SFR intake manifold
09-25-2011, 12:50 PM
#121
Three Wheelin'
Look at the torque curve on the JME engine. That may be good for an all out race engine, but I don't think you'll like it on the street. Chris White has mentioned frequently the oiling problems with our engines, which makes them inappropriate for high RPM applications, unless a lot of things are addressed. The reason I mention all of that is that that intake is designed to use as much of that package space as it can. But it still tunes at 5500 RPM. You'd want to add a few inches to it to get the peak torque down somewhere from 500 to 1000 RPM (4500-5000). That gets tough in the package space you have.
As for ITB's applicability in turbochared applications, I don't think the line of thought is right. The biggest thing a turbo has to do is overcome inertia. And the volume in the plenum is not that much in the grand scheme of things - recall that you've got volume from the turbo outlet all of hte way to the throttle body to fill. But again, the biggest thing it hasa to overcome is inertia. The best thing you can do to help spool is keep it spinning, by having a good blowoff or bypass valve, which keeps the air from slowing down the turbo.
ITB's cause other issues, as well. The BMW setup uses a manifold that runs across all of the throttle bodies. But if you run an idle bypass, ITB's make it harder. If you are spending the money on ITB's, you probably are running an aftermarket setup, which means speed density. You can't stick a MAP sensor in one runner because the pressure waves would wreak havoc on it. It has to be balanced from all of your cylinders - so again you need a mini-manifold to dampen them and balance across all cylinders.
Race applications get by becausee they use alpha-n. I can't say for certain, but I don't think alpha-n will work on a turbocharged application because the turbo adds another variable. Alpha-n is a strategy whereby throttle position (alpha) and RPM (n) are used to infer load (MAP). Problem with a turbo is that the load will also be a function of the boost pressure, which will vary because the turbo is freehweeling.
Also, final point. There are 10 years of difference between them, but I think the point still stands. When we were pushing content for the new 5.0L, we used the BMW M5 engine as a benchmark reference point. Our target was 400 horsepower, and we went in and said "we need X, Y, and Z content to make it happen." ITB's were not part of that list, but otherwise, the content of the engines is very, very similar (VCT, headers, displacement, etc.). The M5 makes 369 horsepower, the new 5.0L is rated at 412, but is really closer to 425, and the Boss version makes over 450. Again, this is all done with a traditional, single throttle body.
Don't get me wrong, I don't "dislike" ITB's, but there are few instances where their use is justifiable, and the only thing anyone reading this will get out fo them is the bling factor. I dont' think even the GT3 Cup cars use them.
As for ITB's applicability in turbochared applications, I don't think the line of thought is right. The biggest thing a turbo has to do is overcome inertia. And the volume in the plenum is not that much in the grand scheme of things - recall that you've got volume from the turbo outlet all of hte way to the throttle body to fill. But again, the biggest thing it hasa to overcome is inertia. The best thing you can do to help spool is keep it spinning, by having a good blowoff or bypass valve, which keeps the air from slowing down the turbo.
ITB's cause other issues, as well. The BMW setup uses a manifold that runs across all of the throttle bodies. But if you run an idle bypass, ITB's make it harder. If you are spending the money on ITB's, you probably are running an aftermarket setup, which means speed density. You can't stick a MAP sensor in one runner because the pressure waves would wreak havoc on it. It has to be balanced from all of your cylinders - so again you need a mini-manifold to dampen them and balance across all cylinders.
Race applications get by becausee they use alpha-n. I can't say for certain, but I don't think alpha-n will work on a turbocharged application because the turbo adds another variable. Alpha-n is a strategy whereby throttle position (alpha) and RPM (n) are used to infer load (MAP). Problem with a turbo is that the load will also be a function of the boost pressure, which will vary because the turbo is freehweeling.
Also, final point. There are 10 years of difference between them, but I think the point still stands. When we were pushing content for the new 5.0L, we used the BMW M5 engine as a benchmark reference point. Our target was 400 horsepower, and we went in and said "we need X, Y, and Z content to make it happen." ITB's were not part of that list, but otherwise, the content of the engines is very, very similar (VCT, headers, displacement, etc.). The M5 makes 369 horsepower, the new 5.0L is rated at 412, but is really closer to 425, and the Boss version makes over 450. Again, this is all done with a traditional, single throttle body.
