Tuner question

[gmail]

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.

id be interested to see what your talking about here.

i was under the impression you were talking about running dual throttle bodies or something

 

[gmail]

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.


QUOTE]

http://www.shoforum.com/showthread.php?t=63004&highlight=GN34
is this the link you refer to?
if so then you probley shouldnt mention something that its without a doubt a fact.

from what i read there is no proof reguarding what you said, for gods sake it even said they made a 3.0 3.2 3.4 and 3.6 but didnt say anything about power outputs it just said they kept making it bigger because the car kept getting heavier, come on now they made a 3.2 because of the atx and all it did was bump up tq some.

normally i wouldnt post on here because of people being rude like how you were with the last comment but i figured id give some input because it caught my attention.

let me ask you something now since you felt it a need to be rude to me.
do you wake up each morning and eat a bowl of im a ******* to help the day get started?

 

[yamahaSHO]

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.

http://www.shoforum.com/showthread.php?t=63004&highlight=GN34
is this the link you refer to?
if so then you probley shouldnt mention something that its without a doubt a fact.

No, it was posted this year IIRC.

from what i read there is no proof reguarding what you said, for gods sake it even said they made a 3.0 3.2 3.4 and 3.6 but didnt say anything about power outputs it just said they kept making it bigger because the car kept getting heavier, come on now they made a 3.2 because of the atx and all it did was bump up tq some.

Well... When you can show me the proof that it made 300hp..

so then you probley shouldnt mention something that its without a doubt a fact

I would imagine that the 34 in GN34 could possibly stand for 3.4L, but that is MY speculation.

normally i wouldnt post on here because of people being rude like how you were with the last comment but i figured id give some input because it caught my attention.

It wasn't being rude.... In fact, I find it rude when individuals cannot properly compose a response to be easily read. The only comment I made is about your [VERY] poor typing/English skills. YES, IT MATTERS. If you don't want comments made about it, do it right.

let me ask you something now since you felt it a need to be rude to me.
do you wake up each morning and eat a bowl of im a ******* to help the day get started?

Covered in the above statement.

 

[yamahaSHO]

I believe this is the article that was posted.... http://blogs.automobilemag.com/6470...born-gn34-paved-way-for-taurus-sho/index.html

 

[frosho]

It wasn't being rude.... In fact, I find it rude when individuals cannot properly compose a response to be easily read. The only comment I made is about your [VERY] poor typing/English skills. YES, IT MATTERS. If you don't want comments made about it, do it right.

Runyon, are you paying attention?? :laugh_ti:

 

[illSHOyou]

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.


QUOTE]

http://www.shoforum.com/showthread.php?t=63004&highlight=GN34
is this the link you refer to?
if so then you probley shouldnt mention something that its without a doubt a fact.

from what i read there is no proof reguarding what you said, for gods sake it even said they made a 3.0 3.2 3.4 and 3.6 but didnt say anything about power outputs it just said they kept making it bigger because the car kept getting heavier, come on now they made a 3.2 because of the atx and all it did was bump up tq some.

normally i wouldnt post on here because of people being rude like how you were with the last comment but i figured id give some input because it caught my attention.

let me ask you something now since you felt it a need to be rude to me.
do you wake up each morning and eat a bowl of im a ******* to help the day get started?

Don't forget the smaller cam on the 3.2L

That is why you see no hp gain.

In order for the 3.2L engine to have identical torque peaks of the 3.0L engine, (4800rpm), The 3.2L would need a bigger cam than even the stock 3.0L engine. What may seem big on a 3.0L engine is not on a larger 3.2L.

A 3.2L with Plus 40 cams produces more torque at every point in the rpm band vs. the smaller 3.0L. Don't know how people can make the claim they lost low end with Plus 40's on a 3.2L. If you don't believe me review the dyno archieve and plot a stock 3.0L engine and a fully built engine 3.2L.

 

[illSHOyou]

This may be hard to follow, but I will try my best.

The first example is our current intake design. What you should notice is that while not exact to our intake design it is very close. The entrance is very turbulent because lack of divider, but you get the idea. Cylinders 1 & 2 at the end of the plenum chambers are starving for air. What we would like to attempt is to have better pressure and filling at the end of the plenum.


The next two pictures are examples of plenum chambers that are more state-of-art and very common today, many high end cars have these examples, and they provide better distributed air among the runners.


There are some problems with the above plenum. While it seems to be a nice design the TB entrance could be better. The TB entrance should gracefully phase out to the Plenum walls, not just open up like they are. This causes turbulence and separation. Here is a comparison plenum below that offers better TB entrance to plenum. Also note how the entrance is not a straight shot across the runners. The slight angle helps keep the air along the outside of the plenum walls and equal distribution for the runners. Now take a look at the above plenum and notice how distribution is not ideal, its good but not ideal.



Don't believe me about the angle? Look at these examples...


Notice how the bottom plenum has a good shape, but not ideal TB angle. Distribution is not equal.




Thankfully the stock intake with its Y distribution helps keep the air along the outside plenum, but we suffer from max engine speed power. We just need to get more air into the plenum faster at high speed.


To be continued....

 

[illSHOyou]

Here is a good article about the ideal plenum design... Pay attention where it talks about plenum entrance and why it is important...


This plenum is capable of supporting 300 crank hp on some high powered K series Honda. These same cars utilize a 75mm TB, they are some of the best examples of how a plenum should be designed and ported...

 

[illSHOyou]

Here is the prototype SHO Plenum:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=03...gbs_selected_pages&cad=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Here is the Torque Curve: Refer to fig. 8
http://www.google.com/patents?id=03...gbs_selected_pages&cad=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I want to change it slightly, but shares the same idea. I will start working on a drawing.

 

[illSHOyou]

My Proposal, Tuners can see why tuning would be difficult.

 

[yamahaSHO]

Yeah, it would actually be ridiculously foolish to run it like that. I vote turbo. Easier and far more gain.

 

[BlackonBlack89]

Why not just cut up a bunch of intakes and weld it back to together with two TB sides on each end. LOL.....but seriously? wouldn't that help ur problem of the far end being starved....

 

[illSHOyou]

Why not just cut up a bunch of intakes and weld it back to together with two TB sides on each end. LOL.....but seriously? wouldn't that help ur problem of the far end being starved....

Yes it would.

 

[illSHOyou]

Yeah, it would actually be ridiculously foolish to run it like that. I vote turbo. Easier and far more gain.

I agree.

 

[Toolman]

Turbo turbo turbo!!

 

[Sho Amo]

lol why not just two throttle bodies connected by one shaft with a y that connects to the maf?

 

[illSHOyou]

lol why not just two throttle bodies connected by one shaft with a y that connects to the maf?

Because too much air degrades low engine speed performance. The amount of air that you just proposed would cause a shift of the SHO's two torque peaks to the right of the curve. It has been found that you can still have the stock torque curve and still the max engine speed power, or what a dual 75mm TB setup would create.

 

[SHOtime2511]

would you still run the stock runner butterflies in addition to these new TBs?

 

[expy916]

I know, I suck at drawing.

Would this be an easier way to do it, in terms of tuning?

 

[ycode90]

This is so full of fail. FI is the answer for more power . Why does everybody want to reinvent the GD wheel.

EDIT: Use your time ,research and money to design and build a sheet metal intake and a big TB with a progressive "cam" type actuator and a winow switch to limit open rate at low RPM > This.