Turbo intake pipe prototyping pics
#31
12-11-2009, 07:08 PM
Of course hot air is less dense and makes less power but there is one thing you have to consider. For any significant amount of heat transfer to take place in piping you would need very slow moving air, and a lot of surface area, both of which are lacking in the intake piping.
That's why intercooler have large internal area and fins(turbulators). A giving mass flow rate of air moving into a larger cross section area means the velocity has to go down, giving time for more heat transfer, plus the very very large internal surface area of an intercooler provides more contact area for the air to aluminum. Like any heat sink that has fins for example.
The 996tt engine bay is probably in the 150 deg F range I'd guess, but I'll confirm with a IR temp gun. Even if the pipes stay at 150 deg F there will be very little influence on the actual intake air temp at the turbo inlet. I'd very surprised if it was more than 10 degrees difference at the air filter to turbo inlet. The good news is the car is getting an AIM MXL dash with full datalogging. I have thermocouple amplifiers and quick reacting exposed tip thermocouples that I can put at the air filter inlet and turbo inlet (after piping) to see the difference. I'll do this and let you guys know.
-Martin
That's why intercooler have large internal area and fins(turbulators). A giving mass flow rate of air moving into a larger cross section area means the velocity has to go down, giving time for more heat transfer, plus the very very large internal surface area of an intercooler provides more contact area for the air to aluminum. Like any heat sink that has fins for example.
The 996tt engine bay is probably in the 150 deg F range I'd guess, but I'll confirm with a IR temp gun. Even if the pipes stay at 150 deg F there will be very little influence on the actual intake air temp at the turbo inlet. I'd very surprised if it was more than 10 degrees difference at the air filter to turbo inlet. The good news is the car is getting an AIM MXL dash with full datalogging. I have thermocouple amplifiers and quick reacting exposed tip thermocouples that I can put at the air filter inlet and turbo inlet (after piping) to see the difference. I'll do this and let you guys know.
-Martin
The S Car Go carbon fiber intakes outperformed all other intakes that I have seen. The only explanation I could see was the cooler intake air.
Back in the day the day, Ruff motors performed better than basically like US motor's. The reason was their intakes provided more volume of air. They were larger. Others copied and they came up with like results. From there we found providing cooler (a la non heat conducting materials) intake air provided more power.
I bet you if you take any metal using fresh air intake (like above) and dyno the same engine against the S Car Go carbon fiber intake ...... the carbon fiber one will make 6 to 8 more hp and slightly more torque across the board every time.
We proved it more than a few times.
Last edited by cjv; 12-11-2009 at 07:12 PM.
#32
12-11-2009, 07:12 PM
Martin,
The S Car Go carbon fiber intakes outperformed all other intakes that I have seen. The only explanation I could see was the cooler intake air.
Back in the day the likw Ruff motors performed better than US motor's. The reason was their intakes provided more volume of air. They were larger. Others copied and they came up with like results. From there we found providing cooler (a la non heat conducting materials) intake air provided more power.
I bet you if you take any metal using fresh air intake (like above) and dyno the same engine against the S Car Go carbon fiber intake ...... the carbon fiber one will make 6 to 8 more hp and slightly more torque across the board every time.
We proved it more than a few times.
The S Car Go carbon fiber intakes outperformed all other intakes that I have seen. The only explanation I could see was the cooler intake air.
Back in the day the likw Ruff motors performed better than US motor's. The reason was their intakes provided more volume of air. They were larger. Others copied and they came up with like results. From there we found providing cooler (a la non heat conducting materials) intake air provided more power.
I bet you if you take any metal using fresh air intake (like above) and dyno the same engine against the S Car Go carbon fiber intake ...... the carbon fiber one will make 6 to 8 more hp and slightly more torque across the board every time.
We proved it more than a few times.
#33
12-11-2009, 07:17 PM
Some people won't think much of 6-8 hp. however when you view it as a percentage of what equal sized heat sinking part makes, the percentage difference is hugh.
I would also like to point out another issue. To scan an engine compartment really isn't an accurate indicator when the parts are in close proximity to real hot parts like the heads, etc.
