The perfect intake?
03-27-2005, 05:40 PM
#1
U wanna try me young boy?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,024
The perfect intake?
Hey all. Does anyone have any dyno plots comparing different intake types with stock?
I've seen a lot of discussion about the different intakes (pop, HAI, CAI, hacked box etc) and they all seem to have their strengths and weaknesses. I'm wondering if it would be possible to design a single intake that combines the best of each type of intake into a single design. First thing I need to do is understand how much of a difference each kind of intake makes, and in which part of the rev range - see whether it's even worth the hassle of doing something custom...?
The sort of thing I was thinking of was maybe leaving the stock airbox/snorkel in place or use an OSCAI, but attaching a K&N cone like a pop charger in place of the battery - hooking them both up side by side so air can come in either way using a y-pipe. Then the pop-charger air path could have a butterfly valve opened by a summit switch (I already have a summit switch etc for my MEVI, so I'd just have a second solenoid controlling the butterfly on the popcharger. The idea would be that you get the cold air benefits of the OSCAL at low RPM, but when you reach 5500rpm and the mevi kicks in so does the popcharger and the engine can now suck much more air. It would be warmer air, but the extra volume would make up for the lower density.
I have workshop that I can fabricate the parts in, I just need to start of finding out if it's worth it. If I'm only gonna get a couple of low-end hp then it's not worth the energy and I'd just get a popcharger.
I have a '96 5spd w/MEVI and a Y pipe, and my stock airbox/snorkel
I've seen a lot of discussion about the different intakes (pop, HAI, CAI, hacked box etc) and they all seem to have their strengths and weaknesses. I'm wondering if it would be possible to design a single intake that combines the best of each type of intake into a single design. First thing I need to do is understand how much of a difference each kind of intake makes, and in which part of the rev range - see whether it's even worth the hassle of doing something custom...?
The sort of thing I was thinking of was maybe leaving the stock airbox/snorkel in place or use an OSCAI, but attaching a K&N cone like a pop charger in place of the battery - hooking them both up side by side so air can come in either way using a y-pipe. Then the pop-charger air path could have a butterfly valve opened by a summit switch (I already have a summit switch etc for my MEVI, so I'd just have a second solenoid controlling the butterfly on the popcharger. The idea would be that you get the cold air benefits of the OSCAL at low RPM, but when you reach 5500rpm and the mevi kicks in so does the popcharger and the engine can now suck much more air. It would be warmer air, but the extra volume would make up for the lower density.
I have workshop that I can fabricate the parts in, I just need to start of finding out if it's worth it. If I'm only gonna get a couple of low-end hp then it's not worth the energy and I'd just get a popcharger.
I have a '96 5spd w/MEVI and a Y pipe, and my stock airbox/snorkel
03-28-2005, 07:12 AM
#4
Ya see?...........this is the type of role-modeling .Org'ers that we need more of. Very creative and also a goodhead on his shoulders. Please let us know how it turns out. I would go with your idea and also, hopefully not too far down the road, grab yourself a nice catback exhaust and let your lady breathe properly. I bet that car will sound sick once that Mevi opens up and activates the popcharger.
03-28-2005, 07:37 AM
#5
The other consideration is where you're pulling air from - static vs non-static air pressure. I didn't get a chance to test last year but did get a digital manometer to start testing best flow locations in and around the frontal area of the vehicle. I'm taking a different route with the intake and working on a cold air N/A charger to increase the air density into the IM.
03-28-2005, 09:30 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 163
Originally Posted by BEJAY1
The other consideration is where you're pulling air from - static vs non-static air pressure. I didn't get a chance to test last year but did get a digital manometer to start testing best flow locations in and around the frontal area of the vehicle. I'm taking a different route with the intake and working on a cold air N/A charger to increase the air density into the IM.
After all, I just view my engine as a very inefficient, gas-powered, air compressor that I can drive.
03-28-2005, 01:11 PM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 253
I gotta hand it to the nissan engineers.. They did a damn good job with the stock air box. And alot of the after market systems arent a huge improvment..like u were sayin some increase low end others give a little on the high end. Maybe try and retrofit a cold air intake into the stock intake system. Some how use the stock snorkel and airbox...Maybe hack the airbox on the bottom and create a cold air tube that connects to it. So you would virtually be pushing cold air into the existing stock box..
