I thought about running with a MAF also. But I'm thinking a standalone would defianately need to be used then. I've also added an airbox to my setup. Few pics here: http://www.slebidia.addr.com/airbox.htm It's kinda ghetto right now but it works.

 

Some MAF output linear voltage proportional to flow on the 0-5 volt range like our MAP sensors do... uh, 80-something GM and I *think* the Miata, just to pull two off the top of my head. The GM is verified, FWIW.

Calibrating MAF output to flow to refigure what your ECU maps should be wouldn't be too terribly hard with a wideband. I could do it in an afternoon.

 

A standalone system can tune using TPS AND MAP.

Basically you cannot tune only on TPS because of it's limited resolution.

Almost like All or Nothing. You use a combination of the two so basically you tune with the MAP in lower vacuum levels and as you geet closer to 100% Throttle, you tune with the TPS. Some tuners have been successful using the Hondata (IB, etc) but the motor has no nuts at part throttle and under VTEC. With a full standalone, you compromise nothing...but it takes hours of tuning. I'd recommend something like the AEM, Autronic, DFI 7.

BTW: That pic is of Rob S from B20VTEC.com He's 'MrCRX' on Honda-tech.

Suprdave

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Slebidia &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I thought about running with a MAF also. But I'm thinking a standalone would defianately need to be used then. I've also added an airbox to my setup. Few pics here: http://www.slebidia.addr.com/airbox.htm It's kinda ghetto right now but it works.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I've got TWMs with their airbox and an AEM EMS, so anything is possible. I'm just looking at the best way to do it. And by best I mean most streetable/accurate at all RPMs.


Modified by qtiger at 2:46 PM 4/14/2003

 

have you found out what the flow rates are for the D16 head compared to the 929RR head? Also do you know the flow rates of the stock D16 manifold runners and the 929RR ITB's?

and how are you planning on bolting it to the head? It didnt look in the pics like has anysort of factory mounting holes or points.

 

I am using the stock flange, then custom making runners to meet up with the throttle bodies.

I dug up this comment from Cheetah, "dont know anyone else who does it, I do my own custom program which picks up about 25-300 mmhg vaccum which is enough to idle. the vafc is to fine tune the a/fuel mixture. I wrote a big long "how to" on this board a long time ago, do a search and see what pops up"

Apparently he is tweaking the maps to make the itb's work correctly. I searched a bunch to find the "how to" but I couldnt dig anything up. The car is going to be tuned on Hondata, and I refuse to run it on anything else. I might have to hang my hat up on this project if the idle and partial throttle are going to be hell. The car is going to be daily driven, so this theory might be out of the limits of what I am capable of doing at the moment. I would however like to create my own intake manifold, so I dunno I will see where all this research takes me.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by boosted hybrid &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I am using the stock flange, then custom making runners to meet up with the throttle bodies. </TD></TR></TABLE>

thats what I thought you would do.

What CC are the 929RR injectors? and is the TPS of the MPFI or the DPFI style?

 

Are you asking cubic centimeters of the throttle bodies? The size I.D is 1.62" that I measured with a micrometer. Conver that over to cubic centimeters.

The tps is exactly what the honda engines use, MPFI. That is the beauty of these that they work with the factory sensors. I believe that you have to adjust the tps to get the 0.5 -&gt;4.5 volts that the stock ecu needs to see.

 

no, what size injectors does the stock 929RR use and flowcharts from the stock heads is what I was talking about in the earlier post, the differences in data from engine to engine on the flowcharts could be used in the tuning aspect of the new engine. Thats all I was saying about that.

And how much "runner length" so to speak do you think you will be adding by making the adapter plate out of the stock flange? Are you going to attempt to weld the ITBs directly to the stock plate or add material making the throttle plate further away from the port?

As far as plenum design goes, have yo measured to see approximately how much room you will have for the plemum once the ITB's are installed?

 

I really have no idea what injector size is, probably close to what the car engines use those. Injector sizing is still injector sizing and I bet honda is using 200-240cc for the level of output of that engine.

The runner length is a function of the rpm useage you want to make peak power. Its not just a guess, its all calculated to flow within a certain range.

