Take that same straw I mentioned early. We will call one end 'a' and the other 'b'. Say we take the straw and make a funnel out of it increasing the diameter of 'a' 10 fold. But we do not change the diameter of 'b'. How much more air could be sucked through the funnel than the straw? We are not talking forced induction where the volume would help, we are talking n/a. See, the problem I have with the intake is the same problem I have with my intake. One of two things need to happen, (1) the runners need to be bent to help softer the 135* bend like a TPI setup or (2) the upper plenum needs to be raised higher to help soften the 135* angle. The only other thing that I just noticed is that the section of the box that the TB bolts to appears to sit lower than the rest of the box to accomadate the STB. The air that flows in would first have to raise and then lower again. If the TB sat higher than the box, then the air would just flow downward.
Jim

 

I believe that he did port the middle runner. Look at the design of the FACTORY setup for a 3.4L, short runners fed from small "logs". This design is supposed to improve high end power. His engine will be sucking a great AMOUNT of air, fed by the large chamber. Also, velocity of the incoming air will be increased as well with his design (I'm pretty sure anyhow). I dunno, I think it will work.

 

Jeriko, you keep missing what I wrote- I have ported the middle and lower intake manifolds (its not a lower plenum- but I get what you mean)-

AND I will have massively ported heads with a larger 1.8" intake valves, also I will raise the floor of the "head intake port" AND the floor of the "base ports on the lower intake manifold" to match- this will help decrease that bend/restiction also.
Please look again at the picture I posted above showing the new port sizes into the middle and lower manifolds. They are about 1 1/2 times the size of the stock ones. I took off as much meat as I could and have a shaped plastic piece that I pressed into them often as a guide to keep the ports accurate measure and shape as I ported. I started from the base(where it connects to the head, backwards up into the ports, leaving the base runner floor untouched for height- this gets technical to explain without seeing- however It doesn't show well enough to see in photographs. I will later marry it to the heads for exact fit.

You keep missing the point that this is NOT going on a stock motor. I have said time and time again that it will not go on the current 2.8. Its been calculated and built for a 3.5l motor that will be capable of turning 8k rpms with a completely hipo bottom end componants and lightened crank.

The TB ramp is much more mild than the stock setup and opens in volume as it ramps upward (thus slowing velocity/turbulance in the plenum) Velocity picks back up into the runners---I purposely engineered this into my design. TB is 62mm- circle to retangular shape- opens to aprox 1sq. inch larger area as it ramps up and enters the plenum (I have the exact equations and blueprints stuff in a drawer somewhere from when I first engineered it) I have seen racecars that run plenums for 350CI motors in the range of 9-10 quart chambers and that feed off dual TBs ramping much "worst" (as you imply) than my "ramp" and produce 800+hp. My motor is half the size and I opted to cut it down even just a bit more to aprox 4 quarts (with Gregs advice also from PF&E). There is mcuh research into this already- I didn't just slap it together for looks. Here's a shot of the ramp backwards showing the volume increase of the "ramp".

 

I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. Looking at one of your first pics showing the front of the engine, you can see how the TB sits lower than the top of the upper plenum. I would move the TB up at least 3". I assume that the TB sits as low as stock is because of the STB. Even though you made a box and opened up the inside so there is no runners, the current of air traveling through the box to the lower plenum will still have to bend the same 90* that it would if you had the stock upper plenum on it. The only air that will be in the box will be pulled in by the motor so you will not have a constant volume of extra air. If you did, that would be forced induction. I think this design would work great for forced induction where air would be pushed down it. I know that this will be going on a larger motor. I too have a bored 3.4L and this is the same reason why I ported the crap out of my intake. Please don't get me wrong, I like the design. Hell, I think I may do the same thing since I was going to redo my upper plenum because of those angles. I would just change the position of the TB and the height of the upper intake by at least 3". I do have an aftermarket hood so it will fit.

And on another note, I relooked at those pics of the ports that you opened up. To increase flow, you have to remove material from the inside of the port, not the outside. In the picture, it appears that you opened up the ports by removing material from the outside. And how material material did you remove from the runners? And is that box welded onto the lower plenum? If so, how do you get at the bolts to the intake manifold?

 

Ummm, Jerriko, you're preaching to someone who knows EXACTLY what he's doing. He has thought out every aspect of what he's building. We should bite our nails and await his 2.8 to grenade so the 3.5 can go in (not that I'm hoping it will grenade). I wouldn't be at all surprised if it made more power than what he thinks it will. Good luck "Vsixtoy".

 

I am having a creative discussion with him about the design. Like I said, I like the idea so much that I will be making one when I get the time to replace what I already have (refer to the pics on my website). Bouncing ideas back and forth is the best way to go forward. Please don't spoil this discussion with nonbeneficial comments.

 

Certain comments sounded "targeted" that's all.
I bite my tounge and shut up now

 

Good move, FbodTrek.. this is honestly the best creative criticism discussion I've seen on this board in quite some time.

I'm personally sticking with long runner, since I need all the velocity I can muster for low end torque until the turbo spools, so I'm going with twin plenum/twin TB, mandrel bent tubing, etc.. but this is all helping me figure out the angles for my upper plenum attaching to the middle plenum for best flow.

 

I guess I should give you an idea of what I have so you know where I am coming from.
http://www.angelfire.com/crazy3/jimsfirebird/picshtm/intake6.htm
I guess you will have to copy and paste the link. It stinks, angelfire will not host just pics.

 

It appears to me that he left the TB in stock location period. That way the throttle and trans linkage align right up, the air intake match right up, and prob yes the strut brace too. Also, while under my car yesterday, hood shut, their is not alot of space between the hood and TB. I see why gm tipped it down.

I made a comment back when he first posted it about straiting that out, I forget what he said.

 

I completely understand that but there lies my point. Since the TB is in that position, the angle in which the air flows has not changed. Besides, I have an aftermarket cowl hood that gives me 4" more to work with.

 

Well Jim,(I thinks its Jim from your website) I am not trying to sound demeaning but have to say I really don't know how in the world you make a quote like this? You can't see the larger ports in the picture? I have to question your experience now?

To tell me that porting runners is taking material off the inside and not the outside is so demeaning of a statement- As if you were explaining something to a 10yr old.

Look again Jim, Look- do you know what you are looking at?

Dean

 

O.k. sorry but I'm done with Jim.

To further answer anyone elses question as for the "ramp" design from the TB- Look what you have to work with, It has to fit within the perameters of the enginebay, the marraige to the motor, and line up the the existing linkage and all other assesory type devices the route to it and are manditory in function of the ECM, etc.

Try and build it the way you think works best- then worry about fit and also how everything will hook up later is just not feasible or realistic.

Soory but Jim doesn't understand the priciple of a large plenum and how it functions either- this delves into physics of low pressure zones. When each port takes its turn and draws air from the plenum- It feeds from the open space around it for that vacuum pulse. The smaller the plenum (or "box" as Jim keeps refering to it) the more each pulse will create a lowpressure zone as air is sucked towards it- more volume is less pulse turbulance on each corresponding pulse. Please look at each port as an individual vacuum cleaner (and not like he and a few others have AKA gumby for one, that keep thinking the air need to be route towards the ports because its pushed into the TB)

Here's the banning statement again- but- I have to think its the age and inexperience of many on this board- I think the V6's are owned by mostly the younger. I try to have an intellegent and constructive post, but it always leads to comments like the quote on "don't port the outside" DuH.

I love to chat about customising cars, but many can't think outside the box (pun intended)

 

i think you've done a great job. not meaning anything negative or saying it could be better but, even if there is still room for improvement, its better than anything most of the rest of us have done! dean, you might be tired of hearing from me about this but, i want one! i want to try to make something of my own but if i can buy something, i might be more interested in getting it done. i know that my motor cannot breath like it needs to! i know that i need to do something for my motor to try to gain a few horses, the plenum or an entire intake would be great in my opinion!

 

[

Here's the banning statement again- but- I have to think its the age and inexperience of many on this board- I think the V6's are owned by mostly the younger. I try to have an intellegent and constructive post, but it always leads to comments like the quote on "don't port the outside" DuH.

I love to chat about customising cars, but many can't think outside the box (pun intended) [/B][/QUOTE]

I have to hand it to you man you react alot different then you used to back in the day!

