Header theory:
Registered
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,134
Likes: 26
From: Houston
I'd be more inclined to believe it if it were a chassis dyno. I'll cry absolute bs if it's claimed rear wheel power as the engine can't hit that without raising redline significantly and doing a host of other things in order to make this possible.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
oo ic. who is it?
team wat are ur opinions on venturi connectors? or anyone else for that matter?
o ps wat are the specs on ur car team at the time of that 220rwhp dyno?
team wat are ur opinions on venturi connectors? or anyone else for that matter?
o ps wat are the specs on ur car team at the time of that 220rwhp dyno?
Last edited by the_duke313; May 19, 2008 at 09:40 PM.
Here is Rmagic's design that was posted in the Super Autobacs thread. Hoping the gurus could chime in on the design.
ЯX-8 stated they made it for their track car and it produced 32hp on the dyno.
ЯX-8 stated they made it for their track car and it produced 32hp on the dyno.
√WWP = ∞²
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
So, has everyone stopped researching this or just said **** it, its not worth it?
This thread is over 2 years old with no real conclusions... RG, did you get a chance to try any of the 4 different setups you talked about earlier?
Above is an ascii diagram of how i understand our engine to be. R1 & 2 being the rotors and the 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, being the side exhaust ports. So when R1 is letting out exhaust gasses is it letting it out 1a and b at the same time? If so is 2b completely close off as to not interfere, or does 1b and 2b overlap?
From what i have read it sounds almost impossible/impracticle to fully split the middle port. If i read correctly the middle port is also smaller? This would lead me to believe the fluid would be traveling faster in the middle port and almost constantly. so has anyone tried the following 3 setups:
Block the middle port and use a little larger piping on the two side ports (maybe even make the ports a little larger)
Bring the 1a and 1b together at equal lenght and run it next to the middle port for a little bit and then merge them. Basically a 3-2-1 setup. To me it would seem like goin from the 2-1 you would have pulses merging at the same time, so maybe you would want to make one that would delay or advace the middle port runner a little to provide a more consistant flow.
Last but not least make a 3-1 with 1a and 2a being equal length and the middle being shorter or longer to help pull the exhaust out of the outside ports faster. Thinking about it now i dont really think this one would work as it would end up pulling harder from a than it would b and you would have uneven flow anyway. So what about enlarging the siamesed port and blockin off the ends? that sounds really bad... but i dunno.
This thread is over 2 years old with no real conclusions... RG, did you get a chance to try any of the 4 different setups you talked about earlier?
Code:
Θ █ ∞ █ Θ 1a R1 1b 2b R2 2a
From what i have read it sounds almost impossible/impracticle to fully split the middle port. If i read correctly the middle port is also smaller? This would lead me to believe the fluid would be traveling faster in the middle port and almost constantly. so has anyone tried the following 3 setups:
Block the middle port and use a little larger piping on the two side ports (maybe even make the ports a little larger)
Bring the 1a and 1b together at equal lenght and run it next to the middle port for a little bit and then merge them. Basically a 3-2-1 setup. To me it would seem like goin from the 2-1 you would have pulses merging at the same time, so maybe you would want to make one that would delay or advace the middle port runner a little to provide a more consistant flow.
Last but not least make a 3-1 with 1a and 2a being equal length and the middle being shorter or longer to help pull the exhaust out of the outside ports faster. Thinking about it now i dont really think this one would work as it would end up pulling harder from a than it would b and you would have uneven flow anyway. So what about enlarging the siamesed port and blockin off the ends? that sounds really bad... but i dunno.
√WWP = ∞²
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
RG, what do you think? Are any of these suggestions even a half decent idea?
I have the time and patients to make about 3 of them... what are the best bets, or most likey to work?
Registered
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,134
Likes: 26
From: Houston
I've never gotten around to trying any of the designs that I mentioned a few years ago. I basically did just say "**** it". I hope someone does try it at some point though.
The problem with closing off the center ports altogether has nothing to do with the small center runner but rather with the port windows themselves. You lose 50% of yoru exhaust port. Just using larger outer runners won't give you back that port area you lost. Unfortunately there is so little that can be done to the exhaust ports that it's almost not worth touching them. IF the ports could be reworked successfully then there "might" be some potential left in them but again, it's not something I've kept pursuing. I may never get around to it, I may do it next week. You never know with me.
The problem with closing off the center ports altogether has nothing to do with the small center runner but rather with the port windows themselves. You lose 50% of yoru exhaust port. Just using larger outer runners won't give you back that port area you lost. Unfortunately there is so little that can be done to the exhaust ports that it's almost not worth touching them. IF the ports could be reworked successfully then there "might" be some potential left in them but again, it's not something I've kept pursuing. I may never get around to it, I may do it next week. You never know with me.
Registered
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
From: UK
I haven't had chance to get to a dyno with a standard manifold yet, but we got 215 rwhp with our split manifold (outer ports equal length, centre port meets at a different length to keep it out of the way of the pulse tuning)
√WWP = ∞²
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Yeah, i hear what you're saying, but its this or go get drunk... personally i'm over the whole going and getting drunk all the time.
Ok, yeah i was thinkin the same thing as far as the center port goes. So, what are your ideas? Maybe we can split the workload; you make 2 and i make 2!!! I take it the other 2 designs are more worthwile? I just need more info man.
I've never gotten around to trying any of the designs that I mentioned a few years ago. I basically did just say "**** it". I hope someone does try it at some point though.
The problem with closing off the center ports altogether has nothing to do with the small center runner but rather with the port windows themselves. You lose 50% of yoru exhaust port. Just using larger outer runners won't give you back that port area you lost. Unfortunately there is so little that can be done to the exhaust ports that it's almost not worth touching them. IF the ports could be reworked successfully then there "might" be some potential left in them but again, it's not something I've kept pursuing. I may never get around to it, I may do it next week. You never know with me.
The problem with closing off the center ports altogether has nothing to do with the small center runner but rather with the port windows themselves. You lose 50% of yoru exhaust port. Just using larger outer runners won't give you back that port area you lost. Unfortunately there is so little that can be done to the exhaust ports that it's almost not worth touching them. IF the ports could be reworked successfully then there "might" be some potential left in them but again, it's not something I've kept pursuing. I may never get around to it, I may do it next week. You never know with me.
Registered
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 9,134
Likes: 26
From: Houston
This is the design I've been talking about for years!
Registered
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
From: UK
√WWP = ∞²
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
ok, so the 3-2-1 design... i picture it as all 3 pipes starting the same dia. when the outter join together double the area, and contiune on with the middle the same size. then when the middle and larger pipe converge into a pipe with triple that of the origional pipe... does that sound about right?
So what pipe sizes and lengths are we talking about? I thought Team had the initial pipe dia. posted on here, but i cant find it now...
RG, would you happen to have a cad drawing of your design I could take a look at? That is if you are willing to share it...
So what pipe sizes and lengths are we talking about? I thought Team had the initial pipe dia. posted on here, but i cant find it now...
RG, would you happen to have a cad drawing of your design I could take a look at? That is if you are willing to share it...