New High flow lower manifold
Senior Member
Joined: 04-03-06
Posts: 7,570
Likes: 0
From: Mesa, AZ
hit the nail on the head.
I dont feel like taking my intake manifold off every 6 months just to be slightly cooler than aluminum by a few degrees. I dont race funny cars.
Also ANOTHER good point made was the cooling system. I think some gains can be gained modifying the intake manifold how it stands, but modifying the dynamics of how the cooling system works will be MUCH greater.
Also copper vs aluminum is really a toss up. If you want to rebuild your engine every track run you build your 1500 hp ecotec. However if you are a daily driver (like me) keep the aluminum. You will see ALOT better gains through a redesign of the system than just changing the material.
my .02 cents
I dont feel like taking my intake manifold off every 6 months just to be slightly cooler than aluminum by a few degrees. I dont race funny cars.
Also ANOTHER good point made was the cooling system. I think some gains can be gained modifying the intake manifold how it stands, but modifying the dynamics of how the cooling system works will be MUCH greater.
Also copper vs aluminum is really a toss up. If you want to rebuild your engine every track run you build your 1500 hp ecotec. However if you are a daily driver (like me) keep the aluminum. You will see ALOT better gains through a redesign of the system than just changing the material.
my .02 cents
Banned
Joined: 05-11-07
Posts: 2,608
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
You know the point of this manifold is not only cooler temps, but also MUCH more efficient air flow. As it is now, the stock manifold is like a maze for the air, sharp turns and restriction all over the place. If rebel DOES come through with this manifold, I will DEFINITELY buy it. Cooling isn't even an issue, hell I'm making a 2 gallon trunk mounted resevior, switching to distilled water, and using an electric water pump from a small block chevy. Once I dump ice into the resevior, the water flowing through the cores should be in the 30's. My intake temps will be lower than ambient. However the air will still have to go through the maze known as the stock manifold.
so is this thing for real. i was just readin an older post where they just modified the old intake manifold now it looks like its a totally diff peice that they will make on there own. so wich is it. and the new design looks alot less expensive than the old one.
Well according to PSE as stated in the orginal thread the psi on a stock pulley is around 18 psi before it hits the manifold and after due to the bottelneck comes out at 12.5psi roughly. Thats a 5.5 psi loss between s/c and post manifold. They state the back pressure of this makes the air go back into the s/c housing. Air which is already hot and the cycle creates the heaton effect we all know and love 
So I was wondering if this manifold is going to flow better we should get higher boost therotecily.
So I was wondering if this manifold is going to flow better we should get higher boost therotecily.
Could imagine that the stock manifold was restrictive at higher CFM's, but 18PSI on the blower in stock form is already quite bad for the M62. Was looking to the compressor map and wondering what effect less restiction (so a smaller pressure ratio) would have:
What cfm (roughly) runs through an LSJ at ~6500rpm with 12 psi (0.85bar) boost pressure? Should be around 615m3/hr, right? (2 ltr / 2 x 6500 x 60 x 1.85 x ~85%VE??)
So in a non-restrictive intercooler world we are in the graph already at the crossing of 615m3/h and ~1.85 P-ratio [(12.5 + 14.7)/14.7]...
Standard LSJ intercooler=> same cfm at 18 Psi (1.22bar) "blower pressure" => Out of the graph...
And you can fill in the blanks with a <2.8 pulley...
Very very interrested in the practical outcome of these new manifold designs.
Note: Looking to this grapf I realize again that this blower is pretty inefficient at higher rpms / cfm's...
Banned
Joined: 05-11-07
Posts: 2,608
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
Could imagine that the stock manifold was restrictive at higher CFM's, but 18PSI on the blower in stock form is already quite bad for the M62. Was looking to the compressor map and wondering what effect less restiction (so a smaller pressure ratio) would have:
What cfm (roughly) runs through an LSJ at ~6500rpm with 12 psi (0.85bar) boost pressure? Should be around 615m3/hr, right? (2 ltr / 2 x 6500 x 60 x 1.85 x ~85%VE??)
So in a non-restrictive intercooler world we are in the graph already at the crossing of 615m3/h and ~1.85 P-ratio [(12.5 + 14.7)/14.7]...
Standard LSJ intercooler=> same cfm at 18 Psi (1.22bar) "blower pressure" => Out of the graph...
And you can fill in the blanks with a <2.8 pulley...
Very very interrested in the practical outcome of these new manifold designs.
Note: Looking to this grapf I realize again that this blower is pretty inefficient at higher rpms / cfm's...
What cfm (roughly) runs through an LSJ at ~6500rpm with 12 psi (0.85bar) boost pressure? Should be around 615m3/hr, right? (2 ltr / 2 x 6500 x 60 x 1.85 x ~85%VE??)
So in a non-restrictive intercooler world we are in the graph already at the crossing of 615m3/h and ~1.85 P-ratio [(12.5 + 14.7)/14.7]...
Standard LSJ intercooler=> same cfm at 18 Psi (1.22bar) "blower pressure" => Out of the graph...
And you can fill in the blanks with a <2.8 pulley...
Very very interrested in the practical outcome of these new manifold designs.
Note: Looking to this grapf I realize again that this blower is pretty inefficient at higher rpms / cfm's...
anyway, if rebel allows for the option of aluminum im in. Also a CAD drawing would help.
was just checking what you put in,
The m62 displaces 1 ltr
m62 doesnt max it's rpm at 6500, the lsj does.
Sorry been doing a zillion things at work
bump for being wrong (screenshot it)
Last edited by rrutter81; Jul 15, 2008 at 01:24 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Senior Member
Joined: 07-30-07
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 0
From: Home: Utica, MI Current Location: Mobile, Alabama
Could imagine that the stock manifold was restrictive at higher CFM's, but 18PSI on the blower in stock form is already quite bad for the M62. Was looking to the compressor map and wondering what effect less restiction (so a smaller pressure ratio) would have:
What cfm (roughly) runs through an LSJ at ~6500rpm with 12 psi (0.85bar) boost pressure? Should be around 615m3/hr, right? (2 ltr / 2 x 6500 x 60 x 1.85 x ~85%VE??)
So in a non-restrictive intercooler world we are in the graph already at the crossing of 615m3/h and ~1.85 P-ratio [(12.5 + 14.7)/14.7]...
Standard LSJ intercooler=> same cfm at 18 Psi (1.22bar) "blower pressure" => Out of the graph...
And you can fill in the blanks with a <2.8 pulley...
Very very interrested in the practical outcome of these new manifold designs.
Note: Looking to this grapf I realize again that this blower is pretty inefficient at higher rpms / cfm's...
What cfm (roughly) runs through an LSJ at ~6500rpm with 12 psi (0.85bar) boost pressure? Should be around 615m3/hr, right? (2 ltr / 2 x 6500 x 60 x 1.85 x ~85%VE??)
So in a non-restrictive intercooler world we are in the graph already at the crossing of 615m3/h and ~1.85 P-ratio [(12.5 + 14.7)/14.7]...
Standard LSJ intercooler=> same cfm at 18 Psi (1.22bar) "blower pressure" => Out of the graph...
And you can fill in the blanks with a <2.8 pulley...
Very very interrested in the practical outcome of these new manifold designs.
Note: Looking to this grapf I realize again that this blower is pretty inefficient at higher rpms / cfm's...
Banned
Joined: 05-11-07
Posts: 2,608
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
Senior Member
Joined: 07-30-07
Posts: 2,220
Likes: 0
From: Home: Utica, MI Current Location: Mobile, Alabama
Banned
Joined: 05-11-07
Posts: 2,608
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
13,500 rpm
i wouldnt be that cheap, i knew what u were saying
i wouldnt be that cheap, i knew what u were saying
Last edited by rrutter81; Jul 15, 2008 at 01:02 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Senior Member
Joined: 10-01-06
Posts: 5,134
Likes: 0
From: Maidstone, SK
Banned
Joined: 05-11-07
Posts: 2,608
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
The CFM will change depending on pulley size anyway and alot of other things. I dont have a chart to measure rpm of engine vs the rpm of the heaton.
Last edited by rrutter81; Jul 15, 2008 at 01:08 PM. Reason: added the "dont"
lol where were you last week?
anyway, if rebel allows for the option of aluminum im in. Also a CAD drawing would help.
was just checking what you put in,
The m62 displaces 1 ltr
The lsj displaces 4.ish liters if im not mistaken (i didnt google sue me)
m62 doesnt max it's rpm at 6500, the lsj does.
Sorry been doing a zillion things at work
bump for being wrong (screenshot it)
anyway, if rebel allows for the option of aluminum im in. Also a CAD drawing would help.
was just checking what you put in,
The m62 displaces 1 ltr
The lsj displaces 4.ish liters if im not mistaken (i didnt google sue me)
m62 doesnt max it's rpm at 6500, the lsj does.
Sorry been doing a zillion things at work
bump for being wrong (screenshot it)
Was just roughly looking to the engine's max cfm need:
LSJ displacement: 2.0ltr.. (duhh), but 4 stroke, so 2 revolutions for 2 liters of air sucked in.
Say max rpm =6500/min
Say VE = ~85%?
Therefore an "NA" LSJ would do: 2.0 / 2 x 6500 x 85% x 60 min/hr / 1000 l/m3 = 332 m3/h. But at 12 psi boost there is 1.85 x 332 = 613 m3/h pushed through the head.. [pressure ratio = (12 + 14.7)/ 14.7 = 1.85]
And this same CFM of 613 m3/h should be shoveled in by our M62 blower, right?
(All calculations rough ballpark figures!! There's a lot more to it, but this is just to see where we are in the M62 graph.
)Actually we can draw a line from zero (0 rpm, 0 cfm) to this max CFM/ PR point. But in the real world with resistances (IC!!), the pressure ratio will rise not linear with increasing cfm. Therefore this line will look like an exponential curve upwards...