03-28-2005, 01:33 PM
#11
I've mentioned the butterfly plate intake over a year ago. I decided to not go through with it. Why? Waste of time and money. In the end, no matter what you do the car won't feel as strong as it does with the stock system in place. Adding the cone is a waste. Why not just have a cone going into a 3" diameter pipe, then into a 6" diameter collector(4-6" long) into the MAF, and staright into the TB? My current intake is a cone behind the driver side headlight/corner light, staright pipe, MAF, TB. It feels torquey and sound retardedly weird/cool above 5500 rpm.
03-28-2005, 02:05 PM
#12
Originally Posted by Torgus
i'v seen 600+whp skylines with stock airboxs. again it's only an intake.
Personally I wouldn't go through the trouble .. still, if someone will why not.
03-28-2005, 03:33 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 994
ill probably catch some abuse for this, but if this guy is willing to give something a shot, heres another idea you can tinker with. ive thought this would be a good idea for a while, but i have no energy to embark on a project like this seeing as i already have enough issues to deal with on my car.
i know the idea of electric super-chargers have been discussed over and over again.. i know.... i know....... but hear me out before some of you guys lash back at me. traditionally, these electric super chargers are noting more than a fan mounted in-line inside the intake tube and were only engaged during wide open throttle. the two biggest downfalls of it were the fact that at anything under w.o.t. , the fan would be nothing more than an obstruction to regular air flow, and when engaged, the motor would drain the altenator, creating strain on the engine. mathmatically, the extra strain would rob whatever gains the intake would produce.
Now.. follow me here... what IF you used and intake with two seperate entrances, controlled by a butterfly valve that was hooked up in line with the w.o.t. switch that kicked on the electirc motor?? this would eleminate the big problem of a restricted flow when not at w.o.t. . example... you can have your primary air path (entrance #1), be a cold air intake, or whatever you like to benefit your low range. then, in the upper rpms, you can flick a switch, closing your butterfly valve, and engaging your electic supercharger which would be your secondary intake path. a short, direct path? mabye even running a ram air snorkel and piping it to the electric supercharger? also, i wouldnt have the w.o.t. swicth controlled by the gas pedal. rather a toggle switch so you could keep your foot on the floor, let the primary path serve its purpose until you gain rpms, and then flick a switch to change over when you decide you want an extra punch.
second problem is typically the altenator strain. i dont understand how this could rob a significant amout of power, but id imagine it would be more of a low end, low rpm problem. i cant see how turning on a motor for, say 30 seconds, while your engine is already racing is going to have a significant effect.
just an idea.. mabye somebody would wanna tinker with it..
i know the idea of electric super-chargers have been discussed over and over again.. i know.... i know....... but hear me out before some of you guys lash back at me. traditionally, these electric super chargers are noting more than a fan mounted in-line inside the intake tube and were only engaged during wide open throttle. the two biggest downfalls of it were the fact that at anything under w.o.t. , the fan would be nothing more than an obstruction to regular air flow, and when engaged, the motor would drain the altenator, creating strain on the engine. mathmatically, the extra strain would rob whatever gains the intake would produce.
Now.. follow me here... what IF you used and intake with two seperate entrances, controlled by a butterfly valve that was hooked up in line with the w.o.t. switch that kicked on the electirc motor?? this would eleminate the big problem of a restricted flow when not at w.o.t. . example... you can have your primary air path (entrance #1), be a cold air intake, or whatever you like to benefit your low range. then, in the upper rpms, you can flick a switch, closing your butterfly valve, and engaging your electic supercharger which would be your secondary intake path. a short, direct path? mabye even running a ram air snorkel and piping it to the electric supercharger? also, i wouldnt have the w.o.t. swicth controlled by the gas pedal. rather a toggle switch so you could keep your foot on the floor, let the primary path serve its purpose until you gain rpms, and then flick a switch to change over when you decide you want an extra punch.
second problem is typically the altenator strain. i dont understand how this could rob a significant amout of power, but id imagine it would be more of a low end, low rpm problem. i cant see how turning on a motor for, say 30 seconds, while your engine is already racing is going to have a significant effect.
just an idea.. mabye somebody would wanna tinker with it..
