ZeppoJeff Posted December 18, 2015 Author Share Posted December 18, 2015 So after having a meeting with the garage we have thrown some ideas about and we going to continue with the intake kit. Seems like he has mentioned some stuff I've not seen done so be interesting. Aswell as the intake kit rid going to be looking at the plenum itself with manufacturing plenum spacers at an affordable price and designing a whole new plenum as it seems that's where most of the problem is. Also I was telling him the price I paid for my rare jdm harness cover and is possibly planning on making a cheaper alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay M1988 Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Subscribed mate, good luck with the venture 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliveBoy Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 i'm sure many of you have heard how NASA spent hundreds of thousands on developing a pen that could be used in space due to its lack of gravity. The Russians just took pencils. Sometimes, a simpler option is just as, if not more effective. Maybe, just maybe, this small company might come up trumps. Nothing ventured nothing gained. If Nissan spent stupid money developing the air intake on the zed, i wish they had done the same with their rather restrictive exhaust system and that tossing dip stick too. But they didn't, which is why you can get something better/less restrictive aftermarket. Yes magic does cost money but perhaps it's not so out of reach if Nissan have done most of the work. False. You can't use your average pencil in a spacecraft as graphite conducts electricity and shatters under normal use (pencil lead breaking) when your pencil lead breaks fine graphite dust is released which could cause hell floating around getting into fine electrics. The truth of the story is far better, special "space pencils" were used in the 50's which were $125 each or something crazy, but in the end both sides used the Fisher Space Pen which neither side paid anything to develop. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) LOL fair play maybe an intake/box setup like the Spoon/Mugen ones? however moving our MAF further away from filter, for a more accurate reading........ Edited December 18, 2015 by davey_83 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Matching the top and bottom half of the plenums and machining the lips off the inlet pipework would be a good start Id have thought ........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeppoJeff Posted December 18, 2015 Author Share Posted December 18, 2015 LOL fair play maybe an intake/box setup like the Spoon/Mugen ones? however moving our MAF further away from filter, for a more accurate reading........ It's looking like it going to be an intake box with a single pipe straight to the throttle body. I believe everything is going to be getting coated to keep the cold air actually cold and insulating the maf to prevent false reading. The machinist making the solid parts has be working with how air flows for years and years and is looking at the best ways of forcing the air into the filter and where's it's supposed to be going. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeppoJeff Posted December 18, 2015 Author Share Posted December 18, 2015 Matching the top and bottom half of the plenums and machining the lips off the inlet pipework would be a good start Id have thought ........ We have been speaking about just getting rid of the plenum completely and designing a whole new part. Similar to the kinetic system with the price tag that follows it. The garage is really interested in this and is going to be doing plenty research to see what's out there and best. But he's says himself that parts are silly because it's got a name on it and he wants to make parts that are fair and actually work for the purpose they were built Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docwra Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Zurawski have done some very interesting things with race style tube inlet manifolds with equal length runners, might be an interesting one to look into? There was also an article kicking about a week or two ago about taking the top off the plenum entirely - upside is much more power, downside is you need ITBs to harness it, this could be a good starting point. Search for the links in the "Do Nismo headers make a difference" thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky-Ricky Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 I agree, redesigning the plenum/intake is a good place to start, although the Kinetics is a complete redesign it doesn't seem to help with N/A power from all I have heard, but I think its more aimed at FI. As for the intake, coating it to insulate will only help with idle heat soak, as once any appreciative airflow is present IE on the move, boundary layer effect takes over and the moving air flow inside any pipe work is not affected by heat soak, also that's what the IAT compensation is there for, A simple pipe from MAF to throttle body is basically a pop charger, changing pipe length between MAF and throttle body and MAF and filter will need to be researched very carefully, I have seen some very odd results form moving these positions, be interested to see what they come up with though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-G- Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 LOL fair play maybe an intake/box setup like the Spoon/Mugen ones? however moving our MAF further away from filter, for a more accurate reading........ It's looking like it going to be an intake box with a single pipe straight to the throttle body. I believe everything is going to be getting coated to keep the cold air actually cold and insulating the maf to prevent false reading. The machinist making the solid parts has be working with how air flows for years and years and is looking at the best ways of forcing the air into the filter and where's it's supposed to be going. Part of my day-job is the application of Bernoulli equations to the physical properties of hydrocarbon gases in order to accurately measure them. I've always pondered whether increasing air-flow velocity by creating a "vena contracta" immediately upstream of the plenum (with an in-line cone or restriction orifice) would result in increased performance. I'm sure he has access to fluid-mechanics calculation software but if not, let me know & I'll see what I can find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky-Ricky Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Wouldn't that just increase velocity rather than total