×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Undivide intake ports in 2-valve heads with paired intakes

Undivide intake ports in 2-valve heads with paired intakes

Undivide intake ports in 2-valve heads with paired intakes

(OP)
On a normally aspirated engine, there is an ideal intake tract length and area for a given RPM.

However, for pressurized-induction, does this apply, since doesn't the manifold pressure prevent resonant tuning? It would seem so, since some supercharger intakes for OHV8 two-valve heads with paired intake ports are simply a plenum with four short undivided legs to the ports. At the head surface, there begin divided ports. Here's the question - what would be the effect on a supercharged engine with paired intake ports if the divider wall was removed as far as possible back into the head?

thnx, jack vines

RE: Undivide intake ports in 2-valve heads with paired intakes

Resonant tuning most certainly does apply for forced-induction engines, although most OEMs leave it out because it's a significant extra cost that can be offset simply by fractionally higher boost pressure.

There are ways of pairing ports and groups of cylinders in such ways as to achieve resonance tuning with given length runners at low- and high RPM, respectively.  For example, a 6 cylinder engine can have a manifold switch between a large plenum volume with all 6 cylinders fed together and 2 smaller plenums of groups of 3 cylinders each.  The 6-runner grouping demonstrates better low RPM volumetric efficiency, while the 3-runner pairs are better at high RPM due to less destructive pressure wave cross-talk.  This, along with variable runner lengths, is a fairly common feature in high-output normally-aspirated series production engines and is mostly responsible for production engines reaching BMEP values previously in the realm of racing engines (~14 bar for NA engines).  Tuning a V8 is more tricky, especially a typical cross-plane crank one because you don't have alternate bank firing. (the firing order goes something like L-R-L-R-L-L-R-L.

However, doing this correctly is NOT left to guesswork but rather some knowledge of acoustic theory and same basic equations, culminating in 1-D gas exchange simulation or even 3-D CFD.
 

RE: Undivide intake ports in 2-valve heads with paired intakes

(OP)
Thanks for the clarification of my first question.  So resonant tuning is possible.

What would the downside effects of eliminating the division between the intake ports down as far as possible and using a completely open plenum?  On production turbocharged engines, such as Saab/GM, the intake cam event duration is so short, there should be very little overlap.

thnx, jack vines

RE: Undivide intake ports in 2-valve heads with paired intakes

Enlarging the plenum & eliminating the runners will tend to increase top end volumetric efficiency and also will tend to reduce peaks and valleys in the torque curve, since constructive and destructive resonances, as a function of rpm, will be reduced or eliminated.

RE: Undivide intake ports in 2-valve heads with paired intakes

Not having some length of separate runners (i.e. the effect of eliminating the division between intake ports) will magnify the effect of cross-talk between adjacent cylinders, particularly if the intake strokes overlap, and with normal cam timing, all 4-stroke engines with more than three cylinders will have at least some overlapping of the intake strokes.

Whether *that* is a good thing or a bad thing, depends on the specific circumstances, and for any given engine it will probably be different at various engine speeds.

Turbocharged production engines generally (but not always) have mild cam timing with not much overlap, which minimizes the effect of both cross-talk and ram tuning, and that's why it might not matter too much. The idea is that the engine itself has as much low-end torque as possible before the turbo spools up, and at higher revs, it's cheaper to just turn up the boost a little bit.

RE: Undivide intake ports in 2-valve heads with paired intakes

L-R-L-R-L-L-R-L?  I've never seen a V8 with 5 lefts but I guess anything is possible these days.

RE: Undivide intake ports in 2-valve heads with paired intakes

My bad, for a GM LS engine with a firing order of 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3 it's L-R-R-L-R-R-L-L...

RE: Undivide intake ports in 2-valve heads with paired intakes

I wholeheartedly agree with TDI. My simplistic explanation to non-engineering types is that the boosted air is just more dense.

BP - "Not having some length of separate runners will magnify the effect of cross-talk between adjacent cylinders and all 4-stroke engines with more than three cylinders will have at least some overlapping of the intake strokes." This would be my main concern. If you leave the runners divided you can physically move the plenum exits apart to help minimize this.

And you have to consider that the new runner will be >2x size of the original, so it will be sluggish until you really get the air moving.

ISZ  

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources