DIY plenum porting
05-03-2006, 09:58 PM
#102
Registered User
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NewCastle, WA
Posts: 2,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sleepy79
Someone has been doing their research.
If you can weld aluminum I would extend the lower part of the dividers between the ports. Whatever you do, do not knife edge the dividers when you are reshaping the ports.
If you can weld aluminum I would extend the lower part of the dividers between the ports. Whatever you do, do not knife edge the dividers when you are reshaping the ports.
05-04-2006, 01:55 AM
#103
or even something simple on the runners like the secondary butterflies on a honda GSR engine would be cool to make,
you know what might work with the right size holes. holes on top of the intake runners going straight down, then butterflies in the runners that we are using now that open up at somewhere around 5000. just some more ideas...
havent made it to the machine shop to pick up my final product on my plenum. i am getting it tomorrow for sure...
you know what might work with the right size holes. holes on top of the intake runners going straight down, then butterflies in the runners that we are using now that open up at somewhere around 5000. just some more ideas...
havent made it to the machine shop to pick up my final product on my plenum. i am getting it tomorrow for sure...
05-04-2006, 03:30 AM
#104
Another question
What happens if we port the 2 front runners like everyone is talking about but also take 3 of the 6 runners and shorten them? Leaving the other 3 of the runners the same length. How would that effect the engine? I know shorter is better for top end HP and we dont want to lose our low end torque, so would making 3 of the 6 shorter do anything? Or just make the car run like shiet?
Later
Aceman
What happens if we port the 2 front runners like everyone is talking about but also take 3 of the 6 runners and shorten them? Leaving the other 3 of the runners the same length. How would that effect the engine? I know shorter is better for top end HP and we dont want to lose our low end torque, so would making 3 of the 6 shorter do anything? Or just make the car run like shiet?
Later
Aceman
05-04-2006, 08:42 AM
#105
Here you guys go, now who wants to drop the $600 to buy the software 
Looks like most of this refers to 4 stroke engines, it might be helpful. I will keep looking for more info.
I wish i had the tools to be able to design my own intake manifold, i think it would be alot of fun and more so with this software. You could test everything before you started to weld it.
http://www.audietech.com/DynomationMainPage.htm
Dynomation
Dynomation is a highly-refined engine simulation that considerably reduces the cost and time of engine development and testing.
Fully analyzes induction runner lengths, taper angles, port areas, and cylinder head flow variations.
Investigates exhaust system primary and collector lengths and tubing diameters of both straight and stepped configurations.
Performs exceptional analysis of camshaft lift, duration, centerline, and lobe-separation angles. Loads and tests CamPro, CamProPlus, S96, and CamDoctor cam profile files.
Import DynoSim, SC-DynoSim engine and camfiles. Send Dynomation engine files to DragSim and FastLapSim for track analysis.
Dynomation is used worldwide by engine builders, racers, and professional race teams.
“Look Inside” a running engine. View and analyze intake and exhaust flow! 3D Cutaway Engine shows mass flow, port velocities, pressures—synchronized to the crank-angle data displayed in Dynomation.
Also i found a nice little Inlet Runner and Peak Torque Calculator
http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/runnertorquecalc.html
You will need this Converter to convert liters to cubic inches
http://www.metric-conversions.org/vo...bic-inches.htm
Later
Aceman
Looks like most of this refers to 4 stroke engines, it might be helpful. I will keep looking for more info.I wish i had the tools to be able to design my own intake manifold, i think it would be alot of fun and more so with this software. You could test everything before you started to weld it.
http://www.audietech.com/DynomationMainPage.htm
Dynomation
Dynomation is a highly-refined engine simulation that considerably reduces the cost and time of engine development and testing.
Fully analyzes induction runner lengths, taper angles, port areas, and cylinder head flow variations.
Investigates exhaust system primary and collector lengths and tubing diameters of both straight and stepped configurations.
Performs exceptional analysis of camshaft lift, duration, centerline, and lobe-separation angles. Loads and tests CamPro, CamProPlus, S96, and CamDoctor cam profile files.
Import DynoSim, SC-DynoSim engine and camfiles. Send Dynomation engine files to DragSim and FastLapSim for track analysis.
