[KMR968Turbo]

LHP: I'm in Calgary and I believe I spoke to you a year or so ago about ITB's for a 944 turbo. At the time you said that they were just to complicated to make with the space we had and that cost wise they wouldn't be marketable. We also talked about the Milledge units. I would consider something like what you are suggesting for both my 951 and the 968 Turbo. Are these to be a barrel style?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Straight Four]

just a quickie, im pretty sure that mazda used a sort of intake resonance on its mazda 3. (it has valves that regulate the length of the intake manifold to improve air flow at different rpms.) however, some companies have found that going itb for teh car gives around 50 hp at the wheels. (160=>~200) then again, its advertising so who knows what else they have done to the motor.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Renalicious]

So for a car tech noob like myself, how exactly are individual throttle bodies suppose to give you more power than one throttle body?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

fox - yeah - it was "never completed" in as much as it didn't work well



straight four - ours is "dual resonance" - that means the air cirlces around a second time - it actually makes 4psi boost - so, for an ITB to work better, it would have to make more power on this engine that it would on most others - the deck is stacked a bit



ren - more air means opportunity for more power - shorter distances mean faster response, but often at the cost of torque - it can work, it just hasn't been worked out for the street yet, and as far as i know, has only been successful on full out race engines that don't get down below 5k

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[333pg333]

Hmm, very interesting discussion here. I am getting a trick engine made and at this stage of the plan it looks like a 3.4L 16v d/sump with itb's & custom manifold and full ems. Oh and it's an 'All motor' with one of those whirlygig turbothingys hanging off it. lol. I will stay tuned to this thread and add any progress on the motor. It is probably 3 months away at worst. Should be fun. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/blink.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />

Oh, by the way, doe's anyone know what the stock 16v does flow cfm wise? I have had extensive mods done to my 8v and it flows 247 cfm's but I'm lead to believe that even the stock S2 outflows it comfortably.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[TheMirror]

Me too, that's how I always used to denote them. Still do.



[quote name='flash' post='37662' date='Jun 29 2007, 07:21 PM']ah - i'm clearly too old - we call that normally aspirated, as opposed to "on the bottle" or "blown"[/quote]

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Renalicious]

Within the realm of this topic, I wonder if you guys have seen this video?

http://videos.streetfire.net/search/s2000+...578f042a005.htm



It's some guy's S2000 done up with some impressive mods, including ITB's and individual intake runners. It SOUNDS like a full blown race car, and seems to get up to speed pretty quick. So what would be the pros and cons of using an intake system like that? Aside from no air filter, a lot of dust inside the cylinders and low torque and only good above 5K rpm like Flash mentioned? When reading about doing ITB's on our cars I always imagined someone trying to modify the stock intake somehow, which sounds like a lot of work indeed.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Mark]

That S2000 is using Hayward's (LHP) ITB setup I believe. You can actually put filters in the ITBs.



Neinmeister was doing some ITB work on the 968 a few years ago before abandoning the project due to time resources and cost. I think he said he would sell what he had for something liek $9k <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[LHP]

[quote name='Renalicious' post='37720' date='Jul 2 2007, 08:56 AM']Within the realm of this topic, I wonder if you guys have seen this video?

http://videos.streetfire.net/search/s2000+...578f042a005.htm



It's some guy's S2000 done up with some impressive mods, including ITB's and individual intake runners. It SOUNDS like a full blown race car, and seems to get up to speed pretty quick. So what would be the pros and cons of using an intake system like that? Aside from no air filter, a lot of dust inside the cylinders and low torque and only good above 5K rpm like Flash mentioned? When reading about doing ITB's on our cars I always imagined someone trying to modify the stock intake somehow, which sounds like a lot of work indeed.[/quote]



Just looking around and found you guys are talking ITB's again.



Funny, that vid is an old one of the first S2000 system out the door years ago.

Since then another customer has designed good cams and a good exhaust system for the S2000 to work with my 50m/m ITB system.



Now a stock block S2000 with cams/valve springs/exh system can make 275 HP/ 200 torque.

And this power is not all at the top end/ (good mid range power).



A couple of months ago another customer wanted more power from his turbo S2000,

which already made 512hp and 317 torque.



It now makes 565 hp and 370 torque with my custom 50m/m ITB system with turbo plenum,

He basically ran out of injector size, fuel pump, and now the turbo is to small,

or this engine would be making 600hp.

He says he got enough power now.



Now back to the 968:

The previous ITB attempts from 9m racing were to small to be effective,

I know this as my throttle parts supplier is the same company 9m has,

and the manifolding was too small as well.



