Intake design
#31
Instructor
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Admittedly I don't know anything about the physics involved with designing an intake manifold, but from a leyman's perspective these custom intake manifolds all seem very 'boxy' when compared to the smoother more rounded shape of the stock intake manifold. Surely the corners and hard edges would create extra drag and turbulence in the airflow? Or is this actually a desired effect?
Seems awfully counterintuitive; would anyone please care to enlighten? Clearly the boxy design has its advantages as shown by the empirical evidence in the link from the OP.
Seems awfully counterintuitive; would anyone please care to enlighten? Clearly the boxy design has its advantages as shown by the empirical evidence in the link from the OP.
#32
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by schadenfreude
Admittedly I don't know anything about the physics involved with designing an intake manifold, but from a leyman's perspective these custom intake manifolds all seem very 'boxy' when compared to the smoother more rounded shape of the stock intake manifold. Surely the corners and hard edges would create extra drag and turbulence in the airflow? Or is this actually a desired effect?
Seems awfully counterintuitive; would anyone please care to enlighten? Clearly the boxy design has its advantages as shown by the empirical evidence in the link from the OP.
Seems awfully counterintuitive; would anyone please care to enlighten? Clearly the boxy design has its advantages as shown by the empirical evidence in the link from the OP.
#34
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by schadenfreude
Admittedly I don't know anything about the physics involved with designing an intake manifold, but from a leyman's perspective these custom intake manifolds all seem very 'boxy' when compared to the smoother more rounded shape of the stock intake manifold. Surely the corners and hard edges would create extra drag and turbulence in the airflow? Or is this actually a desired effect?
Seems awfully counterintuitive; would anyone please care to enlighten? Clearly the boxy design has its advantages as shown by the empirical evidence in the link from the OP.
Seems awfully counterintuitive; would anyone please care to enlighten? Clearly the boxy design has its advantages as shown by the empirical evidence in the link from the OP.
Pauerman brought up an excellent question. If the stock intake outflows the head, how are you going to see much of a gain if any? I cannot say for sure how much of a beneficial effect there will be on our 8v heads as I have yet to get my car running to test it out for myself. I promise I will post as much info as possible once I do. However, looking at this from a scientific standpoint, it is still entirely possible that a modified intake could be made to have beneficial effects and improvement in power. The reason why? Well, again, it all has to do with sizing. The Honda intake link I originally posted is an excellent example of this. It is entirely possible to enlarge components like the plenum, TB, etc while still doing things to maintain airflow velocity. If done right, you can acheive greater airflow volume at lower valve lifts (as a result of lower airflow restriction) which can result in more power "under" the curve as well. While the stock head flow capability might limit your overall power potential quite a bit, if you acheive a greater volume of airflow at lower valve lifts, you can still see improvements in power, torque, etc. I'm racking my brain to try and think of how I can explain this any easier. I mean this is simple high school physics and there's nothing hard to understand about it.
Tommo, sorry but, you are just wrong about the exhaust topic. A larger diameter tube will result in increased liquid/gas flow capability with reduced restriction. Again, forcing a grape through a straw. If you can't understand this, I really just don't know what to say. It's been proven before that on a stock turbo 951, there is a minimal gain from a straight 2.5" to a straight 3", so that's understandable. A bigger turbo is going to produce more substantial gains. The European Car project 951 gained something like 40whp in switching to a 3" on a Kokeln turbo setup. Anyways, enough on this subject.
#35
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by A.Wayne
Ok, but the F1 renault engine had 2 , 2inch tail pipes.. , most if not all turbo cars with a single exit will benifit from a 3 inch pipe., IT IS ALL ABOUT WHAT LEVEL OF HP. 530 BHP FROM A STOCK 951 intake is doable , it has been done , need's a 3 inch exhaust min. , a larger exhaust on a turbo engine wil not cost T/q , this is controlled by the turbo exhaust housing , too big a rear housing will cost you T/q , as well as too small will kill your HP. It is all about Horses for courses'. where would you like to go and what do you want to do .