I have ALOT of room for the plenum size. Since the 5/6th gen civics have a lot of room around the back of the head, I can make the plenum at least as large as the b-series victor x. The plenum is another critical design to where you want to make power. You have to make both runner length and plenum size to operate within a certain rpm range. Its a give and take situation. If its designed really well like the victor x, you wont loose low end, but the high end gain will be dramatic.

 

Injectors are right around 240cc from what my tuning is telling me. They may be just a little larger.

Boosted Hybrid, you might consider just fabbing your own flange. My original plan was to do the same but I found it to be much easier to just buy a plate of aluminum and cut a flange shape out of it. Also on the TPS the 2 outside wires need to be reversed for the ECU to get the correct readings.

 

Are the voltage readings the convential .50 to 4.5 volts?

 

Yes the readings are the same just reversed.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Slebidia &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Injectors are right around 240cc from what my tuning is telling me. They may be just a little larger.

Boosted Hybrid, you might consider just fabbing your own flange. My original plan was to do the same but I found it to be much easier to just buy a plate of aluminum and cut a flange shape out of it. Also on the TPS the 2 outside wires need to be reversed for the ECU to get the correct readings.</TD></TR></TABLE>

thats what I was figuring would have to be done from looking at the TPS in the pics, it seemed to be of the DPFI type, but I wasnt sure. They probs are 240cc injectors then.

 

I did manage to squeeze a set of stock 240cc OBD0 injectors in there too. They did touch the idle control bar but I'm sure that could be easily fixed with soem creative machining. I wanted the CBR injectors for the 12 laser drilled hole "bling" factor

 

jeff,
here are some pics of the "reverse collector" we had made for our old SAE mini formula car. thought they might help with ur project...u can borrow it for fluid dynamics testing or whatever if u want. it was on a CBR 600 it converted the four individual carbs to one and allowed us to use a restrictor.

 

Slebidia: how thick was the flange you used? and what's the significance of the length? what would be too long/too short?

also, i see some of you are using 954RR itb's and some are using 929RR itb's... what are the differences between these 2?

 

I've been thinking about this ITB setup off and on since my last post, this is where I'm at right now.

I've run circles around the general "reverse engineering" priniciple for the ITB equal length runners from a plenum. The main sopurce of interference when thinking about this is the casual assymetry that has to be battled when this intake charge will tend to behave in a nature toward an organized air dispertion.

Anyone that would be reading this thread should be firmiliar with the typical theory of disorder increasing as time advances into the future at a microscopic level. Battleing this is naturally the major restriction to the design of the runners, as the ability of the runners to process the air fast enough to prevent any amount of reversion into the plenum.

In the general design process of an exhaust manifold you have spent exhaust gasses traveling at "x" amount of speed, the difference between that speed "x" in the exhaust charge and the speed "y" of the intake charge is that "x" does not have a future restriction in its path other than the ability of the exhaust to process air at the speed native to the engines requirements. "X" is aiming to fill the atmosphere while "y" is aiming to fill a port and then furthermore the cylinder. Two particles, of any sort, in nature, are uncorrolated until they meet at a microscopic level, unless you consider any knowledge of possible future events and their probability. And all crazy scanarios set aside, the probabilty of the valve closing giving time for a slight backup in the path of the forced intake charge is there, and substansial. The time it takes for the intake charge in each individual runner to backup to the plenum must be in accordance with the flow standards set by the cylinder head design and intake tract. Otherwise there will be slight turbulent restriction around the runner entrances due to changing air speeds.

Another factor along the same principle is that of the dispertion of the air flow equally to all the runners at all possible air speeds. At the point of diversion from whatever type of plenum might exist prior to the runners, there are alot of variences that can attribute to the closest to equal division of the intake charge. The before mentioned point is one of them as well as the tempreature of the charge. If there are, say, only three heat varients in the intake charge "y"; "a", "b", and "c", then those three tempreatures have to reach thermal equilabrium for the closest to equal flow from runner to runner, otherwise, thermal zone "a" may find itself making the majority of the intake charge for cylinders one and two, but less likely to be found in cylinders three and four, where thermal zones "b", and "c" are dominant. The implications of this are endless, and I don't feel like typing much more tonight, but I thought I'd make a start.

