2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992) 1986-1992 Discussion including performance modifications and technical support sections.

Ram air intake for t2 , anyone made one?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 30, 2014 | 11:57 AM
  #26  
wthdidusay82's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotary Power
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (15)
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,706
Likes: 4
From: Dinwiddie, Va
Originally Posted by Evil Aviator
Yes, but probably the biggest offenders are the Honda aftermarket CAI kits, lol. Anyway, the big problem with the TII is the TID, and the OP already replaced this. The air box is the next item to replace, but the OP's engine isn't built to the level that the air box is a crisis.

Yes, it is because I transposed one of the numbers, lol. Sorry about that, I was just using the Windows calculator and typing on the fly. Let's try this again with 519 rather than 591:

T2 = (((1.68^0.28 * 519) - 519) / .65) = 125F temperature gain
+ 59F = 184F (prior to the intercooler)

Reworking the equation for an extra 10F of inlet temperature...

T2 = (((1.68^0.28 * 529) - 529) / .65) = 127F temperature gain
+ 69F = 196F (prior to the intercooler)

The air will actually be a little hotter than this because when your manifold pressure gauge reads 10psi boost, the turbo must produce a little more than 10psi due to the pressure loss in the intercooler and inlet tract. So, it most likely goes something like this: 11psi from the compressor outlet - .2psi through the piping - .8psi through the intercooler = 10psi in the intake manifold. I'm not sure about the exact numbers, and they will increase as boost pressure and airflow increase, but that's the general idea.

Compression can make the air pretty hot.
Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YTKZf8oSVE

I don't know. However, it was designed for lower boost levels, and like most OEM setups it was designed for minimal pressure loss as opposed to maximum cooling.

Let's just say that it has 60% cooling efficiency at 10psi boost. The math would go something like this: 125F temp gain * 60% = 75F, subtract that from the compressor outlet temp of 184F and you get 109F at the intercooler outlet.

In that case, I hope that you have an upgraded fuel system and an aftermarket fuel controller. Otherwise, you could be running into lean-out issues at that hp level with the stock fuel system. Also, the wastegate is probably experiencing boost creep issues if it isn't ported.

See this website for mods. It's a little old, so it doesn't address the Rtek chip that serves as a FCD and fuel controller, and the turbo information is about 2 generations behind, but it is still a pretty good reference.
FC3S Pro v2.0:* From Mild 2 Wild - Power
My car has rtek 1.7 , 550/720, rewired walbro 255, stock ports , 2.5" turbo back.

Afrs are around 11.5 under full boost, I have a wideband so I always know how it's running.

The wastegate is ported however the flapper door bushing is no good so the door gets stuck closed and runs up to 15 psi if I let it keep spooling , with the door stuck open it hits 5 psi , when it actually open and closes like it's suppose to do 10 psi (ish) max...

I'm very aware of the problem , I have to boost in bursts due to the issue , so I end up letting off the throttle rather quickly at 10 psi , but I have hit over this I think it's pointless , can't stay at WOT very long since I don't want the air to start getting super hot...and I really don't like the idea of hitting anything higher than 10 psi for very long , though my fuel setup and all is good for whatever the stock turbo can do...my intercooler isn't made for it (top mount sucks)..plus the turbo is inefficient after 10 psi anyhow.

I'm planning to get a new hotside or just deal with this turbo being this way until I get a hybrid turbo built , possibly with a external 38mm tial wastegate I have , also in the very near future I plan on installing a meth injection kit.

