When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I was trying w/m into the APV runners only . Thought It might do some majic as there is no fuel injected into them and maybe that was an issue at high power ...... . It didn't do anything special so I gave up on it.
If you are referring to my 'ceiling' theory ....then yes of course it's still a theory . That test was never trying to prove or disprove it so not sure why you would say that .....
I think you read too much negativity into my intent. No, the old Team is not back.
I would have liked to have seen you try is all. Of course that’s easy to say when it’s someone else’s engine.
I have to say I'm pretty sick of pulling and refitting engines .
My current thinking is that , to make more power than what it made previously , there are still a few tricks I can employ but ultimately, I need to improve the hp output per gram of air .
Increasing the grams/s (aka , upping the boost) with better cooling/octane may seem like the logical thing to do but IMO, once you pass the mass flow ceiling of the engine , anything you do is just fighting a forest fire with a garden hose.
Is it possible you were injecting too close to the intake ports such that the w/m did not have time to vaporize? I'm assuming you tapped into the intake manifold in order to run it to only the APV runners. Perhaps injecting prior to the throttle body might be more effective.
Though as Team said, it's easy for me to comment as it's not my motor being put at risk.
Is it possible you were injecting too close to the intake ports such that the w/m did not have time to vaporize? I'm assuming you tapped into the intake manifold in order to run it to only the APV runners. Perhaps injecting prior to the throttle body might be more effective.
Though as Team said, it's easy for me to comment as it's not my motor being put at risk.
Tried that as well just for good measure..................... in various nozzle sizes.
Only because people like yourself have so overly misused it. They list a bunch of SJW crap on there now too. Dictionaries are only cultural extensions of what’s trending and no longer the definitive source on what’s actually correct or not. The entire education system is fubar now for the same reason.
No worries, I took it as such. And my attempt at the same could have been better executed. Probably why my day job is designing jet engines and not writing comedy.
In other unrelated news :
Having another shot at this IC design as I wasn't happy with the temp rise I'm seeing. This core has higher fin density and will have a baffle in the bottom tank. I cut the end tanks off the old IC and am getting them welded to a new core.
Old core internal : 9 fins/inch 10mm long offset fins
New core internal : 11 fins/inch 5mm long offset fins
Also cut the tanks so the taper is more ...like the Treadstone design.
You might reconsider revising the 90* elbow positioned more towards the outer corner and angled some toward the far end rather than having it straight in like that.
That's the outlet not the intlet . There really isn't any other option for it . But I am fitting a baffle on the inlet tank in case the end passages are getting too much flow due to easy run into the outlet elbow.
I didn’t state it was either inlet or outlet and it really doesn’t matter. It’s biased against where the majority of flow is either going to or coming from. Which is likely decreasing efficiency and increasing dP.
I didn’t state it was either inlet or outlet and it really doesn’t matter. It’s biased against where the majority of flow is either going to or coming from. Which is likely decreasing efficiency and increasing dP.
dP was undetectable with the old core so I'm not too worried about that aspect plus am hoping the baffle will resolve possible flow disparities .
I might be overthinking it, but it’s positioned at a sharp perpendicular angle to where the majority of the flow from the far end is coming from. A baffle will help.
Not sure if you saw previous pages where I was testing the other core .... but the insertion of a baffle did help with temp rise to the tune of approx. 2deg C . I still wasn't happy with the overall temp rise though , hence the mk11 version.
I think that intercooler end tank design is not ideal according to Garrett.
Here's what Garrett recommends.
Another important factor in selecting the correct intercooler is the end tank design. Proper manifold shape is critical in both minimizing charge air pressure drop and providing uniform flow distribution. Good manifold shapes minimize losses and provide fairly even flow distribution. The over-the-top design can starve the top tubes however. The side entry is ideal for both pressure drop and flow distribution, but it is usually not possible due to vehicle space limitations.
I think that intercooler end tank design is not ideal according to Garrett. r
Thanks for that Psycofox . I'm kinda stuck with the design I have now so it's a case of making it the best I can with that layout, I already know it is just fine for pressure drop as I saw zero pressure drop with the mk1 version. Total flow is well under the recommended max. for 3" tube which must help, plus the baffle should ensure flow distribution is pretty good.
I believe the less than ideal efficiency I saw with the mk1 was more to do with the core design, more specifically the internal fin density. My Mk1 version,according to the Treadstone pdf I posted earlier, had a medium density core. That isn't the best design for a vertical IC when the internal channels are very short. This new core is a high density core which will be more restrictive but should provide the balance between pD and efficiency that I'm looking for.
The funny part about that is .................... I fixed that a couple of years ago and now it actually spools up faster than any turbo this size ever seen on a Renesis . And that even includes the top mount EFRs that you were so adamant would be superior in every way!
Now Brettus, what EFR Renesis engine has there ever been where someone wasn’t going full out ‘tard on? The only one I can even recall was that stupid drifter S2 car with a huge 9180. You know if someone got serious with either a 7670 or 8374 that isn’t going to hold up. That’s not to knock either you or your efforts. Let’s face it, you and Slash are about the only two to stick with the Renesis turbo long term. That’s a fairly small puddle to be calling yourself the biggest fish in.
if you have zero dP through the IC then that’s a lot of volume to expand in and then rebuild boost back up, which is going to impact response, but the comment was made in jest, not criticism.
Now Brettus, what EFR Renesis engine has there ever been where someone wasn’t going full out ‘tard on? The only one I can even recall was that stupid drifter S2 car with a huge 9180. You know if someone got serious with either a 7670 or 8374 that isn’t going to hold up. That’s not to knock either you or your efforts. Let’s face it, you and Slash are about the only two to stick with the Renesis turbo long term. That’s a fairly small puddle to be calling yourself the biggest fish in.
if you have zero dP through the IC then that’s a lot of volume to expand in and then rebuild boost back up, which is going to impact response, but the comment was made in jest, not criticism.
There are plenty out there .... you just aren't into it so you don't see them . The s2 was a 9174 (not 9180) with spoolup about 1000-1200 later than mine ....estimate. 8374 should do better , but by 1000 rpm ? 7670 might do it .
I take your point re the IC and with any luck the mk2 IC will improve things. And I did see it as a joke ...meant to stir me up ... It worked lol!
05-31-2019, 10:34 PM
. The s2 was a 9174 (not 9180) with spoolup about 1000-1200 later than mine ....estimate. 8374 should do better , but by 1000 rpm ? 7670 might do it .