We had exhaust manifold/header design. How about intake manifold design?

Ma70.Ent

Supramania Contributor
Feb 26, 2006
1,871
1
0
NJ
You might be wondering why I made this topic. Well, maybe the intake manifold could be modified to suit our needs better than the stock one. The stock throttlebody is restrictive, although the ACIS design is great. Oh well, it's just something to talk about. Onto the information... here's an article I found

II. CALCULATIONS

How do we calculate and design the IM dimensions so that the stacked columns of air waves arrive at a certain rpm ?

There are 2 ways to calculate the dimensions for an IM. Using:


1. Variable length runners formulas

or

2. A Helmholtz resonator method


II A.) Variable Length Runners Formulas

From the header tech article you have learned that longer tubes create peak torque at an earlier rpm. This is true whether you are looking at air flow in terms of a fluid or in terms of a sound wave.

By choosing the length and diameter of the runners, an intake manifold can be "tuned" for optimum performance at a certain RPM range.

Longer, narrower runners favor lower RPM's because they have a lower resonant frequency, and the smaller diameter helps increase the air velocity.

Shorter, wider runners favor higher RPM's because they have a higher resonant frequency, and the larger diameter is less restrictive to air flow.

...Choosing the right length and diameter of the intake runners is a trade off between high and low RPM performance.


Some more in-depth stuff.

1. / One Formula: David Vizard's Rule for IM Runner Length

The general rule is that you should begin with a runner length of 17.8 cm for a 10,000 rpm peak torque location, from the intake opening to the plenum chamber. You add 4.3 cm to the runner length for every 1000 rpm that you want the peak torque to occur before the 10,000 rpm.

So, for instance, if peak torque should occur at 4,000 rpm the total runner length should be 17.8 cm + (6 x 4.3 cm) = 43.6 cm.

Vizard also suggests that you can calculate the ideal runner diameter by the equation :

SQRT [ (target rpm for peak torque x Displacement x VE)/ 3330 ]

SQRT = square root

VE = Volumetric Efficiency in %

Displacement in Liters


SQRT [ (5800x 1.8 L x 0.95)/3330]

= 1.73 in. or 43.8 mm (1,73 x 25.4 mm/in.) is the ideal runner diameter.


2./ Another Formula to Calculate Runner Length for a Specific Peak Torque RPM: from Steve Magnante at Hot Rod magazine


N x L = 84,000

where N represents the desired engine rpm for peak torque and L is the length in inches from the opening of the runner tube to the valve head.

II B.) Helmholtz Resonator Calculations

Remember at the start of the article I mentioned that the dimensions of 3 parts of an IM can affect where peak torque can occur? Well here is another way we can calculate estimates for our IM dimensions for the peak torque location we want.

A Helmholtz resonator is an acoustic resonance chamber (as described by our plenum above) that modifies the acoustic frequency of a sound wave like a spring oscillating with a mass attached on the end.

where f = the rpm at which you get peak torque ( the natural frequency of pressure oscillations in the acoustic chamber ) , c = the speed of sound (= 340 m/sec.) , S = runner area, L = runner length, V = displacement per cylinder

A simplified version of this is using the Englemann formula for the above which also takes into account static CR of the engine:

RPM for peak torque =

642 x c x [ SQRT (S/[L x V] ) ] x [ SQRT { (CR-1)/ (CR+1) } ]


= 218,280 x [ SQRT (S/[L x V] ) ] x [ SQRT { (CR-1)/ (CR+1) } ]


For a more detailed explanation on the application of Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von Helmholtz's acoustic resonator theory applied to intake systems, please check out:

http://enaf1.tripod.com/teche.html#helm

http://www.mecc.unipd.it/~cos/DINAMOTO/risuonatore/risuonatore.html


A Helmholtz resonator is used not only in an automotive induction sytem but also in the designing of exhausts to suppress sound and many other non-automotive designing that involves amplifying sound like in the music industry.