Don't get me wrong, I don't "dislike" ITB's, but there are few instances where their use is justifiable, and the only thing anyone reading this will get out fo them is the bling factor. I dont' think even the GT3 Cup cars use them.
would be first Blink,second sound and with luck it would work no worse than than the AFM.
On an NA motor using the 5.0 and the M5, clearly you don't need ITB's to make power. So do you think BMW just came up with there setup because they could? And why cover that with a solid cover. They should have done like Corvette did with the ZR1.
09-25-2011, 01:17 PM
#122
Professional Hoon
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,090
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
talking about using alpha-n, i switched my piggyback from reading map to "alpha-n" (or TPS) mode and the throttle responce became so sharp it was so good, But once boost came on it couldn't handle it, straight away 1-3 psi it would choke.
for N/A that mode would be real good if you wanted to use the stock computer and run a custom intake + cams and delete the AFM
for N/A that mode would be real good if you wanted to use the stock computer and run a custom intake + cams and delete the AFM
09-25-2011, 07:05 PM
#123
Race Car
Thanks that summed it up very well. So ITB's on a turbo is mostly a PIA. I know LIndsey was working on a ITB setup, so my thinking if they get it to work
would be first Blink,second sound and with luck it would work no worse than than the AFM.
On an NA motor using the 5.0 and the M5, clearly you don't need ITB's to make power. So do you think BMW just came up with there setup because they could? And why cover that with a solid cover. They should have done like Corvette did with the ZR1.
would be first Blink,second sound and with luck it would work no worse than than the AFM.
On an NA motor using the 5.0 and the M5, clearly you don't need ITB's to make power. So do you think BMW just came up with there setup because they could? And why cover that with a solid cover. They should have done like Corvette did with the ZR1.
They work fine with air meters, MAF or otherwise (though Rogue's M-Tune's biggest advantage might be a disadvantage in this particular scenario). THat is how BMW does it. They do not work fine with speed density, which is what most aftermarket setups are. I would speculate that most people who'd just buy one from most vendors are after as much bling as anything.
I'm not sure why BMW did what they did. It may be as simple as the mindset that "it is an M, it has ITB's." BMW engineers can get away with that, Ford engineers can't. There are many things you see when benchmarking that competition that are very interesting. GM and Ford have the best engineers out there, but they have to because they are not empowered to spend money like the engineers from the German and Japanese manufacturers are.
09-25-2011, 11:52 PM
#124
Three Wheelin'
.While attempting to make my intake manifold look like a factory part (968 runners with plenum made of aluminum stock) i was thinking of what to do with the next version. I think there's space to mimic what you see with the LS series engines and, to an extent, our NA motors, where the runner feeds from the opposite side of the plenum. Currently, my engine is mostly apart, I'll have to take some measurements once the its all reassembled.
Last edited by fortysixandtwo; 09-26-2011 at 12:51 PM.
09-26-2011, 02:43 AM
#125
Rennlist Member
That's pretty much exactly how that went...
Thanks! I've been wondering about that for a while and, not being an automotive/mechanical engineer, I didn't know the necessary details to determine if it would be beneficial.
As for the BMW, the only thing I can think of (as to why) is they were trying to regain the throttle response lost by the drive by wire... I hate drive by wire.
and then like
Look at the torque curve on the JME engine. That may be good for an all out race engine, but I don't think you'll like it on the street. Chris White has mentioned frequently the oiling problems with our engines, which makes them inappropriate for high RPM applications, unless a lot of things are addressed. The reason I mention all of that is that that intake is designed to use as much of that package space as it can. But it still tunes at 5500 RPM. You'd want to add a few inches to it to get the peak torque down somewhere from 500 to 1000 RPM (4500-5000). That gets tough in the package space you have.
As for ITB's applicability in turbochared applications, I don't think the line of thought is right. The biggest thing a turbo has to do is overcome inertia. And the volume in the plenum is not that much in the grand scheme of things - recall that you've got volume from the turbo outlet all of hte way to the throttle body to fill. But again, the biggest thing it hasa to overcome is inertia. The best thing you can do to help spool is keep it spinning, by having a good blowoff or bypass valve, which keeps the air from slowing down the turbo.
