Actual interest in Aluminum Upper Intake?
07-07-2011, 10:18 AM
#52
If you can find n.a. gains greater than the stock setup I'll pay you $1,000 for each 5 hp you can deliver using a repeated back to back test methodology using the same engine, exhaust, fuel, etc. We've fiddled around endlessly with valve actuation and in the end I'm confident the Mazda engineers got this right out of the hole. Again, this is for NA engines. I suspect your referring to turbo engines---correct?
I wonder how many gms./sec. a Renesis must flow before the intake system is an impediment to airflow........
08-05-2011, 09:16 PM
#55
Registered
A few people have send theirs off to be vacuum chrome plated. Look great. The aluminum will heat soak more but I dunno if would hurt performance much. The factory intake was so well designed, it could be easy to screw up but I am VERY interested in this. =O
Any updates?
10-20-2011, 09:14 AM
#60
Boostin'
Thread Starter
My source for casting the unit fell through.
So I am back to making it from tubing, and then mass producing overseas. One of my business partners is over in China currently, and the facility has already been sourced etc. I just need time to make the unit, and I am extremely busy building turbo systems etc.
I am 100 % positive I will make at least a few of these... If I were to take a guess it would be at least 20rwhp on a turbo car past 6000rpms. I am currently testing FD3S upper intake manifolds designs right now, hope to learn a few things for the rotary applications,
So I am back to making it from tubing, and then mass producing overseas. One of my business partners is over in China currently, and the facility has already been sourced etc. I just need time to make the unit, and I am extremely busy building turbo systems etc.
I am 100 % positive I will make at least a few of these... If I were to take a guess it would be at least 20rwhp on a turbo car past 6000rpms. I am currently testing FD3S upper intake manifolds designs right now, hope to learn a few things for the rotary applications,
12-15-2011, 09:33 AM
#68
if done right ( which I am sure it will be) along with mods to the lim --you can increase the intake charge velocity. Thats a really good thing to do for many reasons. It probably will not be a big difference in power at the current level people are running, but it could possibily help with charge homogeny--which is something this engine really needs. Thats my story anyway, but ya'll know i have be rambling on for years ............
I sure wish I had a good flow bench. The shop vac doesnt test it very well.
I sure wish I had a good flow bench. The shop vac doesnt test it very well.
12-15-2011, 09:40 AM
#69
If anything I think you would want to minimize or eliminate it on a turbo engine because the importance of pulse harmonics is out the window, essentially a chamber with the TB right at the interface location with the LIM
the worst thing you could do is duplicate the OEM one in aluminum ...
the worst thing you could do is duplicate the OEM one in aluminum ...
12-15-2011, 09:53 AM
#71
dont duplicate the oem one in aluminum--thats not whats up is it?
Correctly shaped chamber ( not a log) with velocity stacks that taper and are correctly positioned would be of help on an FI engine. The size of the plenum would have to be figured out, depending on what the engine was being used for..
Correctly shaped chamber ( not a log) with velocity stacks that taper and are correctly positioned would be of help on an FI engine. The size of the plenum would have to be figured out, depending on what the engine was being used for..
12-15-2011, 12:41 PM
#73
Boostin'
Thread Starter
I am not going to replicate the stock uim in cast aluminum. The biggest gains are going to be from getting the AUX port runners a better entrance angle than a 90 degree bend from the main plenum.
I will have a dyno comparison before its released on a top mount turbo setup.
I will have a dyno comparison before its released on a top mount turbo setup.
12-15-2011, 03:11 PM
#74
only problem I see with not duplicating the factory UIM is that it may be mandatory to re-tune the car, or would this not be the case? Unless this part is just going to mainly be for the FI guys that have to have their cars tuned anyway...
Would be nice to see a part for owners that want to maintain the stock tune (not that I do).
Would be nice to see a part for owners that want to maintain the stock tune (not that I do).
Last edited by reddozen; 12-15-2011 at 03:13 PM.
12-15-2011, 06:01 PM
#75
An ideal UIM would remove the 2 main bends as well. The problem is that the strut bar gets in the way, so does the battery and there's no "straight" exit out of the front bumper, like the vfad one).
Even by putting it at a slight angle towards the driver's side space is a concern and that's in a NA car. Maf placement and eventual plenum size aren't though. You can fit a 3l plenum and still have enough straight pipe to run the maf safely.
Forget about low\mid rpm drive ability though and only consider minor top end gains (7\9k rpms), again on a NA engine.
If Elliott retaining the stock positioning though and just smoothing the angles out i'm sure that everything will be much more enjoyable by everybody.
Even by putting it at a slight angle towards the driver's side space is a concern and that's in a NA car. Maf placement and eventual plenum size aren't though. You can fit a 3l plenum and still have enough straight pipe to run the maf safely.
Forget about low\mid rpm drive ability though and only consider minor top end gains (7\9k rpms), again on a NA engine.
If Elliott retaining the stock positioning though and just smoothing the angles out i'm sure that everything will be much more enjoyable by everybody.