PDA

View Full Version : Big Intake Tube to Match MP 95mm Throttle Body



Magnum Powers
12-16-2010, 01:22 PM
As some of you know we had a group purchase for which I agreed to invest in the development of a 95mm Throttle Body for the Super Coupe.

As a result we now need a larger intake tube and MAF.

I can provide that also, however I want to make sure it is what the SC community wants and meets your requirements.

From earlier comments I understand there is general agreement it should be 4" in diameter and have a built in MAF sensor.

So what you guys think????


Charles

Toms-SC
12-16-2010, 02:18 PM
Folks;

I'd like to bring up the idea of making the intake out of a flexible plastic material similar to what Ford is doing with their new Mustang. Don't know if Charles would have the sources to build it but something I wanted to put out there.

David Neibert
12-16-2010, 03:03 PM
My main requests with the new 4" cold air intake are as follows.

That it works with or includes a mass air meter that has enough range to keep from pegging at 1450 CFM and still have good resolution at idle and part throttle.

That it will work with minimal mods to the MP cold air divider.

That it will allow more space inside the MP cold air divider for using a longer air filter than is possible with my current 3.5" tube and 87mm bullet style MAF.

Chrome plated steel or polished aluminum would be my prefrences on material.

David

BLOWN38
12-16-2010, 03:20 PM
I would like it to drop down in the fender well too. I know the hole would need to be bigger in the fender. I would prefer aluminum.

rzimmerl
12-16-2010, 03:44 PM
I would like it to drop down in the fender well too. I know the hole would need to be bigger in the fender.

x2 on that statement, no preference on material. I also think if a MAF sensor mount is put in, it should be located on a straight long section, if it requires extending the MAF harness so be it.

David Neibert
12-16-2010, 05:03 PM
I would like it to drop down in the fender well too. I know the hole would need to be bigger in the fender. I would prefer aluminum.

Chris.

Are you talking about a 4" version of the old ZR intake, similar to what Micah recently fabricated for his SC ?

David

BLOWN38
12-16-2010, 05:10 PM
Something like that, but not as difficult as the ZR to install. I would think there would be a couple more bends.

Thats what I was gonna build this winter. But with my new blower I'm not sure I will be able to use what will be mass produced anyway. So don't worry about my ideas too much unless thay sound good for everyone. I don't like the sight of the filter in the engine bay.

Is there a pic of Micah's?

rzimmerl
12-16-2010, 05:13 PM
similar to what Micah recently fabricated for his SC ?

David

That is what I had planned to fabricate mine out of steel tubing based on.

Ira R.
12-16-2010, 05:13 PM
Something like that, but not as difficult as the ZR to install. I would think there would be a couple more bends.

Thats what I was gonna build this winter. But with my new blower I'm not sure I will be able to use what will be mass produced anyway. So don't worry about my ideas too much unless thay sound good for everyone. I don't like the sight of the filter in the engine bay.

Is there a pic of Micah's?

I'll get a picture of mine up tonight when I get home. It drops down behind the headlight assembly. It's also nice to have that extra room in the engine bay with the filter out of the way.

Ira

David Neibert
12-16-2010, 05:41 PM
Something like that, but not as difficult as the ZR to install. I would think there would be a couple more bends.

Thats what I was gonna build this winter. But with my new blower I'm not sure I will be able to use what will be mass produced anyway. So don't worry about my ideas too much unless thay sound good for everyone. I don't like the sight of the filter in the engine bay.

Is there a pic of Micah's?

This is all I could find on Micah's

http://www.filesanywhere.com/media/ElinkFetchImage.aspx?&W=1095&H=616&Z=&RD=&WMT=&FI=1070067&D=&PATH=%5cSALLYARNOLD2004%5c2010+Shootout+Pics%5c&NAME=DSC_4635.JPG&MODELPARAM=

David

XxSlowpokexX
12-16-2010, 05:45 PM
I think a 4" intake with a slot style MAF would be great. That being said a 4" tube with a factory slot style MAF would not work for most SC's making any type of power. You would need to pick up an aftermarket one. That being said a bend in the tubing for a fender mounted air cleaner wouldnt be an issue with that MAF..

I could go for either fender mountred or in engine bay intake however I perfer in engine bay

mellbutler
12-16-2010, 06:28 PM
Will the mp plenun handle 4in of air coming into it? Seems like why pull in more air than to crame in the bend. Isn't the bend suited for 3in? Has anyone done any actual perfomance of a similar setup? Otherwise could be a waste of money...please explain the dynamics involved

BLOWN38
12-16-2010, 06:39 PM
Will the mp plenun handle 4in of air coming into it? Seems like why pull in more air than to crame in the bend. Isn't the bend suited for 3in? Has anyone done any actual perfomance of a similar setup? Otherwise could be a waste of money...please explain the dynamics involved

This is for the new 95mm throttle body. With the 3.5 in we have now it wouldn't match up well with the 95mm TB.

rzimmerl
12-16-2010, 06:43 PM
Some of us twin screw guys have inlet plenums that were fabricated using 4" tubing, and we can easily take advantage of the 95mm TB and 4" inlet tube. The MP inlet will require you to port it to fit a 95mm TB and there is no reason to go to a 4" tube unless you have the large TB.

fturner
12-16-2010, 09:17 PM
Will the mp plenun handle 4in of air coming into it? Seems like why pull in more air than to crame in the bend. Isn't the bend suited for 3in? Has anyone done any actual perfomance of a similar setup? Otherwise could be a waste of money...please explain the dynamics involved

Plane and simple, its a waste to put a 4" setup on an MPX, or less, setup. The MPX in its current form won't outflow a 3.5" setup, and more than likely you will have to have a raised hood to run the 4" since the 3.5" is already rubbing against the hood liner.

Better off spending that money on upgrading something else on the car that will make a difference like cam or head work or gears.

Fraser

mellbutler
12-17-2010, 01:00 AM
Plane and simple, its a waste to put a 4" setup on an MPX, or less, setup. The MPX in its current form won't outflow a 3.5" setup, and more than likely you will have to have a raised hood to run the 4" since the 3.5" is already rubbing against the hood liner.

Better off spending that money on upgrading something else on the car that will make a difference like cam or head work or gears.

Fraser


ok thanks, that helps

David Neibert
12-17-2010, 02:54 PM
This is all I could find on Micah's

http://www.filesanywhere.com/media/ElinkFetchImage.aspx?&W=1095&H=616&Z=&RD=&WMT=&FI=1070067&D=&PATH=%5cSALLYARNOLD2004%5c2010+Shootout+Pics%5c&NAME=DSC_4635.JPG&MODELPARAM=

David

Sorry..Micah's is actually made from 3.5" pipe. He's got more pictures of it in his Garage. I'm pretty much set on keeping my filter in the location it's at now. Given the large variety of setups this 95mm TB is likely to be used on, I seriously doubt that one cold air pipe could be designed that would even fit on everyone's car.

I think I'm gonna make my own.

David

neverfastenough
12-17-2010, 03:29 PM
Sorry..Micah's is actually made from 3.5" pipe. He's got more pictures of it in his Garage. I'm pretty much set on keeping my filter in the location it's at now. Given the large variety of setups this 95mm TB is likely to be used on, I seriously doubt that one cold air pipe could be designed that would even fit on everyone's car.

I think I'm gonna make my own.

David

Homemade parts FTW

Stupid Canuck
12-22-2010, 04:50 AM
Just wondering how big the MAF has to be when the PMAS HPX '05+ slot-style can support 650 rwhp through a 3" housing and nearly 1000 rwhp with 4" housings. Seems like the idle will be tougher to tune with a bigger MAF too.

ricardoa1
12-22-2010, 01:32 PM
If my math is right........


Twinscrew and whatever made with a inlet at
4in = 101.6 millimeters
New TB 95 millimeters = 3.74015748 inches
MP TUBE is 3.5 in = 88.9 millimeters
SCT Big Air MAF is 90MM = 3.54330709 inches

So the MP 95MM is 3.74 inch inside I hope....Add the TB blade and the shaft? What does that really equate to? 3.5" So why reinvent the wheel and get a 4" tube if a 3.5" might be all that is needed. 3.75 would be ideal but then again how much room does the TB blade and shaft take from that 95MM TB........
Why wasnt the TB just made in 100MM to begin with if 4" was the number in mind?

