R/TErnie's Evo 9 2.2L 4G64 EFR7670
Im having some serious crankcase pressure issues and the standard plug in fittings aren't cutting it.
Mar 23, 2012, 01:20 PM
#33
Here we are machining the oil squirters into the 4G64 block. Thanks to the Vehicle Research Institute (VRI) and WWU's Engineering department for the use of their facilities. Camden Thrasher (who you may know from the racetrack...he photographs all the big races) did the machining. We had Andy Osborn make some custom tools for us to reach far enough inside the block. We ended up usign an end mill to mill a flat spot. Center drilled, drilled, reamed, countersunk, tapped, and then deburred with a reamer down the main oil galley.
I opted to run oil squirters for their additional cooling of the piston. I plan on road racing this thing and I want thermal stability to be a strong point of the car, not a weak point. Oil pressure in these builds is typically exceptionally high with the removal of the balance shafts and the addition of the Kiggle HLA... so I have oil to spare
I also believe this will help keep the wrist pin alive and reduce the amount of wear it sees... also keep oil on the cylinder walls and reduce wear there too. I think the increase in windage is a sacrifice I'm willing to make in the name of durability.
The oil squirters turned out great.
Here I modified the oil pressure filter housing. I ovaled the oil pressure relief port to help control oil pressure. As the oil pressure rises... the piston rises and compresses the spring. Once the spring has been compressed to the point where the piston goes past this port it starts regulating the oil pressure. if the oil pressure goes really high, you can max out the flow through this port and you see a type of boost creep (oil pressure creep) that causes the oil pressure to rise quickly. This will only help control the oil pressure from going REALLY high. won't change the curve...or the point at which oil is bypassed.
Set my base spring pressure to 25psi or there abouts on the new watercooled v2 MVS wastegates.
I opted to run oil squirters for their additional cooling of the piston. I plan on road racing this thing and I want thermal stability to be a strong point of the car, not a weak point. Oil pressure in these builds is typically exceptionally high with the removal of the balance shafts and the addition of the Kiggle HLA... so I have oil to spare
I also believe this will help keep the wrist pin alive and reduce the amount of wear it sees... also keep oil on the cylinder walls and reduce wear there too. I think the increase in windage is a sacrifice I'm willing to make in the name of durability.
The oil squirters turned out great.
Here I modified the oil pressure filter housing. I ovaled the oil pressure relief port to help control oil pressure. As the oil pressure rises... the piston rises and compresses the spring. Once the spring has been compressed to the point where the piston goes past this port it starts regulating the oil pressure. if the oil pressure goes really high, you can max out the flow through this port and you see a type of boost creep (oil pressure creep) that causes the oil pressure to rise quickly. This will only help control the oil pressure from going REALLY high. won't change the curve...or the point at which oil is bypassed.
Set my base spring pressure to 25psi or there abouts on the new watercooled v2 MVS wastegates.
Last edited by R/TErnie; Mar 23, 2012 at 07:55 PM.
Mar 23, 2012, 05:35 PM
#34
your pictures are awesome man.. one of the most detailed build threads ive seen yet picture wise and explaining what you're doing.. subscribed for more info.
I love how good your attention to detail is.. i can tell you're really picky and everything you do is well researched and thought out.
I was on the fence in regards to the magnus v5 vs ams f1i vs what i got now (map rev3).
From research ive learned 2.3 and 2.4's will be better with bigger plenum vs 2.0's but then the runner length will cause a loss downlow in tq/spool..
What I couldn't find out though is how much exactly? How much would i lose approx vs gain if i put a magnus v5 or ams f1i on my setup?
say my setups bottlenecked by 610 on a dynojet.. will one of those manifolds give me say 30hp gain uptop without sacrificing anymore then say 100rpm in spool or am i asking for to much? i wish someone did a comparison on my intake vs the magnus.. would make my life a lot easier lol. i guess for now im sticking with what i got, but would be interested in your thoughts.
I love how good your attention to detail is.. i can tell you're really picky and everything you do is well researched and thought out.
I was on the fence in regards to the magnus v5 vs ams f1i vs what i got now (map rev3).
From research ive learned 2.3 and 2.4's will be better with bigger plenum vs 2.0's but then the runner length will cause a loss downlow in tq/spool..
What I couldn't find out though is how much exactly? How much would i lose approx vs gain if i put a magnus v5 or ams f1i on my setup?
say my setups bottlenecked by 610 on a dynojet.. will one of those manifolds give me say 30hp gain uptop without sacrificing anymore then say 100rpm in spool or am i asking for to much? i wish someone did a comparison on my intake vs the magnus.. would make my life a lot easier lol. i guess for now im sticking with what i got, but would be interested in your thoughts.
Mar 23, 2012, 05:52 PM
#35
When Buschur was making his sheet metal intake manifold it was really the best of both worlds. Nice big plenum with relatively stubbier runners from the testing I had seen compared to some other manifolds. The Magnus seems to take it though on top end power.
Mar 23, 2012, 06:01 PM
#36
Ya I remember reading that during my journey of researching on the intake manifolds.. but my ending conclusion was to stay with what i got.. i went through this phase 2 times now and i always end up not doing it in risk of sacrificing some low end.
Mar 23, 2012, 07:53 PM
#38
Tom,
Runner length dictates when you get cylinder overfilling (higher VE) This happens in waves. In an NA engine it's more pronounced, but I've seen it when you run at the choke flow line of the compressor too. You can time these waves or peaks to improve your powerband at a specific RPM. The Magnus has shorter runners which shifts that improved VE to the right in the RPM band. Which is why you'll sacrifice a little bit of midrange for top end... because you will have a trough where you once had a peak.
The plenum volume just makes more power... period. It does, like I said does hurt throttle response... not as noticeable on turbo cars though. The small increase in intake tract volume does add some static spool time, but the amount of time it takes is nearly negligible, but is measurable.
For me... I had a very easy decision. After seeing Leet's dyno where he made nearly 600 lb-ft of torque I got scared that I would make too much torque down low and poop a t/c or transmission out the back of my car. At that point I committed myself to focusing on improving the VE above 5500. Thus I have S3's and I brought along the Magnus. (although to be fair I had the magnus on my FP Red setup and my HKS740 setup)
I really think camshafts have more an affect on killing spool time than intake manifolds do.... relative to what they give you on the top end.
But to answer your question very pointedly... runner length dictates where the peak VE due to the Helmhotlz resonance happens. I'll see if I can get dyno run files of the 300+ dyno runs I've done on the WWU FSAE engine dyno testing intake manifold combinations.
Mar 24, 2012, 02:06 AM
#40
Thanks! Did it have twin Turbonetics gates? I'm excited to fabricate the manifold too. It'll be my first Evo manifold.
Tom,
Runner length dictates when you get cylinder overfilling (higher VE) This happens in waves. In an NA engine it's more pronounced, but I've seen it when you run at the choke flow line of the compressor too. You can time these waves or peaks to improve your powerband at a specific RPM. The Magnus has shorter runners which shifts that improved VE to the right in the RPM band. Which is why you'll sacrifice a little bit of midrange for top end... because you will have a trough where you once had a peak.
The plenum volume just makes more power... period. It does, like I said does hurt throttle response... not as noticeable on turbo cars though. The small increase in intake tract volume does add some static spool time, but the amount of time it takes is nearly negligible, but is measurable.
For me... I had a very easy decision. After seeing Leet's dyno where he made nearly 600 lb-ft of torque I got scared that I would make too much torque down low and poop a t/c or transmission out the back of my car. At that point I committed myself to focusing on improving the VE above 5500. Thus I have S3's and I brought along the Magnus. (although to be fair I had the magnus on my FP Red setup and my HKS740 setup)
I really think camshafts have more an affect on killing spool time than intake manifolds do.... relative to what they give you on the top end.
But to answer your question very pointedly... runner length dictates where the peak VE due to the Helmhotlz resonance happens. I'll see if I can get dyno run files of the 300+ dyno runs I've done on the WWU FSAE engine dyno testing intake manifold combinations.
Tom,
Runner length dictates when you get cylinder overfilling (higher VE) This happens in waves. In an NA engine it's more pronounced, but I've seen it when you run at the choke flow line of the compressor too. You can time these waves or peaks to improve your powerband at a specific RPM. The Magnus has shorter runners which shifts that improved VE to the right in the RPM band. Which is why you'll sacrifice a little bit of midrange for top end... because you will have a trough where you once had a peak.
The plenum volume just makes more power... period. It does, like I said does hurt throttle response... not as noticeable on turbo cars though. The small increase in intake tract volume does add some static spool time, but the amount of time it takes is nearly negligible, but is measurable.
For me... I had a very easy decision. After seeing Leet's dyno where he made nearly 600 lb-ft of torque I got scared that I would make too much torque down low and poop a t/c or transmission out the back of my car. At that point I committed myself to focusing on improving the VE above 5500. Thus I have S3's and I brought along the Magnus. (although to be fair I had the magnus on my FP Red setup and my HKS740 setup)
I really think camshafts have more an affect on killing spool time than intake manifolds do.... relative to what they give you on the top end.
But to answer your question very pointedly... runner length dictates where the peak VE due to the Helmhotlz resonance happens. I'll see if I can get dyno run files of the 300+ dyno runs I've done on the WWU FSAE engine dyno testing intake manifold combinations.
i think im gonna change it out next year or during the winter this year. I appreciate the very detailed response.
Mar 24, 2012, 03:30 AM
#41
I should also say that smaller plenums also have a higher velocity at lower engine speeds which means you have less pressure loss. So there is some sacrifice, but IMO I've always preferred the compromise of the larger plenum to the smaller plenum.
22mm R/TErnie Wheel spacer! Pocketed to be super lightweight. Designed by me and machined by good friends at work on the Mazak (which I saw their offices in Texas!) I run these with the ccw's so I can get the perfect clearance between the caliper and the wheel. I could fit a piece of paper between the caliper and the wheel with a 20mm spacer. which means I had .003" clearance. I'll now have .083" clearance.
R/TErnie mustache bar and offset trailing links.
I wanted a mustache bar that didn't rattle my teeth out with diff noise. So I bought a new set of mustache bar OEM bushings and turned a chromoly sleeve to press them into. You can see Camden Thrasher again manning the lathe and turning the ID of the tubing for a press fit. Also shown is the offset trailing links. I suppose I can show more pictures of the added clearance here too. They're awesome.
You can barely see the Mustache bar installed here.
22mm R/TErnie Wheel spacer! Pocketed to be super lightweight. Designed by me and machined by good friends at work on the Mazak (which I saw their offices in Texas!) I run these with the ccw's so I can get the perfect clearance between the caliper and the wheel. I could fit a piece of paper between the caliper and the wheel with a 20mm spacer. which means I had .003" clearance. I'll now have .083" clearance.
R/TErnie mustache bar and offset trailing links.
I wanted a mustache bar that didn't rattle my teeth out with diff noise. So I bought a new set of mustache bar OEM bushings and turned a chromoly sleeve to press them into. You can see Camden Thrasher again manning the lathe and turning the ID of the tubing for a press fit. Also shown is the offset trailing links.
I suppose I can show more pictures of the added clearance here too. They're awesome.You can barely see the Mustache bar installed here.
Last edited by R/TErnie; Mar 24, 2012 at 07:18 PM.
