INTAKES: What do you run or are building?
07-30-2014, 06:14 PM
#31
Rennlist Member
Don't have the charts yet. Soon. But we were able to make some small gains down low and flatten out the top. Looks like we're making the same power at about 3psi less. Wound it up to 26psi and made 548whp on a conservative dyno. No sign of coolant leak either which was very pleasing from the new gasket/ring setup!
07-30-2014, 09:53 PM
#35
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Here are the charts. So not as much of difference to the curve shape than I was expecting. Looks like it dies off a little later than the previous 6k. Seems that we pickup about 30whp at same psi which is great. Cracked the 550whp mark and also 520ft/lbs or 705Nm at the wheels. Glad we've finally employed throttle based boost ramp! Really pleased that the gasket held up under high boost on the dyno too.
07-30-2014, 09:58 PM
#36
Rainman
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
undisputable.
the kind of thing that makes you say.."WOW!"
do you plan to run it at that PSI still or, dial it back a little to keep power the same as before with less pressure?
the kind of thing that makes you say.."WOW!"
do you plan to run it at that PSI still or, dial it back a little to keep power the same as before with less pressure?
07-30-2014, 10:34 PM
#37
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
At this stage we've set it to 1.4bar / 20psi at 100% throttle. See how we go on the weekend.
07-31-2014, 01:08 AM
#39
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Not on other 944 forums anyway. Most seem to be very conservative. That's why I hardly bother posting on that Aussie one. They just don't seem to want to know about front engine Porsches. Just want to polish their cars and go for coffee! lol
07-31-2014, 01:10 AM
#40
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Hope we can see others post about thier intakes and results in this thread. Wasn't my intention of making it all about me. ;-)
07-31-2014, 01:22 AM
#41
Professional Hoon
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,090
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
The aussy forum isn't big on "builds" as most came from the PCV. more about ownership then modifications. Best thing aboutt he forum is the occasional catch ups, events and the hill runs. and other stuff like go-karting ect.
Do admit though, when i first met up with the vic guys, they took a huge interest in my build and where amazed how much work went into the engine.
But on the intake side of things.. I do hope to make my own one day soon. Dave always tells me not to bother as the stock one will work best in my application. It would be fun just to build one.
I'd probably build a shorter runner with a medium sized plenum around 1/3rd smaller than yours.
All i need is the base first.
Do admit though, when i first met up with the vic guys, they took a huge interest in my build and where amazed how much work went into the engine.
But on the intake side of things.. I do hope to make my own one day soon. Dave always tells me not to bother as the stock one will work best in my application. It would be fun just to build one.
I'd probably build a shorter runner with a medium sized plenum around 1/3rd smaller than yours.
All i need is the base first.
07-31-2014, 01:33 AM
#42
AutoX
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patrick, fantastic job!
Getting that much improvement over the stock intake is awesome! I studied airbox design and created my own CF airboxes on e36 M3's in the past, all NA. Even with using CFD, you may have adverse results on the dyno, but your result is FANTASTIC!
I know RaceCar Engineering had several articles about venturi design in the past, but we're talking a max of 2.5% of an improvement, which would be very little change over your manifold. I wish I could find that article and the Reynolds #'s for it.
Here's an interesting dissertation, been around awhile, based on airbox design for an Toyota 2.0. Doesn't exactly pertain, but interesting nonetheless:
http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/availab...ssertation.pdf
Anyway, pure awesomeness!
EDIT: Now that's an BIG turbo!
Getting that much improvement over the stock intake is awesome! I studied airbox design and created my own CF airboxes on e36 M3's in the past, all NA. Even with using CFD, you may have adverse results on the dyno, but your result is FANTASTIC!
I know RaceCar Engineering had several articles about venturi design in the past, but we're talking a max of 2.5% of an improvement, which would be very little change over your manifold. I wish I could find that article and the Reynolds #'s for it.
Here's an interesting dissertation, been around awhile, based on airbox design for an Toyota 2.0. Doesn't exactly pertain, but interesting nonetheless:
http://upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/availab...ssertation.pdf
Anyway, pure awesomeness!
EDIT: Now that's an BIG turbo!
07-31-2014, 02:38 AM
#43
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Hmm, that's quite a read!
Thanks for the kind words. :-)
Thanks for the kind words. :-)
07-31-2014, 04:58 AM
#44
Any chance to see a torque x rpm graph? Would be curious to see the torque drop between peak torque rpm and peak power rpm.
Even if the curve still falls down a bit up top, the engine will feel a lot better-breathing beyond 6k rpm from the driver's seat, and this is the point.
Shorter runners would most likely put in evidence the restrictions of the 2V head more significantly, and I'm sure with an "intermediate" runner length between two extremes (stock vs Corleone's) like what you have now you have kept a nicely wide torque band as the result of the reasonable compromise between the limited flow potential of the 2V head and the need to open up the top end to give room to your turbo. Good job!
Even if the curve still falls down a bit up top, the engine will feel a lot better-breathing beyond 6k rpm from the driver's seat, and this is the point.
Shorter runners would most likely put in evidence the restrictions of the 2V head more significantly, and I'm sure with an "intermediate" runner length between two extremes (stock vs Corleone's) like what you have now you have kept a nicely wide torque band as the result of the reasonable compromise between the limited flow potential of the 2V head and the need to open up the top end to give room to your turbo. Good job!
07-31-2014, 05:19 AM
#45
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Torque over rpm is the 2nd graph Thom. For whatever reason they don't match the scale so they intersect at the normal 5250rpm mark. I'm not exactly sure why. I think they tend to run it to road speed instead.
I agree re the runner length. I was initially concerned that they were longer than I wanted but now seeing how the characteristic of the curve is very similar with the stock intake then perhaps it's really what some of us have come to the conclusion on about the limitation of the 8v head, no matter how modified? Still, 400ft/lbs at 6700rpm is still pretty nice. That little dip of hp and tq at about 4500 is tyre slip.
While some others are able to put through well over 30o timing say after 6k I believe my tuner has tried this without success. I don't know if we are 'suffering' due to a very high quality spark...not sure if that's possible to have an effect...but I also think the tuner who deals with a lot of race cars is more likely to want a 480-550whp car circulating instead of the 650whp motor on an engine stand with a rod out the side out of the block. Not great for business. ;-)
Appreciate your comments and input along the way as well as Sid, Shawn, Gustaf, Vic and others. A great bunch. :-)
I agree re the runner length. I was initially concerned that they were longer than I wanted but now seeing how the characteristic of the curve is very similar with the stock intake then perhaps it's really what some of us have come to the conclusion on about the limitation of the 8v head, no matter how modified? Still, 400ft/lbs at 6700rpm is still pretty nice. That little dip of hp and tq at about 4500 is tyre slip.
While some others are able to put through well over 30o timing say after 6k I believe my tuner has tried this without success. I don't know if we are 'suffering' due to a very high quality spark...not sure if that's possible to have an effect...but I also think the tuner who deals with a lot of race cars is more likely to want a 480-550whp car circulating instead of the 650whp motor on an engine stand with a rod out the side out of the block. Not great for business. ;-)
Appreciate your comments and input along the way as well as Sid, Shawn, Gustaf, Vic and others. A great bunch. :-)