94Vtecluder

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bb4ever &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">lol read what you said.... long shorter....lol

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

ahhhhh

Fixed

porter

im just gunna remove the butterflies, how do i go about doing that? does the top half of the intake mani just come off with the 5 bolts/nuts? then what?


does anybody have a pic of just the butterflies removed?

98vtec

its easiest to just unscrew the valves from the shaft. If you remove the shaft and all without sealing the holes, you will have a vacuum leak. so you can JB weld it or have the holes welded shut.

smackdown

preludeguy_92

Having no butterflies will not only lower low end torque it will also narrow your powerband. Depending on the length of the runners you hit a certain ressonance frequency at a certain rpm where the i.m. flows the most air, this happens when you hit your power band. The iab's make the i.m. act as though it had adjustable length runners thus adjusting the manifold to make the powerband start earlier and end later in the rpm range. So its not helpful to take out your butterflies... unless turbo'd.

Hawkze_2.3

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by krogers &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">im just gunna remove the butterflies, how do i go about doing that? does the top half of the intake mani just come off with the 5 bolts/nuts? then what? </TD></TR></TABLE>

Why did you ask everyone if you're just going to do it anyway?

You'll be wanting to put it back in a few days after you take it out....I know I did.

94Vtecluder

So wait Hawk you removed yours and noticed a big difference. Blake 98vtec removed them and didn't notice any difference at all. Can both of you elaborate? Did you just remove the butterflies or the whole plate?

98vtec

My engine is as peppy if not peppier down low with the IAB plate completely removed as it was with the IAB plate installed. The one thing i noticed when i removed the plate was that i got more wheel spin up top in 1st, but my low end doesnt feel to be effected as my car can "accelerate" (using this term VERY loosely) from damn near any gear and any rpm above 2500.

mgags7

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by preludeguy_92 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Having no butterflies will not only lower low end torque it will also narrow your powerband. Depending on the length of the runners you hit a certain ressonance frequency at a certain rpm where the i.m. flows the most air, this happens when you hit your power band. The iab's make the i.m. act as though it had adjustable length runners thus adjusting the manifold to make the powerband start earlier and end later in the rpm range. So its not helpful to take out your butterflies... unless turbo'd.</TD></TR></TABLE>

You have no idea what frequency and length specs are on this manifold, how can you speculate that it is in perfect form from the factory when you haven't done research on it, measured it, and done the math.

I'm done with people regurgitating some BS and having nothing to back it up with.

<u>I don't know what the optimum length is, I haven't bothered to try and find it out either yet. What I do know is that you guys are talking out of your ***</u>. You have the textbook memorized, congrats. Get some numbers and we'll talk.

98vtec

here matt....take this --&gt;

porter

any specific/easy way i should remove the mani? and once i get the top half off whats the easiest way to take out just the butterfly valves? anybody got any pics?

94Vtecluder

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bb4ever &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You have no idea what frequency and length specs are on this manifold, how can you speculate that it is in perfect form from the factory when you haven't done research on it, measured it, and done the math.

I'm done with people regurgitating some BS and having nothing to back it up with.

<u>I don't know what the optimum length is, I haven't bothered to try and find it out either yet. What I do know is that you guys are talking out of your ***</u>. You have the textbook memorized, congrats. Get some numbers and we'll talk.</TD></TR></TABLE>

He probaly is more than correct in what he was saying. I'm not saying it will be as dramatic as he says it will but it's more than concievable that you would lose low end power and perhaps gain some up top. There are CLEAR design differences between the USDM IM, and the Euro-R IM. The major is that the former is a dual stage and the latter single. Even with the butterflyplate completely removed its still a dual stage unless you plan to hollow it out. Even the runner shape and design is completely different. This would lead me to believe that it works best in conjuction with your butterfly plate in their. I'd be more than willing to bet that if dyno'ed with and without butterflies the dyno with would put more area under the curve. In fact if the butterflies didn't matter in the first place there would be no such thing as a dual stage IM. Lets see what Hawk has to say.

Edit - Also what that other guy is saying about peak flow is correct. That is the whole point of a dual stage manifold and butterflies to begin with. Two have 2 torque peaks (one in the low with the butterflies closed, and then another highend with them open) instead of one on a single stage IM. (Which should start off slower and have one torque peak high-end) Again even with the butterflies removed your only crippling it's ability to deliver you this low-end torque, and STILL be dual stage. (again unless you hollow it out)


Modified by 94Vtecluder at 5:24 PM 1/25/2007

98vtec

well, i have the blacktrax IAB replacement plate in my possession. I just gotta find the time to put it in.

M@

Well who on the board was talking about being on the F-SAE teams in college?
I know a guy on the KU team I'm hoping to ask about this stuff.
Unless anyone has experience designing an intake I think it would be best to just sorta stay outta the way for the people that have taken classes or have real world design time. Otherwise just puking out what you read on a website, about how there are all these cut and dry rules and how velocity makes power, and blah. Its just not that simple or else Chevy would have been making all sorts of high eff. engines back in the 70's and 80's

That's just my $0.02 and bare in mind I've shared my thoughts about these and other topics another thread.

Therefore until some master guru comes down and shows real design stuff I say trial and error.

Do it.

spun311

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by M@ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Well who on the board was talking about being on the F-SAE teams in college?
I know a guy on the KU team I'm hoping to ask about this stuff.
Unless anyone has experience designing an intake I think it would be best to just sorta stay outta the way for the people that have taken classes or have real world design time. Otherwise just puking out what you read on a website, about how there are all these cut and dry rules and how velocity makes power, and blah. Its just not that simple or else Chevy would have been making all sorts of high eff. engines back in the 70's and 80's

That's just my $0.02 and bare in mind I've shared my thoughts about these and other topics another thread.

Therefore until some master guru comes down and shows real design stuff I say trial and error.

Do it.</TD></TR></TABLE>

It wasn't me talking about it, but my school has a F-SAE team. I have been loosely involved with the team and I believe they redesigned their intake manifold for this up coming race season. I'll see what they have to say about their intake manifold design.

Hawkze_2.3

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94Vtecluder &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">So wait Hawk you removed yours and noticed a big difference. Blake 98vtec removed them and didn't notice any difference at all. Can both of you elaborate? Did you just remove the butterflies or the whole plate?

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

mmm...all I remember was having less power at lower rpms. Nothing major, but there was definately no benifit on a relatively stock engine (H23).

mgags7

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94Vtecluder &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

He probaly is more than correct in what he was saying. I'm not saying it will be as dramatic as he says it will but it's more than concievable that you would lose low end power and perhaps gain some up top. There are CLEAR design differences between the USDM IM, and the Euro-R IM. The major is that the former is a dual stage and the latter single. Even with the butterflyplate completely removed its still a dual stage unless you plan to hollow it out. Even the runner shape and design is completely different. This would lead me to believe that it works best in conjuction with your butterfly plate in their. I'd be more than willing to bet that if dyno'ed with and without butterflies the dyno with would put more area under the curve. In fact if the butterflies didn't matter in the first place there would be no such thing as a dual stage IM. Lets see what Hawk has to say.

Edit - Also what that other guy is saying about peak flow is correct. That is the whole point of a dual stage manifold and butterflies to begin with. Two have 2 torque peaks (one in the low with the butterflies closed, and then another highend with them open) instead of one on a single stage IM. (Which should start off slower and have one torque peak high-end) Again even with the butterflies removed your only crippling it's ability to deliver you this low-end torque, and STILL be dual stage. (again unless you hollow it out)


Modified by 94Vtecluder at 5:24 PM 1/25/2007</TD></TR></TABLE>

You're using the term "dual stage" pretty loosely there. Dual stage involves the use of a second, switchable stage. With the butterflies out, its just a big single stage manifold.

I'm glad you plotted out some of your info for the rest to see, yet I still fail to see any numbers or analysis of what really goes on inside that manifold. There are equations, and though the "general rule of thumb" would concur with what you say, as is also said "assuming makes an *** out of you and me"

I suggest someone do this math, I currently have enough on my hands here with linear algebra and systems of circuit equations with multiple unknowns (ugh!)

Don't take what I say the wrong way though, I'm not attacking, I'm simply asking for real, concrete evidence, rather than textbook analysis.

94Vtecluder

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bb4ever &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">You're using the term "dual stage" pretty loosely there. Dual stage involves the use of a second, switchable stage. With the butterflies out, its just a big single stage manifold.

I'm glad you plotted out some of your info for the rest to see, yet I still fail to see any numbers or analysis of what really goes on inside that manifold. There are equations, and though the "general rule of thumb" would concur with what you say, as is also said "assuming makes an *** out of you and me"

I suggest someone do this math, I currently have enough on my hands here with linear algebra and systems of circuit equations with multiple unknowns (ugh!)

Don't take what I say the wrong way though, I'm not attacking, I'm simply asking for real, concrete evidence, rather than textbook analysis. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Again brah I don't mean to call you out but even to begin to argue seriously is ludacris. I mean just think about it. First lets both agree that Euro-R is the better. I would sacrifice some low-end for highend prowess. But really it's not even something to be argued. Do you think the people at Honda are idiots? Because basically that's what your saying. Do you think they didn't or don't know the difference between a dual stage IM and single stage IM? I mean seriously you can't even begin even argue the fact. With a godlike Euro-R IM (as i'm sure you and I would both agree) why would they even bother putting R&D into the USDM IM with a dual stage design when a single stage is so awsome. The reason is deliver you some more torque low-end rather than just being an a lot high-end ITR best. For real that's the difference between dual stage and single stage IM's. Look at GSR and ITR IM's. The ITR is single stage to deliver you the MOST high-end without considerable regard with mid-range or low-end. Please if you want to begin to argue this point ANY of you then tell me why HONDA has 2 CLEAR different designs. And then tell me what the MAIN REASON IS BEHIND DUAL AND SINGLE STAGE IM's is. Excuse my excuberance but please I'd love for someone to tell me why ME AND HONDA we are BOTH wrong.