XxSlowpokexX
12-22-2010, 02:43 PM
If my math is right........


Twinscrew and whatever made with a inlet at
4in = 101.6 millimeters
New TB 95 millimeters = 3.74015748 inches
MP TUBE is 3.5 in = 88.9 millimeters
SCT Big Air MAF is 90MM = 3.54330709 inches

So the MP 95MM is 3.74 inch inside I hope....Add the TB blade and the shaft? What does that really equate to? 3.5" So why reinvent the wheel and get a 4" tube if a 3.5" might be all that is needed. 3.75 would be ideal but then again how much room does the TB blade and shaft take from that 95MM TB........
Why wasnt the TB just made in 100MM to begin with if 4" was the number in mind?

4 inch may be inside vs outside diameter when compared to 95mm tb My 90mm MAF needed a reducer to fit onto my 3.5 inch tube. The 3.5 " intake tube would slide into the MAF itself. I think the 4" would be great. Check it out

ricardoa1
12-22-2010, 03:07 PM
4 inch may be inside vs outside diameter when compared to 95mm tb My 90mm MAF needed a reducer to fit onto my 3.5 inch tube. The 3.5 " intake tube would slide into the MAF itself. I think the 4" would be great. Check it out



Yeah my SCT 90MM also needed a reducer to 3.5 but I think thats cause the inside should be 3.50"
3.75" tube should be enough but how big is the 95MM TB really inside?

rzimmerl
12-22-2010, 03:18 PM
Just wondering how big the MAF has to be when the PMAS HPX '05+ slot-style can support 650 rwhp through a 3" housing and nearly 1000 rwhp with 4" housings. Seems like the idle will be tougher to tune with a bigger MAF too.

The reason for the large tube is not to extend the maf range, its simply to reduce the restriction of air that the blower wants at higher rpm's so you really don't want a 4" tube with a 3" MAF housing.

rzimmerl
12-22-2010, 03:22 PM
TB's should be measured by the inside bore diameter, tubing on the other hand is usually measured by the OD. So with a 95mm ID TB, that leaves 2.5mm per side for the flange, which equates to a 4" tube requirement.

Roadhawg
12-22-2010, 03:22 PM
Yeah my SCT 90MM also needed a reducer to 3.5 but I think thats cause the inside should be 3.50"
3.75" tube should be enough but how big is the 95MM TB really inside?

According to the drawing posted by Charles, the inside radius of the casting is 1.87", which makes it an inside diameter of 3.74".

ricardoa1
12-22-2010, 03:33 PM
According to the drawing posted by Charles, the inside radius of the casting is 1.87", which makes it an inside diameter of 3.74".


Plus blade and shaft?

And depends how thick the tube is the 3.5MM MP has is pretty thin wall.

Magnum Powers
12-22-2010, 05:32 PM
Yeah my SCT 90MM also needed a reducer to 3.5 but I think thats cause the inside should be 3.50"
3.75" tube should be enough but how big is the 95MM TB really inside?

Tube is measured on the OD. Depending on wall thickness the ID will be smaller. Typical wall thickness for this diameter is .060" or about .120" total, therefore a 4" tube is 3.875" or 98 mm ID.

Charles

Magnum Powers
12-22-2010, 05:35 PM
BTW, if you guys want to go bigger we still can but a decision needs to be made within the next few days otherwise tooling progress will be delayed.

Charles

ricardoa1
12-22-2010, 05:39 PM
Well I am just arguing the size of the TB with blade and all. I would think that a 100MM TB would be better suited for 4" pipe....

But if we stay with 95MM then I would like to bring up the point that 3.75" would be enough.. IMO.


But will a 4" pipe even fit? is the plan to make the pipe oval where it hits the shocktower?

Magnum Powers
12-22-2010, 05:51 PM
Well I am just arguing the size of the TB with blade and all. I would think that a 100MM TB would be better suited for 4" pipe....

But if we stay with 95MM then I would like to bring up the point that 3.75" would be enough.. IMO.