I have a jacobs fc1000 ignition amplifier as well that will be going on as soon as it gets here paired with the stock leading coil.
Reply
Old Mar 30, 2014 | 02:46 PM
  #27  
j9fd3s's Avatar
Moderator
Community Builder
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,857
Likes: 3,243
From: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Originally Posted by Evil Aviator
I don't know. However, it was designed for lower boost levels, and like most OEM setups it was designed for minimal pressure loss as opposed to maximum cooling.
the grassroots motorsports article from 1988 found that the stock intercooler is about 68% efficient with a 1.1psi pressure drop, which is not bad, but not great either.

they also found that the fuel system was fine up to 11psi, but that was on a new car.
Reply
Old Mar 30, 2014 | 03:10 PM
  #28  
wthdidusay82's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotary Power
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (15)
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,706
Likes: 4
From: Dinwiddie, Va
Originally Posted by j9fd3s

the grassroots motorsports article from 1988 found that the stock intercooler is about 68% efficient with a 1.1psi pressure drop, which is not bad, but not great either.

they also found that the fuel system was fine up to 11psi, but that was on a new car.
What's a fmic/vmount have for efficiency?

I'm not sure what my fuel setup is capable of but I want to say about 300 hp at the flywheel
Reply
Old Mar 30, 2014 | 04:05 PM
  #29  
j9fd3s's Avatar
Moderator
Community Builder
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,857
Likes: 3,243
From: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Originally Posted by wthdidusay82
What's a fmic/vmount have for efficiency?
it depends on the size and construction of the core, the size and number of bends in the piping, and where you put it in the car, and the turbo you have.

a ballpark might be about 1-2psi pressure drop @15psi (which is different than 1psi @6psi!), and maybe 80-85% efficiency.

if you're lucky Evil Aviator will be back with more maths
Reply
Old Mar 30, 2014 | 04:24 PM
  #30  
Evil Aviator's Avatar
Rotorhead
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 39
From: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Originally Posted by j9fd3s
the grassroots motorsports article from 1988 found that the stock intercooler is about 68% efficient with a 1.1psi pressure drop, which is not bad, but not great either.
The problem with info like that is that there are three primary factors involved; compressor outlet airflow rate (engine airflow rate), compressor outlet pressure, and ambient air velocity through the intercooler core. The article is nice enough to state the boost pressure of 5.5psi, but did not state the engine rpm at which the numbers were recorded, nor did it state how much ambient air was flowing through the intercooler. Even if the article did state this information, the efficiency would change when the engine rpm, boost level, and ambient airflow through the intercooler change. Therefore, while it is nice to know that the stock intercooler is 68% efficient with a 1 psi pressure drop at some unknown engine rpm and vehicle speed, it doesn't mean much for a car running 10psi boost because it is impossible to extrapolate this information. Engines that are ported and have other aftermarket mods make this even more difficult to determine.

Originally Posted by j9fd3s
they also found that the fuel system was fine up to 11psi, but that was on a new car.
They found the stock system to support 8psi, and with a more efficient aftermarket turbo and intercooler kit it could support 11psi... but of course you need to give Corky Bell your money for this to happen.

Originally Posted by wthdidusay82
What's a fmic/vmount have for efficiency?
How long is a piece of string?

Originally Posted by j9fd3s
if you're lucky Evil Aviator will be back with more maths
I'm back, but he is not lucky because the maths have entirely too many variables. However, there is a small amount of luck because I can post a link to a nice pamphlet on the subject. It is an update of the original pamphlet written by George Spears.
http://www.turboneticsinc.com/sites/...tercooling.pdf
Reply
Old Mar 30, 2014 | 05:59 PM
  #31  
j9fd3s's Avatar
Moderator
Community Builder
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,857
Likes: 3,243
From: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
its funny, but those are the only published numbers i've seen for the FC.... actually they know the rpm and speed of the car, it just didn't make it into the article
Reply
Old Apr 2, 2014 | 01:37 AM
  #32  
rusty FC's Avatar
Full Member
Tenured Member: 15 Years
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
From: Brandon, MS
if your corksport intake piping is making your oem filter box sit up too high then you need to play around with how you have it hooked up. i have the same intake pipe and the charge pipe from corksport and it all fit perfect. i also got a k&n drop in filter for the oem box
Reply
Old Apr 2, 2014 | 01:59 AM
  #33  
RotaryEvolution's Avatar
Sharp Claws
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 5,107
Likes: 50
From: Central Florida
in my experiences the best route was the shortest intake pipe and straightest possible, the air temp of the air going into the turbo is only of concern if your intercooler is inadequate. so in theory work out the intercooler before worrying about air temp entering the turbo. complex/long intake systems hindered turbo performance more than they helped.

