421)
Conspiracy theory is they did not want to upstage the 911 Turbo.. :) or want Kibort to actually WIN races.
however, there is more to go with the intake and you know it. Im not talkng makinig a balloon out of tin foil and calling it an intake, but a little thought or bastardizing something that actualy is in production might be a good bet. after all if anderson and fan can put that stuff on their engine and have it give 100hp with no tuning, there is room for more, dont you think, over the stock intake ON a 5 liter. again, when i talk, i could care less about anything under 4000rpm, post shift 4500rpm and redlining near 6600rpm. that narrow window opens lots of options |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13095691)
Did locate an alternative stainless sheet metal plenum ... Polder 216204 should fit better in the V but might transfer too much heat.... again not plug and play.
|
Okay, time to tame the bearded lady and the midgets in this circus....
With regard to sheet metal intakes, still not a bad idea. :) I googled some images to use as samples. Below is an S2000 sheet metal. Take note of the tapered runners again. http://www.motorgeek.com/albums/Olsonjus/s2000_4.jpg And another great picture cutaway of tapering. http://www.team-integra.net/images/B...Junplenum2.jpg Diameter is important according to the book I am reading. The bottom taper must match the diameter of the cylinder head's intake port. Common sense of course. However, We run into diameter size at the velocity stack, or mouth. Objective of course is to funnel as much air in and at as fast of a velocity as we can (tapering helps this too), and with as long of a runner as required for the engine to exhibit gains in torque and power. This mathematical formula is what needs to be solved in order to get the desired length of runner. Again, pointing to Greg's intake, his curved runners egressing from the large plenum have the perfect length to yield these gains. They appear to be significantly longer than the factory setup. As for diameter? Well that's Greg's secret and I am sure that he would have to kill you after telling you. |
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13095855)
Okay, time to tame the bearded lady and the midgets in this circus....
With regard to sheet metal intakes, still not a bad idea. :) I googled some images to use as samples. Below is an S2000 sheet metal. Take note of the tapered runners again. http://www.motorgeek.com/albums/Olsonjus/s2000_4.jpg And another great picture cutaway of tapering. http://www.team-integra.net/images/B...Junplenum2.jpg Diameter is important according to the book I am reading. The bottom taper must match the diameter of the cylinder head's intake port. Common sense of course. However, We run into diameter size at the velocity stack, or mouth. Objective of course is to funnel as much air in and at as fast of a velocity as we can (tapering helps this too), and with as long of a runner as required for the engine to exhibit gains in torque and power. This mathematical formula is what needs to be solved in order to get the desired length of runner. Again, pointing to Greg's intake, his curved runners egressing from the large plenum have the perfect length to yield these gains. They appear to be significantly longer than the factory setup. As for diameter? Well that's Greg's secret and I am sure that he would have to kill you after telling you. |
Originally Posted by SeanR
(Post 13095618)
It's really funny reading this thread when two of them are blocked. I can't imagine the pain some of you are going through.
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13095667)
And the really great part....I don't feel like I've missed a single thing!
|
Often wondered where the term " it is toast " came from when referring to a blown up engine but I think I am seeing the connection. It is not like someone sent me a letter explaining it....
Been looking at vuvuzelas as a low cost velocity stack option... the solution is out there !! |
Originally Posted by Dave928S
(Post 13096022)
I'm pain free too, and yet it still has perfect continuity :) I'm really enjoying Jims thinking 'outside the box' to arrive at affordable and practical solutions. Keep up that lateral thinking :thumbup:
the bottom line, im here to learn or find new ways to improve on the 928 platform. |
Just a thought, I wonder what Todd's manifold would do without the turbos pumping through it ?
It strikes me as the kind of thing I'd be looking at if I were building a NA manifold. Hacker ? |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13096223)
I dont need to get credit for anything here, but I'm glad our interactions and information started to get folks thinking..
Originally Posted by Roy928tt
(Post 13097358)
Hacker ?
It won't be petty and the hood won't close, but it could be done. Not that I've given this any thought or anything...... :icon107: |
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13095855)
Okay, time to tame the bearded lady and the midgets in this circus....
With regard to sheet metal intakes, still not a bad idea. :) I googled some images to use as samples. Below is an S2000 sheet metal. Take note of the tapered runners again. http://www.motorgeek.com/albums/Olsonjus/s2000_4.jpg And another great picture cutaway of tapering. http://www.team-integra.net/images/B...Junplenum2.jpg Diameter is important according to the book I am reading. The bottom taper must match the diameter of the cylinder head's intake port. Common sense of course. However, We run into diameter size at the velocity stack, or mouth. Objective of course is to funnel as much air in and at as fast of a velocity as we can (tapering helps this too), and with as long of a runner as required for the engine to exhibit gains in torque and power. This mathematical formula is what needs to be solved in order to get the desired length of runner. Again, pointing to Greg's intake, his curved runners egressing from the large plenum have the perfect length to yield these gains. They appear to be significantly longer than the factory setup. As for diameter? Well that's Greg's secret and I am sure that he would have to kill you after telling you. |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13096223)
I dont need to get credit for anything here, but I'm glad our interactions and information started to get folks thinking.. regardless if sean or greg knew what i was saying, its all discussion and talk. i dont know why they have to act like 3rd graders and be so proud to push someone out of their "group". real mature. It's ok, Jim and i still banter back and forth and i suspect things i say get him thinking, as seen by his responses.
the bottom line, im here to learn or find new ways to improve on the 928 platform. |
If Mark wants to take the task on, let him do so. 'Paraphrasing' a book doesn't mean anything and I am no bench racer either. However, paraphrasing a book though is key to gaining further understanding that there are reasons why there are AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS who figure this stuff out rather than me.
Good God IMO please pull the stick out of your butt. It's been in there all week! |
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13098115)
If Mark wants to take the task on, let him do so. 'Paraphrasing' a book doesn't mean anything and I am no bench racer either. However, paraphrasing a book though is key to gaining further understanding that there are reasons why there are AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS who figure this stuff out rather than me.
Good God IMO please pull the stick out of your butt. It's been in there all week! Are you really expecting someone to actually use your book/internet expertise to build a manifold? You and Mark are so naive when it comes to actually building something. And I'm keeping the stick where it is for now. :) |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13098699)
...
And I'm keeping the stick where it is for now. :) |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13098699)
Paraphrasing IS bench racing. First hand experience on the other hand what should be posted, not some "I red this in a book/website/my cousin's bother told me" second hand info. Maybe you've been doing this for such a long time that don't see the difference between the two.
Are you really expecting someone to actually use your book/internet expertise to build a manifold? You and Mark are so naive when it comes to actually building something. And I'm keeping the stick where it is for now. :) |
OZMO Engineering in Australia does LS3 and other intakes plus offer consulting, development, and manufacturing for ANY V-8 or 4 cylinder..... several different configurations shapes and sizes. Boosted or N A they do it all.
Seem to add some horsepower but some of the carbon fiber work is beautiful !!! And unlike my earlier attempts to find suitable parts this is the real deal :) |
OZMO does pretty work. I'm sure it's affordable if you really want it.
|
just to add fuel to this fire, since i have no skin in the game but want to see where kibort or others take it...
David Vizard's intake runner "rule of thumb" (as always, very generalized) is 7" from valve to plenum for 10,000rpm. add 1.7" for each 1000rpm lower. after measuring the runners of my 944S2 manifold and 4v intake port (17.34" total), and running through that "equation", i get 4000rpm which is right on for 944S2 peak torque. after measuring the runners of my 944NA manifold and 2v intake port (19.23" total), and running through that "equation", i get 3000rpm which is right on for 944NA peak torque. i am going to build a boost manifold with either 14" (if i can fit it) or 7" total length from valve to plenum, for my 928S3/944 hybrid engine project. shooting for 6000rpm "tuning". for your information: 944-2v head (basically 928 2v euro) is 82mm from valve to gasket face. the 928S3 has ~85mm from center of intake valve (where stem meets head) to gasket face...imagine the S4+ is similar... get to it already :icon107: |
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13100743)
David Vizard's intake runner "rule of thumb" (as always, very generalized) is 7" from valve to plenum for 10,000rpm. add 1.7" for each 1000rpm lower.
So if the length from plenum to valve is ~16" then the resonance is 4700rpm. I see 4400 on my dyno runs. If it was at 5500rpm that'd be better so add 1.5" to each side of the plenum. A plastic or composite unit would look pretty cool. |
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13098848)
I am naive, got it... nevermind the history of rebuilding 944 motors, Chevy engines, and working on 928s. Clearly like the rapper Eminem, you are the 'real slim shady' :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13097952)
The only things that you've started was you and Mongo feeding off each other's posts. Where is the money???
or carl too. |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13088513)
Colin's cams require the springs to be changed and then the spring compression dimensions have to be measured. Not exactly what I would call a drop in.
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13092271)
How about "WE" all cobble our heads together to create a feat of engineering using the wealth of knowledge many have on the boards, even if it is the most miniscule.
Leave the bickering in the HS girl's bathroom about what tampon is better.
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13092709)
Price out the engineering to get something like that to fit on a 928 engine, build a few prototypes to test, price out those three molds, and then get a quote on how much it costs to make a minimum run at the injection mold shop.
Let me know how practical it is, for the tiny 928 market.....where you might sell ten of them....only if they are less than $2,000. You guys dreaming, at home or at work, have no idea what it takes to accomplish designing, testing, and then making a new manifold. You guys think, for a minute, that the manifold on that Aston Martin was simply sketched out and produced, before months of design work and testing was done?
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13096058)
Often wondered where the term " it is toast " came from when referring to a blown up engine but I think I am seeing the connection. It is not like someone sent me a letter explaining it....
Been looking at vuvuzelas as a low cost velocity stack option... the solution is out there !! But mostly just subscribing to see where this goes. If you believe that Porsche left 100hp on the table with a simple intake change you are delusional. Yes, the 928 was not allowed to upstage the 911 turbo for sure, but they didn't go from 4.5 litres to 5.4 litres and all the expense if they could have JUST put on a better manifold....... |
Originally Posted by 69gaugeman
(Post 13103555)
This sub thread is almost the best part of this thread!
But mostly just subscribing to see where this goes. If you believe that Porsche left 100hp on the table with a simple intake change you are delusional. Yes, the 928 was not allowed to upstage the 911 turbo for sure, but they didn't go from 4.5 litres to 5.4 litres and all the expense if they could have JUST put on a better manifold....... yes, its mostly ALL intake. want examples... go look at the vantage i showed as an example that cam and CR is not far off the GT.. yet, its getting 335rwhp (mostly intake) and doing it with a 4.3 liter engine. look at the boss mustang.. a 5 liter engine, same type of intake and less performance cam and CRs, getting near 450rwhp (same as our strokers) why is that?? INTAKE!! the intake is leaving ALL SORTS of power on the table. its why anderson and fan just bolted it on with HOME DEPOT parts and got almost exactly 100hp gains from that with no tuning. (stock ecu, stock MAF, but stuffed in a 4" home depot sewer pipe) :) all this is discussion until someone puts a modified intake on a 928. and when they do, the HP gains will be phenomenal. |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13110214)
really? a 5 liter engine with 275 rear wheel HP.... when there are a TON of cars on the road in that era that have near double the HP/liter?
yes, its mostly ALL intake. want examples... go look at the vantage i showed as an example that cam and CR is not far off the GT.. yet, its getting 335rwhp (mostly intake) and doing it with a 4.3 liter engine. look at the boss mustang.. a 5 liter engine, same type of intake and less performance cam and CRs, getting near 450rwhp (same as our strokers) why is that?? INTAKE!! the intake is leaving ALL SORTS of power on the table. its why anderson and fan just bolted it on with HOME DEPOT parts and got almost exactly 100hp gains from that with no tuning. (stock ecu, stock MAF, but stuffed in a 4" home depot sewer pipe) :) all this is discussion until someone puts a modified intake on a 928. and when they do, the HP gains will be phenomenal. |
I don't think you're comparing apples to apples here. I think the highest horsepower stock Mustang in '95 (being generous and allowing for the highest horsepower 928) was about 240. What stock Mustang of that era do you see making 450rwhp?? And the Vantage...aren't they supercharged? If that's what you mean by "intake," then yeah, OK. But if you're comparing to more modern cars, then the biggest thing you're missing is electronics. Cars are WAY more efficient now at extracting every last ounce of potential, and most of that IMO is due to computers/electronics.
That being said, if Mark Andersen REALLY just cobbled together some Home Depot bits and pieces and added 100hp...WHY AREN'T YOU DOING THAT?! Hell, why isn't EVERYONE doing that? I'd cheerfully replace my peeling pipe organ with some crappy Home Depot stuff for 100hp.
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13110214)
really? a 5 liter engine with 275 rear wheel HP.... when there are a TON of cars on the road in that era that have near double the HP/liter?
yes, its mostly ALL intake. want examples... go look at the vantage i showed as an example that cam and CR is not far off the GT.. yet, its getting 335rwhp (mostly intake) and doing it with a 4.3 liter engine. look at the boss mustang.. a 5 liter engine, same type of intake and less performance cam and CRs, getting near 450rwhp (same as our strokers) why is that?? INTAKE!! the intake is leaving ALL SORTS of power on the table. its why anderson and fan just bolted it on with HOME DEPOT parts and got almost exactly 100hp gains from that with no tuning. (stock ecu, stock MAF, but stuffed in a 4" home depot sewer pipe) :) all this is discussion until someone puts a modified intake on a 928. and when they do, the HP gains will be phenomenal. |
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. |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13110505)
I told you before, COMMISSION one!!! If Greg is not willing to do business with you then find someone else. I'm sure someone is willing to take your money and put your design into a product (even if they don't want to be officially associated wit this project). Should be easy considering you already have all the design details figured out.
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 |
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13110608)
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. 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.
Originally Posted by bureau13
(Post 13110603)
I don't think you're comparing apples to apples here. I think the highest horsepower stock Mustang in '95 (being generous and allowing for the highest horsepower 928) was about 240. What stock Mustang of that era do you see making 450rwhp?? And the Vantage...aren't they supercharged? If that's what you mean by "intake," then yeah, OK. But if you're comparing to more modern cars, then the biggest thing you're missing is electronics. Cars are WAY more efficient now at extracting every last ounce of potential, and most of that IMO is due to computers/electronics.
That being said, if Mark Andersen REALLY just cobbled together some Home Depot bits and pieces and added 100hp...WHY AREN'T YOU DOING THAT?! Hell, why isn't EVERYONE doing that? I'd cheerfully replace my peeling pipe organ with some crappy Home Depot stuff for 100hp. |
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.
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13110688)
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. |
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. |
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13110609)
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 |
Originally Posted by GlenL
(Post 13111495)
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. Naaah. They're from Down Under. Prob'ly wouldn't know anything. :D |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13098699)
Paraphrasing IS bench racing. First hand experience on the other hand what should be posted, not some "I red this in a book/website/my cousin's bother told me" second hand info.
Maybe you've been doing this for such a long time that don't see the difference between the two. |
[QUOTE=mark kibort;13094916 seriously, you are that barking little dog in the hand bag!
[/QUOTE] :nono:
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13095147)
I think your bark is bigger than your bite....all talk and no action.
|
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13111584)
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?
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13110748)
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? 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
Originally Posted by bureau13
(Post 13111175)
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.
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:
|
Jim, do you need a hug?? why so angry?? why so spiteful?
so stop mindfuxxing me. Ill telll you want i want. you seem to be LOST at mind reading here. Im tired of having 100less hp than the other guys with an engine that is even bigger! im tired of the car not being as fast as i know it could be. just want some good racing with comparable cars that are 15 + years newer to show off what it can do and members of this marquee proud. I dont want a high rpm inake, i want an intake that breaths at 4500rpm to 6500rpm. as i showed you and you seem to already forget the AM with its 1mm higher lift cam and 1 point higher compression, makes 50 more hp and does it with a 4.3 liter engine and also keeps more of its hp over the gear ranges of even OUR cars. point is, the intake is the main different. dont forget , all im looking for is the same family of gains mark and joe got with the CF intake. if we had access to that, i would use it after it was reinforced to not crack like mark had happen (or next gen like Joes) an intake for our car should cost in the 3k range (when its in limited production). its the price point all the top exotics have. even our friends at AM make the intake for 3k . (and they only make 3000cars a year of the V8version) if it cost 4-5 k, thats ok too . its all about bang for the buck. you poke fun at making a intake out of something that is already made, but that might be a way to meet the price points. you metion TB , MAF, fuel rails, plennum, etc.. no, i dont think we need it all. we could possibly use what we have and only need a TB. im just offering the ideas and no one can deny yet that it is possible. thinks get done by thinking out of the box a little ... what im suggesting is possible and would give big gains. and jim, you make fun of what i do as far as "tune" but you find anyone else that has run as long as i have , and got the gains ive got, consistently for 20 years. very few have gotten as much as i have with even a high end tune. EVEN the bench mark of denis who got 380rwhp, was so peaky the average HP in the operating range was only about 20hp more and look at the work he had to do to achieve that. bottom line: 335rwhp with a GT cam in a stock 5 liter engine bottom line: 243rwhp with a 4.7 and stock US heads and 170,000mile engine (tired) all with the turn of a fuel reg. how many motors have i, or the guys ive built engines for , blown up??? oh, what? none??? Jim, why do you have to be like this? then, Andewrson and fan, bolt on the intake and do NOTHING else, no tune. stock ecu, fuel and spark.. no changes. only a fuel reg.. 100hp gains, 520hp for both cars on top of the 410 to 420 they got before the adding of nothing more than an intake!:bigbye:
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13111439)
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.... |
Wow.. I took a couple of days off to read my intake book and ya'll are Kama sutra-ing the hell out of this argument in a very painful way..
Yeah I'm not posting on this thread anymore.. |
Something is not right here, what am I missing?
Mark Kibbort says: "then, Andewrson and fan, bolt on the intake and do NOTHING else, no tune. stock ecu, fuel and spark.. no changes. only a fuel reg.. 100hp gains, 520hp for both cars on top of the 410 to 420 they got before the adding of nothing more than an intake!" Last time I checked, stock cars didn't make 410 to 420 hp... |
Its an intake. Its not hard. The equations exist for tuning the runner length to your cam and displacement configuration. The flanges exist, both Carl and I make versions of them. All of us have a local fabricator that can weld the darn thing... it just not that complicated.
|
Originally Posted by GlenL
(Post 13111495)
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. but i dont know why we cant use what Carl has made already? sure, its a short runner, but it will make great power and with those crude plenum boxes, why couldnt we just tape into the bottom of it and attach an S4 "u" and TB/MAF/Airbox. seems like this would be the easiest , most cost effective fix for the problem. Carl? is this possible. mate the entire S4 intake bottom section onto the bottom of one of your plennum boxes ?
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 13112524)
Its an intake. Its not hard. The equations exist for tuning the runner length to your cam and displacement configuration. The flanges exist, both Carl and I make versions of them. All of us have a local fabricator that can weld the darn thing... it just not that complicated.
|
Originally Posted by bureau13
(Post 13112522)
Something is not right here, what am I missing?
Mark Kibbort says: "then, Andewrson and fan, bolt on the intake and do NOTHING else, no tune. stock ecu, fuel and spark.. no changes. only a fuel reg.. 100hp gains, 520hp for both cars on top of the 410 to 420 they got before the adding of nothing more than an intake!" Last time I checked, stock cars didn't make 410 to 420 hp... so we are clear what i "say"............ 1. CF or modified intake that removes the stock intake will be 50hp on the 5 liter GT 5 liter 2. CF of modified intake could be worth as much as 100hp on a 6.5 liter maybe only 50-75 hp on a car without the cams. as a note all the gains i got with the stroker motor was 50hp. sure, there is another 50hp if i get the cam, and use 968 intake valves. but that is for reference as to what it takes to get 50hp normally.
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13112479)
Wow.. I took a couple of days off to read my intake book and ya'll are Kama sutra-ing the hell out of this argument in a very painful way..
Yeah I'm not posting on this thread anymore.. my ONLY purpose here is to discuss options. and yes, if something makes sense and doesnt cost an arm and a leg, I'm all about bolt it on my car, dynoing, and race testing it. we have a beautiful, over square 928 engine block with great heads that is strong. all it needs is an intake to wake it up! Mark |
Again what Anderson and Fan did was build a 600HP engine and put on 350 HP intake manifolds. Stroked, big camshafts, headers exhaust etc,
The LS example posted at the beginning of this was virtually the same exercise all modded up and yes it too made big gains when the intake was the LAST upgrade. What they did not do was bolt the magic intakes on a STOCK LS........because it would have done far, far less. And a much less interesting article or good press for the advertisers :) The ones who gave them the parts and buy the advertising. The very "best" intake on a stock 928 is not likely to gain anything like 50 HP..... until you start running headers, no cats, and bigger cams but then it is not "stock" anymore ! Perhaps like most aftermarket products it would need to be described as can add "up to 100 HP" but even 5 or 10 is included in "up to"..... Make it carbon fiber or paint it red and it might even sell. |
Even Mark K is back pedaling on the 100hp claim. Not that it was relevant to begin with.
Porsche did not leave 100hp on the table with this intake. They didn't leave 50 or even 20. If you believe that it's time to start taking your meds again. Change the cams, valves, exhaust, and well, you've changed things and it's not stock anymore and the comparison is no longer valid. |
Originally Posted by 69gaugeman
(Post 13113197)
Even Mark K is back pedaling on the 100hp claim. Not that it was relevant to begin with.
Porsche did not leave 100hp on the table with this intake. They didn't leave 50 or even 20. If you believe that it's time to start taking your meds again. Change the cams, valves, exhaust, and well, you've changed things and it's not stock anymore and the comparison is no longer valid. This would be a great time for Jim Corenman or Rob Edwards to post the dyno results from my prototype intake bolted onto Jim's 5.0 GT engine, with a set of modified Colin cams and a set of Devek headers....just to give everyone a refresher of what that change did. Yes, the runners were too big, for this engine. Yes, the plenum was very crude and there were airflow issues at higher rpm. However, I think this dyno chart shows the potential and that is the reason I have continued the process of making this intake system. |
Corenman's '90 GT, stock block and heads, Colin's cams, headers, without and with Gregs' prototype intake, 24 hours apart, minimal tuning, same dyno. 39 hp, 24 torques.
https://webfiles.uci.edu/redwards/pu...-13%20copy.jpg https://webfiles.uci.edu/redwards/pu...2010-29-13.jpg |
Nice gains above 4,500 RPM !!
|
90 HP gain!
I remember seeing an ad for a Shelby 4 bbl. manifold claiming 90 hp gains on a GT350. Turned out this was not based on the stock hp 351 rating of 290, it was based on the stock 2 bbl. rating of 220 or some other ridiculous starting point. So maybe 25 hp over the stock Ford 4 bbl that was already on there.
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13113125)
Again what Anderson and Fan did was build a 600HP engine and put on 350 HP intake manifolds. Stroked, big camshafts, headers exhaust etc,
The LS example posted at the beginning of this was virtually the same exercise all modded up and yes it too made big gains when the intake was the LAST upgrade. What they did not do was bolt the magic intakes on a STOCK LS........because it would have done far, far less. And a much less interesting article or good press for the advertisers :) The ones who gave them the parts and buy the advertising. The very "best" intake on a stock 928 is not likely to gain anything like 50 HP..... until you start running headers, no cats, and bigger cams but then it is not "stock" anymore ! Perhaps like most aftermarket products it would need to be described as can add "up to 100 HP" but even 5 or 10 is included in "up to"..... Make it carbon fiber or paint it red and it might even sell. and thats why i said that the gains were 100hp on mark and Joes intake , and would be near 50hp on a stock S4. yes, i assume that headers and a GT cam is a minimum starting point as well.. so, if i was fudging a little, i admit it, because this is where the numbers were coming from in my mind. 50hp over stock for the intake and another 25 or so for the headers and stock GT or 85 cam. in the end, im guessing stock S4 with a "good " intake of 325rwhp and 350rwhp with the headers and GT cams. ( possibly the 325 might need the GT or 85 cams too.... dont really know .. above my pay grade here.)
Originally Posted by 69gaugeman
(Post 13113197)
Even Mark K is back pedaling on the 100hp claim. Not that it was relevant to begin with.
Porsche did not leave 100hp on the table with this intake. They didn't leave 50 or even 20. If you believe that it's time to start taking your meds again. Change the cams, valves, exhaust, and well, you've changed things and it's not stock anymore and the comparison is no longer valid. if you dont think that engine with a decent intake can make 20hp, i think its U that needs to start taking some meds! im sure the intake alone can do this as welll, but you would need the headers and cam to really take advantage of it. I never back pedaled... re-read my posts. ive always said, 100hp for the big motor with all the goodies and 50hp for a stock S4 . actually, im assuming that there are headers and a GT or 85 cam on it too. sorry for that assumption.
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13113260)
This is exactly why I say that I will be testing my new intake on a stock engine, when it is done....I actually have no idea what gains are going to be possible on a stone stock engine....certainly not 100hp or even 50hp!
This would be a great time for Jim Corenman or Rob Edwards to post the dyno results from my prototype intake bolted onto Jim's 5.0 GT engine, with a set of modified Colin cams and a set of Devek headers....just to give everyone a refresher of what that change did. Yes, the runners were too big, for this engine. Yes, the plenum was very crude and there were airflow issues at higher rpm. However, I think this dyno chart shows the potential and that is the reason I have continued the process of making this intake system.
