Sorry for the lack of updates, work and family have kept me very busy for the past few weeks. The project is back on track and I’ve made a few more changes to the overall design to improve sealing and ease construction.
I’ve gotten a lot of emails asking what method of casting I’m using. While I’m not at liberty to divulge the exact details of how I create my cores, I will state that I’m using an evaporative core process.
Here is a teaser; the plenum TB-Neck and cover are cores waiting to be cast. I’ve altered their color for a better representation.
First I've seen of this...very interesting! Make sure you post in the Mall once these are ready. I believe many will be interested in getting one, but would never think to look in the tech area for new products. You might want to ask Cliff to move this to the general chat area or start a link there so more members might get wind of this potential terrific product. Kudos on your work here!
There are really two issues with anything like this.
First, what does it flow in comparison to the stock intake. Most vendors stop right here because they can make flow claims that lead simple minded buyers to make their buying decisions without questioning. "Hey, the maximum flow is higher, so it MUST be good, right?"
Well, not quite. The second factor is what is the air demand of the engine.
I see all the time where vendors make claims like "Flows 800 cfm! That's 300 cfm more than the stock intake and filter!" Then you do the research and find out that the stock engine running full throttle can only suck 400 cfm, in other words the stock filter system is perfectly adequate and doubling, tripling, quadrupling the theoretical flow capacity won't affect power out put one iota.
Looking at the stock Fiero intake, I believe a couple of things are evident based on tests I have seen. First, the neck area below the TB is a bottleneck and will limit flow through that area. Second, on a stock engine, this doesn't represent (based on flow tests) any significant resistance so any power increase on a stock engine will be nominal at best.
Crank the engine up with either conventional tuning (high compression, lots of cam, more RPM) or a turbo and the theoretical bottleneck becomes an actual one and flow is restricted. The question I have is just when (and how much) does this happen.
I very much admire the job you are doing on the new intake and look forward to not only before and after flow tests, but as you mentioned, before and after dyno runs with nothing but the intake changed between runs. I expect you may get some nice numbers on modified engines, and I wish I had more room under the hood on my engine swapped car to take advantage of your intake (I run a cammed and flowed 3.4 which I think has a pretty good chance of exceeding the flow capability of a stock intake).
I strongly advise that you make the "FIERO" writing on the upper a machined item rather than cast. That way your potential markets will include non-Fiero applications...
.....and you wont get sued when GM finds out. Those who have used the "Fiero" on thier products can tell you stories.
There are really two issues with anything like this.
First, what does it flow in comparison to the stock intake. Most vendors stop right here because they can make flow claims that lead simple minded buyers to make their buying decisions without questioning. "Hey, the maximum flow is higher, so it MUST be good, right?"
Well, not quite. The second factor is what is the air demand of the engine.
I see all the time where vendors make claims like "Flows 800 cfm! That's 300 cfm more than the stock intake and filter!" Then you do the research and find out that the stock engine running full throttle can only suck 400 cfm, in other words the stock filter system is perfectly adequate and doubling, tripling, quadrupling the theoretical flow capacity won't affect power out put one iota.
Looking at the stock Fiero intake, I believe a couple of things are evident based on tests I have seen. First, the neck area below the TB is a bottleneck and will limit flow through that area. Second, on a stock engine, this doesn't represent (based on flow tests) any significant resistance so any power increase on a stock engine will be nominal at best.
Crank the engine up with either conventional tuning (high compression, lots of cam, more RPM) or a turbo and the theoretical bottleneck becomes an actual one and flow is restricted. The question I have is just when (and how much) does this happen.
I very much admire the job you are doing on the new intake and look forward to not only before and after flow tests, but as you mentioned, before and after dyno runs with nothing but the intake changed between runs. I expect you may get some nice numbers on modified engines, and I wish I had more room under the hood on my engine swapped car to take advantage of your intake (I run a cammed and flowed 3.4 which I think has a pretty good chance of exceeding the flow capability of a stock intake).
Thank you,
Plenum size and runner length are also key factors when determining the engines power and RPM range.
Originally posted by HitesFiero: I’ve gotten a lot of emails asking what method of casting I’m using. While I’m not at liberty to divulge the exact details of how I create my cores, I will state that I’m using an evaporative core process.
I still want to know you're doing it so I can come down to your place with some pre-made lost foam cores and a bunch of aluminum rims to melt, and make a port injected 2.5 iron duke manifold.