Also i agree with you on the v6's being owned by younger guys. Just take a look at some of the threads. And as much as i hate the 60* motors, your one of the few people i see actually trying to advance some of the 60* weak points instead of throwing a turbo or some nitrous on it.
And i think techsmurf is right, you dont see people dissagree on this board for too long before it turns bad.
(even though i've never had a disscussion that went south )

 

You got to be kidding me, right? Suddenly now you are surperior just because you think you have more experience. You think that younger kids work on V6s. You say that I sound demeaning? You talk about making the runners shorter yet you port the outside of the runners and ports which be any means would make the air travel further. In that nice picture you got there, you can see that you honed the outside of the port. Compare the inner angles of the untouched plenum to the inner angles of the finished product. The reason the ports look larger is because the outer edges of the ports have been machined. But now I question you and your 'knowledge' since instead of just answering my questions or even say you don't know, you start throwing insults and treat me as someone who I am not. Please, since you have brought up physics, what school do (or did) you attend and what kind of degree do you have? What experience do you have? Let's compare brain pans, shall we?

You have to realize that when you publish something different like this online, people will see the idea and try it for themselves. But if the design is flawed or can be improved, but it either isn't brought up or you don't say anything, how is anyone suppose to it? You have a responsibility to investigate the improvement or change. If you don't think you have a responsibility, don't tell anyone about it. I was lead to believe you were open to criticism but apparently you're not. Like I told you, I like the principle, I just think there is room for improvement.

 

Partner I think with your last statement I now understand what you were trying to say" AND I"D LIKE TO APOLOGIZE".

I think were are just having a misinterpetation of wordage- I was bewildered when I read you say something about porting the outside of the ports-I now realize you are talking about the outerwall (or outer port radius) of the inside port surface. HeII, I thought you were refering to me adding material to the actual outside of the runners to straighten them or something?

Yes in fact if you want to increase flow of an existing radius port, then you try and port the inner radius port wall only to shorten the distance of the runner- I'm not facing that problem, My runners are already shortened by aprox 4" with the new design.

What I have done is ported the inner and outer radius' at the opening bend to:
1)decrease the sharpness of the bend
2) Funnel open the mouth as much a posibble to decrease turbulance into the mouth (this is the sharp 90* you speak of that still exists somewhat- I understand)
3) I have blended the outer radius wall to transition directly into the outer plenum wall to help prevent turbulance from an outer lip.

Now down the runners I have ported directly in the middle of the ports- why- first off for ease of porting a straight shot upward (or backwards) from the intake/head gasket back towards the mouth area you see in the picture- Its a directly straight shot then funnels open at the bend. Secondly, I have stated that I intend to raise the port floors on both the head and the very bottom of the runner ( I will marry them once I get the heads and then further work the floor area) by adding material and smothing that transition into a radius as high up towards the valvecover gasket that I can get them. I want the port to be lower and then start to bend more gradual into the head port. THis will set up better for the sharp downward bend into the chamber and ruduce the need for the 'Vane"( which creates a lower pressure zone just after it casing the air to bend around the corner easier. This bend it so sharp that the vane directs the air towards the sides and top of the port here and then turning creating less turbulance than the velocity pulling it into the back wall if the vane didn't exist)

Again I apologise for jumping at you- I totaling misinterpeted what you were writing- we are on the same page now.

 

I think you two seriously need to just get together sometime and play show and tell, rather than trying to figure it out with ill-lit pictures.

 

Yes I agree it would be much easier to talk about this in person and physically show the work done that does not show up in photos- too much glare.

I personally just popped in to show the progress of it because I often get e-mail asking about how its progressing- then understandably, people ask questions and give advice- I can totaly respect that, however- I still intend on building it my why, please respect that also.

Alan- I am sorry to say that you could not bribe me enough to build another one. Money is not an issue, I like unique and rare things- I paint my Scuba tanks with designs (Pepsi bottles, Duracell batteries, Etc). Many have offered big bucks for me to do theirs- Mine wouldn't be specail if everyione else had one also. I don't mind sharing thought for someone else to copy, but copies will always have variances based on taste.

