Another HA intake cut-open and flowed

[Jerryl]

Hey Pat,
Some good continued work and some GREAT collaborative discussions going on here.

Are you testing the port flow under vacuum or pressure?
IMHO, if the testing is performed under vacuum, there is a flaw in the set-up.
The intake on a boosted application should be tested lik a an exhaust post, especially in a poorly designed manifold.

Is there a way to take a ported intake and compare the flow numbers of a couple of ports under vacuum and pressure?


Edit:
General statement;
The ported stock intake has been 10's and is NOT the system constraint with a TA33 or TA49.

 

[jiho2]

The test setup is something I've been wondering about, too.

If you just look at how much air you can blow (or pull) in one end (turbo inlet) and out the other (an intake port), that tells you some things. But it tells you more for NA than for turbo. That's part of what I'm saying (I hope not too annoyingly).

I understand there are some similarities. After all, the air does have to get from point A to point B, whether it's compressed or not. But the intent of the stock HA design is for the turbo to keep the intake packed full of compressed air, ahead of consumption by each cylinder. This is fundamentally different from NA, where each cylinder sucks air "from scratch" so to speak, all the way through the entire intake system from the air cleaner, really.

 

[SloGN]

The tests were conducted by blowing air into the intake. Just like the turbo does. Also the intake don't see boost all the time . Only under moderate to heavy loads. Get a boost gauge with boost and vac reading and go drive you will it also runs in vac a lot of the time .BTW. I'm done here. You guys go get a flow bench and see for yourself how airflow really work in any application.

 

[Jerryl]

........BTW. I'm done here. You guys go get a flow bench and see for yourself how airflow really work in any application.

Pat,
Sorry to see you discouraged through this discussion.
99.99% of people will never get a chance to do what you just did.
Thanks for posting the numbers and your findings and don't take any of it personal.

I am sure many of us were looking forward to gain better understanding of the HA intake.
99.9999% of HA owners are not trying to set any records either, and 90% wil convert anyway.
Oh well, back to square one I guess . . . . . :frown:

 

[bison]

One thing i know for sure is if I was running an 84-85 intake it would be cut open and modified extensively and id be looking for the most flow I could get. 600cfm@20 psi and 600cfm@ 20in vacuum is still 600 cfm. The engine displacement and speed determines the airflow through the engine for the most part. Not the manifold pressure. An open plenum intake works well in pressurized and non pressurized applications.

 

[jiho2]

For myself, I was trying to describe how the stock intake was designed to work, because I think that's relevant. However, it was designed to work that way at about 13.5 lbs max, in tame street use. The intercooled intake is certainly not designed that way, and the intercooler in front of it doesn't make it work that way either.

Anyway, I had no intent to discourage SloGN from his mad schemes. I actually think it's cool that someone is trying things like this. I mean, who knows how it turns out until somebody tries it, right?

Then again, there are only so many HA intakes out there, and if people go on hacking them up like this....

 

[charlief1]

As dumb as it sounds, the intake was designed when NA was pretty much all you had for an option. Take a look at the vette intakes that came out then. The use of a plenum with tubes going to each cylinder. The reasoning behind this is to improve overall torque for the desired RPM level that the engines were designed to go. With that in mind look at the HA intake and you see the same technology going on. The C/T intakes are pretty much the same. The advantage was when the FWD intake came out and then the IC intake was kinda based off it. They realized that with the turbo you didn't need all the tubes to help with the torque cuve and then they designed the IC intake.

 

[SloGN]

As dumb as it sounds, the intake was designed when NA was pretty much all you had for an option. Take a look at the vette intakes that came out then. The use of a plenum with tubes going to each cylinder. The reasoning behind this is to improve overall torque for the desired RPM level that the engines were designed to go. With that in mind look at the HA intake and you see the same technology going on. The C/T intakes are pretty much the same. The advantage was when the FWD intake came out and then the IC intake was kinda based off it. They realized that with the turbo you didn't need all the tubes to help with the torque cuve and then they designed the IC intake.

