lsj air to air problem
06-09-2009, 05:57 PM
#78
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-22-06
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope. According to the company that makes the Laminova cores the ports to the cores should be 18mm wide for maximum cooling efficiency. The ports in the Stock LSJ IM are between 12-14mm.
There is room from improvement with larger ports.
I actually ran a ported IM for a few weeks. My IAT2s were lower and climbed slower during a WOT run.
Nope, Nope, would be nice but too expensive.
Nope.
The ports need to be just large enough to flow the amount of CFM from the TVS. Basically all four inlet ports for the laminova cores combined need to be the same size as the outlet of the TVS.
There is plenty of room in the stock IM to accomplish this.
Turbo guys need to stop trying to apply their knowledge to superchagers...
These pipes should be at least 4". The air to air Intercooler should have a larger inlet and outlet. Ideally you would want them the same size as the TVS outlet. You are choking the TVS within the first few inches.
What is the called when the boost backs up and re-enters the supercharger? That is probably happening to this car.
For all the turbo guys...
This is like installing 2" charged air pipes on a turbo with a 3" outlet.
There is room from improvement with larger ports.
I actually ran a ported IM for a few weeks. My IAT2s were lower and climbed slower during a WOT run.
Nope, Nope, would be nice but too expensive.
Nope.
The ports need to be just large enough to flow the amount of CFM from the TVS. Basically all four inlet ports for the laminova cores combined need to be the same size as the outlet of the TVS.
There is plenty of room in the stock IM to accomplish this.
Turbo guys need to stop trying to apply their knowledge to superchagers...
These pipes should be at least 4". The air to air Intercooler should have a larger inlet and outlet. Ideally you would want them the same size as the TVS outlet. You are choking the TVS within the first few inches.
What is the called when the boost backs up and re-enters the supercharger? That is probably happening to this car.
For all the turbo guys...
This is like installing 2" charged air pipes on a turbo with a 3" outlet.
I agree the stock setup has room for porting and will show improvement but not enough for some.
They biggest intake we have is 3 inches but the outlet of the tvs needs to be a 4 inch pipe? No, that would be dumb... I vote 3 inch is the biggest but 2.5 won't hurt, throttle response will be better with the 2.5 inch pipes. faster air flow...
An intake plenum and equal length runners are really needed to equal the flow to all four cylinders and laminovas are more expensive than a large brick intercooler.
The big down side to air to air setups is the pressure drop accross the intercooler. Up to 3 psi in some cases. An air to water is more like .5-1 psi drop.
I'm interested in this air to air setup but I still think a fully aftermarket IM is needed and will show the most gains for all...
06-09-2009, 06:07 PM
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-25-08
Location: Depew, NY
Posts: 5,384
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more the laminovas are ported the less time the air spends in them... What size laminovas are they talking about?
I agree the stock setup has room for porting and will show improvement but not enough for some.
They biggest intake we have is 3 inches but the outlet of the tvs needs to be a 4 inch pipe? No, that would be dumb... I vote 3 inch is the biggest but 2.5 won't hurt, throttle response will be better with the 2.5 inch pipes. faster air flow...
An intake plenum and equal length runners are really needed to equal the flow to all four cylinders and laminovas are more expensive than a large brick intercooler.
The big down side to air to air setups is the pressure drop accross the intercooler. Up to 3 psi in some cases. An air to water is more like .5-1 psi drop.
I'm interested in this air to air setup but I still think a fully aftermarket IM is needed and will show the most gains for all...
I agree the stock setup has room for porting and will show improvement but not enough for some.
They biggest intake we have is 3 inches but the outlet of the tvs needs to be a 4 inch pipe? No, that would be dumb... I vote 3 inch is the biggest but 2.5 won't hurt, throttle response will be better with the 2.5 inch pipes. faster air flow...
An intake plenum and equal length runners are really needed to equal the flow to all four cylinders and laminovas are more expensive than a large brick intercooler.
The big down side to air to air setups is the pressure drop accross the intercooler. Up to 3 psi in some cases. An air to water is more like .5-1 psi drop.
I'm interested in this air to air setup but I still think a fully aftermarket IM is needed and will show the most gains for all...