![](http://www.f1greatcars-museum.com/technical/engine/img/Renault%20twinturbo-b.jpg)
The exhaust turbine is bigger than 2", the runners feeding the turbo are probably 2" or larger.
They did not run a 2" exhaust pipe. The pipe would choke and reduce engine output GREATLY.
![](http://www.f1greatcars-museum.com/technical/engine/img/BMW%20TEa.jpg)
BMW showing a large exhaust pipe.
BTW, torque is a function of volumetric efficiency and mechanical efficiency. Backpressure will ALWAYS reduce torque in a turbocharged engine, this includes manifold, turbine housing, and post turbine backpressures. They directly resist flow and require mechanical pumping to expel the exhaust gas.
#36
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Pauerman
How does the int/exh flow of an S or S2 head compare to the typical Japanese head?
It is my opinion Porsche designed the DOHC cylinder heads to specifically be used in conjunction with a 3.0L powerplant. This would stand to substantiate the flow volume quite nicely.
#37
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by schadenfreude
Admittedly I don't know anything about the physics involved with designing an intake manifold, but from a leyman's perspective these custom intake manifolds all seem very 'boxy' when compared to the smoother more rounded shape of the stock intake manifold. Surely the corners and hard edges would create extra drag and turbulence in the airflow? Or is this actually a desired effect?
Seems awfully counterintuitive; would anyone please care to enlighten? Clearly the boxy design has its advantages as shown by the empirical evidence in the link from the OP.
Seems awfully counterintuitive; would anyone please care to enlighten? Clearly the boxy design has its advantages as shown by the empirical evidence in the link from the OP.
#38
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
It is not the CFM that makes the Honda Head flow so efficiently, it is the velocity that has made all the difference. Cramming both into one was their magic.
The major Differences between the Type "R" intake design and the regular VTEC were plenum volume, runner length and size. Larger, shorter, larger... respectively. (older Integra) Shape stayd the same.
Swap a Type "R" Acura RSX intake on a regular VTEC RSX. You gain 5-8 horsepower. Naturally aspirated. Repeatable. Turbocharged versions made more. I'm fairly sure the 951 could gain a little from this.
Hasn't N - E - One done a before and after dyno with their custom intake? (Only a custom intake change and nothing else?) True emperical data here? anyone? anyone? ..... you know it's coming...... Bueller?
The major Differences between the Type "R" intake design and the regular VTEC were plenum volume, runner length and size. Larger, shorter, larger... respectively. (older Integra) Shape stayd the same.
Swap a Type "R" Acura RSX intake on a regular VTEC RSX. You gain 5-8 horsepower. Naturally aspirated. Repeatable. Turbocharged versions made more. I'm fairly sure the 951 could gain a little from this.
Hasn't N - E - One done a before and after dyno with their custom intake? (Only a custom intake change and nothing else?) True emperical data here? anyone? anyone? ..... you know it's coming...... Bueller?
#39
Three Wheelin'
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
968 head is great in any ways but it's big advantage is it's flaw in one way: it's the port size that is good for flow-bench numbers and forced induction but in NA forms the port velocity is too low. VarioCam smoothes it out a bit but in NA form 968 head's true powerband is above 7000rpm.
#40
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Official Jack off extinguisher
Posts: 1,173
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Driftomagnifico
![](http://www.f1greatcars-museum.com/technical/engine/img/Renault%20twinturbo-b.jpg)
The exhaust turbine is bigger than 2", the runners feeding the turbo are probably 2" or larger.
They did not run a 2" exhaust pipe. The pipe would choke and reduce engine output GREATLY.
![](http://www.f1greatcars-museum.com/technical/engine/img/BMW%20TEa.jpg)
BMW showing a large exhaust pipe.
