Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,

I just got the flow bench test results back for my front facing plenum. This is a custom plemum that bolts on to the standard runners.

Since there had been a bit of a debate over front facing plenums and my engine is being rebuilt, I took the opportunity to get it tested.

I know this is a static test, on a flow bench so it doesn't represent exactly what is happening in the head with valve movement etc - But it's a good start for a bit of empirical analysis.

1 275.4 cfm

2 283.1 cfm

3 307.2 cfm

4 272.4 cfm

5 277.2 cfm

6 298.3 cfm

(1 being front, 6 being rear - Throttle body = XF)

So I am getting a 34.8 cfm difference between 3 & 4 - Which is interesting as one might speculate that most of the flow goes to 5 & 6.

BTW I am no engineer - but 11.3% difference in air flow betwen runners seems a lot to me ??

Has anyone got any comparative bench flow tests for standard or GReddy/Trust plenums ?

Now I gotta decide what I am going to do about this -

a) Try and fix the current plenum (a bit hit & miss)

B) Replace with standard plenum

c) Replace with after market (Trust/GReddy)

d) Just keep in and richen it up a bit

Opinions and feedback welcomed folks. Keep in nice though OK ?

Cheers,

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Any pics of the internals?

On an RB25 if you remove the top half of the plenum, are all the lower runners the same length?

On an RB20 the runners are only the same length when top & bottom halves of plenum are bolted together.

Ie say runner no.1's top sectoin equates to say 50% of its length and so does the bottom section. On runner no.6 though top section equates to 65% of runner length, and bottom equates for the remaining 35% of length (rough numbers only).

So if you only use the bottom section of the plenum then some runners are shortened by 50% others by 65%... making sense?

Roy - by sight, they all look the same length.

Anyone got a standard plenum (the top bit only, not runners and all) and I will get it tested for a side by side comparison. Can use my runners etc - The test wasn't that much, so I'd be happy to pay for it , if someone donates the standard plenum....... I might even buy it off you , if the results are good !

Cheers,

sidewaymambo & B-Man, that would be excellent to do a flow test in the same way on the standard plenum. As we know, a number of guys have problems with no 1 and no 6 cylinders (possibly due to fuel reasons as well) but to have the baseline flow data would be excellent.

grepin, if you read this you should invest in flow testing your Greddy plenum whilst it is still off the motor.

Originally posted by Freebaggin

sidewaymambo & B-Man, that would be excellent to do a flow test in the same way on the standard plenum.  As we know, a number of guys have problems with no 1 and no 6 cylinders (possibly due to fuel reasons as well) but to have the baseline flow data would be excellent.

grepin, if you read this you should invest in flow testing your Greddy plenum whilst it is still off the motor.

That's exactly what I am thinking..if someone can lend it for test..I wish ..

Sidewaymambo & I have just spoken and I'll pick up his standard plenum on the weekend -

So I'll get the same people to do the bench flow test on it and then post the results back !

Thanks Phillip !

Good stuff ! :rofl:

B-Man when you pick up the plenum dont be tempted to look under the bonnet of sidewaymambo's car...mmm very strong is the power of the darkside (in my best yoda voice):(

...and great work for the trouble your going to, a case of Crownies for the man!

No way man ! I'll look after it - I promise !

Does someone want to donate a GReddy Plenum ? And I'll get that flowed at the same time .. . . I promise I won't put it on my car and give you back my old one.... he he he joking !

But yeah, I am serious about flow testing a GReddy if someone else is willing to help.

Hi B-man it is good to have someone confirm our on car results. But be careful, how a manifold reacts (flows) under vacuum (ie; on the flow bench) is very different to how it flows under boost. Did you do it at 1 bar or 2 bar vacuum? We find head flowing for a turbo engine gives more boost friendly results at 2 bar vacuum.

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

    • I know why it happened and I’m embarrassed to say but I was testing the polarity of one of the led bulb to see which side was positive with a 12v battery and that’s when it decided to fry hoping I didn’t damage anything else
    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
×
×
  • Create New...