But will a 4" pipe even fit? is the plan to make the pipe oval where it hits the shocktower?

3.75" is not as common as 4.0" limiting the places that can mandrel bend them. Flattening them will increase costs. Manufacturing volume is too low to go with plastic or other moldable processes IMO.

XR7 Dave
12-22-2010, 06:04 PM
I have no objection to a 100mm TB. My only concern with large bore TB's is blade flex. I'm assuming that the blade will be made out of something pretty stout - like stainless? Not the expert here, just saying what I've seen on some really big TB's is that they can stick due to blade flex.

As for intake tube size, it is important to consider that the flow of the system is not just a function of the weakest link. I expect the inlet to be the weakest link and the TB 2nd. After that the intake tube and filter should flow significantly more than either of those limiting pieces. If you put 4 pieces in line all flowing 1000cfm, the system isn't likely going to flow 1000cfm because each component is going to create some loss along the way. For this reason I think that an intake tube that flows 1400cfm would not be excessive in front of a TB or inlet that flows 900cfm.

Roadhawg
12-22-2010, 06:07 PM
I think that an intake tube that flows 1400cfm would not be excessive in front of a TB or inlet that flows 900cfm.

Amen to that.............

David Neibert
12-23-2010, 10:42 AM
I don't think we need to go bigger than 95mm. That size flows plenty of air and matches up well with a 4" intake pipe. Using anything bigger than 4" is going to be difficult to fit around the shock tower.

David

XR7 Dave
12-23-2010, 12:48 PM
I don't think we need to go bigger than 95mm. That size flows plenty of air and matches up well with a 4" intake pipe. Using anything bigger than 4" is going to be difficult to fit around the shock tower.

David

The 95mm flows enough air for your existing combination which is probably enough for most people. Currently your approximate cfm is around 1100, and I expect the 95mm tb to flow about 1100cfm without causing a pressure drop. The thing is that it won't support more power than what we have already achieved without still being a bottleneck for performance. This doesn't mean we can't make more power with it, but the point I was making is that a bigger TB could still be of benefit and there will be some people who will find the limit of the 95mm before too long.

90coug
12-23-2010, 03:32 PM
I'd take one that bends into the fenderwell and has a MAF support. I'm not going with the 95MM TB so I would need to step down but it would be nice not seeing the filter exposed in the engine bay.

Dry roads and bone chilling air around here :)

David Neibert
12-24-2010, 12:51 AM
The 95mm flows enough air for your existing combination which is probably enough for most people. Currently your approximate cfm is around 1100, and I expect the 95mm tb to flow about 1100cfm without causing a pressure drop. The thing is that it won't support more power than what we have already achieved without still being a bottleneck for performance. This doesn't mean we can't make more power with it, but the point I was making is that a bigger TB could still be of benefit and there will be some people who will find the limit of the 95mm before too long.

Dave,

I'm calculating 8.789 sq inches with the 85mm vs. 10.980 sq.inches with the 95mm (excludes cross shaft & throttle blade). With the area increasing 24.9% I'm thinking it should support a lot more power than we have already acheived with the 85mm unit, even if it is still a restriction.

David

Magnum Powers
12-24-2010, 02:20 AM
Dave,

I'm calculating 8.789 sq inches with the 85mm vs. 10.980 sq.inches with the 95mm (excludes cross shaft & throttle blade). With the area increasing 24.9% I'm thinking it should support a lot more power than we have already acheived with the 85mm unit, even if it is still a restriction.

David

David, the brass butterfly is .100" think and the shaft that sticks out is another .100" if you want to subtract that from the area of both tb's.

Charles

David Neibert
01-26-2011, 09:25 AM
Here is a picture of a 4" pipe I ordered from a company in Maryland called Mandrel bending solutions. I added a little extra length to each end to experiment with moving the bend a little closer to the TB for more clearance around the shock tower. It's also long enough on the filter end to include a slot style MAF. The 4" aluminized pipe was bent at 19 degrees (same as MP 3.5" intake pipe), with one leg 7" long and the other leg 13" long.

Pipe is a little scared up from the bending dies, but I can take care of that with a sander at work. I'll post pictures of the finished product this spring.