Last edited by RotaryEvolution; Apr 2, 2014 at 02:04 AM.
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2014 | 10:54 PM
  #34  
Doc Holaday's Avatar
Snow EH?
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
From: Saskatoon SK Canada
I see no draw backs to building a heat shield with a cone filter. It is Ducted in from the opening in the bumper for more fresh air. I have not tested its actual air temp change, but theres been bugs plastered to the filter, so it is bringing in fresh air.

Between it and the Corksport 81mm DP, my boost has raise to around 10psi and has noticeably less spool time. Im running 750 secondaries and a rtek 1.8. Ran it lightly last summer and have a Aem afr gauge going in soon.
Attached Thumbnails Ram air intake for t2 , anyone made one?-image-2171622739.jpg  
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2014 | 09:00 AM
  #35  
Aaron Cake's Avatar
Engine, Not Motor
Tenured Member: 20 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 29,798
Likes: 128
From: London, Ontario, Canada
So you wanna' build a cold air box to fit an aftermarket cone filter? Bam:


I tried to use OEM type thinking here. Easily serviceable, insulating the air path from the engine bay and drawing cold air from underneath the inner fender where another duct can be extended to pull from behind the bumper. Very similar to many OEM type airboxes and less restrictive than the snorkel on the FC.

But, there's little wrong with the FC snorkel. Using a prototype airbox replacement I designed for the FC which uses a cone filter and connects to the snorkel, my butt dyno reports that the car it is installed on makes about 325 HP to the wheels on a BNR at around 15 PSI (peak) and a good tune. For most users, that snorkel can't be too bad.

FYI, I fully intended to produce those airboxes and even have many of the parts laser cut sitting in a box in the shop, with jigging produced. Problem is, few FC owners would be willing to pay $500 for a beautiful aluminium airbox.
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2014 | 08:37 PM
  #36  
wthdidusay82's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotary Power
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (15)
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,706
Likes: 4
From: Dinwiddie, Va
I'd love that airbox man , I need to learn how to do what you do, problem is even I learn I still have nowhere as many tools as you.
Reply
Old Apr 11, 2014 | 10:52 PM
  #37  
lastphaseofthis's Avatar
My job is to blow **** up
Tenured Member 20 Years
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,903
Likes: 5
From: palmyra Indiana
Originally Posted by Evil Aviator

You made a serious error in that calculation, lol.
Not a calculation, i read the numbers from the palm pilot, dont assume. its gonna make and *** out of us.
Reply
Old Apr 12, 2014 | 01:40 AM
  #38  
Evil Aviator's Avatar
Rotorhead
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 39
From: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Originally Posted by lastphaseofthis
Not a calculation, i read the numbers from the palm pilot, dont assume. its gonna make and *** out of us.
You made a serious error in that reading, lol.

Fixed
Reply
Old Apr 12, 2014 | 10:02 AM
  #39  
clokker's Avatar
Cake or Death?
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,249
Likes: 64
From: Mile High
Originally Posted by Aaron Cake
So you wanna' build a cold air box to fit an aftermarket cone filter? Bam...Problem is, few FC owners would be willing to pay $500 for a beautiful aluminium airbox.
Aesthetics aside and with no disrespect to the craftsmanship, a box design like this makes no sense to me.
Your part, and the myriad similar efforts I've seen here are essentially just copies of the original airbox with different material.
I fail to see what the $500 is buying beyond being different from stock.
Reply
Old Apr 12, 2014 | 12:15 PM
  #40  
SirCygnus's Avatar
whats going on?
Tenured Member 20 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,930
Likes: 8
From: atlanta ga
Originally Posted by clokker
Aesthetics aside and with no disrespect to the craftsmanship, a box design like this makes no sense to me.
Your part, and the myriad similar efforts I've seen here are essentially just copies of the original airbox with different material.
I fail to see what the $500 is buying beyond being different from stock.
nothing. its a box with a cone filter in it. he could have made the same thing with fiberglass.

