why dont people make intake manifold, that are like a turbo manifolds?
03-14-2008, 09:59 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why dont people make intake manifold, that are like a turbo manifolds?
would a intake manifold that would be made like a turbo exhaust manifold but reversed flow better? so you would put a tb to a 1 to 4 collector with tubes going to the head (kind of like a top mount turbo manifold mounted on the intake side is with a tb where the turbo would go) flow better then a big open space with ports coming of in a different direction than the direction of flow? just a thought i had, sorry if this is a stupid question.
03-15-2008, 12:09 AM
#2
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: I'm everywhere Focker
Posts: 5,463
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: why dont people make intake manifold, that are like a turbo manifolds? (mkw1)
The perfect aerodynamic shape is a teardrop. Air coming and going likes different shapes is the point. Not to mention doing an equal length intake mani leads to extremely long intake runners, poor cylinder distribution, along with some other arguements that exist. It's been done by GM and some others actually...and wasn't too successful.
03-15-2008, 09:05 AM
#3
Honda-Tech Member
Re: why dont people make intake manifold, that are like a turbo manifolds? (mkw1)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mkw1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">would a intake manifold that would be made like a turbo exhaust manifold but reversed flow better? so you would put a tb to a 1 to 4 collector with tubes going to the head (kind of like a top mount turbo manifold mounted on the intake side is with a tb where the turbo would go) flow better then a big open space with ports coming of in a different direction than the direction of flow? just a thought i had, sorry if this is a stupid question.</TD></TR></TABLE>
honda has done it before... remember dual point injection? and most never d series single cams have a center mounted throttle body that just splits to 4 runners.
also the conventional "collector" doesnt flow well backwards like how you are saying. air flows better over curves instead of the sharp edges of the inside of a collector run backwards.
honda has done it before... remember dual point injection? and most never d series single cams have a center mounted throttle body that just splits to 4 runners.
also the conventional "collector" doesnt flow well backwards like how you are saying. air flows better over curves instead of the sharp edges of the inside of a collector run backwards.
03-15-2008, 10:10 AM
#4
FSAE
Re: why dont people make intake manifold, that are like a turbo manifolds? (mkw1)
All of the articles and texts I've read about intake tuning talk mainly about the relationship between runner length and diameter versus plenum volume and shape. There are other additional features of a good (or bad) intake, like sharp edged orifice (vena contracta) and bellmouth designs, but most of the power you make, and where you make it, is determed by runners and plenum working together. With a "tubular" style intake system, you eliminate the ability to properly tune an intake.
Trending Topics
03-15-2008, 04:41 PM
#9
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: bumfuck egypt, SD, US
Posts: 920
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: why dont people make intake manifold, that are like a turbo manifolds? (92TypeR)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 92TypeR »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">most of the power you make, and where you make it, is determed by runners and plenum working together. With a "tubular" style intake system, you eliminate the ability to properly tune an intake.</TD></TR></TABLE>
What about the plenum and the intake tube leading to it? The intake tube itself has a big effect also. With a "plenumless", for lack of a better word, IM, you can still tune it by varying the runner length and diameter, and the same with the tube leading to it. I think the big plenum is necessary with runners perpendicular to it, to drop the velocity across them at high rpm, but not with a manifold with runners in line with the plenum. ?
I still think that a manifold with a decent radius inlet into each runner will flow a hell of a lot better in that direction that a merge collector though. I have seen some manifolds that look almost like a header in reverse, but have no idea how they performed. Subarus have almost no plenum volume compared to a normal IM, but they don't have the merge collector in reverse.
What about the plenum and the intake tube leading to it? The intake tube itself has a big effect also. With a "plenumless", for lack of a better word, IM, you can still tune it by varying the runner length and diameter, and the same with the tube leading to it. I think the big plenum is necessary with runners perpendicular to it, to drop the velocity across them at high rpm, but not with a manifold with runners in line with the plenum. ?
I still think that a manifold with a decent radius inlet into each runner will flow a hell of a lot better in that direction that a merge collector though. I have seen some manifolds that look almost like a header in reverse, but have no idea how they performed. Subarus have almost no plenum volume compared to a normal IM, but they don't have the merge collector in reverse.
03-15-2008, 04:53 PM
#10
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: I'm everywhere Focker
Posts: 5,463
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: (Bailhatch)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bailhatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">we have some aluminum IMs at work that are configured like that...I think they are from a GM 4 cyl. runners are about 14" long and about 1.5" ID</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yep...the Quad 4's in the H.O. (high output) Cutlass Calais had them. They had about the worst throttle response ever. 160hp was "H.O." in GM's mind
Yep...the Quad 4's in the H.O. (high output) Cutlass Calais had them. They had about the worst throttle response ever. 160hp was "H.O." in GM's mind
03-15-2008, 05:12 PM
#11
Re: (RC000E)
Yes, that's exactly what motor it was, the name escaped me. Before I worked here they put one in an Anglia with a supercharger. He wants a turbo ecotec now 
03-15-2008, 05:21 PM
#12
EPIC TUNING
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: WA
Posts: 10,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (RC000E)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RC000E »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Yep...the Quad 4's in the H.O. (high output) Cutlass Calais had them. They had about the worst throttle response ever. 160hp was "H.O." in GM's mind</TD></TR></TABLE>
opposed to the 170hp honda engines produced back then?
Yep...the Quad 4's in the H.O. (high output) Cutlass Calais had them. They had about the worst throttle response ever. 160hp was "H.O." in GM's mind</TD></TR></TABLE>
opposed to the 170hp honda engines produced back then?