06-10-2009, 02:07 PM
#81
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: 01-23-06
Location: on here
Posts: 10,731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have been porting manifolds per request of customers 
Air passes over the laminova cores, coolant flows through them. This effectifly opens up more surface cooling for the passing charge.
The more the laminovas are ported the less time the air spends in them... What size laminovas are they talking about?
I agree the stock setup has room for porting and will show improvement but not enough for some.
They biggest intake we have is 3 inches but the outlet of the tvs needs to be a 4 inch pipe? No, that would be dumb... I vote 3 inch is the biggest but 2.5 won't hurt, throttle response will be better with the 2.5 inch pipes. faster air flow...
An intake plenum and equal length runners are really needed to equal the flow to all four cylinders and laminovas are more expensive than a large brick intercooler.
The big down side to air to air setups is the pressure drop accross the intercooler. Up to 3 psi in some cases. An air to water is more like .5-1 psi drop.
I'm interested in this air to air setup but I still think a fully aftermarket IM is needed and will show the most gains for all...
I agree the stock setup has room for porting and will show improvement but not enough for some.
They biggest intake we have is 3 inches but the outlet of the tvs needs to be a 4 inch pipe? No, that would be dumb... I vote 3 inch is the biggest but 2.5 won't hurt, throttle response will be better with the 2.5 inch pipes. faster air flow...
An intake plenum and equal length runners are really needed to equal the flow to all four cylinders and laminovas are more expensive than a large brick intercooler.
The big down side to air to air setups is the pressure drop accross the intercooler. Up to 3 psi in some cases. An air to water is more like .5-1 psi drop.
I'm interested in this air to air setup but I still think a fully aftermarket IM is needed and will show the most gains for all...
Air passes over the laminova cores, coolant flows through them. This effectifly opens up more surface cooling for the passing charge.
Last edited by lsjwannabe; 06-10-2009 at 02:07 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
06-10-2009, 02:45 PM
#82
Tell me how restrictive the stock IM is. What kind of testing have you done to prove the stock IM is restrictive?
06-10-2009, 03:38 PM
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-08-05
Location: Niceville, FL
Posts: 6,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never stated it was restictive with the M62. It is in fact is a great design and works great for its intended purpose. However, when you start flowing more CFM's it starts to cause a back up due to the ports not being big enough to flow the air over the luminova cores. My experience would be based off of running the Lysholm 1200AX blower on my car at 20psi. Other than that I have not done any flow bench testing, or port work testing because my car was put on the back burner for quite some time while I was building my Integra up.
On the other hand, OTT Performance did some testing and found porting the inlet/outlet slots over the luminova cores as well as port matching the the intake manifold increased flow. Hahn did research and found eliminating it all together with their intake manifold allowed for some serious flow gains and whp improvement. I'm sure LSJWannabe and Area47 could comment here better on its restrictions with the TVS blower, and Paul could comment here on the improvements he saw with the Hahn intake manifold. I don't claim to know everything, but I do pay attention when innovators/masterminds on here speak about their cars and testing they have done.
On the other hand, OTT Performance did some testing and found porting the inlet/outlet slots over the luminova cores as well as port matching the the intake manifold increased flow. Hahn did research and found eliminating it all together with their intake manifold allowed for some serious flow gains and whp improvement. I'm sure LSJWannabe and Area47 could comment here better on its restrictions with the TVS blower, and Paul could comment here on the improvements he saw with the Hahn intake manifold. I don't claim to know everything, but I do pay attention when innovators/masterminds on here speak about their cars and testing they have done.
06-10-2009, 05:36 PM
#88
reallly...the stock IM is a piece of crap. even GM knows it. The entire LSJ was a rushed project... they pulled the motor from a saab, slapped a supercharger on it, and rigged an intake manifold to tie the two together... it was not a long R&D project like most of their engines. Thats one of the reasons why there arent any intake runners... It worked out fine, and is indeed functional, but to call it a good engineered piece is a different story. Now a high quality engineered aftermarket IM would be amazing to replace the stock one.
06-11-2009, 11:38 AM
#90
reallly...the stock IM is a piece of crap. even GM knows it. The entire LSJ was a rushed project... they pulled the motor from a saab, slapped a supercharger on it, and rigged an intake manifold to tie the two together... it was not a long R&D project like most of their engines. Thats one of the reasons why there arent any intake runners...