BTW, torque is a function of volumetric efficiency and mechanical efficiency. Backpressure will ALWAYS reduce torque in a turbocharged engine, this includes manifold, turbine housing, and post turbine backpressures. They directly resist flow and require mechanical pumping to expel the exhaust gas.
#41
Nordschleife Master
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I dont' know how this turned into an exhaust discussion. I've kept my way out of this thread but I share opinions with Porschefile and Drifto.
Also, ITB setups have nothing to do with maximum power. Their benefit is throttle response. Contrary to a single TB-manifold which have vacuum in the whole plenum which needs to be filled when you floor it.
Oh, and the Renault F1 turbo engine is a twin turbo V6 (= twin exhausts etc.).
I will end the exhaust discussion by presenting this page: http://www.gurneyflap.com/engine.html
It contains info and pictures of many of the state of the art factory race turbo engines made for F1 etc. Even if you don't know squat about formulas, flow etc. It is quite obvious a big exhaust is preferred by just looking at the pictures.
Also, ITB setups have nothing to do with maximum power. Their benefit is throttle response. Contrary to a single TB-manifold which have vacuum in the whole plenum which needs to be filled when you floor it.
Oh, and the Renault F1 turbo engine is a twin turbo V6 (= twin exhausts etc.).
I will end the exhaust discussion by presenting this page: http://www.gurneyflap.com/engine.html
It contains info and pictures of many of the state of the art factory race turbo engines made for F1 etc. Even if you don't know squat about formulas, flow etc. It is quite obvious a big exhaust is preferred by just looking at the pictures.
#42
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I find this particularly interesting as I am putting together a 16v 968 turbo, but it seems as if Porsche were thinking long term with the 16v head, it was meant to remedy the 'deficiences' of the 951, but they changed their mind on strategy at some point.
#43
Nordschleife Master
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Raceboy
968 head is great in any ways but it's big advantage is it's flaw in one way: it's the port size that is good for flow-bench numbers and forced induction but in NA forms the port velocity is too low. VarioCam smoothes it out a bit but in NA form 968 head's true powerband is above 7000rpm.
![thumbup](https://rennlist.com/forums/graemlins/thumbup.gif)
The intake ports are too big. But hey, not that bad for a turbo conversion
![Smilie](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif)
#44
Formula One Spin Doctor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Driftomagnifico
![](http://www.f1greatcars-museum.com/technical/engine/img/Renault%20twinturbo-b.jpg)
The exhaust turbine is bigger than 2", the runners feeding the turbo are probably 2" or larger.
They did not run a 2" exhaust pipe. The pipe would choke and reduce engine output GREATLY.
![](http://www.f1greatcars-museum.com/technical/engine/img/BMW%20TEa.jpg)
BMW showing a large exhaust pipe.
BTW, torque is a function of volumetric efficiency and mechanical efficiency. Backpressure will ALWAYS reduce torque in a turbocharged engine, this includes manifold, turbine housing, and post turbine backpressures. They directly resist flow and require mechanical pumping to expel the exhaust gas.
Not sure of the conjecture , the housing based on turbo being used , does not appear to bigger than 2 inch , also 2 inch runners for the manifold, i don't think so , it was only 1.5 L making one bank 750 cc , looks more like 1.25 or 1.5 max for the runners , the megatron is more as it is single outlet , this one bigger than 2 inch for sure , as i have seen that engine close up , being single turbo it is larger than the renault twin turbo setup..
#45
Formula One Spin Doctor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Driftomagnifico
They flow very well. I would say they flow almost too well for the typical RPM band you see in a 2.5L.
It is my opinion Porsche designed the DOHC cylinder heads to specifically be used in conjunction with a 3.0L powerplant. This would stand to substantiate the flow volume quite nicely.
It is my opinion Porsche designed the DOHC cylinder heads to specifically be used in conjunction with a 3.0L powerplant. This would stand to substantiate the flow volume quite nicely.