Dynomation is used worldwide by engine builders, racers, and professional race teams.
“Look Inside” a running engine. View and analyze intake and exhaust flow! 3D Cutaway Engine shows mass flow, port velocities, pressures—synchronized to the crank-angle data displayed in Dynomation.
Also i found a nice little Inlet Runner and Peak Torque Calculator
http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/runnertorquecalc.html
You will need this Converter to convert liters to cubic inches
http://www.metric-conversions.org/vo...bic-inches.htm
Later
Aceman
Last edited by ACEMAN; 05-04-2006 at 08:46 AM.
05-04-2006, 12:34 PM
#107
Originally Posted by 97supratt
I'm so into this subject now, its amazing. I am going to take my spare revup lower plenum (if nobody purchases it) and start some cutting and milling of my own. I know a lot of guys with machine shops so thats not a problem.
Yeah, me too, as you can see
I still dont know to much, but im trying to learn
Looks like Pro Racing Sim LLC
http://www.proracingsim.com/purchasejac2.htm
Has a Sim for just about any kind of application you want to test on a engine. Pretty cool stuff. Some of the Sims they have arnt to expensive. To me though, im curious how accurate it woud be once you plug in all the values. And then how does one get all the values
I know this thread started out as a DIY plenum port and polish and now i have turned it into this ( sorry about that ) But i think it has some value to it. Runner lengths to make a difference ( RevUp vrs 287 ). So im sure someone can take alot of this info and run with it. I wish i had more of the tools to try a few things.
Later
Aceman
05-04-2006, 06:42 PM
#108
Premier Member
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Houston and Austin, TX
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bilinghm
O.K. here is my idea for an improved plenum. I would do all of the previously discussed modifications, plus I would change the angle of the mouth of each runner. I would “lay back” the bell mouth between 5 and 10 degrees (85 to 80) instead of the current 90 degree angle. The shaded area in the photo would be milled off, with the ports ground and blended.
I theorize that slicing the opening on an angle would increase the area of the opening and promote flow without altering the runner length to any significant degree. Result, more torque/power.
See the pictures, please give your comments and thoughts.
Bill
I theorize that slicing the opening on an angle would increase the area of the opening and promote flow without altering the runner length to any significant degree. Result, more torque/power.
See the pictures, please give your comments and thoughts.
Bill
Let me say that I am in no way a mechanical engineer or systems designer or even a physics major. I have been thinking over your idea to "angle off" the runners inside the lower plenum. This would open the runner a bit more without significantly reducing it's length. However, I do have one proposal, and maybe some other people can chime in and comment. This was something I whipped up in paint to try and illustrate my point.
I have been reading up on this plenum modding theory and airflow, and realize that its not just runner size and length, it's also shape. What I am afraid might happen if you angle the mouth, it will allow some air to "enter the runner too early" while the rest of it backs up in the "pressure zone". With the flat mouth opening you allow maxium time for the air to "build up" before the next intake suction.
To make it more clear, take your idea but expand upon it 3-4 times. Make a really slanted angle, so the upper lip of the mouth is close to the center of the plenum. It seems as though this situation might disturb the density of the air flow into each runner.
I dunno, it's a thought. Perhaps there is a happy medium. Good luck, keep us posted!
Anthony
05-04-2006, 06:47 PM
#109
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: atlanta
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HarvesterUT
Bill (and others)
Let me say that I am in no way a mechanical engineer or systems designer or even a physics major. I have been thinking over your idea to "angle off" the runners inside the lower plenum. This would open the runner a bit more without significantly reducing it's length. However, I do have one proposal, and maybe some other people can chime in and comment. This was something I whipped up in paint to try and illustrate my point.
I have been reading up on this plenum modding theory and airflow, and realize that its not just runner size and length, it's also shape. What I am afraid might happen if you angle the mouth, it will allow some air to "enter the runner too early" while the rest of it backs up in the "pressure zone". With the flat mouth opening you allow maxium time for the air to "build up" before the next intake suction.
To make it more clear, take your idea but expand upon it 3-4 times. Make a really slanted angle, so the upper lip of the mouth is close to the center of the plenum. It seems as though this situation might disturb the density of the air flow into each runner.