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q...PT/TVSDyno.jpg
Some people may see a little more or a little less.
06-11-2009, 08:18 PM
#91
The LSJ is a supercharged version of the LK9 Ecotec with an Eaton M62 Roots-type supercharger and air-to-liquid intercooler.
Its a pretty well known fact, and has been talked about on here many times, maybe before you joined the forum, but im positive its truth. no need to be a dick about it.
regardless, a real high quality IM is needed for the LSJ
06-12-2009, 12:51 AM
#92
go look up when GM first decided to make the LSJ, and tell me how long between that time and the time of completion.
Its a pretty well known fact, and has been talked about on here many times, maybe before you joined the forum, but im positive its truth. no need to be a dick about it.
regardless, a real high quality IM is needed for the LSJ
Its a pretty well known fact, and has been talked about on here many times, maybe before you joined the forum, but im positive its truth. no need to be a dick about it.
regardless, a real high quality IM is needed for the LSJ
But I just get sick of all the "rumors" that get spread around the forum because of threads like this.
I had no way of finding out when GM first decided to make the LSJ and when it was finally completed. Neither do you.
You are just repeating things that you have heard from other people. But your theory is old and is no longer valid.
It has been proven that the stock LSJ IM is too restrictive with power adders that have a larger output then the M62. But that was by design. The LSJ IM is designed for the M62. The inlet and exit ports to the laminova cores in the manifold are sized properly for the M62. Not too big, not too small.
The LSJ IM can support larger power adders by increasing the size of the inlet and exit ports to the laminova cores. I bet you could call the "hack jobs" at GM who designed the IM and they will tell you why the ports are the size they are. I bet they could tell what size they should be for the output of the TVS 1320. Those guys actually know what they are doing and didn't try to apply turbo charged theories to supercharged applications.
I measured the outlet of the TVS and here is what it looks like.
Since it is not proportional I have no idea how to determine the area of the outlet.
Can any of you smarty math guys figure out the area of this oulet and how it compares to a 3" pipe which has an area of 7"?
Thanks.
never mind. I should be able to figure this out. Give me a minuet.
EDIT:
Ok I broke up the outlet into two triangles and two rectangles. From my math I determined the outlet as an area of 9.5".
To match that area with a round pipe the pipe should be 3.47" in diameter.
Last edited by ebristol; 06-12-2009 at 01:09 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
06-12-2009, 03:06 AM
#93
You are just repeating things that you have heard from other people. But your theory is old and is no longer valid.
The LSJ IM can support larger power adders by increasing the size of the inlet and exit ports to the laminova cores. I bet you could call the "hack jobs" at GM who designed the IM and they will tell you why the ports are the size they are. I bet they could tell what size they should be for the output of the TVS 1320. Those guys actually know what they are doing and didn't try to apply turbo charged theories to supercharged applications.
second, are you saying that the stock IM is a good manifold? I agree that it gets the job done pretty well for what it was made for, but it is clearly inefficient in higher CFM setups. Porting the laminova slots alone will increase airflow, but at a cost of temperature. You are increasing volume of airflow, but the surface contact between that airflow and the laminova core fins themselves is constant, meaning any additional flow will actually flow right around the laminovas and not be cooled by them. In addition, there are no intake runners, which hinder potential performance as well. If you cannot acknowledge these truths, then you are seriously in denial, or are just so intent on being right that you'd prefer to ignore the truth.
There is nothing to lose by having the option of a new IM that resolves these issues, so I really dont see why you're arguing against it so much
I measured the outlet of the TVS and here is what it looks like.
Since it is not proportional I have no idea how to determine the area of the outlet.
Can any of you smarty math guys figure out the area of this oulet and how it compares to a 3" pipe which has an area of 7"?
Thanks.
never mind. I should be able to figure this out. Give me a minuet.
EDIT:
Ok I broke up the outlet into two triangles and two rectangles. From my math I determined the outlet as an area of 9.5".
To match that area with a round pipe the pipe should be 3.47" in diameter.
06-12-2009, 03:58 PM
#95
Senior Member
I was being sarcastic. I apologize.
But I just get sick of all the "rumors" that get spread around the forum because of threads like this.