03-28-2005, 03:55 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Torgus
it's only an intake...
What it boils down to is that unless it's FI, there's no better way to force the flow of air into the TB besides the stock airbox. Now, if the discussion here starts of revolve around a single hp and how much it matters to you all, then be it. But I'm not going to be part of it. Very ineffectual IMO.
03-28-2005, 04:05 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Stuntin' 101
ill probably catch some abuse for this, but if this guy is willing to give something a shot, heres another idea you can tinker with. ive thought this would be a good idea for a while, but i have no energy to embark on a project like this seeing as i already have enough issues to deal with on my car.
i know the idea of electric super-chargers have been discussed over and over again.. i know.... i know....... but hear me out before some of you guys lash back at me. traditionally, these electric super chargers are noting more than a fan mounted in-line inside the intake tube and were only engaged during wide open throttle. the two biggest downfalls of it were the fact that at anything under w.o.t. , the fan would be nothing more than an obstruction to regular air flow, and when engaged, the motor would drain the altenator, creating strain on the engine. mathmatically, the extra strain would rob whatever gains the intake would produce.
Now.. follow me here... what IF you used and intake with two seperate entrances, controlled by a butterfly valve that was hooked up in line with the w.o.t. switch that kicked on the electirc motor?? this would eleminate the big problem of a restricted flow when not at w.o.t. . example... you can have your primary air path (entrance #1), be a cold air intake, or whatever you like to benefit your low range. then, in the upper rpms, you can flick a switch, closing your butterfly valve, and engaging your electic supercharger which would be your secondary intake path. a short, direct path? mabye even running a ram air snorkel and piping it to the electric supercharger? also, i wouldnt have the w.o.t. swicth controlled by the gas pedal. rather a toggle switch so you could keep your foot on the floor, let the primary path serve its purpose until you gain rpms, and then flick a switch to change over when you decide you want an extra punch.
second problem is typically the altenator strain. i dont understand how this could rob a significant amout of power, but id imagine it would be more of a low end, low rpm problem. i cant see how turning on a motor for, say 30 seconds, while your engine is already racing is going to have a significant effect.
just an idea.. mabye somebody would wanna tinker with it..
i know the idea of electric super-chargers have been discussed over and over again.. i know.... i know....... but hear me out before some of you guys lash back at me. traditionally, these electric super chargers are noting more than a fan mounted in-line inside the intake tube and were only engaged during wide open throttle. the two biggest downfalls of it were the fact that at anything under w.o.t. , the fan would be nothing more than an obstruction to regular air flow, and when engaged, the motor would drain the altenator, creating strain on the engine. mathmatically, the extra strain would rob whatever gains the intake would produce.
Now.. follow me here... what IF you used and intake with two seperate entrances, controlled by a butterfly valve that was hooked up in line with the w.o.t. switch that kicked on the electirc motor?? this would eleminate the big problem of a restricted flow when not at w.o.t. . example... you can have your primary air path (entrance #1), be a cold air intake, or whatever you like to benefit your low range. then, in the upper rpms, you can flick a switch, closing your butterfly valve, and engaging your electic supercharger which would be your secondary intake path. a short, direct path? mabye even running a ram air snorkel and piping it to the electric supercharger? also, i wouldnt have the w.o.t. swicth controlled by the gas pedal. rather a toggle switch so you could keep your foot on the floor, let the primary path serve its purpose until you gain rpms, and then flick a switch to change over when you decide you want an extra punch.
second problem is typically the altenator strain. i dont understand how this could rob a significant amout of power, but id imagine it would be more of a low end, low rpm problem. i cant see how turning on a motor for, say 30 seconds, while your engine is already racing is going to have a significant effect.
just an idea.. mabye somebody would wanna tinker with it..
Without changing their structual design, our engines must have boost, internals must work under pressure and be strained. This is the only way to go. Of course you could raise the RPM, etc... but that's a different ballgame. Good luck.
03-28-2005, 04:25 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 994
well.. i guess it IS on the horizon.. heres an add i found.. seems to be a viable source of power with the correct engineering..
European auto makers are encouraging Visteon Corp. to develop an electrically powered supercharging system that will improve performance of small engines. The supercharger is needed because internal combustion engine/electric hybrids — and the 42-volt systems that will power them — for the most part remain just out of reach.
Visteon engineers are working with customers on engine projects for 2005-2006 that will use the Visteon Torque Enhancement System, or VTES, with a 12/14-volt electrical system.
It would be easy to adapt the VTES system to a 36/42-volt system, says Visteon engineer Jeff Brown, but the costs and complexity of such systems mean manufacturers are sticking with 12/14-volt systems longer than was thought a few years ago.
And they are looking for ways to improve fuel efficiency to meet the coming 2008 European goal of 140 grams of CO2 per km, the equivalent of about 41 mpg (5.7L/100 km).
Visteon views VTES as a transitional system between today's engines and future gas or diesel/electric hybrid systems, but it predicts that hybrids will have less than 5% of the market in 2010.
The VTES system, as with a turbocharger, generates greater power by forcing more air into the combustion chamber. Traditionally, turbocharging has been the favored approach. But the problem is the annoying “turbo lag” that is inevitable, because the turbo compressor is powered by the exhaust gases.
In the VTES system, the compressor is powered by a brushless electric motor that turns an aluminum alloy compressor at 50,000 rpm — just 330 milliseconds after the driver demands acceleration.
Visteon has a dozen patents on aspects of its supercharger system, which has been in development for three years.
“We have patents on the motor, the application, electrical system management and the central interface, among others,” says a Visteon spokesman.
“The motor-compressor is about 30% of it, but integration is the difficult part. The competition might have a motor but not the integration.”
The motor requires 2kW of electric power in operation, so Visteon needs to manage the vehicle's entire electric network in order to stay within the limits of a 12/14-volt system.
Among other things, engineers packaged the battery next to the motor to reduce losses in the wiring and regulate output of the intelligent alternator. Boost pressure is 5.1 to 5.8 psi (0.35 to 0.4 bar), depending on the application.
To demonstrate the system, Visteon installed VTES in a naturally aspirated 1.2L Fiat Auto SpA engine and a 1.9L Renault SA turbodiesel. In the diesel, the airflow from the VTES is directed through the turbocharger, boosting the intake pressure faster than the turbo alone.
Ultimately, auto makers are interested in reducing the size of their engines if they can get the same performance, because fuel consumption will be lower. Reducing performance is not a marketable option.
Potential benefits are greatest in small- displacement engines. Brown says applications are impractical on engines larger than a 3L turbodiesel or a 2.3L naturally aspirated engine, because larger engines require more air than a 12-volt supercharger can deliver.
Thus, Visteon developed its program with Europe in mind, where engines are smaller than in the U.S. Most European car buyers express interest in enhancing performance, rather than downsizing, says Visteon, and there is more interest in enhancing turbodiesel engines than in boosting gasoline engines.
In a 1.9L diesel, torque is increased about 10% for engine speeds from 1,000 to 2,500 rpm, but there is some benefit even at top speed.
More dramatic results are possible with small gasoline engines. A 1.2L engine with the VTES system performs nearly as well as a 1.8L without VTES, yet fuel economy is 27% better.
Compared to a 1.2L engine without VTES, the more powerful VTES engine's fuel economy is unchanged at 39 mpg (6L/100 km).
“In everyday driving, you use only 30% of the torque available in your engine 90% of the time,” says Brown. “You pay a large penalty in fuel economy to have the extra power available that you rarely use.”
Compared to the 1.8L engine, drivers using a 1.2L VTES would save about $1,500 in fuel cost over 36,000 miles (58,000 km), with typical European fuel prices.
European auto makers are encouraging Visteon Corp. to develop an electrically powered supercharging system that will improve performance of small engines. The supercharger is needed because internal combustion engine/electric hybrids — and the 42-volt systems that will power them — for the most part remain just out of reach.