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13113334)
Nice gains above 4,500 RPM !!
|
Originally Posted by Rob Edwards
(Post 13113283)
Corenman's '90 GT, stock block and heads, Colin's cams, headers, without and with Gregs' prototype intake, 24 hours apart, minimal tuning, same dyno. 39 hp, 24 torques.
https://webfiles.uci.edu/redwards/pu...-13%20copy.jpg https://webfiles.uci.edu/redwards/pu...2010-29-13.jpg However, to be fair to the GT dyno at 325 rwhp, was the flappy stuck closed? looks like it migh have been but this intake did a great job of taking a 325rwhp engine to 360rwhp with nothing more than a bolt on inake. so who needs to take meds???? and pulling the cam and headers off wouldnt have changed much... probably lost 20hp on the baseline and equal as much on the intake modificaition. but we will never know that, will we. :) |
Originally Posted by Rob Edwards
(Post 13113283)
Corenman's '90 GT, stock block and heads, Colin's cams, headers, without and with Gregs' prototype intake, 24 hours apart, minimal tuning, same dyno. 39 hp, 24 torques.
https://webfiles.uci.edu/redwards/pu...-13%20copy.jpg https://webfiles.uci.edu/redwards/pu...2010-29-13.jpg This was a very impressive engine combination, with only "bolt-on" changes (if changing the cams is considered to be a "bolt on".) Since the above experiment was done, we have built a 5.9 liter engine for Jim's car, which made right at 400 rwhp....without the intake system. That translates into 440-460 flywheel horsepower (again, depending on whether one uses 10% or 15% transaxle loss.) My goal is to make a true 500 flywheel horsepower 5.9 liter engine, using my new intake system, while still improving the midrange torque. Certainly looks like the potential is there, doing some pretty simple math.... I'm thinking that this will make one very impressive street 928! |
and YES, it did gain a solid 40hp from 4500rpm up to 6500rpm . exactly what is needed and desired. AND, it wasnt even optimal according to you !
there is the proof if anyone needs it! because it wasnt optimal an and a custom built intake, im sure most any production current intake might do the same for the 928.... there is a good argument as to why too. yet, people think i need meds to think that is possible. wake up call. . its more than posible, its probable. its funny, the 928 community lives in a bottle . you think that im the first one to think of this? most all custom intakes blow the stock stuff out fot he water and give this type of gains. sure, we might mess up around town, torque, but for full out racing HP and gains, its all there. just has to be made. and im happy you are making them now Greg.. I just wish we could come to an agreement and put the argumentivite, challenging past behind, and put one of these on my car!! :)
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13113260)
This is exactly why I say that I will be testing my new intake on a stock engine, when it is done....I actually have no idea what gains are going to be possible on a stone stock engine....certainly not 100hp or even 50hp!
This would be a great time for Jim Corenman or Rob Edwards to post the dyno results from my prototype intake bolted onto Jim's 5.0 GT engine, with a set of modified Colin cams and a set of Devek headers....just to give everyone a refresher of what that change did. Yes, the runners were too big, for this engine. Yes, the plenum was very crude and there were airflow issues at higher rpm. However, I think this dyno chart shows the potential and that is the reason I have continued the process of making this intake system. |
Originally Posted by Rob Edwards
(Post 13113283)
Corenman's '90 GT, stock block and heads, Colin's cams, headers, without and with Gregs' prototype intake, 24 hours apart, minimal tuning, same dyno. 39 hp, 24 torques.
https://webfiles.uci.edu/redwards/pu...-13%20copy.jpg Great upper end torque gains Greg. What diameter runners? Here's some airflow concentration vs x-section shape for a curved intake runner, found at Hot Rod magazine: https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...5ba45ab064.jpg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...4b563b5fc7.jpg https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...c070c354e1.jpg Airflow concentration at progressive points along an inlet port: https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...53230bc9ff.jpg Hot Rod magazine ref: http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...d-tech-engine/ |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13113451)
so
yes, i assume that headers and a GT cam is a minimum starting point as well.. so, if i was fudging a little, i admit it, because this is where the numbers were coming from in my mind. ........ im sure the intake alone can do this as welll, but you would need the headers and cam to really take advantage of it. I never back pedaled... re-read my posts. ive always said, 100hp for the big motor with all the goodies and 50hp for a stock S4 . actually, im assuming that there are headers and a GT or 85 cam on it too. sorry for that assumption. ............. at is also the reason for my enthusiasm What is clear is that you are so busy formulating your next argument that you really do not read or comprehend much of anything anyone else has to say......Like Greg Brown who posts that it is highly unlikely to see 50 HP on a stock engine....so suddenly that stock engine now has at least GT cams and headers and exhaust. That is what made your very first post so incredibly misleading. I really look forward to the improvements that are possible just think it best to have realistic expectations. Realistic about HP , realistic about price. But you had better go ahead and figure out your own intake manifold since I doubt that Greg has any interest in testing his product on any engine where he can not be sure that everything else about the engine is properly maintained and tuned. That would be foolish and Greg never stuck me as the foolish type. Although I could probably make a pretty good argument that funding all the R and D for a high performance intake might qualify :) |
Start a thread somewhere else when you install one of those other intakes. Waste no one's time on it here.
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13113721)
Mark things like the above "assumption" is part of what makes trying to have any meaningful dialogue with you virtually impossible. Aside from the aggressive, condescending, and demeaning attitude. You constantly shift your position as it suits you. Redefine the "theory" as need be. And post conclusions or opinions as if they are FACT.
What is clear is that you are so busy formulating your next argument that you really do not read or comprehend much of anything anyone else has to say......Like Greg Brown who posts that it is highly unlikely to see 50 HP on a stock engine....so suddenly that stock engine now has at least GT cams and headers and exhaust. That is what made your very first post so incredibly misleading. I really look forward to the improvements that are possible just think it best to have realistic expectations. Realistic about HP , realistic about price. But you had better go ahead and figure out your own intake manifold since I doubt that Greg has any interest in testing his product on any engine where he can not be sure that everything else about the engine is properly maintained and tuned. That would be foolish and Greg never stuck me as the foolish type. Although I could probably make a pretty good argument that funding all the R and D for a high performance intake might qualify :) How many of my cars blew up for broken intakes or poorly designed /manufactured, rods or oiling issues? But ill be the bigger guy here and say TRUCE!! please for the love of god, stop trying to find such sharp edges on a round subject. yes, i do admit. i use the term " stock loosely" , but yes, Greg has proven that the intake , as rough as it is, with its "too large of runners, etc etc" on a car with headers and a cam, can make 40hp to the wheels! thats a 50hp gain!! (flywheel) so, lets be friends again. show a little respect and restraint as well as some understanding that all i want to do is show the 928 to the world on the track in the best light. disclaimer: i am NOT saying anyting i say is "fact". i say it with reference to other information found free on the web, on the track, and here on the list. my theorys are just theories. so let me re-state my thoughts. on a bone stock S4, i bet the intake gets to 300rwhp (cats , everything stock) or 23-30hp on a header and 85 cam or GT cam 928, gets to 360rwhp additional 50-60hp on a stroker with no other work besides the cam and headers. also 50-60hp and on the stroker that has the big valve heads and more radical cam im saying 80hp . (after all, even Mark andersons and Joes 520rwhp was really only 505hp, as the 520hp was noise ossilations on the dyno plot when the dyno run was ending) So, Jim, ill try and if you do to be a little more respectful here. Mk |
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13113730)
Start a thread somewhere else when you install one of those other intakes. Waste no one's time on it here.
I dont think discussing the intake and its possible benefits are a waste of time to discuss, do you? |
Originally Posted by UpFixenDerPorsche
(Post 13113714)
Great upper end torque gains Greg.
What diameter runners? Here's some airflow concentration vs x-section shape for a curved intake runner, found at Hot Rod magazine: https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...5ba45ab064.jpg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...4b563b5fc7.jpg https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...c070c354e1.jpg Airflow concentration at progressive points along an inlet port: https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/rennlis...53230bc9ff.jpg Hot Rod magazine ref: http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...d-tech-engine/ |
Sorry Mark but respect is something one earns not demands or negotiates.... and no I have no aggression or anger toward you but perhaps some pity.
|
This thread has been the most entertainment I've had for a while....
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13113721)
Mark things like the above "assumption" is part of what makes trying to have any meaningful dialogue with you virtually impossible. Aside from the aggressive, condescending, and demeaning attitude. You constantly shift your position as it suits you. Redefine the "theory" as need be. And post conclusions or opinions as if they are FACT.
What is clear is that you are so busy formulating your next argument that you really do not read or comprehend much of anything anyone else has to say......Like Greg Brown who posts that it is highly unlikely to see 50 HP on a stock engine....so suddenly that stock engine now has at least GT cams and headers and exhaust. That is what made your very first post so incredibly misleading. I really look forward to the improvements that are possible just think it best to have realistic expectations. Realistic about HP , realistic about price. But you had better go ahead and figure out your own intake manifold since I doubt that Greg has any interest in testing his product on any engine where he can not be sure that everything else about the engine is properly maintained and tuned. That would be foolish and Greg never stuck me as the foolish type. Although I could probably make a pretty good argument that funding all the R and D for a high performance intake might qualify :) The odds of Mark ever touching one of these new intakes are about the same as the Bank of England's current interest rate....somewhere between -1.5% to 0%. The "let's all be buddy-buddy" cr@p sailed a long, long time ago... There's probably three or four total people, on this Forum, that are in the know about what I'm up to, know where I'm headed, and know why. And Kibort loosing races or winning races doesn't even remotely enter into these plans... |
Originally Posted by Sapientoni
(Post 13113358)
I remember seeing an ad for a Shelby 4 bbl. manifold claiming 90 hp gains on a GT350. Turned out this was not based on the stock hp 351 rating of 290, it was based on the stock 2 bbl. rating of 220 or some other ridiculous starting point. So maybe 25 hp over the stock Ford 4 bbl that was already on there.
We are very far into this thread, but remember there was a bunch of discussion about the dyno results on the initial post being altered to emphasize the results. "Marketing" people can twist almost anything around....say whatever they want. |
Funny... nothing really matters when you really think about it.. you guys are taking this way to serous! need i remind you...this is a chat forum..
Greg, you can get over yourself too. what, some day you might design something that wont even be close to a stock mustang 5liter mustang putting out 450rwhp with only a set of headers? good for you . Glad you have your sights set so high and guess what, not one of them will ever touch the track. so.... Look out next gen prius, a Greg Brown intake equiped 928 might give you a run for your money!! whoop whoop!!!!!! And Greg, again, you have a lot of anger to deal with and probably too many friends to have room for me... so, have fun with your "pet project" and your 4 musketeers. Ill continue to race and do what ive been doing with a 928. That is: Having fun on the track driving one of the cooler cars out there. Now, here is a % rate for you... That same bank of England rate????? is the same chance you will find anyone (besides Joe and Mark) driving a 928 with your intake, on ANY track ahead of me at the checker or posting a faster lap time!
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13113897)
100% correct!
The odds of Mark ever touching one of these new intakes are about the same as the Bank of England's current interest rate....somewhere between -1.5% to 0%. The "let's all be buddy-buddy" cr@p sailed a long, long time ago... There's probably three or four total people, on this Forum, that are in the know about what I'm up to, know where I'm headed, and know why. And Kibort loosing races or winning races doesn't even remotely affect me. |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13113918)
Completely correct and a great reminder that one needs to look at the facts very carefully!
We are very far into this thread, but remember there was a bunch of discussion about the dyno results on the initial post being altered to emphasize the results. "Marketing" people can twist almost anything around....say whatever they want.
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13113879)
Sorry Mark but respect is something one earns not demands or negotiates.... and no I have no aggression or anger toward you but perhaps some pity.
|
1 Attachment(s)
...
|
1 Attachment(s)
Ok, back to on topic..
I know Carl is busy but does he have any time to help make an intake here that mirrors what he has done, but maybe has a underneath mounting of the TB, MAF and the air filter box (or something like the greg brown inline air filters?) the fact that he has made the intake manifolds to fit the S4 heads is a HUGE step in mounting something to them. 8 flexible adapters and almost anything can be attached to it. Mk |
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13113969)
...
For sure, someone is soon going to make this about 'oil' ... you watch ... :evilgrin: |
not much room under the intake carl makes. it would screw up the bell spacing. it would have to be some kind of adapter on the back I'm thinking for the MAF, maybe on the sides?
|
Without taking him off ignore, I'm going to assume that the "real" Mark Kibort just stood up.....again.
Anyone here have any questions about why I say he will never get one of my intakes? |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13114143)
Without taking him off ignore, I'm going to assume that the "real" Mark Kibort just stood up.....again.
Anyone here have any questions about why I say he will never get one of my intakes? |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13113334)
Nice gains above 4,500 RPM !!
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13113460)
However, to be fair to the GT dyno at 325 rwhp, was the flappy stuck closed?
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13113460)
and there you go.. just a first shot at the rough intake, and the gains are 40hp!!!!! ...
LISTEN UP!! I am not going to say this again (for a while): These motors are wonderfully balanced, everything is optimized around the factory's horsepower target, which was 0.9x whatever the then-current 911 was producing, depending on which conspiracy theory you subscribe to. THE POINT IS THIS: The intake, the cams, the exhaust, all optimized for 316 bhp for the S4. Change the exhaust, you still have intake and cams limiting power. Change the intake, you've still got the cams and exhaust limiting power. Mark Kibort, YOUR starting point is a 6.5L stroker with good cams and exhaust, OF COURSE the intake is holding you back, that's the only thing that you didn't change. And all of your yammering has NOTHING to do with stock engines. If you think it is simple, do it.
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13114114)
not much room under the intake carl makes. it would screw up the bell spacing. it would have to be some kind of adapter on the back I'm thinking for the MAF, maybe on the sides?
|
Originally Posted by SeanR
(Post 13114163)
It appears that his medication is not being taken in the prescribed doses.
There's only a few short questions that probably should be answered: Two? Three? More than that? |
Originally Posted by jcorenman
(Post 13114206)
We don't need no stinking MAF's. Our GT hasn't had one for about five years now, its running the Sharktuner "Alpha" system (precision TPS compensated for pressure and temperature). thats why i like my Mega squirt. same thing for me. :-) |
[QUOTE=jcorenman;13114206]Above 6,000 also. .....
QUOTE] right just the nice increase from 4,500 to 6,500 is awesome usable horsepower when you really are pushing it !!! |
Originally Posted by jcorenman
(Post 13114206)
Above 6,000 also.
No, but it was after. Which was AFTER Devek L2 headers AND Louie Ott's best shot at a dual catless 2.5" exhaust, AND bigger cams, AND many years of SHARKTUNING!! (the "before", not the "after"- that was an hour.) LISTEN UP!! I am not going to say this again (for a while): These motors are wonderfully balanced, everything is optimized around the factory's horsepower target, which was 0.9x whatever the then-current 911 was producing, depending on which conspiracy theory you subscribe to. THE POINT IS THIS: The intake, the cams, the exhaust, all optimized for 316 bhp for the S4. Change the exhaust, you still have intake and cams limiting power. Change the intake, you've still got the cams and exhaust limiting power. Mark Kibort, YOUR starting point is a 6.5L stroker with good cams and exhaust, OF COURSE the intake is holding you back, that's the only thing that you didn't change. And all of your yammering has NOTHING to do with stock engines. If you think it is simple, do it. We don't need no stinking MAF's. Our GT hasn't had one for about five years now, its running the Sharktuner "Alpha" system (precision TPS compensated for pressure and temperature). that means pulling off all the "stuff" (headers cams and sharktune) leaves would remove 60hp off that dyno run.. ahhhh, i dont think so.. but hey, its just my "informed" prediction. and guys, i think i have as much experience with bolt ons here as anyone. so the bottom line is that the intake works , and it will be slightly more benefit to the stock S4 than Jim says, but heck, he is not much off my prediction.. diddnt i say in an earlier post that the inake is worth 30hp on a stock S4 and 50hp with all the other stuff on it? Jim says 25hp, so whats 5hp among friends. Here is what i said: disclaimer: i am NOT saying anyting i say is "fact". i say it with reference to other information found free on the web, on the track, and here on the list. my theorys are just theories. so let me re-state my thoughts. on a bone stock S4, i bet the intake gets to 300rwhp (cats , everything stock) or 25-30hp on a header and 85 cam or GT cam 928, gets to 360rwhp additional 50-60hp on a stroker with no other work besides the cam and headers. also 50-60hp and on the stroker that has the big valve heads and more radical cam im saying 80hp . (after all, even Mark andersons and Joes 520rwhp was really only 505hp, as the 520hp was noise ossilations on the dyno plot when the dyno run was ending) So, Jim, ill try and if you do to be a little more respectful here. Mk by the way Jim, what was the deal with the flappy? you said "no, but it was after" . ????? curious.
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13114228)
"Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is a severe condition in which two or more distinct identities, or personality states, are present in—and alternately take control of—an individual. The person also experiences memory loss that is too extensive to be explained by ordinary forgetfulness."
?
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13114114)
not much room under the intake carl makes. it would screw up the bell spacing. it would have to be some kind of adapter on the back I'm thinking for the MAF, maybe on the sides?
|
Originally Posted by jcorenman
(Post 13114206)
[B]LISTEN UP!! snip....
THE POINT IS THIS: The intake, the cams, the exhaust, all optimized for 316 bhp for the S4. Change the exhaust, you still have intake and cams limiting power. Change the intake, you've still got the cams and exhaust limiting power. Mark Kibort, YOUR starting point is a 6.5L stroker with good cams and exhaust, OF COURSE the intake is holding you back, that's the only thing that you didn't change. And all of your yammering has NOTHING to do with stock engines. If you think it is simple, do it. . thats 45-50hp just for an exhaust change (and some minor tweeks in the engine bay (RRFR and maf screen removal). again, THE POINT IS, the intake will help ANY 928 stock, GT or modified , but sure, will have more benefit the more air you are moving (i.e. larger motor, other mods, etc) Its not optimized... it was MADE to do what you said. not give the 928 too much power as to endanger their 911 market. but, again, the 928 has a 5 liter power plant. nice flowing heads a little restrictive cams compared to modern equipment today (mustang 302, vantage V8). but if you put an intake on our cars its going to WAKE up. we are talking 30 hp in my estimation on a stock s4 and near 50 as we have seen with the GT stuff and exhaust and probably the same on the bigger motors for sure. thats it.. nothing more. Greg is just pissed and acting out that he is going to do all this work for 4 people in his "circle of trust". ;) this is not rocket science here. i dont have the ability to make it, but there are those that do.. Im sure we will find an intake that we all can enjoy and that wont cost $8000. |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13115193)
thats a pure theory of yours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnin...3Kruger_effect |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection The Dunning condition is one that almost everyone posting here has! Ive only claimed several things that are facts: Ive modified the 84 from 177hp to 290rwhp with everything from intake, cams to bottom ends. (and done several others' cars as well). And taking the stock S4 with GTcams from 290rwhp (no cats) to 335rwhp with RRFR and headers, as well as bolted on a big bottom end to it to get 375rwhp. Ive run the times ive run and raced for 15+ years never missing a season, so ive seen a lot and learned even more. and we all know your resume' Glen. ;) the argument here (and there should be no argument here), as we all see the facts. Then, some of us guess at to what level each modification adds to the net HP and how its skewed by what air flow you actually start with. the math rarely works out in real life.. it kind of reminds me of ALL the things that save 1 second a lap. most will stand there and tout, that "this mod will absolutely save 1 second a lap"... I remember adding these things up and applying to my car and it came out that the near stock holbert car, with all the mods, should have 6 seconds faster with the 6 mods I DIDNT have. net net, it would be 1 second faster than anderson ever ran, with only 335rwhp. The reality is that in racing, most of this stuff's value is highly embellished. My only comment to this discussion is that its my belief that the S4 intake is HIGHLY restrictive and some type of replacement will help the engine by at least 25-30hp, just as a bolt on. i think there are many paths to get there , and if mated with headers and cams, that number goes up to almost double! we have already seen Greg Browns intake (that was by his own admission , too large of runners, etc etc) gain 40hp. thats rear wheel HP, and in the spirit of the discussion, that 40hp is more like 45flywheel hp.. thats significant. its his first pass.... there are many intakes out there that could be converted and copied. Im not the guy to design and build it.... im just tossing ideas out there, based on what ive seen and read. go look at the specs for the mustang 302 that gets 450rwhp with just a use of a set of headers and filter box (not intake). go look at the valve sizes, compression and cams. its not too far off the 928. and again, the AMvantage with 4.3 liters making near 100hp /liter with cats and only having 1mm lift greater cams and just over 1 point higher CR. Folks, im not the expert here, but it sure looks like its due to the intake!! :) |
Originally Posted by GlenL
(Post 13111495)
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. Put your money where your mouth is. Commission an intake to the specs YOU want. Put your money on the line for a change. Glen has given you a great lead on a engineering/prototype/designer/fabricator. Greg Brown cannot and will never be bullied/cajoled/sweet-talked into ever providing products to fuel your ego, so get over it and go elsewhere. Fund your own 100 HP intake and laugh all the way to a 1st place at the finish line or whatever your goal is. Just Do It |
I have one set of unclaimed flanges from the first batch available for immediate delivery, also have a spare set of the matching fuel rails. If anyone is interested, PM me for details.
|
3 Attachment(s)
Here you go, short and long, for use outside of California.
Åke |
Originally Posted by Strosek Ultra
(Post 13115966)
Here you go, short and long, for use outside California.
Åke |
Originally Posted by soontobered84
(Post 13115884)
I don't normally agree with Imre, but I agree with him in this instance:
[SIZ]Put your money where your mouth is.[/SIZE] Commission an intake to the specs YOU want. Put your money on the line for a change. Glen has given you a great lead on a engineering/prototype/designer/fabricator. Greg Brown cannot and will never be bullied/cajoled/sweet-talked into ever providing products to fuel your ego, so get over it and go elsewhere. Fund your own 100 HP intake and laugh all the way to a 1st place at the finish line or whatever your goal is. [SIZ"]Just Do It[/SIZE] thats why im DISCUSSING the possiblity of merging carls technology to what is already available. Glen's link is encuraging! that shows some pretty cool intake plennums. I could care less about Greg Brown and his nonsense. you talk about goals in the 928? what do you think they might be for anyone in the racing community? its a cheater car in most cases, and now that POC , PCA have HP to weight classes, you really dont even need all the HP that you once needed to be competitive. better in SCCA or NASA where at least you are competing against cars in the same weight class. the only competition im in right now, is showing the 928 can survive racing in its near stock form. (now, sans the new bottom end) My racing competition is a blast and its fine the way it is.. lots of people to race and be competitive with. however it would be nice to get to the HP levels of the competitors i used to dice with, that have since bolted on 50 to 100 more HP, and thats where the intake comes in. If i can find something near plug and play, ill buy it and bolt it in. :):bigbye: oh, and dont agree with Imor or whatever his call sign is..he is just a blow hard |
Perhaps maybe work with Carl on developing an S4+ intake????
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13116090)
Perhaps maybe work with Carl on developing an S4+ intake????
|
The 944 does not nor does the 968, or any 996, 997 and 991.
|
2 Attachment(s)
http://www.mustangandfords.com/featu...return-of-5-0/
Just look at what the mustang BOSS did to the power with an intake and slightly bigger valves and some head work. still a tame production car, that passes smog obviously, but the point is. they changed the long runner intake tube for this Aston Martin V8 style intake plennum and are pushing 450hp flywheel in stock form. they can easily get this to the rear wheels with some minor tweaks. Now, this is a 5 liter same as the 928 S4.. cams are a little more radical , with 12mm lift vs even the GT 10mm. but again, this is a stock engine. its rated at the flywheel 100 hp more than the GT. i dont know what the cam makes, because its a simlar cam to the coyote engine cam and both have 11:1 compression. the biggest change is head work and this new intake. valve size is 37mm intake. and bore and stroke is like a stroker crank 92mm, but a small bore diameter, 92mm. close to the v8 vantage demensions. it looks like our 100mm bore has advantages in that it uses a much shorter stroke. encouraging to see that so much can be made from an intake |
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13116352)
The 944 does not nor does the 968, or any 996, 997 and 991.
|
to many differences between the two motors to even compare them. again, apples and oranges.
intakes make power, that is not being disputed. Time and money (lots of) is all that is needed to design and produce a different intake for our cars. |
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13116685)
to many differences between the two motors to even compare them. again, apples and oranges.
intakes make power, that is not being disputed. Time and money (lots of) is all that is needed to design and produce a different intake for our cars. Nobody is going to put the money (and you are absolutely right that developing an intake will take a lot of it) into something that won't sell enough of to recoup the cost. Look at the guys on here who try to make stuff. Someone comes up with a plan. Lots of people say "Oooohhh. I want one." And a handful sell. Greg is developing an "elbow macaroni" intake, kinda like on the Cayenne. I'd be curious to know how much time (man hours) he has in it. Fabricating, testing, refining & more fabrication, testing (repeat almost endlessly). |
i was talking to him about it last week at his shop. its crazy how much work he puts in to it WHEN he has the free time to do that, when he is not working keeping the light on etc.
its going to be a very nice set up. makes me want a later motor..... then again, i might just have to convince him to help up 16v guys out. :-P |
This thread has been ruined. However, before it gets closed, I think it good to review some points I made earlier.....in case the background "noise" overwhelmed anyone else.
1. There's no question that the stock S4 intake system is restrictive when the engine displacement grows...or the cams get changed....or headers get added. 2. Is the stock intake system restrictive on a stock engine? I don't know, right now, but I will know as soon as my first pieces come back from production and I can do some additional testing on a stock engine. 3. The dollar investment in time to do planning, fabricating, testing, and production to make a manifold is huge. I'm going to have a minimum of 50K worth of time and pieces invested, before the first production manifold is completed. (I'm going to take a wild shot and say that any of the production manifolds pictured on this thread cost one hell of a lot more than 50K in initial developemnt.....) 4. Is there a payback for my investment in this tiny 928 world? It's very doubtful. If the payback needs to happen at ten units, I'm guessing the manifolds would be $7500 each. Doubtful that one could sell ten units, at that price. If the "928 market" was bigger and you could plan on a payback coming at 100 units, it might be possible to get the price down to $3500 or so (minimum production run stuff, offshore.) Is it possible to sell 100 complete manifolds for $3500 in the 928 world? Again, very doubtful. 5. Why am I making a manifold, if the payback is a joke? I'm on a slightly different agenda and need this manifold, for my own use. I've got clients with already built engines that will use it. I'm currently building engines that can use this manifold. My future plans have this manifold, in them. If it happens to be applicable to other people, they can use it, too! 6. If things go according to plan, we should have manifolds in the next couple of months! |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13116774)
This thread has been ruined. However, before it gets closed, I think it good to review some points I made earlier.....in case the background "noise" overwhelmed anyone else.
1. There's no question that the stock S4 intake system is restrictive when the engine displacement grows...or the cams get changed....or headers get added. 2. Is the stock intake system restrictive on a stock engine? I don't know, right now, but I will know as soon as my first pieces come back from production and I can do some additional testing on a stock engine. 3. The dollar investment in time to do planning, fabricating, testing, and production to make a manifold is huge. I'm going to have a minimum of 50K worth of time and pieces invested, before the first production manifold is completed. (I'm going to take a wild shot and say that any of the production manifolds pictured on this thread cost one hell of a lot more than 50K in initial developemnt.....) 4. Is there a payback for my investment in this tiny 928 world? It's very doubtful. If the payback needs to happen at ten units, I'm guessing the manifolds would be $7500 each. Doubtful that one could sell ten units, at that price. If the "928 market" was bigger and you could plan on a payback coming at 100 units, it might be possible to get the price down to $3500 or so (minimum production run stuff, offshore.) Is it possible to sell 100 complete manifolds for $3500 in the 928 world? Again, very doubtful. 5. Why am I making a manifold, if the payback is a joke? I'm on a slightly different agenda and need this manifold, for my own use. I've got clients with already built engines that will use it. I'm currently building engines that can use this manifold. My future plans have this manifold, in them. If it happens to be applicable to other people, they can use it, too! 6. If things go according to plan, we should have manifolds in the next couple of months! |
Originally Posted by depstein15
(Post 13117107)
Greg, I have scheduled for Colin to install his cams and shark tune on my bone stock 1990 S4 automatic. The only other mod will be xpipe and hi-flow cats. Do you have a prototype intake we can acquire and test as a component in this work? Just wondering if it would be instructive to measure the combined impact of these mods.
The appropriate prototype is cut apart for production dimensioning. |
Greg, if production version is for stroker motors as I suspect it is I want one real bad. Need to start planning some bank job to get finances ready on time. Four days drilling the vault over Easter should do it. :D
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13116374)
http://www.mustangandfords.com/featu...return-of-5-0/
Just look at what the mustang BOSS did to the power with an intake and slightly bigger valves and some head work. still a tame production car, that passes smog obviously, but the point is. they changed the long runner intake tube for this Aston Martin V8 style intake plennum and are pushing 450hp flywheel in stock form. they can easily get this to the rear wheels with some minor tweaks. Now, this is a 5 liter same as the 928 S4.. cams are a little more radical , with 12mm lift vs even the GT 10mm. but again, this is a stock engine. its rated at the flywheel 100 hp more than the GT. i dont know what the cam makes, because its a simlar cam to the coyote engine cam and both have 11:1 compression. the biggest change is head work and this new intake. valve size is 37mm intake. and bore and stroke is like a stroker crank 92mm, but a small bore diameter, 92mm. close to the v8 vantage demensions. it looks like our 100mm bore has advantages in that it uses a much shorter stroke. encouraging to see that so much can be made from an intake |
So engine management technology, combustion modeling, R&D dollars for intake and exhaust, head and piston development have improved exponentially in the thirty-plus years since the 1980's when our cars last saw an engine design revision. Like computers, the technology doubles every four years or so. Trying to relate current engine technology to ours is pretty ludicrous. I'm amused by the "relational arbitration" method used to project performance changes based on one or two design factors. Just change this one thing, because it was changed on the [pick your performance engine] and they got another 100 HP as part of a package of improvements.
|
Originally Posted by Vilhuer
(Post 13117627)
Greg, if production version is for stroker motors as I suspect it is I want one real bad. Need to start planning some bank job to get finances ready on time. Four days drilling the vault over Easter should do it. :D
Can't be! |
Originally Posted by 69gaugeman
(Post 13118348)
I'm sorry, but WTF are you talking about. The red highlights prove everyone else's point that the Ford 5.0 is not even remotely similar to the 928. In ANY way. How you can draw the line from that to our engines and saying a new manifold will fix everything is beyond comprehension. The text in green: Um NO! It is not stock!
The crankshaft rotates...that's the same. Those other details are exactly the same.....except for....well....everythng. |
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13119042)
So engine management technology, combustion modeling, R&D dollars for intake and exhaust, head and piston development have improved exponentially in the thirty-plus years since the 1980's when our cars last saw an engine design revision. Like computers, the technology doubles every four years or so. Trying to relate current engine technology to ours is pretty ludicrous. I'm amused by the "relational arbitration" method used to project performance changes based on one or two design factors. Just change this one thing, because it was changed on the [pick your performance engine] and they got another 100 HP as part of a package of improvements.
Kibort's irrational way of rationalizing unequal things into equal was beginning to make me question myself. |
I tend to think Kibort is our own Man from La Mancha......someone please post the signature song.... Impossible dream....He single handedly is defending the honor of the 928 on track. Proving that it can compete with the back markers. Former foes have long since improved lap times but all of them are obviously "cheating" ... The goal is to "prove that a 928 can survive on a race track" ?? . Enters races with absolutely no expectation or hope of actually WINNING..... all to have fun and try to beat the slow cars... O K all good fun but clearly bush league amateur racing at best...very small pond. Yet the basis for all kinds of "expert opinion and theory" . But OH well I have never actually raced wheel to wheel....never totaled out two " race cars " either. :)
So the latest iteration of the Kibort manifold is use the stock throttle body and dual toilet bowl intake with a STOCK throttle body and mass air sensor....despite the "fact" that Kibort believes you MUST remove the screens from the stock mass air sensor or it is too restrictive.....anyone else see the disconnect in logic ?????? And the home depot part of Anderson's magic intake was a huge diameter mass airflow...and dual throttle bodies which of course has nothing to do with it :) So please play the "Impossible dream" |
I'd kinda like to see Daniel come up with a picture.
I think he could do an awesome job. The "Salisbury" plenum along with galvanized ductwork for the Spider "legs". Maybe somebody would actually buy one. |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13119433)
I tend to think Kibort is our own Man from La Mancha......someone please post the signature song.... Impossible dream....He single handedly is defending the honor of the 928 on track. Proving that it can compete with the back markers. Former foes have long since improved lap times but all of them are obviously "cheating" ... The goal is to "prove that a 928 can survive on a race track" ?? . Enters races with absolutely no expectation or hope of actually WINNING..... all to have fun and try to beat the slow cars... O K all good fun but clearly bush league amateur racing at best...very small pond. Yet the basis for all kinds of "expert opinion and theory" . But OH well I have never actually raced wheel to wheel....never totaled out two " race cars " either. :)
So the latest iteration of the Kibort manifold is use the stock throttle body and dual toilet bowl intake with a STOCK throttle body and mass air sensor....despite the "fact" that Kibort believes you MUST remove the screens from the stock mass air sensor or it is too restrictive.....anyone else see the disconnect in logic ?????? And the home depot part of Anderson's magic intake was a huge diameter mass airflow...and dual throttle bodies which of course has nothing to do with it :) So please play the "Impossible dream" |
The Salsbury 4850 D does bear a striking resemblance to Carl's twin plenum obviously on a different scale but the single plenum clearly has merit.....plus the flat lower floor could easily be made to fit the stock S-4 dual toilet bowl lower throttle body.. Thank You for bringing it up again hopefully we can reach a consensus on the optimal design.
|
Has anyone asked Kibort why he's not progressed with his racing career and moved on to a more competitive platform to race with?
|
Originally Posted by SeanR
(Post 13119532)
Has anyone asked Kibort why he's not progressed with his racing career and moved on to a more competitive platform to race with?
.....when he's the one racing a 928 with 340hp and begging someone to make a manifold so that his engine can make more power and he can be competitive. Just too funny! |
Kibort has not been able to find another car owner willing to let him campaign their car......pretty simple actually. But that is much of what makes amateur racing....amateur ! No one else is willing to hire you....even for free !! But he is still out there burning fuel, wearing out tires, and dicing with the cars he can .... That makes him a winner in many ways !! He is out on the track !! Probably not fair to be posting as he is getting ready for another weekend and has more on his mind than posting here. Damn, I just can not get that tune out of my head.....some songs are like that.
|
Originally Posted by SeanR
(Post 13119532)
Has anyone asked Kibort why he's not progressed with his racing career and moved on to a more competitive platform to race with?
there are a lot of great drivers out there... the stars have to line up quite a bit, and make many more sacrafices than i can make right now with family to pursue a racing "career" with the financial benefits being ...well, shall we say, suspect. Go find someone that is successful in racing and making a living at it, and you will see what i mean, after you talk to them. some of the best drivers out there , usually bow out and support their team or company's racing effort, even after wining the biggest shows on the plannet (i.e. Lemans, etc) The point is, you dont even get it. this is about putting more power on the 928 with something i think is doable. thats the argument. no need to be a jerk off about it. I just took the biggest step today and actually bought some really nice used tires. (FIRST TIME IVE SPENT A DIME ON TIRES SINCE 2001) result, new personal record at Laguna at a 1:35.7. anyone that knows the track, knows that this is a good time. AND, its pretty funny seeing all the teams out there with their 991 cup cars running only 1 second faster or a second or so slower. im doing this with a car that has not had a bushing touched in over 20 years! If that doesnt give you a sence of pride for the 928, then I cant help you understand why i do what i do. what part of , this is just a fun sport, and i am more competitive with myself than the other cars out there. all i want to do is beat that prevous record. It pushes me hard to constantly find ways to make the car go faster. the battles, the times, the comradely.... if you dont race, you dont understand. but to address your point.. ive been very close to finding a ride to race in GTS world challenge. almost happened last year with TRG and their Aston Martin. it might happen this year. and trust me, if i get it, i will not disappoint! :) mK |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13119627)
Kibort has not been able to find another car owner willing to let him campaign their car......pretty simple actually. But that is much of what makes amateur racing....amateur ! No one else is willing to hire you....even for free !! But he is still out there burning fuel, wearing out tires, and dicing with the cars he can .... That makes him a winner in many ways !! He is out on the track !! Probably not fair to be posting as he is getting ready for another weekend and has more on his mind than posting here. Damn, I just can not get that tune out of my head.....some songs are like that.
usually, you pay and pay dearly to drive a car in a pro race. most of the time,its about $40k for the weeknend. so yes, im burning up free tires (no cost) , paying my entry fees for each weekend, and there is 6 per year, and dicing with all the cars on the track , pros and amatures. i end up at the front most of the time, and have a GREAT time doing it. if you havent raced... you dont know what im talking about. the car is dialed in. .... just ran the 1:35.xx ive been trying for since i ran with anderson back in 2010...... and backed it up with 4x 1:36xx that was most of my issue.. bad used tires. finally got a good set of used tires from a known pro team. the point i try and make here, is running the 928 is a blast. people come over and talk about it. the know the car... its got a great reputation. today, dicing with 3 991 cup cars, you know these guys are shaking their heads. 250,000dollars vs 20,000 and im only a second back? that's what makes it fun.. doing more or the same with a LOT less. the entire weekend is costing me entrance fees and 15 gallons of gas. you cant buy this amount of smile for less! the best part is that im doing it in a 928 and its an amazing car to race and drive on the track. today was NO exception? the car is amazing.... when was the last time ive every reported that i had a problem that kept me from finishing a weekend? very very rare.... very unique car! |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13119628)
..........
I just took the biggest step today and actually bought some really nice used tires. (FIRST TIME IVE SPENT A DIME ON TIRES SINCE 2001) .... im doing this with a car that has not had a bushing touched in over 20 years! If that doesnt give you a sence of pride for the 928, then I cant help you understand why i do what i do..... ......, this is just a fun sport, and i am more competitive with myself than the other cars out there. mK |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13119591)
I about split myself open laughing when he was giving me cr@p (post #207, second sentence) about trying to make 500hp out of a 928 engine, when a stock Ford motor does that....
.....when he's the one racing a 928 with 340hp and begging someone to make a manifold so that his engine can make more power and he can be competitive. Just too funny! i just want to get rid of something both of us know is restrictive and can be good for 30hp for a stock 928 and 50-60 hp for one that breathes a little more. its not outragous, and others have done more than this with less.
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13119433)
I tend to think Kibort is our own Man from La Mancha......someone please post the signature song.... Impossible dream....He single handedly is defending the honor of the 928 on track. Proving that it can compete with the back markers. Former foes have long since improved lap times but all of them are obviously "cheating" ... The goal is to "prove that a 928 can survive on a race track" ?? . Enters races with absolutely no expectation or hope of actually WINNING..... all to have fun and try to beat the slow cars... O K all good fun but clearly bush league amateur racing at best...very small pond. Yet the basis for all kinds of "expert opinion and theory" . But OH well I have never actually raced wheel to wheel....never totaled out two " race cars " either. :)
So the latest iteration of the Kibort manifold is use the stock throttle body and dual toilet bowl intake with a STOCK throttle body and mass air sensor....despite the "fact" that Kibort believes you MUST remove the screens from the stock mass air sensor or it is too restrictive.....anyone else see the disconnect in logic ?????? And the home depot part of Anderson's magic intake was a huge diameter mass airflow...and dual throttle bodies which of course has nothing to do with it :) So please play the "Impossible dream" 1. ask yourself one question .... was marks car legal in world challenge GT? enough said there. 2. all of my races, im almost Always on the podium every time, since 2002 3. some of my foes have built up their cars to "anderson "levels and it would be nice to have more power, but i dont ever need all that they have... .thats my challenge ... to beat those wtih more. and i do this often ... very often 4. do you have any idea what it takes to run a 1:36 at laguna and do it at 3000lbs and 375hp? 5 what i race is the biggest racing pond in the world Jim, so do some home work. its amature racing, yes, but its a huge group with tons of guys trying to be competitive with what they have.. there are several guys that race in my group, if they havent gone pro already, they are as good or better than most pros. these are the guys i compete with well. 6. Joe fans engine had alll the home depot stuff. alll intake tubing, including the maf, was home depot. sure, throttle body was not stock, but jim really? its just a HOLE! no magic here. we need the intake to remove restriction and give the power the engine CAN make
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13119042)
So engine management technology, combustion modeling, R&D dollars for intake and exhaust, head and piston development have improved exponentially in the thirty-plus years since the 1980's when our cars last saw an engine design revision. Like computers, the technology doubles every four years or so. Trying to relate current engine technology to ours is pretty ludicrous. I'm amused by the "relational arbitration" method used to project performance changes based on one or two design factors. Just change this one thing, because it was changed on the [pick your performance engine] and they got another 100 HP as part of a package of improvements.
our heads on a stock 928 can support big hp.. we have seen the flow figures here. its not unreasonable to see or expect the power ive offered from a modified intake. gregs might be more perfect, but a crude one can still make big power .
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13116774)
This thread has been ruined. However, before it gets closed, I think it good to review some points I made earlier.....in case the background "noise" overwhelmed anyone else.
1. There's no question that the stock S4 intake system is restrictive when the engine displacement grows...or the cams get changed....or headers get added. 2. Is the stock intake system restrictive on a stock engine? I don't know, right now, but I will know as soon as my first pieces come back from production and I can do some additional testing on a stock engine. 3. The dollar investment in time to do planning, fabricating, testing, and production to make a manifold is huge. I'm going to have a minimum of 50K worth of time and pieces invested, before the first production manifold is completed. (I'm going to take a wild shot and say that any of the production manifolds pictured on this thread cost one hell of a lot more than 50K in initial developemnt.....) 4. Is there a payback for my investment in this tiny 928 world? It's very doubtful. If the payback needs to happen at ten units, I'm guessing the manifolds would be $7500 each. Doubtful that one could sell ten units, at that price. If the "928 market" was bigger and you could plan on a payback coming at 100 units, it might be possible to get the price down to $3500 or so (minimum production run stuff, offshore.) Is it possible to sell 100 complete manifolds for $3500 in the 928 world? Again, very doubtful. 5. Why am I making a manifold, if the payback is a joke? I'm on a slightly different agenda and need this manifold, for my own use. I've got clients with already built engines that will use it. I'm currently building engines that can use this manifold. My future plans have this manifold, in them. If it happens to be applicable to other people, they can use it, too! 6. If things go according to plan, we should have manifolds in the next couple of months! but also dont question why i do what i do on the track either. they have similar motivation, (aside from any money to be made as a goal) |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13119677)
Please cue up Billy Idol... "Dancing with myself" .....
Jim... relish in the the glory of the car.. stop the put downs to make yourself seem more reliant or helpful here, because to me, its just a bunch of noise. i have a bunch of serious racers here that have been at the top of their game for many years LAUGHING hysterically at what YOU in particular are saying. i cant tell you what they are saying, but trust me.. just go away Jim.... quite frankly, you sound like an idiot |
Racing the 928 at Laguna Seca today pics
3 Attachment(s)
These look like small bush league cars Jim?? :roflmao:
even that Evo came all the way up from LA to run with us. full pro support. the mustangs ... same thing on the pole for class , and 4th overall..... with a few cup cars behind. ;) the best part of this, and you and greg dont get it.... is this is the MOST fun you can have with your clothes on! And ive done WAY more than most anyone I know or have met, Ill gurantee you that. |
Happy to be the idiot and glad your "peers" find it laughable..... given that this entire thread is a JOKE !! Did you share some of your manifold design theories with them :) Last I looked Carl's intake was just 8 holes :) what does that matter ?
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13119748)
Happy to be the idiot and glad your "peers" find it laughable..... given that this entire thread is a JOKE !! Did you share some of your manifold design theories with them :) Last I looked Carl's intake was just 8 holes :) what does that matter ?
Look at what you wrote... these are the best guys in the business . why wouldnt they crack up (in a "is this idiot for real?" kind of way) over what you said...and yes, i asked about the intake. they are all behind it and have fabricators all over. yes , its expensive. heard about some frankenstein projects that did yeild great gains. its not impossible. I dont know jim, it might not work. im not the expert here, but ive seen some results out of lesser engines and so have they. carls intake is just 8 holes... perfect amount! ;).... we are talking about mounting something to them, right Jim??? |
Originally Posted by 69gaugeman
(Post 13118348)
I'm sorry, but WTF are you talking about. The red highlights prove everyone else's point that the Ford 5.0 is not even remotely similar to the 928. In ANY way. How you can draw the line from that to our engines and saying a new manifold will fix everything is beyond comprehension. The text in green: Um NO! It is not stock!
but also keep in mind, this is getting 450rwhp out of a 5 liter. if at the top of the RPM range if we take the cam and 1 point of compression out of the picture, it points to all intake. and quite possibly, a little of the head work. but still, even half of those gains are probably in the intake . again, all im saying is that the intake is 30hp for the stock S4 and 60hp for more of a modified 928, (or stroker). nothing more than that. its not crazy talk here. I believe as we have seen even with Jim's GT, that a bolt on intake can make it happen AND quite frankly, probalby more power than im estimating. |
If you can say the oversized airflow meter and dual throttle bodies are just a "hole" and not relevant to the performance of the Carbon Intake.....then Carl's intake is just 8 holes too.... But I still keep coming back to the Salsbury 4850 D for the plenum. Big Mustang boss 302 throttle body , switch to MAP instead of the mass airflow to eliminate that restriction that YOU already pointed out....
I have no doubt that YOUR engine desperately needs more air. Never have doubted that. Also needs more camshaft since as displacement increases the same camshaft effectively is more MILD. What is radical in a 2 liter 911 is a tractor cam in a 3.6.... |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13119789)
If you can say the oversized airflow meter and dual throttle bodies are just a "hole" and not relevant to the performance of the Carbon Intake.....then Carl's intake is just 8 holes too.... But I still keep coming back to the Salsbury 4850 D for the plenum. Big Mustang boss 302 throttle body , switch to MAP instead of the mass airflow to eliminate that restriction that YOU already pointed out....
I have no doubt that YOUR engine desperately needs more air. Never have doubted that. Also needs more camshaft since as displacement increases the same camshaft effectively is more MILD. What is radical in a 2 liter 911 is a tractor cam in a 3.6.... a 3.5" MAF , getting expanded to a 4" MAF using the Homedepot parts as mark did, AND a bigger TB , like 3.7 to 4" as well, does a little, but not much as Mark saw as well. BUT , when he put that intake, it was SHAZAM!!!! 100hp! bottom line, i dont want to argue with you ... its my theory that the intake will give a bunch of gains in conjuction with a bigger maf and TB,but its not a requirement.... those are easy things to make larger. |
OK you are first in your class...aren't there like 50 classes in a typical SCCA event ? Fourth overall in your group race of what 8-10 classes of cars many admittedly lower performance than yours. So exactly how many cars are in YOUR class ?? Lets see how big that pond really is :)
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13119789)
If you can say the oversized airflow meter and dual throttle bodies are just a "hole" and not relevant to the performance of the Carbon Intake.....then Carl's intake is just 8 holes too.... But I still keep coming back to the Salsbury 4850 D for the plenum. Big Mustang boss 302 throttle body , switch to MAP instead of the mass airflow to eliminate that restriction that YOU already pointed out....
I have no doubt that YOUR engine desperately needs more air. Never have doubted that. Also needs more camshaft since as displacement increases the same camshaft effectively is more MILD. What is radical in a 2 liter 911 is a tractor cam in a 3.6.... |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13119842)
OK you are first in your class...aren't there like 50 classes in a typical SCCA event ? Fourth overall in your group race of what 8-10 classes of cars many admittedly lower performance than yours. So exactly how many cars are in YOUR class ?? Lets see how big that pond really is :)
you know less than nothing about it Jim... you are now just looking a little green With the economy what it is today or other factors. the car count is down like nothing ive seen in 15 years. normal class size for ITE was between 10 and 15 cars if i was to get an average. but that was for the first 10 years. I bailed when this changed and then started getting frustrated with classes, and went to the American V8 class, and when that wasnt full, went GT2. last 4 seasons have been funny with car counts. but the good news, i race with the entire group 3 which is the fastest group and has stock cars, cup cars, etc.. im always in the mix with the front pack and plenty of wheel to wheel racing to make it real fun |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13119889)
Try to remember that Mark is more concerned about horsepower over torque. I personally think that the Salsbury 4850 D plenum would be too small for Mark's race engine.....even given his smallish camshafts.
acceleration is proportional to HP, so yes, its average hp i care about acceleration = power/(mass x velocity) this means that basically power is what determines acceleration at any speed. torque? do you even know what torque is greg? torque at the rear wheels after the gear box multiplication or engine torque. if its engine torque, you are way way off base. it would be great for you to understand this, before making judgment of what i want or what anyone wants as far as a HP /torque curve . just say'in |
So what about tomorrow ?? how many cars in YOUR class and your race ?? I could care less about last year or ten years ago. Also with so many alternative race and DE groups putting on events SCCA has a lot of competition. Congratulations on going 4 seconds a lap faster than you have ever done...that is a HUGE delta ! Has to make you rethink your decision NOT to buy tires since 2001....or is there a special class for cars on worn heat cycled out tires ??
Cool thing about SCCA is there are so many classes that nearly everyone gets a trophy....a bit like T-ball for the kids. But you are right I do get confused, when you say "ITE anything goes on DOT tires " ....how does anyone cheat ?? |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13119951)
well greg, as ive said many time, and this indisputable. right from newton himself.
acceleration is proportional to HP, so yes, its average hp i care about acceleration = power/(mass x velocity) this means that basically power is what determines acceleration at any speed. torque? do you even know what torque is greg? torque at the rear wheels after the gear box multiplication or engine torque. if its engine torque, you are way way off base. it would be great for you to understand this, before making judgment of what i want or what anyone wants as far as a HP /torque curve . just say'in Just pointing out, in my opinion, the Salisbury plenum is too small, for your needs....but perhaps you've studied this more than I have. BTW....Jim's thought about SCCA being like t-ball for kids, where everyone gets a trophy, pretty much hits the nail squarely on the head. |
|
Rob that angle makes it appear very phallic..... just coincidence ?? or is this thread all about ....big
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13119968)
So what about tomorrow ?? how many cars in YOUR class and your race ?? I could care less about last year or ten years ago. Also with so many alternative race and DE groups putting on events SCCA has a lot of competition. Congratulations on going 4 seconds a lap faster than you have ever done...that is a HUGE delta ! Has to make you rethink your decision NOT to buy tires since 2001....or is there a special class for cars on worn heat cycled out tires ??