I had no way of finding out when GM first decided to make the LSJ and when it was finally completed. Neither do you.
You are just repeating things that you have heard from other people. But your theory is old and is no longer valid.
It has been proven that the stock LSJ IM is too restrictive with power adders that have a larger output then the M62. But that was by design. The LSJ IM is designed for the M62. The inlet and exit ports to the laminova cores in the manifold are sized properly for the M62. Not too big, not too small.
The LSJ IM can support larger power adders by increasing the size of the inlet and exit ports to the laminova cores. I bet you could call the "hack jobs" at GM who designed the IM and they will tell you why the ports are the size they are. I bet they could tell what size they should be for the output of the TVS 1320. Those guys actually know what they are doing and didn't try to apply turbo charged theories to supercharged applications.
I measured the outlet of the TVS and here is what it looks like.
Since it is not proportional I have no idea how to determine the area of the outlet.
Can any of you smarty math guys figure out the area of this oulet and how it compares to a 3" pipe which has an area of 7"?
Thanks.
never mind. I should be able to figure this out. Give me a minuet.
EDIT:
Ok I broke up the outlet into two triangles and two rectangles. From my math I determined the outlet as an area of 9.5".
To match that area with a round pipe the pipe should be 3.47" in diameter.
But I just get sick of all the "rumors" that get spread around the forum because of threads like this.
I had no way of finding out when GM first decided to make the LSJ and when it was finally completed. Neither do you.
You are just repeating things that you have heard from other people. But your theory is old and is no longer valid.
It has been proven that the stock LSJ IM is too restrictive with power adders that have a larger output then the M62. But that was by design. The LSJ IM is designed for the M62. The inlet and exit ports to the laminova cores in the manifold are sized properly for the M62. Not too big, not too small.
The LSJ IM can support larger power adders by increasing the size of the inlet and exit ports to the laminova cores. I bet you could call the "hack jobs" at GM who designed the IM and they will tell you why the ports are the size they are. I bet they could tell what size they should be for the output of the TVS 1320. Those guys actually know what they are doing and didn't try to apply turbo charged theories to supercharged applications.
I measured the outlet of the TVS and here is what it looks like.
Since it is not proportional I have no idea how to determine the area of the outlet.
Can any of you smarty math guys figure out the area of this oulet and how it compares to a 3" pipe which has an area of 7"?
Thanks.
never mind. I should be able to figure this out. Give me a minuet.
EDIT:
Ok I broke up the outlet into two triangles and two rectangles. From my math I determined the outlet as an area of 9.5".
To match that area with a round pipe the pipe should be 3.47" in diameter.
Stop it, and read what a real one has to say.
Your matching area's here, that is not the solution.
You need to match max flow areas, take the max flow rate from the TVS comp map, along with it's PR at that flow, and play the math game.
U find the flow rates of pipe sizes, make sure u note what pressure it was tested at, then u can dirive the the needed cross section.
It will be far shy of the ~3.5in number u have now, it's even less then 2.0in.
God the pressure drop alone on a 3.5in should make you want to find the answer.
Run the math, the answers rite there.
06-12-2009, 04:03 PM
#96
second, are you saying that the stock IM is a good manifold? I agree that it gets the job done pretty well for what it was made for, but it is clearly inefficient in higher CFM setups. Porting the laminova slots alone will increase airflow, but at a cost of temperature. You are increasing volume of airflow, but the surface contact between that airflow and the laminova core fins themselves is constant, meaning any additional flow will actually flow right around the laminovas and not be cooled by them.
The reason the ports are the size they are is because they were designed to match the flow of the M62. I think they could easily be opened up to match the output of the TVS.
I dyno tested a ported IM from OTTP on my M62.
The Blue line is highest tq run from the stock LSJ IM
The Green line is the highest tq run from the ported LSJ IM.
As you can see I lost 1whp and 5wtq peak.
Like I have said before. The stock LSJ IM is perfect for the M62.
These types of threads always start with a "check out my idea" theme and then turn to a "So if you are interested in one send me $$$..." theme.
I want to make sure people are aware that there is a much less expensive/easier option available to get more performance out of the stock IM for larger power adders.
