home register FAQ memberlist calendar

Go Back   Turbobricks Forums > Mechanical > performance & modifications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-21-2011, 03:07 PM   #26
Captain Bondo
Exklusiv Zubehör Klub
 
Captain Bondo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by badvlvo View Post
So do we have flow numbers to support this claim?

I would like to see the differences worked out with real numbers and data, so far I am only seeing words.

No, you can't just blindly look at the flow numbers. It's not that simple.

This is an issue of the "ratio" of port volume to port flow. That's not quite the right wording, but the point is that in order for the port flow "numbers" you want so desperately to actually count for something, the engine needs to be capable of actually demanding the flow rate.

"Engine VE" is really interchangeable with the term "% cylinder fill". You need gas speed AND low inlet pressure drop in order to maximize VE. The reduced pressure drop associated with the higher flow of the 531 will only result in a net gain when the engine as a system breathes well enough to take advantage of it. Otherwise all you have is reduced gas speed which actually makes VE worse. Even though the port "flows" more.

Having a higher potential peak airflow means nothing if you don't have the cam lift and other associated equipment necessary to actually make that airflow happen in the real world.
__________________


-Kenny
(I crushed a 240 with some stuff done to it. Honest.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan View Post
Turbobricks isn't a car forum any more. Its a forum for lame kids.
Captain Bondo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 03:07 PM   #27
Stereophile33
Board Member
 
Stereophile33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by badvlvo View Post
So do we have flow numbers to support this claim?

I would like to see the differences worked out with real numbers and data, so far I am only seeing words.
We'll I've posted up flow data plenty before. I'll see if I can find the graphs.
Would valve curtain area ratio's be sufficient or would you like me to overlay some dyno data?
I have NA complete and turbo is nearly done.

Eric, you know this stuff, so if a B230 NA race motor your goal is 175 bhp, in our situation you need 175 cfm for a given lift, lets assume 12mm. The 531 flows 175 at 12mm of lift but the port is so big that velocity is slowish. With a nice 530 you can see 175cfm at 12mm of lift and still have nice velocity to maximize cylinder filling.

As I started writing this I realized that I was up WAY tooo late last night. I graph some graphs from the engine dyno and some more data once I've slept a bit more.
__________________
in quasi-retirement...
Stereophile33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 03:28 PM   #28
str8krewzn
Board Member
 
str8krewzn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maryland
Default

I think your trying to say think of it as two hoses one smaller then the other
and the same amount of water flowing threw it, the smaller hose will have water coming out faster then the larger one unless the larger one had more water or higher pressure of water goin threw it?


Please correct if im off
__________________
88 740:438WHP @20psi 95b230ft,Wiseco pistons,H-beam rods 9.1cr ,Minor ported 531 head with 38/47 SS valves,Rsi Stg3 cam,Rsi Adj Cam,Rsi solid mounts, Double Valve Springs ,BW S262 turbo,Nathaninwa custom header & Nathanwa Custom Intake Manifold,3.5inch exhaust turbo back,t-5 trans with BNE Adapter plate/shifter extender,stg 5 spec unsprung clutch.
01 IS300: Stock
99 CBR600 F4:(hit by a drunk driver)
02 CBR954rr :Akra Bolt On

Last edited by str8krewzn; 03-21-2011 at 03:41 PM..
str8krewzn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 03:54 PM   #29
badvlvo
Bad for Babies
 
badvlvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Default

Jonathan and Kenny-
I understand how these things all work together, was looking for more specific flow data, cfm & velocity @ specific valve lift to compare. I also know how to properly compare the stats from one head to another for proper application. I didn't just crawl out from under some troll rock and into this thread, I have a few different heads to choose from and I would like to properly be able to compare them to fit the best to my application.

Not looking at numbers blindly, you have to test at various lift with heads that are what will actually be used in the application (valve size, porting the same) to get a picture of what is happening. There's enough to this that I don't feel the need to get into a long, drawn out discussion, I can look at flowbench data with a 530 and 531 at various valve lift and see what it's doing, I have looked at enough of them by now.