But there is no doubt that less resistance with equal cooling capacity only can improve our situation.
And some nice runners...
(Even better with hotter cams where pressure waves tend to do bad things with idling.) 
Senior Member
Joined: 10-01-06
Posts: 5,134
Likes: 0
From: Maidstone, SK
Banned
Joined: 05-11-07
Posts: 2,608
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
Also im SC'd out to piddle over such small differences. We can raise the dead no the old thread if we need to.
Right now id like to keep to the intercooler topic if we can
Banned
Joined: 05-11-07
Posts: 2,608
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
I sometimes do have to work a bit for my euro's over here also...
Was just roughly looking to the engine's max cfm need:
LSJ displacement: 2.0ltr.. (duhh), but 4 stroke, so 2 revolutions for 2 liters of air sucked in.
Say max rpm =6500/min
Say VE = ~85%?
Therefore an "NA" LSJ would do: 2.0 / 2 x 6500 x 85% x 60 min/hr / 1000 l/m3 = 332 m3/h. But at 12 psi boost there is 1.85 x 332 = 613 m3/h pushed through the head.. [pressure ratio = (12 + 14.7)/ 14.7 = 1.85]
And this same CFM of 613 m3/h should be shoveled in by our M62 blower, right?
(All calculations rough ballpark figures!! There's a lot more to it, but this is just to see where we are in the M62 graph. )
Actually we can draw a line from zero (0 rpm, 0 cfm) to this max CFM/ PR point. But in the real world with resistances (IC!!), the pressure ratio will rise not linear with increasing cfm. Therefore this line will look like an exponential curve upwards...
But there is no doubt that less resistance with equal cooling capacity only can improve our situation.
And some nice runners... (Even better with hotter cams where pressure waves tend to do bad things with idling.)
Was just roughly looking to the engine's max cfm need:
LSJ displacement: 2.0ltr.. (duhh), but 4 stroke, so 2 revolutions for 2 liters of air sucked in.
Say max rpm =6500/min
Say VE = ~85%?
Therefore an "NA" LSJ would do: 2.0 / 2 x 6500 x 85% x 60 min/hr / 1000 l/m3 = 332 m3/h. But at 12 psi boost there is 1.85 x 332 = 613 m3/h pushed through the head.. [pressure ratio = (12 + 14.7)/ 14.7 = 1.85]
And this same CFM of 613 m3/h should be shoveled in by our M62 blower, right?
(All calculations rough ballpark figures!! There's a lot more to it, but this is just to see where we are in the M62 graph.
)Actually we can draw a line from zero (0 rpm, 0 cfm) to this max CFM/ PR point. But in the real world with resistances (IC!!), the pressure ratio will rise not linear with increasing cfm. Therefore this line will look like an exponential curve upwards...
But there is no doubt that less resistance with equal cooling capacity only can improve our situation.
And some nice runners...
(Even better with hotter cams where pressure waves tend to do bad things with idling.) n/m
reading>me
I see where your going ( i think ).
btw good post with the chart
Last edited by rrutter81; Jul 15, 2008 at 01:17 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
I'm running a bit behind here.....
Is this actual CFM of the M62 measured on a real engine load (so with boost pressure), or on some test stand measuring pure cfm?
(Things are getting complicated quickly here... Better stay to thread: A better inlet manifold! But I saved the rpm chart.
)
Senior Member
Joined: 10-01-06
Posts: 5,134
Likes: 0
From: Maidstone, SK
I'd like to see an actual SC 'flow dyno' done on the M62 to get some solid numbers.
Banned
Joined: 05-11-07
Posts: 2,608
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
for those wondering how to read this
I think that the Pressure ratio should be calculated a bit different:
Ratio of 1.0 means zero compression, 2.0 the doubled compression of the inlet air.
So in psi (bar's are a bit easier, as that is boost + 1):
Inlet ~14.7 Psi absolute
SC outlet say 15 Psi boost => 12 + 14.7 = 29.7 Psi absolute pressure
Pressure ratio : 29.7/14.7 = ~ 2.0
Ratio of 1.0 means zero compression, 2.0 the doubled compression of the inlet air.
So in psi (bar's are a bit easier, as that is boost + 1):
Inlet ~14.7 Psi absolute
SC outlet say 15 Psi boost => 12 + 14.7 = 29.7 Psi absolute pressure
Pressure ratio : 29.7/14.7 = ~ 2.0
or
1.68 m3/hr
The green lines are the rpm of the heaton
1.81 PR = 14.7+12(absolute PSI) / (14.7)
13500 is the estimated max 1.8ish pressure ratio looks to be 760 m3/hr
1/.028 = 35.714285714285714285714285714286
35.714285714285714285714285714286 (CFM) * (760 (m3/hr) / 60 minutes) = 452.38095238095238095238095238088 CFM
Last edited by rrutter81; Jul 15, 2008 at 06:06 PM.
Banned
Joined: 05-11-07
Posts: 2,608
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta
Senior Member
Joined: 10-06-05
Posts: 10,944
Likes: 2
From: Seneca, South Carolina