|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025 |
Originally posted by MapOfTaziFoShoââ??¢:
Morbid I have never seen those pics before...where'd you get that and are there more!?
Terry Haines had them in his photo gallery on FCO. I think the original gallery was wiped off, so I dont think they are there anymore.
Jim Hahn
1996 T-Red Contour SE Reborn 4/6/04
3.0L swap and Arizona Dyno Chip Turbo Kit
364 whp, 410 wtq @ 4,700 rpm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,506 |
I'm having flashbacks of the huge tall velocity stacks on mid 60s Ford SOHC 427s, per the Comets of Christman, Scharfman and Nicholson. Now put 12 such stacks, or even 6 long 6 short on a Duratec: you're racing a pipe organ.
But in an old school fantasy mode, update the 60s Ramcharger manifolds: have two TBs, one for primaries and one for secondaries.
MSDS, SHO-shop Y, custom 2.5" catback; xcal2; 63mm TB, K&N 3530; Koni struts, Aussie bar; THaines forks, Quaife, SpecII, UR fly; DMD; Nima UD pullies; Stazi brakes; f&r Pole120 mounts. Just a daily commuter car. Silver '98 SVT E0 #3159
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,190
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,190 |
Originally posted by morbid:
Watson created that for some CEG'er (or maybe a NECO Cougar guy). This UIM (below) was the original Porsche prototype... which is not similar to the Watson. Notice the huge plenums 
Not to jack this thread but....
watson did not make that for a ceg'r or neco guy. It was made for ford back around 1995. I talked to mr watson myself. It was on my car and i sold it to a neco guy. this was one of the prototypes.
PLEASE HELP ME GET MY CAR TOGETHER! ITS IN DAYTON OHIO! I need the motor together and in the car so i can DRIVE it! Pleeeeeese!
diamond pistons for 3.0/forsale
#702 of 2150
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,140
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,140 |
Tom-
My information comes from a pretty reliable source. A couple very bright kids at Penn State who just got their Mech Eng degrees did a senior project on the intake for our Forumula SAE car, and they have found that there is so little laminar flow in any intake that it's not worth designing around: and if there is ANY power to be found, the FSAE guys will design for it! They use two injectors per cylinder, and switch to the one further upstream to enhance atomization at high revs to get 2-3 hp!
Looking at a Catera and the Nissan VQ variable intake, I've wondered which is better. Modern designs have the switching system for the intake near the filter, which eliminates some of the issues we have - dirty butterflys, etc. But I am not enough of an expert to think about redesigning the system. However, there may be some gains in an aftermarket system. Whether it's better to simply rebuild the system like Mustang proposes, or move the secondary intake switching system, I don't know. There's probably not the aftermarket, however, and so we'll never see a $500 intake to get us 10hp. Too bad, because it might even look as cool as the stock one!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 71
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 71 |
Originally posted by Auto-X Fil:
Tom-
My information comes from a pretty reliable source. A couple very bright kids at Penn State who just got their Mech Eng degrees did a senior project on the intake for our Forumula SAE car, and they have found that there is so little laminar flow in any intake that it's not worth designing around: and if there is ANY power to be found, the FSAE guys will design for it! They use two injectors per cylinder, and switch to the one further upstream to enhance atomization at high revs to get 2-3 hp!
Looking at a Catera and the Nissan VQ variable intake, I've wondered which is better. Modern designs have the switching system for the intake near the filter, which eliminates some of the issues we have - dirty butterflys, etc. But I am not enough of an expert to think about redesigning the system. However, there may be some gains in an aftermarket system. Whether it's better to simply rebuild the system like Mustang proposes, or move the secondary intake switching system, I don't know. There's probably not the aftermarket, however, and so we'll never see a $500 intake to get us 10hp. Too bad, because it might even look as cool as the stock one!
It's funny you mention the switching system being moved to the inlet side of the manifold. I had a brainstorm last night (still recovering from that 1..or maybe it was the beer). Picture a very large log with a horizontal divider effectively splitting the manifold in 1/2. The longer primary runners run under the manifold and attach to the upper 1/2 of the log on opposite sides. The secondaries are a straight shot up into the lower half of the log. Basically the same design I proposed earlier but but with a divider. Now you can run a 2 butterfly progressive linkage TB and eliminate the the butterflies on the LIM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 636
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 636 |
Originally posted by Auto-X Fil:
There's no laminar flow in a system like this. It's pressure and velocity changes that designers try to minimize.
Originally posted by Auto-X Fil:
and they have found that there is so little laminar flow in any intake that it's not worth designing around: and if there is ANY power to be found, the FSAE guys will design for it!
Well I did an independent study on internal combustion engine intake manifold design my senior year of my mechanical engineering program and I'm not so sure about the statement. It depends on the surface roughness, which will determine the boundary layer thickness. I also designed an optimized intake system for my schools FSAE car as well.
Well for those of you wondering about this stuff here is some food for thought:
These are couple of copies out of a book written by Richard Stone entitled "Introduction to Internal Combustion Engines", which can probably be checked out at any local library.
It's a pretty good book for anyone with a curious mind. The formulas shown on those pages are pretty much what goes into intake design these days. I mean this is some old information, but a lot of the same stuff applies into todays modern cars/trucks. I think Tom mentioned this earlier as well.
-Mike
98 Contour SVT
Toreador Red #49 of 6535 Built on 3/25/97
WR Headers, Borla Cat-Back, Torsen T2 LSD, K&N Short Ram, S-AFC and Focus Shift Tower
85 Camaro
1969 358ci, 97 TA interior, 91 Z28 GrdEfx and Aero Wing 255rwhp
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 636
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 636 |
Look what I found:
initial draft:
Final design
All of the runners in this design were optimized for peak horsepower and torque for our application. Ended up having two runners for reasons already mentioned.
Also to explain somethings mentioned earlier about torque and runner length here are some pictures of the SVT Focus intake:
-Mike
98 Contour SVT
Toreador Red #49 of 6535 Built on 3/25/97
WR Headers, Borla Cat-Back, Torsen T2 LSD, K&N Short Ram, S-AFC and Focus Shift Tower
85 Camaro
1969 358ci, 97 TA interior, 91 Z28 GrdEfx and Aero Wing 255rwhp
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,089
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,089 |
i feel very confused after reading this thread, though a bit smarter 
99 V6SE Sport ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,140
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,140 |
Originally posted by CSVT#49:
Well I did an independent study on internal combustion engine intake manifold design my senior year of my mechanical engineering program and I'm not so sure about the statement. It depends on the surface roughness, which will determine the boundary layer thickness. I also designed an optimized intake system for my schools FSAE car as well.
Well, I'm certainly willing to listen to anyone who brings the tech. I find it interesting that you found the laminar flow to be significant, while they didn't.
Those files certainly give some more insight into what I was describing earlier, about why our sitem works the way it does. Certainly the FSVT design will avoid flow separation much better than the Contour manifold. My question now is close to the original one posted here:
Is there any way to make a dual-length manifold with the same runner volumes as the stock piece, but without the sharp bends?
I just don't see how we have the clearance to do it any other way, but if someone wants to do a lot of cutting, bending, and welding, it might be worth a few hp. The 3.0L intake might serve as inspiration: how does it change things?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 710
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 710 |
The intrepid has an interesting intake design. It has the short/long runners too... but its plenums are separated by a valve. The valve is vacuum operated (at least on my wife's 1999 3.2l). The separated plenums are supposed to give more low end torque, but you want them joined for high rpm. I think the short runners open up around 4,000rpm and the plenum valve opens around 5,000-6000rpm.
morbid
2000 Contour SVT (black)
|
|
|
|
|