I dunno, it's a thought. Perhaps there is a happy medium. Good luck, keep us posted!
Anthony
Let me say that I am in no way a mechanical engineer or systems designer or even a physics major. I have been thinking over your idea to "angle off" the runners inside the lower plenum. This would open the runner a bit more without significantly reducing it's length. However, I do have one proposal, and maybe some other people can chime in and comment. This was something I whipped up in paint to try and illustrate my point.
I have been reading up on this plenum modding theory and airflow, and realize that its not just runner size and length, it's also shape. What I am afraid might happen if you angle the mouth, it will allow some air to "enter the runner too early" while the rest of it backs up in the "pressure zone". With the flat mouth opening you allow maxium time for the air to "build up" before the next intake suction.
To make it more clear, take your idea but expand upon it 3-4 times. Make a really slanted angle, so the upper lip of the mouth is close to the center of the plenum. It seems as though this situation might disturb the density of the air flow into each runner.
I dunno, it's a thought. Perhaps there is a happy medium. Good luck, keep us posted!
Anthony
05-05-2006, 05:56 AM
#111
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: atlanta
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The confusion over on the "MREV+ Dyno Tested On The 287 HP Engine!" thread is really amazing. I'm shocked that Hydrazine has yet to fully explain what people are going to get when they buy his product. The specifications for his modified plenum are appearently in a state of flux. I have received correspondence from people who believe that they have the latest version of the Mrev++ but that are obviously not the same design. Marketing 101 teaches you to make sure the customer understands what they are getting. Hydrazine is probably making a mistake because some people will probably not be satisfied with what they receive.
At any rate, in one of his most recent obscure postings he said that from observing the photos of my DIY plenum that I "may" have taken off too much material over the two front runners. Gee, thanks for the tip! Then again, I was surprized to see the posted picture of one of his Mrev++ plenums that appeared to have the top of the two front runners flat spotted with no blending of the edges. I cannot believe from all my past experience that those abrupt edges are a wise strategy to improve flow. Certainly it requires less expensive hand work to produce. Nissan made the top pf each runner a very pronounced dome shape for a reason. The reason is good flow.
At any rate, in one of his most recent obscure postings he said that from observing the photos of my DIY plenum that I "may" have taken off too much material over the two front runners. Gee, thanks for the tip! Then again, I was surprized to see the posted picture of one of his Mrev++ plenums that appeared to have the top of the two front runners flat spotted with no blending of the edges. I cannot believe from all my past experience that those abrupt edges are a wise strategy to improve flow. Certainly it requires less expensive hand work to produce. Nissan made the top pf each runner a very pronounced dome shape for a reason. The reason is good flow.
05-05-2006, 06:49 AM
#113
Originally Posted by bilinghm
The confusion over on the "MREV+ Dyno Tested On The 287 HP Engine!" thread is really amazing. I'm shocked that Hydrazine has yet to fully explain what people are going to get when they buy his product. The specifications for his modified plenum are appearently in a state of flux. I have received correspondence from people who believe that they have the latest version of the Mrev++ but that are obviously not the same design. Marketing 101 teaches you to make sure the customer understands what they are getting. Hydrazine is probably making a mistake because some people will probably not be satisfied with what they receive.
At any rate, in one of his most recent obscure postings he said that from observing the photos of my DIY plenum that I "may" have taken off too much material over the two front runners. Gee, thanks for the tip! Then again, I was surprized to see the posted picture of one of his Mrev++ plenums that appeared to have the top of the two front runners flat spotted with no blending of the edges. I cannot believe from all my past experience that those abrupt edges are a wise strategy to improve flow. Certainly it requires less expensive hand work to produce. Nissan made the top pf each runner a very pronounced dome shape for a reason. The reason is good flow.
At any rate, in one of his most recent obscure postings he said that from observing the photos of my DIY plenum that I "may" have taken off too much material over the two front runners. Gee, thanks for the tip! Then again, I was surprized to see the posted picture of one of his Mrev++ plenums that appeared to have the top of the two front runners flat spotted with no blending of the edges. I cannot believe from all my past experience that those abrupt edges are a wise strategy to improve flow. Certainly it requires less expensive hand work to produce. Nissan made the top pf each runner a very pronounced dome shape for a reason. The reason is good flow.