Cool thing about SCCA is there are so many classes that nearly everyone gets a trophy....a bit like T-ball for the kids. But you are right I do get confused, when you say "ITE anything goes on DOT tires " ....how does anyone cheat ?? 1. you dont race , do i dont expect you to understand, but racing is not about how many are in your class. its not even about how many cars are behind you or if there is a couple way in front. ITS ABOUT PUTTING and KEEPING the car at the edge. its like this in many sports, but nothing like auto racing. consistency like golf, and feirse adrenaline competition like boxing or football. running up to the corkscrew at 120mph and pushing every lap to go 1 foot deeper and not pull a zanardi!! gong to the hair pin at 130mph and have 3-4 seconds to make a U turn and not let someone on the inside pass............ that is a HUGE adrenaline pump. Or my favorite, having a GT3 991 pass you down the straight going through 6 sequential gears , only to out brake them and get them on the inside of the turn and stick a pass! thats fun Jim! Its about the guy you are trying to pass or keep from passing you. in the early days, the racing was better than most pro racing, It wasnt unusual for 4 -5 guys to have the lead in any race. that was fun.. but , as with most races, in any league, its about your battle with the other guy.. I could care less what class im in or he is in.... because on the track its a battle. Its not DE time here where , its like boxing, sparing, you can just quit or say you werent trying, etc. its all out and its 30mins of racing (or 40 or 50) where you cant let up for one 1/10 of a second/ THATS what im talking about. In other words, I likke the big fields, because it adds strategy to the race, when you start lapping cars, but the main reason i and others go out there, is for the battle! its the most adrenaline you will ever have in any sport and its why i keep doing it. PLUS it is so fun to do it in a car that everyone says cant. I don't really need the stroker or the intake in the HP/weight regulated fields and classes, but it puts me in classes that have more exciting cars. rigth now, GT2 SCCA is a great field , made up of nascar and cup cars porsche, but ITE , now is just to in the race, i could care less if i win the race in class. it has no meaning and so does the little plaque that i usually toss in the garbage when i get home when i win small fields with little competition. I run with the GT2, SP, or any other car that is running in the 1:34 to 1:38 range. the faster cars i hope get tired during the race, because they do, and once i get around someone, i might be able to fight them off til the end 2. you need to read. i went .5 second faster, no 4 seconds faster than my best on newer used tires. 1:35.7 vs 1:36.5. however, it proves the grade of used tires over the last 5 years as only allowed me to go 1 second slower. (1:37) .. ii suppose with a brand new set which i havent even run yet, it will be .5 second faster still 3. Now, some perspective on "classes". yes, you cant cheat in ITE, but what happens in WCGT Jim? no cheating in GT2 scca or ST2 NASA , or GT2 PCA/POC. its all hp or weight or legacy rules. by the way,, pros have been racing with 2 to 4 cars in a class for MANY years. ALMS and now grand am... this happens a lot. the seat time i get and the level of racing is not much different in our group 3 races. many pros have come out to run with us and have fun too. many tiimes we get the entire porsche cup car GT3 field to run in our group... i pick on a few of the back packers in that group and have a ball ... 4. do yourself a favor of what it takes to run a 1:35 out at laguna. Mark did what on DOTs with my weight in world challenge? 1:34? , when we ran head to head in the GTGP, he was on slicks and ran 1:33.7 ..... to do a 1:35.xx with the car as modified as mine is, im real happy about. especially doing 4 laps in a row in the same pesonal best range. go ahead, ask anyone in the know like mark or Joe, what it takes to run a 928 at this speed at the track and in a race! |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13119976)
It's not necessary to attack everything I say, Mark.
Just pointing out, in my opinion, the Salisbury plenum is too small, for your needs....but perhaps you've studied this more than I have. BTW....Jim's thought about SCCA being like t-ball for kids, where everyone gets a trophy, pretty much hits the nail squarely on the head. Greg, i race and have for many years .. those that know me and race against me can judge me. you are just bitter for some reason, and i hope you can get over that . I dont know why, but you are. you are so funny about making fun of SCCA racing.... the winners of the last runnoffs i ran in with All SORTS of problems which is rare, (another story) The top guys go to SCCA WCGTS and win races . wiin, win money too! this is not the bush league. Ive been in 7 pro races and the driving is as good if not better than most of the drivers i saw there. PLUS, in any racing organization, you get a mix of talent. you think a porsche cup race is the best drivers around? most of the field is running those cars 3 seconds faster than their potential. its a feidl that if you have $200,000, you can be a hero and race somewhere between 1:29 and 1:34 at laguna (times for comparison only). go to alll the races in a season, and not break, and you get a HUGE trophy , and a season racing bill of over $100k. the pure drivers, only care about the battles along the way and how well and consistently they push the car during the races. so, as far as the intake, again, all im saying is that there is HUGE room for improvement by using something else pre-made or making something that is a bolt on that is custom. you have done great work here. im sure the gains on the stock S4 willl be greater than jims and will do nice things to modified cars like my old Holbert motor at 335rwhp with headers , or my curent motor with 375rwhp . im saying 30 hp on stock and 60hp on modified engines. anyway, see you at the next POC event at willow springs , where illl be racing in GT2 class among the porsches! alll HP to weigiht regulated. im sure my old car will do fine and there will be some great racing, even better than the racing i had the first time i raced there and usually everytime i race! Its late, i just had to put that down, as i am geeked up to drive tomorrow on the newer tires and chase the cool 991 cup cars! :) |
This question is for everybody except Kibort and Mongo: Would bolting up an early 32V intake be better for a higher than stock displacement S4? Only asking because the picture above reminds me of those manifolds.
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13119951)
torque at the rear wheels after the gear box multiplication or engine torque. if its engine torque, you are way way off base.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunnin...3Kruger_effect Mark: At what point does everyone telling you you're wrong create the slightest doubt in your mind? Imo: I don't think it bolts up to the heads. |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13120170)
This question is for everybody except Kibort and Mongo: Would bolting up an early 32V intake be better for a higher than stock displacement S4? Only asking because the picture above reminds me of those manifolds.
Porsche said all the S3 runners are equal length, and I know the plenum "stubs" vary but using my highly-calibrated piece of string :) the long runners are between 14.5-15" and the short runners...3 are 10" and one is about 7.5", from gasket face to "rubber hose coupler lip" |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13120170)
This question is for everybody except Kibort and Mongo: Would bolting up an early 32V intake be better for a higher than stock displacement S4? Only asking because the picture above reminds me of those manifolds.
The intake system performs about equal to the S4 intake....no amazing losses or increases. |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13120169)
But its ok for you to Greg?
Greg, i race and have for many years .. those that know me and race against me can judge me. you are just bitter for some reason, and i hope you can get over that . I dont know why, but you are. you are so funny about making fun of SCCA racing.... the winners of the last runnoffs i ran in with All SORTS of problems which is rare, (another story) The top guys go to SCCA WCGTS and win races . wiin, win money too! this is not the bush league. Ive been in 7 pro races and the driving is as good if not better than most of the drivers i saw there. PLUS, in any racing organization, you get a mix of talent. you think a porsche cup race is the best drivers around? most of the field is running those cars 3 seconds faster than their potential. its a feidl that if you have $200,000, you can be a hero and race somewhere between 1:29 and 1:34 at laguna (times for comparison only). go to alll the races in a season, and not break, and you get a HUGE trophy , and a season racing bill of over $100k. the pure drivers, only care about the battles along the way and how well and consistently they push the car during the races. so, as far as the intake, again, all im saying is that there is HUGE room for improvement by using something else pre-made or making something that is a bolt on that is custom. you have done great work here. im sure the gains on the stock S4 willl be greater than jims and will do nice things to modified cars like my old Holbert motor at 335rwhp with headers , or my curent motor with 375rwhp . im saying 30 hp on stock and 60hp on modified engines. anyway, see you at the next POC event at willow springs , where illl be racing in GT2 class among the porsches! alll HP to weigiht regulated. im sure my old car will do fine and there will be some great racing, even better than the racing i had the first time i raced there and usually everytime i race! Its late, i just had to put that down, as i am geeked up to drive tomorrow on the newer tires and chase the cool 991 cup cars! :) I think you turn respectable laps times in your small pond of tracks you've turned a zillion laps at. That doesn't make you a great driver....just a practiced driver. Mark Anderson could go to any track in the country and turn respectable laps times, with-in one practice session. He's a great driver. The sad thing is that your ego, swimming around in your tiny ponds, blurs reality. If you can come down to Willow, with your brand new tires, and turn 1:25's....like you should (without killing yourself, blowing up the engine, or crashing the car) then you will have credibility. Of course, like your previous visits to Willow, they will be timing your lap times with an egg timer. However, I'm sure reality will once again be trumped by your ego....and you will rationalize your inevitable failure with some lame excuse. You are a medium fish in a tiny pond.....not even a big fish. Always have been. Always will be. Get over it. Back to ignore and peaceful bliss....I'll pay more attention to your distortions of reality, when you get to Willow! |
Kibort your other thread.....Racing at Laguna CLEARLY says 1:39 to 1:35 .... 4 seconds with a tire change or was that another Kibort.. ?
|
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13120170)
This question is for everybody except Kibort and Mongo: Would bolting up an early 32V intake be better for a higher than stock displacement S4? Only asking because the picture above reminds me of those manifolds.
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13120640)
It'd be interesting to try the S3 intake on a big S4+ engine, and comparing the stock "tanks" to larger tanks (larger tank for higher rpm breathing)...could make the tank a bit bigger if not having to clear the "accordion pipes".
Porsche said all the S3 runners are equal length, and I know the plenum "stubs" vary but using my highly-calibrated piece of string :) the long runners are between 14.5-15" and the short runners...3 are 10" and one is about 7.5", from gasket face to "rubber hose coupler lip"
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13121391)
Like anything in life, constant repetition makes up for skill.
I think you turn respectable laps times in your small pond of tracks you've turned a zillion laps at. That doesn't make you a great driver....just a practiced driver. Mark Anderson could go to any track in the country and turn respectable laps times, with-in one practice session. He's a great driver. The sad thing is that your ego, swimming around in your tiny ponds, blurs reality. If you can come down to Willow, with your brand new tires, and turn 1:25's....like you should (without killing yourself, blowing up the engine, or crashing the car) then you will have credibility. Of course, like your previous visits to Willow, they will be timing your lap times with an egg timer. However, I'm sure reality will once again be trumped by your ego....and you will rationalize your inevitable failure with some lame excuse. You are a medium fish in a tiny pond.....not even a big fish. Always have been. Always will be. Get over it. Back to ignore and peaceful bliss....I'll pay more attention to your distortions of reality, when you get to Willow! I can prove this anyway you want. as far as willow springs. marks BEST time was a 1:24, with 200 more hp, real slicks, wings, splitters, motons, 100lbs lighter. remember when he was testing for WCGT, he could only run 1:30 with the toyos! :) (egg timer time?) my previous times to willow springs I had 240hp and I had to bolt in 300lbs of ballast in to the car to run with the totally unfair rules burdening the 928 vs the 911s . but I didn't care, because we still had some great racing . that was 16 years ago, and 1:33 is not that bad of a time for that car , on REAL crappy tires too. thanks for the kind of back handed complement about the lap times at laguna. you know those times are fast, and you don't see cars scaring up those times as old as my 928 is, ever!! this is 30 year old technology with 375rwhp on used tires. that's the pride we all can share here. Ill do the same proportional times at any track, by the way. except willow springs. its known to be a very unique track. and yes, im scared because of you , about the oiling and blowing up. I hope you are not right. what did you say, no stock oiled 928 has ever survived blow 1:32 for a weekend? we shall see!
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13122798)
Kibort your other thread.....Racing at Laguna CLEARLY says 1:39 to 1:35 .... 4 seconds with a tire change or was that another Kibort.. ?
So anyway, my best is 1:36.1, and ive done a 1:36.5 and usually 1:37 every race , but a few, but its been 5 years since that 1:36, so it was nice to put on the newer tires and get to that time again. like I said , I was wondering if it was me or the car! ;) BTW it was a great day of racing, but the field was a little small. hung with the 991 GT3s and the EXPs for a few laps. Im sure they were surprised to see this old dog in their mirrors for 2 laps, but they got a way and I ended up battling with the transam car of Robert davis. great race, lots of fun with him but wish there were more cars. to add what I was saying, the most fun of racing at this level, is the battle and the strategy of keeping someone behind you or trying to get around someone. its always different and it always keeps the adrenaline flowing. you need to check the ego, keep calm and not let emotions get the best of you. this is racing at its best and when you get by,, and you know the guy is pissed, (like legalized road rage), you come in the pits and get out of the car and high five some guy you barely know and say, "man that was FUN!"..." thanks for not hitting me when we were at turn 7....etc." all that anger and competitiveness turns into friendship and great sporting memories..... you see Jim, you just don't get that time trialing.... sometimes in DE, but not usually. |
OK so how many cars were in your class? where did you finish? and how many cars TOTAL in the group and where did you finish? Or was your "race " just dicing with a transam car and is he in your class ? pretty simple questions.
|
2 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13124266)
OK so how many cars were in your class? where did you finish? and how many cars TOTAL in the group and where did you finish? Or was your "race " just dicing with a transam car and is he in your class ? pretty simple questions.
it was a pretty sorry weekend for competition.. i was hanging with the cup cars for the first few laps and that one second differential was too much to hang ... so i got really bored. waited for the transam to catch up as he started from the back and then had some fun. He was not in class. this was the weakest attendance on record for a SCCA event. had it not been for the two cup cars and the exp cars (which i beat 3 of the 4 of them), i probably wouldnt have gone on track. this is not representiive of the racing i engage of.. it was just one of those weekends where no one showed up . bummer. but there were a few cars in class (ITE) but i won, but nothing to write about except the full support muller 400+hp lancer and 400rwhp porsche 914 6 turbo and a couple of other cars were behind. again, it wasnt a good representation of SCCA racing. here is a pic of the new flat plane V8 mustang!! a beast and its a street car 500hp 5.2 liter! cant help that no one showed. ;) a typical race is something like this: to see if you think this is fun. :) this had about 12 cars in class and near 40 cars in the field. or nasa as guests in the AV8supercar race also about 12 cars in class, 45cars in race. spent time dicing with faster class transam car |
3 Attachment(s)
Think this is what Mark Kibort like for his engine. ATPower 55mm ITBs made in the UK. Shaftless design for maximum airflow.
Åke |
thats some nice technology. I wonder the gains over a big throttle body and plennum.
|
Very snappy throttle response for one......
|
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13126704)
Very snappy throttle response for one......
I still believe we can modify something already out there though. |
Just need a ~6L factory big-block intake from something with exactly the same ports. spacing and angles. Tuned for the cam timing and oprating torque range that you want. Fitted up for the injectors you want to use. Short enough to fit under the hood. Able to work with the already perfectly programmed engine management system you will be using. It would be nice if the vacuum hoses plugged right in. And the throttle cable were long enough to reach to wherever the throttle ends up. And fits over the existing coolant piping, block web/bracing. And came in already anodized in cool performance purple, but with a big Porsche shield on it. So all you'd needed to do is wallow out some boltholes with the cordless drill, hammer it in to place a little, and bolt this wonder-piece right on for the 100+ HP boost it gave the donor car it was designed for. And it's only $30!
Damn.... Did you guys just see that???? A pig flew by! |
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13127063)
Just need a ~6L factory big-block intake from something with exactly the same ports. spacing and angles. Tuned for the cam timing and oprating torque range that you want. Fitted up for the injectors you want to use. Short enough to fit under the hood. Able to work with the programmable engine management system you will be using. It would be nice if the vacuum hoses plugged right in. And the throttle cable were long enough to reach to wherever the throttle ends up. And fits over the existing coolant piping, block web/bracing. And came in already anodized in cool performance purple, but with a big Porsche shield on it. So all you'd needed to do is wallow out some boltholes with the cordless drill, hammer it in to place a little, and bolt this wonder-piece right on for the 100+ HP boost it gave the donor car it was designed for. And it's only $30!
Damn.... Did you guys just see that???? A pig flew by! im betting you can bolt something over the stock TB and "U" area and bolt it right to carls big plenum and feed his lower manifolds. guaranteed some big HP. sure, we might loose some mid range to low torque, but that comes with the territory, unless you want it to be a street/race bolt on. but bigger is better and that's what you will get with one of the off the shelf intakes and/ or something Carl can fab up in his shop! I got a mustang intake that i might be able to cut up and mate to carl's stuff. the problem is the runners have to take some type of adapter to seal well. i like carls set up a lot more , but it has to be set up for a more stock bolt on approach. I think it can be done! existing throttle cable, TB and MAF (maybe enlarged too). stock injector set up, but using the 30lb injectors that im already using. (too big for my hp now, but perfect for 450rwhp ). tweak with RRFR and mixture is between 12 and 12.5 from 4500 to 6500rpm and thats good enough for me! I want to keep it SIMPLE and i think that is the best way |
Originally Posted by Rob Edwards
(Post 13119977)
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13127109)
i dont think its that complicated. forget about operational range, cam timing, etc. any big 500hp intake will work. Greg already proved that on the GT. wrong runners, first pass, nothing right as he said. still made 60hp.
im betting you can bolt something over the stock TB and "U" area and bolt it right to carls big plenum and feed his lower manifolds. guaranteed some big HP. sure, we might loose some mid range to low torque, but that comes with the territory, unless you want it to be a street/race bolt on. but bigger is better and that's what you will get with one of the off the shelf intakes and/ or something Carl can fab up in his shop! I got a mustang intake that i might be able to cut up and mate to carl's stuff. the problem is the runners have to take some type of adapter to seal well. i like carls set up a lot more , but it has to be set up for a more stock bolt on approach. I think it can be done! existing throttle cable, TB and MAF (maybe enlarged too). stock injector set up, but using the 30lb injectors that im already using. (too big for my hp now, but perfect for 450rwhp ). tweak with RRFR and mixture is between 12 and 12.5 from 4500 to 6500rpm and thats good enough for me! I want to keep it SIMPLE and i think that is the best way If it's that simple, then DO IT! You certainly don't need anyone's permission here. Decide what kind of "Adapters" you need, and have them made. Then bolt on your inake and let us know if it made the numbers you expect. With no other changes, so you can track the changes to just what's caused by the intake. It's really sad that the engine design group at Porsche was forced to take what was such a promising 8-horns intake and shrink the runners so much. On purpose. Just so their flagship performance car wouldn't be faster than their other flagship performance car. Or you could go with the proven method used by the current bunch of Euro V8 performance cars. ITB's. Differing runner and bell dimensions for broader power band. MAP and throttle-position sensors. Better and multiple intake temp sensors. A slightly more, um, comprehensive engine management package. Variable valve timing. COP ignition. Start another list! |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13121391)
Like anything in life, constant repetition makes up for skill.
I think you turn respectable laps times in your small pond of tracks you've turned a zillion laps at. That doesn't make you a great driver....just a practiced driver. Mark Anderson could go to any track in the country and turn respectable laps times, with-in one practice session. He's a great driver. The sad thing is that your ego, swimming around in your tiny ponds, blurs reality. If you can come down to Willow, with your brand new tires, and turn 1:25's....like you should (without killing yourself, blowing up the engine, or crashing the car) then you will have credibility. Of course, like your previous visits to Willow, they will be timing your lap times with an egg timer. However, I'm sure reality will once again be trumped by your ego....and you will rationalize your inevitable failure with some lame excuse. You are a medium fish in a tiny pond.....not even a big fish. Always have been. Always will be. Get over it. Back to ignore and peaceful bliss....I'll pay more attention to your distortions of reality, when you get to Willow! since you are not an athlete and ive coached a few of the great ones after my time in the sun.... i can safely and credibly say its not hours and hours of practice, its hours and hours of perfect practice. Mark and i in the same car, ran the same lap times. its a fact. and it would be that way at any track around, that we haven't gone too. in fact, i turned faster times in my S4 than he ran running Tilo's blower 928 at buttonwillow, near my first time there! ran as fast as him at the same weight and tires, with 125 less hp at Laguna seca. I even posted the side to side video for you for the same general time period, not many years later as you said. Now, you are the expert and suddenly, you think i should be running 1:25 at willow springs when the "yard stick" Mark anderson's best lap is a 1:24.1? and on slicks, after running there over and over for 25 years? with 200more HP? . why dont you tell me what these mods are worth at willow springs vs what i have: 1. slicks vs DOTs 2. 4" wider track front and rear 3. bigger wing and huge splitter 4. motons 5. 200 more HP you are showing a huge lack of racing common sense if you think all those mods are not worth more than 1 second. (with no difference in driver) you figure out what mark would run without all these mods and ill run that time. im guessing all that is worth about 4 seconds. 2 for the tires alone and 2 for the HP, and thats being WAY more than fair. come out there to willow springs may 15th.... ill be out there for the racing weekend in that little "pond". :roflmao: |
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13127161)
If it's that simple, then DO IT! You certainly don't need anyone's permission here. Decide what kind of "Adapters" you need, and have them made. Then bolt on your inake and let us know if it made the numbers you expect. With no other changes, so you can track the changes to just what's caused by the intake.
It's really sad that the engine design group at Porsche was forced to take what was such a promising 8-horns intake and shrink the runners so much. On purpose. Just so their flagship performance car wouldn't be faster than their other flagship performance car. Or you could go with the proven method used by the current bunch of Euro V8 performance cars. ITB's. Differing runner and bell dimensions for broader power band. MAP and throttle-position sensors. Better and multiple intake temp sensors. A slightly more, um, comprehensive engine management package. Variable valve timing. COP ignition. Start another list! what im telling you and have for many years, is i dont care about any power below 4500rpm. never go there! its not a street car. or i should say, its all about performance! anyone that cares about performance will use the right gear to get max acceleration! (and power for that speed). so, that makes things a little easier. variable valve timing... not needed. perfect ECU tuning... not needed (more for better MPG, and finetuning... and fine tuninig that can put an engine on the edge where on the track it can be a problem... happens all the time. my car, leaving 10-15hp on the table is VERY VERY safe. and im sure Erik and Todd appreciate how i have run this engine of mine. but its time to bolt on a few more ponies! I told you ... if i bolt it on, i suspect it will give as much as Robs tested intake dyno run. about 60hp. if you bot what i suggest on a bone stock S4, im thinking 30hp. put it on a hot cam and big valves, more like 75-80 with out much fuss i would imagine. its my prediction and opinion... i cant believe everyone gets so worked up about it. its going to happen.... someday! I dont have the technology to make it... but there are those there that can. I hope i can help it happen with $$ and with ideas. |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13124266)
OK so how many cars were in your class? where did you finish? and how many cars TOTAL in the group and where did you finish? Or was your "race " just dicing with a transam car and is he in your class ? pretty simple questions.
|
3 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by 69gaugeman
(Post 13127452)
I'll take a stab, seeing as he can't remember, doesn't want to remember, or thinks the answer might work against his point. But 2nd in class with 4 entrants...I think...
Positon 4 on the grid and 15 in the total group. why so negative. i said it was an unusual weekend. not the usual , 40 car field. |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13127472)
actually 1st in class with some great dicing with the transam car
Positon 4 on the grid and 15 in the total group. why so negative. i said it was an unusual weekend. not the usual , 40 car field. |
Originally Posted by 69gaugeman
(Post 13127478)
Sorry. No intention to be negative. You posted a lot of words without answering the question. That's all. When you write 'beat 3 of 4 cars' it can mean second or first.
|
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13127161)
Or you could go with the proven method used by the current bunch of Euro V8 performance cars. ITB's. Differing runner and bell dimensions for broader power band. MAP and throttle-position sensors. Better and multiple intake temp sensors. A slightly more, um, comprehensive engine management package. Variable valve timing. COP ignition.
