PDA

View Full Version : Intake manifold design considerations.....



Pages : [1] 2

XR7 Dave
12-30-2006, 01:47 PM
As we work on a new cylinder head design we are also faced with intake manifold questions that need to be addressed in an orderly manner so lets take that discussion here so that we can do the topic justice and the other threads can stay on track.

Before stating that the stock intake is crap, you have to look at the design considerations that influence what you can do with it. We all know that hood clearance is a major issue. How do you package something under the hood of the SC without making radical changes to the rest of the engine bay and the car in general? We already know that a 3/4" raised top comes real close to the hood on an 89-93 model SC. Since logic dictates that people are going to use M90's and 3/4" raised tops on their SC's, then we have to ask, do we want to design an intake manifold that is less than 1/4" taller than the stock unit? Is it worth the time and $$? What can we do to the existing design that will make it better without raising the lid?

People talk about runners, diffusers, etc, but where do we put these devices and what added restriction are they going to cause in an area where space is too small already? Putting any kind of a runner in the stock lower intake will be extremely restrictive. There are reasons why most blower cars use open plenums.

Gut reaction tells me that only through testing can one expect to make real progress on something like this. As you can see from our lovely exhaust manifold discussion there are many theories and ideas, some of which are very dearly held, and which vary greatly among the group of us.

Intake manifold design is an art. The fact remains that we do not have the resources among us to follow through with a lot of testing on a manifold that is really intended only for people with stock hoods and M90's on their cars. Does that market really need a new intake?

I don't want to sell anyone or anything short, but we all need to look at what we are asking and what it means. If we spend our money on an intake that fits the stock SC, then how does that benefit those who really want to go fast and are ready to ditch (or already have) the stock hood and try something really new?

These are questions that need to be answered. If you have opinions on this you need to speak up now. Keep also in mind that opinions are one thing, but if you/we don't have or cannot find answers then we are not going to entertain ideas that we can't act on.

A package deal seems like a great idea, but what do we really want? Do we want a new manifold that simply bolts in place of the old one with symetrical ports sized to match the new heads? Should it accept the old return adapter or do we need a new one of those also?

Speak. :)

Kurt K
12-30-2006, 02:05 PM
I won't get into a low reply, but I don't think designing a new intake to fit under the stock hood would be beneficial. I know there is something nice to be said about fitting under the stock hood and being a sleeper, but I think it will limit the potential performance gains. Anyway, I say don't worry about the stock hood.

John Shelton
12-30-2006, 02:10 PM
I agree with Kurt. If you're going to all the trouble/expense of improving the intake, optimize it and don't be limited by the hood.

T-bird Tim
12-30-2006, 02:11 PM
I think simplicity of installation and being able to do all the work tyourself is very important to most people who work on SCs. Obviously the new intake manifold should be port matched to the new head design to take full advantage of the new heads. As far as hood clearance issues; I would definitely be willing to buy a raised hood if it's going to mean I get a significant power gain from the new intake/head package. I personally would like to be able to reuse all of the stock hardware that is already attached to the stock manifold such as fuel rails, etc. I'm thinking the return plenum at the rear should be an option but not really necessary to run the new head/intake package. It would however be a nice option to be able to get a 3" return plenum for use with a front mount with larger than stock tubing. As all of these things are considered we may get too carried away and put the price out of reach of most people thus defeating the purpose of having affordable bolt-on horse power. I'm sure people with more knowledge than me will chime in and this will get the same attention that the heads did, ensuring a high quality, affordable alternative to the stock parts.

CaifanSC
12-30-2006, 02:30 PM
In my humble opinion any way you look at it, restricting the design of a new intake to fit a stock hood would be a mistake. It can be as easy as getting a new hood or cutting a hole in ur stock one:rolleyes: . I'm sure this would be an excuse for many people to get an aftermarket hood. I agree with what has been stated above, i'd take the height restrictions out of the list of considerations and focus more in the performance aspect of things and flexibility of use (not sure if this would be an m90-specific manifold or also to be used for the other power adders like the AR). Even the 'ease of installation' would be irrelevant....either way, you have to take whatever blower you have out...just doign that takes teh 'easy' out of the job:p .

XxSlowpokexX
12-30-2006, 02:42 PM
This is what I was preaching awhile back. Ford probably but alot of effort into designing that ~~~ lower intake we have in such a small confine...I mean even if we redid the lower intake and raised the blower to a point where it was barely touching the hood..Would it be worth it for a stock m90??? Then where is the point the stock SC top becomes a restriction? Maybe make a design for a raised cowl type hood..But still how much can you do?

Now lets say we work on a lower intake within factory confines to an extent...What can we expect..Probably something very close to what we have out there now but a nice casting with proper diffusion going on..And a difused return adapter of larger size may or may not be warrented as well.

If the heads being created have room for larger intake ports then that would warrent a lower/return adapter setup on that merrit alone.

Some of us may not care about having a hole in the hood and a raised up blower..Those same people would also have FMIC's and probbably all out racecars..They also may not be using an m90 at this point...Or shouldnt if they are going through all this

What I see being produced? A modular lower intake with liquid to air IC's that can accept a majority of blower combos..m90, AR, perhaps a cobra m112???

Or a factory replacement lower/return adapter acombo rased/diffused with more material around the intake ports to allow for porting of the new heads. We can use that extra plenum volume..

Just my thoughts

XxSlowpokexX
12-30-2006, 02:44 PM
I just read two more posts finished before mine....taking height restriction out to clear lets say a raised cowl is an idea..However how much can you get in there even with that...WOuld it be worth it for an m90 or a larger blower in which the clearences would be different. Then again when would that non raised top become a restriction?...New IC pipes would be a definite or new IC setup..List goes on...

seawalkersee
12-30-2006, 02:52 PM
How much can you lower your engine? How much can you lower your cradle? If height is the biggest problem here than we are very limited. I am not going to say that we NEED the taller one, but lets face it, I think the bend from the "dip" in the runner seriously cuts down on flow. That is why the raised ones do better initally. Just my .02

Chris

007_SuperCoupe
12-30-2006, 03:28 PM
I think the height restriction should be a Mach I/Cervini style hood. There are many of these hoods out there and it gives an inch and a half or so to raise the manifold up.

I haven't done any flow testing yet of the intake plenum/manifold. However, it would be pointless to make a new manifold if we simply move our choke point from the manifold to the intake plenum. That plenum is less than optimal in stock form. If we are looking at getting performance out of the manifold, the plenum needs to be considered as well. And I will say it for those who don't really know...The intake plenum chokes where it mates to the manifold. That point there is too small to get performance out of an newly designed manifold.

I think if people are going to the effort of buying a new manifold for the sake of performance, they won't have a problem buying a raised hood. I do think that we need to keep the design so that any raised hood would fit the bill...although I'm all for the Cobra R hood, since I have one...

tbirdaj
12-30-2006, 04:33 PM
I think the height restriction should be a Mach I/Cervini style hood. There are many of these hoods out there and it gives an inch and a half or so to raise the manifold up.

I agree with that it should be able to clear the mach 1 hood.

doug93sc
12-30-2006, 05:25 PM
Since the whole purpose of the new heads is for performance a new raised intake manifold should be designed as well.

What I would like to see is the height of the manifold to be limited so that a Cervinis hood could be used (there should be enough room to get great gains)so people who do not like the look of the Corba R hood have a choice.

Like Tim said it would also be nice to be able to use the factory fuel rail to keep cost down.

Most owners who are going this route will have a FMIC so the need for a larger intake plenum is mandatory (why have a bottle neck). Would it be cost effective to have the intake plenum cast as a part of the manifold so it is a 1 piece design OR to have it as 2 seperate pieces?

Let's face it right now you can get a whole lot of power out of "factory type" heads and be able to fit everything under a stock hood...If you want a LOT more power buy a raised hood OR get the sazall out and cut a hole in the factory hood.

(I love the look of a factory hood but will go to a raised one for this type of performance.)

Mike8675309
12-30-2006, 06:17 PM
I say what you do is work on a design that is as compact as practical without hindering performance significantly. Then build a prototype and figure out what hood will fit over it.

CMac89
12-30-2006, 06:37 PM
It would make way more sense if people were to ditch their FMIC setup's and just go with the inverted blower setup. You have a nice water-to-air intercooler and the air only has to travel a matter of inches and not yards. By doing this you take away the height of any top, since it will not be used, and add that length to an intake runner and/or plenum. Other miscellaneous advantages will go along with it as well such as, less weight, you can see your motor, spark plugs will be easier to get to, headers would be an easy access, and you could even see the new valve covers that are considering being made.

Diffusion isn't really a big deal if you have a runner type intake. All of the diffusion is ONLY supposed to happen at the length of the runner. Runners create the diffusion. Everything else is the volume of the plenum in the intake manifold.

XxSlowpokexX
12-30-2006, 06:49 PM
Casey that was one of my options..Inverted liquid to air. But I am unsure how much runner you can get in there without really raising that blower up...It is ideal though because you could then make it a modular peice to fit a multitude of blowers with only a spacer plate difference

supercatxr7
12-30-2006, 06:54 PM
I would like to see a 3" inlet on the plenum if the plenum is utilized. I would think most who actually buy the manifold set up already are going to have an aftermarket intercooler set up with 2.5" to 3" tubing. I don't really care about the height as I would buy a new hood.

doug93sc
12-30-2006, 07:22 PM
It would make way more sense if people were to ditch their FMIC setup's and just go with the inverted blower setup. You have a nice water-to-air intercooler and the air only has to travel a matter of inches and not yards. By doing this you take away the height of any top, since it will not be used, and add that length to an intake runner and/or plenum. Other miscellaneous advantages will go along with it as well such as, less weight, you can see your motor, spark plugs will be easier to get to, headers would be an easy access, and you could even see the new valve covers that are considering being made.

I agree that it does make sense to go that route however I feel that it would add signifigant cost for the entire package thus limiting the amount of units that will be bought.

90blkbrd
12-30-2006, 07:23 PM
Casey that was one of my options..Inverted liquid to air. But I am unsure how much runner you can get in there without really raising that blower up...It is ideal though because you could then make it a modular peice to fit a multitude of blowers with only a spacer plate difference

If we go inverted, wouldn't we have about 2 more inches to work with? Exactly how tall is a raised top?

How tall is the intake on this GTO setup?

seawalkersee
12-30-2006, 08:42 PM
It would make way more sense if people were to ditch their FMIC setup's and just go with the inverted blower setup. You have a nice water-to-air intercooler and the air only has to travel a matter of inches and not yards. By doing this you take away the height of any top, since it will not be used, and add that length to an intake runner and/or plenum. Other miscellaneous advantages will go along with it as well such as, less weight, you can see your motor, spark plugs will be easier to get to, headers would be an easy access, and you could even see the new valve covers that are considering being made.

Diffusion isn't really a big deal if you have a runner type intake. All of the diffusion is ONLY supposed to happen at the length of the runner. Runners create the diffusion. Everything else is the volume of the plenum in the intake manifold.

All of this DAYS after I get a new IC for the front:rolleyes:. Oh well, if it DOES go with the inverted blower, what kind of heat transfer cooler will go with our cars? Is this like a mustang unit to keep the cost down? I can see some benefits from this too.

Chris

90blkbrd
12-30-2006, 11:09 PM
I was researching what the GTP guys do and found this. A plate style IC that only takes up 2.25 inches.

http://www.zzperformance.com/grand_prix/products1.php?id=420&PHPSESSID=7591cd07d56545106d67fe56f1c31864

http://www.zzperformance.com/products_img/420_1.jpg

XxSlowpokexX
12-31-2006, 04:18 AM
I cant imagine that working all that great...Probably a mini tranny cooler or something..Remeber they dont run nearly as high boost or ACT as we do

And yes the fact we are inverting it gives us more room..Room to put an IC underneath..Not nec runners of any signifigance

And Chris...You can still use teh heads with a factory lower..SO that groovy front mount can still be used

no164ford
12-31-2006, 04:53 AM
Why half a~~ a intake for little gains so it fits under a stock hood?? I would rather adjust the car to fit a part that will do something for me. I don't want a $1,000 part that gives me 2.25 more HP:p

David Neibert
12-31-2006, 12:30 PM
Dave & Casey,

I'm planning to keep the top discharge style supercharger and FMIC I've already got. I think having the option for people to use an inverted supercharger with liquid IC core beneath it is great.....just don't make it mandatory or this project will never get off the ground. An inlet manifold adaptor with a larger cross section and more flow potential like the ones Randy was making would also be nice, but not a deal breaker.

I am also curious if we are going to be able to use stock felpro intake manifold gaskets. My existing intake runners and manifold are modified to the extent that custom gaskets are required and over the years it's been a real pain in the azz when replacing them. Being able to get a set of gaskets any time at any place in the country, would sure be nice.

Increased height is fine with me, so long as it can fit under all of the aftermarket hoods. BTW, it wouldn't bother me any if we did something different with the thermostat housing area. Those flimsy cover and pipe assemblies we have now are very fragile are aren't going to last forever.

David

CMac89
12-31-2006, 12:49 PM
We don't plan to make an intake for an inverted blower setup mandatory, but I was just stating why it would be a better setup. Dave and Mike are already working on an application for that so it's good that it will be an option. It is something that I would have on my car if possible.

Seems like nobody wants to sacrifice the intake to fit underneath the stock hood and that's what we wanted to hear. We really haven't discussed intake gaskets, but we have connections for that to make it possible.

XR7 Dave
01-01-2007, 01:53 AM
Dave & Casey,

I'm planning to keep the top discharge style supercharger and FMIC I've already got.

Plans change. :eek: Do you really think that when you see just how damn cool this setup is that you'll still want to deal with your ~~~~ IC tubes etc.? When others are pushing 500rwhp vs. your 425rwhp you mean to tell me that you won't upgrade?

I never thought you'd give up the Cobra R's either. ;) :D

David Neibert
01-01-2007, 11:35 AM
Plans change. :eek: Do you really think that when you see just how damn cool this setup is that you'll still want to deal with your ~~~~ IC tubes etc.? When others are pushing 500rwhp vs. your 425rwhp you mean to tell me that you won't upgrade?

I never thought you'd give up the Cobra R's either. ;) :D

Dave,

Hey now....I like the chrome IC tubes. I also like the simplicity of the air to air FMIC. I'll get heads and a new intake along with a bigger blower, but I don't see any reason why I can't make that kind of power with the intercooler I've already got.

David

PS: I didn't actually give up the Cobra Rs...they are still on the 93 and I'm keeping the set I took off the 91 ;)

XR7 Dave
01-01-2007, 01:26 PM
Dave,

Hey now....I like the chrome IC tubes. I also like the simplicity of the air to air FMIC. I'll get heads and a new intake along with a bigger blower, but I don't see any reason why I can't make that kind of power with the intercooler I've already got.