airflow? which is what you need to increase performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-G- Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Wouldn't that just increase velocity rather than total airflow? which is what you need to increase performance. Believe it or not, the air-flow stays virtually the same due to the principle of "conservation of energy" i.e. the flow-rate is conserved while the pressure drops immediately & the fluid velocity increases. In a vacuum system like a NA engine with pressures near atmospheric its a lot trickier to derive any benefit. Probably why there's not been much success with aftermarket air-intakes.That increase in velocity gives that nice "whoosh" people crave at the cost of power. Designing a plenum that could draw in more air via that dp (venturi effect) is a possibility but not easy. They've built mixer-showers for homes using low-pressure hot water (gravity fed) in the same way. Basically, the higher pressure cold water "draws out" the hot water in sufficient quantities (and mixed to correct temperature) to give better performing showers - i.e. not dribblers but not power showers. http://www.shower-guide.com/venturi-showers.htm There's nothing to prevent the same principle being exploited in an intake / plenum. That said, you'd never be able to map it properly on a rolling-road as the car would need to be moving. Anyone got a big fan Jeff can borrow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy10v Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Believe it or not, the air-flow stays virtually the same due to the principle of "conservation of energy" i.e. the flow-rate is conserved while the pressure drops immediately & the fluid velocity increases. In a vacuum system like a NA engine with pressures near atmospheric its a lot trickier to derive any benefit. Probably why there's not been much success with aftermarket air-intakes.That increase in velocity gives that nice "whoosh" people crave at the cost of power. Designing a plenum that could draw in more air via that dp (venturi effect) is a possibility but not easy. They've built mixer-showers for homes using low-pressure hot water (gravity fed) in the same way. Basically, the higher pressure cold water "draws out" the hot water in sufficient quantities (and mixed to correct temperature) to give better performing showers - i.e. not dribblers but not power showers. http://www.shower-gu...uri-showers.htm There's nothing to prevent the same principle being exploited in an intake / plenum. That said, you'd never be able to map it properly on a rolling-road as the car would need to be moving. Anyone got a big fan Jeff can borrow? An engine is not steady flow though, Bernoulli does not describe transient. There are also fluid friction losses, you could add Poiseuille's Law, but that would still be laminar, and assume no turbulence. You can change intake runner length, and plenum volume to increase VE at certain RPM, hence some cars have intake flaps. A smaller diameter port will have a higher velocity at lower rpm, but "choke" at high rpm, a large port will flow great at high RPM, but have low velocity at low RPM, trade offs that you want matched to the rest of the engine, and its use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky-Ricky Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 (edited) Wouldn't that just increase velocity rather than total airflow? which is what you need to increase performance. Believe it or not, the air-flow stays virtually the same due to the principle of "conservation of energy" i.e. the flow-rate is conserved while the pressure drops immediately & the fluid velocity increases. In a vacuum system like a NA engine with pressures near atmospheric its a lot trickier to derive any benefit. Probably why there's not been much success with aftermarket air-intakes.That increase in velocity gives that nice "whoosh" people crave at the cost of power. Designing a plenum that could draw in more air via that dp (venturi effect) is a possibility but not easy. They've built mixer-showers for homes using low-pressure hot water (gravity fed) in the same way. Basically, the higher pressure cold water "draws out" the hot water in sufficient quantities (and mixed to correct temperature) to give better performing showers - i.e. not dribblers but not power showers. http://www.shower-gu...uri-showers.htm There's nothing to prevent the same principle being exploited in an intake / plenum. That said, you'd never be able to map it properly on a rolling-road as the car would need to be moving. Anyone got a big fan Jeff can borrow? My thinking was that if you try and increase the velocity by causing turbulence via a vortex effect, it could well upset the airflow metering of the MAF, I have seen this happen on a few engines as a result of moving the MAF position relative to the filter and throttle body. Edited December 18, 2015 by Tricky-Ricky 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey_83 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Something fashioned like this could be great........ http://m.ebay.co.uk/...6.c100408.m2460 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock_Steady Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 i'm sure many of you have heard how NASA spent hundreds of thousands on developing a pen that could be used in space due to its lack of gravity. The Russians just took pencils. Sometimes, a simpler option is just as, if not more effective. Maybe, just maybe, this small company might come up trumps. Nothing ventured nothing gained. If Nissan spent stupid money developing the air intake on the zed, i wish they had done the same with their rather restrictive exhaust system and that tossing dip stick too. But they didn't, which is why you can get something better/less restrictive aftermarket. Yes magic does cost money but perhaps it's not so out of reach if Nissan have done most of the work. False. You can't use your average pencil in a spacecraft as graphite conducts electricity and shatters under normal use (pencil lead breaking) when your pencil lead breaks fine graphite dust is released which could cause hell floating around getting into fine electrics. The truth of the story is far better, special "space pencils" were used in the 50's which were $125 each or something crazy, but in the end both sides used the Fisher Space Pen which neither side paid anything to develop. Thanks for that!! I can show this to my Russian colleague and wipe the smug grin on his face. Whenever there's a bit of banter he always chimes in with " In Russia......." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.