If heat wasn't such a issue on charged air, why does coatings like Swain applied to an intercooler account for a 6% percent minimum increase in IC efficiency?
Now to put things in perspective .... I do not know what the above intake costs, but the SCG CF intake was over $2,300.00 and it had breaking issues if not installed and maintained properly. I no longer use it because I decided to use much shorter and wider under the rear fender intakes, however we do not use any metal for the piping.
I do want to clarify another thing. I am not criticizing your produce. I am sure it outperforms a stock intake. I am simply saying that whatever the gains are, they would be better if the metal parts were made of something else (non conducting material) or as an alternative, the metal parts were coated with a non heat transferring material. In addition, when I refer to metal, I am also including the modified Porsche metal piece which is a hugh chunk of metal.
I would also like to point out another issue. To scan an engine compartment really isn't an accurate indicator when the parts are in close proximity to real hot parts like the heads, etc.
If heat wasn't such a issue on charged air, why does coatings like Swain applied to an intercooler account for a 6% percent minimum increase in IC efficiency?
Now to put things in perspective .... I do not know what the above intake costs, but the SCG CF intake was over $2,300.00 and it had breaking issues if not installed and maintained properly. I no longer use it because I decided to use much shorter and wider under the rear fender intakes, however we do not use any metal for the piping.
I do want to clarify another thing. I am not criticizing your produce. I am sure it outperforms a stock intake. I am simply saying that whatever the gains are, they would be better if the metal parts were made of something else (non conducting material) or as an alternative, the metal parts were coated with a non heat transferring material. In addition, when I refer to metal, I am also including the modified Porsche metal piece which is a hugh chunk of metal.
Last edited by cjv; 12-11-2009 at 07:57 PM.
#35
12-11-2009, 09:06 PM
The intake you are referring to was built for my car on my dime and then made from carbon fiber.
I have never been interested in selling anything and let them do what they wanted with it. Interesting thing was ...... Porsche ordered and had one sent to them.
As for the state of the art ........ it isn't with the blow thru, MAF and single TB any more.
Last edited by cjv; 12-11-2009 at 09:09 PM.
#36
12-11-2009, 09:07 PM
Back in the day the day, Ruff motors performed better than basically like US motor's. The reason was their intakes provided more volume of air. They were larger. Others copied and they came up with like results. From there we found providing cooler (a la non heat conducting materials) intake air provided more power.
I'm putting SCG getting from a friend here in this forum. A little nervous too about fragile of carbon fiber that might break and get into turbos.
Last edited by aroonkl; 12-11-2009 at 09:18 PM.
#37
12-11-2009, 09:12 PM
It's been a few years now, but I believe it is metal and hose. The advancement as i said with the Ruf wasn't the materials, but the increase in sizing and removal of restrictive changes in directions.
This thread is starting to get off topic. If someone wants to start another thread I would be happy to participate.
This thread is starting to get off topic. If someone wants to start another thread I would be happy to participate.
Last edited by cjv; 12-11-2009 at 09:14 PM.
#39
12-11-2009, 09:47 PM
Dave, I will tell you what little I know (which is not alot). EVOMS told me when I had their GT660 package (A28s, exhaust, headers, V-flow intake, injectors) with a race file that my setup was limited by turbo intake capacity on the stock pipes which are very restrictive. They said if the pipes were changed I would get faster spool and untimately higher boost. When I got the upgrade including software, fuel lines, and intake pipes, my boost went from 1.3 bar to 1.5 bar. The boost increase was probably mostly software mediated. The wastegates were also adjusted per EVOMS instruction to give more boost at lower rpms.
While I cant tell you exactly what they tuned, the car was totally different after this upgrade. It hit earlier and harder. The intake noise was much more audible. The most significant performance aspect, imo, was the car pulled hard all the way to the limiter. Before the pull had kind of died off at about 6500 rpm. This high speed pulling was graphically shown to me at the TX Mile:
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...exas-mile.html
Now how much of the credit goes to intake pipes? I really dont know, but I think this is a critical supporting mod to pass a performance point in which the small tortuous stock pipes start to limit your engine especially at high rpm.
