Cyclocharger is being tested on 328GTS

Herez the result of the "Tornado"
http://autorepair.about.com/cs/productreviews/a/aafpr052002.htm

 

Outrageous 31% mileage gain claim....I bet those fuel line magnets give 40% more power...ugh.
http://www.turbonator.com/index.html?id=overtureturbonatorto

 

No Doubt, reducing intake "restriction" has diminishing rewards if the motor can pump only so many cfms. You don't need max flow unless you are redlining it. Even then probably getting enuff air. Check this overcarbeuration exercise. Also, an analogy would be insulation. There is a critical thickness that is most efficient. More insulation added actually reduces efficiency.
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/60638/

 

Very true about diminishing rewards, but flow resistance is drag by another name, and reducing drag is typically a very good thing (to a point).

At wide open throttle, the flow resistance of a center-hinged butterfly valve will often reduce both air intake speed as well as volume. This is why race engines run with blade/shutter/flat throttles that move all feasible restrictions out of the air intake path.

Of course, you can take things too far. A throttle body that is too big for an engine will hurt performance because air intake speed will likewise go down after a certain point. But a throttle body that is too large is inefficient in its own right...it shouldn't be there.

You want just the right size, and you want it to have the least possible amount of flow restrictions.

Past that you need to do more than just pull on the air with the piston/valve opening cycles (e.g. push it in with a supercharger).

 

I think Ferrari engineers designed the cross sectional area with due consideration of piping losses and the slim side view of the valve. They determined itz proper size for displacement and redline. Maybe thatz why when they bumped the redline from 7200 to 7800 they modified the plenum.

 

If you forget the useless 5th valve on the 355, the 355 engine is hardly different from the 348. The 1995 355 engine even uses the same Motronic 2.7 and dual MAFs as the 348.

But what Ferrari did change was to go from 2 throttle bodies to 8 throttle bodies on the 355. Now you've got 370hp on a normal 355 compared to 320 or 312 on the normal 348's.

Likewise, if you look at what Ferrari did with the 348 Competizione or what Andy Hls did with his 8 throttle body (Jenvey's) 348 conversion, you're talking anywhere from 350hp up to 550hp for a swath of 348's (slightly revised fuel mapping, of course).

No turbos. No cam profile changes (though cam timing was slightly different, but not significant here).

Same engines.

Wildly improved horsepower numbers.

 

I reckon that HotRod article sailed over yer head. Alotta carbs alone (all the fuel and air 2 engines need) don't magically increase HP w/o more displacement, more cam, more RPM or higher compression. Lets agree to disagree.

 

[QUOTE



It's nothing about taking the heat. It's about not being an A- hole. It's not what you say it's the way you say it. why can't you simply be constructive, not destructive. I think it's quite funny how people on the internet become tough guys. Simply no reason to be abrasive on an open discussion.[/QUOTE]



Totaly agree with you. This happens all to often on F.chat. Started reading this thread and then it did not take long for the attacks to begin. Same old, same old

 

Except, the first picture is a 348 spider engine with 312 hp and 2 throttle bodies. The second picture is a 348 TB engine with 8 Jenvey throttle bodies and 415 hp.

Same displacement. Same cams. Same rpms. Same compression.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The best I can tell, you guys are both right. Restrictions in the intake track are bad. To make HP, you need to get the air into the cylinders, and restrictions cause the air to slow down and expand. The 355 straightened out the flow path and put a nice taper. The taper is critical because although it is a very slight flow restriction, it causes the air to accelerate. The higher the velocity, the faster it can fill the cylinder (so it works to higher rpm), and the more compression will occur when you stop the flow in the cylinder. I’ve seen good street engines hit volumetric efficiencies of about 125% and race engines over 135%, so they are putting 1.25-1.35 liters of air into the engine per 1 liter of displacement. It’s all bout getting the combinations right.