 

The major design goals for an exhaust manifold are to deal with the sound and pressure propagation from the cylinder head. The sinusodial sound waves have a direct corolation on the pressure wave formation from the cylinder head, so with varying rpm of a modern internal combustoin engine reversion and resonance has to be considered with the sound waves from the head. The goal to designing an exhaust manifold is to play upon the postive pressure from the cylinder head, followed by the slight vacuum conditions which clean the residual out of the cylinder head, aka exhaust scaveging by manifold design. The exhaust scaveging effects by cam overlap, and the manifold design will directly dictate the power production capabilites of the combustion chamber with the fresh air/fuel charge free of residual.

For an all motor scenario this is great, but for a forced induction application the need to dial out the overlap and maximize the pressure from the combustion chamber. This is done by adjusting cam gears, or creating camshafts which encompass this design. The manner in which the manifold is designed to use the vaccum scavenging effects off boost to create faster spool, and design the manifold in equal length, low angle merge collector design to focus the pressure/sound wave propagation into a single more powerful pressure wave for the turbocharger inlet. The exhaust scaveging effect is not as dramitically important with forced pressure into the combustion chamber as with supercharger/turbocharger applications. The main focus/goal is to maximize the focused pressure waves into the turbocharger to give the maximum amount of energy.

With the intake manifold with vacuum driving, the intake manifold needs to account for the airflow with the laminar and turbulent airflows with the manifold runners and plenum. Generally the plenum allows for turbulent flow to form around each runner entrance, and this gives the laminar flow a better path into the combustion chamber. Temperature variences in the intake manifold are going to occur, but by the time incoming air enters the intake manifold its reached its equilibrium temperature for the most part. The one largest, and truely most significant design aspect of intake manifold design is helmholtz resonance. To simply the phenominal you are increase the volumetric effieciency of the engine over a selected rpm point by dividing the individual runners that intake valves open opposite of each other so interference between the sinusodial sound waves that are emitted doesnt occur. You have a resonance chamber, aka specialized plenum, with tuned runners feeding into two larger seperate runners. The tuned runners with the their geometrical properties will dictate where the peak volumetric effiency of the engine will occur. SAE documentation showed a peak gain of 120 ft-lbs on a diesel engine encompassing this design, as well as a gain in 800rpm of the 2200 rpm powerband. The design goal was to maximize peak torque at 1300rpm, while keeping the rest of the torque curve similar to the stock counterpart. The limiting factors are design constraints of the geometry, an as far as I know aftermarket intake manifold companies dont take into account this pheneminon.


Modified by boosted hybrid at 10:38 AM 5/31/2003


Modified by boosted hybrid at 10:41 AM 5/31/2003

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by boosted hybrid &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
To simply the phenominal you are increase the volumetric effieciency of the engine over a selected rpm point by dividing the individual runners that intake valves open opposite of each other so interference between the sinusodial sound waves that are emitted doesnt occur. You have a resonance chamber, aka specialized plenum, with tuned runners feeding into two larger seperate runners. The tuned runners with the their geometrical properties will dictate where the peak volumetric effiency of the engine will occur.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

ots funny that you would mention principle such as that, those are the lines that I was attempting to get at on the last post but I was tired and couldnt get the words together right, was too tired that night.

What I was aiming for with the mentioning of temperature variences is that the generation of the sound waves due to the backing up of pressure in the runner while the valve is closed is correlated on a casual asymetric level to the time it takes for the pressure to build in the runner while the valve is closed. I think that is worth investgating. What I was invisioning was something on a bit more complex level of what Honda currently has on the R-12X jet ski, with the air/water intercooler under the plenum, making for a more evenly distributed air temperature to begin with. Although the temperature variences in the runners and plenum are adiabatic, the importance of the temperature varience is not on a macroscopic level of flow but rather on the microscopic level of air particle speed and its ability to be turbulent at the entry to the runner and form into the proper swirl pattern for good atomization, yada, yada, yada.

What is the runner length that you are leaning towards on this app?

 

bump for a really good write up

 

Wtf are you doing, bumping up 2+ year old threads? O_O good indeed... Yet wtf?!?

 

back from Dawn of the Dead!

 

why do i have to be an 04' member, why god why?!?!?

 

i seriously need to see these pics can someone mail them to me or give me the link ? dnoredsi@aol.com