Begi Intake Manifold
11-03-2008, 05:13 PM
#101
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,881
Total Cats: 2
You might want to check out Magnus Motorsports. They make some awesome stuff, but nothing for our application. If I was designing a manifold, it's a place I would go to get a few ideas that are proven using software and then confirmed on the dyno.
Reply
0
0
11-04-2008, 11:56 AM
#110
https://www.miataturbo.net/forum/t27570/
Reply
0
0
11-04-2008, 12:11 PM
#112
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chesterfield, NJ
Posts: 6,897
Total Cats: 399
I do not currently have a CFD add in for solidworks. Does anyone know what happens if, instead of protruding stacks into the plentium, you just have a nice radius'ed flush mounted primaries?
Reply
0
0
11-04-2008, 12:13 PM
#113
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
What about a center inlet instead of end inlet? Put a 90 ontop of the plenum and put the TB facing forward?
My logic says that might even out the flow across the board..
My logic says that might even out the flow across the board..
Reply
0
0
11-04-2008, 01:31 PM
#115
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,498
Total Cats: 4,080
Originally Posted by Justin Olson
I agree that ideally it would be nice to have the stacks raised from the floor to get them out of the boundary layer.
From what I had come across in my thermal/fluids coursework, everything to me suggested that flush velocity stacks would be the best way to go (from a flow standpoint). Since everybody had always been using raised stacks, I spent a bit of time doing some research and picking the brains of people who knew their stuff (other thermodynamic engineers with more experience). The only thing I really found suggesting a raised velocity stack was when the stack inlet radius was toroidal (meaning, not a constant radius). For a constant radius inlet, the stack was suggested to be flush against the floor. This was in an old ASME publication that a friend dug up for me. I've seen this topic touched on in fluids textbooks in the head/minor loss sections and usually it's just a chart showing flow loss 'K' coefficients for different entrances... and I've come across some text books that lead me to different conclusions about reentrant inlets.
On another note, what sort of flow conditions are you using for Cosmos?
Reply
0
0
11-04-2008, 04:59 PM
#117
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
Well several intake manifolds come to mind directly, while others are setup differently..
My 2.3 Turbo manifold was a 2 part unit where the Plenum and the Runners were separated in two different castings. Common practice was to enlarge the lower manifold significantly and open up the upper plenum / rotate for ease of front mount location.
Old school SBC Carb manifolds and even early injection manifolds had a central inlet with a single or multiple planes.
Late model 5.0 Fords had a central inlet with a large plenum and long runners, along with the later model 4.6 liters.
My 2.3 Turbo manifold was a 2 part unit where the Plenum and the Runners were separated in two different castings. Common practice was to enlarge the lower manifold significantly and open up the upper plenum / rotate for ease of front mount location.
Old school SBC Carb manifolds and even early injection manifolds had a central inlet with a single or multiple planes.
Late model 5.0 Fords had a central inlet with a large plenum and long runners, along with the later model 4.6 liters.
Reply
0
0
