|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,387
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,387 |
98 3.0 svt: Sold
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1
Newbie
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1 |
looks pretty cool. one thing id have to question however is the airflow paths of the intake. maybe u could fill me in....im fairly sure if that was an N/A motor....it would be horrible for even air distribution to all cylinders.. if u think about the different paths the air has to take to each cylinder. now maybe in a pressurized intake you wouldnt see the same problem...however...its quite possible you would. another thing id like to question is the choice of runner length...why not shorter or longer? (i really dont know the pro/cons of either except that turbos tend to like shorter runners.)
btw...if he still needs the t5...i have a nice used one with 43k miles on it that will prob need to go soon. im thinking of upgrading to the Viper T-56 trans before i blow this one.
Last edited by TCobra50; 07/24/03 10:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
Prolly not that much different that the 2.5 Duratec standard intake. The only real diffence is there are not two different length paths to each cylinder with this intake. I.E. both paths to a given cylinder are nearly the same length.
With the 2.5L Duratec intake, both paths to a given cylinder are a different length, and looking at a single bank, each cylinder has a different length from the TB to that cylinder.
However, the turns and bends may not be as abrupt in the standard 2.5L Duratec intake.
Of course, if you are going to build something that nice, I'd expect it has been flow tested just a bit.
TB
"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 7,012 |
nice work. 
Oo (xxx)oO
o xxxxxxxx o
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,970 |
OMFG! I have been thinking of custom intakes for our cars, and that has some of the same ideas. Dual TB and equal length runners are the most obvious......wow! Very, very nice work!
2005 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4
1964 Chevrolet Impala SS
1998 CSVT: 354HP/328TQ @ 10 psi, now gone 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,713
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,713 |
Will the removal of the long/short runners be negated by the large (  ) plenums? I.E. will the engine reatain low end tq and high end hp. I wonder what the power curve would look like if a manifold setup like that was put on a N/A 2.5L.   
Derek
Scion xB 5-spd
Previous: 2000 Silver Frost SVT
Please share the road with cyclists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,621
Redneck Troll
|
|
OP
Redneck Troll
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,621 |
Originally posted by TCobra50:
looks pretty cool. one thing id have to question however is the airflow paths of the intake. maybe u could fill me in....im fairly sure if that was an N/A motor....it would be horrible for even air distribution to all cylinders.. if u think about the different paths the air has to take to each cylinder. now maybe in a pressurized intake you wouldnt see the same problem...however...its quite possible you would. another thing id like to question is the choice of runner length...why not shorter or longer? (i really dont know the pro/cons of either except that turbos tend to like shorter runners.)
The main plenum of the intake will be, at minimum, half of the displacement of the cylinders it's feeding. Since he's got the banks divided with separate plenums, they each feed 1.5L of displacement, requiring .75L per plenum. He's fine there... the length of the ram tubes/LIM/head port length are most critical. You can find calculations online using the cam duration, RPM you want the intake tuned for, and pressurized or not to be able to find the port volume you're after. Boosted engines (this one will wear a Vortech SC, custom configuration of course) are much less critical.
If he wanted low end TQ, he could have built a 5.0L swap, which would have been much less costly because it's been done before by other people. David just likes to be his own kinda person... a trait common in XR owners in the first place. 
http://www.bnmotorsports.com
"And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my CEG brothers. And you will know I am the Moderator when I lay my vengeance upon you."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,944
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,944 |
Well, since all the power questions are already being thrown around... The first thought that came to my mind when I saw the intake, "OMG! Can you imagine how loud that is going to be? Very cool indeed!" I mean, that thing just looks loud. Alabama huh? Sounds like a road trip to me!! I would love to see that in person. 
Phillip Jackson
`98 Mystique LS
262K+ and counting...
ATX rebuilt @ 151K
"This storm has broken me, my only friend!" RIP Dime
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,127 |
Looking at that, it is going to be a Biatch to change the waterpump on that engine.
It does look sweet in there, especially without the PS pump up front.
TB
"Seems like our society is more interested in turning each successive generation into cookie-cutter wankers than anything else." -- Jato 8/24/2004
|
|
|
|
|
You serious? Mustang. 
In that case, I'll shut up cuz I don't know a thing about the 3.0's other than what I've read here. 