A 3.0 litre 4 cylinder engine is not a small engine and as such needs more throttle than most think.

Generally speaking an intake manifold should taper out (get larger) to open air or to a given plenum,

so a 48m/m throttle is not big enough for a cylinderhead that is already 48m/m in crossectional area.



Unless you plant the throttle right on the head,

this is not easy to do so,

as you move out from the head,

the throttle has to get larger to retain the needed taper in the manifolding.



Now, what do you guy's want.



I not going to design an intake manifold to fit with a turbo sitting under it,

to complicated and too HOT for the real world of hp,

put the turbo else where and things get much easier , at least for me (design wise).



Any questions,

phone me, as sitting doing emails trying to get a point across is a waste of time

PH# is on my website www.haywardperformance.com



Thanks: LHP

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Fox944]

[quote name='Renalicious' post='37720' date='Jul 2 2007, 11:56 AM']Aside from no air filter, a lot of dust inside the cylinders and low torque and only good above 5K rpm like Flash mentioned? When reading about doing ITB's on our cars I always imagined someone trying to modify the stock intake somehow, which sounds like a lot of work indeed.[/quote]



No air-filter should not be a problem. You can put air filters on ITB's individually or you can build manifolds over them like BMW has been doing on their M cars sinces day 1 (all BMW M cars have ITB's) and use a single air filter. Low-Torque should not be an issue either imo. These are 3.0L motors, they produce a lot of torque.....i would sacrafice a little torque in the lower rpm range if i'm going to make more mid-range power and big power up top (where it counts).......Big top end, great throttle response, and intoxicating engine music are all good things.





[quote name='flash' post='37693' date='Jul 1 2007, 01:31 PM']fox - yeah - it was "never completed" in as much as it didn't work well[/quote]





It was costing to much time and money to justify building it....and they moved on to an easier sollution...super charging the car. He still has the unfinnished itb system he started building. For someone looking to build a rev-happy motor with a linear power curve, natural aspiration is the way to go. I believe ITB's could work, and work well.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

let's not forget the biggest "obstacle" - this engine is not like others - you can't compare it to an S200 setup - this one has 4psi boost from the dual resonance manifold - that means power (probably about 10 hp) - any ITB setup will have to make a lot to be worthwhile - dollar per horsepower value, unless you are racing and every pony counts, a setup that retailed for 2k would need to make at least 25hp over stock to be worth it in my mind



also remember that this will not be street legal anywhere in about 2 years, so again, a race car thing for sure



i will possibly be interested in this myself though for my race car, so get on it - lol

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Mark]

[quote name='flash' post='37735' date='Jul 2 2007, 06:09 PM']a setup that retailed for 2k would need to make at least 25hp over stock to be worth it in my mind[/quote]



There is no way this will retail for $2K it's at least 50-100% higher than that.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Fox944]

[quote name='flash' post='37735' date='Jul 2 2007, 06:09 PM']let's not forget the biggest "obstacle" - this engine is not like others - you can't compare it to an S200 setup - this one has 4psi boost from the dual resonance manifold - that means power (probably about 10 hp) - any ITB setup will have to make a lot to be worthwhile - dollar per horsepower value, unless you are racing and every pony counts, a setup that retailed for 2k would need to make at least 25hp over stock to be worth it in my mind



also remember that this will not be street legal anywhere in about 2 years, so again, a race car thing for sure



i will possibly be interested in this myself though for my race car, so get on it - lol[/quote]





i paid nearly 3K for my head & gasket (not counting the labor involved in removing it, shipping it & then re installing it). My engines is more efficient, and perhaps the RS barn header & exhaust will work more efficiently with my head....only time will tell...but i didnt get anything near a 25HP gain...thats for sure. I'm not to worried about the cost per dollar....i threw bang for the buck out the door when i decided to buy & build a naturally aspirated 968 rather then a 944 Turbo. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/unsure.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/cool.gif" class="smilie" alt="" />

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[LHP]

[quote name='flash' post='37735' date='Jul 2 2007, 03:09 PM']let's not forget the biggest "obstacle" - this engine is not like others - you can't compare it to an S200 setup - this one has 4psi boost from the dual resonance manifold - that means power (probably about 10 hp) - any ITB setup will have to make a lot to be worthwhile - dollar per horsepower value, unless you are racing and every pony counts, a setup that retailed for 2k would need to make at least 25hp over stock to be worth it in my mind



also remember that this will not be street legal anywhere in about 2 years, so again, a race car thing for sure



i will possibly be interested in this myself though for my race car, so get on it - lol[/quote]





If you believe everything your told, you'll get 4psi boost.