That intake was designed for low rpm torque to help make the transition to boosted power go un noticed to the driver. In other words it feels like large na motor

Like Charlie stated about the tuned port intake on vette or f bodies. The only work in a certain rpm range hence.tuned outside of that they flow like crap and are not performance ideal without mods. That why the next gen vets and f body got the lt1 intake . To help move.more air to make more power .

 

[jiho2]

That intake was designed for low rpm torque to help make the transition to boosted power go un noticed to the driver. In other words it feels like large na motor

This is all very true. And not a tremendous amount of boost at the top end, either.

 

[bison]

Then there are jack asses like me that have scrapped at least 10 of them in the last 15 years

 

[SloGN]

carry over from the other interesting thread in engine tech

this is some other info in the other thread in the engine tech. i just compilled them here. WEll the HA info.




[h=2]These intakes i flowed were ones that have been sent to Richard for flow testing. I will post the owners first name so i guess they will know which one is their.



All Tests were completed using 28 inches of water on the flow bench.

Brent ( 84/85) HA The average flow was 199

1-199 2-193

3-204 4-196

5-200 6-200



Mark S (84/85) HA

1-134 2-148

3-153 4-117 -----124 after doing some extra porting

5-156 6-146


Mark's Intake Had a somewhat mild port work done to the runners along with the inlet and the EGR port cut out and smoothed.

After Speaking with mark about the poor flow on #4. I got Pat (SloGN) to do a little more porting on this intake to help #4.

So i took about 10 mins and ported on #4 runner ( deep inside along the zip tube with a long reach cutter) I got the flow up. I'm gonna port on it somemore as i ran out of time.


The # 4 port/runner seems to have extra metal casted into the divider walls thus making the port smaller from the zip tube to about halfway to the port face.

Ok guys


I went back out to Richards place and did some more work on Mark's HA intake


flow numbers

Mark S (84/85) HA

1-134 2-148

3-153 4-117 -----124 after doing some extra porting i ported it the best i could get to without cutting it open 130 Cfm. But other wise it's still a complete intake zip tubes and all.

5-156 6-146

Howdy guys



Well i fianlly got some more time to spend on Mark's HA intake. I finally just cut the bottom off of it. I now understand how the Zip tubes and air flow paths really are.


So i using a milling machine i milled out the center divider and the zip tube walls. The cutter i was using didn't allow for me to mille the center divider wall completely out. But it's about 3/4 of the way down.

The champion intake has it milled completely away.



The final flow #'s are

1.---187 2.---187

3.---188 4.---193

5.---188 6.---187

Avg Flow 188


When i first started #4 was the worst flowing and i actually ported on it some more and got it upto 130 before cutting it open. Now after i milled it and ported it it's now the best flowing lol. I actually cut thru on a small portion of the #4 port on a sharp edge that i had to weld up and shape back down.

The other's i simply just touched up on those over what had already been done.





The next HA intake i do i'm simply just gonna go ahead and cut out the zip tube and center wall. Then flow it and then port it accordingly. Since i now know what needs to be done.



interesting numbers

Been busy conducting some flowbench studies on a few items. Plan in the next few weeks to do just about every combo I can round up related to intakes.

Here are some to start with:

CFM @ 28” all values rounded to nearest whole number, each runner flowed individually with others blocked





84/85 stock intake: EGR blocked with pipe plug

1 132 2 136
3 140 4 113……yike !
5 141 6 137

New Champion 84/85: EGR blocked with pipe plug

1 211 2 206
3 211 4 212
5 205 6 199





​

​

Thanks for flowing in![/h]

 

[1dollardog]

Flow wise, how does a stock HA intake compare to a stock I/C intake?

 

[O SO LO]

Flow wise, how does a stock HA intake compare to a stock I/C intake?

CFM @ 28” all values rounded to nearest whole number, each runner flowed individually with others blocked

Stock manifold: stock dog house,EGR blocking plate

1 161 2 157
3 175 4 160
5 177 6 172

more info- http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/engine-tech/363911-interesting-numbers.html

 

[SloGN]

Flowed the second design HA intake

Ok guys


I flowed the second design intake.


The total flow is 470 cfm



1--133 2--137

3--141 4--123

5--143 6--138



So it appears as if GM knew there was a problem with #4 intake port.

The other intake #4 flowed 113.


It's hard to tell what they actually changed inside unless the bottom gets milled off.

But i know how this seems to grip some peoples A$$ by me doing this. .

 

[Jerryl]

Pat,
Based on the recent performance, there does not appear to be an alcohol distribution problem in a gutted intake(??)
This is good news, yet inconsistent with previous reports and findings. Believe me, I am MUCH less interested in “being right” than understanding “why”. . . . . . . You may be on to something . . . .


Hopefully you can assist in my attempt to understand.
- Was there a reason the port(s) were not welded up especially on the low flowing runner to help get that number up?
- Did the IDC and timing require adjustment for the individual cylinders on the gutted intake?

 

[SloGN]

Pat,
Based on the recent performance, there does not appear to be an alcohol distribution problem in a gutted intake(??)
This is good news, yet inconsistent with previous reports and findings. Believe me, I am MUCH less interested in “being right” than understanding “why”. . . . . . . You may be on to something . . . .


Hopefully you can assist in my attempt to understand.
- Was there a reason the port(s) were not welded up especially on the low flowing runner to help get that number up?
- Did the IDC and timing require adjustment for the individual cylinders on the gutted intake?

Jerryl.

What is there not to understand? it's simple physics at work. But i guess you just can't seem to grasp that buick designed a piss poor flowing intake for more than 200 horsepower's worth of air.

The timing and the injector duty cycle is the same on all the cylinders on erics engine. You do understand that to do that one would need either 6 widebands or 6 egt's to measure the actual burn difference. The spark plugs look to be consistant with the next one. but plug reading can only get you so close.


Now the other question i don't understand. Why would i weld up a poor flowing port? or do you mean close up the other 5 ports so thay flow the same as the poor flowing #4.

The issuse with that port is due to where it's located in the airstream. I think the air stalls (extreme turbulent) around that port causing the poor flow. But by simply removing the center wall that devided the two plenums per say and removing the zip runner it allows the air to flow more freely with less turbulence.

Now for the other isssue you mentioned about alky/methanol puddling. You do realize that it's a hot-air right? so for rule of thumb the air gets heated 10 degrees for every one psi compressed. So at eric boost level of 22 thats 220 degrees of heat. How long do you think the alky/methanol lasts as a liquid/mist before it changes states into a gas?


The puddling of alky/methanol is is a problem for us I/C guys with huge front mounts. For example in BG the outside temps on friday were low 50's at 23 psi and the alky spraying my plenum temps started @ 110 in the burn out box then dipped to 50 degrees when the alky started spraying and only gained 6 degrees thru out the entire 1/4 mile pass.

 

[Jerryl]

Jerryl.

What is there not to understand? it's simple physics at work. But i guess you just can't seem to grasp that buick designed a piss poor flowing intake for more than 200 horsepower's worth of air.

The timing and the injector duty cycle is the same on all the cylinders on erics engine. You do understand that to do that one would need either 6 widebands or 6 egt's to measure the actual burn difference. The spark plugs look to be consistant with the next one. but plug reading can only get you so close.


Now the other question i don't understand. Why would i weld up a poor flowing port? or do you mean close up the other 5 ports so thay flow the same as the poor flowing #4.