Also i do agree, you dont want the flat spots on top of the runners. Smoother is better. I took out my lower plenum last night and gave it a good look over. There are imperfections all over it. Simple things like getting rid of the lettering on each side will effect the air flow. Also the runner mouth of all six runners are not very smooth. Just cleaning these two areas would make some difference with the air flowing better even before the porting was done.
Looking at your plenum pic that you posted with the marked out area you were thinking about cutting made me think about something else we could try. How about if we tapper the the two closest to the throttle body like you have marked and then increase the taper for middle two and then increase the taper even more with the two front inlets even more while porting out all 6??
Going to get myself a dremel and the port and polish kit this weekend and see what i can accomplish. Friend of mine has a bone stock 350z. So we will be doing a before and after dyno to see what it does. Then after that i will be placing his stock lower plenum on my car and do a before and after dyno on my car. I want to see how this mod compares to my Kinetix SSV plenum. Some say that the plenum hurts HP, and the more i am reading the more i am starting to believe this. I guess we will see
Later
Aceman
05-05-2006, 06:53 AM
#114
Bill you can criticize all you want.
The bottom line is the plenum modification makes TQ and HP. Nissan North America HQ test facility and Wired 24/7 have fully independant dyno plots that prove it.
Weather you personally have drawings or pictures of my work won't change that fact. Throw all the criticisms and names you like. Its OK. I have no obligations to you.
If you don't like the fact that I try to protect intellectual property, thats OK.
The bottom line is the plenum modification makes TQ and HP. Nissan North America HQ test facility and Wired 24/7 have fully independant dyno plots that prove it.
Weather you personally have drawings or pictures of my work won't change that fact. Throw all the criticisms and names you like. Its OK. I have no obligations to you.
If you don't like the fact that I try to protect intellectual property, thats OK.
05-05-2006, 06:57 AM
#115
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: atlanta
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATL_Red_G35
Bill, I placed my order for the MREV-2. We'll look at it once it's here.
Just a side thought, where do you suppose one comes up with several hundred lower plenums? It seems that it would be a real problem, unless Hydrazine is depending upon getting in cores and sending them out as they come in. If that's the case, it might take a long time to fill all of those orders.
05-05-2006, 07:12 AM
#116
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: atlanta
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hydrazine
Bill you can criticize all you want.
The bottom line is the plenum modification makes TQ and HP. Nissan North America HQ test facility and Wired 24/7 have fully independant dyno plots that prove it.
Weather you personally have drawings or pictures of my work won't change that fact. Throw all the criticisms and names you like. Its OK. I have no obligations to you.
If you don't like the fact that I try to protect intellectual property, thats OK.
The bottom line is the plenum modification makes TQ and HP. Nissan North America HQ test facility and Wired 24/7 have fully independant dyno plots that prove it.
Weather you personally have drawings or pictures of my work won't change that fact. Throw all the criticisms and names you like. Its OK. I have no obligations to you.
If you don't like the fact that I try to protect intellectual property, thats OK.
You have done some terrific work. You are the reason we are all so intersted. But you act like you must maintain an element of mystery around your product. My advice, embrace your customers, give them reams of information. Do you think they will all rush out and spend $10,000 on a Bridgeport so they can avoid spending $200 for your product?
05-05-2006, 07:14 AM
#117
[quote=bilinghm]Well that will be interesting indeed! We will give it an objective evaluation and fully measure all aspects. It would be great if we could also find a Mrev+ to compare it with side by side...[quote]
Please do.
I've said countless times that MREV-2 is not the same as MREV+.
It seems that because I am one of a few aftermarket manufactures that trys as hard as possible to make a product that actually works and keep things honest, (to some) it automatically makes me a target to shoot down or discredit.
Oh well. That's how todays world is.
EDIT: And I do give out reams of information on this board and other boards all the time. Much more than any other Z/G mod manufacturer. Who else provides more technical information than Motordyne?
Please do.
I've said countless times that MREV-2 is not the same as MREV+.
It seems that because I am one of a few aftermarket manufactures that trys as hard as possible to make a product that actually works and keep things honest, (to some) it automatically makes me a target to shoot down or discredit.
Oh well. That's how todays world is.
EDIT: And I do give out reams of information on this board and other boards all the time. Much more than any other Z/G mod manufacturer. Who else provides more technical information than Motordyne?
Last edited by Hydrazine; 05-05-2006 at 07:19 AM.
05-05-2006, 07:54 AM
#118
Originally Posted by bilinghm
The goofy part is that you are trying to protect intellectual property from your potential CUSTOMERS. You cannot protect it from COMPETITORS, they will just buy a Mrev++ and go into production if they so choose. You act like I'm trying to market a copy of your product and become a competitor. I don't operate a car machine shop. I'm V.P. of marketing for a for a sales promotion company. I mostly work on fast food kid's meal programs. See? I'm not your rival. Why are you worried about protecting yourself from your customers??
You have done some terrific work. You are the reason we are all so intersted. But you act like you must maintain an element of mystery around your product. My advice, embrace your customers, give them reams of information. Do you think they will all rush out and spend $10,000 on a Bridgeport so they can avoid spending $200 for your product?
You have done some terrific work. You are the reason we are all so intersted. But you act like you must maintain an element of mystery around your product. My advice, embrace your customers, give them reams of information. Do you think they will all rush out and spend $10,000 on a Bridgeport so they can avoid spending $200 for your product?
I know its hard to understand but this guy is good at what he does. He builds these things and gives us a great price, simple as that. Now if you dont want to believe the dynos and all the customers who say it works then you are just a pessimist.
I always enjoy seeing small companies make more sales or get more attention then big companies. Every company started out exactly like this, and I will always take my hat off for the underdog.
Tony knows what he's doing and I stand behind his work as well.
05-05-2006, 08:16 AM
#119
Originally Posted by 97supratt
Honestly, I think your going a bit too far with this. Tony has built or modified a product that works! I have the MREV and it actually increases a butt load of torque and power in the powerband.
I know its hard to understand but this guy is good at what he does. He builds these things and gives us a great price, simple as that. Now if you dont want to believe the dynos and all the customers who say it works then you are just a pessimist.
I always enjoy seeing small companies make more sales or get more attention then big companies. Every company started out exactly like this, and I will always take my hat off for the underdog.
Tony knows what he's doing and I stand behind his work as well.
I know its hard to understand but this guy is good at what he does. He builds these things and gives us a great price, simple as that. Now if you dont want to believe the dynos and all the customers who say it works then you are just a pessimist.
I always enjoy seeing small companies make more sales or get more attention then big companies. Every company started out exactly like this, and I will always take my hat off for the underdog.
Tony knows what he's doing and I stand behind his work as well.
I appreciate it.
BTW let me know if you would like to do a pre/post dyno install of MREV Vs MREV-2 on your Z.
Tony
05-05-2006, 08:21 AM
#120
Registered User
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NewCastle, WA
Posts: 2,947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been doing some more reading on intake runners and have run across a few ppl that have tried adjustable runner lengths that adjust based on the RPM...I'm wondering if there'd be a way to use a metal sheet that could replace the top portion of each intake runner (the seal from the metal top to the Aluminum cast of the runners would be an issue), and have the metal sheets able to slide along the length of the runners, but held in place with 2 small springs - the runner lengths could be shortened by a cable attached to the end of the metal sheets...
Here’s a drawing of it over Audiblemayhems lower plenum:
The red would be the metal plate that slides, the portion not covered by the plate would still be the OE Aluminum…the cable would some how have a motor that would pull/release based on RPMs.
At this point it seems fairly unrealistic b/c of the amount of work that would be needed…but it’s always fun to think about – anyone have other ideas for an adjustable plenum length? (I’ve seen some designs that use 2 runners per cylinder…)
Here’s a drawing of it over Audiblemayhems lower plenum:
The red would be the metal plate that slides, the portion not covered by the plate would still be the OE Aluminum…the cable would some how have a motor that would pull/release based on RPMs.
At this point it seems fairly unrealistic b/c of the amount of work that would be needed…but it’s always fun to think about – anyone have other ideas for an adjustable plenum length? (I’ve seen some designs that use 2 runners per cylinder…)