:icon107: VEMS can do all the above mentioned things... hell, you could use a VEMS output to have variable length ITB trumpets via actuator... |
Mark...no doubt you are having fun....but to imagine that you are up against the best "pure" racers in the country is simply delusional.... You really are the Don Quixote of 928 racing. Defending the 928 honor against all challengers , ...perhaps I do not understand racing but I do know what it is like to be uncompetitive and so should YOU ! Only you can not admit it...... and by the way Dulcinea is a whore :) So you slowed down to let the trans-am car catch you so you could block him in the straights ??? And did the actual front runners LAP you in the race ? So you got some good video of them as they went by ?? Suddenly D E driving seems pretty comparable if the is really no one else out there running at your speeds....and yes I have done hundreds of timed laps :) Embarrassed lots of people in high dollar cars who were just learning to drive on track. All good fun but not world class by any stretch of the imagination. And Mark I only bring it up because I have found your posts to be very misleading about your relative success on track.....like typical podium finishes ...right if there are ONLY three cars in your class, everyone is a "podium finish" .... When you post that you were" first in class and fourth over al"l makes asking how many a very fair question
And if your delta of improvement was ONLY .4 seconds four tens on a second you need not worry about G loading as that delta is insignificant....as far as loading in the corners and oil starvation. so cue up the song, Dancing with yourself and simply substitute "Racing with yourself" and it all makes sense. |
I'm looking in to ITB's as we speak. should be a fun summer project.
|
Speedmaster fuel injection has some neat BBC injection.... wonder if they sell just the throttle bodies ??
|
I've been taking to AT-Power, the same people Ake used. Figuring out runner length between the port and the TB is my current mathematical issue
|
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13127939)
I've been taking to AT-Power, the same people Ake used. Figuring out runner length between the port and the TB is my current mathematical issue
4v head is 85mm... where do you want your tuning "boost" to hit? to fill in a torque "dip", or to boost the high-end power (5-6k?) |
I'm thinking Mid range. from what i understand closer the the head you get more throttle response or "snap" as it were, and more top end. farther way is more mid range. being this will be a street car I'm thinking more mid range.
|
jim, the races ive raced over the years have had 60 car fields and over 20 cars in class. ive been on the podium for most all races over the last 10 years and always in the top 3 for the champioinship points. thsi is about having fun, but if one race doenst have a race for me, its not a lot of fun.. so i did slow up to race wtih a transam car. actually let him by and tailed him to the end to try out new lines and push the car. this was not a race. sure, i beat 3-4 cars in the class, but again, no one showed.. what part of that dont you understand.
yes,ive competed against, and beat some the pure races, all have done pretty well in the pro ranks as well with proper funding. mycar is about .5 seconds faster than my best, but the point of this was , that the better tires could fix about a 1 second deficit that ive been dealing with for the past 3 years. 1:37.xx best vs the 1:36s. the tires allowed me to run a 1:36 for 4 laps in a row. back to the race. yes, the leader did lap me .. only because i gave up two laps to let the transam car catch up. but, its simple math. you run 1:30 and i run 1:36, its a matter of time , (30mins) before you lap me. he was superproduction by the way. do you think when the prototypes LAP the GT classes it takes anything away from their abilities or the quality of the car? of course not! you are just being stupid now! :banghead: as far as the pictures and video. those were to show the g loading of the car and the 991 (red GT3) is just in front of me at turn 5 and it shows him not far up front at turn 11. he was running 1:34-5 and i was running 1:35-6. .. on brand new slicks that cost as a set , more than a used 928! (not to mention his 500hp as well) I agree with you .. ive never seen such a low car count and i dont care if im beating a bunch of close competitors.. if you are in front, its boring. better to have close racing and i admit.. this was not the race for it. it was just a good first outing for the car and great to see how "newer" tires feel on the car too. now it gives confidence going into the race weekend with POC at willow springs. so, lets be clear... ITE or there classes ive run and podium in , are usually between 10 and 20 cars, and thats easy to show if you really care. AND the time of 1:36, if you dont think thats pulling Gs, think about how the forces are different vs anderson with 200more hp running only 1 second faster. if that is the case, then the Gs im pulling have to be greater... its simple. when he ran his world challenge race without the 500hp, but 410hp, he ran 1:40 at the same weight as me (but lots of other advantages). i ran that same time with near 100 less hp! again, more g loading. So, lets look at the guys that have been in my races that ive raced with in a second a lap, and/or beat. pobst, richmond (wcTourning winer), gavin, (WCGT fast lap award), mumford. (WCGT winner), sofronas, Warren, davis, Assayan, and a bunch of others... when the ITE group was in its hayday from 2001 to 2009, there was a bunch of guys that took this very serously. i had very good luck and podiumed most every race and even won a few. this was some great racing and a heck of a great time. Jim, many of these races are on line, so you can go watch them to see if they meet your standards (for which you have NEVER raced and are just an arm chair quarterback here) . the point is the 928 is not an accepted race car. but we take pride in thinking its one of the best cars ever made, even though its 30 years old. but, i wave the 928 flag and show that the car is capable and does pretty well with some tweeks and for a lot less money, can race competitively in the current classes in the racing world TODAY, in club racing.
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13127874)
Mark...no doubt you are having fun....but to imagine that you are up against the best "pure" racers in the country is simply delusional.... You really are the Don Quixote of 928 racing. Defending the 928 honor against all challengers , ...perhaps I do not understand racing but I do know what it is like to be uncompetitive and so should YOU ! Only you can not admit it...... and by the way Dulcinea is a whore :) So you slowed down to let the trans-am car catch you so you could block him in the straights ??? And did the actual front runners LAP you in the race ? So you got some good video of them as they went by ?? Suddenly D E driving seems pretty comparable if the is really no one else out there running at your speeds....and yes I have done hundreds of timed laps :) Embarrassed lots of people in high dollar cars who were just learning to drive on track. All good fun but not world class by any stretch of the imagination. And Mark I only bring it up because I have found your posts to be very misleading about your relative success on track.....like typical podium finishes ...right if there are ONLY three cars in your class, everyone is a "podium finish" .... When you post that you were" first in class and fourth over al"l makes asking how many a very fair question
And if your delta of improvement was ONLY .4 seconds four tens on a second you need not worry about G loading as that delta is insignificant....as far as loading in the corners and oil starvation. so cue up the song, Dancing with yourself and simply substitute "Racing with yourself" and it all makes sense. |
Kibort, there you go with the "We" again!
|
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13129790)
Kibort, there you go with the "We" again!
so "we" might just mean "us" and not YOU! ;) |
So getting back to the real issue.....the improved intake. What about that Salsbury 4850 D modified as your intake plenum ??? It has been brought up several times already. Others have pointed out some of it's features.
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13133802)
So getting back to the real issue.....the improved intake. What about that Salsbury 4850 D modified as your intake plenum ??? It has been brought up several times already. Others have pointed out some of it's features.
what ever happened to the molds for threshie's intake. i had someone contact me with a price a few years ago, and i forgot who it was. although, i really think we can do this on top of the stock "u" and use near stock or modified components off that. (i.e. maybe larger MAF like joe fan and Marks, and oversized external throttle body.) another major gain, "if you want to race with the big fish" for POC racing, is that they penalize the larger HP , bigger engine heavier cars. pretty sad, but its the way they have been for many years. i fought and got some rules changed back in the early 2000s, but now, i have to go at it again, to change the GT class rules. basically, they are trying to help equalize the field by taking some of the flatter HP curve competitors engines, and bring them back down to that of a higher strung engine characteristic. so, they are averaging HP and torque.. im in dialog now to change that, but until then, this INTAKE PROJECT is a good one, as it will yield some great HP gains and get rid of the higher torque levels that are numerically higher than HP. Like my engine is 375rwhp and 405rwt, I would prefer it to be closer to 380 rwt at peak to get around this rule... otherwise, i compete with guys with the same hp weight ratio, but i have to add 100 more lbs to my car because my adjusted HP is now increased to 390rwhp, which it doesn't have the effects of having. (not to mention the close rato gear boxes for 911s that have the same advantage the are trying to equalize) |
http://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/image...es/rofl1fc.gif
So, can we channel this frustration and debate into putting something down on paper at least to design later??? |
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13133832)
http://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/image...es/rofl1fc.gif
So, can we channel this frustration and debate into putting something down on paper at least to design later??? |
You seem to have more free time from what I have seen on here with your bickering with Mark. I'm a little indisposed today. :D
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13133832)
http://www.forumosa.com/taiwan/image...es/rofl1fc.gif
So, can we channel this frustration and debate into putting something down on paper at least to design later??? I'll post all the technical drawings and solid model work that Hans is doing when I get done with my manifold in a month or two. Make it way easier for people to copy.... |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13134714)
I'll post all the technical drawings and solid model work that Hans is doing when I get done with my manifold in a month or two.
Make it way easier for people to copy.... |
Thanks for stepping up for the tooling costs, Mark! Greg does the design and modeling work with Hans, you pay for the tooling, soon we will all be able to get better intakes for cheap! Be sure to check the options box for interchangeable tooling for lower runner size options for us please.
|
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13136206)
Thanks for stepping up for the tooling costs, Mark! Greg does the design and modeling work with Hans, you pay for the tooling, soon we will all be able to get better intakes for cheap! Be sure to check the options box for interchangeable tooling for lower runner size options for us please.
Nothing to it! |
This is starting to sound good so far. :)
|
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13136305)
And options for smaller plenums, different plenum "tops" for the smaller runners, smaller intake stubs to accept the smaller runners, and smaller throttle body openings.
Nothing to it! lets take the first step and get SOMETHING rolling for replacing the stock intake! :):icon107: |
I think runner size and diameter is very important for the velocity of air flow in the cylinders. Assuming that Greg's manifold uses bigger runners because the intake side of the heads were ported, there will be flow issues when adapting this to stock, un-ported heads.
Greg is correct that the runners may need to be smaller if they are for a 5.0 motor, and should match the intake ports. For the taper, I don't see any reason to change it. |
Enough fricking dreaming!
Just for sh!ts and giggles, let's go through the financial reality of a new intake, just for the dreamers....so everyone can understand what is involved. The numbers are the costs to produce....some of which are still just estimates, but certainly with-in 20%, either way. These prices are for pieces produced in the volume required for CNC people to program, design the tool paths, get the material, and turn on their machines.....a minimum of an initial run of approximately 10 units. Intake stubs to heads: $1200.00 Injectors: $400-$600 Dampers, fuel pressure regulator: $500 Fuel rails and mounts for rails: $250.00 Plumbing: $250 Throttle body: $500 Idle stabilizer $350 Throttle bellcrank, attachment, and cable mount, with new cable $500. Throttle switch and mounting for switch: $150+ Runners: $1000.00 Plenum "roof" $1200 Lower plenum: $750 Air filter system, with "Y" to throttle body $1000 Total estimate to produce (cost): $8150ea. Total investment $81,000. Add in an incredibly low profit margin of 30% (incredibly low by any manufacturing standards....with zero ceiling for resellers) Cost to consumers: $11,750. Note that this initial cost to produce and sell does not include any time to engineer, test, draw, solid model, etc. How many of you would like to order one and place a deposit? It sure would help my cash flow in making the first 10 units! And since I will be using your dollars for production costs, I can certainly reduce the profit margin to a meager 20%....so call the initial buy in at $10,000. Exactly! Now you should understand the problem. Like Jim Bailey said, he questions my sanity in doing this. I certainly would not be undertaking this project if I didn't have my own agenda and my own goals....the payback for all the engineering, design, and test time is....well..... NEVER! |
Just for grins, how fast does that come down with more units? Say 100 units, same profit margin?
(I'm not suggesting that it's practical to find 100 people who would pay for this, but while we're here in fantasyland... :) )
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13136412)
Enough fricking dreaming!
Just for sh!ts and giggles, let's go through the financial reality of a new intake, just for the dreamers....so everyone can understand what is involved. The numbers are the costs to produce....some of which are still just estimates, but certainly with-in 20%, either way. These prices are for pieces produced in the volume required for CNC people to program, design the tool paths, get the material, and turn on their machines.....a minimum of an initial run of approximately 10 units. Intake stubs to heads: $1200.00 Injectors: $400-$600 Dampers, fuel pressure regulator: $500 Fuel rails and mounts for rails: $250.00 Plumbing: $250 Throttle body: $500 Idle stabilizer $350 Throttle bellcrank, attachment, and cable mount, with new cable $500. Throttle switch and mounting for switch: $150+ Runners: $1000.00 Plenum "roof" $1200 Lower plenum: $750 Air filter system, with "Y" to throttle body $1000 Total estimate to produce (cost): $8150ea. Total investment $81,000. Add in an incredibly low profit margin of 30% (incredibly low by any manufacturing standards....with zero ceiling for resellers) Cost to consumers: $11,750. Note that this initial cost to produce and sell does not include any time to engineer, test, draw, solid model, etc. How many of you would like to order one and place a deposit? It sure would help my cash flow in making the first 10 units! And since I will be using your dollars for production costs, I can certainly reduce the profit margin to a meager 20%....so call the initial buy in at $10,000. Exactly! Now you should understand the problem. Like Jim Bailey said, he questions my sanity in doing this. I certainly would not be undertaking this project if I didn't have my own agenda and my own goals....the payback for all the engineering, design, and test time is....well..... NEVER! |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13129805)
regardless if you like what i do with the 928, there are plenty that take a little pride in the fact that its impressed a lot of people on the track and many that own them like the fact that the platform can do so much with so little modification.
so "we" might just mean "us" and not YOU! ;) If there is a we, whom exactly are these "we" s? Or are you hiding behind the "we" because you are too embarrassed to say "I"? You know, like a " We don't like your kind" statement. |
Originally Posted by bureau13
(Post 13136443)
Just for grins, how fast does that come down with more units? Say 100 units, same profit margin?
(I'm not suggesting that it's practical to find 100 people who would pay for this, but while we're here in fantasyland... :) ) I don't have the capital to invest in 100 units....even if the costs dropped by $400%. I'm a mechanic, not a trader.... |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13136539)
No idea...wouldn't even bother to think along these terms or ask.
I don't have the capital to invest in 100 units....even if the costs dropped by $400%. I'm a mechanic, not a trader.... |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13136445)
Using the "we" and "might" in the same sentence? It's either we or not we....there is no might.
If there is a we, whom exactly are these "we" s? Or are you hiding behind the "we" because you are too embarrassed to say "I"? You know, like a " We don't like your kind" statement. |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13136412)
Enough fricking dreaming!
Just for sh!ts and giggles, let's go through the financial reality of a new intake, just for the dreamers....so everyone can understand what is involved. The numbers are the costs to produce....some of which are still just estimates, but certainly with-in 20%, either way. These prices are for pieces produced in the volume required for CNC people to program, design the tool paths, get the material, and turn on their machines.....a minimum of an initial run of approximately 10 units. Intake stubs to heads: $1200.00 Injectors: $400-$600 Dampers, fuel pressure regulator: $500 Fuel rails and mounts for rails: $250.00 Plumbing: $250 Throttle body: $500 Idle stabilizer $350 Throttle bellcrank, attachment, and cable mount, with new cable $500. Throttle switch and mounting for switch: $150+ Runners: $1000.00 Plenum "roof" $1200 Lower plenum: $750 Air filter system, with "Y" to throttle body $1000 Total estimate to produce (cost): $8150ea. Total investment $81,000. Add in an incredibly low profit margin of 30% (incredibly low by any manufacturing standards....with zero ceiling for resellers) Cost to consumers: $11,750. Note that this initial cost to produce and sell does not include any time to engineer, test, draw, solid model, etc. How many of you would like to order one and place a deposit? It sure would help my cash flow in making the first 10 units! And since I will be using your dollars for production costs, I can certainly reduce the profit margin to a meager 20%....so call the initial buy in at $10,000. Exactly! Now you should understand the problem. Like Jim Bailey said, he questions my sanity in doing this. I certainly would not be undertaking this project if I didn't have my own agenda and my own goals....the payback for all the engineering, design, and test time is....well..... NEVER! and my idea of using carl's type of lower intake $1200 his trumpets $500 his fuel rails (or finding a way to use the stock fuel rail would be good) $500 fabrication of a box around it al $1500 (for labor and material) used lower plennum, throttle body and MAF and airbox (free) use existing throttle cable (free) (anderson /fan used a lot of the stock stuff) (marginal costs) for a 30 second look total of about $4k |
You may want to look at other options for a TB. Perhaps even something from GM or Ford that can be adapted using some aluminum tubing to our factory airboxes.
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13136971)
You may want to look at other options for a TB. Perhaps even something from GM or Ford that can be adapted using some aluminum tubing to our factory airboxes.
|
I think a TB with 85-90mm diameter may be sufficient flow for a stock 5.0. I don't know about anything larger like a 6.5L stroker 928.
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13137007)
I think a TB with 85-90mm diameter may be sufficient flow for a stock 5.0. I don't know about anything larger like a 6.5L stroker 928.
anderson hogged out his stock throttle body and hogged out the intake and got 0 gains. the losses are ALL in the intake plennum and runners. i remember when the 500hp vets of wcgt were given 40% restrictors. their straight line speed was only reduced by 3mph at sears point ( Mclclure's vet) the gains are in the intake.. lots to be made there! |
God I know I am going to get flamed for this, but there are universal 90mm throttle bodies on ebay. Could be worth a try for a prototype. Of course, by default, an adapter will need to be made to fit the 928 TPS.
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13136971)
You may want to look at other options for a TB. Perhaps even something from GM or Ford that can be adapted using some aluminum tubing to our factory airboxes.
That $500 is for an "off the shelf" throttle body. My cost. If I purchase $5000 worth, I can get a 20% discount. I'm doubting I'll need 10 throttle bodies anytime soon....and I'd like to do some more testing before jumping off that ledge. |
Not practical from an accounting perspective let alone for inventory and space. ;)
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13137300)
God I know I am going to get flamed for this, but there are universal 90mm throttle bodies on ebay. Could be worth a try for a prototype. Of course, by default, an adapter will need to be made to fit the 928 TPS.
Not everything from the lowest bidder always works. |
Space availablity for throttle body turns out to be a factor. |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13137378)
Space availablity for throttle body turns out to be a factor.
Not everything from the lowest bidder always works. |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13136966)
there might be a lower cost direction.
and my idea of using carl's type of lower intake $1200 his trumpets $500 his fuel rails (or finding a way to use the stock fuel rail would be good) $500 fabrication of a box around it al $1500 (for labor and material) used lower plennum, throttle body and MAF and airbox (free) use existing throttle cable (free) (anderson /fan used a lot of the stock stuff) (marginal costs) for a 30 second look total of about $4k Since you've never purchased anything from me...you would have no way of knowing the following: Everything I make has been carefully engineered and tested. It comes complete with instructions and the pieces required for installation. In short: It fits and it works. I don't cobble anything together and send it off, hoping that the purchaser can make it fit and work. (Did you follow Sean, in Texas, trying to install one of Carl's supercharger kits and intercooler?) I don't make up power claims that no one could ever achieve. I deal in super conservative power output claims....something that anyone, anywhere can duplicate at a minimum. (Did you follow the thread about my '85/'86 headers where I tried to duplicate Porken's results from his '85/'86 chips.....which I still can not even get close to duplicating...two years and a half a dozen installs later?) I don't make cr@p or sell bullsh!t. I make and sell pieces of automotive art. I make only the very best stuff that I can create. What I make is not for everyone....I understand and actually appreciate that. Fortunately, there's a very large group of 928 people who do want the very best they can buy.....something that they know will fit and will work as promised. Those are my clientele. |
Mark--
From a long-ago thought process, when a client's internal engineering group claimed that they could easily duplicate my performance results for half the money doing it themselves... I asked why they hadn't done so already. There was a pretty impresive amount of operating cost reduction on the table, a couple commas-worth annualy, so it was an important question. Ask yourself the same question now -- if there's a lower-cost direction you could take with off-the-shelf parts, go ahead and do it. Many are interested, if you can truly get it to work. How many horsepower do you think it would add to my stone-stock 5L S4? Rather, how many horsepower will you guarantee it will add to my stone-stock S4? That will be key to the "many". Folks like to take a look at the outside of something, mentally try to break it down into bite-size chunks, and say to themselves "I could do that!". In some cases they may be able to. It's way easier to copy someone's work than it is to reverse-engineer your own. I get that from your comments about only wanting something that's "proven." Can you reverse-engineer (working to a goal without having seen the existing method) a performance intake yourself out of shelf-stocked parts? Make money selling them at $4k? So go ahead and make one yourself. You have the advantage of seeing other efforts, some that work better than others. How much and why do some work better? Perhaps for your race-only car, random curly belled sections of big tubing stuffed in a box will get the job done for you. There's a lot more to it than that, trust me. |
Which is one of the reasons I keep bring up that Salsbury 5150 D an aluminum extrusion made to specific government specifications.....Greg had questioned if it is the proper size but given the price point certainly deserves at least some consideration... the arched roof design would work well with curved intake runners the flat floor would adapt easily to the double toilet bowl S-4 throttle body !! There has to be a simple solution and I am as simple as anyone :) Kibort's fellow "pure" racers have attested to that !!! as they declared , Who is that idiot ??
|
Not really wanting to add to this debate but one of the few things I can contribute here is to add another data point for development cost / efforts needed to produce a working alternate intake.
Back in 2007, I was working with BC Gerolamy and asked Gerolamy to take on a set of 928 4V heads. I had acquired a core/distressed 928GT engine with the idea of doing an end to end development. After hours of air flow modeling, Gerolamy started work on a pair of heads. Working the heads turned out the be the easy part. As we achieved results with the heads alone, we turned our attention to getting the heads coupled to an upstream throttle design. ITBs vs. various manifolds were modeled. We flowed the stock S4 manifold in many variations (with flappy, flappy blocked, throttle off the each plenum, re-shaping/re-sizing the throttle plate. As all of us know, there's not much "real estate" under the 928 hood. With this as a known design limiter, we really took to the idea of developing a manifold that would fit within the valley of the V8. Gerolamy and I made several sketches of the conceptualized manifold. Like others on this board, the basic design is similar to what's discussed today. What stopped me was the fabrication / testing costs. As evidence to get to having good engineering behind drafting some sketches, I had spent over $2000 on flow bench work. I have lots of good data from the set of heads I worked with Gerolamy but never got to a working manifold that would let the head work as a system. Bottomline... That manifold prototype was estimated at $8000 - $8500 just for the fab. That did not include rails, the throttle body(s), etc. I hope this assists those who think these one off would be cheap. YMMV |
Correct big money to make one JUST to see if it WORKS !! If not discard and start another prototype ! And those were 2007 dollars too :) Sometimes reality sucks !!
|
Yeah, the reality did bite ! I would have liked to have finished that engine.
The air flow modelling looked great. Bringing that model into a working engine just got too $$$ to simply see if the one engine worked... other issue was 100+ degree cooling... but lets not get started on that challenge. |
Jim, are you sure you couldn't use some off-the-shelf parts from a Mustang? That should bring the costs down to maybe $4k? Seems like all this work has been done before, just needs to be adapted to fit the small-block Ford pieces to our big-block 928 engines. They are about the same displacement, so maybe just a few adapter pieces would get it all to work.
.... :icon107: |
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13138214)
Jim, are you sure you couldn't use some off-the-shelf parts from a Mustang? That should bring the costs down to maybe $4k? Seems like all this work has been done before, just needs to be adapted to fit the small-block Ford pieces to our big-block 928 engines. They are about the same displacement, so maybe just a few adapter pieces would get it all to work, so you could make another 100 horsepower.
.... :icon107: |
Jim, are you sure you couldn't use some off-the-shelf parts from a Mustang? |
:corn:
|
Back when Andy Keel was pondering how to fit the Jaguar Supercharger onto the 928 he was in the office at 928 International and I actually showed him what the 930 turbo manifold looked like and even had the short phenolic tiny port adapter......that was his light bulb moment !! That lead to the "pancake" intake. While the first iterations were rather crude it did prove that it WORKED !! was it optimal ? probably NOT but it WORKED.
|
Greg's manifold will be a really nice piece. I happen to have an inside scoop on lots of the design features, and it will be about as far as you can go with a fabricated manifold. Lots of thought have gone into just about every part... its amazing how many vendors, suppliers, and manufacturers its going to take to make this a reality.
I have looked at doing the manifolds myself in the past. Its not so much a matter of design challenge, but it is expensive to do it right. My basic raw costs were going to be well into the $17k range to produce just the initial small batch of the manifolds (no rails, throttle, hardware... etc). You cant run any of these parts in small numbers. For those that want a cheap manifold, there are the parts to assemble them yourself, but be prepared to spend a lot of time evaluating all the ancillary components. The physical manifold is just one small part. You have to think about plumbing (AIC, breather, vacuum), fuel system (stock rails wont likely work without extensive modification), throttle actuation, throttle position switch adapter, air filtration.... theres a lot of upstream and downstream costs that are not obvious until you sit down and plan the entire project. I highly encourage others to try the project. We all learn more when people try new directions. However, I do think that the "trying" part is severely lacking in this thread. I see lots of typing, but almost no constructive posts. If you want a manifold, and are willing to invest the time and money, post some dimensional drawings, some sketches, some valid part numbers for the support parts you plan on using. I have been very transparent in my lower manifold design thread about how I would implement those parts, listed cost effective injectors that match our engines well, and made available affordable components (fuel rails and flanges) previously not available to the community. It took me over a year to actually sell the first batch. There are lots of talented, dedicated people in this community. Support these people, and the parts will come. Now get out in the garage, and start measuring engines, do some math, get some solid design requirements, and start planning. You don't have to be a fabricator, make your plenum out of posterboard with scissors and tape, its a perfect template for later. Use heater hose with a stiff wire attached with tape to simulate your runners so you can make a bend table. If you can mock it up, then you can figure out what it will take to make it functional. |
Mongo and Kibort at it again, time to put your keyboards down and either get your wallets out and/or start getting your hands dirty for a change. This bench racing BS that the two of you is doing needs to be physically built by YOU becuase neither of you have or will have the money to commission it or find someone that will put their name behind your "designs".
Edit: Was typing the same time as Hans. |
Originally Posted by GlenL
(Post 13100762)
Interesting. It'd be very practical (doable and cheap) to take an early intake spider, shorten the legs and widen the plenum. People have done some very interesting work in head porting as well. Add port-matching, too.
So if the length from plenum to valve is ~16" then the resonance is 4700rpm. I see 4400 on my dyno runs. If it was at 5500rpm that'd be better so add 1.5" to each side of the plenum. A plastic or composite unit would look pretty cool. I added this a while back with zero response. It'd work for the older cars. Maybe not a huge power increase but it'd raise the torque peak RPM and help balance exhaust mods. A step up would be shortening the legs, welding on bell-mouths and putting a sheet-metal plenum around it all. With the legs being their own flanges and separate parts already there's an easier path to intake mods than for the later cars. |
My summer project is to do a ITB set up for my 16v. lining up and making lists of all the parts and systems needed to make that work will be insane. But I'm going to do it. Yes it sure is going to cost me. its it a dumb idea for the money/time=HP output ? for sure.