In the real world you can get over 100 percent efficient at some point in the RPM band,

but not over a very wide part of the power band.



The 968 engine is large with 750 cc per cylinder,

but is still over square engine meaning larger bore than stroke.

It can still be made to be rev happy if people wanted it to be.



As for the S2000 engine it aquired something like 20 plus hp on a completely stock engine with an AEM ecu for tuning, with correct cams and exh, 75hp.





Back to the 968 ITB deal:

I have many entertaining projects I can do intake parts for.



So for the 968,

if there is not enough interest from the 968 people, to bad.

So the statement -{so get on it}- does not apply,

unless of course its got money attached.



It has to be economically viable for me to make parts for the 968,

It's a small market place, so, money talks.

At least I'm willing to talk to people who are interested.



I don't see any emails or anything else showing up,

so the interest is probably not there.



But at least I've tryed.



Thanks:LHP

www.haywardperformance.com

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

well, the increase from the S2 engine is not all timing - we all know that timing can give some power, but not 20hp - my guess is that it's about half and half - somebody should test this theory by putting an S2 manifold on a 968 and seeing what it does



while i think that the potential for more power with ITBs is there, it likely won't be easy to street tune, which dramatically reduces the number of people that could use it - as you say, it's easy to get performance in one area, but not necessarily across the board



i think this group has to see results of something to get interested - most of them are street oriented, and not willing to dive headlong into the modification world - that has built in limitations for a lot of mods - perhaps if you could specify what you could expect in gains on this engine, and what other trade-offs there would be, you might get more interest



i think the 944 guys would be a good target, as they don't have the dual resonance manifold, and would see larger gains



i think the race group would be interested, as long as it is within the rules of their class



i am "interested", as it is within those rules for me, but i have too many parts projects going on to fund this one right now - also, i would not be using it on a normally aspirated setup, so i would need to see the physical layout before being able to determine whether or not it would work for me



i understand about not wanting to jump into something without first gauging interest - i've done that wiht a few projects myself - that is why i suggest the 944 group - there is a larger group, with more people looking for power, and a lot more racers - many items for us have come from there and been adapted for us



i'd love to talk with you about this - it has some real potential in the right audience

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Fox944]

[quote name='flash' post='37735' date='Jul 2 2007, 06:09 PM']also remember that this will not be street legal anywhere in about 2 years, so again, a race car thing for sure[/quote]





Tell me more about this Flash......



At this point, i'm kind of up in the air as to whats going on in terms of emissions and whats going to happen. Rules and proposals are constantly changing /being thrown out.



I recall a few years ago they were saying that for '07+, pre '96 cars wont need emissions checks any longer in NYS. I thought i would be able to run no Cat on the 68 without fear of being fined, etc. That proposal never went into effect...and my car still needs to pass emissions testing.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

testing standards are getting more strict, not less - the clean air act dictates air quality standards - as the air quality decreases, the testing requirements get more strict - state by state they have been adding the same testing as california - the last i read, 2009 was the deadline, and that all states would have the same standards



of course, this like anything else government related, can change, and it already has done that twice, but i would not count on being able to slip through - it's a money thing, and tied to federal highway funding and such - i doubt the states could pass up that funding for long



that is why any such item i would choose for a street car must be CARB certified - for a race car though, no biggie

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Mark]

Not a problem in Maryland-



The new law means that by model year 2011, new cars sold in Maryland will have to meet California emissions standards.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

perhaps not today it isn't a problem, and i think maryland one one of the states to stay the execution of the testing for a while, but i think by 2009 it will be in effect there too - the last time i checked, part of maryland is already on the dirty list, and the entire state will be bumping up to dyno emmissions testing, and the same equipment requirement standards as california - i think it will be 1989 and older cars that will be exempt



the clean air act is a huge pain in the butt convoluted incredibly long document to read, but it is out there, and there isn't any getting around it - heck, there is even language in there phasing out gasoline (though admitedly that part has been delayed and re-written a few times already too)



it all relates to the amount of particulates in the air - the more people out there driving, the more particulates, even though things burn cleaner now - the standard for the quality gets tighter each year, so status quo isn't good enough



i would not count on being able to get away in the future with the things we can today

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Mark]

We already ahve dyno emissions testing in Maryland and I'm not worried about that part as it's been around for years and the guys at the testing stations are scared of Porsches. LOL They have passed both of mine and my S2000 without even testing them at least once. <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/smile.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> As long as they don't require the older cars to worry about CARB certified parts it should not be a problem and that would never fly in this state.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.