difference in intakes (pics)

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:21 pm

well yeah, this is a lot of work, but its a wealth of knowlege

and dont forget the goal of meeting Emmision control laws and clearing the master cylinder without sacrificing performance

this line looks a little long but it had to be fit into the two locations . maybe next time I will put a 90 elbow in one end

All this does is collect the exhaust from one end of the cylinder head and move it to the other end of the intake manifold, no tampering has occured

77amc · Post by **77amc** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:54 pm

Hey BIll, on my 96 full size chevy truck, the EGR pipe has a nice insulation wrap on it that looks like it would slide right over that pipe so it wouldn't melt anything on our application.
I think it was around 16-18" long. One could probably find one at a salvage yard cheap.

E

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:41 pm

I use thremo sleeves to insulate my stuff

http://www.colemanracing.com/catalog/in ... ath=26_368

IDriftNaked · Post by **IDriftNaked** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:14 am

sweet! can't wait to put that thing on! your the man bill!!!!!!!

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:40 am

I just have to add some material under the inlet runners and then I can get a better port match, then I will draw it up and get ready to build them. I probably wont put the taper in the runners and I will probably leave the plenum out so I can custom build the size of the plenum to the size of the engine

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:20 pm

I dont know Smog, I think I can do a little better, its OKAY but I want something a little more of a factory look,cleaner lines, with that CAS set up I was working on at the front of the engine
I been looking at the' one size fits all' junk on the market and I cant believe the prices they are gouging out on this crap, we can do a lot better then that.
You gotta match the inlet runners and the size of the plenum to the size of the engine and the stroke of the crank, and it all has to be in harmony with the proper cam ,you cant just stick a round can at the end of 4 runners and expect to make power

DoubleJ · Post by **DoubleJ** » Wed Sep 10, 2008 2:49 am

I will buy one when you have them ready. Put me on the list lol. I wont be worrying about emissions tho.

TsTKl · Post by **TsTKl** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:47 am

Bill Hincher wrote:two injectors per intake runner will be mandatory when I get done

you remeber all the math I laid out about injector sizing and electronic management? its still in the electrical section,
http://projectzerog.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=426
but any way, the way we can build a car to be hi performance AND meet emisions is by running the box stock ECU set up with a second injector and a secondary ( progessive) air inlet
with two injectors , you can run all day long legal and when you kick in the second set of injectors you can make it fly

I just gotta get ahead of the bellhousing work

Not that what I did was legal, as my car had no egr, no charcol canister, sheet metal intake manifold, fmic, all aftermarket piping, a gm maf/translator, vented bov, and a bunch of other stuff, but I was able to tune my FIC 1000cc injectors to be able to pass the sniffer. Thats right, my SUPER HUGE UNSMOGABLE 1000cc injectors passed with flying colors on the sniffer. Lets just ignore the fact that I had somene who didn't care about the visual. I seriously just took my pump gas tune, slapped my oem exhaust on without the wideband hooked up, drove to the smog station, passed, drove home, swapped exhausts back.

point is, dual rails aren't really important for the purpose of smog. I can't really think of any situation where there would be a benifit other than if you need more fuel than the largest injectors on the market (1600-2050cc). The way I look at it is, if you have the means to control a second set of injectors, you probably have the tunability to control one set of large injectors.

Post by **DJpowerHaus** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:12 am

TsTKl, I agree 100%.

Hrmm.. well maybe there is one reason and that's to spray them in different directions for better atomization. Probably not worth the trouble though.

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:54 am

The intake manifold is just a funnel for air, it has to allow and orginize 9000 gallons of air to burn one gallon of gas at 12.5 air fuel ratio

The number one priority to understand Horsepower is ratio between lbs per hour of fuel that the engine is capable of burning efficiently. With that number you must provide enough air to burn the fuel, then you must provide the enigne with the management tools to achieve a smooth power flow

it has to do with the velocity of the air in the intake tract, you have to maintain a mach speed value to aviod 'turbo lag' effects

It is exactly the same as a 2 barrel carburator vs. 4 barrel carburator , to a dual quad set up, its all about control, distribution and having fuel available
There are many, many advantages to a twin injector set up

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Sat Sep 27, 2008 12:02 pm

the inlet port was so low on the first gen intake flange, I could not match the lower part of the ports

I had to add material under the EVO inlet runners

Then I could safely machine out the lower portion of the inlet runner

TsTKl · Post by **TsTKl** » Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:43 am