While I cant tell you exactly what they tuned, the car was totally different after this upgrade. It hit earlier and harder. The intake noise was much more audible. The most significant performance aspect, imo, was the car pulled hard all the way to the limiter. Before the pull had kind of died off at about 6500 rpm. This high speed pulling was graphically shown to me at the TX Mile:
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...exas-mile.html
Now how much of the credit goes to intake pipes? I really dont know, but I think this is a critical supporting mod to pass a performance point in which the small tortuous stock pipes start to limit your engine especially at high rpm.
Our cars are MAF based, barring maxing out the MAF sensor and any weird map anomalies in the ECU, the ECU should compensate. I would be surprised if I see more than a 20-25whp difference on our dyno test honestly. For a small change like that you should not need a flash and the ECU should handle it no problem.
I've done quite a bit of testing in the past with turbo intake pipe sizes on different cars. A quick example here. Going from a 3" single intake on a 500whp car to a 4" intake gained absolutely nothing!! Air filters always rob some horsepower right? On our 1100whp drag car it made basically no difference going from a filter to open intake. What I'm saying is that bigger is not always better, unless you need it. What may seem like an obvious improvement might already be working fine in it's current form, hence the dyno testing
Out of curiosity, do most forum members know the difference between a MAF based and Speed Density ECU calibaration? If not this would be a perfect opportunity to explain a few things.
-Martin
I've done quite a bit of testing in the past with turbo intake pipe sizes on different cars. A quick example here. Going from a 3" single intake on a 500whp car to a 4" intake gained absolutely nothing!! Air filters always rob some horsepower right? On our 1100whp drag car it made basically no difference going from a filter to open intake. What I'm saying is that bigger is not always better, unless you need it. What may seem like an obvious improvement might already be working fine in it's current form, hence the dyno testing
Out of curiosity, do most forum members know the difference between a MAF based and Speed Density ECU calibaration? If not this would be a perfect opportunity to explain a few things.
-Martin
#40
12-11-2009, 10:12 PM
I look forward to the dyno testing of this piece - will prove very interesting IMO especially if there are already baselines for this car without it...
#41
12-11-2009, 10:49 PM
Anyone using the FVD Intake Plenum? I had it for a while. Back in the early days of the GT640. I was told by iA that it was the reason for my stock MAF's popping, so I replaced it. 
It had that high strength vacuum cleaner like intake tubing. Wish I still had it.
It had that high strength vacuum cleaner like intake tubing. Wish I still had it.
#42
12-12-2009, 04:22 AM
http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforum...butor-kit.html
#43
12-12-2009, 08:27 AM
It looks like UMW's kit is similar to the FVD.
http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforum...butor-kit.html
http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforum...butor-kit.html
#44
12-12-2009, 09:49 AM
Honestly the AMS piece, if of sufficient size, ought to be better than one made of nothing but aluminum. The rubber hosing shouldn't pickup the heat nor radiate it into the intake airflow as easily as aluminum would. Having some flex might also be good if there's any movement of the parts - say the engine rocking while attached to something more stationary like turbos? I think the AMS piece is a good idea if it can be done on a budget and the dyno proves it out. The fenderwell pieces with a blow through will still support more power but not everyone is looking to make that kind of power and maintaining filters in the fenders isn't as easy <shrug>
I look forward to the dyno testing of this piece - will prove very interesting IMO especially if there are already baselines for this car without it...
I look forward to the dyno testing of this piece - will prove very interesting IMO especially if there are already baselines for this car without it...
with that said lol , i have the blow through setup so im not worried
. in my opinion when climbing the horsepower latter its a step above anything else , i have no drivability issues ,and about everyone i know with this setup has no issues , only people i know who had issues are two people , and who knows why, 2 people out of about 15 that i know .. is not bad , only think i notice is at idle, it will oscilate (sp?) about 100 rpms up and down.... which i really could care less about
#45
12-12-2009, 01:10 PM
Last edited by dgreen78; 12-12-2009 at 01:14 PM.