GoodfellaFD3S

iTrader: (213)

Damn. What did you tell the dude who sold you the intake manifold?

ZoDDy

I suggest that you try it b4 you ban the inlet from your project.. Give it a shot.. you already bought it and you will loose lot's of cash for nothing.. at least try it!!

Auto Illusions

Calling and calling about the turbo every day...........Innovative says they are waiting for some parts to finish the build.......I really want to get the new header built and get the turbo mounted up to see if i have enough clearance for a new mani....

The stock mani is so tight to the engine, that is the hardest thing to overcome when building a sheet metal intake.

RX-Heven

iTrader: (1)

I'm not bagging on you, but have any of you guys questioning these designs ever seen custum sheet aluminum manifolds before? This is a pretty typical way of designing them and if you think they are not efficient, let the NHRA pro stock teams know that because they use the same basic design principals and are always looking for a few extra hp. Maybe you found it for them.
Hogans and several other companies are about the best in the business and you can be sure they know what they're doing.

The topic about even distibution to all rotors being in question because of the centered tb placement sure does seem like it could be improved upon. But short of going with 2 or 3 seperate tb's, I don't know how they could do it. By doing that, you are substantially increasing the cost for what might be very little, if any gains at all. Sure would look cool though.

Auto Illusions, I didn't mean to burst your bubble by uploading that pic. Sorry about that. But just by comparing those two pics you can see plenty of differences between the two that make it pretty obvious that your design is not a copy of the Hogans manifold. You manifold is one of a kind most likely. Think about the design limitations they had to work with. I bet any place you go to will end up designing something similiar because of the limitations. You already have a nice, one of a kind manifold in your possesion.

On that note, if you really want something different, go with two or three tb's or even better, p-port the engine and you'll have your one of a kind setup, or at least one of three...

Drag'nGT

Dave, that is the most simple and logical manifold for this engine I have seen thus far (minus the stock one). But I keep thinking about a problem that was mentioned earlier, too much or too little air into the chambers. I suppose there isn't a "perfect" design.

mpfcc

IMHO I think it's a shame you tore down a 19k miles CYM like that. You could have atleast got a higher mileage CYM for a "project car". Just my 2 cents.

The rest of the project is pretty awesome though.

jimlab

It's his car, isn't it?

BTW, there's nothing wrong with that Hogan's intake manifold. They know far more about intake design than the arm chair Physicists on this forum.

ForceFed

We've been seeing pictures of your V8 for quite some time now. Any chance we'll see the car move under it's own power before the close of the century?

jimlab

Anything is possible.

ForceFed

Excellent! I'm ordering my Dr. Scholls insoles in anticipation of my geriatric excitment!

Drag'nGT

Bwahahahahaha!!!!

ZoDDy

Hogans they are probably very good at manifolds and what i've heard, Hogans do 99% piston engine manifolds becoz this is the biggest market.. Sounds logic too me.

Some of the tunnelram sheetmetal inlets looks really awsome and they probably perform that way too, but i don't think you can not compare the V8 inlet and the rotary one..

You dont have to be a physicist to wonder why the majority of the car manufacturer use round and smooth inlet runners? They spending billions of bucks to improve things all the time. Highperformance sports car, Aircrafts Formula1 you name it.. IMO it's not a coincidence . And look at the original LS1 intakemanifold.. I'm pretty sure that GM know what they doing. Everything is not directly good becoz it's shiny Even if all the Harley owners seems to belive that

jimlab

Why? Is the air a rotary engine ingests different from the air a V8 ingests?

Have you ever seen the inside of the runners of a Hogan's intake?



Sure it's a great intake manifold... for stock air flow. If they were really so great, though, would things like this exist?

Auto Illusions

Could we start an intake thread?

I just don't want to get off the subject and lose any ones interest that is following this thread!

Thanks.

x]SPHYNX[x

uhm, as for turbos, if you want stuff to support over 1000hp, easily, then i have a few reccomendations. For single turbos, my only reccomendations would be the Trust T88 series (the T88-34D can only support 900 i think), the T88H-34D can support 950 or 1000, and the new T88H-38GK (sp?) can reportedly support around 1100hp, which is damn crazy.
As for twins, well, there sure is a shitload of options. You got your HKS 3240's (in twin they support around 1200hp, 600hp each), HKS 3040, HKS 3037 and 3037S. Then your Veilside/HKS 3540's (not sure on the estimate, but GTR-700 uses them, and that car is currently running at over 1 megawhatt of power [1300hp] from a stroked RB26-DETT [stroked to 2.7L], more info at www.exvitermini.com), so as you can tell they support a shitload, and cost it too. Then there's your trust T67's (in twin), TD06's (in twin). And they basically are your big players in the japanese turbo scene. BTW HKS are better engineered versions of Garret, and trust is Greddy.
You could always opt for your local ones, providing they do the trick and are up to scratch. I just prefer the japanese makes because they are of high quality and get the job done right.

jimlab

I thought the subject at the moment was your intake.

Auto Illusions

Yes, you are correct and i appreciate your input on the subject....

I am sure you understand my statement if you have read back a few pages...

Auto Illusions

I have already chosen my turbo although i do appreciate your opinion.. It seems as though you are knowelegable on this subject and if my turbo setup does not work, i will be reconsidering..

Any way, i am going with the Innovative GTB series with an 88 compressor wheel and 132 exhaust AR.

It is a plenty big turbo, if only it will spin!

SPOautos

You wont have to worry about it spinning on a 20B, they have awesome exhaust velocity and can turn the hell out of a turbo. I dont think that turbo is going to make the power your wanting though if your looking for 1000RWhp. It'll get close if its using a Garrett T88 wheel but I think your going to fall short of your goal.