Bill Hincher wrote:The intake manifold is just a funnel for air, it has to allow and orginize 9000 gallons of air to burn one gallon of gas at 12.5 air fuel ratio

The number one priority to understand Horsepower is ratio between lbs per hour of fuel that the engine is capable of burning efficiently. With that number you must provide enough air to burn the fuel, then you must provide the enigne with the management tools to achieve a smooth power flow

it has to do with the velocity of the air in the intake tract, you have to maintain a mach speed value to aviod 'turbo lag' effects

It is exactly the same as a 2 barrel carburator vs. 4 barrel carburator , to a dual quad set up, its all about control, distribution and having fuel available
There are many, many advantages to a twin injector set up

larger injectors add more fuel,... and its not like two injectors per rail increases the total airflow.

My injectors can add 1000cc's of fuel with a base fuel pressure of 43 psi, which is still more than two 450cc injectors. So the amount of power my single injector per cylinder set up is capable of is higher than twin 450cc injectors. You can't really compare EFI to carburated set ups, as everything is DRASTICALLY different. With EFI set ups, you don't really need multiple injectors unless you run into drivability issues, or no one makes injectors big enough for your fuel demands. I know a lot of guys on the dsmlink forums are running 1600cc injectors on their daily drivers. I was considering it, but since I'm only running a burned chip, I thought it would be easier for me to tune via hex for the 1000cc injectors, and I don't see myself outrunning 1000's. The only issue that really came up was that the idle rpm needed to be increased because your ability to add small quantities of fuel decreases as you increase injector sizing. The ecu sends the injector a "pulse width" signal which basically tells the injector a duration to stay open. The pulse width is quantized, so the ecu is only able to send certain signals. If I remember correctly, the math on my injectors came out to about .7% changes (aka .7%, 1.4%, 2.1%,...)

I can see if you want twin injectors for like 780cc and like 1600cc back ups or something, but in the case of twin 450cc injectors, its rather pointless since 900cc injectors are very drivable.

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:44 am

this is a first gen intake manifold changed for oldcolt75, he wanted the EGR system included

I cut the existing passageway and fitted a new ending into it

I just cut a 1/2 inch pipe thread into a square block and mounted it to the output side of the EGR

Then I built a spacer for the inlet of the throttle body, that way I can use the open EGR port in the existing throttle body in its proper location

Then I turned down a piece of aluminum to route the EGr gas into the throttle body

you can see the ERG inlet to behind the throttle body is connected as a 90 degree angle

the only thing left is to bend some tubing and connect the two ports

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:51 am

after changing ends on the intake plenum I had to connect the EGR system back to its original intent

The EGr valve is still completely intact as OEM and functions exactly as planned from the factory, when the EGR valve opens it routes spent exhuast gases into the inlet of air to the plenum and then the intake manifold distributes the exhaust gas to each cylinder

you can see this is the original inlet of exhaust gas in the original throttle body . The only difference is that the inlet end has been swapped, there is no differnce in EGR operation

jeffball610 · Post by **jeffball610** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 6:38 pm

Found a couple pics of what should be an EVO III intake manifold. Thought it looked really simple and clean for an OEM unit. Maybe it will get someone inspired to create something similar.

The tube running across the runners is the PCV tube. Notice the throttle pulley is on the engine side instead of the firewall side. Other than that, it seems to be basically a round tube hooked up to some 2G runners. Very simple.

GRNDSM · Post by **GRNDSM** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:14 pm

As always, very nice work, Bill!

I am especially impressed with the amount of dedication and effort you dedicated to the EGR system, which almost no one uses! I have a fundamental problem with the EGR system: it makes a mess your intake system and it is the cause of most idle problems in DSMs!

I understand that people scrutinized by C.A.R.B. might need to retain it, but who else actually needs it? Massachusetts is supposed to be as strict as CA (they claim to have CA emissions), but in reality, our inspectors do not give a damn (yea, good for us!

)

And notice that EGR system is no-longer used by auto manufacturers!

Anyway, my point is that most people will probably want an intake without the EGR system.

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 7:38 pm

as I have said before, the only time you need an EGR port is when you run the standard 14.7 fuel ratio, under a no load/cruise condition, the 14.7 fuel ratio creates an over lean condition in the combustion chamber, when temeratures exceed 2500 degrees, the nytrogyn in the air begins burning.
In order to keep the cumbustion temperature below 2500 degrees is by routing spent exhaust gas into the cylinder and taking away the oxyegen content
IF YOU DO NOT RUN THE OEM FUEL INJECTION the EGR is amute point.
If you run at 12.0 fuel ratio, you will never create the over lean condition that requires the EGR
As computer engine controls grow more efficiant, this over lean condition was remedied through electronic control and the ERG was done away with in the 48 state cars

GRNDSM · Post by **GRNDSM** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:17 pm

Bill, you will be hard pressed to find a DSMer running a functionning EGR system since the mid '90's (myself included) and I am yet to hear about any problems with it.

As for fuel economy, the last time that I drove my Green Machine to the shootout, I got 31 mpg on the highway (the car was running low 11's back then).

I remember reading about some V8's which were tuned to run EGR and didn't run well without it, but DSMs (and 4g63s) do not need it.

Arktis · Post by **Arktis** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:53 pm

I, uh...found this link through a friend.

This thread is relevant, so I'll just leave this here.

http://www.sdsefi.com/techinta.htm

There's alot more tech info on their site, too.

http://www.sdsefi.com/tech.html

DJ, if you find this info useful, don't hesitate to split my post into another topic.

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:33 am

Leon, your right about the EGR, its an after thought from the factory and it has nothing to do with performance or milage

But we got this thing called EPA and government and stuff, with rules and stuff like that, and they like 'bling'

If Oboma get Waxman in place of Dingle in the EPA wing of government, we may all have to crush our cars

StellarDOHC · Post by **StellarDOHC** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:49 pm

The EPA is a joke, they could not care less about the environment. If ppl started buying and driving pollution free cars then they would be out of jobs. They NEED "polluting" cars much more than we need them.

GRNDSM · Post by **GRNDSM** » Wed Nov 12, 2008 10:14 pm

But we got this thing called EPA and government and stuff, with rules and stuff like that, and they like 'bling'

Everyone else got around this by labelling their intakes as "off road use only"

. Another way to look at it: out of 10-20 companies that make different intakes for DSMs, there isn't a single aftermarket intake that retains the EGR

.

And some of them are "big guys" who are more likely to be busted by the FEDs.

IDriftNaked · Post by **IDriftNaked** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:44 pm

wow i think i've been away from my own post for a little too long! lol
after asking smog shops and referee's (before the suspension) and a lot of reading, here in california atleast, it is MANDATORY unless the powerplant was designed for no use of one from the factory, and still meets ca smog requirements.

so heres what i was told
if the powerplant WAS designed for the egr system and is a CA vehicle, but the egr is missing then they wont even bother testing, its an automatic fail
even if the car is running cleaner than ever.

Robert Venable · Post by **Robert Venable** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:36 pm

IDriftNaked wrote:wow i think i've been away from my own post for a little too long! lol
after asking smog shops and referee's (before the suspension) and a lot of reading, here in california atleast, it is MANDATORY unless the powerplant was designed for no use of one from the factory, and still meets ca smog requirements.

so heres what i was told
if the powerplant WAS designed for the egr system and is a CA vehicle, but the egr is missing then they wont even bother testing, its an automatic fail
even if the car is running cleaner than ever.

Thats not just CA, thats any car in general. You can not legally remove OR DISABLE an emission device that is on the emission label under your hood. You can be fined up to $25,000 per vehicle (or maybe per device-- not sure) for this if the EPA so chooses to mess with you. The only exception I can think of is if you upgrade engines to a NEWER year model and use the emissions equiptment on your car.

This being said-- I've only heard of one car lot ever actually being fined for this. Now, that fine was $75,000 for trying to sell 3 different cars with disabled or missing emissions devices. OUCH!!!

GRNDSM · Post by **GRNDSM** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:01 am

Robert Venable wrote:Thats not just CA, thats any car in general. You can not legally remove OR DISABLE an emission device that is on the emission label under your hood. You can be fined up to $25,000 per vehicle (or maybe per device-- not sure) for this if the EPA so chooses to mess with you. The only exception I can think of is if you upgrade engines to a NEWER year model and use the emissions equiptment on your car.

I too, have heard of similar big fines, but I have never actually heard of anyone being busted for such violations. It is always, someone heard from someone about someone... But never anything specific!

I am pretty lucky for not dealing with CARB BS. But just how competent are those guys in evaluating someone's custom engine installation? Can you just attach an EGR valve somewhere in the system with a couple of useless vacuum lines attached to it and call it the day? How would they test its functionality?

It has been proven long time ago that a well tuned 4g63 will pass emission standards even with a disabled EGR system! Hell, they even pass without a CAT (as long as you do not put big cams in there

)!

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:05 pm

yes leon, I do have first hand knowlege of the california EPA coming after a freind
My friend built rocker arms for VW that changed the ratio, the California EPA posed as a customer and bought a set, then they prosicuted him in court, he paid a fine and purchased all the sales back that he had sold in California

you gotta have lots of money to take on the wieght of the government when you are accused of wrong doing

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:37 pm

WOW! Incredible info...and I wish I had the time to review it ALL right now, but I will later.

Alot of effort went into that intake project!

The PROTRUSION sticking out of the top of the P/S gear box: Not a problem on a manual steering gear box...which I prefer.

And...we are kickin-around the idea of rack & pinion to get rid of that box altogether.

And...the DIAMETER of the brake booster of a Starquest could be eliminated (go manual brakes cause many performance cars don't need vacuum assist) or ADAPT to a smaller diameter booster....OR a Hyundai Excel had the booster mounted to the PASSANGER side.

Obviously....you guys have CAPTURED my imagination.

Question: WHICH....front cross member should I procure to bolt-in that mean lil' engine?

Professor Quest · Post by **Professor Quest** » Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:49 pm

Bill Hincher wrote:yes leon, I do have first hand knowlege of the california EPA coming after a freind
My friend built rocker arms for VW that changed the ratio, the California EPA posed as a customer and bought a set, then they prosicuted him in court, he paid a fine and purchased all the sales back that he had sold in California

you gotta have lots of money to take on the wieght of the government when you are accused of wrong doing

Well...you have another option. *I* am the KING-KONG of consultants in a courtroom and a I LOVE to hammer the IGNORANCE outta 'nah sayers' that don't know shit-from-shineola!

gota run.

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:04 am

bump for verdad

rockthemullet · Post by **rockthemullet** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:02 pm

Are you still providing this service, Bill?

I was told a 2g head has the same size port as the evo and should require less welding/matching. Any truth to this?

~Eric

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Thu Sep 23, 2010 11:58 pm

rockthemullet wrote:Are you still providing this service, Bill?

I was told a 2g head has the same size port as the evo and should require less welding/matching. Any truth to this?

~Eric

yeah Eric,
the EVO and the second gen 4G63 are the same inlet size, they changed the angle a bit, and the throttle body is at the opposite end , but its a great fix
I been struggling with a new idea about intakes but there are a couple of problems, I cant seem to wrap my mind around the inlet runner sizes and second, I need to build a progressive twin stage throttle body to do it right

rockthemullet · Post by **rockthemullet** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:56 am

Bill Hincher wrote:
rockthemullet wrote:Are you still providing this service, Bill?

I was told a 2g head has the same size port as the evo and should require less welding/matching. Any truth to this?

~Eric
yeah Eric,
the EVO and the second gen 4G63 are the same inlet size, they changed the angle a bit, and the throttle body is at the opposite end , but its a great fix
I been struggling with a new idea about intakes but there are a couple of problems, I cant seem to wrap my mind around the inlet runner sizes and second, I need to build a progressive twin stage throttle body to do it right

Well the throttle body being on the opposite end is advantageous to me as I'm working on a conquest setup.

When you say new idea, I'm assuming its leading away from the fab work done in this thread? It seems that especially with a 2g head, this method would be relatively cut and dry so what exactly are the cons to this setup or why I have I not seen it before?

Of course in a naturally aspirated condition, system flow is critical but in a positive pressure condition the flow is less important and inadequate flow can be counteracted with a few more pounds of boost. Obviously, this is not ideal (adds more heat into the system among other things), but it works.

I'm not particularly a fan of the modded 1g/2g manifold option and sheetmetal intakes seem to do more harm than good on a street setup or under a specific power level. In terms of all of the intake manifold options out there for a RWD application, this really seems like the cleanest one...