Name:  P1010041-2.jpg
Views: 95
Size:  70.3 KB
Reply
Old Apr 12, 2014 | 11:10 PM
  #41  
wthdidusay82's Avatar
Thread Starter
Rotary Power
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (15)
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,706
Likes: 4
From: Dinwiddie, Va
Why yall hating on his airbox ? It's a very nice airbox and much better than stock.
Reply
Old Apr 12, 2014 | 11:36 PM
  #42  
clokker's Avatar
Cake or Death?
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 10,249
Likes: 64
From: Mile High
I agree it's a very nice airbox but don't see why it's "much better than stock".

The stock airbox is well mounted, made of thick plastic which insulates well and draws air from in front of the radiator...so how is Sir C's or Mr Cake's replacement a major upgrade?
Reply
Old Apr 13, 2014 | 01:12 AM
  #43  
Evil Aviator's Avatar
Rotorhead
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 39
From: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Originally Posted by clokker
I agree it's a very nice airbox but don't see why it's "much better than stock".
It has larger tubing and no baffles. On the downside, it incorporates two 90 degree bends.
Reply
Old Apr 13, 2014 | 12:45 PM
  #44  
Aaron Cake's Avatar
Engine, Not Motor
Tenured Member: 20 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 29,798
Likes: 128
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by clokker
Aesthetics aside and with no disrespect to the craftsmanship, a box design like this makes no sense to me.
Your part, and the myriad similar efforts I've seen here are essentially just copies of the original airbox with different material.
I fail to see what the $500 is buying beyond being different from stock.
The airbox in the video was made to fit the Cosmo and be easily servicable like most OEM airboxes. The enclosed shape was obviously to isolate the filter from the engine bay but also to quiet the thing down. I don't want a roaring intake in this car. Plus provide an area to plumb in the recirculation line from the BOV should I use it (still debating this), hookup for PCV, etc.

I should have been more clear that I just posted the video here to give the OP an idea of how to fab up an airbox. The box I made isn't really FC suitable as it's purpose is to round on an turbocharged EFI installation on a '76 Cosmo.

The box I spoke of that I prototyped for the FC though is a different story. It allowed the use of a cone filter within it which was the major reason for it to exist. And it was a true cold air box because it used the stock snorkel as well as maintain all of the stock fittings (BAC line, etc.). As suggested it also eliminate the baffles present in the stock box as well as provided a unique air path inside which wrapped around the cone filter. I would truly love to post some pictures because it looks spectacular in the engine bay, performs well, isn't loud and really, isn't even a "box" shape. It was a direct bolt in (and I mean 100% bolt in) to any S4/S5 FC (TII or NA). But I hesitate to do so because the design is so unique (I've never seen it before on anything) and I still might put it into production in the coming years. But as I said, materials, welding time and fabrication really drive the price up. There probably isn't a market for a $500 FC airbox.