If you can find the data I would like to see it. If it's incomplete, what will it take to get a bench test on a stock 530, ported 530, 531 and ported 531 to get some real data? The manifolds will make a difference, but not all of us have that option. I have to keep my car looking stock under the hood for smog and I don't plan on swapping parts every time smog testing is due.
__________________
RIP BADVLVO 3/1/1980-10/10/2015
Died at age 35

93 245 m47 300k miles, one owner, zero compression
badvlvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 04:21 PM   #30
MrBill
fige=500Dollar Mistake
 
MrBill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southern Maryland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by towerymt View Post
Was going to pick up a used KG2T to try out. Also looking at the RSI stg 3 and probably would replace the valve springs at the same time.

Thoughts? Goal is still broad power and quick response. I'll probably change the intake first and go back on the dyno.
Wait for me to put the STG3 and springs on. If it's too much for the f+t, I'll make you a good deal.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by grnmachine02 View Post
Someone say crazy rays?
1978 244dl - Down for paint/16vt
93 245 - Kaplhenke Shortened coilovers with adjustable Koni Reds, adjustable rear spring perches with revalved bilstein S-10 shocks. Turbo 2.5 motor in the works.
10 v50 - Unobtainium T5 R-Design AWD M66
MrBill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 05:16 PM   #31
Canuckvolvo
Drunk as ****
 
Canuckvolvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Beautiful BC
Default

There are two "stock" intake manifold choices...
__________________
Currently Volvo-less
Canuckvolvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 05:19 PM   #32
740atl
educator monkey
 
740atl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: south jersey
Default

So the b21f intake manifold is a much better choice than the b230 in terms of flow?
740atl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 05:23 PM   #33
olov
doing something stupid
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: warrenton, nc 27589
Default

i was told the tb was the biggest problem with stock manifolds
__________________
Quote:
opinions are like ***holes, i have one, and they're censored on tb
olov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 05:25 PM   #34
Captain Bondo
Exklusiv Zubehör Klub
 
Captain Bondo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by olov View Post
i was told the tb was the biggest problem with stock manifolds
By who, based on what?

I'd rather have a stock TB and a better manifold than a big TB on a stock B230 style manifold any day of the week.
Captain Bondo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 05:28 PM   #35
olov
doing something stupid
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: warrenton, nc 27589
Default

kenny was saying that the stock intake picked up a lot of flow just by removing the tb.

honestly i don't like either(tb or stock intakes), just saying that i doubt the gains from a b21f intake over a b230 will be much if they're both using the stock tb
olov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 07:10 PM   #36
Stereophile33
Board Member
 
Stereophile33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by badvlvo View Post
Jonathan and Kenny-
I understand how these things all work together, was looking for more specific flow data, cfm & velocity @ specific valve lift to compare. I also know how to properly compare the stats from one head to another for proper application. I didn't just crawl out from under some troll rock and into this thread, I have a few different heads to choose from and I would like to properly be able to compare them to fit the best to my application.

Not looking at numbers blindly, you have to test at various lift with heads that are what will actually be used in the application (valve size, porting the same) to get a picture of what is happening. There's enough to this that I don't feel the need to get into a long, drawn out discussion, I can look at flowbench data with a 530 and 531 at various valve lift and see what it's doing, I have looked at enough of them by now.

If you can find the data I would like to see it. If it's incomplete, what will it take to get a bench test on a stock 530, ported 530, 531 and ported 531 to get some real data? The manifolds will make a difference, but not all of us have that option. I have to keep my car looking stock under the hood for smog and I don't plan on swapping parts every time smog testing is due.
Eric,
I know you are one of the more knowledgible folks around here on the generalities of this stuff along with the specifics of it in some other apps. So I was fearful my response would come off wrong....part of my sleep deprivation I spose. If an offense was taken I offer my apologies.

I do have plenty of data, I was just curious what you were looking for. Flow sheets with velocity plots is what I have, as well as some dyno data utilizing different intakes.

To get the most from a B230 manifold it needs to be cut apart and ported. Truly the B21F manifold with injector bungs welded in and yoshi fabs 90* elbow with 960 tb is the way to go for a stock looking car.

Eric if that info is what you are looking for char wise I will work to get it posted up here for folks to see.
Stereophile33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 07:17 PM   #37
Stereophile33
Board Member
 
Stereophile33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Default

wow this whole tb thing being slow made a triple post...ugg sorry.

Last edited by Stereophile33; 03-22-2011 at 12:54 PM..
Stereophile33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2011, 07:24 PM   #38
Stereophile33
Board Member
 
Stereophile33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Default

and the third one..

Last edited by Stereophile33; 03-22-2011 at 12:55 PM..
Stereophile33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2011, 11:31 AM   #39
blkaplan
50 shades of beige
 
blkaplan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Default

Its starting to look like a triple post.
__________________
www.BEIGEPOWER.com
Kaplhenke Racing Facebook
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkKratoz View Post
The only safe bet is Ben.©
blkaplan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2011, 12:15 PM   #40
Canuckvolvo
Drunk as ****
 
Canuckvolvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Beautiful BC
Default

Or a 405 head with modified fuel rail to fit injectors in the k-jet ports
Canuckvolvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2011, 07:03 PM   #41
klr142
Turbo, what?
 
klr142's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: OR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereophile33 View Post
We've been doing alot of head stuff and for turbo and NA folks using camshafts under 12.5mm of lift and for that matter stock unported intake manifolds, the 531/405 head is a waste of your time as it won't make more power, especially under the curve.
More info on NA cars and other camshafts available that won't throw shims and can be used for 100k+ miles without wearing out anything?

Seriously though, I need a package. This partial package obviously isn't working. The H cam would be good with this header(or none!) in a stock car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flocomotion View Post
Is that a bone stock 531?

What about a 531 with minor exhaust porting and 38mm valves?
The exhaust sides of the two heads are basically the same... We're talking about the differences in flow through the intake side. The 530 is able to keep up some good velocity for good cylinder filling/efficiency below 12.5mm of lift whereas the 531/405 heads have a large port that will not be as efficient/powerful at lower levels of lift. You can see better than stock 531/405 flow numbers with a professionally(Erland Cox, etc.) ported 530 head that still uses stock sized valves.

Flow numbers of one component don't tell all. Hell, my car with a basically stock head would likely make almost the same power it does now after bigger valves and port work(2018 update: crappy port work and blending of the larger valves). I hope to be getting rid of the stock intake manifold soon to see if that limitation will go away and provide decent gains. Then I'll have to look at getting a larger exhaust manifold and larger cam, again. At that point though, decent power should be achieved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereophile33 View Post
I'd rather folks have a complete package of an engine designed to all work together
That actually makes power and is somewhat efficient...

Last edited by klr142; 11-06-2019 at 02:23 PM..
klr142 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2011, 10:32 AM   #42
badvlvo
Bad for Babies
 
badvlvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Default

Jonathan- I am not disagreeing with what is being said here, I was just looking for numbers so it could be illustrated as to where the point is that the 531 is superior. When there is flow data it can easily be determined at which point one or the other is superior. Not talking just at one specific lift of camshaft, there are other factors involved here. It's more about matching components, and flowbench data is much better than opinions.

Maybe I am a little worn out too, working too hard lately at a job that doesn't pay enough.

I would like to see what you have, being able to have real data along with personal experience and the expeience of others will make it easier to select the right head, porting, valves, cam, intake. You know, make a MATCHED package rather than cobbling parts together in hopes of big HP.



But I guess some would just rather talk to some of us like we are retards, I'm CERTAIN that this flow data isn't worth anything at all and I have no idea what to do with it. BUt I guess we all know who has his tit in a vice over this.

Posted via Mobile Device

Last edited by badvlvo; 03-23-2011 at 10:44 AM..
badvlvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2011, 12:23 PM   #43
Stereophile33
Board Member
 
Stereophile33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Default

Eric, its ok.

I'm trying to get 3 cars to the dyno today/tomorrow. I'm headed to LA on friday for the weekend, I will compile all the data I have and post over the weekend.
Stereophile33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2011, 12:52 PM   #44
badvlvo
Bad for Babies
 
badvlvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Default

Sounds good. It will be nice to have that information readily available as there is so much misinformation on this forum combined with opinions that are delivered in a less than stellar fashion in regards to this topic.

I like what you are doing with the 530's, might have to go that route once I am ref'd as 2.2 turbo, but I also have a nice 405, so it depends on the real data for my decision. Either way I am spending the same money, just starting with a different casting.
badvlvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2011, 12:54 PM   #45
Stereophile33
Board Member
 
Stereophile33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Default

I actually think a 405 can be a great head. The intake just requires some decent porting and a good cam to take advantage of it. So hold on to it for sure.

BTW Eric is your car going to be a Auto-x car or what are your plans.
J
Stereophile33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2011, 02:46 PM   #46
towerymt
the real Towery
 
towerymt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: VA, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by badvlvo View Post
I like what you are doing with the 530's, might have to go that route once I am ref'd as 2.2 turbo, but I also have a nice 405...
n/a or turbo? BCP or SCP 405? I'd rather a 530 than BCP 405...unless it's n/a, then it won't really matter.
towerymt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2011, 02:54 PM   #47
BDKR
Section 9
 
BDKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Horizons Cave
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereophile33 View Post
It does, which is why the 531 naturally flows more. But more flow at a slower velocity is not necessarily a good thing.
So in other words, the advantage of the improved short side radius makes itself known as the flow increases?

Reworded again, we are seeing boundary layer separation (or just more of it) on 530's as the flow goes up?

I know you are busy so answer whenever you get a chance.
__________________
Quote:
For all you Dijkstra fanboys:

Knuth also cites a letter sent to him by Dijkstra, in which the latter adds some nuance to this earlier statements: "Please don't fall into the trap of believing that I am terribly dogmatical about [the go to statement]. I have the uncomfortable feeling that others are making a religion out of it, as if the conceptual problems of programming could be solved by a single trick, by a simple form of coding discipline!"
BDKR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2011, 03:16 PM   #48
badvlvo
Bad for Babies
 
badvlvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by towerymt View Post
n/a or turbo? BCP or SCP 405? I'd rather a 530 than BCP 405...unless it's n/a, then it won't really matter.
Turbo is the current build. I have 2 405's, one is BCP stock, the other WAS BCP, now it's got inserts and drilled for proper coolant flow. I have choices.

I'm building 2 motors right now, one for the autocross car, the other for the DD. For the DD I am just freshening a B230FT and dropping it in with a new cam, 90+, turbo and some other minor goodness. I just want a nice torque motor. The 244 is getting head work, big cam, intake mods and a heavily ported 90+ with super 60, 3" dp.

So there's 2 totally different applications.
badvlvo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2011, 06:59 PM   #49
rogerthechorister
Board Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Default Cylinder filling

My fluid flow theory is pretty rusty - finished engineering degree 1970 - but what is said does not look right simply on mass flow. Up the pipe size - more mass. Simple as that. The place velocity counts (changing from simply mass to fuel in air) is to reduce deposit on manifold/port walls and to ensure that the charge enters the cylinder well mixed.

The world may have changed since the 60s and 70s but surely the simple issue here is to minimise flow restrictions on the intake side which is going to mean the 531 is better than the 530 in all situations - unless you can demonstrate that increased turbulence generally or at the edges of the stream produce an advantage.
rogerthechorister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2011, 07:29 PM   #50
GT_Paul
Elephant in the room
 
GT_Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Default

?
__________________
79 242 GT+T
GT_Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.