FRS / BRZ Intake Manifold - Development Thread - FT-86SpeedFactory by Velox

[Turdinator]

Originally Posted by NotEric6

We considered it. However, we were unsure how that would effect the calibration of the injector timing. We would rather this be more simple bolt on, tune, and go, then an extensive test in patience and calibration procedure. Realistically, the % in gain is just not there for this application to benefit in our application. However, possibly something to test in the future.

That just sounds like a tuning issue. Could you put some bungs in the top with plugs that people could pick and choose where they wanted their port injectors? The FA20 with D4S seems like a prime candidate for that type on injection for NA builds.

[VerusEric]

Originally Posted by mid_life_crisis

I was just joking about all the guys saying they want it anyway.
But seriously, wouldn't it make sense to recover any portion of the cost?

I figured . Yes and no, but it depends on who you're talking to.

We have other ideas on what to try if it doesn't make power, but hopefully this is all hypothetical and she does great .

Originally Posted by Turdinator

That just sounds like a tuning issue. Could you put some bungs in the top with plugs that people could pick and choose where they wanted their port injectors? The FA20 with D4S seems like a prime candidate for that type on injection for NA builds.

We can look into this but there really is a lot of thought and time that goes into producing parts similar to these. I'm not just talking Velox parts, I'm talking about a lot of aftermarket products out there. To do it right, it's more difficult then a lot of people think. We'll look into it though.

[Turdinator]

Originally Posted by NotEric6

We can look into this but there really is a lot of thought and time that goes into producing parts similar to these. I'm not just talking Velox parts, I'm talking about a lot of aftermarket products out there. To do it right, it's more difficult then a lot of people think. We'll look into it though.

Realistically I understand there wouldn't be a huge market for that setup but it would be great to have the option. Keep up the graet work!

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by FT-86 SpeedFactory

Not sure why they would. Air is deposited right in the middle of the bell horns. CFD data shows equal amounts hitting both.

Curious about how the CFD was done.

Can you go into a bit more detail?

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Hyper4mance2k

Was a design with the injectors out of the air stream and positioned directly above the velocity stack ever considered?

Originally Posted by Turdinator

That just sounds like a tuning issue. Could you put some bungs in the top with plugs that people could pick and choose where they wanted their port injectors? The FA20 with D4S seems like a prime candidate for that type on injection for NA builds.

I am suggesting this gives a cleaner air flow


than

[Hyper4mance2k]

Originally Posted by Captain Snooze

I am suggesting this gives a cleaner air flow
Attachment 105596

than
Attachment 105597
Attachment 105598

Those were just bad examples. When the fuel is injected above the velovity stack, it atomizes better and it doesn't puddle against the manifold like it does in side injection. If it didn't work better, then formula one wouldn't use it.

Ferrari Type 049

Renault F1
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2iBbwocYZw"]Renault F1 Engine - YouTube[/ame]

All the V8 & V10 NA F1 cars used this style of FI.

I'm sure @eric6 can attest that it is a better design, but he has already commented on why they chose to omit that option; and, their reasoning is very sound.

[VerusEric]

Originally Posted by Turdinator

Realistically I understand there wouldn't be a huge market for that setup but it would be great to have the option. Keep up the graet work!

And sadly, this is typically what it boils down to. I know to most people you think, "oh just run, 10 units with a few extra bungs and remove the bungs on the runners, no big deal." To a machine shop, that sounds like 10 completely different units with different set-ups and different tool paths, which all costs money and time. We would also have to figure out fuel rails and how to hold the fuel rails to the top of the plenums. But, again, something I will look into and see if we can do it for a reasonable price. Maybe do a 5 unit group buy possibly? I'm all for helping out when I can but I doubt anyone would want to pay for a 5 digit priced intake manifold.

Originally Posted by Dimman

Curious about how the CFD was done.

Can you go into a bit more detail?

We used CFD on the individual components to maximize efficiency and reduce flow losses. This included bell horns, runners, and plenums. We do not know how to run an engine simulation where the valves open and close when they are suppose to (yet, we are working on learning how). Any other type of CFD wouldn't be very useful as it isn't indicative of a real world test in our opinion.

This is a case where we did our best with the tools we have available to us right now.

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by NotEric6

And sadly, this is typically what it boils down to. I know to most people you think, "oh just run, 10 units with a few extra bungs and remove the bungs on the runners, no big deal." To a machine shop, that sounds like 10 completely different units with different set-ups and different tool paths, which all costs money and time. We would also have to figure out fuel rails and how to hold the fuel rails to the top of the plenums. But, again, something I will look into and see if we can do it for a reasonable price. Maybe do a 5 unit group buy possibly? I'm all for helping out when I can but I doubt anyone would want to pay for a 5 digit priced intake manifold.



We used CFD on the individual components to maximize efficiency and reduce flow losses. This included bell horns, runners, and plenums. We do not know how to run an engine simulation where the valves open and close when they are suppose to (yet, we are working on learning how). Any other type of CFD wouldn't be very useful as it isn't indicative of a real world test in our opinion.

This is a case where we did our best with the tools we have available to us right now.

Thanks. Reason for the question is how FT86Speedfactory says air is deposited in the middle and equal amounts hit both horns. I realize he's not the tech guy, but it sounds like the testing is backwards.

It sounds like you are virtually blowing air through the manifold and making sure each runner gets the same amount. What you should be doing is blocking off 3 runners where they would meet the head and then suck air through the one you are testing and measure the flow. Then repeat for the other three and compare. This is how physical static flow testing is done, CFD should probably be done the same way.

[VerusEric]

Originally Posted by Dimman

Thanks. Reason for the question is how FT86Speedfactory says air is deposited in the middle and equal amounts hit both horns. I realize he's not the tech guy, but it sounds like the testing is backwards.

It sounds like you are virtually blowing air through the manifold and making sure each runner gets the same amount. What you should be doing is blocking off 3 runners where they would meet the head and then suck air through the one you are testing and measure the flow. Then repeat for the other three and compare. This is how physical static flow testing is done, CFD should probably be done the same way.

We did this as well. We found a few neat things from doing it that way as well as flowing into both runners simultaneously. But both tests are inaccurate as is any static test. Flow within the engine is never static, but very dynamic in nature.

[DocWalt]

Originally Posted by Hyper4mance2k

Those were just bad examples. When the fuel is injected above the velovity stack, it atomizes better and it doesn't puddle against the manifold like it does in side injection. If it didn't work better, then furmula one wouldn't use it.

All the V8 & V10 NA F1 cars used this style of FI.

I'm sure @eric6 can attest that it is a better design, but he has already commented on why they chose to omit that option; and, their reasoning is very sound.

Sure, but keep in mind they have big-time packaging issues that we don't have in the horizontal plane with not much restriction in the vertical plane. Pretty much the opposite restrictions of any front mounted engine. I'm sure there's a performance benefit, but considering we already have DI which is arguably better than any PI, I doubt we'd see much in the way of performance gains by going to those neat top mount injectors. Unfortunately, because they're cool as hell, lol

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by NotEric6

We did this as well. We found a few neat things from doing it that way as well as flowing into both runners simultaneously. But both tests are inaccurate as is any static test. Flow within the engine is never static, but very dynamic in nature.

Just checking. 'Blow into the thing' seems to be a common airflow error.

Sucking air though is not that inaccurate. It just needs to be done and analyzed properly.
If the manifold can flow more air, maintain or increase velocity, and ensure each runner draws equally, all through static tests, we know it will be better for pure flow dynamically, too. But blowing air through can give you completely wrong data, even statically.

Where the real problems of non-dynamic testing comes from is resonance and wave action stuff which create very timing critical pressure changes which can affect flow. Runner length and plenum volume is about controlling and optimization of wave action.

[VerusEric]

@Dimman, we definitely sucked the air through, no blowing.

I told myself I wasn't going to post anymore of the intake manifold until it was finished but I can't help myself. This is sexy...

[Blu-by-U]

Originally Posted by NotEric6

@Dimman, we definitely sucked the air through, no blowing.

I told myself I wasn't going to post anymore of the intake manifold until it was finished but I can't help myself. This is sexy...

Yes, it is. Thanks for the tease.

[Captain Snooze]

@NotEric6
I think your next project should be a highly transparent hood so people can see the intake as they walk by.