David

PS: I didn't actually give up the Cobra Rs...they are still on the 93 and I'm keeping the set I took off the 91 ;)

Your setup looks sweet and it will flow the air necessary, but the problem will become a matter of pumping losses from all the tubing. ;) You just haven't seen the new intake setup yet. I have, and it's dead sexy. :D

90blkbrd
01-01-2007, 01:46 PM
You just haven't seen the new intake setup yet. I have, and it's dead sexy. :D
So how long are you going to make us sit at our computers drooling about what this is going to look like? :D

Toms-SC
01-01-2007, 05:07 PM
I need to know if it's going to clear a stock hood so I can set some moneys aside. :)

XR7 Dave
01-01-2007, 05:40 PM
I need to know if it's going to clear a stock hood so I can set some moneys aside. :)

Start saving. There are so many cool things coming about for SC's over the next year people are going to be in shock. If one thing doesn't strike your fancy there will be others that will. These next two years are going to be the stage for a revolution of the SC like no one ever imagined. It's a good time to own an SC. We all get frustrated at times with things but this really is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be part of a revolution. I'm not really talking just about an intake manifold, I'm talking about a complete revolution of performance.

The day of the SC is upon us.

I'm not kidding and this isn't a New Year's joke. :cool:


So to answer the question, the final plans are not drawn up yet. What we are doing here is offering people the rare opportunity to actually be a part of the design of a product and influence the real outcome. Your voice is being heard and we are working on it. There is still a generous timeline for the products to actually make it to market so right now we are taking our time and trying to address all the things that are important to you guys within the framework of what we can afford.

:)

no164ford
01-01-2007, 09:47 PM
If you are going to go inverted why not make it to fit a M112?

Toms-SC
01-01-2007, 10:02 PM
If you are going to go inverted why not make it to fit a M112?

Talk about limiting the market. It's not as 'easy' as you think it is to adapt an M112 to fit a SC. I'm currently working on a bolt on solution for the Cobra core.

Thanks Dave, new hood it is. :)

no164ford
01-01-2007, 11:16 PM
Talk about limiting the market. It's not as 'easy' as you think it is to adapt an M112 to fit a SC. I'm currently working on a bolt on solution for the Cobra core.

Thanks Dave, new hood it is. :)

Think about it, If you go with a inverted blower you will no longer need a rear inlet on the lower intake. That means you can move the blower back twards the firewall and mabe there would be ne need to make the snout shorter on the blower. There would have to be a custom plemum made but I think it would be worth it. Pick up a M112 on ebay for $400.00 rear inlet say $500.00 lower intake say $600.00. 1,500.00 for one hell of a blower/intake set up:D get a set of the new heads they are working on water to air I/C and a little blower porting that would make a bad a$$ car with out overdriving the blower. I am sure there will be a few hidden cost like fuel rails and what but it would be worth it, I think:rolleyes:

Pablo94SC
01-03-2007, 02:45 PM
I think if people are going to the effort of buying a new manifold for the sake of performance, they won't have a problem buying a raised hood.

You're assuming that everyone who is willing to spend $2k plus on new heads and an intake wants to spend another grand on purchasing, installing, and painting a new hood. You're assumption is wrong. I can already reach my performance goals with the current hardware available. I want the heads and intake is for reliability. So for me, spending an additional grand on cosmetic work is a ridiculous notion.

007_SuperCoupe
01-03-2007, 02:58 PM
You're assuming that everyone who is willing to spend $2k plus on new heads and an intake wants to spend another grand on purchasing, installing, and painting a new hood. You're assumption is wrong. I can already reach my performance goals with the current hardware available. I want the heads and intake is for reliability. So for me, spending an additional grand on cosmetic work is a ridiculous notion.

If the current hardware can support your goals, then you really don't have the "desire" for a different manifold...meaning everything can still fit under a stock hood. The manifold will not provide any "durability" or "reliability" improvement over the stock manifold. The purpose of a new manifold is to supply enough air to support the performance of the heads. The stock manifold is not capable of supporting the better ported heads out there, let alone these new proposed heads. The new manifold has to be larger and taller in order to provide the volume of air required for heads flowing over 220 cfm...and that's not to difficult to get to...even with stock sized valves. A newly designed head that in ported form capable of flowing 270 CFM (a guess at this point), will be useless without the manifold to provide that much airflow. Just so you know, the stock manifold peaks at about 205-210 cfm...no where near what it needs to flow to keep up with the head flow that is currently available out there.

I'll stand by my statement, that if someone wants the performance the new manifold will offer, they will be willing to get a new hood so that it can fit.

Pablo94SC
01-03-2007, 05:01 PM
I think you're missing the point here. I'm not building my SC to run 9s or be a dyno queen. I want an extremely strong daily driver with the ability to runs a high 10 with the aid of nitrous and slicks. Those levels of performance are currently obtainable, but at the cost of increased head gasket failure, valvetrain issues, etc.

New heads equal improved reliability regarding the head gaskets and valvetrain. A new lower intake means better flow, which should mean being able to achieve the same power levels with lower boost pressure which means less wear and tear on more parts, like the blower.

Are you starting to see what I'm shooting at? I want my car to perform well (low 12s-high 11s w/o nitrous) without worrying about what's going to blow up next. A lot of other people are going to be going in that direction as well. So just because you like the look, can afford the cost, and/or are willing to install a raised hood doesn't mean everyone else thinks or feels the same way.

XR7 Dave
01-03-2007, 05:27 PM
The raised manifold is basically a done deal. What remains to be decided is if there should be consideration for 1) people who want to continue to run an air-air setup, and 2) if the stock hood is an issue.

Regarding #1: It would appear at this point that we have a number of people who would like to continue to run this way. Some of these people have a lot of time and money invested in their current systems and don't really want to change. For example, the 15 or so AR kits out there and the 50 or so MPIII's out there could all benefit from better heads/intake. As well those people who have purchased said units cannot convert them to a blow down design. Even if those people sell their systems and upgrade, someone is going to eventually be using them. These people represent an important part of the target market for a new head/intake proposal. Now looking at those people who have elaborate or expensive air/air systems, how many already have raised hoods or would be willing to buy such a hood? This is an important consideration.

Regarding #2: If you have a stock hood and refuse to change it (my wife is one of those), then who are you and how likely are you to buy cylinder heads (my wife is not one of those)? And do your numbers represent a significant part of the marketing mix for this product?

The bottom line is that we can't have one manifold that provides optimum performance and fits under a stock hood. It's not going to happen unless it turns out that an AR non-intercooled will perform well enough for the needs of those people.

If you feel that the current parts will provide the HP you need but reliability is your concern, then do we need to have the heads interchangeable with a stock manifold?

Many questions.

What about this idea:

So we make a blow down manifold that accepts different tops. One of those tops could replicate the stock manifold in terms of a rear entry. It would be tall and would required a Cobra R hood to clear. This same manifold could be used with an AR and without an IC at lower boost levels and fit under a stock hood. This unit would also be capable (and primarily intended) of utilizing an air/water IC. That would be the ultimate setup and would require at least a Mach I hood.

Then we could have a stock height manifold cast to match the new heads that would include some improvements and would readily accept all current existing hardware. This manifold would have limited capabilties but it would be better than what we have now. Do we have a need for this type of manifold? This would make the heads/intake setup truely bolt on for anyone.

What thinks you?

Pablo94SC
01-03-2007, 05:43 PM
It's obvious not one design is going to please everybody, so why not cast the floor of a lower that can be used with interchangable roofs for all the various flavors of aspiration? Want it low to fit under the stock hood... you got it. Want runners for n/a. You got it. Want a liquid/air... you got it. Need to run an M112/M90/AR/Whipple/hair dryer... you got it.

Or you could not cast anything and have them all made from machined aluminum and welded up.

XR7 Dave
01-03-2007, 05:56 PM
It's obvious not one design is going to please everybody, so why not cast the floor of a lower that can be used with interchangable roofs for all the various flavors of aspiration? Want it low to fit under the stock hood... you got it. Want runners for n/a. You got it. Want a liquid/air... you got it. Need to run an M112/M90/AR/Whipple/hair dryer... you got it.

Or you could not cast anything and have them all made from machined aluminum and welded up.

It's not that easy. Thanks for the idea though.

Deep6
01-03-2007, 06:56 PM
That's what offers the greatest flexability if you are trying to appeal to all audiences. If you design the interchangeable roof idea, is it going to be a "bolt on" roof or a "weld on" roof?

I could just see the "bolt on" roof having gasket failures.

Having a modular Stage I, II and III type manifold might be what you need. Offer the "standard cast Stage I" manifold with all head packages. If that doesn't fit the need of the hard core racer, allow them the flexability of a pre-designed alternative roof casting that could be easily tig welded before shipment. This may drive up cost for the racer, but anyone who wants to go to such lengths is going to have more money.

How does that sound?

David Neibert
01-03-2007, 07:11 PM
What about this idea:

So we make a blow down manifold that accepts different tops. One of those tops could replicate the stock manifold in terms of a rear entry. It would be tall and would required a Cobra R hood to clear. This same manifold could be used with an AR and without an IC at lower boost levels and fit under a stock hood. This unit would also be capable (and primarily intended) of utilizing an air/water IC. That would be the ultimate setup and would require at least a Mach I hood.


I like this option because it allows me to keep the FMIC and still have the option of going to an inverterted blower with an air to liquid IC later.

David

Mike8675309
01-03-2007, 09:43 PM
Regarding #1: ...
These people represent an important part of the target market for a new head/intake proposal. Now looking at those people who have elaborate or expensive air/air systems, how many already have raised hoods or would be willing to buy such a hood?
This is an important consideration.


I don't have one, working on ideas to not need one, but if I need one, I'm buying one.

Gonna get me a welder shortly and start playing with the front K-member. I may fab up a tubular k-member myself then pay a structural welder to do the actual welding properly. Once I get done tinkering with it, I do figure I'll probably end up talking with AJE, but for now I'll delude myself and buy a welder.

The first intake manifold... get it done.

The second one... if a different intake manifold will be necessary so as not to hamper the head designs, then do it. But if it would be just an new intake manifold that's better, it would need to be significantly better. People have already achieved 400rwhp with the stock manifold and heads. Could this new stock height manifold really improve beyond this with the new head design?

XR7 Dave
01-03-2007, 10:11 PM
The second one... if a different intake manifold will be necessary so as not to hamper the head designs, then do it. But if it would be just an new intake manifold that's better, it would need to be significantly better. People have already achieved 400rwhp with the stock manifold and heads. Could this new stock height manifold really improve beyond this with the new head design?

Mike, we understand that not everyone can afford a complete "system" all at once. A person may find themselves in a position to buy heads but not to buy a new IC and/or blower on their daily driver. So this means that the ability to do this in stages might be important to some people. A stock type replacement manifold might make the difference between some people being able to go with new heads or not.

As a package with a stock height manifold setup what would the HP/flow potential be? I'm not sure. However, if we were to offer a low profile, OE replacement type cast manifold then that would open the door to the symetrical port arrangement we have been talking about and save us having to offer two different port configurations. I think this would benefit people in the long run regardless of exactly which configuration they prefer.

Having a cast semi-replica of the stock manifold with bigger ports in a symmetrical configuration is a relatively innexpensive proposition because little R&D has to be done as compared to building a totally new manifold with runners, etc. which is already being worked on for the raised/inverted version.

Mike8675309
01-03-2007, 10:44 PM
Then I'd go forward with building both designs. The key here is getting the heads done, and if a new basic manifold helps expand the base of folks that could benefit from the heads, it's a slam dunk and I'd support it all. i.e., that might make the improved heads of value on my 35th that I plan to keep visually stock.

XxSlowpokexX
01-03-2007, 11:49 PM
Ok..If we are having a rasied intake...What kind of raise?....And if so...Will you have to use the stock top on it??? that would be ridiculous. Just curious..Are we talking raised because of increased plenum area or raised as in runner type raised?


As for who would buy the heads without a rased hood...I have a feeling alot of people...the hood is another 4-500 min then with paint and work needed to fit properly 700 sounds about right.

XR7 Dave
01-04-2007, 12:55 AM
Ok..If we are having a rasied intake...What kind of raise?....And if so...Will you have to use the stock top on it??? that would be ridiculous. Just curious..Are we talking raised because of increased plenum area or raised as in runner type raised?
I am trying to get people to understand that a true high performance manifold WILL have height to it. People want to be able to have a replacable top (which it will have) so they can bolt their existing setup on it. I guess people just don't have a good vision of what a runner style intake is going to look like. You are right Damon, if you try to run the current configuration on a raised runner intake it is going to be really tall. Personally I just don't see that as being a practical option. The raised runner intake is intended to have the blower fire down into it and to do otherwise is just going to get very gangly.

Really the best option for people who want to run their current IC system is to use either a stock manifold or one pretty much just like it. Those who want a runner intake will not want anything to do with that manifold at all. The two just aren't intertwineable which is why we are seriously looking at a cast replacement intake for people who want to keep the low profile and stock arrangement.

It's really hard to say what people will do. Frankly I thought some time ago that people would get all excited about the AR and 90% of the SC community would jump on board. Didn't happen. Instead we are working on ways to improve the M90 to achieve our performance goals. This is a decision that individuals made on their own which has drastically affected the outcome and direction of the efforts of the people who do things for SC's. A similar thing applies here. Will the inverted blower idea be just a novelty that a few people take up? Or will it become the "standard" from which all future SC's are built? It's hard to say. Because if people still want to run their blowers in the OE orientation then a raised runner intake will remain a custom specialty item. It doesn't have to be that way but if that's how we prefer it then it will be so.

The raised runner manifold WILL be made, but I think it should be considered a blow-down configuration only and the rest of the group will need to accept an OE style manifold whether it be a new casting or simply porting the stock one. Once we put down our deposit on the heads there will be no changing our minds regarding port configuration. Whether we make a new cast manifold that matches the heads and along with that make symetrical ports or if we retain the stock port locations as originally discussed in the cylinder heads thread.

David Neibert
01-04-2007, 11:11 AM
Dave,

I understand that the raised manifold with liquid IC and inverted supercharger would be cat's pajamas. But that would mean buying new heads, intake manifold, liquid intercooler system and the inverted blower kit.

Other issues related to that would be the need for a new radiator or the ability to rework the radiator mounting brackets back to stock configuration for anyone with a MP FMIC. In those cases you would also want to change back to the OEM cooling fan. With that kind of airflow the 255 lph high pressure pump isn't going to be enough either and will also require another pump or a KB boost a pump. Then you need an aftermarket hood.

Starts to become a real big expensive project in a hurry, so I can see how alot of people will want to take more of a modular approach.

