It looks a lot like a GTS-R individual runner intake.
Yeah... and a 5oz tack hammer has a striking resemblance to a 20lb sledge... and thats about as close of a comparison as his disaster is to a GTS-R intake.
Amazing how the guy is trying something new and getting ripped apart about it.
If it wasn't for innovation, these fucking things would still be running 12's.
S.
See he's not exactly breaking new ground here. Moch of this stuff is cut and dry, right or wrong.
Being able to bolt it in place, or not is a pretty fundamental design element.
It's not too bright to build a box with no support ribs and expect it to stay together with 4000 pounds of force trying to rip it apart. Which it could very easily see.
It's not ripping on him for no reason, it's because what he designed is pretty much useless.
I know DB comes across with the tact of a nuclear war, but when it comes to metal and manufacturing (knows a fair amount of fluid/thermo too), he knows what he is talking about. That's what he does all day long and he is very good at it. My advice to Doc would be to take what he says as most likely true. Don't get pissy and hurt... just say ok and think about how to implement his suggestions.
I know DB comes across with the tact of a nuclear war, but when it comes to metal and manufacturing (knows a fair amount of fluid/thermo too), he knows what he is talking about. That's what he does all day long and he is very good at it. My advice to Doc would be to take what he says as most likely true. Don't get pissy and hurt... just say ok and think about how to implement his suggestions.
Actually Doc has taken every thing you guys mention very well. No pissy or hurt atitude. He actually liked bouncing things off you guys. Atleast thats what I read.
Actually Doc has taken every thing you guys mention very well. No pissy or hurt atitude. He actually liked bouncing things off you guys. Atleast thats what I read.
I agree...I was just saying for future reference. He has surprised me actually in taking criticism.
Doc, it is a very nice looking item. Hell, it looks like a million bucks!
Compliments aside, DB is right on with his points. I agree with the structural issue with no ribs, and also I see the bolts tearing out of the lower section. This is assuming that the top is bolted to the bottom via threaded holes. I can't see if those are thru holes or not, but virgin aluminum will be torn, and stretched after a little use. Other than that, I just do not see the upside to using this over a sheetmetal unit. Weight, and ease of manufacturing is also something I see as a loss to a sheetmetal manifold.
If I were you, I would strongly entertain looking at adding more "unrestricted" volume to the design. Have you thought about how you are going to keep the trumpets from backing out, or striking in under vibrations? I am reading as though you plan to screw the trumpets in or out to tune the manifold. Are you going to lock-tite them in place, or add some sort of keeper?
It is nice to see innovation, and a strive to do unique things. I just think that for the time and money involved- you would be better off doing a sheetmetal intake. Good luck!
I had to get off the computer and actually run some errands on my day off. Any way I was eating dinner with my wife, and I am pondering the statement that Former PFR said about the stacks being an obstruction for n/a applications. You see, I’m a science guy and things have to sound logical to me or it doesn’t work or I have to ask a hundred whys to satisfy my curiosity. But science and motors don’t always go hand in hand. I’ll start on 101 basics and see if it makes any since to you (Former PFR) and me. Now your max air flow depends on how much volume a cylinder can hold. As your pistons go down it pulls air with it and the exhaust valves close and intake valve opens. And depending on if it’s a stock or larger ported head, it can be a quicker filling up of air in the cylinder. So as air gets sucked through the tb, and through the head and into the cylinders, most of the air goes through the 1st few cylinders and less air to the rear cylinders meaning the rear cylinders run richer (in the case of the ROE). Therefore the egts would be lower. Most of the time we are more afraid of the cylinders going lean vs. rich. If I had to guess, the rear ones would probably lose 10-20 cfm. I am not sure if that makes a big difference or not. But that doesn’t solve the issue of having less air back there. Then I was thinking about some of the sheet metal manifolds that I have seen out there with the tapered ends. Maybe the tapered end design actually increases the remaining air velocity by decreasing the plenum space. I have seen those tapered designs on both n/a and turbo applications. But I believe in more of the larger plenum design vs. the tapered design for turbo applications.
Now back to my manifold design. Actually I was incorrect regarding the stacks. They are actually 2”, the same length as the runners. If you look at the front view, the dead center of the tb plate is above the stacks so obstruction of air flow is less likely to exist. I have seen other manifold with tall stacks for different car applications but can remember on what website. The stacks are most likely below the tb. I guess for my design to work for n/a applications, the firewall end will have to be tapered. Here’s another question, how steep of a tapered angle and where does it start. But for a true n/a manifold to work, the design must compliment the head porter’s art work in allowing for certain lifts and duration of air to pass by. Like I said n/a motors are not my cup of tea.