Visteon engineers are working with customers on engine projects for 2005-2006 that will use the Visteon Torque Enhancement System, or VTES, with a 12/14-volt electrical system.
It would be easy to adapt the VTES system to a 36/42-volt system, says Visteon engineer Jeff Brown, but the costs and complexity of such systems mean manufacturers are sticking with 12/14-volt systems longer than was thought a few years ago.
And they are looking for ways to improve fuel efficiency to meet the coming 2008 European goal of 140 grams of CO2 per km, the equivalent of about 41 mpg (5.7L/100 km).
Visteon views VTES as a transitional system between today's engines and future gas or diesel/electric hybrid systems, but it predicts that hybrids will have less than 5% of the market in 2010.
The VTES system, as with a turbocharger, generates greater power by forcing more air into the combustion chamber. Traditionally, turbocharging has been the favored approach. But the problem is the annoying “turbo lag” that is inevitable, because the turbo compressor is powered by the exhaust gases.
In the VTES system, the compressor is powered by a brushless electric motor that turns an aluminum alloy compressor at 50,000 rpm — just 330 milliseconds after the driver demands acceleration.
Visteon has a dozen patents on aspects of its supercharger system, which has been in development for three years.
“We have patents on the motor, the application, electrical system management and the central interface, among others,” says a Visteon spokesman.
“The motor-compressor is about 30% of it, but integration is the difficult part. The competition might have a motor but not the integration.”
The motor requires 2kW of electric power in operation, so Visteon needs to manage the vehicle's entire electric network in order to stay within the limits of a 12/14-volt system.
Among other things, engineers packaged the battery next to the motor to reduce losses in the wiring and regulate output of the intelligent alternator. Boost pressure is 5.1 to 5.8 psi (0.35 to 0.4 bar), depending on the application.
To demonstrate the system, Visteon installed VTES in a naturally aspirated 1.2L Fiat Auto SpA engine and a 1.9L Renault SA turbodiesel. In the diesel, the airflow from the VTES is directed through the turbocharger, boosting the intake pressure faster than the turbo alone.
Ultimately, auto makers are interested in reducing the size of their engines if they can get the same performance, because fuel consumption will be lower. Reducing performance is not a marketable option.
Potential benefits are greatest in small- displacement engines. Brown says applications are impractical on engines larger than a 3L turbodiesel or a 2.3L naturally aspirated engine, because larger engines require more air than a 12-volt supercharger can deliver.
Thus, Visteon developed its program with Europe in mind, where engines are smaller than in the U.S. Most European car buyers express interest in enhancing performance, rather than downsizing, says Visteon, and there is more interest in enhancing turbodiesel engines than in boosting gasoline engines.
In a 1.9L diesel, torque is increased about 10% for engine speeds from 1,000 to 2,500 rpm, but there is some benefit even at top speed.
More dramatic results are possible with small gasoline engines. A 1.2L engine with the VTES system performs nearly as well as a 1.8L without VTES, yet fuel economy is 27% better.
Compared to a 1.2L engine without VTES, the more powerful VTES engine's fuel economy is unchanged at 39 mpg (6L/100 km).
“In everyday driving, you use only 30% of the torque available in your engine 90% of the time,” says Brown. “You pay a large penalty in fuel economy to have the extra power available that you rarely use.”
Compared to the 1.8L engine, drivers using a 1.2L VTES would save about $1,500 in fuel cost over 36,000 miles (58,000 km), with typical European fuel prices.
03-28-2005, 05:09 PM
#17
why not just take out the resonator box. Then you've got an extra hole for the engine to pull from, so there's really no straint on it. It'll get to a point where the engine just isn't capable of taking anymore air in. It'll be close to just taking the whole intake off and letting your engine breath unfiltered air.
the idea is clever, but really wouldn't do anything.
the idea is clever, but really wouldn't do anything.