ITB's cause other issues, as well. The BMW setup uses a manifold that runs across all of the throttle bodies. But if you run an idle bypass, ITB's make it harder. If you are spending the money on ITB's, you probably are running an aftermarket setup, which means speed density. You can't stick a MAP sensor in one runner because the pressure waves would wreak havoc on it. It has to be balanced from all of your cylinders - so again you need a mini-manifold to dampen them and balance across all cylinders.
Race applications get by becausee they use alpha-n. I can't say for certain, but I don't think alpha-n will work on a turbocharged application because the turbo adds another variable. Alpha-n is a strategy whereby throttle position (alpha) and RPM (n) are used to infer load (MAP). Problem with a turbo is that the load will also be a function of the boost pressure, which will vary because the turbo is freehweeling.
Also, final point. There are 10 years of difference between them, but I think the point still stands. When we were pushing content for the new 5.0L, we used the BMW M5 engine as a benchmark reference point. Our target was 400 horsepower, and we went in and said "we need X, Y, and Z content to make it happen." ITB's were not part of that list, but otherwise, the content of the engines is very, very similar (VCT, headers, displacement, etc.). The M5 makes 369 horsepower, the new 5.0L is rated at 412, but is really closer to 425, and the Boss version makes over 450. Again, this is all done with a traditional, single throttle body.
Don't get me wrong, I don't "dislike" ITB's, but there are few instances where their use is justifiable, and the only thing anyone reading this will get out fo them is the bling factor. I dont' think even the GT3 Cup cars use them.
As for ITB's applicability in turbochared applications, I don't think the line of thought is right. The biggest thing a turbo has to do is overcome inertia. And the volume in the plenum is not that much in the grand scheme of things - recall that you've got volume from the turbo outlet all of hte way to the throttle body to fill. But again, the biggest thing it hasa to overcome is inertia. The best thing you can do to help spool is keep it spinning, by having a good blowoff or bypass valve, which keeps the air from slowing down the turbo.
ITB's cause other issues, as well. The BMW setup uses a manifold that runs across all of the throttle bodies. But if you run an idle bypass, ITB's make it harder. If you are spending the money on ITB's, you probably are running an aftermarket setup, which means speed density. You can't stick a MAP sensor in one runner because the pressure waves would wreak havoc on it. It has to be balanced from all of your cylinders - so again you need a mini-manifold to dampen them and balance across all cylinders.
Race applications get by becausee they use alpha-n. I can't say for certain, but I don't think alpha-n will work on a turbocharged application because the turbo adds another variable. Alpha-n is a strategy whereby throttle position (alpha) and RPM (n) are used to infer load (MAP). Problem with a turbo is that the load will also be a function of the boost pressure, which will vary because the turbo is freehweeling.
Also, final point. There are 10 years of difference between them, but I think the point still stands. When we were pushing content for the new 5.0L, we used the BMW M5 engine as a benchmark reference point. Our target was 400 horsepower, and we went in and said "we need X, Y, and Z content to make it happen." ITB's were not part of that list, but otherwise, the content of the engines is very, very similar (VCT, headers, displacement, etc.). The M5 makes 369 horsepower, the new 5.0L is rated at 412, but is really closer to 425, and the Boss version makes over 450. Again, this is all done with a traditional, single throttle body.
Don't get me wrong, I don't "dislike" ITB's, but there are few instances where their use is justifiable, and the only thing anyone reading this will get out fo them is the bling factor. I dont' think even the GT3 Cup cars use them.
As for the BMW, the only thing I can think of (as to why) is they were trying to regain the throttle response lost by the drive by wire... I hate drive by wire.
09-26-2011, 03:27 AM
#126
talking about using alpha-n, i switched my piggyback from reading map to "alpha-n" (or TPS) mode and the throttle responce became so sharp it was so good, But once boost came on it couldn't handle it, straight away 1-3 psi it would choke.
for N/A that mode would be real good if you wanted to use the stock computer and run a custom intake + cams and delete the AFM
for N/A that mode would be real good if you wanted to use the stock computer and run a custom intake + cams and delete the AFM
"So what the TPS/MAP mode basically does, is to regulate fuel based on TPS when on vaccum, and based on TPS with a correction on MAP when on boost."