[This message has been edited by KurtAKX (edited 01-16-2013).]
There are really two issues with anything like this.
Well... there is one more thing that Hites is refusing to address: Air distribution within the manifold. Who cares how much it flows if the air distribution is such that any high-demand engine will burn a piston?
It's interesting that he replied to everyone except me.
I'm just curious about how he's going to verify to his customers that using his manifold will NOT cause burned pistons or valves due to uneven air distribution. I'm also curious about what he's going to do when that does happen to someone's high dollar engine build.
Originally posted by Will: It's interesting that he replied to everyone except me.
I thought that was kinda funny.
On another note, you could expand your market much more by offering a intake and valve covers for the later 60* motors that mimics the fiero styling, while offering REAL perfomance. I'll take a stock drivable 200 hp over a modified undrivable 200 hp anyday.
------------------ there's a Group on 60degreeV6.com for us 660 Fiero owners!
Well... there is one more thing that Hites is refusing to address: Air distribution within the manifold. Who cares how much it flows if the air distribution is such that any high-demand engine will burn a piston?
It's interesting that he replied to everyone except me.
I'm just curious about how he's going to verify to his customers that using his manifold will NOT cause burned pistons or valves due to uneven air distribution. I'm also curious about what he's going to do when that does happen to someone's high dollar engine build.
Ok Will, you’ve forced a response out of me.
“Well... there is one more thing that Hites is refusing to address: Air distribution within the manifold.”
I did address it as such when I stated that the pressure differential should be at or near equal in all six runners.
“Who cares how much it flows if the air distribution is such that any high-demand engine will burn a piston?”
I agree completely! As such, if any pistons are harmed in the production of this manifold, they will be on my own engine. You’re trying to seriously debate the merits of the design before it’s even been tested yet.
“It's interesting that he replied to everyone except me.”
Yes, I know a bully when I see one and I see very little point in starting an engineering chest pounding match with you.
“I'm just curious about how he's going to verify to his customers that using his manifold will NOT cause burned pistons or valves due to uneven air distribution. I'm also curious about what he's going to do when that does happen to someone's high dollar engine build.”
Oh come on! Do you really think I’m going to open myself to that kind of liability without thoroughly testing it first in the real world? Really????
[This message has been edited by HitesFiero (edited 01-17-2013).]
On another note, you could expand your market much more by offering a intake and valve covers for the later 60* motors that mimics the fiero styling, while offering REAL perfomance. I'll take a stock drivable 200 hp over a modified undrivable 200 hp anyday.
I think you’re missing the point and intended purpose of this intake. As I’ve already stated, the objective is to widen the usable power band from its drop off at 4500 rpm to 6000 rpm. It’s meant to be a bolt on for a stock or upgraded Gen 1 iron V6 and maintain an OEM appearance.
“On another note, you could expand your market much more by offering a intake and valve covers for the later 60* motors that mimics the Fiero styling” As I said in my response to your previous post; if I design a retrofit manifold, we can make a fair comparison at that time.
[This message has been edited by HitesFiero (edited 01-17-2013).]
Originally posted by HitesFiero: I did address it as such when I stated that the pressure differential should be at or near equal in all six runners.
My point is that you haven't shown anything except your say-so... Are you planning to have the prototype on the flowbench? CFD of your CAD model?
quote
Originally posted by HitesFiero: Do you really think I’m going to open myself to that kind of liability without thoroughly testing it first in the real world? Really????
Are you going to individually instrument and datalog each cylinder? That's what you have to do to verify air distribution. Is your engine over 11:1 compression and pushing 90+ HP/litre?
You can't possibly test this product *thoroughly* and be able to offer it at a price that recoups your testing costs.
It's a heck of a lot easier to catch a problem like air distribution at the *DESIGN* end than at the *TEST* end.
[This message has been edited by Will (edited 01-17-2013).]
Why not cut the plenum in half and weld a 1/2" to 3/4 " spacer between the upper and lower pieces and weld it back together to make the runners and throat larger? Haven't researched or looked at what it looks like inside to know if the top and bottom have vanes and runners cast from top to bottom.
I think you’re missing the point and intended purpose of this intake. As I’ve already stated, the objective is to widen the usable power band from its drop off at 4500 rpm to 6000 rpm. It’s meant to be a bolt on for a stock or upgraded Gen 1 iron V6 and maintain an OEM appearance.