David

seawalkersee
01-04-2007, 11:37 AM
I was actually thinking about how to make an auxiliry fuel system under the hood. Kind of like an overflow bottle full of gas the kicks the pump into full power at like 5psi. Then I realized that was a stupid idea for a car that will see quite a bit of street time and your idea is a LOT safer.

Chris

midgetchaser
01-04-2007, 06:12 PM
Dave,

I understand that the raised manifold with liquid IC and inverted supercharger would be cat's pajamas. But that would mean buying new heads, intake manifold, liquid intercooler system and the inverted blower kit.......


Starts to become a real big expensive project in a hurry, so I can see how alot of people will want to take more of a modular approach.

David


I agree, most people will want to take a more modular approach if that becomes the setup.

I like the setup but im single 20 and dont have a girlfriend so what else am i going to spend my money on:cool:

I have a feeling the more complicated it gets the less it will sell.
not that bolting on a new inverted setup is complicated but its just more parts that have to be bought and more time spent. I dont mind it but I dont speak for everyone.

just my thoughts

joenintiesc
01-05-2007, 07:31 PM
I'd be interested in a setup (heads/intake manifold) that is going to compliment my 1.7 AR, fit under a Cervini's hood, and work with either a DIC and stock i/c tubes, or a front mount if it is necessary. For some reason, I just really like the look of the stock i/c tubes in the engine bay, as ineffecient as they are...

More importantly, I'd want something that is going to fit right, be reliable, and not require too many other cost adding modifications to either support it's perfromance or fit. Dave Neibert's point about needing custom gaskets is a good one. I'd still want to be able to utilize "over the counter" parts store readily available gaskets, etc. Maybe it's not realistic, but the idea of needing better fuel delivery (bigger pump, injectors, fuel rail, etc.) and reducing gas mileage is not appealing either.

If I was going to spend the $$ on a better head/intake combo, it would be to get better street performance from the SC. I love the idea of the SC engine feeling like it's in boost before it actually IS in boost (at least compared to the stock SC motor). Does that make sense, or should I drink some more beer and call it a night? :D

quick35th
01-07-2007, 03:21 AM
I would be interested in a setup where I could use my existing custom liquid to air IC and my MPII. I dont find having to convert everything that I already have very attractive and I think tons of other people would say the same thing. I mean if these new parts are that damn good who in their right minds would buy the older parts in the first place. Simplisity is a must here and if you try to over complicate things here its going to not sell very well. On that same note if you price it sky high and make it that you have to buy everything to make it work your going to find yourself with very few customers. The average SC enthusiast cant afford to drop $5-10k all at once JUST on a blower/heads/intake manifold/liquid to air IC setup.

One other question that needs to be asked here. Is 500+ rwhp really necessary? I mean yeah its cool to say you have 500rwhp but there becomes a piont where you cant get all that power to the ground and your car either becomes a dyno only queen or a freeway monster that only gets traction once your past 80mph. What I invision the perfect SC to be is a fun street car with a good amount of power on tap. The SC was never meant to have the amount of power you are trying to abstract out of it and still be friendly on the street. The average SC enthusiast would be more then happy with 400rwhp tops which is easily obtainable right now. So that leaves you with a very small range of prospective buyers to try to market your product here to.

Also, have you considered that amount of drivertrain parts that are going to fail at these power levels? Say good bye IRS, hellow solid rear axle which then the handling charactoristics of the SC are going to be gone. Might as well have baught a Mustang in the first place then and saved ourselves a whole ton of money and time. And if you solve the half shaft snapping problem then whats next down the line thats going to break?

At some point its going to become to much of a hassle to keep up with these cars at 500rwhp and above. People are going to sell their cars because they are sick and tired of having to constantly fix this and that because their cars are to powerfull and likes to break things. We'll find out that people with around 400rwhp are going to be out enjoying their cars more then people that have to constantly tinker with their cars just to make all that power. People are going to get tired of constant maintinance (head gaskets). I know that was the reason that Gary Kuhn got out of the world of SC because he got sick and tired of having to replace his head gaskets every other weekend after racing the piss out of his car.

Why dont we try to consentrait on making our SC's enjoyable, fun to drive, fast, and with reatively little head aches to constantly worry about. At some point its going to be cheaper to slap a crate 460BB in there and make way more power in the long run.

On the whole hood subject I'd prefer it to fit under the stock hood but if it must require a new hood then so be it.

Shane

Kurt K
01-07-2007, 01:10 PM
I think you're missing the point. Sure the target may be 500+ rwhp and that will surely find the next weakest link, but I think the idea is also to make 400 rwhp easier to obtain by being less stressful on the rest of the engine.


...People are going to sell their cars because they are sick and tired of having to constantly fix this and that because their cars are to powerfull and likes to break things. We'll find out that people with around 400rwhp are going to be out enjoying their cars more then people that have to constantly tinker with their cars just to make all that power. People are going to get tired of constant maintinance (head gaskets).

Some of us already have to constantly fix our cars and we haven't sold our SC's yet. Hell, I'd venture to say that many of us actually enjoy to regularly work on our SC's.


The average SC enthusiast would be more then happy with 400rwhp tops which is easily obtainable right now.
I don't think you can honestly say 400 rwhp is easily obtainable right now otherwise it would be commonplace.

XxSlowpokexX
01-07-2007, 03:56 PM
Dave,

Ok..That is exactly what I was thinking in the first place...A runner type intake would most definitely need to be with an inverted/liquid/air setup....

People do need to realize that if it were moduilar to allow the use an m90 or whatever with with an air to air IC....It would stick way the heck up..People that would be considering this option should realize that what it takes to achive this. This along was an option I thought to be at least workable..

I would like to see a new lower intake designed for non inverted setups using a much better rear return adapter setup, more plenum volume and perhaps diffusers to help equal out distribution between cylinders...Teh problwm with this is if its made for the new heads it will not work at all with stock heads....And if its made for stock heads spacers will have to be used for new heads..Of course dependant on what happens with the intake ports.

Now the question arises...What type of IC's are you looking into??

mannysc
01-08-2007, 02:52 PM
I like the ideas of a convertible top so some may go inverted or cobra style and maybe use M112 cobra ic, or go conventional and run a ic tube and maybe front mount but by all means forget about hood hight its a performance setup not a oem product we know how well oem product perform.

mega_man_01103
01-08-2007, 03:48 PM
When I read threads like this one and posts responding to it, it feels like my grandfather is talking to me. You know, all full of wisdom and all im doing is sitting indian style taking it all in.

So with that said, I dont act like I know exactly what you guys are talking about. I find myself having to search online sometimes to find out what certain abbreviations and definitions are.

But in reading posts like this, i learn alot and I also come up with a suggestion. So here it is:

It all about money/cost. Its been said, i know, but as a relativiley new SC "noob", I think i can speak for most of SC's owners (or atleast the "broke" ones). I would love to have new products that inhances hp (which is what are are after right?), but they have to work hand in hand with the mods that we already have.

Dave, you said that you thought that 90% of all SC's owners were going to jump on board with the AR. Well, 100% LOVE the idea. But what goes into having the AR? You know more than I do, but its definately not a bolt on.

And i think that any new product for our SC's will be the same way. If its not a bolt on, you wont have many people buying them. BUT that doesnt mean that we dont LOVE the idea, and hopefully one day we can get it.

So in short, I think that people shouldnt be discouraged with coming up with new designs for our SC's no matter how complicated and expensive. If they deliver results, then it should be brought to the whole SC community's attention.

RAUL

XxSlowpokexX
01-08-2007, 04:47 PM
Raul,

Everyone does love a bolt on (AR) that can produce an extra 100rwhp in some cases over an m90....And everyone will love a set of heads that will allow lets say an extra XXXX hp...

But what it comes down to is that anything that offers an extreme hp increase needs the supporting mods to go along with it..Thus a 3,000 AR on a 100,000 mile motor isnt the best idea for longetivity (some may dissagree)...A set off great heads on a 100,000 motor may not be the best idea either. The money spent may be better off going towards a good shortblock that can handle the extra HP reliably...

So one needs to sit back and say....IF I want that AR..or IF I want those heads....What should I be doing before getting them. The numbers add up quick...

But this is the game we play..Just play it wise:O)..Me Id do a shortblock before I got the heads....The heads before I got the autorotor...Just plan it from day 1 and youll save yaself alot of money and headaches

BlackbirdSC
01-09-2007, 02:17 AM
Dave,

I understand that the raised manifold with liquid IC and inverted supercharger would be cat's pajamas. But that would mean buying new heads, intake manifold, liquid intercooler system and the inverted blower kit.

Other issues related to that would be the need for a new radiator or the ability to rework the radiator mounting brackets back to stock configuration for anyone with a MP FMIC. In those cases you would also want to change back to the OEM cooling fan. With that kind of airflow the 255 lph high pressure pump isn't going to be enough either and will also require another pump or a KB boost a pump. Then you need an aftermarket hood.

Starts to become a real big expensive project in a hurry, so I can see how alot of people will want to take more of a modular approach.

David

I'm right with Dave. I already have a Magnum FMIC, the pump, injectors, Randy Baker intake etc etc. Unless the new lower intake is raised somewhat, but fit's under a Mach I hood with a 1" raised top, I wouldn't buy it. And if the heads require special gaskets and a special intake and a new blow down supercharger and special special special, there's no way I'll buy them either. My post on the heads thread was assuming I wouldn't have to buy a new car for the new heads to work.

Anyway, I think whoever is making the new heads and intake needs to be realistic with their expectations. If you make an intake that will fit 3 cars in existance today, chances are you're going to sell 3 intakes and lose yer asz on R&D costs. Same for the heads. Make them so you need practically a new engine/car for them to work and no one will buy. Yes it would be great to have the bestest thing that AutoCad can whip up, but when the company that makes them goes bankrupt and scares every other manufacturer from ever making an SC part, I'll I'm gonna say is I told you so.

P.S. I didn't jump on the AR bandwagon because I've never heard seen or found a weblink that says there's a kit to buy to install one. Kinda hard to sell something no one can see. I'd actually considered selling my ESM Dominion III and MP intake stuff to cover some of getting one. Now I'm holding out to see if the heads are made to fit a Ford 3.8 SC or a custom V6 built in CAD that doesn't really exist.

If I wanted the hassle of a custom setup, I'd figure out how to get an SVO 4.5 to fit.

Pablo94SC
01-09-2007, 09:37 PM
I'm right with Dave. I already have a Magnum FMIC, the pump, injectors, Randy Baker intake etc etc. Unless the new lower intake is raised somewhat, but fit's under a Mach I hood with a 1" raised top, I wouldn't buy it. And if the heads require special gaskets and a special intake and a new blow down supercharger and special special special, there's no way I'll buy them either. My post on the heads thread was assuming I wouldn't have to buy a new car for the new heads to work.

Anyway, I think whoever is making the new heads and intake needs to be realistic with their expectations. If you make an intake that will fit 3 cars in existance today, chances are you're going to sell 3 intakes and lose yer asz on R&D costs. Same for the heads. Make them so you need practically a new engine/car for them to work and no one will buy. Yes it would be great to have the bestest thing that AutoCad can whip up, but when the company that makes them goes bankrupt and scares every other manufacturer from ever making an SC part, I'll I'm gonna say is I told you so.

P.S. I didn't jump on the AR bandwagon because I've never heard seen or found a weblink that says there's a kit to buy to install one. Kinda hard to sell something no one can see. I'd actually considered selling my ESM Dominion III and MP intake stuff to cover some of getting one. Now I'm holding out to see if the heads are made to fit a Ford 3.8 SC or a custom V6 built in CAD that doesn't really exist.

If I wanted the hassle of a custom setup, I'd figure out how to get an SVO 4.5 to fit.

Quoted for truth.

These new heads and lower intake need to work with what people currently have so they can upgrade a little at a time. If these are made so that the owner has to buy a hood, blower, intercooler, etc, for everything to work, then you're going to price a lot of people (like me) out of the market.

Deep6
01-09-2007, 10:43 PM
That what most SC owners wish to do is still drive their car on the street. I know there are a select cadre' of hard-core trailer cars that absolutley push the limits of what Ford intended of these cars in the first place. Will there be the market for the extreme intake manifold?...I think so but with time that market will expand.

But for now a bolt on intake manifold that has better flow and is more efficient than stock will suffice for most people.

"As long as the patch is better than version 1.0, addresess much of the original's weaknesses and offers the most "user friendly" interface. Then I'll be happy to purchase version 2.0"

Now, down the line when version 3.0 and 4.0 come available, albeit with a different operating system, I'd be able to absorb that cost. If not, then version 2.0 should be " Good nuff' ".

Also who's to say that someone couldn't port out a new intake to get a little better flow?...that is if you leave some additional casting in the intake for that to happen...

Again, the idea of the 'interchangeable' welded intake top sounds mighty good.

Got someone with a stock setup: Well then, they get the 'standard' XR7Dave cast Manifold.

Got someone with a N/A setup: Pop out the tuned tunnel ram to be welded up to the manifold.

How about our inverted clientele: Crank out the plate for the AR to bolt down on with the lower and weld it up.

Yeah, the N/A and Inverteds are going to foot the additional cost to tool their special project, but again, I argue that those who are willing to go to that step are basically willing to spend huge sums or already have huge sums already in their cars. Wanna go fast? It's gonna cost ya'.

What I would really like from these heads and manifold would be to allow me to reach a higher goal of Streetable, efficient, bulletproof HP.

Currently the way I see it, in order to meet my needs that would be about 300-350crank HP. I know alot of people these days balk with "been there, done that" but that is all I want to go to remain streetable, efficient and bulletproof.


BTW what is this 'holy grail' called SVO 4.5 that everyone keeps referring to?

I've been away from the boards for a while and only now have come back to check in more frequently.

Super XR7
01-10-2007, 07:35 AM
The current design for the intake manifold will go on stock heads and the new heads (if current intake port configurations are used). The intake will be configurable for different superchargers ie: AR (blow up or down) and M90 via a interface plate. Additionally one can add a water to air heat exchanger that will sandwich between the AR and the intake manifold. Depending on ones configuration, hood clearance will be a issue, but maybe not with the AR inverted non-heat exchanger configuration, but for all other configurations you would need a raised hood. Exactly how much additional room would be required is not known. Stay tuned and keep the comments coming.

Mike

Pablo94SC
01-10-2007, 02:27 PM
See, once you said I will need a raised hood, you lost my interest in this intake. I still want the heads, but I'll probably be buying spacers for the stock lower or having my own lower made.

mannysc
01-10-2007, 02:49 PM
after doing my inverted I realized if ya want it to work its best then raise the hood. why compromise a race part for cosmetics,

hell i say mount blower on valve cover like the 5.0 in another post and run boost into a inlet in middle of manifold still use front mount . ya gots to let go of the past to step into the future!!!!!

go on do the manifolds and heads its all good and the hp hungry will follow.

