Author Topic: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design (Read 298549 times)

lambertius · « **Reply #45 on:** October 14, 2014, 12:46:48 AM »

Quote from: Froos on October 06, 2014, 07:03:37 AM

If not and I dont know where your buddy is shipping from, Im in EU and happen to have an engine installed without the intake side fitted since Im going the ITB route as well....
dont have the degrees of the DBilas flange here, you probably do know, but with some maths you could calculate the clearance from what I have....ill be using a 20L airbox.
again Im only using the dbilas intake flange and not their tb's or airbox

He is in Malaysia at the moment, but they arrived last Friday in Sydney.

So here are some pics of the 3D printed test parts!

I had to print a spacer part on our real crappy work printer, but the manifold print was done elsewhere and is a really accurate model!

Now just get a chance to check it against some hood clearances and the fuel rail mounts!

thebrelon · « **Reply #46 on:** October 14, 2014, 08:16:54 AM »

that's nice!

I understand your setup is designed for a stock engine, would it be affected adversely by a wilder cam and or a higher Cr (anything else being stock)?
or would it only be a matter of tuning by adjusting the spacer length?

MrPhatBob · « **Reply #47 on:** October 14, 2014, 02:15:06 PM »

Cams should be a matter of inlet tract length adjustment.

lambertius · « **Reply #48 on:** October 14, 2014, 11:45:22 PM »

Quote from: thebrelon on October 14, 2014, 08:16:54 AM

that's nice!

I understand your setup is designed for a stock engine, would it be affected adversely by a wilder cam and or a higher Cr (anything else being stock)?
or would it only be a matter of tuning by adjusting the spacer length?

MrPhatBob has it; the length of the intake is tuned to the cam duration for a specific RPM. The diameter relates to the volume airflow. They don't work in isolation, that is changing one will affect the other, but changing the cams will see more results from changing the runner length, and stroking/boring (which makes a larger MAF difference than just a cam) will see better results porting the head and increasing the intake diameter.

thebrelon · « **Reply #49 on:** October 15, 2014, 11:31:36 AM »

alright that's what I was expecting.

so, is the spacer you fab'd part of the kit? if yes do you think you will do different spacers for different camshafts (let's say the more common: 262,274,280� with 11mm lift) or will you offer a database of spacer length matched to cams so that end user can get a spacer machined to his need?

that is if hood clearance allows longer spacer... which you will tell us soon!
by the way: would you need a longer or shorter spacer with a wilder cam? I guess longer to save low end torque...

as you did not come back on the higher Cr thing I was talking about I guess it doesn't change anything, right?

thanks and sorry for the noobs questions...

Tgoode318 · « **Reply #50 on:** October 16, 2014, 08:51:31 AM »

^^ Good idea. As the only thing holding me back from purchasing this was that i was going to be running a much wild'er cam then stock

lambertius · « **Reply #51 on:** October 16, 2014, 05:08:43 PM »

Quote from: thebrelon on October 15, 2014, 11:31:36 AM

alright that's what I was expecting.

so, is the spacer you fab'd part of the kit? if yes do you think you will do different spacers for different camshafts (let's say the more common: 262,274,280� with 11mm lift) or will you offer a database of spacer length matched to cams so that end user can get a spacer machined to his need?

that is if hood clearance allows longer spacer... which you will tell us soon!
by the way: would you need a longer or shorter spacer with a wilder cam? I guess longer to save low end torque...

as you did not come back on the higher Cr thing I was talking about I guess it doesn't change anything, right?

thanks and sorry for the noobs questions...

I test fitted the printed kit yesterday, so I have plenty of pictures to show you what is going on, but it is mostly good news! Will put them up later.

A higher CR will only happen if you stroke an engine so it will affect ITB diameter more than anything.

You can have any length intake you want, what it will effect is at what RPM (related to the CAM) the engine will run most efficiently.

Rama sells a range of trumpet lengths, so if you're running an aggressive CAM you would be better off deleting the 50mm spacer (as it is just there to hold on the airbox) and using just trumpets and trumpet filters which is cheaper. If you're running a particularly aggressive engine this would make more sense because you would really need to get a new computer and run it in Alpha-n for the best results. Off-hand though I would think if you're moving to a more aggressive CAM you would want to shorten the intake so that the power band is at the end of the RPM so that it matches the CAM - no point trying to improve low-end when you put in a CAM that abandons low end, better off making the high-end worth losing the low-end for.

The current scope is to make a kit suitable for street cars, in that you can put it on without going to huge efforts and run the rest of the car unmodified. If people want to modify their car more significantly, the kit will still work but you would need to make some more adjustments. However, I have been considering talking to Rama about increasing the scope to include a new Computer to run the engine in Alpha-n and a CAM. First though, we will get this kit fitted to my car, running, and prove that it does what we want it to do - it will be a finished working prototype so that you know exactly what you'll be getting. Once that is done though, I was thinking of doing a kickstarter. Would anyone be keen on that? That way he can ensure he will have the capital to develop further, better polish off the current design as well as extend the scope. I was thinking that a kit with a CAM and pre-setup Alpha-n computer + ITB kit would be the logical next step. Something a bit more hardcore, but would mean you wouldn't have to modify anything yourself to get it going. A kit like that would be properly expensive though, so a kickstarter would be a safe bet since we would know if people wanted to buy it... No promises this will happen, just gauging interest.

thebrelon · « **Reply #52 on:** October 17, 2014, 02:12:02 PM »

Quote from: lambertius on October 16, 2014, 05:08:43 PM

A higher CR will only happen if you stroke an engine so it will affect ITB diameter more than anything.

that's not 100% true as M42/44 pistons are dished (approx 7cc) and M52B28 pistons which are 99% plug and play are flat top, so you can actually raise the Cr to 12ish:1 only with a pistons replacement. not even talking about using thinner headgasket.
same bore - same stroke.
but a higher Cr won't actually impact VE, it will only squeeze a little bit more the same amount of air the intake/exhaust system managed to suck in. ****correct me if I'm wrong****

Quote from: lambertius on October 16, 2014, 05:08:43 PM

If you're running a particularly aggressive engine this would make more sense because you would really need to get a new computer and run it in Alpha-n for the best results.