Your going to need to flow about 135lbs/min of air (about 1900cfm) to make 1000rwhp. I'm sure Innovative has a compressor map for that turbo, call them and see if it'll flow 135lbs/min. If its using a Garrett T88 compressor wheel I think its MAX its 125lbs/min of flow which should put you right about 900-950rwhp if you totally max the turbo. I'd get a turbo that can flow around 150lbs/min just to leave yourself some margin for error.

Stephen

jimlab

I know it's a little late in the game, but I'd find a way to use two turbos if you don't want a power curve that looks like a 25-foot tall haystack and starts at 5,000 rpm.

Making the power you want with a single turbo means sacrificing your low end. Since you stated that this isn't meant to be a purpose-built drag car, I think you're going to be highly disappointed in its street manners. First, because of the lack of power in the rpm range seen in typical street driving, and second, because the power is going to come on violently over a very short rpm range once you do get the turbo spooled and get into the powerband.

Experience and history has shown that cars like this (Red-Rx7's ~600 RWHP 20B car is a good example) have a hell of a time with traction on street tires. When you push for maximum power out of a small displacement engine, it's going to have undesirable characteristics for street driving both when on and off boost. Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too, unless you start with a lot more cubic inches to fill in the low end.

I'm very interested to see how your project turns out, as I'm sure we all are, so please don't incorrectly interpret my comments as criticism of your project. It was not my intention be facetious or argumentative. I really am trying to help.

Red-Rx7

Jim-

My curve is drastic, but not like the 5k pikes peek climb, typically seen on Supras or people shooting for the 1k mark.

I was able to build full boost by 2800 rpms, which is very streetable. But, as with any car with large horsepower numbers (yours included), traction is nill with full accelleration. Street tires will not plant in my powerband, and do not see how a change in what I have now (for the better, without loosing power) could be any different.

As of right now, in 1500 RPM's I go from 300 rwhp to 630 rwhp. Yet, while in 500 rpms, I go from 300 rwhp to 500 rwhp. The turbo was actually too small for my engines airflow on the upper end of the rpm range. The power setup was very early in the powerband, which was great. By 4500 RPMs (could have been earlier, but the particular dyno was started late in the RPM band), I had 500rwhp.

My "large" horsepower gains were from 4000 - 5000 RPM range; not like the other crap starting at 5,000 working on up. I wish I was able to dyno the car in 4th gear by starting at a low RPM and working up, which would give a better picture in view of rwhp to rpm levels. Just looking at the numbers, the dyno really started at 3750 rpm. At 3750 rpm, it made 195 rwhp on the initial mash of the throttle. Yet, 250 rpms later, it was already at 300 rwhp. Therefore, I believe if the dyno would have started at 2000 rpm, it would have been told more info than mashing on it when Acosta did.

I no longer have that turbo setup. The ball-bearings burned themselves out in less than 1800 miles, all highway driven. In researching why this failure occured, it became obvious that the engine airflow was too much at peek (6000 rpm). Ideally, you would want a turbo to support a 70% or higher efficiency at peek. Yet, I was at the 20-25% efficency area at peek, meaning that 75% of the energy the turbo was making was only heating up the air.

I have now gone to a T76 compressor, and am very interested in the potenial differences. Here are the two compressor maps with a line drawn through, demonstrating where the turbo was operating:

OLD MAP


NEW MAP

Red-Rx7

Jim, one thing I have learned, was foot control. The car is amazing at 25% throttle, where traction is easily held. Combined with the power & torque, 25% throttle rolling into 50% throttle handles most anything out on the road I have came across for comparisons.

Auto Illusions

I had considered the twin setup and may reconsider again if the car is not driveable with the single turbo setup....

I am counting on the fact that a rotary engine has a very violent exhaust gas like SPOautos said and that a 3-rotor will have 1.5 times the exhast output as the 13B..

I have driven a 13B with both a t-78 and t-88 on the street and neither seemed to be undriveable or to laggy....

Because of my experiences with large turbo 2-rotors, the extra torque and added exhast gases a 20B can provide, i chose to try the large single turbo setup....

Any way, my turbo should be here any day now and i will start building yet another exhaust header! FUN FUN FUN

SPOautos, i am told that the GTB88 will provide 1850CFM with no problem and my goal is to get 1000 HP but not particularly to the rear wheels however that would be nice! I was also told that compressor maps are not something they normally hand out...i believe because of the costs involved in the testing..

jimlab

I know. I was referring to what his curve would look like with a single turbo making ~1,000 RWHP. I only used your car for reference because you'd mentioned traction problems with quite a bit less power. Rice Racing was another one who couldn't put his power down effectively under 100 mph. At least until he got a Race Logic traction control system.

See above.

What are you using for engine management that safely allows partial throttle acceleration under boost? Tuning is typically done at WOT, so how does your engine management system compensate for partial throttle driving?

But neither had a large enough cartridge or A/R for anywhere near 1,000 rwhp, obviously.

Red-Rx7

I have a Microtech 4bar ECU. When we initially tuned the car, we tuned it for street operation (on the street), then we went to the dyno to clear up various areas that require the WOT adjustments.

The tuning still needs further refinement, but was done with a few hours of street driving. This would entail various boost level mapping. Basically, tuning while I drive at various throttle positions for fine tuning. The ECU does mathmatical formulas to handle the various areas of increasing boost through the map (ie 2.5 psi, it calculates the injector pulses, etc), but where most of the street tuning was involved was in coming from vacuum pressure to a specifc positive manifold pressure.

We did many different ways, trying to map large vacuum pressure areas (higher rpm, then let of the throttle), to various blips from specific points. The datalogging of the software also made it much easier to see where the adjustments were needed.