I know I want the heads But will do the setup i mentioned on my own manifold only because I can. no one design will please everyone so pick your target audience and go for it

quick35th
01-10-2007, 05:00 PM
hell i say mount blower on valve cover like the 5.0 in another post and run boost into a inlet in middle of manifold still use front mount .

If you set it up like that then you could easily run an intake manifold from an NA 3.8L and just port the crap out of it. Hey that could keep costs down as well :D

Me on the other hand would not go for a setup like that. I want it setup like it is factory except I would welcome the need for a new hood since I want a Cobra R hood for my car. If you can make an intake manifold that I can just slap onto my stock heads in little to no time in assembly I will be very happy and I think a lot of others will be too. Then later on if I want to buy the new heads I still want to be able to use the same intake manifold that I just bought instead of having to buy another one just for use with the new heads. I do not want to over complicate things by going with an inverted setup, I want to keep things simple and to me how our SC's are setup from the factory is simple.

Shane

mannysc
01-10-2007, 06:55 PM
actually from a engineering stand point inverted is easyier.
use existing stuff a blower and intake from a mustang cobra the water to air ic from cobra all you have to do is make the manifold to bolt it to. use all already existing parts ala cobra. or do a A/r there are already kits for mustang so most stuff already exist for inverted style.

thats why ford went inverted style actually rightside up or conventional blower configuration " see all blown hot rods and top fuelers funnycars ect ours are the freaks .

Mike8675309
01-10-2007, 09:30 PM
You know, with a change in the oil pan or/and the K-member you could lower the motor and be o.k. with the stock hood.

seawalkersee
01-11-2007, 06:34 PM
Holy shnikies....Manny you and I are on the SAME page. I was going to post that same thing after thinking about what to do. Then I saw Shane say use a NA intake. I was thinking about raising the roof on the SC manifold but using the NA setup with a center mount inlet that bolts to the factory bypass would be great. And I was thinking about lowering the engine as well to see how well this would fit.

Chris

BlackbirdSC
01-11-2007, 06:56 PM
BTW what is this 'holy grail' called SVO 4.5 that everyone keeps referring to?



The SVO 4.5 V6 was a race only, over the counter V6 sold by Ford. Based very loosedly on the 3.8 V6, but was a pure race motor from the start. Inline valves, 4" bore, 4 bolt block, better head gasket sealing etc etc. They can be found here and there, but they are pricey. I think they were made from the late 80s through the mid-late 90s. Since they weren't really a crate motor, there aren't power numbers to stare at, but over 500 NA HP wouldn't be a problem spinning it to 8000-9000rpm.

http://www.moddedmustangs.com/forums/download.php?id=513

Deep6
01-12-2007, 10:47 PM
I especially like the part that says "Can be Bored and Stroked from 250cu in to 315cu in".

Can you imagine driving around with a 5.0L V-6??? :eek: Now you can tell em' all you've got a "Five Point Oh". :D

I wonder why we never found out about that crate engine before? SVO became SVT when? Sometime in the early 90's right?

I hope that XR7Dave had the opportunity to study the Heads from that engine for inspiration for the heads on our engine. :cool:

Super XR7
01-28-2007, 05:39 PM
I have finished collecting the math data for the intake manifold and the new intake is in design. Here is a picture of the math data being collected. Design should be complete over the next six weeks, then the manufacturing of prototypes will be next.

Mike

David Neibert
01-28-2007, 10:56 PM
I have finished collecting the math data for the intake manifold and the new intake is in design. Here is a picture of the math data being collected. Design should be complete over the next six weeks, then the manufacturing of prototypes will be next.

Mike


Ain't technology kewl !

David

Jason Wild
01-28-2007, 11:01 PM
Nice CMM you have there. I'm excited to see what gets made.

Sharon Silver
01-29-2007, 10:56 AM
I agree, most people will want to take a more modular approach if that becomes the setup.

I like the setup but im single 20 and dont have a girlfriend so what else am i going to spend my money on:cool:

I have a feeling the more complicated it gets the less it will sell.
not that bolting on a new inverted setup is complicated but its just more parts that have to be bought and more time spent. I dont mind it but I dont speak for everyone.

just my thoughts

Since you seem to be in a quandry as to what to do with your excess money, might I make a suggestion: I have a couple of projects for my SC that need some money thrown at them. Donating funds for these will not only provide you with a constructive outlet for the excess fruits of your labors but also will be furthuring the improvement of our collective vehicular gendre'. Additionally, you will have the pleasure and peace of mind in knowing that 100% of your donation is going toward the intended use; there are no administration costs. Further, if you have become interested in this offer, I also have two hundred acres of "improvable land" in the middle of Florida that might be of interest to you.

ricardoa1
04-11-2007, 03:18 PM
I have finished collecting the math data for the intake manifold and the new intake is in design. Here is a picture of the math data being collected. Design should be complete over the next six weeks, then the manufacturing of prototypes will be next.

Mike

Any updates on this....Whats the time frame for the end user?

Super XR7
04-11-2007, 05:37 PM
Any updates on this....Whats the time frame for the end user?

Ric, we just got the first of three intakes off the roughing mill. We still have the 4th axis fixture to make and hope to have it complete next week, then we will start on the intercooler parts. I will try to take a picture tonight of the roughed out part and put up in this post. As to the time frame to user; there will be three development efforts; the AR with and without air to water intercooler and the M90 with the standard air to air. I see this debuting this fall; targeting for the shoot out? We will see as we get further into it.

Mike

Super XR7
04-11-2007, 07:26 PM
Here is a pic roughed from the top.

Ira R.
04-11-2007, 07:34 PM
Whoa! Someone has been a busy beaver this winter!!

Ira

ricardoa1
04-11-2007, 07:39 PM
Here is a pic roughed from the top.

How many bolts will it use?
After the intake protos are machined will it be casted? or will all of them be machined?

Super XR7
04-11-2007, 08:16 PM
How many bolts will it use?
After the intake is protos are machined will it be casted? or will all of them be machined?

Too early to tell on machined vs castings, lets see how well it performs first.

XxSlowpokexX
04-11-2007, 09:06 PM
cobra m112 would look pretty on top of that

CarlisleLandOwn
04-12-2007, 03:47 AM
VERY nice. Any more pics?

mywhite89
04-12-2007, 08:29 AM
VERY nice. Any more pics?

I 2nd that

ricardoa1
04-12-2007, 10:21 AM
cobra m112 would look pretty on top of that

I agree. and if we wanted an AR or whipple we could just use their kit.

BirdofPrey97
04-24-2007, 09:35 PM
Nice to see progress and people informing us of what is going on. Thank you very much. Staying tuned for further updates. Will stick with the stock hood height though. Raised hoods no matter the design remind me of mullets and the 80's neither are worth thinking much about.

kenewagner
04-25-2007, 11:03 AM
Nice to see progress and people informing us of what is going on. Thank you very much. Staying tuned for further updates. Will stick with the stock hood height though. Raised hoods no matter the design remind me of mullets and the 80's neither are worth thinking much about.

You must not be very old if your just thinking of the 80s. I bought my Cerveinis hood mainly because it was like my brothers 1970 RT Challengers hood. When I had my 1970 Chevelle I had to have the SS hood mounted to it. Raised hoods have always been, from the 60s till now the automotive standard for muscle cars of the past. I hold the opposite opinion that the stock Thunderbird hood is just plain looking. As for mullets, your right they suck

Ken

pro street rich
04-25-2007, 11:20 AM
You know, with a change in the oil pan or/and the K-member you could lower the motor and be o.k. with the stock hood.

I was able to stuff a big block with a holley carb under the stock hood by dropping the engine down.
I now have a big block car with a "Crab" style manifold under the hood as well. You can do wonders IF you think outside the "box"..
With the "AJE" "K" member you have a lot of options you can work with..Dropping the engine is as simple as making a few parts and away you go...Rich

mannysc
04-25-2007, 02:11 PM
Aye I likeded the mullets
I like my hood

next one will be a big hole in hood with supercharger scoop stickin out on a raised roof inverted m112.

BirdofPrey97
04-25-2007, 06:18 PM
You must not be very old if your just thinking of the 80s. I bought my Cerveinis hood mainly because it was like my brothers 1970 RT Challengers hood. When I had my 1970 Chevelle I had to have the SS hood mounted to it. Raised hoods have always been, from the 60s till now the automotive standard for muscle cars of the past. I hold the opposite opinion that the stock Thunderbird hood is just plain looking. As for mullets, your right they suck

Ken

Ken, you sold me your radiator about a month ago.

kenewagner
04-25-2007, 09:15 PM
Ken, you sold me your radiator about a month ago.

Did it work well for you? I still like raised hoods & dislike mullets;)

Ken

no164ford
04-29-2007, 12:04 AM
Ric, we just got the first of three intakes off the roughing mill. We still have the 4th axis fixture to make and hope to have it complete next week, then we will start on the intercooler parts. I will try to take a picture tonight of the roughed out part and put up in this post. As to the time frame to user; there will be three development efforts; the AR with and without air to water intercooler and the M90 with the standard air to air. I see this debuting this fall; targeting for the shoot out? We will see as we get further into it.

Mike

What about a m90 or m112 air to water? I have been thinking about getting a MPX blower case but if it will not work with the air to water I am not going to spend the money for one (blower). Will this intake make the price of a AR kit a any lower? And will this intake work with the new heads that are being planed?

fturner
04-29-2007, 09:40 AM
Well considering I'm going to have to spend at least over a grand to get that hood, then paint it, then ship it :eek: then make my car look god aweful, guess this intake ain't gonna be an option.

Oh well, as usual the majority loses these days.

XR7 Dave
04-29-2007, 10:28 AM
Oh well, as usual the majority loses these days. I don't know what you mean by that. The majority can just use the stock intake. You can't build anything any good that fits under a stock hood. :confused:

joshbea6
04-30-2007, 10:28 AM
I don't know what you mean by that. The majority can just use the stock intake. You can't build anything any good that fits under a stock hood. :confused:

Dave,

Is this intake going to be able to fit under a Cervini's hood like you have? (I just got one last year).

Also, is this new intake going to be able to handle the new head design if/ when it happens?

mannysc
04-30-2007, 01:33 PM
I totally agree with dave stock hood is a limiting factor this manifold is not for the everyday driver who dont need high hp . the guys who need it the 10-11 sec guys they need ultimate flow and not a comprimized intake sure the
engine can be lowered some cross member can be lowered oil pan can be modified many ways to lowwer engine some .

but the intake has to be of some hieght to work right. Ive messed with alot of manifolds some from scratch alluminum plate and the low profiles ones just dont do it to many bends in air flow .

I think most of the fast sc's already have raised hoods I did say Most.

oh yeah I love that manifold hot hot hot !!!

Super XR7
04-30-2007, 08:53 PM
If everything goes well; I will have one intake complete this week. We have been working on the laminova inter-cooler over the last week and is now complete and bolted to the AR 2.0. - Sweet. I hope to have the engine back together in May along with the above. Unfortunately the car will not make Carlisle - I hate it because it is the 40th anniversary of the cat. Oh well - another event comes and goes while my car sits on jack stands.

Mike

David Neibert
04-30-2007, 10:55 PM
Mike,

When do you expect to be making manifolds that will be compatible with the 1.7 AR using air to air IC ?

David

XR7 Dave
05-01-2007, 08:36 AM
This manifold will, in theory, accept your AR kit. but due to the height of the new manifold you will need a completely new inlet plenum to keep the TB from sticking out of your hood. Development on that part will not begin until after we have a working prototype based on Mike's original design which includes a down draft IC.

Pablo94SC
05-01-2007, 09:58 AM
You can't build anything any good that fits under a stock hood.

I disagree, and it's that type of "can't do" mentality that keeps people from trying anything new with these cars. All it takes is a little thinking outside the box.

joshbea6
05-01-2007, 10:11 AM
Oh well - another event comes and goes while my car sits on jack stands.

Mike

Mike, Welcome to the Jack Stand Club....Mine has been on stands for about 2 years now....:(

As far as the new intake, I'm assuming that this intake is going to be for the current SC heads, correct? I hope that when the new heads make it to market that we can use this intake as a starting place for the new heads.

XR7 Dave
05-01-2007, 10:37 AM
I disagree, and it's that type of "can't do" mentality that keeps people from trying anything new with these cars. All it takes is a little thinking outside the box.

But of course it's people like Mike and I that are holding the SC world back due to our "canned" thinking. :rolleyes:

ricardoa1
05-01-2007, 10:40 AM
If everything goes well; I will have one intake complete this week. We have been working on the laminova inter-cooler over the last week and is now complete and bolted to the AR 2.0. - Sweet. I hope to have the engine back together in May along with the above. Unfortunately the car will not make Carlisle - I hate it because it is the 40th anniversary of the cat. Oh well - another event comes and goes while my car sits on jack stands.

Mike

Do you guys have drawings for the M90 adapter system/intake?
I just want to get an idea how that will work?
and the total projected rise.

Pablo94SC
05-01-2007, 11:02 AM
But of course it's people like Mike and I that are holding the SC world back due to our "canned" thinking. :rolleyes:

You said, "You can't build anything any good that fits under a stock hood." I disagree and believe that and similar lines of thinking is detrimental and has been the major factor in keeping these cars from making power.

XR7 Dave
05-01-2007, 11:18 AM
You said, "You can't build anything any good that fits under a stock hood." I disagree and believe that and similar lines of thinking is detrimental and has been the major factor in keeping these cars from making power.

Perhaps your car doesn't make power but I'm not having that much trouble making power. :p

Anyway, arguing with you is pointless. Go ahead and think what you want.

David Neibert
05-01-2007, 11:42 AM
This manifold will, in theory, accept your AR kit. but due to the height of the new manifold you will need a completely new inlet plenum to keep the TB from sticking out of your hood. Development on that part will not begin until after we have a working prototype based on Mike's original design which includes a down draft IC.

Dave,

My existing heads and intake manifold also have the oversized ports that are about an 1/8" taller, so I'm trying to decide if I should switch the manifold and heads at the same time or just do a custom version of the new intake manifold and keep the heads I've got. Are you saying that even with the Cobra R hood inlet plenum changes will be needed ?

David

XR7 Dave
05-01-2007, 11:48 AM
Dave,

My existing heads and intake manifold also have the oversized ports that are about an 1/8" taller, so I'm trying to decide if I should switch the manifold and heads at the same time or just do a custom version of the new intake manifold and keep the heads I've got. Are you saying that even with the Cobra R hood inlet plenum changes will be needed ?

David

Your heads will not require a custom version of this manifold; however, clearance to a Cobra R hood is something that will be addressed at a later time which means that no decision regarding this application can be made at this time.

XxSlowpokexX
05-01-2007, 12:15 PM
I dont think that there is a question as to wether or nota better manifold can be built without using the hood as a limiting restriction.

Its just that a majority of people would like to see one that can fit under a stock hood or at the very least one of the already made aftermarket ones.

My only qualm from day one is not being able to use a stock hood is worth whatever gain we may see. For an all out race car perhaps...For the 99% street cars probably not

Super XR7
05-01-2007, 12:31 PM
David, I am going to try make it up to Dayton this Saturday to see the turbo car run; I will bring one of the prototype intakes. Re: matching up to your raised intake ports; the intake ports were modeled to match up to a Coy Miller head which are raised at least 1/8".

Mike

Super XR7
05-01-2007, 12:40 PM
I dont think that there is a question as to wether or nota better manifold can be built without using the hood as a limiting restriction.

Its just that a majority of people would like to see one that can fit under a stock hood or at the very least one of the already made aftermarket ones.

My only qualm from day one is not being able to use a stock hood is worth whatever gain we may see. For an all out race car perhaps...For the 99% street cars probably not


Damon, this intake is not for everyone. The Ford intake was designd so that everything else could go under the hood and that is were the trouble began. Something has to give in order to improve on the manifold; maybe move the supercharger off to the side?

MIke

David Neibert
05-01-2007, 12:54 PM
David, I am going to try make it up to Dayton this Saturday to see the turbo car run; I will bring one of the prototype intakes. Re: matching up to your raised intake ports; the intake ports were modeled to match up to a Coy Miller head which are raised at least 1/8".

Mike

Mike,

Glad to hear your coming to Dayton. I wasn't aware that Coy was raising the intake ports in his heads. Mine actually require hand made intake gaskets...do yours ?

David

XR7 Dave
05-01-2007, 01:13 PM
I dont think that there is a question as to wether or nota better manifold can be built without using the hood as a limiting restriction.

Its just that a majority of people would like to see one that can fit under a stock hood or at the very least one of the already made aftermarket ones.

My only qualm from day one is not being able to use a stock hood is worth whatever gain we may see. For an all out race car perhaps...For the 99% street cars probably not

So everyone with a Cobra R hood is a race car???

Fortunately, your majority and the majority who are interested in this manifold are two different groups. From talking in person to many SC owners over the past few months I get a very different view. Most SC owners who have a need/want for this manifold either already have a raised hood or were looking for a good excuse to get one. :)

fturner
05-01-2007, 01:32 PM
But keep in mind the results of thinking that way with the AR. Everyone wanted to get one etc, but only about 1% of those will actually get one.

You've got say 85% of the guys out there saying yeah there gonna get one, but 1% will actually get one. You have based a decision on the wrong number there in my mind.

Now don't get me wrong, I actually believe you guys should have went down a double lane highway here. You get the high performance intake that does require a raised hood etc for those guys going for the extreme, and gosh darn it they are gonna pay for it because they're may only be about 20 guys TOPS that would buy something that extreme AND most importantly afford it.

Now you've got the other slow lane where your gonna make more money easier, cause you can keep a stock hood etc, and get some better performance out of your car with a better designed intake..... and that will probably get you a couple hundred buyers or more cause it doesn't require taking a mortgage out to get it.

It sounds like your now saying that nothing is better than the stock intake unless you go up the way. I find that kind of hard to believe considering the ideas that had been mentioned earlier.

Quik95SC
05-01-2007, 05:13 PM
Well considering I'm going to have to spend at least over a grand to get that hood, then paint it, then ship it :eek: then make my car look god aweful, guess this intake ain't gonna be an option.

Oh well, as usual the majority loses these days.

I would have to agree with you on this point. I have reading this thread for a while and have held my opinion to myself, but here goes.

New Intake and heads are a great idea, but for who? Exactly what is being pointed out here is the majority of SC owners will never own a 10-11 second SC, it just cost too much money than they are willing to fork out. Isn't that the market this intake and (and heads) are aimed at? So how many will actually step up and purchase them when they become avaiable......very few!

Take a look at the AR for example, it is undeniably a great product with proven results, but how many SC 's actually have one installed on there cars? 10, 12,15, I'm not really sure? Now look at the MP products, how many people actually have these, 100's, probably more. The reasons I feel i are ease of use (ie: Bolt on with very little extra to purchase, modify, fabricate). If something further is needed to receive the full benefit, than it can usually be obtained at a later date.

With this new intake, and heads for that matter, it's sounding like it will only benefit those folks with the fastest SC's, and not the entire SC Community as a whole ie: (the majority)

I applaud all the efforts made by those with the money, ideas, and willingness to research new products for the SC, but from what I have seen the gap between the fastest SC's and the rest of us keeps getting wider, cause only a select few have the funds and connections to purchase the really go fast parts. The rest of wait for the used parts to be replaced and sold before we can even think about upgrading our current level of performance.

So again, is this project for the average SC owner........... absolutely not. I feel the majority of owners use there SC for daily transportaion, I'm included in that, so it must be reliable. If your SC does break down it really becomes a major problem to have it on jackstands for long periods of time. That is however, a price of higher performance in most circumstances, things break easier and for longer periods of time.

So with all that said, good luck to those of you who are behind this project. To those of you who can afford to purchase this product and all of the other modifications, fabrications, and extra widgets to go along with it.......all 7 of you, I'm sure we will hear about it some day.

Smitty

midgetchaser
05-01-2007, 05:54 PM
i think one of the goals of this project was to provide a more reliable and more powerful package for the thunderbird sc. Most ive talked to that use there sc as a daily have modified it. ppl spend 3 grand or sometimes more on bolt ons just to get to the 13's with there daily driver. Why not just bolt on some heads and an intake instead to get there, and still have stock relability or better? From my experiences so far heads and an intake manifold seem like a more reliable and better choice than running 20psi on an inefficient motor just to get poor gas mileage.

Super XR7
05-01-2007, 06:09 PM
Mike,

Glad to hear your coming to Dayton. I wasn't aware that Coy was raising the intake ports in his heads. Mine actually require hand made intake gaskets...do yours ?

David

David. I never put one on; so I am not sure. When I measured the intake manifolds oem vs Coys the top had been raised 1/8" or more. When I put this motor back together I will find out.

Mike

XR7 Dave
05-01-2007, 09:09 PM
I appreciate the comments and concerns that we are not addressing the needs of the masses but some of you need to understand some basic things.

1) This thread has taken several left turns since it was started. I started this thread to talk about what kind of manifold should go with a new cylinder head package. I got a variety of opinions in the beginning and those responses have been duly considered.

2) Mike's intake manifold is a parallel project. It is a no compromise intake for those who desire such a part. No one said everyone needs to buy one. Mike's manifold is being made irregardless of a new cylinder head. This intake manifold will work equally well with a new head or our existing ones.

3) People have posted many opinions, demands, etc. about what they want in an intake manifold, yet for the most part those people have not demonstrated any need for an improved manifold. Looking back through the list of people replying to this thread it seems that those who actually have powerful SC's are oddly silent on this subject. Instead it seems that those who have the least need for a new intake manifold have the most to say about it.


So getting back to the original topic of this thread, IF a new set of cylinder heads actually makes it to production, there is a good chance that a new intake manifold will also be made to complement them. If all that happens, the manifold that is released with the cylinder heads will be a low performance manifold designed to fit under the hood of an SC.

The manifold being talked about immediately above is a HIGH performance manifold that is being made irregardless of the wants of any specific group of SC owners. The intention is that it will perform at a level that will be unnattainable with any other "conventional" low profile manifold and the resulting PERFORMANCE of said product will be what either sells or doesn't sell the part.

I'm sorry if that offends anyone but sometimes unillateral and even unpopular decisions have to and will be made to reach the end goal. Our goal with Mike's manifold is to make it possible to have an excessively high HP SC (all 7 of us :rolleyes: ). For everyone else there are (or will be) off the shelf parts to chose from as well.

ricardoa1
05-01-2007, 11:14 PM
What are we talking about here in HP. 100rwhp? 50?
I think one of the reasons why some of the top dogs are not saying anything is that those are the same people that already bought the ARs and MpX. They have a custom intercooler and probably have 4-5k on that current set up. Do you expect the same people to toss their current set up? And spend another 5gs on this? Maybe but it will need to perform a whole lot better then 50Hp for that to happen. But who knows the top dogs are always silent till the shootouts or similar events.
As time passes less people will be willing to spend money on the SC they are not getting younger thats for sure.
I am still interested but have now considered the keeping my MP intercooler. Thats why I want to know how the so called adapter system will work.

mannysc
05-02-2007, 02:12 AM
XR7 Dave's post says it all the future of the SC race parts is in drastic changes . truth is the slower Sc's don't need a new head or trick manifolds .

and anyone wanting this setup will probably sell their old setups to help fund the purchase of the new setup . this is common practice in every brand of car.

when i used to mess with dodges I put x amount of money on stage vi heads then sold em got max wedge heads sold them then got b1 heads, then after all that money sold em and went to stage hemi conversion heads. this over yrs but each change cost me thousands$$$ .
it something you do . to stay competitive.

as for raised hoods i think Sc's look better with bulging hoods,
the Pontiac and Chevy guys have had to do the same hp heads don't allow the use of parts they bought for stock modified heads .

I say lets stand back and let the innovative guys do what they do and worry about how it fits in our plans after its done some don't want to loose what they already purchased but hey when you went from S port to mp iii MPX you have to get new inlet plenum blower case , over drive pulleys as they need to be over driven bigger injectors, tune,

so whats the biggie every Major change means associated parts must go with it.

this is my last post on this subject its not really something ill need for my needs but damned if it dont amaze me You guys are like my idols ,

makin this stuff wow real brains at work not just talkers real do'ers I feel like im sitting here witnessing the first race cam or first guy who tuned a computerized car. your making history creating a future our Sc's will only get better with guys like you guys crossing the boundries and taking a chance. god bless you dont listen to compliants just do it your on the right track

CarlisleLandOwn
05-02-2007, 03:29 AM
Contradiction drama rules!

mannysc
05-02-2007, 06:26 PM
I am a contradiction!

but the manifold and the heads are the right way to go screw the hood.

do what makes power forget the aesthetics

Ira R.
05-02-2007, 06:32 PM
I am a contradiction!

but the manifold and the heads are the right way to go screw the hood.

do what makes power forget the aesthetics

He$$, you can always fabricate a hood, right Manny ;)

Ira

fturner
05-02-2007, 06:39 PM
........So getting back to the original topic of this thread, IF a new set of cylinder heads actually makes it to production, there is a good chance that a new intake manifold will also be made to complement them. If all that happens, the manifold that is released with the cylinder heads will be a low performance manifold designed to fit under the hood of an SC........

Sorry Dave, I guess I must of misunderstood you. It appeared that the only focus would be on an extreme manifold, but I must of missed you mentioning about a possible improved intake to work with the new heads that wouldn't be so "extreme".

mannysc
05-02-2007, 11:04 PM
He$$, you can always fabricate a hood, right Manny ;)

Ira

I did! fab my hood

pro street rich
05-02-2007, 11:19 PM
That is what this is all about.... Looking at something and seeing what it takes to make it better....
I have always been one that goes "outside" the box.. Lok at some of the crazy stuff I have put together...big block s.c.'s, raised manifolds, weird inner coolers, and odd exhaust..just to name a few...
I got one of these s.c.'s to go 11's with thinking outside the norm. Heck Mike and I drank a few beers down in ohio a few years ago and talked about manifolds. Now he is building them for sale maybe.
This is what it is all about, looking at something and finding a way to make it work....
People told me that there is no way you can put a big block in a bird and close the hood... Well I showed up a one of the meets with one that worked.. I have also helped at least a dozen other people do this same swap.. as well as build three other big block cars....
I was told that you can't do manual brakes, well there are a few of those birds running around as well.. right Tim??
What I am saying here without breaking my own arm padding myself on the back is.... If you see a need for something, try to find,build,invent, or get it made to work...
Each and everyone of you know of something that will help out someplace on these cars. Rather than picking apart the process, join in on the work and get the job done...
Dave D. did that with the "AR's" , I gave solid mounts,and heat sinks for the "DIS's". Randy B. gave the intake elbow's help. Now Mike is doing these manifolds.
This is what it is all about...HELPING EACH OTHER, NOT NIT PICKING....So lets all get on the helping side of this project and get something done.....Rich

Micahdogg
05-03-2007, 12:00 PM
I would have to agree with you on this point. I have reading this thread for a while and have held my opinion to myself, but here goes.

New Intake and heads are a great idea, but for who? Exactly what is being pointed out here is the majority of SC owners will never own a 10-11 second SC, it just cost too much money than they are willing to fork out. Isn't that the market this intake and (and heads) are aimed at? So how many will actually step up and purchase them when they become avaiable......very few!

Take a look at the AR for example, it is undeniably a great product with proven results, but how many SC 's actually have one installed on there cars? 10, 12,15, I'm not really sure? Now look at the MP products, how many people actually have these, 100's, probably more. The reasons I feel i are ease of use (ie: Bolt on with very little extra to purchase, modify, fabricate). If something further is needed to receive the full benefit, than it can usually be obtained at a later date.

With this new intake, and heads for that matter, it's sounding like it will only benefit those folks with the fastest SC's, and not the entire SC Community as a whole ie: (the majority)

I applaud all the efforts made by those with the money, ideas, and willingness to research new products for the SC, but from what I have seen the gap between the fastest SC's and the rest of us keeps getting wider, cause only a select few have the funds and connections to purchase the really go fast parts. The rest of wait for the used parts to be replaced and sold before we can even think about upgrading our current level of performance.

So again, is this project for the average SC owner........... absolutely not. I feel the majority of owners use there SC for daily transportaion, I'm included in that, so it must be reliable. If your SC does break down it really becomes a major problem to have it on jackstands for long periods of time. That is however, a price of higher performance in most circumstances, things break easier and for longer periods of time.

So with all that said, good luck to those of you who are behind this project. To those of you who can afford to purchase this product and all of the other modifications, fabrications, and extra widgets to go along with it.......all 7 of you, I'm sure we will hear about it some day.

Smitty

This is hilarious. First if a majority SC owners won't have a 10-11 second SC, then they don't need this intake. Second, the gap between the fast SC's and the slow SC's is directly related to the amount of money you spend. So if you aren't spending enough to even get into the 13's, then you don't need this intake. Third, the difference between the few AR kits vs. MP blowers has a lot to do with (a) the MP product having a multi-year head start (b) MP being the only real option during this time (c) MP product itself not involving the level of hand built fabrication to produce (d) MP product not being on hiatus.

These new heads and intake will benefit anyone who is serious about performance and willing to pay the money. If that's 7 of us, so be it. You can spend the money too and make it 8? But don't hold it against the project if you don't want to spend the money, don't want to give up your stock hood, or don't want to wrench on your daily driver. The really fast SC's are not daily drivers, not 100% reliable, and not cheap.

The last thing we need is a lower intake that is similar to what we already have. Because then the cheapos who don't like to spend money on parts will scoff at a $1000 billet lower intake that you can match the peformance of with $400 worth of welding and milling to a stock intake.

Again, if you don't have a 10-11-12 second SC, it's not because the right lower intake hasn't come along yet.

mannysc
05-03-2007, 12:54 PM
I dont own a 10-11-12 sec sc but I can make the parts to do it .

I will never go that fast I drive my sc everyday /night.

you are right 99% of the sc owners will never need this setup. and cost will remain high to make em "low productivity"

and yeah we could make our own manifolds or modifie them but the amount of work is very high. I could but wont i could not make a profit .

$1000 is cheap compared to the work it would take to make one or modifiy.

a stocker I know some have asked me to make a clone and Ive gave a direct NO!!!! I wont this is not some over priced part or modified stocker its a real race part . Ill limit my work to porting and modifieing stock parts .

hats off guys great design great work and "WOW" I love the pure race oreinted concept . thought some milder parts may follow .

oh shoot I wasnt going to reply to this post anymore sorry and Ill keep an eye on this I mean the greatest SC' minds working on a single project.

this is history!!!!

Super XR7
05-03-2007, 05:45 PM
Here is a shot of the #5 and #6 finished ports.

Mike

tim
05-03-2007, 05:55 PM
Iam not really sure what this is being designed to fit? Price, Well speed cost money,how fast do you want to go. This sound like something I may be able to use in the future. I have an unpainted fiberglass hood and a sawsall. I guess anything will fix under or thru my hood for that matter. Keep up the good work guys. My manual brakes stop my car just fine, and the NAPA manual steering rack didnt fallen off yet. :eek:

Super XR7
05-03-2007, 07:06 PM
Whole thing - incomplete on the mill. Surprisingly the manifold is < 2" taller than an OEM manifold (bottom sealing surface to top is 2.97" tall). This will be the foundation of a lot of different configurations; but lends itself to the AR probably the best (up or down draft). Once the manufacturing process is worked out I will build a few for testing. I am excited that this is finally getting done after three years of talking about it. Many thanks to all that helped. Over the next few months we will see what it will do for our cars.

Mike

Mike8675309
05-03-2007, 08:02 PM
Good job mike. It's looking very good. Keep any rejects and we'll have some nice coffee tables.;)

XxSlowpokexX
05-04-2007, 02:02 AM
The last thing we need is a lower intake that is similar to what we already have. Because then the cheapos who don't like to spend money on parts will scoff at a $1000 billet lower intake that you can match the peformance of with $400 worth of welding and milling to a stock intake.

I dont think it has anything to do with being cheap for some. Its more on teh lines of people just expressing what they would like in a product. Even this intake will have comprimises in design. And the performance improvement is yet to be seen untill testing begins. Whats a hp worth to someone $1, $10, $100? Thats going to be the bottomline.

It will be interesting to see. I hope the finished product does well by those who would want such an item. I know an inverted A/R setup with a good IC will do wonders

Micahdogg
05-04-2007, 10:19 AM
That is dead sexy. :eek: I want one. Awesome work as usual Mike!

joshbea6
05-04-2007, 10:44 AM
Here is a shot of the #5 and #6 finished ports.

Mike

Mike,

AWESOME WORK!!! I do have one question however (NOT nit-picking:D ). On the shot of the #5 & 6 ports, is there going to be any finish smoothing of the rippling that is present, or is that considered negligible for airflow affecting?

I am VERY interested in seeing how well this performs!

Kurt K
05-04-2007, 11:21 AM
On the shot of the #5 & 6 ports, is there going to be any finish smoothing of the rippling that is present, or is that considered negligible for airflow affecting?

I really don't want to answer for Mike, but that's what's left after machining with the particular tool he is using. I'm sure he can follow up with another tool if needed, or the ports will be finished by hand. Just my limited machining knowledge.

Micahdogg
05-04-2007, 12:00 PM
I would be willing to bet that the cnc'd texture would lend itself very well to airflow. I've been told that a mirror finish is ok for the exhaust side, but you NOT want a mirror finish on the intake side. The fine machining marks (or sanding marks after knocking off rough casting flash) help atomize the fuel and keep the air flowing straight. Kind of like a golf ball with all of it's dimples. If it was perfectly smooth, it would not fly as straight as it does.

This could be all hooey, but I would plop that thing on as is (granted it's gasket matched).

Super XR7
05-04-2007, 12:16 PM
The surface is smoother than it looks; the light is highlighting the cutter paths. I think the best thing is to leave it like it is and go to testing. IMHO, the golf ball theory applies. I plan on bringing it to Dayton tomorrow for comments/suggestions. We can also discuss what supercharger configurations could be used. Thanks for the comments.

Mike

Pablo94SC
05-04-2007, 12:44 PM
Am I seeing correctly, or did you add length to the ports to give the manifold a kind of short runner design? If so, good idea. I've seen it mentioned that this intake is going to be able to fit an air/water IC. What dimensions are we talking about, IC-wise? Will the top be bolt on for swapping out from a up draft to a down draft, or vice-versa, at a later date if configs change?

Thanks.

joshbea6
05-04-2007, 12:46 PM
Kurt, Micah, and Mike,

I've done my machining stuff too, and didn't know if that was with a rough cut around the port holes or not. I understand that the flash is picking up the path lines. Just wanted to make sure that is all that it was.

Again my sentiment on the job is the same....it looks awesome. I can't wait to see the flow numbers, and the performance numbers as well.

I'd also love to see if it will fit on the new heads that are still in the works.

-Josh

Micahdogg
05-04-2007, 01:14 PM
Working from memory, but I think the stock lower intake "runners" are just about 1/2 inch thick (as thick as the mating surface). Basically just exits...no runner. These look like about 2 inch long runners!!!! Very nice. I also like the raised hump in the center section to accentuate the effect.

Ira R.
05-04-2007, 04:23 PM
.........We can also discuss what supercharger configurations could be used..........
Mike
Uhhh, I'm think'n that would be mine :D :rolleyes:

Ira

Super XR7
05-04-2007, 05:07 PM
Working from memory, but I think the stock lower intake "runners" are just about 1/2 inch thick (as thick as the mating surface). Basically just exits...no runner. These look like about 2 inch long runners!!!! Very nice. I also like the raised hump in the center section to accentuate the effect.

Micah,

The runners are about 2" long - good guesstimating. They also have about a 4 degree taper and are sweep-ed to be tangent to the head runners. The hump well, there were a few conversations about what that should be like.

I was hoping that Randy Baker would chime in and offer his expertise - so Randy if have any observations lets have them.

Ira - that configuration is near or at the top of the list.

Mike

Ira R.
05-04-2007, 06:11 PM
Micah,

The runners are about 2" long - good guesstimating. They also have about a 4 degree taper and are sweep-ed to be tangent to the head runners. The hump well, there were a few conversations about what that should be like.

I was hoping that Randy Baker would chime in and offer his expertise - so Randy if have any observations lets have them.

Ira - that configuration is near or at the top of the list.

Mike

Oooo, Oooo, pick me, pick me.... :eek: :D ;) :p

Okay. Seriously, I am not going to be able to get top Dayton this weekend so I am sorry I won't get to see any of this. But it looks just fine from where I'm sitting and I can't wait until October when we next get together to see any new developments first hand!! Great work Mike, and of course, the rest of the brain trust and the men behind the curtain! :cool:

Ira

Super XR7
05-04-2007, 07:35 PM
On the motor

Ira R.
05-04-2007, 08:08 PM
Just Beee-U-tifull!!

Ira

SCme94
05-04-2007, 09:16 PM
Wow Mike! That looks beautiful...Very nice job.

supercatxr7
05-04-2007, 11:54 PM
Great job! Glad you are taking the time to develop it. Hoping to pick one up when you can make a few more.

Randy N Connie
05-06-2007, 09:07 AM
Micah,

The runners are about 2" long - good guesstimating. They also have about a 4 degree taper and are sweep-ed to be tangent to the head runners. The hump well, there were a few conversations about what that should be like.

I was hoping that Randy Baker would chime in and offer his expertise - so Randy if have any observations lets have them.

Ira - that configuration is near or at the top of the list.

Mike

Your manifold looks great. On my last raised manifold .I raised the floor,
Basic shape, was flipping the bottom 180 by welding in a peice. Test
shows better linear flow, much better flow starting above .570 flow.
Around .570 is were the flow started to fall off ,on first raised manifolds.

I also welded walls on the inside, filling in the edges the outside edges.
The wall stands out from port flange 1.500 next to the first three ports.
Then the wall tapers in to the outside of the inside of manifold 1.0
on the farthest three ports .This includes a modified shaped triangle.
with V shaped wall placed in front of water jacket wall, two triangles.
My manifold now flow well over .600 cam lift while bolted to my head.

On a stock manifold test info from Dave Dalke his ported heads .heads
flowed well up to .550 lift. When manifold was bolted on heads,flow fell off
at a .520 lift. On a raised manifold bolted to heads flow fell off around
.570.( not sure about his exact numbers, ask him but these are close.)

Reversing the curve in the floor and adding the walls to my manifold
two modified triangles, bolted on the head,I had air flow number climing
over .600 lift, with my heads my flow tests.

Again stock manifold bolted on ported heads flow around .520.
With out manifold heads flow .550 ,dalkes numbers. my heads flow
more so my number are a little higher that his independant test numbers.
Plus he tested my first generation raised manifold.

So your on the right track with the floor. I don't know about
extending the manifold port entrance flange 2.0 I have no testing
for that. I went with the 1.500 because of the long intake ports.
I Think the ports are to long to add much more to the intakes runner
size. To match well with my welded raised exhaust runners. I did a
wet flow test also ,the turbulance was less.

Thanks Randy

Super XR7
05-09-2007, 06:39 AM
Randy, thanks for the info. We are going to flow bench the manifold sometime over the next week; stock manifold vs the prototype on ported heads. One question that I have is; is there any advantage to cutting the ports with the air flow or perpendicular to the air flow. Typically you see head ports cut perpendicular to the air flow; but I believe using the typical CAM software, it is just easier to do it that way. Then there is talk about perpendicular cutting creates a surface that breaks up the air boundry at the wall thus increasing airflow. When I did the Super Sucker carb spacers; the cuts were along the airflow and they worked well; but we did not do any airflow testing with the cuts going perpendicular. This stuff is over my head; I have no expericence with airflow in what works and what doesn't. I believe that the big gains will be at the higher rpms; but there are others that believe it will enhance the air flow through-out the rpm range and enhance throttle responce.

Mike

Micahdogg
05-09-2007, 10:44 AM
Mike, I think you're splitting hairs at this point. Carbide bits and sanding rolls produce perpendicular marks right?

The real question...what happens if you drop one of those tornado dealies in the middle!!!

Randy N Connie
05-09-2007, 11:50 AM
[QUOTE=Super XR7;632888]Randy, thanks for the info. We are going to flow bench the manifold sometime over the next week; stock manifold vs the prototype on ported heads. One question that I have is; is there any advantage to cutting the ports with the air flow or perpendicular to the air flow.
Mike
(answer)It may be an advantage in some spots in the port to cut with, or a cross cut to air flow.

Typically you see head ports cut perpendicular to the air flow; but I believe using the typical CAM software, it is just easier to do it that way.

(answer) have no experiance in this area.


Then there is talk about perpendicular cutting creates a surface that breaks up the air boundry at the wall thus increasing airflow.
(answer)When air testing use dye, Wet flow testing, This will show puddleing.
Then just before & inside the port area that the dye shows puddleing, this is the area in the port that needs to be dimpled,raised,vained, or a rougher surface. In areas that have proper port shape for max flow,Polishing gains claims are around 1% over unpolished ports. So the skiny to me is, polished and rough port areas
make the best port surface in the same port......When proper port shape cannot be acheived.


When I did the Super Sucker carb spacers; the cuts were along the airflow and they worked well; but we did not do any airflow testing with the cuts going perpendicular.
(answer)Every one that you machined,I bet flow different.If you want to nit pick.

This stuff is over my head; I have no expericence with airflow in what works and what doesn't. I believe that the big gains will be at the higher rpms; but there are others that believe it will enhance the air flow through-out the rpm range and enhance throttle responce.
(answer) Its over every head porters head,that why we buy or build flow
test equipment. The most important gains from flow tests, will come from probe tests and wet testing.(use food dye)To me wet testing is the most important.This will show low & high pressure areas & CFMs at planned
valvelift.

I would guess with what I have seen in your pictures.You should
have a gain across the RPM range.But the midrange to top end will be the most noiticable gains by the seat-of-the-pants dyno. Its going to depend
on the shape of the inside of the top of manifold to head port entrance.
Raising the roof ,floor of the manifold,& raising the intakes ports entrance
to head port should be a plus across the board.

Just raising the roof of manifold, so far with my tests ,average gain is a 9% .
This is with a stock manifold with Charles Warner raised roof mod.
Like he built for Coy M. & Jim D. compaired to stock designed manifold
with heads.(No plenum)




Randy

XxSlowpokexX
05-09-2007, 12:17 PM
Have you measured the differene in plenum volume?

Randy N Connie
05-09-2007, 12:29 PM
Have you measured the differene in plenum volume?

If your asking me, Yes, Both The manifold plenum volume, and plenum
volume in the IC plenum. They are important for different type performance.

Randy

XxSlowpokexX
05-09-2007, 01:30 PM
I have in the past noticed a loss of unboosted responce and low end power when decreasing the runner lenght and increasing the plenum volume (not the case here) Of course along with that came a gain in top end power. Of course a desighn such as that usually has compramises due to height restrictions.

Now from what I am seeing with this setup is that you actually are gaining some sort of runner lenght. I also see or think I see that the floor is raised. Normally that combination would reduce plenum volume however the overall height of the intake has been raised thus gaining some plenum volume...I'm more or less wondering how much the plusses and minuses equal out to.

I know on my turbo car I went from a long runner low plenum volume setup to a short runner large plenum volume setup to finally a long runner large plenum volume setup with thefinal setup making the best average and overall power production. It was critical with my setup and a large turbo to not loose that much lowend power and that intake fit the bill.