03-28-2005, 05:33 PM
#18
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 3,431
they already have a mix of both worlds....it's called a hybrid intake like the one frankencar sells, it kinda splits the difference between pop charger high end and cai low end...just keep the stock resonator box instead of a midpipe for best performance and smoother power delivery if you don't mind giving up the wicked sound!!!
the "helmholtz" resonator that our stock resonator box is turns out to be an amazingly well designed piece of engineering in a less then wonderful looking enclosure on nissan's part...in other words, our resonator section is already designed for amazing flow, just slap a popcharger or cone filter on the end of that and you have yourself a hybrid which places the filter near the edge of the engine bay, right in between the battery and strut tower...
that setup was dynoed to provide the smoothest, and most power throughout the entire powerband without sacrificing any amount the low or top end...
but good luck in your invention/setup....!! it would be great to have even more options and products out there! it is innovations like these that keep this community on it's "toes"...and alive...
the "helmholtz" resonator that our stock resonator box is turns out to be an amazingly well designed piece of engineering in a less then wonderful looking enclosure on nissan's part...in other words, our resonator section is already designed for amazing flow, just slap a popcharger or cone filter on the end of that and you have yourself a hybrid which places the filter near the edge of the engine bay, right in between the battery and strut tower...
that setup was dynoed to provide the smoothest, and most power throughout the entire powerband without sacrificing any amount the low or top end...
but good luck in your invention/setup....!! it would be great to have even more options and products out there! it is innovations like these that keep this community on it's "toes"...and alive...
03-28-2005, 05:39 PM
#20
U wanna try me young boy?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,024
Thanks for the feedback. It think we can all agree that while new ideas are cool, the gains woulod not be worth it for such a complex setup... And that was the gist of the original question...
I guess an easier way to ask the question would be;
1) How much more HP can you get at high revs from a POP charger?
2) ... and low-end with a CAI?
Another idea I had was to cut a square hole in the airbox just like a hacked airbox, but to attach the cutout section back on the airbox using a small hinge. The flap would stay closed during normal driving so your normal driving is using a toally stock intake. However when the engine demands enough air a vacuum will be created in the airbox and the flap will be pulled open allow the engine to take in more air. This mod would combine the cold-air characteristics of the stock intake during normal driving with the WOT sound/airflow of a hacked airbox - and the mod would take about 5 mins to do. The flap woud only open when needed. Plus you can watch the RPM/throttle postion at which the flap opens and use that to determine what the least restrictive snorkel/tubing setup would be.
I guess an easier way to ask the question would be;
1) How much more HP can you get at high revs from a POP charger?
2) ... and low-end with a CAI?
Another idea I had was to cut a square hole in the airbox just like a hacked airbox, but to attach the cutout section back on the airbox using a small hinge. The flap would stay closed during normal driving so your normal driving is using a toally stock intake. However when the engine demands enough air a vacuum will be created in the airbox and the flap will be pulled open allow the engine to take in more air. This mod would combine the cold-air characteristics of the stock intake during normal driving with the WOT sound/airflow of a hacked airbox - and the mod would take about 5 mins to do. The flap woud only open when needed. Plus you can watch the RPM/throttle postion at which the flap opens and use that to determine what the least restrictive snorkel/tubing setup would be.
03-28-2005, 06:10 PM
#22
U wanna try me young boy?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 1,024
Originally Posted by MAXRB8
Nothing better to do with your lives for 1 or 2 hp? Come on isn't this getting a little ridiculous? I was going to say think about it!...... but I believe that's the problem it's over thought! 
So you are answering my question about hp gains with "1 or 2hp"?? Nobody yet has actually said how many dyno-proven HP you get from a CAI or pop charger. I said at the beginning if it was just a couple HP then it wouldn't be worth it. If it really IS only a couple HP then why do people pay $200 for an intake?
No - rediculous would be; "What about installing a tornado air in my exhaust to create a vacuum effect??"
03-29-2005, 08:08 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 994
Originally Posted by Scruit
So you are answering my question about hp gains with "1 or 2hp"?? Nobody yet has actually said how many dyno-proven HP you get from a CAI or pop charger. I said at the beginning if it was just a couple HP then it wouldn't be worth it. If it really IS only a couple HP then why do people pay $200 for an intake?
No - rediculous would be; "What about installing a tornado air in my exhaust to create a vacuum effect??"
No - rediculous would be; "What about installing a tornado air in my exhaust to create a vacuum effect??"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
maxima297
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
4
09-30-2015 03:32 PM