Intake manifolds: Sonata v L300

StarionChef · Post by **StarionChef** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 4:10 pm

Now thats an awesome motor. the thing about 3SGT's is they rev very high, Id imagine that one would be happy spinning at 9000rpm all day, with a head that could breath maybe twice the amount ofair a sohc mitsu could breath, so yes it could spin a T88.
I really can see the T88 working on the dash. I's common knowledge that they spool at around 4k on 6cyl motors, so at a guess, it would hit boost at around 7 or 8 on a 2lt. But ofcourse the dash will never rev that high.
Theres no room in a cordia, unless you remove the radiator and cut a big hole in the bonnet, gee the cops will love you.

Post some pics please

toysrus · Post by **toysrus** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:23 pm

toysrus wrote:Starionchef,

Can I get a couple of designs of you, here's a challenge...how would I modify MPI for the extra 4 inlets', or just have the 12 valves running all the time ?

Pics, ok but only in 5 weeks once it get's here, but more importantly for now while I wait is MPI, would it be better to have the t/b setup in the middle of the plenum like this ?

Why does this one ^ have two entries when the t/b they had for it bolted onto the top one ?

And how does having the runners so far inside the plenum affect airflow/pressure ? (maybe less area to pressurize but still very restrictive by the looks of air flow)

StarionChef · Post by **StarionChef** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:49 pm

Where on ebay did you find that? can we have the link to it.

It looks like the top opening is just open for the sake of viewing the runners inside, the ohter is the TB flange.
Yes, its a better option to have the TB enter in the middle rather than the end, as this will give a much more even pressure accros the runners.
Have a look at early ford, holden, nissan, L300 multipoint manifolds and you'll see they all had the TB flowing into the center. I'd imagine TBs were mounted on the front in smaller enging bays due to space limitation and not as a HP increase.
Looks like the idea of having the runners extend into the plenum is an attempt to even out the airflow accross the runners. This the basic idea of a large plenum, as it reduces the pressure at the rear of the chamber, thus evening it out. But dont think a plenum chamber needs to be round a smooth flowing, they really just hold the pressurized air and lets each cyl breath more evenly instead of just being rammed full of air that it cant use, esspecially the cyls that are on they're compression cycle.

toysrus · Post by **toysrus** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 10:36 am

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll ... gory=43808

It's for an MX-5, so don't get too excited.

Makes sense, will I need to run the 3rd valve on all the time to make things less complicated for myself ?

ProZac · Post by **ProZac** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 2:50 pm

if your worried about things being complicated, your in the wrong game.

toysrus · Post by **toysrus** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 3:00 pm

ProZac wrote:if your worried about things being complicated, your in the wrong game.

huh :? , you do know that the 3rd valve would have come on at 2500rpm to run as factory, that means 8 runners, 4 of them with butterflys electronically controlled and opened at 2500rpm via an rpm shift kit set up to an external electronic circuit.

I don't mind complications, just want to avoid them till I've set-up a basic MPI system then tweak it as necessary, setup the butterflys etc...

Cookiemonster · Post by **Cookiemonster** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 5:43 pm

toysrus wrote:[you do know that the 3rd valve would have come on at 2500rpm to run as factory, that means 8 runners, 4 of them with butterflys electronically controlled and opened at 2500rpm via an rpm shift kit set up to an external electronic circuit

OK.. now you've lost me. Why would you need to have electronically controlled butterflys?

toysrus · Post by **toysrus** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:01 pm

Well since there are an extra 4 inlet valves, are these blocked off with butterflys or just by holding the valve closed ? If the later, then the extra inlet space before switching to 12vs' decreases throttle reponse a smidgen compared to a pure 8v, correct ?

Cookiemonster · Post by **Cookiemonster** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:07 pm

The 4 smaller inlet valves are closed off by holding the valve closed. I don't see any need to also close 4 additional butterfly's.. it would complicate the system with minimal if any gain.

toysrus · Post by **toysrus** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:16 pm

I suppose so....

ProZac · Post by **ProZac** » Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:51 pm

I was just commenting on your comment about complications, using common sense will help all your confounding compuctions.

Once again, if your worried about complications, then setting up a t88, on a 2.4lt, 12 valve engine, with a custom intake manifold that has 8 runners might not be the best of ideas.

What would you do about fuel distribution to the 4 auxilary runners?
I would suggest you have 4 main runners, with the fuel injectors located within, that split to encompass both ports in the head.

(edit)actually, i suppose you could increase the fuel supply to main runner, but what would the mixing effect be like when it gets to the cylinder.. anyone?(/edit)

You have a good and unique idea for an engine, and i believe it could work... but if your going to spend that much money, go DOHC, i honestly believe it would be easier, and you have the potential to flow more in the long run... no worrying about auxilary valves, only 4 intake ports. Your going to need a custom exhaust manifold as it is... food for thought?

NXTIME · Post by **NXTIME** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:55 am

very true, Zac, as I have mentioned before in a couple of threads. No one will give a rats if it was a 12V or a DOHC. The amount of time and money you will spend getting the 12V to flow more and be able to handle the required volume of air, you could of had a race DOHC head built with enough flow capacity and cams to flow more than you will ever require.

quest · Post by **quest** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:55 am

there r so many 2.4 buildups on the internet that u can duplicate with tried & proven recipees. Going that 12v route, the only thing you'll likely discover is, u could have done a lot more spending a lot less.
Even the dohc 2.4 is not a rev happy motor. A hi rpm turbo is a mismatch. Take advantage of the displacement/ torque. Rev lower, last longer.
Here's a healthy 2.4. 500+ ft-lbs tq to the ground is nasty stuff.
http://www.buzzsmotorsports.com/cursedgsx/

mrb1 · Post by **mrb1** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:19 pm

I would love to see dyno runs off the same engine with the only change being L300 or Sonata (with minor plumbing changes to connect up). I'm thinking of the standard type JD intercooler pipework for the sake of the comparison.

However I guess the Sonata layout is good for shorter overall plumbing as it allows you to come straight up from the passenger side end of the intercooler. I guess the performance would be similar with a slight change in the torque curve with the different runner length. But hey everybody is talking about 2.4's now so I am a bit late in this thread :roll:

Austarion

Intake manifolds: Sonata v L300

Intake manifolds: Sonata v L300

Who is online