Now for the other isssue you mentioned about alky/methanol puddling. You do realize that it's a hot-air right? so for rule of thumb the air gets heated 10 degrees for every one psi compressed. So at eric boost level of 22 thats 220 degrees of heat. How long do you think the alky/methanol lasts as a liquid/mist before it changes states into a gas?

Well . . . . . . Based on my inability to understand simple physics and flow analysis , root cause engineering analysis why previous gutted intakes did not work well in past experiments . . . and current ones do . . . combined with my lacking FMEA knowledge . . . . I am out.

 

[turbo6x2]

It was a design flaw in the previously modified intakes, which mind you were heavily modified and with the way the design had the turbo being attached to this heavily modified intake it was forcing air past two of the ports let's say 1 & 2 and dumping it into 5 & 6 which caused it to lean out two cylinders major and over richen the back two which in turn made the car run like ass and not get over 4000 rpm. Does this explain it for you? With what is being done now all the ports are even so you don't have it leaning out two cylinders and making two cylinder pig rich. This is why I kept taking out number 5 cylinder it was flowing way too much air which leaned that cylinder out and thus burning up the plug and making the car run like total ass again. With running a balanced intake you shouldn't have to worry about leaning out cylinders and there isn't going to be a performance issue.

 

[SloGN]

Well . . . . . . Based on my inability to understand simple physics and flow analysis , root cause engineering analysis why previous gutted intakes did not work well in past experiments . . . and current ones do . . . combined with my lacking FMEA knowledge . . . . I am out.

Jerryl

I don't know what your after here.

But if you have such a great grasp on it why are you beating me down for information. Please run the modded intake in a cad program and tell what it shows compared to the actual data that i recorded .

I have simply posted the flow numbers before and after the mods. I gave my opinion on how that i see that it works. Its my opinion. I have tried to conduct tests in a manner that would revel repeatable results. I have shown that they are repeatable using a couple of different units.


While i have a pretty good grasp on simple physics and number crunching. The is alway one simple thing that number crunching can't solve unless you actually do some physical work. It's called coefficients. So one can crunch numbers all day long but until you have done the real work you still don't know. Well you can use others peoples data but there could always be a flaw in that data as well.


I'm not saying your dumb by any means ( please don't think that) But sometimes you simply just can't crunch numbers and use other peoples data like its gospel to reach a answer to a question. Sometimes you just need to put forth your own apllied sciences to find out the answer your looking for.


The issue of gutted intakes of the past.

Have you ever used one and yielded bad results?

If the bad results are from someone else, did you know the state of the tune, parts combo, etc to blame all the issues on the said gutted intake?

Is the same bad results seen by a number of folks instead of one person?

If other folks had the same bad results was the intake modded in the same manner?


These question means alot in my mind where tring to compare things from the past.


sorry for the long post

Pat


BTW for the record how many folks have ran 10's on a ported stock intake?

I have only seen timeslips posted by one person and that would be jamie.

Did lee thompson ever make into the 10's?

I don't mean number crunching of coulda shoulda woulda's i'm talking tha real deal time slip and or video to prove it.

 

[turbo6x2]

I for one would like to thank Patrick for taking the time to do any of this. No one has ever stepped in the past to see what is going on with our intakes, which I believe limit our set up due to the restriction they provide stock. I think it was great of him to step up and take this on and post the information. If there is a question as if this will work or not, yes it does work. Eric is running his numbers on a gutted intake. I know all about the past issues, I not only bought the t shirt but I have the play rights as well. The thing is has everyone stuck with the initial ported intake rather then the new and improved paper weight I think we would have had a lot more hot airs running some great numbers a few years back. Instead we believed the hype didn't get the full information and for some of us lost a block over trying to make a hunk of crap work. It was due to how the inlet for the turbo was modified and what I was told was it was expected that the person using said intake was going to intercool their car with their intercooler as to why it didn't work for the hot air set up and then they disappeared off the face of the earth. Again thanks Patrick for taking the time to do the research and share the data, a lot of us appreciated all the effort and time involved.