10-08-2011, 02:37 PM
#127
Professional Hoon
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,090
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
My old Autronic SM2 had a combined TPS and MAP mode. Could not find a autronic manual, but grabbed this quote from an Autronic forum.
"So what the TPS/MAP mode basically does, is to regulate fuel based on TPS when on vaccum, and based on TPS with a correction on MAP when on boost."
"So what the TPS/MAP mode basically does, is to regulate fuel based on TPS when on vaccum, and based on TPS with a correction on MAP when on boost."
Back to normal scheduling... anyone else want to chime in on the SFR intake?
10-13-2011, 08:56 PM
#130
Rennlist Member
Is that through IMA or JME?
Last edited by 333pg333; 10-14-2011 at 05:53 PM.
10-14-2011, 09:35 AM
#131
Instructor
Thanks, I dont have a total build sheet but I do have lots of pictures.
IMA had the barrels and elbows and other anodized pieces, the carbon plenum is still JME's desigh built by Crawford.
I know IMA has a few extras currently built or at least very close to being done.
IMA had the barrels and elbows and other anodized pieces, the carbon plenum is still JME's desigh built by Crawford.
I know IMA has a few extras currently built or at least very close to being done.
10-14-2011, 10:51 AM
#133
Three Wheelin'
10-15-2011, 09:41 AM
#134
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Small
Business Sponsor
I caught up on this thread…and havef a couple more thigns to toss out there.
Back in September there was mention of smooth vs rough intake walls. Not a big deal for injected cars – but good old fashioned carbed cars do not like smooth walls – the fuel likes to wet the smooth walls and get held on by surface tension. Makes for odd mixtures when the throttles are opened up.
I finally got off the search for the ITB holy grail, I have worked on a bunch of ITB cars (mostly Cobras) and in fuel injected form they are a pain in the *** for street use. Huge variation in cylinder to cylinder mixture at idle/small throttle opening.
The turbo lag has nothing to do with intake volume. The volume saving of a ITB will not affect turbo lag at all.
Ivan’s reproduction of Milledge’s ITB set up is very nice to look at! I suppose that if I have a ‘no holds barred’ race build I might use a set – but only after going to 16v, dry sump and some other very costly mods!
The Electromotive EMS has a TPS Blend function that allows a programed amount of MAP and TPS mix at specified RPM – this is useful in tuning ITBs.
Back in September there was mention of smooth vs rough intake walls. Not a big deal for injected cars – but good old fashioned carbed cars do not like smooth walls – the fuel likes to wet the smooth walls and get held on by surface tension. Makes for odd mixtures when the throttles are opened up.
I finally got off the search for the ITB holy grail, I have worked on a bunch of ITB cars (mostly Cobras) and in fuel injected form they are a pain in the *** for street use. Huge variation in cylinder to cylinder mixture at idle/small throttle opening.
The turbo lag has nothing to do with intake volume. The volume saving of a ITB will not affect turbo lag at all.
Ivan’s reproduction of Milledge’s ITB set up is very nice to look at! I suppose that if I have a ‘no holds barred’ race build I might use a set – but only after going to 16v, dry sump and some other very costly mods!
The Electromotive EMS has a TPS Blend function that allows a programed amount of MAP and TPS mix at specified RPM – this is useful in tuning ITBs.
10-15-2011, 10:33 AM
#135
Instructor
Hey Chris,
How are you. Thanks for the Bin files for my dads build. We spoke about a month ago and still havent had a chance to get up to you for tuning the TEC GT on his car. He has had some back issuses and is getting things fixed. \
IMA has completed the elbows for a 16v ITB also. It came out nice.
How are you. Thanks for the Bin files for my dads build. We spoke about a month ago and still havent had a chance to get up to you for tuning the TEC GT on his car. He has had some back issuses and is getting things fixed. \
IMA has completed the elbows for a 16v ITB also. It came out nice.