For that matter, the spectacular aluminum strut bars (front and rear) I designed and jigged will probably never see the light of day due to cost. I can't compete with a $50 eBay strut bar, even though the eBay bar is a piece of absolute ****. Now that I'm on a mini-rant, I was 75% of the way through designing a direct bolt on (in a weekend), honest to goodness turn key 300HP NA-turbo kit. But the cost kept climbing and at about the $5000 mark I realized that unless I could sell enough to have some of the key parts cast to cut fab time, it would never see the light of day.
Reply
Old Apr 13, 2014 | 01:17 PM
  #45  
Evil Aviator's Avatar
Rotorhead
Tenured Member 15 Years
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,136
Likes: 39
From: Charlottesville, Virginia, USA
Originally Posted by Aaron Cake
I'm on a mini-rant, I was 75% of the way through designing a direct bolt on (in a weekend), honest to goodness turn key 300HP NA-turbo kit. But the cost kept climbing and at about the $5000 mark I realized that unless I could sell enough to have some of the key parts cast to cut fab time, it would never see the light of day.
Production costs are too high in North America nowadays, and you have correctly determined that it is stupid to fabricate parts yourself. Once you finish the kit, send the blueprints to a few producers in Taiwan to see what kind of pricing they can offer for various levels of production. Most of them will give a free quote, and maybe even a prototype. The only real hurdle is funding the initial production run.
Manufacturers, Suppliers, Exporters & Importers from the world's largest online B2B marketplace-Alibaba.com
Reply
Old Apr 13, 2014 | 01:34 PM
  #46  
j9fd3s's Avatar
Moderator
Community Builder
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 31,857
Likes: 3,243
From: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Originally Posted by Aaron Cake
I don't want a roaring intake in this car. Plus provide an area to plumb in the recirculation line from the BOV should I use it (still debating this), hookup for PCV, etc..
you should run a bov, and plumb it back into the box, if you want it quiet. i put my FC together with no BOV and a cone intake, and the turbo makes neat rally car style noises, but its not "quiet" or "refined"

no need to get fancy with the hardware though stock BOV does just fine, theres no need for the jabba the hut BOV
Reply
Old Apr 13, 2014 | 07:05 PM
  #47  
Doc Holaday's Avatar
Snow EH?
Tenured Member 15 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
From: Saskatoon SK Canada
Running with no BOV is dumb. That's compressor surge that you were hearing and it will mess up your compressor. Its the wall of compressed air slamming into the closed TB and slamming back into the compressor wheel.
Reply
Old Apr 14, 2014 | 12:16 PM
  #48  
MrGoodnight's Avatar
Senior Member
Tenured Member 10 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 620
Likes: 4
From: Tacoma Washington
Originally Posted by Doc Holaday
Running with no BOV is dumb. That's compressor surge that you were hearing and it will mess up your compressor. Its the wall of compressed air slamming into the closed TB and slamming back into the compressor wheel.
I ran no bov for almost a full year (9,000 miles). Turbo still works great and I didn't have any issues. I just recently installed the stock bov.
Reply
Old Apr 14, 2014 | 06:45 PM
  #49  
Aaron Cake's Avatar
Engine, Not Motor
Tenured Member: 20 Years
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 29,798
Likes: 128
From: London, Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted by Evil Aviator
Production costs are too high in North America nowadays, and you have correctly determined that it is stupid to fabricate parts yourself. Once you finish the kit, send the blueprints to a few producers in Taiwan to see what kind of pricing they can offer for various levels of production. Most of them will give a free quote, and maybe even a prototype. The only real hurdle is funding the initial production run.
Manufacturers, Suppliers, Exporters & Importers from the world's largest online B2B marketplace-Alibaba.com
That's something I may consider if I ever start this stuff up again. I have customers who outsource some stuff to China and are pretty happy with the results but they have experience and know how to supervise the manufacturers. It's long on the list of things to do though and I do fear that even getting production costs down to the point where I can offer a $4K turbo kit, I won't sell any. I'll have a hundred people ready to buy, and then when the product is available I'll sell 5 kits.
Originally Posted by Doc Holaday
Running with no BOV is dumb. That's compressor surge that you were hearing and it will mess up your compressor. Its the wall of compressed air slamming into the closed TB and slamming back into the compressor wheel.
I should clarify that I was referring to the choice between recirculating the BOV vs. open dumping it. It's a choice because my BOV is positioned right at the throttle body like it should be, so recirculating it means figuring out some elegant way to run a pipe all the way back to the airbox. I do happen to have a little experience with turbos, so I know the pros and cons to running with and without a BOV.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BNR34RB26DETT
Build Threads
42
Feb 28, 2018 11:27 AM
86glxNA
New Member RX-7 Technical
7
Aug 22, 2015 08:54 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:48 AM.