III. RAM INTAKE TUBE DIMENSIONS

What are the best intake tube dimensions for the IM that we have just designed for a particular peak torque rpm?


III a./ INSIDE DIAMETER (D) of a RAM INTAKE TUBE


First Method:


D in inches = SQRT [ ( Displacement x VE x Redline) / (V x 18.5) ]

Displacement = Total Displacement in Liters, VE = Volumetric Efficiency in %, V is the velocity of the air flow in the IM plenum for resonance (usually estimated at 180 ft/sec max.)


eg. SQRT [ (1.8 x 85 x 8500) / (180 x 18.5) ]

= SQRT [ (1,300,500)/ (3330) ]

= SQRT (391)

= 1.98 in.

Second Method:

Throttle Body Size is Determined by IM Plenum Size.

from the Dave Thompson of Thompson Engineering and Endyn: http://www.theoldone.com/archive/intake-manifold-design.htm

The plenum volume is critical on N/A engines, and a basic rule of thumb is: The smaller the plenum, the lower the rpm range, and bigger means higher rpm. The throttle body size and flow rate also affect the plenum size: Bigger TB, smaller plenum, small TB, larger plenum.

The best way to find out if your TB is too small for your IM plenum is to determine what the intake manifold absolute pressure (MAP) sensor is reading (in the plenum) when you are at full throttle ( or wide open throttle (WOT) ) while the car is accelerating using a datalogger. The MAP should be equal to, or close to, atmospheric pressure. If it isn't or there is a MAP drop at WOT, then your TB is still too small.

Once we have determined the optimal TB size for our IM, we can then determine the best intake inner diameter.

The ideal diameter for an intake is when the intake has 25% more cross-sectional area than the TB's bore cross-sectional area . Your TB diameter (overbored or not) dictates your intake diameter.

Remember that the area of a circle (your TB bore) is pi x radius squared and the diameter = 2 x radius. If you calculate your TB's area and then multiply it by 1.33, you will determine the intake's area. Then, use the area of the circle equation to determine the intake's radius.

Therefore, for example, with a 64mm (plate side bore) TB, the calculated "best" intake diameter is 2.8 in. ID.

III. b/ LENGTH OF RAM INTAKE TUBE

A suggested starting point for the length of a tube with peak torque at 6000 rpm is 13 in.

You add 1.7 in. for every 1000 rpm that you want to move the peak torque below 6000.

Or subtract 1.7 in. for every 1000 rpm you want to move the peak torque above 6000.


Calculator for Various Stuff:
http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/runnertorquecalc.html

Let the discussion begin!
 

gofastgeorge

Banned
Jan 24, 2008
944
0
0
Texas
There you go,
make my little brain squirm like a pail of worms........

Well, first thoughts when looking at
the 7M port area at the head/manifold junction,
I am coming up with 2.22 sq.in..
So that puts my peak torque around 6450 rpm,
if I were to make my runners the same area.

This kind of matches the AE101 ITBs that I plan to use.
And it also fits with the cams I am running.

And, what ?
Maybe in the 12" total runner length.
Minus the 4" port length, the 3" ITB length, and say 1" for inlet stacks.
This would give me a runner length of 4".

I can work with that for my set-up.
(8500 rpm read line)

Great Idea !
Glad you dug around, and brought this all together.

Let the arguing begin........
 
Last edited:

gofastgeorge

Banned
Jan 24, 2008
944
0
0
Texas
Forget my last rant on runner length,
I think a few of my worms wiggled out of the bait pail......
Total length should be 12.2" for 6500 rpm according to IIIB.

I will dig around, and find some of my old tune length formulas.
It deals with the speed of sound,
and getting the return wave to hit the intake valve as it starts to close
(usually the last 25% of it's open duration).

And I faintly remember that the maximum velocity that you would ever want to see
in an inlet port at max RPM is 300 ft/sec.
 