And i will share that adventure when i have some parts in hand. |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 13139025)
Greg's manifold will be a really nice piece. I happen to have an inside scoop on lots of the design features, and it will be about as far as you can go with a fabricated manifold. Lots of thought have gone into just about every part... its amazing how many vendors, suppliers, and manufacturers its going to take to make this a reality.
I have looked at doing the manifolds myself in the past. Its not so much a matter of design challenge, but it is expensive to do it right. My basic raw costs were going to be well into the $17k range to produce just the initial small batch of the manifolds (no rails, throttle, hardware... etc). You cant run any of these parts in small numbers. For those that want a cheap manifold, there are the parts to assemble them yourself, but be prepared to spend a lot of time evaluating all the ancillary components. The physical manifold is just one small part. You have to think about plumbing (AIC, breather, vacuum), fuel system (stock rails wont likely work without extensive modification), throttle actuation, throttle position switch adapter, air filtration.... theres a lot of upstream and downstream costs that are not obvious until you sit down and plan the entire project. I highly encourage others to try the project. We all learn more when people try new directions. However, I do think that the "trying" part is severely lacking in this thread. I see lots of typing, but almost no constructive posts. If you want a manifold, and are willing to invest the time and money, post some dimensional drawings, some sketches, some valid part numbers for the support parts you plan on using. I have been very transparent in my lower manifold design thread about how I would implement those parts, listed cost effective injectors that match our engines well, and made available affordable components (fuel rails and flanges) previously not available to the community. It took me over a year to actually sell the first batch. There are lots of talented, dedicated people in this community. Support these people, and the parts will come. Now get out in the garage, and start measuring engines, do some math, get some solid design requirements, and start planning. You don't have to be a fabricator, make your plenum out of posterboard with scissors and tape, its a perfect template for later. Use heater hose with a stiff wire attached with tape to simulate your runners so you can make a bend table. If you can mock it up, then you can figure out what it will take to make it functional. At this point, this manifold is a joint effort, with Hans being the design team leader. Sure, I've got basic design stuff in a prototype stage. And he will work with me and change anything I want changed. And I've got final design approval responsibility. However, his ideas and grasp of the intraction of the various pieces blows me away. Truthfully, it's a very rare person who out thinks me....but he comes up with stuff every single day that blows me away. Today, it's finding a pressure regulator that can deal with the volume of the 044 fuel pump delivery rate, when the engine isn't using huge amounts of fuel....I would have only considered that, once it raised its ugly head! In short, while it may feed the ego to think of this effort as "my" manifold, nothing can be further from the truth. The end product will be possible only because of Hans and his visions and ability. He's an amazing talent! |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13139044)
Mongo and Kibort at it again, time to put your keyboards down and either get your wallets out and/or start getting your hands dirty for a change. This bench racing BS that the two of you is doing needs to be physically built by YOU because neither of you have or will have the money to commission it or find someone that will put their name behind your "designs".
Edit: Was typing the same time as Hans. |
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 13139025)
...........
I highly encourage others to try the project. We all learn more when people try new directions. ....... Now get out in the garage, and start measuring engines, do some math, get some solid design requirements, and start planning. You don't have to be a fabricator, make your plenum out of posterboard with scissors and tape, its a perfect template for later. Use heater hose with a stiff wire attached with tape to simulate your runners so you can make a bend table. If you can mock it up, then you can figure out what it will take to make it functional. |
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13139228)
Do you need to borrow a scrub brush to get the sand out of your vagina this morning again? Tell you what. Kibort can do whatever the hell he wants. If he wants to participate in the effort and can source it for mass production and drop 5 figures into the tooling, he can go ahead. I don't recall 'bench racing' my builds either, even in high school and college when I was dropping Suzuki ITBs in Integras and getting paid to do it for the gains the cars made when tuned right. But nevermind that now since you assume some of us on here have to bow our heads to a bitter man such as you when you are on your 'off' days. I will continue to give advice as I read it in the books sitting in my library to those who can put it to good use.
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13139405)
Awesome post !! the image in my mind of cardboard, Duct tape and heater hose is.......priceless !! Clearly the Salsbury 4850 D is a far more substantial design....
|
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13139044)
Mongo and Kibort at it again, time to put your keyboards down and either get your wallets out and/or start getting your hands dirty for a change. This bench racing BS that the two of you is doing needs to be physically built by YOU becuase neither of you have or will have the money to commission it or find someone that will put their name behind your "designs".
Edit: Was typing the same time as Hans. Last time i looked i was the ONLY one racing the 928 serously. and have fixed more things on the 928 that is humanly possible, with the help of this list by the way. as far as my ability to build one. sure, im not the scientist here. But, i can put the thing on and know what is needed to be done to keep the engine safe, as i have for the last 30 years against all odds from guys like you. how many engines have you built for yourself? for others? how many races have you run? you get into a D--K measuring contest with me and you will lose on all counts. ;) |
D--K measuring contest? WTF you guys... it's Good Friday today. NOT HUMP DAY.
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13139554)
......Last time i looked i was the ONLY one racing the 928 serously. and have fixed more things on the 928 that is humanly possible, ....as far as my ability to build one. sure, im not the scientist here. ........ you get into a D--K measuring contest with me and you will lose on all counts. ;)
Sure it takes an ego to get on track but at some point it is a bit beyond anything healthy..... |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13139554)
Last time i looked i was the ONLY one racing the 928 serously. and have fixed more things on the 928 that is humanly possible, with the help of this list by the way.
You don't pay attention. You are inhuman. Proofread a bit, too. Okay? |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13139178)
Hans is amazing to work with. His attention to details and ability to see the whole picture is uncanny.
At this point, this manifold is a joint effort, with Hans being the design team leader. Sure, I've got basic design stuff in a prototype stage. And he will work with me and change anything I want changed. And I've got final design approval responsibility. However, his ideas and grasp of the intraction of the various pieces blows me away. Truthfully, it's a very rare person who out thinks me....but he comes up with stuff every single day that blows me away. Today, it's finding a pressure regulator that can deal with the volume of the 044 fuel pump delivery rate, when the engine isn't using huge amounts of fuel....I would have only considered that, once it raised its ugly head! In short, while it may feed the ego to think of this effort as "my" manifold, nothing can be further from the truth. The end product will be possible only because of Hans and his visions and ability. He's an amazing talent! thats interesting.... what is the problem of the 044 pump and why is that a concern? isnt it a power related situation? seems the pump has had no issues running 335rwhp at 70psi or 375rwhp /420rwt with 37psi. by just rough calculations, why couldnt the pump handle what is expected from the 50-75hp gain on a stock 928S4.. after all, its just matching the mass flow of the air and it doesnt know if its a 6.5 liter or has pressure drop reductions on a S4 intake that gives the same flow density, right? also, what is the problem with our fuel rails.. isnt there a way to use them on a after market lower intake manifold? obviously, there were ALL these changes with Mark and Joes effots with their CF intake. they even were bridging the plenums with what looked like a garden hose... mafs made from 4" pvc pipe, merge pipes made from sewer drains, etc. it ran fab! the failure was when things cracked and it went lean, not that the 044 pump was at fault, or was there an upgrade there too. i dont remember. |
Good news Kibort, Home Depot has the Salsbury 4850 D too !!!
|
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13137490)
Mark:
Since you've never purchased anything from me...you would have no way of knowing the following: Everything I make has been carefully engineered and tested. It comes complete with instructions and the pieces required for installation. In short: It fits and it works. I don't cobble anything together and send it off, hoping that the purchaser can make it fit and work. (Did you follow Sean, in Texas, trying to install one of Carl's supercharger kits and intercooler?) I don't make up power claims that no one could ever achieve. I deal in super conservative power output claims....something that anyone, anywhere can duplicate at a minimum. (Did you follow the thread about my '85/'86 headers where I tried to duplicate Porken's results from his '85/'86 chips.....which I still can not even get close to duplicating...two years and a half a dozen installs later?) I don't make cr@p or sell bullsh!t. I make and sell pieces of automotive art. I make only the very best stuff that I can create. What I make is not for everyone....I understand and actually appreciate that. Fortunately, there's a very large group of 928 people who do want the very best they can buy.....something that they know will fit and will work as promised. Those are my clientele. and i understand, you are the gold standard . (as hard as it is to admit, i think you do make work of art components and great engine builds! YOU DONT REPRESENT the entire list though! not all of us can afford a GB engine for $ 40-60k. remember, and PLEASE dont take this out of context, but this list is made up of folks that want the best wheel cleaner to those that want to make a flat crank for the 928! Its no secret what group i represent and try and help.. so, dont hate me because of my love affair and track record with the car! You have been entertaining and helpful over the years and somehow we got derailed during racing, oiling and INT plate discussions. i appreciate the rod off set angle discusions... you helping me with my radiaotor leaks in the side tanks, and a host of other topics... I will always be grateful for the help and how it helped others on the list. So, as far as this modification goes. I know very little of what it takes to build something custom, but i have some sound ideas. go shoot them down.. if they are not sound, i want to know why. remember many said the things i did when i first modified my 928, that it would NEVER work.. even published , acknowledged experts , like probst. But, i love using sound logic and small changes to prove others wrong to the benefit of the 928 community. all those thigns i did WORKED and have worked welll over the years. so dont hate me because im not an artist. embrace the bottom feeders of the craft, that get the job done and push these cars to the limit against all odds. off soap box. :corn::icon107::biggulp::bigbye: |
I'd love to know what Kiborts GP/Specialist has prescribed for him medication wise.
|
The 044 pump is a great piece of hardware. It actually flows way more than any NA 928 will need. The extra output of this pump has to go somwhere, so a properly designed return system is required. A restriction in the return, say an improperly sized fuel pressure regulator, non radiused or undersized fittings create an impediment to flow. This will cause the pump to operate at a higher pressure and pull more current. Both of these add heat to the fuel, which can cause all sorts of issues.
A proper return system will allow the fuel to return back to the tank (through the cooler) and keep things where they need to be. Sizing the pump to the engine also solves this problem as well. in a situation like a "hot" 5L, the 044 may not be the best selection, perhaps the 040 would be a better fit. Like everything with something complex as an intake manifold revision, there are lots of factors you really have to consider, fuel being one of them. The factory rails are not really a poor design, they work well, and flow plenty. They are however "sculpted" around the factory manifold, and so changing that shape quickly makes the attached plumbing get in the way. The mounting tabs also will be hard to re-use in a symmetrical intake design - there is an illustration of this in my lower intake manifold thread. In the end, trying to reuse the stock rails will probably require trimming the hard lines and braising/soldering new fittings and relocating the mounts. At that point, its just easier to use new rails designed for purpose. In my measurement of several sets of factory rails, I also found variance in the tolerances and locations, and this could cause a problem with a precision machined part. The factory intake manifold has some very sloppy tolerances too, one reason for the massive over-sized injector o-rings and huge injector bores.... it allows for high axial misalignment of the injectors. In the end, if the goal is to improve things, its necessary to go the extra mile and do it right - consider the project as a whole and not a sum of many parts. |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13137313)
That $500 is for an "off the shelf" throttle body. My cost. If I purchase $5000 worth, I can get a 20% discount.
I'm doubting I'll need 10 throttle bodies anytime soon....and I'd like to do some more testing before jumping off that ledge.
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13137300)
God I know I am going to get flamed for this, but there are universal 90mm throttle bodies on ebay. Could be worth a try for a prototype. Of course, by default, an adapter will need to be made to fit the 928 TPS.
again, the stock throttle body is 88mm so, i dont think that is the issue. just use an 85 throttle body or euro 85 4.7 liter at 83mm. it has the TBS switch on it, and by the way, the TPS switch is not needed at idle. and does the S4 have a mid point engagment for TPS for richness or is it just at WOT? i forgot. thats easy stuff anyway. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by SeanR
(Post 13139660)
I'd love to know what Kiborts GP/Specialist has prescribed for him medication wise.
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13139009)
Back when Andy Keel was pondering how to fit the Jaguar Supercharger onto the 928 he was in the office at 928 International and I actually showed him what the 930 turbo manifold looked like and even had the short phenolic tiny port adapter......that was his light bulb moment !! That lead to the "pancake" intake. While the first iterations were rather crude it did prove that it WORKED !! was it optimal ? probably NOT but it WORKED.
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13138262)
Fixed it for you.
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13138214)
Jim, are you sure you couldn't use some off-the-shelf parts from a Mustang? That should bring the costs down to maybe $4k? Seems like all this work has been done before, just needs to be adapted to fit the small-block Ford pieces to our big-block 928 engines. They are about the same displacement, so maybe just a few adapter pieces would get it all to work.
.... |
An 80mm throttle is plenty large enough for a hot 5.0l, and 90mm plenty for a stroker. The factory throttle is not a restriction in the system. The two "ports" on the throttle casting have an approximate area of 8898mm^2 which equates to approximately a single 106mm orifice. Reusing the throttle certainly is possible with a single large plenum system. It is challenging though, retaining the MAF in that location, with a flat floor plenum. Curvature of the floor will be required.
Its not the easiest part to work around, but there is no "need" to replace it. In the end, its a toss-up to whether it saves money, as the fabrication to save it may exceed the cost of new more conventional throttle. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 13139720)
An 80mm throttle is plenty large enough for a hot 5.0l, and 90mm plenty for a stroker. The factory throttle is not a restriction in the system. The two "ports" on the throttle casting have an approximate area of 8898mm^2 which equates to approximately a single 106mm orifice. Reusing the throttle certainly is possible with a single large plenum system. It is challenging though retaining the MAF in that location with a flat floor plenum curvature in the floor will be required.
Its not the easiest part to work around, but there is no "need" to replace it. In the end, its a toss-up to whether it saves money, as the fabrication to save it may exceed the cost of new more conventional throttle. does anyone have a picture of the S4 lower intake "U" and TB combo? this drawing shows HUGE promise! its huge. its has big outlets for the plennum box, it incorporates the throttle body and MAF, thus air filter system too. bolt this thing to the bottom of carl's boxes and i think we have something! |
What a lengthy discussion about intakes!! Wow....
:eek: |
90% of it is cluster f**king actually.
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13139766)
90% of it is cluster f**king actually.
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13139728)
well, as i remember it, the TB is 3.5" and thats 88mm, so much to work with. euros are 3.3" , which is 85mm. TBs are there and available from our cars.
does anyone have a picture of the S4 lower intake "U" and TB combo? this drawing shows HUGE promise! its huge. its has big outlets for the plennum box, it incorporates the throttle body and MAF, thus air filter system too. bolt this thing to the bottom of carl's boxes and i think we have something! So here is the problem with that theory, it wont fit between Carl's intake stubs. The other issue is that all the plumbing that would would want to save will require the throttle to be located in its original position, which is about 4" lower than the floor of your proposed plenum. You would have to fabricate a duct that would connect those ports in the throttle casting up to the bottom of your plenum. Is it possible, sure. Is it going to be a pain to make that part, and expensive, absolutely. This is why I strongly, and respectfully, suggest you do some sketches with dimensions so you can see these problems with the concept. There are plenty of ways to make a manifold, and plenty of ways to get it to work, but this one is physically impossible to make as proposed in your post. |
Originally Posted by Mongo
90% of it is cluster f**king actually.
That's one reason I cut down on posting here. Others include cherishing the moments enjoying my fleet, family, and friends. I see that many things here are still the same, and I haven't missed much, other than the continuous drama. Best regards, |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by hans14914
(Post 13139783)
So here is the problem with that theory, it wont fit between Carl's intake stubs. The other issue is that all the plumbing that would would want to save will require the throttle to be located in its original position, which is about 4" lower than the floor of your proposed plenum. You would have to fabricate a duct that would connect those ports in the throttle casting up to the bottom of your plenum. Is it possible, sure. Is it going to be a pain to make that part, and expensive, absolutely.
This is why I strongly, and respectfully, suggest you do some sketches with dimensions so you can see these problems with the concept. There are plenty of ways to make a manifold, and plenty of ways to get it to work, but this one is physically impossible to make as proposed in your post. maybe the 968 guys have a maifold that is more vertical and allows for the room needed to put the stock TB and "U" below a fabricated box. then, the fabricated box is the only thing custom here. thats a LOT different than greg brown individually welding runners wtih $1000s of dollars of design and fab work that idea of mine is just the first pass. im sure there is a plennum out there that alows for a rear mounted TB , MAF and filter. heck, maybe it fits in the entire base of windshield area where the AC stuff is. (this would limit the design to race only , in otherwords) your not scaring me yet, but you bring up good points. now, we just need to mock something up |
Out of curiosity, what would you pay for a single plenum intake manifold? The design is easy, It would probably take me less than 4 hours starting from the models I already have. If that's all you want, and you don't want to go through lots of design revisions, I can make it. I make no claims that it will give you any better performance, but if that's what you want, and you are willing to pay for it up front, I can have one made in the next several weeks.
I do design and engineering on the side. If you want to hire me to make what you want, it can happen very quickly. Of course actually doing flow analysis, and complex modeling is a completely different story, but just a single-plenum manifold with arbitrary runner lengths... thats no problem. I can give you my paypal information today, and have the manufacturing files ready to go before Monday. |
Hans reality has no place in the latest chapter of our Don Quixote's rendition of the "Impossible Dream". Funny thing is you can pretty much take any of Kibort's posts and put them on any or all of the threads mix and match with no real differences. The overwhelming use of the pronoun I pretty much sums it up until the most recent appearance of we, as in the royal we. Interesting progression
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13139866)
Hans reality has no place in the latest chapter of our Don Quixote's rendition of the "Impossible Dream". Funny thing is you can pretty much take any of Kibort's posts and put them on any or all of the threads mix and match with no real differences. The overwhelming use of the pronoun I pretty much sums it up until the most recent appearance of we, as in the royal we. Interesting progression
Jim, success in life is to dream big..... that's served me well in life. you might want to lighten up a bit! dreams come true and this thing, project, whatever, is NOT rocket science. you want a REAL easy solution. just use ITBs and control the engine with motec. carl has it all. just put a few foam filters over each runner and you are done! an Jim.... why dont you make an consorted effort to contribute here, rather than put people down. or is that how you feel better? as for impossible dreams............... remember, making the 5 liter euro 2 valve, was supposed to be impossible, using euro cams on an 84, the AFM could not support 100hp gains with only a fuel reg, you cant space out brakes with a machined washer and use GTS rotors, you cant use cyanne rotors on a 84 928, you cant put assembly lube on the piston rings , even diluted with oil. you cant use that surface quality of the heads (holbert stroker build), you cant use that cosmetic gasket and not trim the tabs, you cant replace just the wheel bearing and not the inner race, or it will last 100miles and explode., you cant accidentally hone the 4.7 euro block ("its junk" and it wasnt) , you cant use the conti timing belt, the shifter arms cant get out of adjustment on the S4 trannie, you cant make 315s fit on the front of the 928, you cant use a bat to make a nice roll job and fit bigger tires, you cant race the 928 without accusump, breathers, crank scraper, oil baffle, pan spacer, newer oil pick up, etc etc etc. and the last one (but not least)...(and not last really).... no 928 has ever survived faster than a 1:32 at willow with stock oil components. your car cant break 1:40 at laguna at that hp level....on an on and on! Dream big Jim.. and these are not even dreams. they are just ideas! ;) I do think the low cost intake is a "Dream" and might even be a big dream, but nothing is impossible if you put your mind to it. |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13139607)
thats interesting.... what is the problem of the 044 pump and why is that a concern? isnt it a power related situation? seems the pump has had no issues running 335rwhp at 70psi or 375rwhp /420rwt with 37psi. by just rough calculations, why couldnt the pump handle what is expected from the 50-75hp gain on a stock 928S4.. after all, its just matching the mass flow of the air and it doesnt know if its a 6.5 liter or has pressure drop reductions on a S4 intake that gives the same flow density, right?
also, what is the problem with our fuel rails.. isnt there a way to use them on a after market lower intake manifold? obviously, there were ALL these changes with Mark and Joes effots with their CF intake. they even were bridging the plenums with what looked like a garden hose... mafs made from 4" pvc pipe, merge pipes made from sewer drains, etc. it ran fab! the failure was when things cracked and it went lean, not that the 044 pump was at fault, or was there an upgrade there too. i dont remember. If the pump delivers 320 liters/hour and the regulator only returns 200 liters/hour....if you aren't actively using the other 120 liters/hour, you are going to have problems. The pump either struggles as it gets restricted, or the pressure goes up....either way, the fuel temperature goes up and the life expectancy of the pump drops like a rock. |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13139980)
Simple stuff, but everything needs to be looked at and considered, when doing engineering of something new....or it turns out wrong.
If the pump delivers 320 liters/hour and the regulator only returns 200 liters/hour....if you aren't actively using the other 120 liters/hour, you are going to have problems. The pump either struggles as it gets restricted, or the pressure goes up....either way, the fuel temperature goes up and the life expectancy of the pump drops like a rock. what i do know is that mine has lasted 8 full seasons at 40psi and 375rwhp its the same pump that lasted 120 race days at 70psi as well. im sure that would be a relatively easy check, to make sure the pressure isnt too high at max restriction. what did mark and joe use for a regulator? |
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13139228)
Do you need to borrow a scrub brush to get the sand out of your vagina this morning again? Tell you what. Kibort can do whatever the hell he wants. If he wants to participate in the effort and can source it for mass production and drop 5 figures into the tooling, he can go ahead. I don't recall 'bench racing' my builds either, even in high school and college when I was dropping Suzuki ITBs in Integras and getting paid to do it for the gains the cars made when tuned right. But nevermind that now since you assume some of us on here have to bow our heads to a bitter man such as you when you are on your 'off' days. I will continue to give advice as I read it in the books sitting in my library to those who can put it to good use.
I see how carefully you've chosen the word "dropping Suzuki ITBs" to give the illusion you actually built something. Anyone can install (drop) anything if someone else made them fit. |
i still don't get it.. why are you so angry? cant you just kick your dog or something?
;):banghead:
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13140455)
Personal attacks, very nice. My guess is you got soft in the military and lost the abity to do things yourself without someone holding your hand. However, learned to recite books and give theoretical advices based on ZERO first hand knowledge.
I see how carefully you've chosen the word "dropping Suzuki ITBs" to give the illusion you actually built something. Anyone can install (drop) anything if someone else made them fit. |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13139885)
Is Jim's alter ego, Imo?
Jim, success in life is to dream big..... that's served me well in life. you might want to lighten up a bit! dreams come true and this thing, project, whatever, is NOT rocket science. you want a REAL easy solution. just use ITBs and control the engine with motec. carl has it all. just put a few foam filters over each runner and you are done! an Jim.... why dont you make an consorted effort to contribute here, rather than put people down. or is that how you feel better? as for impossible dreams............... remember, making the 5 liter euro 2 valve, was supposed to be impossible, using euro cams on an 84, the AFM could not support 100hp gains with only a fuel reg, you cant space out brakes with a machined washer and use GTS rotors, you cant use cyanne rotors on a 84 928, you cant put assembly lube on the piston rings , even diluted with oil. you cant use that surface quality of the heads (holbert stroker build), you cant use that cosmetic gasket and not trim the tabs, you cant replace just the wheel bearing and not the inner race, or it will last 100miles and explode., you cant accidentally hone the 4.7 euro block ("its junk" and it wasnt) , you cant use the conti timing belt, the shifter arms cant get out of adjustment on the S4 trannie, you cant make 315s fit on the front of the 928, you cant use a bat to make a nice roll job and fit bigger tires, you cant race the 928 without accusump, breathers, crank scraper, oil baffle, pan spacer, newer oil pick up, etc etc etc. and the last one (but not least)...(and not last really).... no 928 has ever survived faster than a 1:32 at willow with stock oil components. your car cant break 1:40 at laguna at that hp level....on an on and on! Dream big Jim.. and these are not even dreams. they are just ideas! ;) I do think the low cost intake is a "Dream" and might even be a big dream, but nothing is impossible if you put your mind to it. |
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13140494)
What "putting people down"??? There you go with the "we" again! It's only you. I only saw him putting YOU down. :)
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13140052)
that would not be good. so would you say the limitation for HP is around 400rwhp or higher? It sounds like the fuel regulation has some return line issues, and i know mine is different than the one Gregory uses on his 6liter, but could mine be able to keep up?
what i do know is that mine has lasted 8 full seasons at 40psi and 375rwhp its the same pump that lasted 120 race days at 70psi as well. im sure that would be a relatively easy check, to make sure the pressure isnt too high at max restriction. what did mark and joe use for a regulator? Mark and Joseph used an 044 pump with a stock regulator. I have no idea what the stock S4 regulator return flow rate is, but it seems to work fine on many cars. However, when making wholesale changes in basic design, the position of the stock regulator becomes problematic.....there's no room for it where it originally was located. Also, the plumbing needs to change. There's boatloads of different ways to solve this problem....move the stock regulator somewhere else, use a more modern regulator, are just a couple of options. Right now, we have not sent the fuel rail final design off to have them made...so we can do any number of things....and those details need to be considered. |
Going through this thread and fantasizing what the upcoming manifold could be based on Greg's and Hans' statements are making me want to keep my '89 white S4 around to be the privileged few who are allowed to purchase a setup like this.
Imagine, this manifold, paired with Greg's exhaust system.... C'mon, no more teasing. Please! |
It's pretty epic. Being able to see the progress of this manifold in person, makes me want to swap a 32v in to my car........ It's going to be a game changer
|
Although not yet April fools day .....the Salsbury 4850 D has clearly pointed out that "debating" with Kibort is pointless..... not because he is right or just or honorable simple so self immersed that it matters little what anyone else posts . And MOST IMPORTANT always has to make the last post :) since in his mind the last post WINS !!!
|
Hey Ducman, may I have dibs on your 5.0 euro hybrid?!
;) |
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13140895)
It's pretty epic. Being able to see the progress of this manifold in person, makes me want to swap a 32v in to my car........ It's going to be a game changer
Regardless of how insigificant and mundane Kibort thinks it is....finally being able to make real, reliable, repeatable, no "hoops" to jump through to dyno it, anybody's dyno can measure it because the "tightest" dyno Greg can find on the planet confirms it, no bullsh!t, no excuses, 500hp out of a naturally aspirated 928 street engine is going to be a great step forward, in my mind. Wait until you see what we do with it. It's going to knock your socks off! |
I might "borrow" one of the many. Blocks laying around your shop.... :-)
|
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13140974)
Yes!
Regardless of how insigificant and mundane Kibort thinks it is....finally being able to make real, reliable, repeatable, no "hoops" to jump through to dyno it, anybody's dyno can measure it because the "tightest" dyno Greg can find on the planet confirms it, no bullsh!t, no excuses, 500hp out of a naturally aspirated 928 street engine is going to be a great step forward, in my mind. Wait until you see what we do with it. It's going to knock your socks off! |
2 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13140897)
Although not yet April fools day .....the Salsbury 4850 D has clearly pointed out that "debating" with Kibort is pointless..... not because he is right or just or honorable simple so self immersed that it matters little what anyone else posts . And MOST IMPORTANT always has to make the last post :) since in his mind the last post WINS !!!
I just bolted this on. seems to give an extra 50hp.. going to the village dyno where the oerators change the weights of the drums so it produces 15 % more power! ;) Jim, you seem to be on the same agry medicine that Imo000 is on. I dont know where you got that this is going to be easy. we know gregs intake will be done right, MY ONLY point is that we might be able to cobble something together that works. (albeit not as well) I haven't got a CLUE if there is enough room for the stock 'U', but, im hopeful, not sure, we can make something work |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13142434)
can you post what the salsbury 4850 looks like ?
I just bolted this on. seems to give an extra 50hp.. going to the village dyno where the oerators change the weights of the drums so it produces 15 % more power! ;) Jim, you seem to be on the same agry medicine that Imo000 is on. I dont know where you got that this is going to be easy. we know gregs intake will be done right, MY ONLY point is that we might be able to cobble something together that works. (albeit not as well) I haven't got a CLUE if there is enough room for the stock 'U', but, im hopeful, not sure, we can make something work Mark, it's really sad you don't get this entire intake manifold "thing"....on so many different levels. I'm tempted to buy you a Salsbury 4850D plenum, just so you can start working on it and see how difficult this whole proposition actually is. |
No anger on my part just observations, comments about behavior, level of understanding, social skills and misleading statements. Oh and Carl gets $1,925 for his intake runners which blows a big hole in your projected budget.....
|
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13140974)
Yes!
Regardless of how insigificant and mundane Kibort thinks it is....finally being able to make real, reliable, repeatable, no "hoops" to jump through to dyno it, anybody's dyno can measure it because the "tightest" dyno Greg can find on the planet confirms it, no bullsh!t, no excuses, 500hp out of a naturally aspirated 928 street engine is going to be a great step forward, in my mind. Wait until you see what we do with it. It's going to knock your socks off!
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13140694)
No, I'm saying that components need to be carefully chosen so that they all work together.
Mark and Joseph used an 044 pump with a stock regulator. I have no idea what the stock S4 regulator return flow rate is, but it seems to work fine on many cars. However, when making wholesale changes in basic design, the position of the stock regulator becomes problematic.....there's no room for it where it originally was located. Also, the plumbing needs to change. There's boatloads of different ways to solve this problem....move the stock regulator somewhere else, use a more modern regulator, are just a couple of options. Right now, we have not sent the fuel rail final design off to have them made...so we can do any number of things....and those details need to be considered. and i have done some non -conventional changes, especially with the 5 liter euro set ups on the 2 valvers. instead of buying two expensive regulators as i had on my version, i would just clamp off the return line on the other regulator and use the adjustable to control pressure. it seemed to work. but we are only talking 290rwhp here, not 500. but still, taking something that was normally putting 175rwhp and gaining 115rwhp, is a pretty good achievement in my book. Not the optimal Greg Brown way of doing things, but still works and was safe. |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13142561)
No anger on my part just observations, comments about behavior, level of understanding, social skills and misleading statements. Oh and Carl gets $1,925 for his intake runners which blows a big hole in your projected budget.....
I think its you that really has a lack of understanding, especially in the racing areas. that is for sure. social skills? really, have you read some of your posts? the ones where you say, you "pity" me.. Jim, seriously. do some sole searching and figure out what is making you so angry. LOTS of projection going on here Jim! Nothing ive ever said on the subject is fact Jim, they are just ideas. thats all. want to see if its possible, if it isnt, then we will all have to buy $12k intakes to take advangage of the gains by removing the stock intake. |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13142434)
can you post what the salsbury 4850 looks like ?
|
Originally Posted by GlenL
(Post 13142611)
It's roughly rectangular with a domed top.
I still want to see Daniel work his photoshop magic on it. |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13142561)
No anger on my part just observations, comments about behavior, level of understanding, social skills and misleading statements. Oh and Carl gets $1,925 for his intake runners which blows a big hole in your projected budget.....
"On exactly what engine and where is this supposed to fit? Because it sure as he!! doesn't fit this one! |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13142457)
LMAO.
Mark, it's really sad you don't get this entire intake manifold "thing"....on so many different levels. I'm tempted to buy you a Salsbury 4850D plenum, just so you can start working on it and see how difficult this whole proposition actually is. I have no clue or experience here and wouldnt take a chance on making one myself. Heck, look at Andresons experience with the CF intake.. that thing was basically a prototype. heck, it even "Breathed" like a reptile! it cracked at road america, right and leaned out a cylinder and toasted an engine. Ive VERY scared of this stuff. Now that i think about the money and work of putting the stroker in, to gain 50hp, maybe another 50-75 is worth double my share of the "lists" motor on my car! |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13142640)
.......
I have no clue or experience here and wouldnt take a chance on making one myself. .... |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13142640)
I just bolted the BMW stuff on and it ran fine! ;):burnout:
I have no clue or experience here and wouldnt take a chance on making one myself. Heck, look at Andresons experience with the CF intake.. that thing was basically a prototype. heck, it even "Breathed" like a reptile! it cracked at road america, right and leaned out a cylinder and toasted an engine. Ive VERY scared of this stuff. Now that i think about the money and work of putting the stroker in, to gain 50hp, maybe another 50-75 is worth double my share of the "lists" motor on my car! Yes, you will need to upgrade to an 044 fuel pump. Yes, it will require an "Alpha N" system and some tuning....but I'll have "base tuning" for a 6.5 liter engine that will be very close, before I send it. Yes, you will have to add in a wideband O2 sensor system, for tuning purposes....I'll even loan you that. If your current attitude is here to stay and you stay calm, I think I might be able to bribe Jim Corenman and Rob Edwards (with some good wine for Jim and a couple new scrub brushes for Rob to work on Minerva), to help tune your car over a cell phone "hot spot". Fair 'nough? |
WOW I am nearly speechless..... :) What a nice offer.
|
|
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13142636)
And since they are hand made one off pieces, they probably are going to fit like the supercharger intercooler that Sean had....
"On exactly what engine and where is this supposed to fit? Because it sure as he!! doesn't fit this one! As to the intakes, if Carl produced one that was kissed by God himself, gave us 200 HP on a 4.5 I'd still not touch it. |
Originally Posted by Daniel5691
(Post 13143038)
Nice touch with the flag - let's you know if the flappy's working or not. |
Originally Posted by SeanR
(Post 13143068)
You were being kind Greg, try four exhaust systems (Ed's, Morgan's) three shock systems, (not naming names) skid plates ( many ), harnesses (5 after telling customers to buy from him). The SC was a pre owned unit dicklick promised to support 100% so we could bury the hatchet and cost me 2 weeks of work time as he kept sending the wrong parts and I swear he did that on purpose.
As to the intakes, if Carl produced one that was kissed by God himself, gave us 200 HP on a 4.5 I'd still not touch it. You had way more patience than me....I gave up, long ago. |
|
Thanks Daniel. That's absolutely beautiful.
The perfect Salisbury Intake. |
Sorry, dick lick made me laugh. Brought back some old memories. Now back to solving this simple issue....
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13139607)
thats interesting.... what is the problem of the 044 pump and why is that a concern? isnt it a power related situation? seems the pump has had no issues running 335rwhp at 70psi or 375rwhp /420rwt with 37psi. by just rough calculations, why couldnt the pump handle what is expected from the 50-75hp gain on a stock 928S4.. after all, its just matching the mass flow of the air and it doesnt know if its a 6.5 liter or has pressure drop reductions on a S4 intake that gives the same flow density, right?
also, what is the problem with our fuel rails.. isnt there a way to use them on a after market lower intake manifold? obviously, there were ALL these changes with Mark and Joes effots with their CF intake. they even were bridging the plenums with what looked like a garden hose... mafs made from 4" pvc pipe, merge pipes made from sewer drains, etc. it ran fab! the failure was when things cracked and it went lean, not that the 044 pump was at fault, or was there an upgrade there too. i dont remember. I hate to get involved with all the online drama, but the fuel delivery system can be a big deal. I'm not an expert at this stuff, so I've been working on it for 6 years on my car and still learning. I'm shooting for reliable and durable 500 rwhp with my S4 and have experimented with many different approaches. I'm now running an -8 AN supply line to modified stock fuel rails, 52 lb-hr injectors, stock fuel regulator (switched from a Weldon A2040 last year), and dual 10mm return lines through 2 fuel coolers to a -10 AN line to the fuel cell. I'm running a Bosch 040 in-tank fuel pump, with a switched (boost controlled with manual override) external Bosch 044 external pump in parallel. Along the way, I've tried many different fuel pumps (with and without a fuel pump control), fuel pressure regulators, fuel filters, fuel injectors, fuel sumps, fuel pick-ups, and fuel lines. It takes lots of time and money (over $6000) to get things working well. And that's just a part of getting an engine performing at it's best. I applaud Greg for all his work with the 928 and appreciate all his efforts, along with Tim Murphy, Jim Morton, Marc Thomas, and the late Tom Cloutier. It's a small world we live in, and it take us all to get the most out of our cars. See http://928.jorj7.com/fuel for more info. __________________ George 90 S4 Grand Prix White (Murf #5) 94 GTS 5-Speed Midnight Blue 06 Cayenne S Havanna/Sand Beige (PASM) http://928.jorj7.com |
Well said George !! The thing about fabrication of mechanical parts is once it is done and someone else looks at it.....it all seems pretty simple, it looks "right" and almost easy. Thanks for sharing your experience.
|
To answer the question about using stock fuel rails: I do not have any issues with the volume. The 90 degree turns at both ends, to attach to the dampers and regulators, are extremely inconvenient for my use, since the dampers and regulators will no longer fit in the stock locations.
I may supply intake systems with just the basic intake, which will allow people to use their own injectors, dampers, rails, regulator, and plumbing. This would obviously keep the cost down and make sense on some of the more tame S4 applications, especially when people have already upgraded to larger injectors (24-30 pounders). For my own use, I'm trying to "clean" things up a bit, with modern ideas and components, when possible. |
Greg--
Is there a "relatively" convenient way to use a factory FPR at the rear of each fuel rail, with common supply from the front? Or will you need more pressure? It would seem that you could put the regulators almost anywhere conveninet back there, common up the return plumbing before the cooler, maybe using hard pipe. Or with hose and the regulators mounted to the firewall. Maybe parallel stock pumps, piped one to each rail, and a small balancing line at the front, for the highest output applications. |
Originally Posted by Daniel5691
(Post 13143038)
|
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13145229)
Greg--
Is there a "relatively" convenient way to use a factory FPR at the rear of each fuel rail, with common supply from the front? Or will you need more pressure? It would seem that you could put the regulators almost anywhere conveninet back there, common up the return plumbing before the cooler, maybe using hard pipe. Or with hose and the regulators mounted to the firewall. Maybe parallel stock pumps, piped one to each rail, and a small balancing line at the front, for the highest output applications. Because none of the "insert" style" Bosch pressure regulators will "keep up" with an 044 pump at lower fuel consumption levels (important on a street car), that meant that each rail would have to have its own regulator....and because no two regulators are exactly the same, that meant that there would have to be a balancing tube between the two rails. Suddenly "simple" and "clean" wasn't so simple or clean. Working on plan "B"....or some letter other than "A". |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13145971)
My original goal (or Han's goal) was to have both the dampers and regulator in the rails to reduce the amount of plumbing required and make everything a bit more tidy.
Because none of the "insert" style" Bosch pressure regulators will "keep up" with an 044 pump at lower fuel consumption levels (important on a street car), that meant that each rail would have to have its own regulator....and because no two regulators are exactly the same, that meant that there would have to be a balancing tube between the two rails. Suddenly "simple" and "clean" wasn't so simple or clean. Working on plan "B"....or some letter other than "A". Stock pump, parallel with an -044? Put the -044 on a trigger for heavy throttle/manifold pressure. |
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13146501)
Howabout twin fuel pumps?
Stock pump, parallel with an -044? Put the -044 on a trigger for heavy throttle/manifold pressure. However, I try not to make any patches for problems and tend to address things at the source. The issue is inadequate fuel return from regulator. I think I'd rather solve the problem there. |
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13146501)
Howabout twin fuel pumps?
Stock pump, parallel with an -044? Put the -044 on a trigger for heavy throttle/manifold pressure.
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13145971)
My original goal (or Han's goal) was to have both the dampers and regulator in the rails to reduce the amount of plumbing required and make everything a bit more tidy.
Because none of the "insert" style" Bosch pressure regulators will "keep up" with an 044 pump at lower fuel consumption levels (important on a street car), that meant that each rail would have to have its own regulator....and because no two regulators are exactly the same, that meant that there would have to be a balancing tube between the two rails. Suddenly "simple" and "clean" wasn't so simple or clean. Working on plan "B"....or some letter other than "A".
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13145229)
Greg--
Is there a "relatively" convenient way to use a factory FPR at the rear of each fuel rail, with common supply from the front? Or will you need more pressure? It would seem that you could put the regulators almost anywhere conveninet back there, common up the return plumbing before the cooler, maybe using hard pipe. Or with hose and the regulators mounted to the firewall. Maybe parallel stock pumps, piped one to each rail, and a small balancing line at the front, for the highest output applications.
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13145032)
To answer the question about using stock fuel rails: I do not have any issues with the volume. The 90 degree turns at both ends, to attach to the dampers and regulators, are extremely inconvenient for my use, since the dampers and regulators will no longer fit in the stock locations.
I may supply intake systems with just the basic intake, which will allow people to use their own injectors, dampers, rails, regulator, and plumbing. This would obviously keep the cost down and make sense on some of the more tame S4 applications, especially when people have already upgraded to larger injectors (24-30 pounders). For my own use, I'm trying to "clean" things up a bit, with modern ideas and components, when possible.
Originally Posted by jorj7
(Post 13143802)
Mark,
I hate to get involved with all the online drama, but the fuel delivery system can be a big deal. I'm not an expert at this stuff, so I've been working on it for 6 years on my car and still learning. I'm shooting for reliable and durable 500 rwhp with my S4 and have experimented with many different approaches. I'm now running an -8 AN supply line to modified stock fuel rails, 52 lb-hr injectors, stock fuel regulator (switched from a Weldon A2040 last year), and dual 10mm return lines through 2 fuel coolers to a -10 AN line to the fuel cell. I'm running a Bosch 040 in-tank fuel pump, with a switched (boost controlled with manual override) external Bosch 044 external pump in parallel. Along the way, I've tried many different fuel pumps (with and without a fuel pump control), fuel pressure regulators, fuel filters, fuel injectors, fuel sumps, fuel pick-ups, and fuel lines. It takes lots of time and money (over $6000) to get things working well. And that's just a part of getting an engine performing at it's best. I applaud Greg for all his work with the 928 and appreciate all his efforts, along with Tim Murphy, Jim Morton, Marc Thomas, and the late Tom Cloutier. It's a small world we live in, and it take us all to get the most out of our cars. See http://928.jorj7.com/fuel for more info. __________________ George 90 S4 Grand Prix White (Murf #5) 94 GTS 5-Speed Midnight Blue 06 Cayenne S Havanna/Sand Beige (PASM) http://928.jorj7.com sounds like you have a "push for pass" approach for fuel flow which is interesting and does sound like it would be a lot of work to develop and implement . (to work, be safe and provide the fuel demands of 500rwhp) |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13146773)
That's a good idea.
However, I try not to make any patches for problems and tend to address things at the source. The issue is inadequate fuel return from regulator. I think I'd rather solve the problem there. some Japanese cars (RX7 turbo, MR2, etc) have a "fuel pump resistor pack"...runs the pump at 9v or so for most driving and then goes full 12-14V at a certain TPS/MAP point. their way of getting long life and better economy from a high-flow pump,. at low load. and, they're pretty small (grey thing) so they could fit anywhere, even in a 928 engine bay :) http://www.rx7club.com/attachments/2...y-cimg0582.jpg and here's a wiring diagram...looks like a relay+resistor combo...pump normally gets powered through resistor, until the relay coil trips and closes the 'direct' current path. http://www.rx7club.com/attachments/g...p_resistor.jpg |
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13147165)
maybe this still counts as a patch to you, but...
some Japanese cars (RX7 turbo, MR2, etc) have a "fuel pump resistor pack"...runs the pump at 9v or so for most driving and then goes full 12-14V at a certain TPS/MAP point. their way of getting long life and better economy from a high-flow pump,. at low load. and, they're pretty small (grey thing) so they could fit anywhere, even in a 928 engine bay :) http://www.rx7club.com/attachments/2...y-cimg0582.jpg and here's a wiring diagram...looks like a relay+resistor combo...pump normally gets powered through resistor, until the relay coil trips and closes the 'direct' current path. http://www.rx7club.com/attachments/g...p_resistor.jpg |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13147295)
I always had a vision (maybe a little blurred ill admit :) ) of 8 ITBs, but really tiny, attached at the intake ports of each cylinder port of the stock intake. at WOT, they would open and provide additional air and fuel beyond what the stock intake would provide. only a WOT event, kind of like NOS, but without the bottle.
Åke |
maybe the easy solution is to just bolt on the NOS system again. there is 50-100hp and the only inconvenience is filling the bottle before each race.
Now, if I could just get it legalized in SCCA/NASA/ PCA competition. :) |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13147106)
why not just relocate a RRFR to the rear of the car as its not located, but further out of the way with some custom fittings. (and then dampers where needed as well.) And definitely you don't want a rising-rate regulator. Sharktuning takes that out of the picture, such that "field adjustments" of any pressure regulator would be , um, counterproductive. Start shopping now for the pieces of wiring harness you'll need for Sharktuning. Mark A is currently or has recently parted a 1989 car so the later bits might be available for that upgrade. I had my "spare" LH controller upgraded to 1989 diagnostic smarts so it could be a drop-in for my car. You'll likely need to have your early controllers similarly upgraded for full functionality. Jim C can tell you what will be needed. You'll also be upgrading to Alpha N so your MAF will be removed. There are some sensors needed for that upgrade too. MAP and inlet air temp would be my guess, but Jim will tell you. They will also tell you what injectors to buy. You'll probably want an air cleaner too. The list goes on! |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13147295)
I always had a vision (maybe a little blurred ill admit :) ) of 8 ITBs, but really tiny, attached at the intake ports of each cylinder port of the stock intake. at WOT, they would open and provide additional air and fuel beyond what the stock intake would provide. only a WOT event, kind of like NOS, but without the bottle.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/rXu882rzIKo/hqdefault.jpg |
You mean like a separate Y-shape pipe over each port, one side of the Y with a separate throttle and injector and an air cleaner on it, the other from the more conventional longer-runner intake and its own throttle and injectors? Maybe a different-length stack over the "full-throttle" throttles.
Yep, that would simplify things a lot! Maybe the logical extension of that would be a version of Daniel's multi-section mailbox manifold illustrated in post 408 above, each with its own throttle plate and injector. Just pick the calliope pipe that sounds the best. |
It all comes back to the Salsbury 4850 D....the perfect plenum design !!
|
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13147165)
maybe this still counts as a patch to you, but...
some Japanese cars (RX7 turbo, MR2, etc) have a "fuel pump resistor pack"...runs the pump at 9v or so for most driving and then goes full 12-14V at a certain TPS/MAP point. their way of getting long life and better economy from a high-flow pump,. at low load. and, they're pretty small (grey thing) so they could fit anywhere, even in a 928 engine bay :) http://www.rx7club.com/attachments/2...y-cimg0582.jpg and here's a wiring diagram...looks like a relay+resistor combo...pump normally gets powered through resistor, until the relay coil trips and closes the 'direct' current path. http://www.rx7club.com/attachments/g...p_resistor.jpg |
Originally Posted by MjRocket
(Post 13147831)
This sounds something along the lines of the Kenny Bell "Boost a pump" intresting indeed.
Boost-a-pump makes the voltage to pump higher than stock, looks like from 14v to 17-18V to "overdrive" it, rather than cutting voltage until full power needed like the Japanese. I was wondering about something like that to drive an electric radiator fan...:) |
There is risk with dropping voltage on a pump.
Far better to PWM it with on/off 12V to achieve say 50% output. |
Originally Posted by Lizard928
(Post 13147930)
There is risk with dropping voltage on a pump.
Far better to PWM it with on/off 12V to achieve say 50% output. V = I/R...but if powered/grounded by the battery it's 12-14V no matter what...say at 10 amps to run the pump. V = I/R VR = I R = I/V add a 1.5 ohm (high watt) resistor, would make it 6 amps @ 12V? |
Lots of different ways to solve this problem.
The simple way, for me, is to match the return capacity of the FPR (or two FPRs) to the fuel pump. Keeps the pump from struggling and keeps the fuel cooler without changing somethng else. |
Originally Posted by Lizard928
(Post 13147930)
There is risk with dropping voltage on a pump.
Far better to PWM it with on/off 12V to achieve say 50% output.
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13148040)
thinking about it some more, wouldn't a resistor/relay setup leave voltage constant but only knock down current?
V = I/R...but if powered/grounded by the battery it's 12-14V no matter what...say at 10 amps to run the pump. V = I/R VR = I R = I/V add a 1.5 ohm (high watt) resistor, would make it 6 amps @ 12V? if you were running 10amps to start at full voltage, that means the effective resistance of the motor is 1.2ohms and 10amps flow. (120watts) add the 1.5ohm resistance, and suddenly the motor is only seeing 4.4 amps both the motor and the resistor are producing I^2R or 29 or 23 watts. you have just quartered the power of the pump with the 1.5ohm resistor. |
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13147667)
yes, i think thats the idea! let me research it a little! |
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13147718)
You mean like a separate Y-shape pipe over each port, one side of the Y with a separate throttle and injector and an air cleaner on it, the other from the more conventional longer-runner intake and its own throttle and injectors? Maybe a different-length stack over the "full-throttle" throttles.
Yep, that would simplify things a lot! Maybe the logical extension of that would be a version of Daniel's multi-section mailbox manifold illustrated in post 408 above, each with its own throttle plate and injector. Just pick the calliope pipe that sounds the best. |
Those hose clamps on that SHO intake are and exact fit and look (motorcycle style) of the OE early 32V clamps except they are stainless steel. Have a set in my '85 that I pulled of a car at the local junkyard years ago. Ford sells them to but they are around $10ea.
|
......
|
I neglect to understand how adding something more complex to an intake manifold would be even better than what Porsche has done originally. We are trying to get gains from simplifying the manifold, not make it more complex.
|
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13150198)
I neglect to understand how adding something more complex to an intake manifold would be even better than what Porsche has done originally. We are trying to get gains from simplifying the manifold, not make it more complex.
by the way... what is the throttle body diameter of the S4? what is it on the S3? |
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13150198)
I neglect to understand how adding something more complex to an intake manifold would be even better than what Porsche has done originally. We are trying to get gains from simplifying the manifold, not make it more complex.
|
Incorporating butterflies to 'stage' the intake is complex in my book. Why did Ford and Yamaha do it? To even out the torque curve in a similar way?
Intakes like the LS and that Aston Martin engine do not have any tuning flaps in them (at least the LS does not. I need to see the Aston Martin one again). Those 'simple' intakes yield some pretty good gains. So, why the heck not then? |
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13150333)
Incorporating butterflies to 'stage' the intake is complex in my book. Why did Ford and Yamaha do it? To even out the torque curve in a similar way?
