Nameless Performance Equal Length Stepped Header

[naikaidriver]

Originally Posted by johnbradley

Just remember before 2 weeks ago if someone had told you that a simple header change could do this you would have replied "fantasy land".

I don't think that I am out of line for saying that. I would not have been alone either.

Look, I am not discounting anyone's work. In fact, what makes Nameless' and P&L's header designs so remarkable is that they have made monumental strides in solving this problem.

There is nothing wrong with someone sitting back, and saying "prove it".

Scott

[Calum]

ok guys, intake harmonics, 0.101. This is the VERY simplified version as I'm way too far removed from those days in the classroom to try to drudge up the math.

Any tube with air moving through it will create resonances, just like one of those toys you spin and make different tones at different speeds. The runners of an intake manifold act just like those tubes.

When these resonances in an intake manifold align with valve events so that the back side of the valve is pressurized by the sound pressure, you get more fresh air into the combustion chamber. Thus you make more power. When the resonances and valve events align so that the back side of the valve is in a slight vacuum you get less fresh air into the combustion chamber which results in less power.

These resonances occur at a frequency set by the intake manifold runner's cross section area & length (just like tuning the port of a subwoofer if you've ever played with winisd, or the lengh and width of a wave guide if you've ever played with a smith chart) as well as the engine rpm and the profile of the intake camshaft. They also occur at double, triple, quadruple, and every whole integer multiple of the original frequency. As the order or resonance goes up though, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on, the amplitude of the resonance decreases.

Most intake manifolds are designed to use the third or forth order resonance, this means the peaks aren't as high, making the intake manifold less efficient at those RPM that put pressurized air at the back of the intake valve, when compared to an engine using the first order resonance. But it also means the intake manifold is less in-efficient at the rpms that put a low pressure on the back side of the intake valves. The other advantage of higher order resonance is it also make packaging MUCH easier as the runners are much shorter.

This engine is different though, the runners are naturally long to accommodate the boxer layout. Without dusting my books off, I'd guess that this intake is using first order harmonics with valve events aligning to give peaks at ~2700 rpm and ~6500 rpm. There's a fair amount that can be accomplished with cam phasing to keep the pulses in the intake and the valve events coherent. But along with those two peaks, we also get a valley in the middle. This is the source of the dip, intake manifold resonance.

Headers work in much the same way, but lower pressure at the back side of the exhaust valves result in more exhaust gasses being pulled out of the combustion chamber and thus more power. Headers can also benefit from using the vacuum created behind the exhaust gases as they travel through merging tubes, using stepped designs to prevent resonance at certain rpm, and 4-2-1 designs to give multiple first order resonance. Metric fuck tons of math later you get dynos like you see in this thread.

[Calum]

Originally Posted by naikaidriver

I don't think that I am out of line for saying that. I would not have been alone either.

Look, I am not discounting anyone's work. In fact, what makes Nameless' and P&L's header designs so remarkable is that they have made monumental strides in solving this problem.

There is nothing wrong with someone sitting back, and saying "prove it".

Scott

I'm not sure if you're looking for proof that the intake manifold could be responsible for the dip, or proof that nameless is working on an intake manifold.

Here's the proof the nameless is working on an intake manifold.
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...postcount=1048

I'm not going to prove that the intake manifold is causing the dip, I don't have the time, money, or resources. The only thing I have is some poorly educated speculation. If you make some educated guesses though, I'm pretty hypotheses will hold up which is all any of us have until we see some results.
:happy0180:

[Acree]

Originally Posted by Calum

Here's the proof the nameless is working on an intake manifold.
http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showp...postcount=1048

That's what I was referring too.

-Acree

[johnbradley]

Originally Posted by naikaidriver

I don't think that I am out of line for saying that. I would not have been alone either.

There is nothing wrong with someone sitting back, and saying "prove it".

Scott

Header is phase one, intake will be phase 2. Header proved concept with real world results which we shared. Intake manifold will do the same based on experience.

Bonjour

[naikaidriver]

Originally Posted by Acree

That's what I was referring too.

-Acree

As hard as I try to stay informed in these threads I missed that post. I stand corrected Acree. Thanks for digging that up.