 

alright, i see what your saying. i fuess i'll just have to keep throwing around ideas and see if someday i can build one of my own.

off topic, sorry, but does anyone know of or have a place where i can post a few videos? i've got a few videos of my V6 in action that i'd like to post!

 

Do you mind telling us what heads you will be using? 2.8L, 3.4L (I'm not sure if there is a difference between them) or the aluminum 3400 heads?
Also, when I ported the heads on the 3.4, there is a TON of material to be removed and I removed the vanes as well. They were not necessary when the heads were ported out. GM could have saved themselves a lot of time (and me too) if they are casted them differently but I know they have their reasons.

 

When the time comes, I'll be looking to Tom at Supersix for some benchflowed heads with 1.8" intakevalves (He's yet to do it but says there it plenty of room- just no demand yet. He strongly feels the larger valves will breathe even bet than the #'s so far.


His main target consumer is the 4th gen 3.4 guys with this package he has put together. The intate ports match the 3.4 intake manifold he offers.

I intend to bribe him to make me a set with the floor raised as high as he can get them while keeping the ports cc constant, safe, and clean. And as stated before, I will then marry my intake to them- He has the benchflow, not me.

My biggest hurdle with this car is I live in So. Cal and intend on always keeping it a street machine(aka smog checks). Dale tried to clarify for me further about my design(he couldn't remember what I had told him awhile back but knew it was for reason)-well its is a good one, this intake must remain the possibility to be swaped back without hassle to the factory intake for visual smog inspections. I forgot to add that part above.

 

Okay, this conversation is well outta my league now, so I'll just stick to the alternator bracket. How did you support the alternator in the rear?

And, how'd you weld up the new intake? Mig? Tig?

[edit] Maybe I'll try my hand at a bracket this coming weekend... I usually hit Home Depot for my steel. Plus, I'm itching for a chance to use my new toy; a Miller Spectrum Cutmate 375! (See https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...75#post1837301 )

 

tom, the brackets easy, I made mine in just over an hour. Start to finish.

Mine has no bracing on back side

 

Ugh give it a rest. Just show us the results dean, that will be good enough for most of us.

 

Oh I've made brackets before, just never anything as fancy as v6toy's one (with the curve). Usually I break out the hacksaw, BFH, file, and vise to make a bracket.

 

-sweet good to see your back... makes me happy:lala: to bad i had to crush my maro b/c of a bent frame. but theres a new project lurking! all parts are bought and paid for now the thrash to a end.. should handale grate with all the suspention-i will have some questions for ya soon.

 

Tom, The stock 2pc bracket still attaches to the rear just like the stock 105amp alt. The oly difference in the V6 and V8 alts is the clocking position of the one mount point shown with the new aluminium bracket.

I welded it with MIG (aluminium weld kit) on my Lincoln 175pro 220v. It spatters badly, but gets the job done without too much porosity (I've water tested it as I've continued).

I have probably mentioned before that I own my own Tile & Marble business. I have many specailty tile & marble fabrication tools that I outfit with metal cutting blades and bits that work great. Also have many specialty air tools and I have my garage plumbed with airlines (interanal in walls) from a vertical compressor in the back room.

 

Yes, the cornering in these cars is fantastic. For me though (as in my own rattling opinions etc etc), I would love to have a V8 Camaro (and I say Camaro in historical terms) of going fast in a strait line. Which most 'muscle' cars designed back in the late 60's - early 70's were designed to do just that. Not so much in terms of cornering, that and for technological reasons of suspensions and weight ratio's. I would love to see GM reintoduce the F-body back out with a 60* mill that would rival handing of many new sport compacts and what-not, but lest be that is probably just wishful thinking.

I must say, I'm happy with how my 2.8 is, that and I own it more for body looks and t-top off cruising. One of these days though, I will find another 3rd-gen mill with a V8 for the purpose of going fast and make it a custom go-fast-in-a-strait-line car with handling second. Anyway, for those out to make whatever engine do something better in a different way, enjoy the ride, because uniqueness is very cool indeed.

As for the turbo guys, keep with it, I want one too! I'm lazy when it comes to custom fabs, so something that would bolt on in a few days, yes please!

-Dan