David

rzimmerl
01-26-2011, 10:13 AM
Looks to be a nice piece. Getting it chromed or powder coated it will look nice. I may try to get mine ceramic coated.

PS- I like the Dr. Pepper can coolie for your Bud Light:D

BLOWN38
01-26-2011, 11:15 AM
Yes MBS is a good place. Let us know how it goes. Ryan beat me to it.:(

David Neibert
01-26-2011, 01:49 PM
Looks to be a nice piece. Getting it chromed or powder coated it will look nice. I may try to get mine ceramic coated.

PS- I like the Dr. Pepper can coolie for your Bud Light:D

Ryan,

Planning to chrome plate it for durability, and to keep all my under the hood bling. I would have used a Bud Light for scale, but there wasn't any left in my garage fridge :cool:

David

pablon2
02-11-2011, 11:08 AM
Hey all, catching up on some threads here. Maybe this has already been discussed, but do we see an issue with using a 4" intake and 95mm TB (with modded intake plenum and larger MAF) with a pancake intake manifold downstream? In know in the past there had been discussion around the manifold's design being a choke point.

David Neibert
02-11-2011, 11:40 AM
Hey all, catching up on some threads here. Maybe this has already been discussed, but do we see an issue with using a 4" intake and 95mm TB (with modded intake plenum and larger MAF) with a pancake intake manifold downstream? In know in the past there had been discussion around the manifold's design being a choke point.

This larger TB and intake system is intended to reduce blower inlet restrictions and improve the blower efficiency. In theory, this would result in more boost at the same rpm, or the same boost at lower rpms with less power consumption. Either one should result in a power increase, even with the existing intake manifold and cylinder heads.

If we could get better heads and a matching intake manifold that flow 300 cfm on the intake, that would be a huge improvement, because the blower wouldn't have to work nearly as hard to move the same volume of air. Even if we had these parts, we would still need to address the blower efficiency.

David

pablon2
02-11-2011, 11:57 AM
This larger TB and intake system is intended to reduce blower inlet restrictions and improve the blower efficiency. In theory, this would result in more boost at the same rpm, or the same boost at lower rpms with less power consumption. Either one should result in a power increase, even with the existing intake manifold and cylinder heads.

If we could get better heads and a matching intake manifold that flow 300 cfm on the intake, that would be a huge improvement, because the blower wouldn't have to work nearly as hard to move the same volume of air. Even if we had these parts, we would still need to address the blower efficiency.

David

That makes sense.

ricardoa1
02-11-2011, 12:16 PM
It is meant so that larger hamsters are able to enter the piping maze system, Thus allowing the larger hamsters to enter the final play area where they will be spinning the hamster wheels faster thus making more power. The water injection system on the pipes allows them to stay hydrated and cool so they can do work.

pablon2
02-11-2011, 12:21 PM
it is meant so that larger hamsters are able to enter the piping maze system, thus allowing the larger hamsters to enter the final play area where they will be spinning the hamster wheels faster thus making more power. The water injection system on the pipes allows them to stay hydrated and cool so they can do work.

:d :d :d

David Neibert
02-11-2011, 12:32 PM
That makes sense.

Something I left out....It only improves blower efficency if you are currently trying to move more air than your existing TB and air intake system are capable of flowing without creating a vacuum at the blower inlet.

For my car, the 85mm TB and 3.5" intake system (includes air filter) are only capable of flowing around 800-850 CFM without creating a restriction. Based on the blower rpms I'm at now, I'm trying to move about 1100 cfm.

David

XxSlowpokexX
06-24-2011, 11:23 AM
Here is a picture of a 4" pipe I ordered from a company in Maryland called Mandrel bending solutions. I added a little extra length to each end to experiment with moving the bend a little closer to the TB for more clearance around the shock tower. It's also long enough on the filter end to include a slot style MAF.

Pipe is a little scared up from the bending dies, but I can take care of that with a sander at work. I'll post pictures of the finished product this spring.

David

Is that stainless? Or do you plan on chroming it?

XxSlowpokexX
06-24-2011, 12:14 PM
Is that stainless? Or do you plan on chroming it?

I read back and saw...Sorry!