Scott

[OrbitalEllipses]

Yeah, Jason has said it before.

Originally Posted by naikaidriver

As hard as I try to stay informed in these threads I missed that post. I stand corrected Acree. Thanks for digging that up.

Scott

That was very upstanding forum poster form; A+.

[johnbradley]

Originally Posted by buditjoenawan

Have you guys tried race gas to rule out an overactive knock sensor. I know the logs doesn't show activity, but Subarus have had a long and terrible history with phantom knocks.

- budi

Next on the list, and I have seen that with STi/WRX/LGT but not what I would consider phantom knock. Phantom knock is when the knock sensor reports timing change that isnt really there, this adds in all the timing I want. I think what you may mean is a "numb" sensor in which it doesnt report all the knock that actually is happening. I will be adding the racegas to see if the power jumps up to make sure the tune is safe.

I havent had any evidence to the contrary so I havent done it yet. Again its one of the testing phases where the big list of things to try and ADD dont always work out

[Acree]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

Yeah, Jason has said it before.



That was very upstanding forum poster form; A+.

Seriously... I was like

There is still hope for threads on these forums past page 6!

-Acree

[Cj_Staal]

Originally Posted by Jason@Nameless

Update: Up 46ft lb and 36whp in the dip:



Dyno results of prototype 1.625 primary 4-2-1 Catted Header with full exhaust:

Combined Data (note that lower peak modded run made 29hp vs. the lower peak power baseline, albeit at the very top of the range). Needless to say, once the tuning solutions start popping up, this header will support some serious top end capacity...and the catless versions should do even better based on their ability to run more appropriate, longer, secondaries:



Horsepower Alone:



Torque Alone:



Gains in HP/TQ and % Increases:



(note, these graphs above are still for prototype parts, we're pretty confident there is more power to be had with other configurations that we will be testing very soon)

Weight Specifications:

Factory Header w/o Heat Shields: 15.0lbs
Nameless Performance Stepped 1.625-1.750 Catted Header w/o heat shields: 11.6lbs
Nameless Performance Stepped 1.500-1.625 Catted Header w/o heat shields: 10.9lbs

Thats some serious dipping. Think a tune will remedy that?

[Dimman]

Originally Posted by johnbradley

Dynojet lets you set a "safe" limit line if you want. That particular one is a 12.5: and is more for a quick visual reference if I am lazy and dont want to get out of the car to stare at the screen.

Ok, so how much control do you have on this flash system? (I have a very limited tuning understanding with regards to speed-density and look-up tables, which Ecutek is miles away from...)

In the mini-dip, the AFR goes a bit richer, right? Is that something the ECU is doing, or you are doing (richer there to allow more advance)?

Have you done any experimental runs with cam position with fixed overlap(turn off AVCS?) so you can get a better look at the torque curve to see where the acoustic effects are having positive and negative effects? Then Jason could maybe work backwards to sort out which component on which side is responsible for the changes?

(just brainstorming, I know you guys know what you're doing...)

[Mars2]

I would love to see this header on E85 tune. I think dip could be totaly gone with E85.
If you look at all the Dyno of E85 from:
2form, P&L you see that it helps a lot in the deep compare to 91 or 93

[xjohnx]

Originally Posted by Mars2

I would love to see this header on E85 tune. I think dip could be totaly gone with E85.
If you look at all the Dyno of E85 from:
2form, P&L you see that it helps a lot in the deep compare to 91 or 93

It could certainly help mask it, if nothing else. I'm still in the process of having my @FA20Club.com E85 tune tweaked via datalogs. I've been seeing big improvements using virtualdyno. My virtualdyno is putting out almost identical numbers to the local dynojet, and has been very consistent.

After sending in the first datalog the next revision resulted in 9 peak HP gain (and 20+ in some areas) over the first revision. It also broke the 200 HP mark. We've still got some more tweaking to do, otherwise I'd post a copy of the virtualdyno (and head to the real dyno for confirmation), but as of now the torque dip is more or less nonexistent on my car.

The thought of this header + E85 just made my pants get tight for some reason.

[norsamerican]

ill wait for nameless to come out and post their information..this thread is chaulked full of speculation.