“On another note, you could expand your market much more by offering a intake and valve covers for the later 60* motors that mimics the Fiero styling” As I said in my response to your previous post; if I design a retrofit manifold, we can make a fair comparison at that time.
again, just because you can spin it to 6000 doesn't mean it's worth anything up there, 2.8 heads SUCK, and they still SUCK even if you put the best intake ever conceived on them. It may help some, but it's not going to be anything to right home about. look at the Truleo, I've seen dynographs where quite a bit of bottom end was given up, for no real gain on top.
------------------ there's a Group on 60degreeV6.com for us 660 Fiero owners!
Originally posted by ericjon262: again, just because you can spin it to 6000 doesn't mean it's worth anything up there, 2.8 heads SUCK, and they still SUCK even if you put the best intake ever conceived on them. It may help some, but it's not going to be anything to right home about. look at the Truleo, I've seen dynographs where quite a bit of bottom end was given up, for no real gain on top.
Yes, they suck stock but are fine for a stock Fiero 2.8... When *properly* ported and polished, they flow just fine, I've personally put down 249 ft*lbs of torque thru them and snapped 2 axles. Hence with the right intake, cam, etc.. those 249 ft*lbs can be made into 249 rwhp. Since going to the Trueleo intake with an L98 twin 48mm throttle body, my power band from 4500-5500 rpm has gone up significantly from when I was using the Fiero intake and put down 187rwhp @ 4400rpm (249ft*lbs @ 3600rpm). Sorry, I don't have a current dyno. Yes, I know some 3400/3500 are making more power, but I'm still using the stock 3400 cam where they are not. My compression ratio is about 9.86:1 where as the typical aluminum head motor may be higher.
I'd love to have aluminum versions of the stock iron heads for the weight savings and for the ability to run higher compression without detonation, however we are stuck with what we got when we want a plug and play system for our engines. There is no point in debating changing because changing the heads essentially makes it no longer a Fiero "long block" hence non-Fiero engine. Sure my block isn't a Fiero block, but it let's me run Fiero heads, lower intake and accessories as well as Fiero wiring. Once you change heads, everything else goes with it and it's a Fiero-nothing motor at that point.
But anyway, in the end, the point is the stock heads have flowed 275 HP, so to say "they suck" or "not possible" is really just trolling. Are there better solutions? Yes, but the OP doesn't care.
I thought the Trueleo made a big gains in the upper RPM range? With the 3.4 it certainly does, I thought it did with the 2.8 as well.
I am looking forward to this product! Keep up the good work.
A former member of this forum has dynoed a Fiero 2.8 at ~160 rwhp with shaved heads, ported intake and 2.5" exhaust and a proper tune. His username is 1fst2m6 and you can look him up in the archives... Higher compression is the key to not losing bottom-end when also opening up the top end.
I like that idea. I'd think that might make it easier to accommodate any potential options like different throttle body sizes, for example.
That aside, have you any updates on your intake manifold project?
The detachable neck won’t be on the prototype, it’s too much extra work for a test piece. I’m finishing some updates on my foundry and casting equipment to make multiple pours easer. I have some updates and new casting pics up soon.
Are you going to individually instrument and datalog each cylinder? That's what you have to do to verify air distribution. Is your engine over 11:1 compression and pushing 90+ HP/litre?
You can't possibly test this product *thoroughly* and be able to offer it at a price that recoups your testing costs.
It's a heck of a lot easier to catch a problem like air distribution at the *DESIGN* end than at the *TEST* end.
I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure why you're all over HitesFiero when you didn't jump all over FrancisT for failing to do any of that type of testing with the Trueleo designs.
Are you going to individually instrument and datalog each cylinder? That's what you have to do to verify air distribution. Is your engine over 11:1 compression and pushing 90+ HP/litre?
You can't possibly test this product *thoroughly* and be able to offer it at a price that recoups your testing costs.
It's a heck of a lot easier to catch a problem like air distribution at the *DESIGN* end than at the *TEST* end.
Then make it easier on us all, Will. Design one yourself. Be sure to have it do everything exactly right in the design phase. That way no one will have to build one to test as it will be right to start with.
I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure why you're all over HitesFiero when you didn't jump all over FrancisT for failing to do any of that type of testing with the Trueleo designs.
Perhaps because we did the flow bench work (#s posted on our site) and spent $$ on the dyno see below. Note, the stock heads can flow more than enough CFM if used with a better intake and headers, add some mild porting, CCing etc. and cam..... On the intake covered here, don't forget to include good size velocity stacks inside the plenums for the runners.
Just like to brag a lil, my son and his MR2 team took 2nd out 71 cars at their chump car race last weekend. After 14 hours, 1st, 2nd and 3rd were each only 15 seconds apart with the gaps closing, the rest of the field was 16 laps back! ------------------ trueleo.com RSpiderII@aol.com
[This message has been edited by Francis T (edited 02-17-2013).]
Perhaps because we did the flow bench work (#s posted on our site) and spent $$ on the dyno see below. Note, the stock heads can flow more than enough CFM if used with a better intake and headers, add some mild porting, CCing etc. and cam..... On the intake covered here, don't forget to include good size velocity stacks inside the plenums for the runners.
------------------ we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...
Originally posted by Will: Are you going to individually instrument and datalog each cylinder? That's what you have to do to verify air distribution. Is your engine over 11:1 compression and pushing 90+ HP/litre?
You can't possibly test this product *thoroughly* and be able to offer it at a price that recoups your testing costs.
It's a heck of a lot easier to catch a problem like air distribution at the *DESIGN* end than at the *TEST* end.
quote
Originally posted by KurtAKX:
I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure why you're all over HitesFiero when you didn't jump all over FrancisT for failing to do any of that type of testing with the Trueleo designs.
quote
Originally posted by Francis T: Perhaps because we did the flow bench work (#s posted on our site) and spent $$ on the dyno see below. Note, the stock heads can flow more than enough CFM if used with a better intake and headers, add some mild porting, CCing etc. and cam..... On the intake covered here, don't forget to include good size velocity stacks inside the plenums for the runners.
I'm going to begin with a disclaimer: I think the Trueleo intakes are a well thought-out and good product.
That said, I may be overstating the glaringly obvious here, but neither this dyno data nor the data provided on the Trueleo Fiero Intake site give CYLINDER TO CYLINDER flow distribution for a given delta-P, which is what Will was up HitesFiero's A55 about. Not to say it was never done, but it's not provided in this response, any of the threads covering the development of the intakes (any of them, short or long runner), nor is it on the website.
Will's concern for this may be too much - the flow distribution of many factory and aftermarket intakes is terrible- I can't imagine that HitesFieros could be substantially worse than a 1970s/1980s factory of aftermarket piece. Look no further than the Edelbrock intake base for the 2.8, in which the runners are intentionally different
To Hites- the pressure differential seen by each intake runner between atmospheric pressure and a downward moving piston (and scavenging) will most likely be pretty much the same as you state. I think the point Will's trying to make is that the same pressure differential can exist at both ends of a sewer pipe as at both ends of a coffee stirrer, and you'll end up with radically different flow rates.
As a long time hotrodder I some times wonder about all the effert put in to just one componant of a engine. The 2.8 / 3.1 / 3.4 is a 60 degree engine because it is better for a v6 AND it makes for a narrow engine for FWD cars. The narrow part makes the intake so narrow It is hard to get runner length for good low speed power ( in a small engine) in a big car. The "W" cars are a lot of car for a 2.8 to move. The "old school" thing to do is to just put a bigger engine in it, and be done with it. With a fiero, with trying to keep it sort of stock looking, you are not going to make as much power as the time / $ you spend would make with the "just put a bigger engine in it" school of thought.
The 2nd school of thought is to do the whole engine, heads, cam, lifters, rockers, headers, exhaust, intake, bigger cfm TB. From what i can see the iron heads are the weak link. The latter, bigger engines in this engine family had alum heads. They look like GM used some of the tricks they used on the "Rat" motors ( BBC) heads. IF i was to do one of the 60 degree engines I would want to use the alum heads. But they don't work with the stock fiero intake and the stock 3.1/3.4 intake don't work with the fiero's distributer.
SO..... do a intake that lets you use the alum heads AND the distributer. That way you could just use a alum headed 3.1 / 3.4 fwd engine with the intake.
On my chevy V8 fiero I am using the chevy block, crank, rods, distributer, roller lifters. EVERY THING other than that is after market. Dart heads, comp cams roller cam, roller rockers, victor intake, SS headers, exhaust dump, hot rod push rods, bigger oil pump, steel oil pump drive rod, flat top pistons. It is not your grammy's station wagon engine any more. I used a sbc because you can buy all this stuff, you don't have to invent it. IF you are going to "invent" stuff, make sure you can use the very BEST stock stuff along with it.