03-16-2008, 02:34 PM
#13
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: boise, id, usa
Posts: 3,381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (E-Rok)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by E-Rok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
opposed to the 170hp honda engines produced back then?</TD></TR></TABLE>
cutlass probably weighed 3700+ lbs... lol
opposed to the 170hp honda engines produced back then?</TD></TR></TABLE>
cutlass probably weighed 3700+ lbs... lol
03-16-2008, 02:58 PM
#14
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: I'm everywhere Focker
Posts: 5,463
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: (E-Rok)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by E-Rok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
opposed to the 170hp honda engines produced back then?</TD></TR></TABLE>
160hp out of 2.3L Quad 4's versus 160 out of B16 Honda's...yeah
opposed to the 170hp honda engines produced back then?</TD></TR></TABLE>
160hp out of 2.3L Quad 4's versus 160 out of B16 Honda's...yeah
03-17-2008, 08:58 AM
#15
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN, usa
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (RC000E)
I've sen these on later 90's (8th gen?) mitsu galants w/the 4g64. If I remember correctly, they look like a "side winder" exhaust manifold. Very long runners.
03-20-2008, 04:33 PM
#17
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Charlotte, NC, eh
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (RC000E)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RC000E »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Yep...the Quad 4's in the H.O. (high output) Cutlass Calais had them. They had about the worst throttle response ever. 160hp was "H.O." in GM's mind</TD></TR></TABLE>
Actually, they had a 185hp and 190hp version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...-1991
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dmotoguy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
cutlass probably weighed 3700+ lbs... lol</TD></TR></TABLE>
From edmunds.com Curb Weight: 2823 lbs.
"Motor Trend's test of a W41 yielded a 14.7 @ 95.7 mph quarter mile time. "
from http://www.442.com/vcs/1973_pres/smalley.html
Much faster than motor trend's ITR test: Quarter mile, sec/mph 15.3/93.4 from http://www.motortrend.com/road....html
Pretty cool for their day. 
Yep...the Quad 4's in the H.O. (high output) Cutlass Calais had them. They had about the worst throttle response ever. 160hp was "H.O." in GM's mind</TD></TR></TABLE>
Actually, they had a 185hp and 190hp version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...-1991
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dmotoguy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
cutlass probably weighed 3700+ lbs... lol</TD></TR></TABLE>
From edmunds.com Curb Weight: 2823 lbs.
"Motor Trend's test of a W41 yielded a 14.7 @ 95.7 mph quarter mile time. "
from http://www.442.com/vcs/1973_pres/smalley.html
Much faster than motor trend's ITR test: Quarter mile, sec/mph 15.3/93.4 from http://www.motortrend.com/road....html
Pretty cool for their day.
03-20-2008, 06:20 PM
#18
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: why dont people make intake manifold, that are like a turbo manifolds? (RC000E)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RC000E »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The perfect aerodynamic shape is a teardrop. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Whats perfect about a tear drop ?? what part of an intake is shaped like a tear drop ? just curious
Whats perfect about a tear drop ?? what part of an intake is shaped like a tear drop ? just curious
03-20-2008, 11:34 PM
#20
FSAE
Re: why dont people make intake manifold, that are like a turbo manifolds? (Kevin)
That picture is decieving.
I've seen that motor before, and it feeds into an aluminum plenum/airbox and into four runners for each bank. The runner shape looks very similar to that of the cast JG intakes for 350/small block chevy engines.
I've seen that motor before, and it feeds into an aluminum plenum/airbox and into four runners for each bank. The runner shape looks very similar to that of the cast JG intakes for 350/small block chevy engines.
03-21-2008, 02:57 AM
#21
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MIRAMAR, FL
Posts: 3,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: why dont people make intake manifold, that are like a turbo manifolds? (92TypeR)
You can see that he used an off the shelf lower plenum but the runners are similar to an exhaust manifold like the op stated.
What is a JG intake manifold for small blocks? Do you mean Edelbrock?
What is a JG intake manifold for small blocks? Do you mean Edelbrock?
03-21-2008, 06:19 AM
#22
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: why dont people make intake manifold, that are like a turbo manifolds? (Kevin)
thats a quad turbo contraption from Mike Moran... very long ago... definately not one of his most successful attempts 
03-21-2008, 07:44 AM
#23
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ, US
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why not have equal runners go to a overly large TB, like a 120 mm off a mustang or something? especially if you are boosted? how could a plenum be useful under 45 psi of boost?
really cool thread btw <-- to the OP
really cool thread btw <-- to the OP
08-05-2008, 04:34 AM
#24
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: why dont people make intake manifold, that are like a turbo manifolds? (Kevin)
If something goes wrong with that engine, do you call a plumber or a mechanic?
Anyway, 160hp out of a 4banger in the early 1990s when GM made the Quad4 HO it was pretty powerful for the day. If I remember right the cylinder head had some pretty big ports which killed the velocity of the gases (intake and or exhaust, I don't really remember) and the lack of velocity killed torque. This is partially why Honda uses tiny exhaust pipes on 1.6L civics, to promote exhaust gas velocity which translates into better exhaust scavenging and finally a little more torque. Not that Honda anything in a car is a torque monster, they're built to rev.
Anyway, 160hp out of a 4banger in the early 1990s when GM made the Quad4 HO it was pretty powerful for the day. If I remember right the cylinder head had some pretty big ports which killed the velocity of the gases (intake and or exhaust, I don't really remember) and the lack of velocity killed torque. This is partially why Honda uses tiny exhaust pipes on 1.6L civics, to promote exhaust gas velocity which translates into better exhaust scavenging and finally a little more torque. Not that Honda anything in a car is a torque monster, they're built to rev.