Intakes like the LS and that Aston Martin engine do not have any tuning flaps in them (at least the LS does not. I need to see the Aston Martin one again). Those 'simple' intakes yield some pretty good gains. So, why the heck not then? |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13150397)
the difference is the short , larger runners offer more power up high. more peak power.. its what we are looking for, the long runners are for the mid range. porsche did the same thing with the variable runner length design for the 911
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13150227)
by the way... what is the throttle body diameter of the S4? what is it on the S3?
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13150333)
Incorporating butterflies to 'stage' the intake is complex in my book. Why did Ford and Yamaha do it? To even out the torque curve in a similar way?
Intakes like the LS and that Aston Martin engine do not have any tuning flaps in them (at least the LS does not. I need to see the Aston Martin one again). Those 'simple' intakes yield some pretty good gains. So, why the heck not then? ford didnt have variable cam timing on that engine. and the LS has all the torque you'd ever need due to the displacement, along with fantastic heads, so they don't need intake witchcraft. |
Ah, but the Gen IV and V LS engines have VVT now. Yet, they still run a simple manifold.
|
Originally Posted by Imo000
(Post 13150601)
I'm gong to take an educated guess that besides you (aka we), not many are interested in peak power gains but rather want mid range power increase. A street driven car will benefit alot more from a mid range improvement that near redline.
Plus, with cars like ours and engines that sound like ours, they are meant to be driven from 4500rpm to 6500rpm. thats how they are designed. the the mid range performance thing is part throttle , lazy passing or hill climbing without having to downshift. boring stuff. we are talking performance here! (we, meaning, not you) |
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13150644)
s3 = 3"/75-76MM
variable intake vs variable cam timing... ford didnt have variable cam timing on that engine. and the LS has all the torque you'd ever need due to the displacement, along with fantastic heads, so they don't need intake witchcraft. I saw some dyno tests for the 6.4 liter that used the 80mm throttle body and extruded honed intake, and there were little or no gains. this just proved to me that the intake is junk!!!! if a 75mmm throttle body isnt restrictive on a 5 liter, then that intake HAS to go!! |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Mongo
(Post 13150333)
Incorporating butterflies to 'stage' the intake is complex in my book. Why did Ford and Yamaha do it? To even out the torque curve in a similar way?
Intakes like the LS and that Aston Martin engine do not have any tuning flaps in them (at least the LS does not. I need to see the Aston Martin one again). Those 'simple' intakes yield some pretty good gains. So, why the heck not then? |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13150749)
We, . who drives seriously like that?
Plus, with cars like ours and engines that sound like ours, they are meant to be driven from 4500rpm to 6500rpm. thats how they are designed. the the mid range performance thing is part throttle , lazy passing or hill climbing without having to downshift. boring stuff. we are talking performance here! ...... And the reason why Porsche ended up using a "big" V-8 was so they did not have to spin the engine, getting away from the distracting noise and fury of the little air-cooled flat six.....all by design not an accident or mistake. There is no reason why an S-4 intake SHOULD work on a stroker engine which does not make it "garbage" simply not what they WANTED. I get it, you want a race intake but given how few people are racing 928s that is a very limited market..... You might look into lost foam epoxy molding as a technique to fabricate one off manifolds.....pretty sure that is how the Threshy intakes were formed. If you can shape Styrofoam into the passages you want you then cover it with plastic wrapping tape as mold release protectant and lay epoxy over it, S glass is heat tolerant and far cheaper than carbon fiber......once it sets you pour lacquer thinner into it to dissolve the foam. It really is that simple :) Especially with the Salsbury Plenum. |
DIY manifolds and the ultimate plenum, the Flowmaster---
R&D doesn't have to be costly. http://blog.modernperformance.com/27 |
O MY !!!! awesome work there !
|
Well, that Flowmaster is pretty snazzy.
But it doesn't have the "Flappy Monitoring Flag" that the Salisbury plenum has. I think James deserves some sort of award for thinking that gem up. |
Mark--
Buy a set of Hans or Carl's manifold flanges. Duplicate the port spacing and shape in plywood with a flat piece of styrofoam on it. Stop by Toyz-be-Us and grab a few of those foam swimming pool "noodles", in about the diameter you anticipate your runners will be. Square-section runners offer more cross-section area than round when stuffed into the same cube, but also have more friction surface per cross-section area too. Use an electric carving knife to shape your runners. The turn-down near the ports will be your chance to blend the square sections you've whittled down to the oval section that matches the port shape. Use welding rod through the middle of the noodles to help you hold the bends correct. When you have the arrangement you want, wrap each noodle with Saran Wrap, and then with CF and epoxy. Use UV-cure epoxy so you don't have to heat up your work. Build the plenum from styrofoam and PVC, wrap with saran wrap, and then with the same CF and epoxy. Once the runners and plenum are cured (very fast with UV), clear the foam and wires from the CF wrap, solvent for the styrofoam pieces. Hole saw bores through the CF (get a good saw and wear a mask!). Fit the runners to the real flanges, and into the plenum while everything is sitting mounted in your spare block and heads. Glue the pieces together with more CF and UV-set epoxy. Don't forget the fittings you'll need for vacuum, a MAP sensor, the temp sensors, a throttle body, and any accessory pieces like the throttle linkage. Think about a slide-plate throttle rather than a butterfly, so there is absolutely nothing interfering with airflow. Make it strong enough to survive a backfire or two. |
Slide valve is too complicated to be simple or is that too simple to be complicated....
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13150749)
the entire low and and midrange torque things has always bugged me. who drives seriously like that?
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13150749)
We, (aka, not you), now know from interaction from this list, is that if you want to accelerate the hardest, meaning with the greatet force, you not only have to be at WOT, but the RPM needs to be high. anyone that does or expects performance in the midrange, at WOT, is not really clearly thinking. the entire low and and midrange torque things has always bugged me. who drives seriously like that?
Plus, with cars like ours and engines that sound like ours, they are meant to be driven from 4500rpm to 6500rpm. thats how they are designed. the the mid range performance thing is part throttle , lazy passing or hill climbing without having to downshift. boring stuff. we are talking performance here! (we, meaning, not you) 4500 is the middle of midrange. 3000-5000rpms is mid range in my book. If you want a manifold perform from 4500, that's not exactly top end. Isn't 5500-6500 the top end range where most engines live when power is needed on the track? As for wanted mid range power, I don't know about you, but I would rather have a nice fat mid range than an engine that makes all the power near redline. |
i plan on building my ITB set up with tunes velocity stacks fro around 4000-5500
|
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13151318)
i plan on building my ITB set up with tunes velocity stacks fro around 4000-5500
|
Ya, won't be cheap. At all. And I expect that.
|
|
|
Originally Posted by 69gaugeman
(Post 13151252)
I don't know. Almost EVERYONE?
We are talking about 5 liter V8's, not VTEC Honda 4-bangers from the 90's. I've been present to a lot of dyno testing and tuning from every kind of intake manifold imaginable on Ford and Chevy V8's of similar displacement. No matter the combination the "mid range" power was fine (that's the nature of a 5+ liter V8) but the really fast cars had the intake that pulled hard all the way to red line. Yea, I get it. Bumming around town getting groceries, it's fun to be able to roll into the throttle down low without downshifting and pull away hard. I get that... I have a 6 liter in my Denali with a stump pulling intake design - it does that well (but would be faster with an LS6 intake that makes more power upstairs). With my 928's I want to go fast, period.....and if that means downshifting and running the snot out if it so be it. These are not fragile engines from the 40's that catastrophically explode if you rev them to 6k. With Todd's turbo spinning to 8,000 rpm (yes....8) with STOCK rod bearings pudding down the torque of 4 stock engines...I think we are all going to be fine regularly revving our cars to 6,500 or so. For Christ sake this whole argument is ridiculous. The pursuit for "nothing but torque" stems from the drag racing world when everyone had a two speed power-glide automatic. So maybe the 3-speed auto crowd should be hammering home the stump pulling torque project, the rest of us.....why not build something that will actually make the car faster??? Torque makes the car faster? Then install this under the hood. 750ft-lbs: http://www.cpomilwaukee.com/milwauke...50%20ft-lbs%2e Why are we so afraid to run these cars hard? The most damaging part of the internal combustion cycle is detonation which has the highest potential at peak torque (not horsepower). Constantly bogging the engine in the torque range versus the HP curve is far more likely to damage something. |
Start with some simple configuration like following and think of how to make it better. The plenum shape is not optimal to fill cylinders which are the most far from throttle plate, the tubing to plenum
should have smooth turns and finally where to place the air filtering. The intake used by Mark A. is still very well designed for racing purposes unless going for itbs. Alpha N + Sharktuner is more than enough for race application. http://image.hotrod.com/f/30210926+w..._bjg_block.jpg |
Where were the rails going when this crazy train left them?
|
3 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13151318)
i plan on building my ITB set up with tunes velocity stacks fro around 4000-5500
Åke |
Originally Posted by Strosek Ultra
(Post 13152680)
Tuned for 4500-5500 rpm 3rd harmonic means a intake duct total length of 17" to 21" measured from the opening of the air horn to the intake valve. This is pretty much, make sure you will find room under the hood.
Åke
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13120640)
Porsche said all the S3 runners are equal length, and I know the plenum "stubs" vary but using my highly-calibrated piece of string :) the long runners are between 14.5-15" and the short runners...3 are 10" and one is about 7.5", from gasket face to "rubber hose coupler lip"
4 runners on the S3 intake are 14.5-15" long, plus the 85mm port length makes for ~18-19" total length from "air horn to intake valve"... so maybe just cut up 2x S3 intakes and run all long runners :) |
Originally Posted by Strosek Ultra
(Post 13152680)
Tuned for 4500-5500 rpm 3rd harmonic means a intake duct total length of 17" to 21" measured from the opening of the air horn to the intake valve. This is pretty much, make sure you will find room under the hood.
Åke higher RPM it is! |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13151487)
Ya, won't be cheap. At all. And I expect that.
The Sharktuner Alpha will be an other $500. Larger injectors $? The picture show my own made runners for a Dellorto carb conversion. Åke |
if you guys are into fabricating...
Ford 5.0/5.8/7.5 (460) throttle bodies from the 1990s were twin-50mm blades...5.0/5.8 had built in provisions for idle valves too they cost $30 or so apiece at junkyard... :icon107: http://broncozone.com/uploads/monthl...1403817903.jpg |
Originally Posted by V2Rocket
(Post 13152952)
if you guys are into fabricating...
Ford 5.0/5.8/7.5 (460) throttle bodies from the 1990s were twin-50mm blades...5.0/5.8 had built in provisions for idle valves too they cost $30 or so apiece at junkyard... :icon107: http://broncozone.com/uploads/monthl...1403817903.jpg |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13152988)
cool, four of those on the Salsbury should do the trick ....
|
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13153048)
im ready to just bolt on a 850 double pumper and be done with all this nonsense! ;)
|
People buy used ITBs from the BMW M3 and M5 V8 engines and modify them to fit the 928.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2009-09-10-1...FVN-qA&vxp=mtr http://www.ebay.com/itm/BMW-M5-E39-Z...FUX7yA&vxp=mtr http://www.911uk.com/viewtopic.php?p...8458ca3906dfbb Åke |
Barrel throttle intake for a 944 (post #128).
https://rennlist.com/forums/944-turb...anifold-9.html Åke |
Originally Posted by Hacker-Pschorr
(Post 13152146)
This is one of the few areas I agree with Kibort.
We are talking about 5 liter V8's, not VTEC Honda 4-bangers from the 90's. I've been present to a lot of dyno testing and tuning from every kind of intake manifold imaginable on Ford and Chevy V8's of similar displacement. No matter the combination the "mid range" power was fine (that's the nature of a 5+ liter V8) but the really fast cars had the intake that pulled hard all the way to red line. Yea, I get it. Bumming around town getting groceries, it's fun to be able to roll into the throttle down low without downshifting and pull away hard. I get that... I have a 6 liter in my Denali with a stump pulling intake design - it does that well (but would be faster with an LS6 intake that makes more power upstairs). With my 928's I want to go fast, period.....and if that means downshifting and running the snot out if it so be it. These are not fragile engines from the 40's that catastrophically explode if you rev them to 6k. With Todd's turbo spinning to 8,000 rpm (yes....8) with STOCK rod bearings pudding down the torque of 4 stock engines...I think we are all going to be fine regularly revving our cars to 6,500 or so. For Christ sake this whole argument is ridiculous. The pursuit for "nothing but torque" stems from the drag racing world when everyone had a two speed power-glide automatic. So maybe the 3-speed auto crowd should be hammering home the stump pulling torque project, the rest of us.....why not build something that will actually make the car faster??? Torque makes the car faster? Then install this under the hood. 750ft-lbs: http://www.cpomilwaukee.com/milwauke...50%20ft-lbs%2e Why are we so afraid to run these cars hard? The most damaging part of the internal combustion cycle is detonation which has the highest potential at peak torque (not horsepower). Constantly bogging the engine in the torque range versus the HP curve is far more likely to damage something. 928s are one of the finest GT cars ever made....and that is what attracts me to them. They have long comfortable gears that have gear splits which put the engine right back into the highest torque range when shifted at redline. Improving both makes these cars better. For me, the perfect GT car needs to be able to cruise quietly down the freeway in fifth gear and have the ability to pass the car in front of it by gently pushing down on the gas pedal. Quiet, tame, smooth, effortless, high speed cruising. Increasing the stock engine's torque makes that easier and better. It also would be great to be able to upshift to the next gear at 7500 rpms when you go past the window of the guy that saw you start to go around him and decided he would not allow that. Increasing the high rpm horsepower makes that easier and better. I think both are very achievable....and that is what I've been building and improving on, for years. If anyone followed the build on Jim Corenman's 5.9 (shorter stroke) "experimental" engine, the result was spectacular. We gave up very little torque and horsepower over my 6.5 liter engines, with the ability to run higher rpms because of the reduction of piston speed and lighter weights of the reciprocating pieces. My new intake is designed to be the icing on that cake.....the next step to allowing those engines to run at 7500 rpms. Will small changes in that same intake benefit both the 6.5 liter versions and stock 5.0 and 5.4 liter versions? That's also not only possible, but part of the engineering and end goal! |
Originally Posted by Strosek Ultra
(Post 13153133)
Barrel throttle intake for a 944 (post #128).
https://rennlist.com/forums/944-turb...anifold-9.html Åke I briefly considered making S-glass port adapters injector bases then thought about all the time needed and realized that $1,000 or so for Hans adapters was a BARGAIN ! Although my posting here pretty much confirms my time is of no real value :) |
interesting when i look at the original anderson engine, vs its CF intake...
power went from 415 to 500rwhp and torque still went up from 430 to 450ft-lbs. no loss in torque, and just more usable HP from redline to post shift! encouraging! |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13153313)
Beautiful , very nice and it mentions $7,500 for 4 cylinders....so possibly $15,000 for a similar 928 setup !!
I briefly considered making S-glass port adapters injector bases then thought about all the time needed and realized that $1,000 or so for Hans adapters was a BARGAIN ! Although my posting here pretty much confirms my time is of no real value :) at WOT. I have also been told the driveability is not as good as for butterfly throttle bodies. The AT Power shaftless butterfly throttle bodies have minimum restriction for the air flow. Åke |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13153248)
I believe that a combination of both torque and high rpm power is what most people desire and need.
928s are one of the finest GT cars ever made....and that is what attracts me to them. They have long comfortable gears that have gear splits which put the engine right back into the highest torque range when shifted at redline. Improving both makes these cars better. For me, the perfect GT car needs to be able to cruise quietly down the freeway in fifth gear and have the ability to pass the car in front of it by gently pushing down on the gas pedal. Quiet, tame, smooth, effortless, high speed cruising. Increasing the stock engine's torque makes that easier and better. It also would be great to be able to upshift to the next gear at 7500 rpms when you go past the window of the guy that saw you start to go around him and decided he would not allow that. Increasing the high rpm horsepower makes that easier and better. I think both are very achievable....and that is what I've been building and improving on, for years. If anyone followed the build on Jim Corenman's 5.9 (shorter stroke) "experimental" engine, the result was spectacular. We gave up very little torque and horsepower over my 6.5 liter engines, with the ability to run higher rpms because of the reduction of piston speed and lighter weights of the reciprocating pieces. My new intake is designed to be the icing on that cake.....the next step to allowing those engines to run at 7500 rpms. Will small changes in that same intake benefit both the 6.5 liter versions and stock 5.0 and 5.4 liter versions? That's also not only possible, but part of the engineering and end goal! Åke |
Originally Posted by Strosek Ultra
(Post 13153426)
I am not sure I agree about the gear split. I have always felt the step from fourth to fifth gear is too wide. A closer step would be preferable.
Åke |
Why did Porsche fit 2:20 gears in the U S ....for fuel economy Why is 5th effectively an "overdrive" ? for fuel economy. How often does a 928 race car with the 2:20 use 5th gear ??
We can now say this thread has been completely Kiborted......HP/TQ/gearing which sadly is not at all like aborted :) |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13153739)
Why is 5th effectively an "overdrive" ?
I'll use 5th in my current track car with the 2.73 rear but my new track car got a BW tranny with the 2.20 drive. I'll probably use it even if I could use 4th as I'll be using neutral throttle. This is in a banked turn with a 140-150mph entry speed. My 944 has a huge step going from 4th to 5th. They wised up and figured that redline in 4th was anything anyone would need and then 5th was for highway cruising. At the track it's a problem. |
Not yet..... No mention of oil products. :-)
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13153739)
Why did Porsche fit 2:20 gears in the U S ....for fuel economy Why is 5th effectively an "overdrive" ? for fuel economy. How often does a 928 race car with the 2:20 use 5th gear ??
We can now say this thread has been completely Kiborted......HP/TQ/gearing which sadly is not at all like aborted :) you ask an interesting question though, and to Gregs, point, the gear box as well, is dual purpose (as Gregs intake will be) . let me ask you, how often does a GTS transmission based race car (2.73:1) , use 5th on the race course.... not often how often does the corvette with the 3.42:1 use 5th gear not to mention its 6th on the race track? FYI.. most race cars at most popular tracks, use 3 gears.. they are lucky to use 4...... unless we are talking factory race cars with close ratio gear boxes the 2.2 uses 3 gears at the race track.. sometimes it can use 4, but its rare. (and its not 5th) ;) so the answer here is that porsche did a great job of making a race car like transmission and gear ratios, but also with an overdrive, so that you can comfortably dump the car into 5th at 70mph and cruise with no engine noise and good fuel economy. and the engine still had enough power to accelerate to get to higher speeds , not for passing , but without having to downshift if you didnt want to. i think it was one of the best gear boxes ever designed. |
Originally Posted by GlenL
(Post 13153794)
I always wondered why cars had an overdrive gear instead of just a lower final drive ratio. The answer, I've surmised, is that the 2nd-highest gear gains efficiency for being "straight-through" and then the highest gear gains efficiency by having a lower engine RPM. Still, who cruises the highway in the second-highest gear.
I'll use 5th in my current track car with the 2.73 rear but my new track car got a BW tranny with the 2.20 drive. I'll probably use it even if I could use 4th as I'll be using neutral throttle. This is in a banked turn with a 140-150mph entry speed. My 944 has a huge step going from 4th to 5th. They wised up and figured that redline in 4th was anything anyone would need and then 5th was for highway cruising. At the track it's a problem. but, go to cal speedway and its a problem. Still just about perfect for road america. never higher than 154mph there , unless you got 450-500hp, then you are in trouble. ) |
By true definition, "overdrive" is a term that relates to the car's ability to reach peak horsepower RPM with a particular total gear-set and tire-diameter multiplication. If it can't get to peak HP RPM, it's overdrive.
There's a different colloquial definition that's become more "common". |
Originally Posted by dr bob
(Post 13154618)
By true definition, "overdrive" is a term that relates to the car's ability to reach peak horsepower RPM with a particular total gear-set and tire-diameter multiplication. If it can't get to peak HP RPM, it's overdrive.
There's a different colloquial definition that's become more "common". These are GT cars....not specially designed race cars. Fifth gear works great, on the freeway. Besides that, 7500 in 4th gear with a 2.20 rear end is moving the mail and is plenty fast for everyone I know. |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13154655)
..... Fifth gear works great, on the freeway.
Besides that, 7500 in 4th gear with a 2.20 rear end is moving the mail ...... |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13154655)
I'm not going to try or suggest that anyone try to get their 928 to peak horsepower in 5th gear with a 2.20 rear end, with one of my engines. That's a bit faster than my angel can fly.
These are GT cars....not specially designed race cars. Fifth gear works great, on the freeway. Besides that, 7500 in 4th gear with a 2.20 rear end is moving the mail is plenty fast for everyone I know. |
Originally Posted by mark kibort
(Post 13155017)
yep, it was ideal for road america and im sure willow springs as well, and thats only 6600rpm and 155mph! :)
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13154677)
Ah , clever reference to the Salsbury !!
They thought of almost everything.... |
Then you spin it 7,500 and it is over 175 MPH :) in fourth gear. Well beyond put me in jail speed !!
|
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13155177)
I really love the clever pop open door for backfires!
They thought of almost everything.... |
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
(Post 13155175)
"Chart" 7500....plenty fast for this old man.
im wondering now if you are talkling two things now..... survival of a 928 engine at 7500rpm as well as the intake... from the look at the CF dyno runs, it looks like the intake allows for the HP to keep pretty flat from 6000rpm to 7000 and doesn't look like it wants to fall... function of the intake as well as the cams, or just intake? compared to the behavior of the prior Joe and mark engine without the intake, it sure looks like mostly intake limits! ( stock intake showed peak hp curving around 6k, and CF intake was flat from 6000 onward) either way, the intake kicked up the HP post shift and peak by huge amounts. should be the same or better with your design I would imagine
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13155205)
Then you spin it 7,500 and it is over 175 MPH :) in fourth gear. Well beyond put me in jail speed !!
|
Mark your former Holbert "stock" S-4 did 176.3 clockwise and 181.8 counter clockwise at the Nardo ring in April of 1986 !!! Prior to taking it to Bonneville where altitude and tire slip took their toll. Speed was said to have been with stock exhaust including catalytic convertors....
|
I was tempted to say you obviously never held the gas pedal down long enough.....but that would have been unkind :) Oh and at Nardo the neutral speed is 150 mph any more and you MUST be turning all the time which slows the car !! and makes it a constant sweeper despite the banking. An endless 12.5 KM "corner".
|
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13156805)
Mark your former Holbert "stock" S-4 did 176.3 clockwise and 181.8 counter clockwise at the Nardo ring in April of 1986 !!! Prior to taking it to Bonneville where altitude and tire slip took their toll. Speed was said to have been with stock exhaust including catalytic convertors....
remember Bonneville was probably mainly limited by wheel slip, as the air density at 4500ft, is 15% less than at sealevel, which is a big deal at that speed. so, they even did it in that boggie 5th gear......but there was lots of time to accelerate, but did it at the no so perfect , 5000rpm, well below peak HP. my guess is that they used a lower gear box to achieve the records. peak hp for the holbet car is aroud 5700rpm, and at 5000rpm, HP levels are only about 82% of max. I estimate, round 240rwhp!!!!! so, its tough to think that they did it with the stock 2:2, but I guess its possible. |
Originally Posted by Ducman82
(Post 13153798)
Not yet..... No mention of oil products. :-)
Give them time Ducman; Just give 'em time. :D |
They had at least two transmissions at Bonneville one a 2:54, ran 7 inch wheels on all four corners, no exterior mirrors, and the brains were fitted with external chip holders for " quick chip changes" to no doubt bump the RPM.....and an extended under tray and also ran it lower than stock.....not to mention the 1986 camshafts that happened to be in the engine :) All to set a record for a stock production S-4.....yea right !!! some mention of a larger front stabilizer bar....
All of which is why I have always questioned how "stock" that original engine actually was......they went to Bonneville determined to set a record. Built an S-4 out of an 86 shell long BEFORE actual production ever began, did several small but obvious cheats to make it happen. And did extensive testing at Nardo in Italy to prove that it was fast enough and could survive.... |
Originally Posted by James Bailey
(Post 13159560)
They had at least two transmissions at Bonneville one a 2:54, ran 7 inch wheels on all four corners, no exterior mirrors, and the brains were fitted with external chip holders for " quick chip changes" to no doubt bump the RPM.....and an extended under tray and also ran it lower than stock.....not to mention the 1986 camshafts that happened to be in the engine :) All to set a record for a stock production S-4.....yea right !!! some mention of a larger front stabilizer bar....
All of which is why I have always questioned how "stock" that original engine actually was......they went to Bonneville determined to set a record. Built an S-4 out of an 86 shell long BEFORE actual production ever began, did several small but obvious cheats to make it happen. And did extensive testing at Nardo in Italy to prove that it was fast enough and could survive.... I dont know why you question how stock it was.... alll of those things they changed were within the rules. (from what i heard) AND, just because they used a stock grind, 85 camshaft which became the GT cam, doesnt mean it was a cheater motor. heck, the cam was from the prior year !! ;) the engine internals were stock . it was truly the first S4 engine, #00004 not even a squirter block. stock bearings, stock crank, stock pistons and rods.. i showed you all the pictures of the disassembly. AND, it made no more hp than the same set up motor that Ron had with Mark. 320whp with headers. it did have on it, some stock looking sway bar, that seemed to be porsche and it was larger than stock for sure. it survived ............for a long time too! i had 120race days on the car. LOVED that car!!! then, some idiot at the track, had to take it away from me. (us)....... very sad. oh well |
| All times are GMT -3. The time now is 06:00 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands