Porting intake manifold, larger tb vs. itb's

The 1UZFE EGR Delete Kit is available for sale here.
the other thing im just chewing on justen - youll remember i gave up on the idea of increased velocity, in preference to your density alone idea. but perhaps we should split the system in two - runner and valve throat. i cant believe that the pressure differential across an open valve wont see a greater velocity, and if the whole mach .6 is getting munched at that point, perhaps we'ere seeing a secondary limit in the intake tract?

Hmm could be Ed but 2 things have me thinking it wouldn't be as big a concern 1) it's a tiny length...almost no length at all as it's really a boundary and 2) it's not turbulance in a pipe (as caused by mach+ speeds) impeding new flow, it's a choked flow pouring out into a void....isn't the idea of improving intake flow to create the biggest delta P across the valve you can to improve cyl filling?

I reckon i get the runners outta the way 1st as relatively easy and see where that leaves us.
 
Justen, thx for the quick & concise update. In light of all this, a choked flow situation seems like it might be a reasonable explanation.

Wouldn't you think Toyota, in keeping with their stated goals of torque, smoothness, and low NVH figures for this motor, probably elected to use tiny runners in the manifold? Frankly, I've never looked closely at them, although I think I have two lower manifolds in my junk bin atm.

It wasn't until the later generation motors came out that they began their program of variable length/diameter runners to tune the system for better output at higher RPM, without sacrificing the low end right?

What's the velocity through these runners? (I hear you about the CFM vs mass flow, but I'm speaking about NA motors) Years ago Vizard was thinking to limit runner velocity to somewhere less than 200 fps IIRC?
 
As an afterthought, and from a practical perspective, has someone (Erol probably?) put the head and manifold combo on a flowbench to see what happens with stock valves and lifts when you're flowing between 50 and 100 cfm per port?
 
Looking at the head, I now have a couple of spare ones to play with, there is a smaller cross sectional area after the lower intake manifold.

A mate of mine has just about finished porting one chamber for flow testing, at which point we will consider bigger valves or not. I will be doing a back to back dyno test after the head work is done :)

Taking bets on intake and exhaust CFM now... with stock valves.
 
I think the magic number is 330ft/sec (mach 1) but to be on the safe side 300ft/sec is a better target....i'd have to pull out the txt to be 100% but that's ballpark.

I don't know of anyone who has put the head/intake combo on the flow bench but good idea.

Took a spare manifold around to Erol today and he concurs that my plan is doable so it's out with the saw and dremel for me and then over to Erol for the TIG work.

Watch this space http://lextreme.com/forums/showthread.php?p=82156#post82156
 
Seems I read somewhere that the inlet runners are around 1.57" (40mm) in diameter, so here's a little chart of runner velocities vs RPM for 20mm, 30mm and 40mm diameter runners. I assumed 100% VE for sake of simplicity, and I ran the curves out to well past 14,000 RPM.

None of these curves, except the 20mm runners come near the magic 180 or 200 fps velocity that Vizard warned was the upper limit. Of course it could be that the runners have such a tortuous path that a 40mm runner is "acting" like a 20mm, when the motor is trying to gulp 6000 RPM worth of air.

One interesting point is that Vizard calculated the velocity straight from the engine's CFM calculations, but we know the air is only moving in the runner half the time. So for a "calculated" velocity of 180 fps, the "real" velocity in these runners is probably around double that; nevertheless, Vizard used 180 as his upper limit for calculations, and he's no dummy.

Ed & Justen, I'm not following your Mach calculations? Mach is a ratio of "something's" velocity to the speed of sound, which in Imperial units, is 1130 feet per second. So I would think using Vizard's magic number of 180 ft/sec would be more like Mach 0.16, not Mach 0.6? What am I missing?
 
Yeah sorry Cribbj, the old memory is becoming less and less reliable so a bit off on the mention of mach. Still, the numbers were right. 330ft/sec as where pipe flow goes pear shaped and Cosworth reckon 300ft/sec is the go. Vizard, guru that he is, seems a bit conservative on this one...maybe because he's talking airflow that also contains fuel (carbie) ???

Anyways, it's not peak velocity that's the issue....well it is probably a factor but more the increasing boundary layer thickness reducing effective runner diameter.

At the end of the day we won't know the why's without extensive flowbench testing so i'm just going to have a crack at this mod, pretty confident in the knowledge it will work. I suspect the debate of 'why' it works will rage on for some time :)

PS thanks for the chart, good bit of info. You don't have one for exhaust pipe flow versus hp by any chance?
 
Basic and understandable intake designs and theories.

For all our everyday readers that would just like to modify their stock intake on your street driven Lexus/Soarers...

Outside of all these high performance intake flow comparisons, long and short runner comparisons, , velocity charts, and tech talk dribble, etc..For our everyday Lexus/Soarer street car owners, the most restrictive part of our stock intakes is the MAF body...The MAF body is smallest area in which the intake air flow has to pass thru... The whole idea of getting good intake results is to try and draw in as much ouside cold dense air as possible and simply try and re-direct it to flow straight into the throttle body (MAP setup)or into MAF body (MAF stock setup)..

So when considering getting the best intake flow for our city driven SC4's and LS4's while keeping it legal and reliable the BFI intake design should be considered as the most effective and cheapest intake available...(Which can be found on Planetsoarer.com). It's free and is basically a re-design and alteration of our stock intake systems..The BFI intake allows more free flowing outside air to flow directly into the intake and that's about it...Now, taking it a step further, deleting the MAF altogether, Sensors, and ecu controls and switching to a MAP setup allows you to remove the MAF and body altogether allowing a more free flowing intake.... Makes things very simple..

Also, what I have seen witnessed on most of the fastest steet driven cars, and that maybe even a better design then the legendary BFI intake is to try and draw cold intake air from the front passenger side top wheel well...Cut out a good size hole on top of the wheel well and mount and redirect the intake air flow from there....It appears the tire rotation within the wheel well can create exceptional cold outside air flow into the intake rather then the BFI design which scoops the cold air from the front of the car...I have not seen tests between the two designs, but the experts say the BFI design is the best and can't be beat..I question that statement strongly...Filtration concerns again should be taken seriously when drawing intake air from a wheel well...

10hp is the most you should expect to gain from a BFI intake design..Which can't be felt on a butt dyno in most cases..I have tried that, and noticed no noticeable difference..... I went a step further and went with a larger "injen snorkel tube" as well as cut finned alluminum inserts which are mounted on the inside of the aftermarket snorkel tube..It is said the fin inserts are said to break up intake air molacules better to help create better combustion within the chambers..

Now, another concern to think about is that aftermarket snorkel tubes even though they are larger and appear to flow better do not..Apparently the stock snorkel tube creates a speedy circular air flow which while other after market snorkel tubes do not..Infact, some larger snorkel tubes have been shown to actually slow up intake flow... This mod should be carefully considered...

This is a picture of my combined custom Rod Millen, Injen, and BFI intake designs with the stock MAF still intact... I think this setup works decent on my car... I have the Rod Millen cone filter which I am not that high on, but I have directed the outside intake airflow to hit the pod directly in a box like made compartment when I shut the hood...Also I have a made a custom heat shield surrounding the pod filter...
 
I had a bad experience with the rmm intake filter on my 2000 celica. The metal cap in the front center actually came off and lodged itself in front of the throttle body butterfly only allowing 1/4 throttle. They were quick to send me a new one though.
 
Not good Ursus...

No problems to report with my RMM filter...The only reason I purchased the Rod Millen filter is because it was the biggest I could find on the market that could actually fit in place where the normal stock intake box use to be, it also has a filtered area on the very top front of the filter where as all the others I tried did not... .. They actually sent me a cone filter with the Injen snorkel tube and intake system but it was too damn small looking. I tried others as well and also found them all to be too small in comparison.....The RMM intake simply looked like best flowing filter system available in the cone shape, so I went with it..... No regrets on my part so far..
 
Here's the Mach reference. This exact text has been lifted and copied on other tech websites, but I believe the original reference is Erbman's Engine Emporium at: http://www.eaa1000.av.org/technicl/engemp/engemp2.htm originally published in 1994. This author, Russell Erb also quotes from Taylor "The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice"

""For convenience, the ratio of the typical velocity to the intake sonic velocity is called the inlet Mach index. From the science of fluid mechanics we know that the controlling velocity in a compressible flow system is usually the intake valve opening." For a given cylinder and valve design, the inlet Mach index is proportional to the piston speed. This seems reasonable, that the fuel/air charge flows in faster when the piston moves down faster. Of course, at some point the constriction of the valve opening starts to limit this. When the inlet Mach index exceeds 0.5 (intake velocity equal to half the speed of sound), the volumetric efficiency falls rapidly with increasing speed. "Therefore, engines typically are designed such that the inlet Mach index does not exceed 0.5 at the highest rated speed.""

I say put that puppy on a flowbench and see what's going on when it's gulping 5500 to 6000 RPM worth of air.

Sometimes an hour of flowbench, dyno, or track time can provide more useful information than a Cray munching on a CFD model for 10 hours.
 
Would the calculation of a 4.0 liter, V-8, with 40mm runner diameters be 5610 RPM peak torque, for a N/A application. Is that correct?
 
Would the calculation of a 4.0 liter, V-8, with 40mm runner diameters be 5610 RPM peak torque, for a N/A application. Is that correct?

Andrew, are you speaking about the "calculated" rpm for peak torque, or the actual? And if it's the calculated peak, I'm curious what tools you're using for the calculation?

The "actual" RPM figure for peak torque, as I'm sure you're aware, is much lower; the published figure from Toyota is at 4400 RPM.

Look how fast the torque curve drops after its peak; if one could just keep it level for a few hundred more rpm, it would make a huge difference in the bhp. That's what Erol was able to do, and I'm guessing that's the area that Justen is chasing. The rest of us are just going to cram more air in it with our turbos and superchargers, and leave the finessing of these NA motors to the RSG's (Real Smart Guys)
 
John,
Calculated peak torque from a program that only looks at number of cylinders, engine size and intake runner area. Kind of Mickey Mouse to be sure.

I am currently trying to make an intake manifold. Going for front mounted throttle body from a Nissan. The Lexus is 70mm and this is 83mm, at the butterfly.
Looks like it will be a single plane plenum, so any benefit from the Helmholtz theory and a resonator is negated. Still, with twin turbos, larger T.B. and 550 cc/min. injectors I should get the power I am looking for.
It is a very slow go at the moment but things are moving now.
 
ed_ma61;82130) seriously said:
Here is a story for ya Ed.....

Once upon a time in a small town a long long time ago there was a boy named Jibby..He had a notion to remove an old set of stock headers off an older Chevy 454 iron block motor that was taken out of an Older Cadilac...Jibby grabbed a wrench and locked down on the old rusted header bolt and began to torque in a counter clockwise direction..Jibby torqued down hard but where he went wrong is that rather then using the closed end portion of the wrench he used the open end portion of the wrench for fitment sakes only... At the time they didn't have closed end socket wrachet wrenches, poor Jibby.. What happen next boys and girls was the unthinkable...The dreaded Craftsman wrench slipped as Jibby's hand and knuckle thrust into the cars metal chasis portion ripping the skin right off the knuckle.. Jibby saw bone as blood began to gush everywhere... Young boy Jibby was pissed and threw the wrench as far as he could....

To be continued.....


You said stay off the soaps, how about a horror story instead to draw your interests Ed?

Ps. Hey, If mum thinks your cool that's good enough for me pal...:smokin:


A little break inbetween the serious posts... Hope no one minds...:laugh:
 


Top