06-12-2009, 05:58 PM
#97
they were stating facts, not opinions. the LSJ engine was a rushed project. It happened to come out extremely well, but it was still rushed.
im curious where you got this info. I can't find anything on their site. The reason why I'm saying there is a loss in efficiency is due to this:
If you increase the ports, the air stops flowing between the fins of the laminova where it is cooled and instead can flow around the fins and not be cooled. I'm just not seeing how there could possibly be a greater efficiency by porting the IM
I dyno tested a ported IM from OTTP on my M62.
The Blue line is highest tq run from the stock LSJ IM
The Green line is the highest tq run from the ported LSJ IM.
As you can see I lost 1whp and 5wtq peak.
Like I have said before. The stock LSJ IM is perfect for the M62.
What pulley was this with btw? And i agree, the stock manifold is fine for M62 setups (except the most extreme setups such as 2.5" pulley setups). I'm more interested in an aftermarket IM for TVS setups, where I believe the IM becomes increasingly less ideal in relation to TVS pulley size used.
I definitely agree here. Misconceptions are never good. I will agree with you in full that for most setups, the stock IM will suffice nicely, and very little is to be gained by swapping to a larger one, but as stated, for smaller pulleys and for TVS builds, I believe a better IM wuld help a great deal (after porting the head, which is the first restriction to eliminate)
a la R.A.W.? lol
BTW, I just want to say thanks for keeping this an educated discussion. It seems these are rare these days. And thanks 06black for clearing up our charge piping diameter. 3.5" seemed way too large, but I wasn't quite sure which method to be using to determine ideal diameter sizing.
As I mentioned earlier, OPCON, the company that makes the Laminova cores said for maximum efficiency the ports to the cores used in the LSJ could be 18mm wide. The ports in the stock LSJ IM start around 12mm wide on the outside and open up to 14mm wide in the middle.
If you increase the ports, the air stops flowing between the fins of the laminova where it is cooled and instead can flow around the fins and not be cooled. I'm just not seeing how there could possibly be a greater efficiency by porting the IM
I dyno tested a ported IM from OTTP on my M62.
The Blue line is highest tq run from the stock LSJ IM
The Green line is the highest tq run from the ported LSJ IM.
As you can see I lost 1whp and 5wtq peak.
Like I have said before. The stock LSJ IM is perfect for the M62.
Options are always nice. I just want to clear up a few mis-conceptions being spread around this thread.
These types of threads always start with a "check out my idea" theme and then turn to a "So if you are interested in one send me $$$..." theme.
BTW, I just want to say thanks for keeping this an educated discussion. It seems these are rare these days. And thanks 06black for clearing up our charge piping diameter. 3.5" seemed way too large, but I wasn't quite sure which method to be using to determine ideal diameter sizing.
06-12-2009, 08:13 PM
#99
Senior Member
06-12-2009, 10:46 PM
#100
I did stay at a Holiday in Express last night...
That was shared in a thread about a year ago that was deleted. Here is a thread that refers to that thread! lol
https://www.cobaltss.net/forums/advanced-performance-modifications-130/intake-manifold-options-111187/
A former member contacted OPCON and was given that information. He ported his IM and got the same results as I did with an M62. Cooler IAT2s but a small loss in HP and a small loss in TQ.
He had pics in his thread of the IM cut in two showing the size of the ports before and after the porting. It was pretty interesting.
2.8" on a OTTP Stage 1 tune.
Me too. Unfortunately, once I discovered that the IM was not as big of a restriction as I thought it was I got frustrated and sold off a bunch of parts from my car with the intention of selling my car. The ported IM was one of them. Then I changed my mind and bought a TVS. So I am no longer running a ported blower. But I may pick one up in the near future.
https://www.cobaltss.net/forums/advanced-performance-modifications-130/intake-manifold-options-111187/
A former member contacted OPCON and was given that information. He ported his IM and got the same results as I did with an M62. Cooler IAT2s but a small loss in HP and a small loss in TQ.
He had pics in his thread of the IM cut in two showing the size of the ports before and after the porting. It was pretty interesting.
2.8" on a OTTP Stage 1 tune.
And i agree, the stock manifold is fine for M62 setups (except the most extreme setups such as 2.5" pulley setups). I'm more interested in an aftermarket IM for TVS setups, where I believe the IM becomes increasingly less ideal in relation to TVS pulley size used.