Uhm. Injectors will soak a little radiant heat, sure. But nothing like the heat transfered directly with the standard set up. The injector is wedged between fuel rail and manifold - if the manifold is colder, then the injector should be too.



Well now - I actually think at low RPM (not much suck) that any cooling is good cooling. Go ask someone with a turbo or supercharger if they use an intercooler. WHY DO THEY USE IT? Because hot air is s**t at getting bang for your buck when compressing and exploding.

While you're at it we could start a whole new water injection topic.

Am damn sure that if you can make you air supply cooler that it directly results in better performance from standard engine tunes. Have only ever heard of one guy who tried hot air tuning on purpose. Don't think he went down in history as Einstien.....


BBM's are not a con, I know a few people who have added them to their old box cars (along with the EL computer) and found good differences at low revs.

Back in the 60's one of the improvements made to small four strokes for hill climbing and similar events was to increase the length between throttle and combustion. The BBM is simply a way to vary that length as engine revs change. A longer intake path from TB to valves increases torque down low. Could be something to do with more air mass creating its own momentum to feed engine, where as at high revs the engine is well passed caring about table manners and has simply bought it's own McDonalds franchise and wants triple cheeseburgers faster than the world can supply it. At high revs a short intake path could therefore leave the engine closer to what its struggling to get - nice cold air.


(For those who could afford an Italian Stallion or this sort of thing are after quarter mile times in the 10's and have more money to spend on one carby than I have spent on my whole car to date......)

As already noted - You WILL find BBM's in Ferrari's - even top of the line ones! The reason is - they work.



SHHEEEEZ. Maybe I should have done some sort of facts and figures study to back all that up. I kinda got bored at started thinking about lunch.




Mate - I've got the preliminary design done and have sourced some material straight from one of the V8 Supercar suppliers. Am now attempting to find a spare BBM to check design properly against a cheap cut out from vinyl. I have a sneaky feeling I made the tolerances a little too large (most are less than half a MM larger than the original... For instance the bolt holes on mine are 9.4 mm diametre as I figured I'd not get it right 100% so wanted half a mm to play wth... Would like your opinion on this actually.... Also have made the holes around the ports 40.1mm. The cutting process works to +/- 0.1 mm, so all things considered I'd say I'm on track? If anyone has a ported and polished setup that is larger than 40mm diametre straight across input then they are flash enough to take a mm or two off the unit I make themselves --- or they'll be happy to pay a little more for a design to suit...)

If there's a way I could swap you one of these completed units for one of your chips set up for a standard EF with high flow extractors and a manual gearbox....


BA and newer - Different bolt positions?
I also want to know what the BA manifold gasket looks like. Had a dream last night that cylinders 5-6 look more like 1-2 from the E's and AU's? Ie - The bolt holes are turned 180 degrees around the centre of the inlet on cylinder 6?? Have another look at FFFF.00000110's design....




Now - are BA (and newer) different on cylinders 5 & 6.




One piece or many?
What do you think about splitting FFFF.00000110 into two or even three, or even six pieces?

....... What happened here? .....

Guess it is to be made in one bit then... The overwhelming majority decided to make it from one bit for ease of install.

(Actually, I received NO responses at all!)

Last edited by fiend on Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

BA> are a completely different port shape, oval due to 2 valves.

Sheeeez, why didn't I think of that. What a dope. Still, that's what being a novice is all about - at least I now know enough about all sorts of EF issues. Nothing about BA or newer. Thanks Steady.

Last edited by fiend on Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DUDE... Sorry, didn't see



As stated, the actual ports into your head are probably oval (if you're factory Turbo then you'll have a newer power plant than an E series or AU huh?)

If you use a standard EF or EL series head (AU... You know...) then no problem... Still early days yet, but I don't see a problem. MACE engineering do a 15mm one on E-Bay that includes longer bolts for $150AU...

Dude, wish I had a damn turbo!

EDIT --- Have now noticed you're driving an EB, so guess your head is the same as mine... Good o.

Thats ok mate.

Yeah she's got a el head on a eb bottom end.

So there is a possibility on you producing both
I rather give my hard earned cash to a fellow ford moder interested in helping the community (and his wallet ) than a faceless company. As long as the price is right ???

Yeah something around the 15mm would be good i think, would 18mm fit under the bonnet? Id do the measurements but its about a half day job to remove my bar and headlights so i can access the engine bay with the bonnet down Then again 3/4 of a inch is a fair bit?

Whack a slab of soft clay/playdough on top of the throttle body (or other high point, piping maybe), shut the bonnet, then measure what the clay/playdough gets squished down too
Could even give the motor a rev to get the minimum clearance when it's torquing over.

at my work i found a sheet of .6" phenolic .. but its old boeing material and they'll probably want it back...

we havent had to cut anything out of it for ages

Oh yeah i forgot about that trick

I just had a thought, im running my eb cables and throttle body (the longer cables stay away from the turbo better) and the bracket i made is pretty close to the bonnet

Still nothing a cable and throttle body change can't fix.

