Whats the best NA IM design??
01-28-2005, 10:57 AM
#47
Pretty sure I'm not....
VANOS is variable cam timing
Valvetronic adds variable valve lift
Either or, you can't use their infinitely variable scroll type manifold design ideas, right?
VANOS is variable cam timing
Valvetronic adds variable valve lift
Either or, you can't use their infinitely variable scroll type manifold design ideas, right?
Originally Posted by E55AMG2
Dual vanos
and I think you're a bit confused as to what vanos actually is.
and I think you're a bit confused as to what vanos actually is.
01-28-2005, 10:59 AM
#48
"All current VANOS eqiuped BMW engines still have throttle bodies."
Current 745i has VANOS, yet doesn't have throttle bodies, since it uses valvetronic.
He corrected that.
Current 745i has VANOS, yet doesn't have throttle bodies, since it uses valvetronic.
He corrected that.
Originally Posted by E55AMG2
so whats wrong then? he said they have the dual vanos AND the valvetronic.
01-28-2005, 11:02 AM
#50
It's still there, he just posted this to clarify to my implied answer:
Originally Posted by SR20DEN
The E65 745 does also have dual VANOS. So I should have said VANOS only BMWs still have throttle bodies. It is the valvetronic technology that negates the use of throttle bodies.
01-28-2005, 11:02 AM
#51
Originally Posted by IceY2K1
Pretty sure I'm not....
VANOS is variable cam timing
Valvetronic adds variable valve lift
Either or, you can't use their infinitely variable scroll type manifold design ideas, right?
VANOS is variable cam timing
Valvetronic adds variable valve lift
Either or, you can't use their infinitely variable scroll type manifold design ideas, right?
I dont think we could, being that we have no feedback loop to control it. Also, I dont think we have the space either.
01-28-2005, 11:04 AM
#52
You 5.5gens with your CVTC could have something in common, but krismax and us VQ30s without that, wouldn't benefit probably.
Originally Posted by E55AMG2
I dont think we could, being that we have no feedback loop to control it. Also, I dont think we have the space either.
01-28-2005, 11:05 AM
#53
Actually, I think he was right in the first place, I forgot about this:
There is still a throttle plate, but it is only used as a failsafe or for certain diagnostic functions. Under normal operation, the throttle plate is held wide open, which means that there is no longer any vacuum in the intake manifold.
01-28-2005, 11:06 AM
#54
Originally Posted by IceY2K1
You 5.5gens with your CVTC could have something in common, but krismax and us VQ30s without that, wouldn't benefit probably.
I meant to say you guys...
Also, I dont think that our ECU has the capacity for more than two positions (on/off) for the manifold. So alot of the benefits of the scroll are lost.
01-28-2005, 11:09 AM
#56
Man BMW are some sick puppies with what they come up with.
I talked with a BMW service techy A LONG TIME AGO when they first came out about the new 745i and he told me it still had a throttle plate, but wasn't used except as a backup. I just forgot.
BTW, I'd give my left nut for a 545i with that engine.
I talked with a BMW service techy A LONG TIME AGO when they first came out about the new 745i and he told me it still had a throttle plate, but wasn't used except as a backup. I just forgot.
BTW, I'd give my left nut for a 545i with that engine.
01-28-2005, 11:13 AM
#58
I agree, however the CVTC can be controlled/modified to adjust the intake cam to whatever angle was optimal for the type of manifold, ie short or long or dynamic length, you fab'd. I think that's the bigger factor, but could be wrong.
Originally Posted by E55AMG2
I meant to say you guys...
Also, I dont think that our ECU has the capacity for more than two positions (on/off) for the manifold. So alot of the benefits of the scroll are lost.
Also, I dont think that our ECU has the capacity for more than two positions (on/off) for the manifold. So alot of the benefits of the scroll are lost.
01-28-2005, 12:02 PM
#60
Originally Posted by IceY2K1
I agree, however the CVTC can be controlled/modified to adjust the intake cam to whatever angle was optimal for the type of manifold, ie short or long or dynamic length, you fab'd. I think that's the bigger factor, but could be wrong.
I was referring more specifically to the intake runner length. Like the BMWs is infinitely adjustable, whereas our ecu could only pick 2 spots.
01-28-2005, 12:20 PM
#63
I'm not sure that's a problem. I mean if you can modify the VQ35 CVTC solenoid driver signal using a piggyback I've seen and a RPM switch or hell motorized servo controlled manifold that has 1, 2, 3 plenums, ie 1 long reach, 2 medium reach, and 3 short reach, you could vary the intake cam for each length.
Yes, that's not "infinitely variable", however with the VQ35s it wouldn't be that difficult assuming you could keep the ECU from throwing a VTC target angle code.
Yes, that's not "infinitely variable", however with the VQ35s it wouldn't be that difficult assuming you could keep the ECU from throwing a VTC target angle code.
Originally Posted by E55AMG2
I was referring more specifically to the intake runner length. Like the BMWs is infinitely adjustable, whereas our ecu could only pick 2 spots.
01-29-2005, 02:51 PM
#64
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
SR20DEN: thank for the verification
(i figure you can see my response here instead of a new post)
01-29-2005, 06:04 PM
#66
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
Ford did 220hp in what? 1990? We had what? 160hp? 
But yeah, the only thing good on those SHOs was the engine.
But yeah, the only thing good on those SHOs was the engine. --he drives a Saturn SL2 now) but he got to drive my 2K 5spd a few weeks ago and he really liked it; reminded him very much of the SHO, just more luxurious.
01-29-2005, 09:02 PM
#67
Wow this thread is not 
or anything. Make your own BMW, SHO, etc. threads.
This thread is about a feasible IM design. Unfortunately it is a difficult thing to do with our hood lines, rear coil packs, and limited funds to produce something that would produce gains. Anything that you could make would be a trade off unless it was some kind of variable IM which I have never heard of an aftermarket VIM that worked.
One option would be the VQ30DET IM (I think tilley had it on his car) or some 350Z/G35 IM (either stock or some aftermarket) for their appropriate engines. Unfortunately those would require a new hood.
You could maybe modify one of our manifolds to make them better but I am not sure how that would work either. I can think of anything to make the -k signficantly better. The USIM could be extrude honed or something but not the best option. the MEVI could be EH possibly but even better if somehow it could be made to where there was no space between where the butterfly valves are when closed and where the runners should flow (like in the USIM). I am not familiar enough with the VQ35 manifold to say what could be improved upon it except maybe a EH.
or anything. Make your own BMW, SHO, etc. threads. This thread is about a feasible IM design. Unfortunately it is a difficult thing to do with our hood lines, rear coil packs, and limited funds to produce something that would produce gains. Anything that you could make would be a trade off unless it was some kind of variable IM which I have never heard of an aftermarket VIM that worked.
One option would be the VQ30DET IM (I think tilley had it on his car) or some 350Z/G35 IM (either stock or some aftermarket) for their appropriate engines. Unfortunately those would require a new hood.
You could maybe modify one of our manifolds to make them better but I am not sure how that would work either. I can think of anything to make the -k signficantly better. The USIM could be extrude honed or something but not the best option. the MEVI could be EH possibly but even better if somehow it could be made to where there was no space between where the butterfly valves are when closed and where the runners should flow (like in the USIM). I am not familiar enough with the VQ35 manifold to say what could be improved upon it except maybe a EH.
01-29-2005, 09:48 PM
#68
Has anyone ever attempted using the Swain flow coat? I think I may look into that next winter after I get mine EH'ed. Sport Compact Car used it on the IM and intake ports on their 300ZTT. http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/pr...scc_proj300zx/
01-30-2005, 04:49 PM
#69
01-31-2005, 09:00 AM
#70
I disagree, the DEK/MEVI OEM manifold is designed for mostly low-mid range torque with its long runners and then uses a pseudo short runner design for the top-end by opening a secondary chamber.
We are looking at sacrificing low-mid range for top end without the use of complex individual throttle-bodies or variable length runners or any kind of valve timing.
Eliminating the long runners for a short runner design with proper intake runner length for desired peak RPM(rule of thumb is 90/(RPM/1000)???). So, if you wanted a 8000rpm peak, 90/8 or a 11.25" length from intake valve face to throttle plate. However, how you incorporate the plenum into this, I'm not sure.
Using velocity stacks/venturis would be nice, however creating the optimal suction port length is key.
We are looking at sacrificing low-mid range for top end without the use of complex individual throttle-bodies or variable length runners or any kind of valve timing.
Eliminating the long runners for a short runner design with proper intake runner length for desired peak RPM(rule of thumb is 90/(RPM/1000)???). So, if you wanted a 8000rpm peak, 90/8 or a 11.25" length from intake valve face to throttle plate. However, how you incorporate the plenum into this, I'm not sure.
Using velocity stacks/venturis would be nice, however creating the optimal suction port length is key.
02-02-2005, 10:12 AM
#76
[QUOTE=IceY2K1]Something like this sheet metal short runner IM:
QUOTE]
I don't think that would be a good setup on our cars.. Our low end would suffer. For the Viper, it should be okay, a V10 should make some good tourque in the lower rpms.
QUOTE]
I don't think that would be a good setup on our cars.. Our low end would suffer. For the Viper, it should be okay, a V10 should make some good tourque in the lower rpms.
02-02-2005, 11:05 AM
#77
AGAIN, he doesn't care about low-end, he wants to make power upto 8000rpm, which requires short runners.
Originally Posted by Nismo3112
I don't think that would be a good setup on our cars.. Our low end would suffer. For the Viper, it should be okay, a V10 should make some good tourque in the lower rpms.
02-02-2005, 11:34 AM
#78
how bout this...go get a flange machined to match the lower IM. Then, go get some short lengths of tubing welded to it and pop on one of those mesh screens on the tops of each. Then you have an old school short runner intake (reliability and keeping shiet out of the engine is another story though)
02-02-2005, 11:40 AM
#79
Originally Posted by E55AMG2
how bout this...go get a flange machined to match the lower IM. Then, go get some short lengths of tubing welded to it and pop on one of those mesh screens on the tops of each. Then you have an old school short runner intake (reliability and keeping shiet out of the engine is another story though)