Last edited:

Ma70.Ent

Supramania Contributor
Feb 26, 2006
1,871
1
0
NJ
Copied this from a PM. Hope you don't mind.

gofastgeorge said:
Hey, here is another helpful link:
http://www.wallaceracing.com/lpv.php

I punched in my 7M stuff, and it showed that I need larger ports/runner size to get the velocity down.

This is probably why the screaming 4AG Atlantic engines have such HUGE intake ports.

I will have to go up to something in the 50mm dia. on throttles to get my intake velocity down.
And most likely kill my lower end still more.......
 

sarinas_dragons

application developer
Oct 5, 2007
89
0
0
64
Parkland, WA
This is good. I have modeled the 5M and 6M but not the 7M.

I noticed a couple of things, too. Toyota achieved good numbers for the performance for the day. Using the 5/6M as an example, the intake valve closing determines the dynamic compression ratio and the ultimate captured volume. There is a struggle with the 5/6M design versus the 7M in the valvtrain. Because of the hydraulic lash adjusters and zero-loss rockers it is difficult to ensure proper lash for measuring cam events.

The 7M on the other hand should be easy. Knowing the IVO of the stock or selected cam the mechanical efficiency can be figured out. In the 5/6M the the captured volume / swept volume = ~87-88%.

From here we can determine from Toyota's own power claims the thermal efficiency at both the torque peak rpm and the hp peak rpm. It was here I was surprised at what Toyota achieved.

100 % VE CFM = CID X RPM / 3456 = 318 CFM

But the engine is known to use only 88% of the swept volume due to the intake valve closing. So due to mechanical efficiency we have to correct the amount of air moved to 318 x .88 = 280 CFM.

This 280 CFM converts to 21.4 pounds per minute of air. Multiplied times sixty minutes for 1284 pounds per hour.

We know the air-to-fuel ratio for best power is 12.5:1. Then 1284 / 12.5 = 102.72 pounds of fuel per hour. There are 19000 btu in a pound of gasoline. So, the engine consumes 102.72 pounds of fuel that contains 19000 btu per pound totalling 1951680 total btus.

To convert btus to hp divide 2542.4. Now we get the hp in the fuel used. 1951680 / 2542.4 = 767.65 hp. This is the total hp content in the fuel consumed. Toyota claimed at 6000 rpm 200 hp so there is a small discrepancy.

200 / 767.65 = .26 or 26%, the 7MGEs thermal efficiency at hp peak. The rest of the power is lost to heat and parasitic drag. Next is to know the TE at tq peak.
 
Last edited:

HommerSimpson

New Member
Dec 31, 2007
1,067
0
0
New Smyrna Beach Florida
I have been looking for a picture of intake on a Quad 4 engine olds ? arorua ? but anyway one of them has a tubular YES 4 tubes that runs to the TB... ANYONE know what the hell im talking about ? Im not 100% hell not even 75% sure on engine or car.. just rember it was one of them real funky engines that came out about 20 years ago for a short time....
well thats what i want but 6 tubes ofcourse... orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr i was thinkin how about set up off bike ? 6 butter flys! well anyway thats my wants for now :}
 

sarinas_dragons

application developer
Oct 5, 2007
89
0
0
64
Parkland, WA
Another area to consider is the time element.

At 6000 rpm there are 3000 power strokes per minute. Divided by sixty then there are 500 per second. The speed of the intake charge and the speed of the acoustic reflections have to separated in our minds before we go on...
 

Ma70.Ent

Supramania Contributor
Feb 26, 2006
1,871
1
0
NJ
I wonder where we would want our peak torque to be if we were just using the stock redline/rev limit. (6250ish RPM)
 

sarinas_dragons

application developer
Oct 5, 2007
89
0
0
64
Parkland, WA
Me, too. But if it is for a street-build instead of a class-build for SCCA or NASA then we can port and get high compression pistons and still be prudent and not use all the power available.

I can post a study of the mach index for the stock cams.