I admire your efforts in attempting to decrease temperature to ambient on the intake manifold, however I believe that the BBM intake manifold and head mounting are not the main culprit for heat exchange as the contact area is small in comparison to overall BBM surface area.

Due to it's surface area, I believe that heat soak from engine, head and rocker cover by radiated heat are more to blame.

The best solution in my opinion is some form of a heat shield between the engine and Intake manifold, this is not that practicable so the next solution is ceramic coating.

I have ceramic coated the intake manifold and rocker cover and still have heat soak, even in a forced induction/intercooled setup.

Primary methods to reduce heat are , fit 3 core radiator, install a 82 degree C thermostat, make sure your coolant/water mix is at the correct level,
I use Redline water wetter as it, in my opinion is better than Glycol based coolants.

Keeping a heat shield around your exhaust and/ or ceramic coat extractors .

Your phenolic gasket may have potential to reduce heat and in no way am I attempting to knock your idea, make ten or so and test it out , see what happens.

you'd think if it could be done, after a few years of playing around with these types of programs and after doing alot of research on the topic, that i would have managed to at least 'virtually' design such an intake.

You can't. short runners promote higher rpm power, longer runners make lower rpm power. the major, and even the smaller car builders and engine designers have far better programs for the purpose. THEY can't do it.


From a purely performance stand point, then yes I could design and built you an intake manifold that could produce more power, anywhere in the rev range you wanted it. but you will loose out at the other end of the scale.


honestly, i think you leave the topic alone, go and buy a copy of The Scientific Design of Exhaust and Intake Systems and
Four-Stroke Performance Tuning.

read them front to back a few times and then spend few good weeks searching a reading whats on the WWW. then come back here and we'll talk some more.

anyone who has logged an ACT will see that it fluctuates quite dramatically and is directly proportionate to airflow. I fitted a 3/8 phenolic spacer on my 5ltr, and the logs showed very little if any difference in ACT.

In my attachment, the dotted lines represent the before the phenolic spacer, and the solids are after. Both the ECT and IAT were similar (IAT is mounted in the airbox) and the ACT (which is the standard sensor in the manifold) shows the differences. Before someone points out that the RPM's are different, this just goes to show that lower TPS/RPM's give higher ACTemps, and therefore the before picture with its lower RPM's should actually be higher than the after.

Just for the record too, dataloggers dont lie, but your a*** does when you "think" it goes faster because you want it to.

 

 

Attachments:

ACT.jpg [ 217.06 KiB | Viewed 1401 times ]

Nice datalog however, can you tell us which trace colour is what please.

Jaysen ---- Is it worth producing a couple of these spacers or not? Originally designed purely to help keep the BBM cool - along with other cooling help such as bonnet vent and possibly a bikini style heat shield.

I am at the point when I am starting to pay for materials and producing two of these is costing half a weeks pay, the missus will hate me.


I am of the opinion that this gasket idea of mine will actually do good things, but possibly very little if not combined with other measures as mentioned.


May increase the port size to 41.5mm width from just over 40 to allow the larger port heads easy fitting and give a little leeway for those of us with original standard units. Like I said - I took the original Ford gasket out of an engine yesterday and found it had been overlapping the bottom of the port by 2mm and that the manifold wasn't lining up exactly with the holes in the head anyway!

Ahhhh, what the hell. I'm going to make a couple. ONE for ME and one for someone who wants one.

Remember that by removing your original gasket and installing this you will be adding about 6mm to everything, so I'd suggest adding 6mm spacers between your block and any arms holding the BBM in position, otherwise you may not get a 100% seal at the top - which may become apparent in pressured environments, such as turbo or supercharger application.


A big source of heat soaking into the front of the BBM is actually the expelled radiator air...

I guess a three core could help by keeping your engine cooler for longer, but once it does get hot, for whatever reason, that heat still gets released into the atmosphere directly onto the intake manifold.


Strongly suggest looking at the whole story of how I reached this point.



The whole thing came about from looking for bonnet vent positions... Along the way I discovered that the throttle when holding 5000rpm uses about the same amount of air pressure that is available at the front headlight when traveling at 70km. I guess you could go all mathematical on my a*** and say that at 5000rpm @ 3.95L per rev.... 19750L a minute... How much air would pass through a 3" hoop at 70km/h per hour?

A 3" circle has approx 50 CM2 according to
Radius squared times PI.
When moving at 70km/h you are doing 19.44 metres a second.
19.44 x .5 x 60 = 583 metres cubed?....

583,000 L a minute can pass through a 3" circle traveling at 70km/h.

Therefore, I suppose, is the evidence that I should put the air box back into the car and chop a 8" hole in the front with a cone reducing to three inch before air box.

At 70k an hour I am forcing extra air into the throttle body than it can use. Ho hum.



Bloody hell. What bought that on?

Oh, that's right - I was simply going to past this link to my original quest for engine bay cooling and BBM heat reduction...


http://www.fordmods.com/forums/viewtopi ... 08&start=0