Now how do you back up your theory that an oval design for the runners works better than a transitional design that myself and exoticengine.net uses. Once the manifold is finished, I am going to give Greg Good a call to see if he can do a flow test on that runner design but I would have to make another bottom piece with the oval design for comparison. Maybe one day I’ll get a wild hair up my ass and fork out the money to do the oval design. Greg does flow testing on the heads and I’m not sure if the equipment is the same or not for flow testing intake manifolds, but I will give him a call.
You know I was wrong saying the back ones would run lean. You are correct that they would run rich. The FRONT ones would run lean if you are running an average AFR. So, I retract that statement...not sure what I was thinking.
As far as the oval being better than a transition, I modeled both in Solidworks and ran Computational Fluid Dynamics on them. The difference was minimal, but it was there (About 5%). I understand why exotic does it...they have individual throttles and it is easiest to do them circular, especially in regards to throttle response (trust me, I have tried other shapes). For that reason, it makes sense for them to go circle to oval. The reason why is that air doesn't like changes in shape and volume. It introduces head loss. As long as the runner is smooth so that the boundary layer effects cause less shear friction head loss than the inlet conditions posed by the transition, it will flow better. Being that the runner is short, this is almost guaranteed. Head loss is a squared function in regards to Reynolds number. At the high speeds that the inlet air is seeing, these shape factors can have serious effects.
If you ask really nicely, and you send me your intake files on something compatible to solidworks, I can maybe run some CFD on them to see how the rear runners are affected. Most cars have lots of vertical room in their plenums for the air to flow. That way they get nice even flow to the trumpets. Because the air in Viper intakes has to go through the middle of the trumpets in most designs, it is really hard to get even flow. I remember talking to Mike about his and puzzling about the little doughnuts he had. I was a freshman at the time and really had no idea about engines. However, what he said to me made sense and stuck with me. Since then I have done a lot of work in designing similar components on various high powered cars and have found out just how correct he was.
Honestly, the Mitech setup is about perfect for you. It was designed specifically for high HP turbo cars using turbos the size of which you speak (Notice the T6 turbo hanging in one of the pictures). Mike is an engineer by trade and was one of the engineers at Garrett (IIRC) during the pioneering of turbocharging. Mike forgets more in a day than I have ever learned. I guarantee you if you get his intake, you will not be disappointed. I know a lot of thought went into it...it wasn't just slapped together.
I really applaud your efforts in designing one yourself. What I am about to say is not meant to be insulting in any way. It is something I have come to learn myself and it was a tough pill to swallow. When I was a freshman engineering student, I was far less intimidated by projects than I am today. The reason why is that after all of this intense schooling, I have learned to know what I DON'T know. I have found that the more you learn, the more design factors you notice. This is the reason a guy like DB can look at something and pose all of these questions. He is far better at it than I, but I have certainly come a long way. As a doctor, nobody doubts your intelligence, but engineering really is something that is hard to do without the schooling. I am working for a guy right now a lot like you. He is a lawyer who is very engineering minded, but he still doesn't see a lot of the issues that one only sees after lots of classroom instruction, case studies, and experience. I am sure with a lot more work your intake could be very good, but I really doubt it will exceed Mike's design. His is pretty much as good as it is gonna get for a big turbo Viper.
Yeah... and a 5oz tack hammer has a striking resemblance to a 20lb sledge... and thats about as close of a comparison as his disaster is to a GTS-R intake.
That is not what the first ones looked like, dickbag.
It’s been a hectic day. My guy final called me back and told me that he has the Solidworks software but doesn’t use it. The software that he uses may have a different format and may not crossover to Solidworks or if it did the image may not come out right.
I took another look at the Mitech today. It looked like the same thickness that I’m using, which is ¼”. The cast runners will save some weight. It looks like his runners are probably 3”. I have tried different length runners on my design and I choose 2” for 2 reasons:
a. It gives me a larger plenum but on the down side it makes it a little bit heavier. You will be surprise, for every ½” in runner height it reduces the plenum volume quite a bit. The bottom of the Mitech is more v shape.
b. As a general rule of thumb, the shorter the runner length, the more high end power verses longer runners for low to mid end power. My goal of course is to hit the high traps. Since the motor has a lot of low to mid end grunt, I am focusing on the top end.
I don’t know if a minimal 5% difference in the runners oval vs. transitional or a donut vs. trumpet or shorter vs. longer runners or small vs. larger plenum all washes out in the end.
Its been a long day and right now the brain is dead. I will take up discussion later this evening.