What I have realized, though, in going through the 5 and 6M is that there must have been some frustrated hotrodders at the ol' factory.
 

AJ'S 88NA

New Member
Jul 26, 2007
2,419
0
0
Florida
I once was told by an old hotroder that there was a lot of power in the 7m head to be had, I guess he was right. That is if I'm understanding these post right??
 

Ma70.Ent

Supramania Contributor
Feb 26, 2006
1,871
1
0
NJ
AJ'S 88NA;975577 said:
O yeah, :naughty:Or ITB's would work wouldn't they:sarcasm:

I just want to see parts being made for N/As, or at LEAST design ideas that some guy could eventually follow if he wanted to do it himself.
 

AJ'S 88NA

New Member
Jul 26, 2007
2,419
0
0
Florida
Ma70.Ent;975579 said:
I just want to see parts being made for N/As, or at LEAST design ideas that some guy could eventually follow if he wanted to do it himself.
I agree with you on that. You can find all kinds of goodies for turbo's but it's like the NA's are a waste of time for the design and manufacture of any parts for performance. I know the turbo guy's just say save your money for a swap. I'm kindof like Definant, I really do like the NA.
 

sarinas_dragons

application developer
Oct 5, 2007
89
0
0
64
Parkland, WA
I had taken years to gather the older engine design information. Some of the 7M stuff is more current and still available. But I still start at the beginning and the tedium is palpable.

In one build a 5M autocrosser wants to be able to carry revs to 7 grand if necessary. He can't weld his head. Stock cams. No compression ratio changes. The engine has to stack the air up in ports big enough to cram the stock compustion chamber.

He'll be using ITBs and a tuned manifold to catch the reflections around 6800 to carry revs to 7000.

Where we are in the analysis is the intake charge speed and the piston speed relationship. This will allow the port volume to be changed to a known volume in relation to the intake charge speed as it slows entering the cylinder and matches the piston speed.
 

Burntz

Sold the Supra
Apr 20, 2007
582
0
0
35
Nebraska
HommerSimpson;975426 said:
I have been looking for a picture of intake on a Quad 4 engine olds ? arorua ? but anyway one of them has a tubular YES 4 tubes that runs to the TB... ANYONE know what the hell im talking about ? Im not 100% hell not even 75% sure on engine or car.. just rember it was one of them real funky engines that came out about 20 years ago for a short time....
well thats what i want but 6 tubes ofcourse... orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr i was thinkin how about set up off bike ? 6 butter flys! well anyway thats my wants for now :}

The quad 4 was used in late 80's pontiac grand am's, and S10 trucks? I had an 87 grand am for my first car, and it had the tech 4, the better alternative to the quad 4. The quad had head problems I think. Not an expert tho, I had no clue about cars then. I couldn't even put my muffler back on or do my wipers :icon_bigg
 

SupraMaster

Pure Street Racing
Mar 24, 2008
204
0
0
Washington
www.facebook.com
I can't believe our volumetric efficiency is so terrible. ~25% is down right horrible. Being able to squeeze out the supposed 700HP would be absolutely crazy.

I'm willing to help out in any way possible, just let me know.

Is there a way to do a scaled down model and bring in fluid mechanics to solve the problem?
 

sarinas_dragons

application developer
Oct 5, 2007
89
0
0
64
Parkland, WA
I looked for the thread for five pages before I found it...I'm a stoop

When using regular terms and conversation to convey the technical I sometimes forget to be clear-

The thermal efficiency and the volumetric efficiency are being confused.
 

cuel

Supramania Contributor
Jan 8, 2007
1,536
0
0
Baytown, Texas
A few different vehicle manufacturers have used the tubular intake design. A good example would be the late model Corolla S. Pop the hood at the dealer, and take a look.

The Quad 4 was quite popular. You can find them in Grand Am's, Achievas, Cavaliers, etc., from around 88, to around 98. PITA to work on, though. Poorly designed, to say the least....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Quad-4_engine