Return-Path: Received: from imo-r03.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.99] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.6) with ESMTP id 2704500 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:14:26 -0500 Received: from Lehanover@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_dev1.2.) id q.19f.1c638790 (25098) for ; Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:14:07 -0500 (EST) From: Lehanover@aol.com Message-ID: <19f.1c638790.2cd3e44f@aol.com> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:14:07 EST Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Intake manifold To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_19f.1c638790.2cd3e44f_boundary" X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10621 --part1_19f.1c638790.2cd3e44f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/30/2003 12:36:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, finnlassen@netzero.net writes: > Also for my plans for a variable intake manifold, two tubes are much easier > to deal with than four. If I could have figured out a way to handle 4 tubes > sliding I probably would have stayed with the four tubes. However, for my > turbo block, I decided the simplicity of using two tubes (combining primary > and secondary) outweighed any disadvantage - I may prove myself wrong about > that conclusion, but nothing ventured - nothing gained. > > Ed Anderson > > A 12A race engine with a big bridge port and very short intake runners, for best power at 9,400 RPM still makes 173.3 HP at 6,500 RPM. The stock intake manifold gasket is used with just a small increase in the center port openings. The bridge ports make for way too much duration at 6,500 and the runners are too small for really good power above 9,600. With a 13B it seems to me that this could be done with not as near as much effort as is being expended here. There is a plenum below the carb that combines the two runners. Adjusting the plenum volume changes the torque peak. I think the runner length is from the plenum to the block face. There is little volume involved, and not much of a change is possible without shortening the runners. So, the two into four runner idea should work fine. The effect may be even more pronounced than the four runner option. Lynn E. Hanover --part1_19f.1c638790.2cd3e44f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/30/2003 12:36:39 PM Eastern Stan= dard Time, finnlassen@netzero.net writes:


Also for my plans for a variabl= e intake manifold, two tubes are much easier to deal with than four.  I= f I could have figured out a way to handle 4 tubes sliding I probably would=20= have stayed with the four tubes.  However, for my turbo block, I decide= d the simplicity of using two tubes (combining primary and secondary) outwei= ghed any disadvantage - I may prove myself wrong about that conclusion, but=20= nothing ventured - nothing gained.

Ed Anderson



A 12A race engine with a big bridge port and very short intake runners, for=20= best power at 9,400 RPM still makes 173.3 HP at 6,500 RPM. The stock intake=20= manifold gasket is used with just a small increase in the center port openin= gs.
The bridge ports make for way too much duration at 6,500 and the runners are= too small for really good power above 9,600.

With a 13B it seems to me that this could be done with not as near as much e= ffort as is being expended here. There is a plenum below the carb that combi= nes the two runners. Adjusting the plenum volume changes the torque peak. I=20= think the runner length is from the plenum to the block face.
There is little volume involved, and not much of a change is possible withou= t shortening the runners.

So, the two into four runner idea should work fine. The effect may be even m= ore pronounced than the four runner option.

Lynn E. Hanover  --part1_19f.1c638790.2cd3e44f_boundary--