Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:47:12 -0500
Reply-To: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Jim Akiba <syncrolist@BOSTIG.COM>
Subject: Re: Air mass meters Go Westy
In-Reply-To: <004401c8445a$6f94fe80$6401a8c0@TOSHIBALAP>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Honemaster, gee how could that possibly be? There weren't millions of
dollars spent by a Tier 1 manufacturer in any of the tuning.. and it
was only tuned by a couple guys... rabble rabble rabble... <-- please
note my sarcasm ha
Scott, I *almost* guarantee, and would bet money, that if you adapted
intake runners and mani from the 2.5 DOHC, you would see a drop in low
and mid range torque on the wbx which isn't acceptable... as you know
bigger isn't always better, as it's equally important to match runner
and port cross sections and lengths correctly to keep air speeds high
(not just free flowing) and maintain columnar flow, which both
maintain intake charge momentum... of course throw a turbo or
supercharger on it and be done with it... but I learned an enormous
amount about how counter intuitive intake and port design is first
hand with our flowbench and the head port design work I was doing for
GM L67 heads and mitsu 6g72s back before the whole vanagon engine
conversion thing. The biggest thing I learned is how not worth it at
all it is most of the time to do such things ha.. if you do it
correctly the gains are minimal, and the possibilities of making it
worse are ever present too. Killing obvious bottlenecks is where the
real attention should be, if it gets to the point where the system is
lacking obvious bottlenecks and you still want more, then a system
change is usually time better spent rather than pouring over tweaks
for tiny gains.. unless you have to because of regulations. Not to
poo poo you're creative thinking, it's a good idea, but I'd bet you'd
be disappointed with the results vs the time spent.
We just had a discussion here about a week ago about whether or not we
should start making replacement runners and fuel injector rails to
take newer injectors and to dump the pin holing stock runners on the
wbx'ers... but we decided it's not worth it.. by the time you got done
installing all that stuff, you still have other major weak links
making it not really worth it, although the top end would look pretty
sweet and I bet it'd run better than it ever had :)
BTW Scott, where did the turbovans name come from?
Jim Akiba
On 12/22/07, Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@turbovans.com> wrote:
> Talk about intake design being restrictive ....
> One glance at the intake runner size, length and shape on a DOCH 2.5 subaru
> engine, and the waterboxer plenum and intake runners suddenly look like lawn
> mower engine parts.
> If one were to insist on trying to improve the intake system on a
> waterboxer, making a whole new intake system would sure help and isn't even
> that hard to build - the throttle body, plenum and intake runners, that
> stuff.
> And hate to say this, but it would be tempting to adapt a subaru intake
> system, as it's so close already to what's needed, and is from an opposed
> four of about the same dimensions.
> And hmmmmm......I have about 5 subaru engines of various years and types
> sitting around, some fabrication abilities, and this seized 2.1 to use as a
> dummy block to play on........sure, why not !~ It's a shame there's only
> one intake valve per cylinder, but gotta start somewhere. I'm surprised
> actually, that there are not OHC 4 -valve heads for waterboxers made
> somewhere by someone.
> Scott
> www.turbovans.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
> honemastert
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 9:00 PM
> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
> Subject: Re: Air mass meters Go Westy
>
> I think the biggest issue with them is
> the tuning involved.
>
> When we slapped it in my Syncro with
> one of their 2.4l wbxers, we loaded in a
> default 'map' that the guys at Split Second
> had come up with. (kind of an extrapolation
> between their 2.2l and their 2.5l motor)
>
> Mine was one of the first 2.4's to have this
> mod done to it, so I was in experimental territory.
> We had a flat spot around the low 3K rpm range..
> noticable when shifting from 2nd to 3rd.
>
> One of the guys from Split Second was there @
> SdM07 this past May, and we did a bunch of
> running around the Hollister OHV park hills and
> some runs on the road to get the thing tuned
> up and running well. At that point, they had a
> pretty good 2.4 map to use for their other engines
> and I had a 'custom tune' so to speak. Both
> parties happy with the outcome :-)
>
> I would think that by now, with enough samples
> and enough folks running this system, that they'd
> have enough maps for a range of engines
> (even stock wbxers) to make it work consistently.
>
> Just my experiences with it to date. I know those
> GoWesty guys just took off for their annual X-Mas
> Baja run, so they must be working well, as Lucas
> and Taylor both had these setups on their vans.
>
>
>
> I havent checked up on the latest though, as mine
> still seems to be running just fine, and still better than
> with the original AFM that was in there.
>
> I'd already replaced my AFM once, and noticed it
> had started exhibiting the same symptoms as before.
>
> Jim, I agree with you, that whole intake design
> it really restrictive and not optimal for HP!
>
| 
