Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

ps.....from memory you have previously placed much emphasis on that variance being due to water temps between the front and rear of the head, but now its the plenum ???

Edited by ISL33P

haha yeah, if I was doing it for a buisness and for a reputation, I would also flow test mine to prove, but I have no one to prove my results to, its a stinking RB20, it if blows because of my dodgy plenum, then so be it, I will build or replace the engine for next to nothing and try a different style of plenum.

Have you considered the Hermholtz reasonance theory when designing your manifold - here's an overview plucked from a US thread in relation to the sr20.

Long runners make more "midrange" as Def says, "focused powerband" because of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_resonance

This is the key here. The long runners make more airflow available to each cylinder... but ONLY During a very specific, narrow, RPM Range... depending on the size and shape of the runners. the SR20 intake runners get a mid-range bump in the 4500-5500 RPM range.. and thats about it... Anything ABOVE or UNDER that RPM range will suffer, because hermholtz also works backwards, subtracting available airflow from each cylinder, anytime its not in its peak operating range. So VE will ramp up quickly just into boost coming out of the 3000-3500RPM range, right in peak VE range thanks to hermholtz resonance theory (4500-5500RPM) at which point the vehicle has gained more and more acceleration due to this design, but as you pass 6000RPM hermholtz ruins your top end VE... killing torque.. and thus power... but the SR20's stock turbo starts running on the bleeding edge after that spot anyways... so VE is dropping but so is flow through the turbine and compressor... the turbo has to flow less now because it moves less air through the motor at the same boost, because of hermholtz, this complements the stock turbo perfectly since by lowering its flow at high RPMS it can level off without overworking itself. so the drop in torque is barelly noted on the stock setup (after hermholtz is removed, at high RPMS), but the loss of the long runner intake IS noted because of the huge dip in mid-range you lose by not having hermholtz there anymore.

This is what our thread op has experienced. And as mentioned, cams are a huge factor here. They allow the motor to breath after hermholtz has been removed, taking advantage of a shorter runner intake manifold, the way the stock one cannot do, at all. Sure you can slap on a bigger turbo and bigger cams and keep the stock intake... but its a huge waste, you will be fighting hermholtz right when your large(er) than stock turbo comes on boost... this is why we change the stock intake. it isnt about volume or flow (although those help) its about getting rid of the hermholtz problem when it becomes a problem. It also depends on application, a longer runner intake may help the turbo get moving, as VE is punched right when it comes on boost briefly (obviously depending on the size of the turbo) so the car feels like it responds quicker... and it does... but overall power is lacking compared to others with the same setup because you are always going to feel that drop in torque after hermholtz starts robbing you, no matter how big your cams or turbo is.

sydney kid you do realise were talking about a plenum for an RB20 ?

there are no "cheap" aftermarket plenums for RB20's budget at least $1000 for an off the shelf replacement

theres only the somewhat suspect , throttle to the front of the stock plenum.

i brought mine off SAU for $400, was a private sale. joe il send you some pics when i get the chance.

i only skipped though the most recent posts so i could be wrong here but.... dont swap the 20 for the 25. 20's are tough as.

dont know if you boys have seen this it was in the Fabrication http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/R3...t191089.htmlbut

But yeah thats is has been helping me make my plenum

Thanks Matt,

Yeah I have had a good read though that one already, I will be using some of the information from there for sure. Mine is going to be a little more basic though.

Joe.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...