Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

One of the things of the original RB20/25 intake plenum is that the tubes are thin and long.

This apparently helps with low end power and torque.

The Greddy plenum has it's own runner tubes and they are big and short ie. making good high end power at the expense of low end.

One of the complaints of the various aftermarket plenums is that they bolt onto the OEM runner tubes.

Is this a good thing?

They make for neater IC piping and all the apparent benefits, a bigger plenum volume for high end and the OEM runners for low end.

Is this 'new thinking' right?

T.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/37037-plenums-and-runner-tube-length/
Share on other sites

One important factor of intake runners is determining the velocity of the flow. Smaller diameter runners give high velocities, which fills the cylinders alot quicker. The problem is that at higher rpm and flow levels, the small diameter actually restricts flow and hurts top end.

Longer runners work on a similar principle, that the air speed is high and contributes to cylinder filling. The "ram" effect from the force of the high speed flow assists, and when design to work in conjuction with pulsing from the "echo" of the flow off the back of the closed/closing valve can fill a cylinder more efficiently than if it were an independant runner type manifold - similar to your old type Weber manifolds.

There are so many variables to calculate in designing an intake manifold that it's impossible to properly design one without alot of R & D. I think that the modified standard lower/ big plenum upper is a bit of hit and miss - it takes away some of the restriction in the long standard upper plenum but the shape and volume of the aftermarket bolt on plenum could be a bit... sub optimal. Of course it isn't going to be as good as a built-from-scratch manifold (like the Greddy), but then again it's price should reflect that (and only be around $500-700).

Price is not such a big deal really because whichever way it goes you're probably gonna take it up the arse in install charges, FMIC and all that jazz.

But the dyno charts of a Greddy intake sure is a sobering thought. I think a new plenum on the standard runners might be a good compromise but who's plenum to use?

T.

DoughBoy,

Can you please contact me on 0414-862-626.

Thanks,

Scott.

One important factor of intake runners is determining the velocity of the flow. Smaller diameter runners give high velocities, which fills the cylinders alot quicker. The problem is that at higher rpm and flow levels, the small diameter actually restricts flow and hurts top end.  

Longer runners work on a similar principle, that the air speed is high and contributes to cylinder filling. The "ram" effect from the force of the high speed flow assists, and when design to work in conjuction with pulsing from the "echo" of the flow off the back of the closed/closing valve can fill a cylinder more efficiently than if it were an independant runner type manifold - similar to your old type Weber manifolds.

There are so many variables to calculate in designing an intake manifold that it's impossible to properly design one without alot of R & D. I think that the modified standard lower/ big plenum upper is a bit of hit and miss - it takes away some of the restriction in the long standard upper plenum but the shape and volume of the aftermarket bolt on plenum could be a bit... sub optimal. Of course it isn't going to be as good as a built-from-scratch manifold (like the Greddy), but then again it's price should reflect that (and only be around $500-700).

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

    • @Haggerty you still haven't answered my question.  Many things you are saying do not make sense for someone who can tune, yet I would not expect someone who cannot tune to be playing with the things in the ECU that you are.  This process would be a lot quicker to figure out if we can remove user error from the equation. 
    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
×
×
  • Create New...