 

Sorry my fourth chardonnay couldnt help myself, but 16 O2 sensors on a V8 I think you mean 8.then a computer to scan each individual cylinder/burn/air fuel ratio/a lot could go wrong there.(unless you are running a high performance /stressed ,bored out blown 700 hp engine where winding down the side window could cause it to lean out and --- itself.I like what you have done but to be honest there are engine technologies out there now where even camshafts have been museumed.Still like it just refine it.Head design/intake ports/variable manifold lengths thats an area we cant alter easily/do we need to.Power is related to heat .more power more heat.gearbox stressed etc.How about mounting a propellor in there/with an a/c pipe connected to an intercooling device.Dont go there
PS If it wasnt for people like you trying to do something different I wouldnt be talking to you now.Technology----I I I I RE RE RE member the dayys. look at it from another angle and dont give up.goodluck Tony

 

Dyno testing an engine, which is a very complex system, can give an inventor false hope simply because there are too many variables that can alter the recorded output (e.g. ambient air temperature, humidity level, quality of fuel, smog level at time of tests, pollen level, barometric pressure at time of tests, lubrication of dyno machine itself, engine temperature, voltage level to dyno - the power company isn't always precise, etc., etc., etc...).

What you have to first do is show a repeatable test in the lab that others can replicate based merely on your verbal instructions...which in your case is going to mean setting up your throttle body flow bench and comparing your flow to a non-modified throttle body.

You should be able to show the same results, day after day, test after test.

You should then be able to send your tb and a stock tb to anyone in any other state, who should then be able to get your flow results on **their** flow bench set up per your instructions.

Once you are to that level, then people can't criticize your performance theory.

You could then move to the application level.

But you are trying to skip steps, covering ground that countless others have tread (i.e. claims for various air disturbing tricks to improve performance).

This means that you are going to encounter skepticism for skipping your flow bench tests as well as normal skepticism for any new inovation...plus additional skepticism for making claims that when made by other past inventors turned out false.

That means that you are ignoring the only two out of the three levels of skepticism that will be thrown your way for which you have any control (i.e. you *can* do a flow bench test and you shouldn't be claiming that you can eliminate catylitic converters with a new throttle body).

You are sliding down the path for failure that is outlined in the E Myth...a book written so that inventors don't duplicate the mistakes that broke past inventors.

Cut out the wild claims.

Do the flow bench tests.

Encourage others to replicate your flow tests.

 

i agree 100% with no doubt here. i have to run a number of baseline dyno runs just to geta starting point for the FI project. then after doing the fab work and getting it all installed i have to run more dyno tests and possibly calibrate the CIS to make sure everything runs right. then after that i have to record all of it and re-do the same on another 'test' subject who will go thru the same steps as outlined by my first runs. if they match great we passed stage 1 if not, then back to the drawing board.

so as we can see this isn't fast as we'd all like but at the same time i don't want to miss something that'll cause problems later. i'm going for reliability and repeatability, then it'll be ready for market.

it may not seem like but we are trying to help, really we are.

 

if your split plate looked like a ying/yang symbol then yes it would be forced to revolve around. the staight cut however allows air to tumble past the lower vane. the other concern is the sphere shape, it stops just past the vanes and becomes a cylinder again. there is no transition, without the transition it'll build pressure behind the throttle before being pushed out. set up a simple clear tube test with a pump and circulate water thru the throttle then introduce food coloring to see exactly what's going on. little cost and results that you can use.

 

SMG2,

You are on the right track.... A venturi is the best method of controlling air flow in an open-subsonic system.
Hitachi had some carbs in the 70’s that sported the variable venture design, stolen from the 60’s Strombergs,,, , those Brits always had the best ideas,,,,,, perfected by the Japanese.

(Well, , , i had better go hide under a rock again before JR and DRAIN, find me posting. I don’t want to get banned.) (wink)

 

One glaring issue I found was the dyno charts: You perform a baseline then perform several FI adjustments then put on the new throttle body and run a dyno! Wrong wrong wrong! Have a perfectly running engine with FI fixed using the stock throttle body. Dyno the car. Keeping the car on the dyno, swap out throttle bodys. Dyno the car. NOW you have a more accurate dyno comparison

Also, the swirling is great right after the throttle body but -- unless the car is running ITB (individual throttle bodys) that direct their intake charge directly into the intake valve -- all is lost in the majority of vehicles! Look at the current set up...after the throttle body, the air enters an air box (air plenum) where upon is becomes divided at 90-degrees to get pulled into an intake runner. To heck with the focus on interfering butterfly vanes and hinges! Even an iris throttle body is a moot arguement by this point. I look at my 1995 Jetta and the air turns 90-degrees to enter the intake plenum whereupon it is split into one of four intake runners that move the air 180-degrees into the combustion chamber which is roughly (I believe) another 90-degrees.

I'm not an engineer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn once