ycode90
SHO Member
Put a blower on it and leave the intake alone.
Tuner question
- Thread starter illSHOyou
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
Hp is a function of tq. Make more HP/Make more tq.
If you could get the SHO engine to make 200 ft/lbs at 7,000 rpm then you will be able to use your lower gears longer hence the tq multiplier. A healthy SHO with this type of curve will put a hurt on a S/C or Turbo SHO until they gain traction out of the hole.
I already answered this
I thought there was already an article from one of the engineers of the SHO motor that said the 300hp motor was 3.4L or 3.6L.
Or until the boosted SHO has a better driver. You can also make plenty of horsepower, but maintain a gutless wonder of a car.
What you're looking for with the TwEECer is the Wide Open Fuel Multiplier. Ensure you have a WBO2, but that's pretty much all you'll need to mess with to run this 'test'.
I already answered this
I thought there was already an article from one of the engineers of the SHO motor that said the 300hp motor was 3.4L or 3.6L.
Or until the boosted SHO has a better driver. You can also make plenty of horsepower, but maintain a gutless wonder of a car.
What you're looking for with the TwEECer is the Wide Open Fuel Multiplier. Ensure you have a WBO2, but that's pretty much all you'll need to mess with to run this 'test'.
You don't happen to have the article?
What exactly would the comp be using to measure airflow @ WOT if the MAF were not used? Just curious what you guys were thinking.
If you are wanting the MAF ingnored in the sense of the comp thinking there is a certain amount of airflow (as compared to reality), then just change the curve to whatever kg/hr you like. DISCLAIMER: Toolman can not be held accountable for the disinegration of your engine because of a screwed up MAF curve!
As Jason said (do not think I am agreeing with you Jason, the planets may crash into each other if that happens!), SHOshop essentially ignored the MAF aboce 4800rpms, as with a high boost SC and BTM setup, the 80mm Linc were maxed well before redline, therefore the WOT vs RPM fuel multiplier was 'massaged'. (oh dang, maybe I did agree with you after all! 2012 here we come!!)
from what i understood, at wot the pc goes to closed loop and the 02's and Maf are then ignored.
This patent states that if the plenum chamber is provided with a plurality of air intakes, "multiply air inlets," that when both inlets are open it would shift the first tq peak and second tq peak to the right of the curve.
For example, lets just say the intake mod shifts the tq peaks 1,000 rpm.
-The first peak at 2800 rpm is now at 3800 rpm
-The second peak at 4800 rpm is now at 5800 rpm.
Imagine if the plenum tanks for the SHO were suddenly removed and we did a dyno pull, where would the tq peaks move? I think we could agree that they wouldn't be in their stock locations. Kinda like running a ITB setup. The tq peak would have to change.
For example, lets just say the intake mod shifts the tq peaks 1,000 rpm.
-The first peak at 2800 rpm is now at 3800 rpm
-The second peak at 4800 rpm is now at 5800 rpm.
Imagine if the plenum tanks for the SHO were suddenly removed and we did a dyno pull, where would the tq peaks move? I think we could agree that they wouldn't be in their stock locations. Kinda like running a ITB setup. The tq peak would have to change.
Without that intake plenum, you would only have ONE torque peak and it likely wouldn't be very flat. You would also probably be severly lacking in low end torque. I guess I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish, so I can't really comment on anything else.
Yes, increasing the pressure in the plenum is a good thing! I just chose to go the less complicated way of doing it!! Hope you find some valuable info.
I want to increase torque after 4800 rpm, continue 200 ft/lbs all the way to 7300rpm. I don't know any hard numbers from the patent, but it states that if you take our current intake one step farther that you will be rewarded with increase tq at max engine speed. It even proves this with a dyno graph, just no numbers, but we already know the first two torque peaks net almost 200 ft/lbs, so a third indicated by this patent would be after 4800 rpm. I am pretty sure Yamaha was not using any clever valve technology, but thats only a guess.
If this worked it would only increase the power you could make with turbo's, not that you need anymore power? lol
I gotta agree with Tim, the easier, cheaper, and most effective route would be boost. Not only would you need to canablize your intake, but you'd likely have to go with a set of cams. The amount of planning and research for creating such an intake to actually work like you want will be immense if you're trying to extract everything you have planned.
Seems like a lot of work for taking .1-.2 off a quarter mile time. I'm not trying to discourage you, but I'm just not seeing the real benefit here. Might as well add VTEC while you're at it.
Seems like a lot of work for taking .1-.2 off a quarter mile time. I'm not trying to discourage you, but I'm just not seeing the real benefit here. Might as well add VTEC while you're at it.
You do make a good point, but wouldn't be neat if it worked!
somedude_001
SHO Member
on paper what you have planned should and probably will work. It is just a lot of money and time into a project. On the plus side your knowledge of intake flow should increase quite a bit after completing this project. Be sure to post lots of pics. I am interested!
I must admit, boost has made me lazy. I have no desire to tear into an engine bay to add cams, UDP's, CAI, EH/BBB intake, etc etc. It is just tooo easy to get massive power gains by pushing the button on my EBC!! But yes, as the OP stated, any power made NA will only be increased under boost (generally). So I hope you find something that works, that would be cool. For me, I know that a custom sheet metal intake could make me more power, but as was stated, more power is not what I need (I need traction! HAHA!). If one could modify the intake to make 200ft lbs at over 7000rpm, that would be a fun car. Add in cams and all the intake/exhaust bolt ons, and you would have a fun car. Maybe one day I will build myself a high 13sec NA SHO...
gmail
Well-Known Member
i only skimmed over this thread because it caught my attention.
from what i gather the best route for the tuning involved would be to kick the tweecer to the curb as well as the stock computer and move to another kind of engine management system..
one ive been messing with and starting to get good results is the megasquirt
i started messing with spark maps and fuel maps right now..
the way i have it set up is to go off of a map system and the benefit there is you put vacuum line on anywhere there is vacuum (or boost) be created and thats all you need no longer will anything on the intake be a restriction..
you could make a metal box with a huge hole and a vacuum line and you could manage the fuel and such no problems no worrys about maf or anything like that.
ive thought about it and the idea of finding a set of ITBs and running them on the engine somehow like on the secondaries or something would be badass and could be tuned very easy.
remember without proper tune no matter what you do to the intake setup like you describe your not gonna make any good stable power.
if i hear you right your talking about throttle bodies on the crossover tube?
is there a link or something to what you are talking about?
from what i gather the best route for the tuning involved would be to kick the tweecer to the curb as well as the stock computer and move to another kind of engine management system..
one ive been messing with and starting to get good results is the megasquirt
i started messing with spark maps and fuel maps right now..
the way i have it set up is to go off of a map system and the benefit there is you put vacuum line on anywhere there is vacuum (or boost) be created and thats all you need no longer will anything on the intake be a restriction..
you could make a metal box with a huge hole and a vacuum line and you could manage the fuel and such no problems no worrys about maf or anything like that.
ive thought about it and the idea of finding a set of ITBs and running them on the engine somehow like on the secondaries or something would be badass and could be tuned very easy.
remember without proper tune no matter what you do to the intake setup like you describe your not gonna make any good stable power.
if i hear you right your talking about throttle bodies on the crossover tube?
is there a link or something to what you are talking about?
gmail
Well-Known Member
is there any real proof to this?
why would it have to be a 3.4 or 3.6?
no one admits the 300 hp SHO but heres the thing... plenty of guys running bolt ons have 300+ hp the lakester SHO was what 500 hp 3.0 liter SHO engine on a demon carb?
before as i recall it everyone said 300 hp SHO n/a was impossible then people did it, like the guys who said boosting a SHO wouldnt work, then people did it.
now we are admitting the first SHO engine was 300 hp but it has to be 3.4 or 3.6?
all i know is the guy is thinking right but without someone putting some time into it what good is all this talk?
in order to make a good 300 hp n/a your gonna need cams tho.
i feel if someone is gonna cam tho for serious power make custom cams.
as i recall it these heads flow the best at .450 lift or somewhere in there.
whats the stage 2 cams? .39? or something?
these heads also out of the box flow as good as small block race heads? on a v6 you should make some serious power then n/a even.. why hasent someone put some serious lift cams in ?
what it comes down to is if your gonna do something like this then cool just make sure you dyno it or no one will believe you i mean come on after all this is the internet..
i believe the intake is a restriction to a degree if someone took some time and acid ported and all that to a extreme and put a nice cam in there then you could squeeze more power out of it while keeping the stock intake look.
the secondaries even with BBB become a restriction when you acid port that much trust me your talking a port in the intake runner bigger then the butterfly could ever dream of even without the plates in there..
the HBB ive heard of would be the only route to even try and flow as much as the heads can.
without completely redesigning the intake i dont know how much can be made i mean i dont know of anyone who took the stock intake to the max, cammed the engine and revved the **** out of it so i guess give it a try
I mentioned that the article was posted here on this very forum... SEARCH for it. It was a magazine (or the like) that interviewed a member on the GN34 team. Ask him if you'd like.
300 PEAK hp is one thing, a daily driveable car is another. I don't remember any reputable member here saying that it was impossible to get 300hp and I've been around a lot longer than June of 2008. I'm not fighting for or against, made a statement of of something posted previously.
Given the era, I wouldn't doubt that the 300hp motor was bigger than a 3L.
Have you seen, played with or even heard stage 2 cams? How high do you want to rev the motor?
what it comes down to is if your gonna do something like this then cool just make sure you dyno it or no one will believe you i mean come on after all this is the internet..
i believe the intake is a restriction to a degree if someone took some time and acid ported and all that to a extreme and put a nice cam in there then you could squeeze more power out of it while keeping the stock intake look.
the secondaries even with BBB become a restriction when you acid port that much trust me your talking a port in the intake runner bigger then the butterfly could ever dream of even without the plates in there..
the HBB ive heard of would be the only route to even try and flow as much as the heads can.
without completely redesigning the intake i dont know how much can be made i mean i dont know of anyone who took the stock intake to the max, cammed the engine and revved the **** out of it so i guess give it a try
Engrish polease.
is there any real proof to this?
why would it have to be a 3.4 or 3.6?
no one admits the 300 hp SHO but heres the thing... plenty of guys running bolt ons have 300+ hp the lakester SHO was what 500 hp 3.0 liter SHO engine on a demon carb?
before as i recall it everyone said 300 hp SHO n/a was impossible then people did it, like the guys who said boosting a SHO wouldnt work, then people did it.
now we are admitting the first SHO engine was 300 hp but it has to be 3.4 or 3.6?
all i know is the guy is thinking right but without someone putting some time into it what good is all this talk?
in order to make a good 300 hp n/a your gonna need cams tho.
i feel if someone is gonna cam tho for serious power make custom cams.
as i recall it these heads flow the best at .450 lift or somewhere in there.
whats the stage 2 cams? .39? or something?
these heads also out of the box flow as good as small block race heads? on a v6 you should make some serious power then n/a even.. why hasent someone put some serious lift cams in ?
what it comes down to is if your gonna do something like this then cool just make sure you dyno it or no one will believe you i mean come on after all this is the internet..
i believe the intake is a restriction to a degree if someone took some time and acid ported and all that to a extreme and put a nice cam in there then you could squeeze more power out of it while keeping the stock intake look.
the secondaries even with BBB become a restriction when you acid port that much trust me your talking a port in the intake runner bigger then the butterfly could ever dream of even without the plates in there..
the HBB ive heard of would be the only route to even try and flow as much as the heads can.
without completely redesigning the intake i dont know how much can be made i mean i dont know of anyone who took the stock intake to the max, cammed the engine and revved the **** out of it so i guess give it a try
The problem is we don't know for sure what end power they were making, be it 3.0L-3.6L. You could easily calculate what a 3.6L engine would produce, and 300 CHP would be easy, no question about that. The whole point of this topic is that there is a patent with our current intake design taken one step farther. What is claimed in the patent that the extra step, (Additional Air into the Plenum), would increase tq after the stock tq peak of 4800 rpm.
In order the engine to hit the 300 mark we need to be making around 200 ft/lbs torque at 8,000 rpm. So it is possible only if you can keep the engine breathing at 8,000rpm.
But as many have said it is easier to force induction and have a better return on your investment. I am torn between going the N/A and Turbo, but in the end I think Turbo is going to win. You just have to face that a turbocharger is superior techonology. Less stressfull to the engine then trying to turn 8,000rpm N/A. The SHO has very low piston speeds and with a turbo combo can yeild superior reliability, and in my opinion the smarter investment and engineering.
I could draw up a plan of what I would do if anybody is interested, and wanting to try this route? I believe it will work, and I am currently waiting on CAD information to predict the change of pressure in the plenum. I will let you guys know if I get the results.
Last edited:
Similar threads