I totally agree a new computer would be needed even so I don't think alpha-N is the best route to go, for a street engine.

My idea is to build a 12:1 stock M42, based on E36 unit fitted in a E30, with a mild cam and few little mods such as fan delete, underdrive pulleys, total seal piston rings, single row timing chain, etc... and, may be, the nice ITB setup you are designing. that would make a nice hi-perf M42 E30 street car at better cost than a stroker/turbo/supercharger.
so as a street car I don't think alpha-N is best, it may be for a race car...

but, once again, thank you for all the info given in previous post!

lambertius · « **Reply #53 on:** October 18, 2014, 07:17:15 AM »

Alright, so some 3D printed parts arrived for test fitting. So I measured up the parts to account for any shrinkage from the printing processes, and then went at it. I went to Parramatta Prestige, a wrecker in Sydney with a pretty cool owner. He let me tear up an engine bay for a while in the yard to test some parts, and then let me take a fuel rail and injectors just to confirm things in CAD when I got home! I'll probably head back this Monday to check a few more things too, but looking pretty good!

The short version - results are good, Rama wants to make some adjustments and go to the cast and fit. I'm a little more reserved, I would like to see another 3D print just to confirm but it is fairly low risk. So yeah, good news, we're progressing!

We have the port size correct, though it would appear that the injector size was off. I collected an injector and it was quite a bit larger than what Rama said was a standard fit, and compared to the manifold that he had collected in Taiwan. Does anyone know if the injectors for the Earlier M42 engines (pre-1994) are 14mm diameter or 16.5mm like the later models? If they are we will cast the manifolds for 14mm injectors, and then bore the injector hole out on request.

Plenty of hood clearance, but we're going to curve the manifold a bit more so that we can run longer trumpets and spacers and still have room for the airbox!

All sitting in the engine bay

Checking out the injector mounts and injector placement against the fuel rail. Its very close, but now I have made a very precise CAD model of the fuel rail, so the mounts will be absolutely correct for the final model.

A real pain in the arse this one... The dipstick sits right in fron of where the airbox goes. I spoke to a friend at a place called Brintech (he will be helping fit the whole kit since he can help modify it on site if we missed anything) and he assures me it is easy to bend the dipstick tube without breaking it. It is a bit gay, but nothing we can do about that!

Last one, just showing you the variance in the manifold casting compared to the port face.

lambertius · « **Reply #54 on:** October 18, 2014, 08:02:25 AM »

Since this is where all the cool cats are, I thought I would upload this render I made recently. I'm trying to convince Rama that red aluminium velocity stacks is the solution... I think the picture speaks for itself...

Nick_318is · « **Reply #55 on:** October 18, 2014, 10:25:13 AM »

Looks like you used an e36 to test fit, on the e30 the dip stick is on the front of the engine.

MrPhatBob · « **Reply #56 on:** October 18, 2014, 01:15:38 PM »

Hayden, thinking about your injector question. If someone is going for a high end kit like this, they will be needing to go to an aftermarket ECU (or you're going to have to start some CFD work on an air box fed via a MAF) and using old injectors would be a false economy, I'd suggest using a standard Bosch/Pico injector, and then we could look to see which spray pattern would best suit the setup.

lambertius · « **Reply #57 on:** October 18, 2014, 06:06:07 PM »

Quote from: MrPhatBob on October 18, 2014, 01:15:38 PM

Hayden, thinking about your injector question. If someone is going for a high end kit like this, they will be needing to go to an aftermarket ECU (or you're going to have to start some CFD work on an air box fed via a MAF) and using old injectors would be a false economy, I'd suggest using a standard Bosch/Pico injector, and then we could look to see which spray pattern would best suit the setup.

I agree with you on that, I agree that the best results would almost certainly be seen by running an aftermarket ECU (probably in Alpha-n) with new injectors. One the other hand it also has to suit people who don't want to go the whole hog and are looking for a bolt-on modification for the car. The simplest setup is maintaining as much of the OEM setup as possible, and then from there developing more. We'll get it running as a basic kit first, and then move it forward if there is demand to do it. That's why I think a kickstarter would suit this.

wazzu70 · « **Reply #58 on:** October 18, 2014, 11:35:42 PM »

The kit looks really nice!

Do the inlet runners have a nipple to run a vacuum line off of? I know I would want to do alpha-n in the low rev range blended with MAP compensation. Many people also just run a MAP based system off a vacuum log which seems to work OK too.

Just making sure you have thought about it!

MLM · « **Reply #59 on:** October 19, 2014, 12:59:23 AM »

Will there be enough space for the trumpet and air box on LHD cars?

Also worth mentioning, some rhd cars have the battery in the corner next to the fuse box. Not a biggie to move, there is a very simple neat mod for this, but limits space if left in position.

The dbilas air box is a poor design but had to fit within these constraints hence its shape. I have pics somewhere to show this if interested.

Author Topic: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design (Read 298549 times)

lambertius

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design

thebrelon

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design

MrPhatBob

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design

lambertius

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design

thebrelon

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design

Tgoode318

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design

lambertius

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design

thebrelon

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design

lambertius

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design

lambertius

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design

Nick_318is

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design

MrPhatBob

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design

lambertius

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design

wazzu70

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design

MLM

Re: M42/M44 ITB Kit Design