Even with the whole plate removed there will still be turbulance created by the bototm the IM unless you hollow it out. I mean really I can't even belive that some of you think that this is even arguable.


Modified by 94Vtecluder at 2:44 PM 1/26/2007

Speedra500

this arguement will continue until someone posts a dyno

98vtec

wire me some money and i'll see what i can do

mgags7

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94Vtecluder &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Again brah I don't mean to call you out but even to begin to argue seriously is ludacris. I mean just think about it. First lets both agree that Euro-R is the better. I would sacrifice some low-end for highend prowess. But really it's not even something to be argued. Do you think the people at Honda are idiots? Because basically that's what your saying. Do you think they didn't or don't know the difference between a dual stage IM and single stage IM? I mean seriously you can't even begin even argue the fact. With a godlike Euro-R IM (as i'm sure you and I would both agree) why would they even bother putting R&D into the USDM IM with a dual stage design when a single stage is so awsome. The reason is deliver you some more torque low-end rather than just being an a lot high-end ITR best. For real that's the difference between dual stage and single stage IM's. Look at GSR and ITR IM's. The ITR is single stage to deliver you the MOST high-end without considerable regard with mid-range or low-end. Please if you want to begin to argue this point ANY of you then tell me why HONDA has 2 CLEAR different designs. And then tell me what the MAIN REASON IS BEHIND DUAL AND SINGLE STAGE IM's is. Excuse my excuberance but please I'd love for someone to tell me why ME AND HONDA we are BOTH wrong.

Even with the whole plate removed there will still be turbulance created by the bototm the IM unless you hollow it out. I mean really I can't even belive that some of you think that this is even arguable.</TD></TR></TABLE>

In response to your first paragraph, duh. I'm well aware of the advantages of single stage manifolds vs dual stage ones.

I wanna see a dyno of it before I'll agree with anything here, everything you say is right off the pages of the book, but as we all know, theres nothing better than proof.

If you asked anyone else, you're 100% right, and I'm willing to bet you are, for a stock h22. But when you've got a situation like mine, flowing a lot more air, I believe you would be at an advantage without the plate, call me biased, but my butt dyno is backing me up here....lol

If they weren't so gay about dyno time at my local dyno place I'd do the test in a second. But I really don't have more $$ to blow on my car after just dumping over $1000 into it to do the cams....

98vtec

local dynos are some bitches. Got the same situation here. They have a dyno that they NEVER use and wont let people use it without the owner there. When they do use it, the price is 100 for 3 pulls.

McCanns Automotive

mgags7

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 98vtec &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">local dynos are some bitches. Got the same situation here. They have a dyno that they NEVER use and wont let people use it without the owner there. When they do use it, the price is 100 for 3 pulls.

McCanns Automotive</TD></TR></TABLE>

No kidding....I hate that....I wish I lived closer to RLZ, I'd be down there whoring up their shop all the time....lol

M@

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 94Vtecluder &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Even with the whole plate removed there will still be turbulance created by the bototm the IM unless you hollow it out. I mean really I can't even belive that some of you think that this is even arguable.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think the main confusion about what you post and what I was saying is this last part of your post. Your post comes off like Eureka this is what will happen, and this is what happens.
Truthfully I just sorta laugh because there is turbulance everywhere inside a manifold, so your not saying anything. Becides, all this "if you remove the manifold its going to be worse" buisness is just bench racing, and thats not really the goal of this thread.
If someone says "I removed it, and I feel a difference that is positive from my perspective" then just and thats it,unless you have experience going the other direction.

Or have a new method for design. Something like a modeling program, or solid works, or ProE analysis.
Personally I'm thinking that its all snake oil. At least thats how all the 2-stroke tuners roll. Part of the reason there is only loose design methods for 2 strokes is because of how critical resonance and air flow affects how something will run. Truthfully there are several cut and dry rules, but there is also a black art that goes into porting and expansion chamber work.

I don't mean to squash debate, but I do mean to squash any misunderstandings.

mgags7

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by M@ &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't mean to squash debate, but I do mean to squash any misunderstandings.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Well put, I agree completely, without doing the actual research on this manifold, I'm not going to assume that the general rules apply here.

Just an FYI, this is what lies underneath john's plenum. In this form, with that plate that brad made with his hands and a dremel (holy **** ) it flowed like ITBs