~Eric

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 7:51 am

the problem is in the velocity of the air in the cylinder head at the critical time between naturaly aspiration and boost
500 CFM seems to be ideal for this engine from the computer models I have built, but when you use a single plate in the throttle body, you create a huge drop in velocity at full throttle/low speed
All that drag race short inlet runner, sheet metal,intake stuff is tuned at full throttle straight line stuff.
For a streetable driver with good mid range. low speed aplications, things change
The length of the inlet runners are tuned at lower speed RPM's, lets say 2500 RMP's after boost they are not effective, using a dual plate system, at partial throttle/low speed, you increase the effectivness of the inlet runner by restriciting air at the inlet until full throttle is desired ( burnelli's principle)
All of that said, the design must include the cam profile and the turbo threshold to build a complete unit
as far as new idea's , lets scrap the whole thing and stick a 4 barrel carb on an intake manifold and be done with it!

rockthemullet · Post by **rockthemullet** » Fri Sep 24, 2010 1:05 pm

Bill Hincher wrote:the problem is in the velocity of the air in the cylinder head at the critical time between naturaly aspiration and boost
500 CFM seems to be ideal for this engine from the computer models I have built, but when you use a single plate in the throttle body, you create a huge drop in velocity at full throttle/low speed
All that drag race short inlet runner, sheet metal,intake stuff is tuned at full throttle straight line stuff.
For a streetable driver with good mid range. low speed aplications, things change
The length of the inlet runners are tuned at lower speed RPM's, lets say 2500 RMP's after boost they are not effective, using a dual plate system, at partial throttle/low speed, you increase the effectivness of the inlet runner by restriciting air at the inlet until full throttle is desired ( burnelli's principle)
All of that said, the design must include the cam profile and the turbo threshold to build a complete unit
as far as new idea's , lets scrap the whole thing and stick a 4 barrel carb on an intake manifold and be done with it!

Carburetors?! What are those?! haha

I'm not disagreeing that this setup isn't optimal, I'm simply suggesting that in terms of the options currently available, this is the least crappy, I suppose. Of course a tuned intake manifold will yield gains, but at what expense? Lots of time and possibly money into trial and error. At the end of the day, unless you're going for records, sometimes its better to just end with "that'll do".

If you are indeed still working on this stuff, what would be the estimated cost for the customer? I suppose assuming an evo intake and 2g intake flange was provided. Something like this: http://www.jmfabrications.com/site/inde ... &Itemid=58 would probably work great in this situation.

~Eric

77amc · Post by **77amc** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:01 am

Bill, I've got a couple of ol Honda crx two stage throttlebodies if you want one to 'think' with..
I wonder if butter flies could be added like the Older Prelude /accord intakes?
I know it would be just too much work to adapt it but, it sounds good.

If you want one I'll send it out to ya.

E

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:19 am

I wanna try an Audi throttle body, I got an idea of a oblong plenum that would look cool

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:23 am

I'm not disagreeing that this setup isn't optimal, I'm simply suggesting that in terms of the options currently available, this is the least crappy, I suppose. Of course a tuned intake manifold will yield gains, but at what expense? Lots of time and possibly money into trial and error. At the end of the day, unless you're going for records, sometimes its better to just end with "that'll do".

If you are indeed still working on this stuff, what would be the estimated cost for the customer? I suppose assuming an evo intake and 2g intake flange was provided. Something like this: http://www.jmfabrications.com/site/inde ... &Itemid=58 would probably work great in this situation.

~Eric[/quote]
It is against federal law to change intake manifold for the street, let alone us the US mail service to deliver it, you may want the PM me

Bill Hincher · Post by **Bill Hincher** » Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:32 pm

RaptorReed · Post by **RaptorReed** » Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:16 pm

As I found out when putting the 4g63 in the Colt, neither the stock intake or the Evo 8 intake will clear the master cylinder. While I know the OP stated that was in a Starion, my brake setup is similar however everything is a bit closer together. Even if I did get the intake to fit, I probably wouldn't be able to get it out without pulling the motor. I'm probably going to ditch the boosted brakes setup.

Quezzy · Post by **Quezzy** » Sat Nov 08, 2014 7:44 pm

Any other JMF/Magnus rwd intakes clear the booster without moving the engine forward?

Quezzy · Post by **Quezzy** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:59 am

Bill Hincher wrote:this can not be done, so I just went ahead and did it anyway

the EVO intake was mismatched to the 4G63 so I had to place a new flange on the intake

I made my own fixture to hold the work and aliagn the new flange once the old one was removed

because the EVO ports were smaller, I decided to take advantage of that and remove the old flange from around the narrow ports to fit within the original 4G63 flange

I cleaned up an original 4G63 intake flange and cut it down for re use in this project

then the 4G flange was fitted exatly in place

the fixture was pre drilled to replicate the 4G cylinder head and align all the ports with the new bolt holes

I tested the fit on the engine stand motor

Then I welded it up, front and rear

now i will consintrate on the EGR system

JHow much would you charge to do this again, just the flange. no egr needed. I would supply the evo intake, would I need to supply the 1g intake for the flange?