With a roots or even a twin screw type blower which produces its peak power at lower RPMS then most centrifical or turbo setups I'm wondering how the power curve will be effected. I always felt that a majority of the gains in our application would be from more equal distribution of airflow and an increase in plenum volume. If properly designed I can see an intake such as this with a raised floor, larger plenum and runners definitely helping. Im actually pretty excited to see the results. Being i cant do any of this myself I have to live vicariously through the achievements of others :O)

Mike8675309
05-09-2007, 02:22 PM
Anyone with access to Solidworks and CosmosFlowWorks add in with the knowledge to use it should be able to do some fluid modeling of the design based on the CAD layout. Just gotta find an engineering guy that has some spare time and access.

ScrapSC
05-09-2007, 02:43 PM
I actually got to lay hands on this piece at the Dayton meet and got to meet Mike. He is a class act and his work is top notch. The manifold made me drool along with a few others when we were at Lazzo's house. From what I gathered it is going to be flowed here soon and there are a few other things to work out on it. It certainly looked good!!!!!!!!!!

David Neibert
05-09-2007, 11:13 PM
I actually got to lay hands on this piece at the Dayton meet and got to meet Mike. He is a class act and his work is top notch. The manifold made me drool along with a few others when we were at Lazzo's house. From what I gathered it is going to be flowed here soon and there are a few other things to work out on it. It certainly looked good!!!!!!!!!!

Yes it did look good, and so did the liquid IC core that bolts onto it. As expected, Mike is doing an excellent job on the project. I'm also guessing we will see how well it all performs at the Shootout.

David

Super XR7
07-16-2007, 07:53 PM
Received the flow numbers back from testing of the prototype manifold. The heads used are CMRE stage 1 heads (no welding on the exhaust port), 1.94 diameter intake valve and some final massaging from Dave Dalke. Flow numbers came from a Super Flow 600.

Heads only with diffuser

Lift CFM
.05 39
.10 64
.15 94.5
.20 126
.25 155
.30 182
.40 220
.50 223
.60 226
.70 229

Same heads with prototype manifold and top (supercharger mount)

Lift CFM
.05 39
.10 65
.15 95
.20 126
.25 155
.30 182
.40 222
.50 227
.60 232
.70 237

As you can see the heads flowed better with the manifold; unlike the oem manifold were flow is reduced at the higher lifts.

Mike

427Cammer
07-16-2007, 11:53 PM
Thanks for the update, Dave.

Scott

Micahdogg
07-17-2007, 10:14 AM
Great job...I like how it picks up 2 cfm, then 4, then 6, then 8.... Looks like it would work good with a turbo!

David Neibert
07-17-2007, 01:56 PM
What are the intake flow numbers with a stock/gasket matched intake manifold ?

David

Super XR7
07-17-2007, 04:23 PM
What are the intake flow numbers with a stock/gasket matched intake manifold ?

David

DD have done some flow testing using simular heads and ported oem manifolds and from what I remember the flow rates were ~215 CFM at .55 lift and less than than at .60. Maybe he will chime in and correct me if I have anything incorrect.

Mike

XR7 Dave
07-17-2007, 04:35 PM
215cfm was with my Randy Baker manifold. With a stock port-matched manifold flow varies from 185cfm to 210cfm (on the same cylinder heads) based on the skills of the person performing the work. With an OE manifold peak flow is reached at .525" lift and it then falls off after that. By .650" lift the OEM manifold loses about 10cfm from whatever the peak was.

white95v6
10-19-2007, 10:09 PM
freaking awsome. i love that thing. i want one.

Greg Coleman
10-21-2007, 04:32 PM
So what is the update on this?

sinhumane
11-19-2007, 04:59 PM
this ever get finished? i didnt make it to the shootout :)

Super XR7
11-19-2007, 05:36 PM
Working

Mike

David Neibert
11-20-2007, 07:36 PM
Mike,

Did you get a replacement supercharger yet ?

David

Super XR7
11-20-2007, 08:50 PM
Mike,

Did you get a replacement supercharger yet ?

David

Yes, I got a 2.3 Whipple. I had to redesigned the mount plate to accept it and the plate is in line to be machined on the mill but right now I have several jobs ahead of it. Hoping to get it done by Christmas so that I can get it tuned this January.

Mike

David Neibert
11-21-2007, 10:24 AM
Yes, I got a 2.3 Whipple. I had to redesigned the mount plate to accept it and the plate is in line to be machined on the mill but right now I have several jobs ahead of it. Hoping to get it done by Christmas so that I can get it tuned this January.

Mike

Mike,

A whipple....wouldn't AR warrant the 2.1 ? Looking forward to seeing some pics of the new setup installed on the motor. That 2.3 should provide all the air the motor can handle.

David

Pablo94SC
11-28-2007, 04:40 PM
Did anyone post pics? I didn't see any and missed it at the shootout.

Super XR7
01-01-2008, 01:14 PM
An update. Just got it started yesterday, I have a few things to complete then we will start the tuning. I will be ready for the Dayton spring meet.

Mike

ScrapSC
01-01-2008, 01:30 PM
Looking good there!!!!!!!!! Hope to see it in the Spring....

David Neibert
01-01-2008, 01:47 PM
An update. Just got it started yesterday, I have a few things to complete then we will start the tuning. I will be ready for the Dayton spring meet.

Mike

Wowser !!! That is the coolest SC motor I've ever seen. Very impressive Mike.

David

CougarXR/7
01-01-2008, 02:11 PM
Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!

XR7 Dave
01-01-2008, 02:43 PM
Wowser !!! That is the coolest SC motor I've ever seen. Very impressive Mike.

David

Yes, there is a lot of hardware in that picture. You can't really see the 3.8 under that stuff but the overall look takes a back seat to no one. You could pimp that at any car show and be proud!

{edit} Actually you can see the 3.8L just fine when you look for it but that is not really where your eye tends to settle. ;)

sinhumane
01-01-2008, 02:51 PM
awesome! cant wait to see this thing available.. count me in :)

Ira R.
01-01-2008, 03:30 PM
HOLY &^$# Mike. :eek: Just... WoW!! Beautiful beautiful work. Man, if it runs anything like it looks there won't be any stopping it!!

And damn few keeping up with it either!! ;)

Ira

Nettlesd
01-01-2008, 05:02 PM
Awesome Mike!

Kevin Leitem
01-01-2008, 05:09 PM
Wow!!! that really looks amazing Mike, can't wait to see it in person.

mannysc
01-01-2008, 06:31 PM
thats awesome work engine looks like a wet dream .

i think i even seen a flux capacitor!!!!

THE BIRDMAN
01-01-2008, 08:08 PM
Definetly one awesome looking engine !!!!!!


Jay

joshbea6
01-01-2008, 11:00 PM
Mike, what heads are those? Those look VERY cool!

ricardoa1
01-02-2008, 12:06 PM
Very cool. Looks foreing without the IC tubes running all over the engine. I hope it makes it over the 500Rwhp Hump.

What is the tune going to consist of, 93 octane or race fuel?, Water injection?
Or just straight up pump. What where the final clearences for the hood.

frdlvr30
01-02-2008, 12:49 PM
Im guessing from looking at Mike's picture, but is there an intercooler incorporated in the lower intake like a Cobra/Lightning?? Is that what the AN fittings and lines are where the compressor used to be?? Forgive me for not reading the previous 12 pages of the thread...
That is one nice setup. Looks like alot of thought went into it. Definetly got my vote for best looking engine compartment!!!

Roadhawg
01-02-2008, 01:13 PM
Is that what the AN fittings and lines are where the compressor used to be?? Forgive me for not reading the previous 12 pages of the thread...


Looks like the intake has no crossover and the coolant lines are being run to each head.

XxSlowpokexX
01-02-2008, 02:31 PM
Mike Looks sweet!


Now I'm assuming that is still the 3.8 block? (no dry sump)

No IC? Meth instead?

Is that the Morana Waterpump or something you adapted?

Overall very sweet and clean..Love the valve covers too! I remeber you working on them awhiel back. Came together nicely

Good luck!

doug93sc
01-02-2008, 03:20 PM
As always beautiful job Mike!! I can't wait to see it!

supercatxr7
01-02-2008, 03:34 PM
Great Job!:eek:

seawalkersee
01-02-2008, 06:49 PM
Mike, you have a PM.

Chris

Super XR7
01-03-2008, 07:18 AM
Im guessing from looking at Mike's picture, but is there an intercooler incorporated in the lower intake like a Cobra/Lightning?? Is that what the AN fittings and lines are where the compressor used to be?? Forgive me for not reading the previous 12 pages of the thread...
That is one nice setup. Looks like alot of thought went into it. Definetly got my vote for best looking engine compartment!!!

No intercooler yet. The car will be tested with two tunes:

1. 93 octane and water/methonal cooling
2. E85

The AN lines are for the coolant return from the heads back to the radiator.

Mike

Super XR7
01-03-2008, 07:20 AM
Mike Looks sweet!


Now I'm assuming that is still the 3.8 block? (no dry sump)

No IC? Meth instead?

Is that the Morana Waterpump or something you adapted?

Overall very sweet and clean..Love the valve covers too! I remeber you working on them awhiel back. Came together nicely

Good luck!

Yes to the 3.8 block
See above post for cooling
My design for the electric waterpump
Thanks

Mike

mywhite89
01-03-2008, 11:22 AM
Wow, that looks awesome Mike. Can't wait to see your setup in person. How will the liquid to air setup work? Does it run under the blower between the inlet?

Deep6
01-03-2008, 10:19 PM
Did you say E85? Are we looking to power our birds into the future with the wonderful anti-knock qualities of E85???

Mike8675309
01-05-2008, 12:11 PM
Did you say E85? Are we looking to power our birds into the future with the wonderful anti-knock qualities of E85???

I hope to be this year.

Super XR7
01-05-2008, 01:13 PM
Wow, that looks awesome Mike. Can't wait to see your setup in person. How will the liquid to air setup work? Does it run under the blower between the inlet?

Yes when installed the liquid to air exhanger will be located between the blower and the intake.

Mike

Duffy Floyd
01-05-2008, 02:30 PM
Mike,

Did you or are you planning to do any testing of the air distribution on the fabricated intake manifold as we discussed at the Shoot-Out?

Super XR7
01-05-2008, 03:03 PM
Mike,

Did you or are you planning to do any testing of the air distribution on the fabricated intake manifold as we discussed at the Shoot-Out?

Duffy, we plan on doing the distribution tests after the intial tune.

Mike

92bird
01-08-2008, 11:14 PM
Did you say E85? Are we looking to power our birds into the future with the wonderful anti-knock qualities of E85???


That is the reason I'm going to run the megasquirt II.. They just opened an E-85 station down the road from me :D

Mike that looks awesome. I see two map sensors in there. Why two?

Jeramie

chadder1313
01-09-2008, 07:29 AM
Looks amazing.:eek:

Super XR7
01-09-2008, 07:42 AM
That is the reason I'm going to run the megasquirt II.. They just opened an E-85 station down the road from me :D

Mike that looks awesome. I see two map sensors in there. Why two?

Jeramie

The second map sensor is for the water/alcohol system.

Mike

Gonzo2
01-10-2008, 10:48 PM
Mike,

Truly awesome work. I was reading your other post about your water pump setup and it stated that it might be available in early 2008. Is there any update on this? Also was wondering if you'll be offering the valve covers?

Thanks

Super XR7
01-11-2008, 01:03 PM
Mike,

Truly awesome work. I was reading your other post about your water pump setup and it stated that it might be available in early 2008. Is there any update on this? Also was wondering if you'll be offering the valve covers?

Thanks

The waterpump will be in testing starting next weekend. Alot of results will be had then.

Mike

Gonzo2
01-11-2008, 06:11 PM
Sounds cool! Thanks for the info.

David Neibert
01-24-2008, 03:56 PM
Mike,

Got any preliminary test results on the new manifold ?

David

Deep6
01-24-2008, 08:08 PM
Is this a system to run Alcohol in the engine or the name of a dirty film?

Super XR7
01-24-2008, 09:02 PM
Mike,

Got any preliminary test results on the new manifold ?

David


I did not get to go to DD's last weekend but am planning on the 2/2 weekend. Hope the weather is good enought to make the eight hour trip. I am still waiting on the good weather to get some local road miles on the car. But so far it works great, I finished putting in EGT's on each cylinder to check the airflow for each cylinder.

Soon, very soon I hope.

Mike

SCvidar
01-25-2008, 09:07 AM
Is this a system to run Alcohol in the engine or the name of a dirty film?

http://www.megasquirt.info/
:D

David Neibert
02-18-2008, 01:40 PM
I did not get to go to DD's last weekend but am planning on the 2/2 weekend. Hope the weather is good enought to make the eight hour trip. I am still waiting on the good weather to get some local road miles on the car. But so far it works great, I finished putting in EGT's on each cylinder to check the airflow for each cylinder.

Soon, very soon I hope.

Mike


Mike,

Any updates ?

David

XR7 Dave
02-18-2008, 07:40 PM
Mike,

Any updates ?

David

Hectic schedules and unforeseen delays have gotten in the way of being able to post anything. Trust me you'll all know about it when we get results.

Ira R.
02-18-2008, 09:34 PM
I did not get to go to DD's last weekend but am planning on the 2/2 weekend. Hope the weather is good enought to make the eight hour trip. I am still waiting on the good weather to get some local road miles on the car. But so far it works great, I finished putting in EGT's on each cylinder to check the airflow for each cylinder.

Soon, very soon I hope.

Mike

That sounds very positive. Can't wait to see what you've come up with. Inquiring minds, and engine builders currently engaged, want to know :rolleyes: :D

Ira

nwnsc
03-09-2008, 12:09 PM
hood. who needs a hood? just want to go faster!!

Super XR7
03-09-2008, 02:21 PM
We are still waiting on the weather clear out for a weekend tuning session. Next scheduled time will be March 22 weekend. Cleveland has tough winters.

Mike

David Neibert
03-24-2008, 12:18 PM
We are still waiting on the weather clear out for a weekend tuning session. Next scheduled time will be March 22 weekend. Cleveland has tough winters.

Mike

Mike,

Did the March 22nd tuning session happen ? If so what were the results ?

David

Super XR7
03-25-2008, 05:54 PM
Mike,

Did the March 22nd tuning session happen ? If so what were the results ?

David

The setup did not do well without a intercooler. Intake temps were around 200F, the snow kit did not offer what I had hoped for in the way of cooling the intake charge. With that we did not push the engine, we had 16 degree max timing and we did not go over 5000 rpm; but we did net 288 rwhp at those numbers. Also the engine managment system was detecting knock from the oem knock sensor but we could not hear anything using the old broom stick trick. I plan on changing out the oem knock sensor for the Electromotive one for compatability. Now if we had a cool air charge, I believe we would have done very well. Overall, I was a little disappointed, but thats part of trying something different. Next is to start street tuning the car with E85, get some more timing into the engine and get back on the dyno. I do plan on bringing the car to Dayton in the spring and to start working on a water/air intercooler; hopefully for the shootout.

Dave Dalke: any observations that you made that I did not list?

Mike

David Neibert
03-25-2008, 07:25 PM
Mike,

How much boost were you able to run ?

David

Super XR7
03-25-2008, 07:32 PM
Mike,

How much boost were you able to run ?

David

15 psi with a 1:1 jackshaft pulley and a 3.5 dia SC pulley.

Dave Dalke, we did run 288 hp, right?

Mike

David Neibert
03-25-2008, 07:51 PM
Mike,

For such low boost and timing that's good power. Looking forward to seeing what it does with a cooler intake charge, more boost and some timing advance.

David

PS: If it were as easy as bolting it on and making big power...everyone would have a fast car.

XR7 Dave
03-25-2008, 08:13 PM
We spent most of our time chasing false knock which in the end prevented us from doing anything constructive with the E85. It is my belief that the E85 would have made great numbers but we were out of time at that point.

200 deg intake temps seems really high but I have my doubts as to the accuracy of those numbers due to the location of the sensor with respect to actual airflow. It is going to be difficult to get accurate air temp #'s with this manifold.

We did make 288rwhp but that is no reflection of what the combination is capable of. We really weren't doing any HP tuning so we weren't even trying for a big number. I think we did 2 pulls to 5000rpm the whole day.

The only observation that I have is that the 200 deg ACT reflects only a 40 deg temp rise during the run so heat from the blower is not as big of an issue as it may first seem. Again, I think there are issues with the location of the sensor.

XxSlowpokexX
03-26-2008, 05:13 PM
With the 4.6 AED blower setups we had good luck tapping a runner for ACT readings. Where is it on this intake and why would it be so off?

Also with the newer 4.6 engines that are knock sensor equiped thereis a tendency to cause false knock readings when using forged pistons. The slap of the piston causes the false positive knock.

unsure just how sensative the SC sensor is or if you even have forged pistons but I would definitely look into that

fturner
03-26-2008, 05:16 PM
Just to rock the boat here cause I'm good at it :D... is the intake volume larger compared to stock... cause technically the computer needs to be told about it so it can handle backflow etc and setup transient fuel demands properly :D :p ;)

Me gonna get slapped LOL!

FT

Super XR7
03-26-2008, 06:07 PM
With the 4.6 AED blower setups we had good luck tapping a runner for ACT readings. Where is it on this intake and why would it be so off?

Also with the newer 4.6 engines that are knock sensor equiped thereis a tendency to cause false knock readings when using forged pistons. The slap of the piston causes the false positive knock.

unsure just how sensative the SC sensor is or if you even have forged pistons but I would definitely look into that

Yes the motor had forged pistons and the sensor is located at the back wall of the intake manifold with the blower discharging into the front section of the plenum. I plan on replacing the OEM knock sensor with the Electromotive sensor and maybe I should get some "det" cans to listen for knock. You maybe right, there maybe something else that the knock sensor is picking up.

Mike

Super XR7
03-26-2008, 06:08 PM
Just to rock the boat here cause I'm good at it :D... is the intake volume larger compared to stock... cause technically the computer needs to be told about it so it can handle backflow etc and setup transient fuel demands properly :D :p ;)

Me gonna get slapped LOL!

FT

Can not slap you on this one but the intake plenum is slightly smaller than oem. Not sure how to tell the computor about it though.

Mike

XR7 Dave
03-26-2008, 06:48 PM
Mike's system is an aftermarket speed density so it doesn't require that parameter.

fturner
03-26-2008, 07:02 PM
Mike's system is an aftermarket speed density so it doesn't require that parameter.

That works ;)

Phillio99
03-27-2008, 12:35 PM
dalke,
Any thoughts on why power numbers are where they are? Looking forward to more tuning.
Phil

XR7 Dave
03-28-2008, 01:23 PM
dalke,
Any thoughts on why power numbers are where they are? Looking forward to more tuning.
PhilIt's premature to discuss power numbers at this time. I know that sounds harsh but thats just how it is.

mannysc
03-28-2008, 01:54 PM
looks cool but Whats a Inverted blower?

I got acts down to low 100s with iced water in a water to air ic i home made on a104 deg day and 80s deg f on a cool day again with iced water pumped thru at a higj speed slowing down the water raised the heat . so with a water to air ic i see this setup kickin some butt . more boost more fuel

XxSlowpokexX
03-28-2008, 02:23 PM
Manny..English please? :D

Apparently for whatever reason the methanol didnt make a huge difference in dropping ACT ..Which makes sence when using e85. If it were standard gas youd see a difference for sure. Something doesnt seem right though with 200 degree temps..I'm sure its either a mistake of some sort reading wise or somethinsg seriously screwy. I have a couple of buds that do e85 conversions for a living along with the tuning involved. If I talk to them Ill see what they say

mannysc
03-28-2008, 02:53 PM
damon schloß oben dich verstehen, was Im sagend. ein stpid Ruck-O.K. nicht sein.

oder krank deinen Gebläsekasten ha ha ha gerade oben verwirren scherzend



in english
damon shut up you understand what Im saying. dont be a stpid jerk ok .

or ill mess up your blower case ha ha ha just kidding

fturner
03-28-2008, 04:39 PM
Nowadays even English is a different language

:D

XR7 Dave
03-28-2008, 05:42 PM
Manny..English please? :D

Apparently for whatever reason the methanol didnt make a huge difference in dropping ACT ..Which makes sence when using e85. If it were standard gas youd see a difference for sure. Something doesnt seem right though with 200 degree temps..I'm sure its either a mistake of some sort reading wise or somethinsg seriously screwy. I have a couple of buds that do e85 conversions for a living along with the tuning involved. If I talk to them Ill see what they say

Damon, this vehicle is fuel injected.

XxSlowpokexX
03-28-2008, 06:29 PM
I know and it has a 2.0 A/R with the new lower intake inverted with E85 correct?


When using e85 as a fuel I wouldnt expect meth injection to cool intake charge temps. At the same time I wouldnt expect them to be 200 degrees either. So somethings up. Thats what I was saying

Also there was mention of hittin knock. If you have the AFR commanded properly it could very well be a timing issue. From my understanding (not experience) both are way different.

The people I know that do e85 conversions were on newer fleet vehicles. Of course now they have flex fuel vehicles but they did it before that came around. They also did propane convertions as well.

I'm sure you guys will figure it out one way or another.

I;m just curious of the outcome

Super XR7
03-28-2008, 06:42 PM
Manny..English please? :D

Apparently for whatever reason the methanol didnt make a huge difference in dropping ACT ..Which makes sence when using e85. If it were standard gas youd see a difference for sure. Something doesnt seem right though with 200 degree temps..I'm sure its either a mistake of some sort reading wise or somethinsg seriously screwy. I have a couple of buds that do e85 conversions for a living along with the tuning involved. If I talk to them Ill see what they say

We never really got to the E85, the 200F was when we were running 93 octane gas.

Mike

XxSlowpokexX
03-28-2008, 06:58 PM
OOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo oooooooooo

:O)

XR7 Dave
03-28-2008, 07:34 PM
I know and it has a 2.0 A/R with the new lower intake inverted with E85 correct?

When using e85 as a fuel I wouldnt expect meth injection to cool intake charge temps.
On a port fuel injected vehicle the fuel used will not have any effect whatsoever on the temperature of the air in the manifold as the fuel has not been introduced yet. Think about what you are saying here. E85, gasoline, diesel, or straight nitro methane = same intake manifold conditions.



At the same time I wouldnt expect them to be 200 degrees either. So somethings up. Thats what I was saying
And why wouldn't we see 200 deg? Ambient temps were around 65 deg, and when you consider that a twin screw generates boost internally at all times, it follows that there will be a temp increase at all times. I have witnessed this in real life on all AR blown cars. The temps that we were seeing during part throttle operation were around 150-160 deg. I would consider this to be normal. The temp rise due to boost alone at 15psi is substantial so 200-220 deg is absolutely great considering an Eaton generates about 340-360 deg at similar boost levels.



Also there was mention of hittin knock. If you have the AFR commanded properly it could very well be a timing issue. From my understanding (not experience) both are way different. First of all there is no mention of knock. Please read carefully. We chased false knock signals for a large portion of the day before concluding confidently that we did not in fact have knock. I realize that using a knock sensor while tuning is generally not recommended but in this case we were being careful, to our own demise as it turned out.

I;m just curious of the outcome

So are we. Preliminary reports such as this are one of the drawbacks of attempting to do something like this in the "public eye". We had no intention of reporting anything at this time because the whole thing is still very much in the development phase. We didn't want to start a whole discussion on what might be wrong because we mostly know what we have to do. The only reason anything was posted at all is because people were asking since they knew that testing was planned for last weekend. People wanted answers and you got them, that's all. We learned a lot about the combination and have a lot of data from which to make changes which is a normal part of development and isn't normally shared with the whole world on most projects. ;)

We know what the setup is capable of, we just want to build a product that lives up to everyone's expectations for more than just one or two dyno pulls. :)

f1rocco
03-29-2008, 12:04 AM
Nice read....Whew all 16 pages tonight....

Glad to see there are some sickos out there with the need for speed...And nice to have this brought out to general public...

Keep at it peeps...Youll get it.....

F1

David Neibert
03-29-2008, 10:08 AM
I know and it has a 2.0 A/R with the new lower intake inverted with E85 correct?


Damon,

Pretty sure Mike is using a 2.3 Whipple and not the smaller AR as was originally planned.

http://www.sccoa.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=29919&d=1199207328

David

XxSlowpokexX
03-29-2008, 10:38 AM
David ypur probably right. I recall an issue with a 2.0 ar and I think I remember the photo showing a whipple come to think of it.

Micahdogg
03-31-2008, 12:46 PM
I just wanna say thanks for pluggin away at this guys. Sitting at the edge of my seat.

David Neibert
04-01-2008, 02:14 PM
Mike,

Are you expecting to get this sorted out and tuned prior to the Dayton meet ?

David

Super XR7
04-01-2008, 10:09 PM
Mike,

Are you expecting to get this sorted out and tuned prior to the Dayton meet ?

David


I am slowly working that way. The wife is having me redo the kitchen which is taking up a lot of my hobby time; penance for buying the 67 cougar. I have done some "auto" calibrating on street with the E85 and it seems to run pretty good. I hope to hook up with Dave for some "at boost" tuning prior to the Dayton spring meet. Running the E85 the exhaust note sounds different and the exhaust smell like "pop corn". Just kidding on the last part. See ya in a few weeks.

Mike

trailready
05-06-2008, 02:27 PM
Michael, someone pointed me to your manifold and we're interested in trying it with a 4V carb plate for our desert race truck, similar to the GM 4.3 Version. I can make the top plate.

Can you make one available? email: info@trailreadymotorsports.com

Mike.Jones_49
05-07-2008, 03:01 AM
I know and it has a 2.0 A/R with the new lower intake inverted with E85 correct?


When using e85 as a fuel I wouldnt expect meth injection to cool intake charge temps. At the same time I wouldnt expect them to be 200 degrees either. So somethings up. Thats what I was saying

Also there was mention of hittin knock. If you have the AFR commanded properly it could very well be a timing issue. From my understanding (not experience) both are way different.

The people I know that do e85 conversions were on newer fleet vehicles. Of course now they have flex fuel vehicles but they did it before that came around. They also did propane convertions as well.

I'm sure you guys will figure it out one way or another.

I;m just curious of the outcome

If you are running E85 intake temps would still be the same as on gasoline. However, knock resistance would be higher do to the cooling effect of the alcohol in the fuel being sprayed at the back of the valve.

I have done quite a few E85 conversions myself, have we met before? I always wonder about people’s identities on the internet. You never know who you have met and who you know.

Super XR7
05-07-2008, 06:24 AM
If you are running E85 intake temps would still be the same as on gasoline. However, knock resistance would be higher do to the cooling effect of the alcohol in the fuel being sprayed at the back of the valve.

I have done quite a few E85 conversions myself, have we met before? I always wonder about people’s identities on the internet. You never know who you have met and who you know.

Mike, look me up at Carlisle. I will be in a white 89 Cougar XR7 and will probably be put with the Cougars and not the SC's.

Mike

edb2007
08-27-2008, 11:23 AM
whats the update on this manifold? its a sweet project that i would hate not to hear the end of.

samishii
09-01-2008, 10:08 PM
whats the update on this manifold? its a sweet project that i would hate not to hear the end of.

I also want to know whats going on with this. I'm extremely interested in this project. <3
Also anyone have a link to the SCCoA custom heads. Haven't been able to locate info on it outside this thread.

nickleman60
09-02-2008, 03:23 PM
Also anyone have a link to the SCCoA custom heads. Haven't been able to locate info on it outside this thread.

XR7Dave, aka David Dalke is the man for heads

mdkracing@alltel.net

David Neibert
08-27-2009, 03:39 PM
What's the latest and greatest info on this new intake manifold ?

David

Toms-SC
08-27-2009, 04:39 PM
It would be killer to run an inverted blower on the car. Save on weight up front, increase flow to the radiator, clean up the engine bay. *sigh* Guess we can dream.

427Cammer
08-27-2009, 05:31 PM
Inverted blower? What is that?

I was thinking rear-mounted turbos, attached up in the rear-wheel well area -- would clean up the engine compartment dramatically -- would need to think about type/design/mounting of intercooler -- friend is beta-testing a turbo installation on a 1969 Cadillac convertible, complete with a glass-smooth idle and very quiet exhaust -- aftermarket Cadillac heads and race-prepped block, with some sort of aftermarket computer controlling port-mounted fuel injectors, waste-gate, MAF and ignition -- apparently, putting out an easy ~530 hp to the rear wheels on initial pull, running pump gas and no intercooler to speak of (small one that is temporarily mounted).

The thing is a silent beast, stock hubcaps and all, and easily overruns the ability of the factory brakes to stop the car -- one of the next upgrades, supposedly.

Utilizing a T-400 tranny at the moment -- talking about a 4L80E, hooked into the car computer.

And, the turbos are so QUIET and stealthy -- when he punches the throttle, all you hear is a high-pitched whistle as they spool up, followed by a RAPID disappearance of the tail lights fading into the lingering tire smoke.

Interesting application of old and new, resulting in a absolutely quiet mega-cube muscle car cruiser.

Cammer

Super XR7
08-27-2009, 06:38 PM
What's the latest and greatest info on this new intake manifold ?

David

Wish I had news to report; but I have been too busy for something that I would like to get done.:(
See you at the shoot out.

Mike

white95v6
07-14-2010, 01:42 PM
nothing yet?

Super XR7
07-15-2010, 06:24 AM
We are working on a new design. The current design does have enough room for water to air cooling and still fit under a cowl hood. We are taking another tack which will allow for water to air cooling and fit comfortably under a cowl hood.

Mike