I measured a few different PP housings at different angles. I'm wondering what the effect is on power/powerband with different angles.

For all you super secretive all-rotor guys that want to keep your angle/pitch a secret, that's cool. But let's hear some of what you have learned by using different angles of entry and what type of effect they have had.

 

the factory parts are all straight in, so its parallel. mine is like that too, but um ive only done the one engine

 

this could be an interesting thread, YES go for it.

 

Speed Source did a full test on the MFR housings Vs. the Racing beat housings. The MFR housings made more peak power, but the RB housings made more power everywhere else. The RB housing enter at an angle. And as J9 stated, the MFR do not. But port shape and size are also different there. So that's not a good comparison to go off of.

I have seen drag racing engines enter strait in as well as angled. Maybe the angle/pitch does not play that big of a roll?

 

Too many variables to just take a one shot at the perfect angle. I can think of a great summer dyno project on this. Months to gather info.

MFR housings raw, and the RB housings ported? Not fair. I have a couple MFR "Big Guy", (professional builders), housings and they're nothing like the stock ones.
I did a couple and had a straight entry. Angled has to make the turn to the top of the housing during the intake cycle. But if the radius is right , it works.
GD

 

So I am going to be the only one to admit they giggled when reading the thread title?

 

It's something I'd put a bunch of thought to as well. Then ended up doing angled because it was the SIMPLEST way to achieve my goals.

My thoughts, however, are that it's ideal to bias the port (this includes side ports) so that it gets a straight shot at the point where the chamber volume is expanding at its highest rate. Given that the chamber is moving at the same time that it is expanding, this would also dictate an ideal vector. The goal is to maximize the runner velocity at that point, and other points will follow.

Not backed up by any sort of testing, mind you. Just gut feeling. But, this theory would dictate horizontal runners, maybe even slightly up-angled. It's been a while since I've played with rotor/housing shapes.

One thing I do find interesting, though, is that the MFR ports require a fairly bad intake manifold shape. I wonder how the engine could perform if there were room for straight runners.

 

I'm thinking DCOE mounted like a lake cities manifold for my friend's 4 rotor PP. The frontmost carb will fit under the hood.

 

If only that pesky strut tower wasn't in the way! Time to convert to Miata front suspension and pushrod/rocker style coilovers.

I am doing something similar on a not-terribly-far-off intake setup, but I fully plan on scalloping the strut tower for intake clearance. It's okay, I'm running 2.5" springs so there is a lot of wasted space in the strut towers.

 

all of the factory cars post 1982 were midengine things, so they could be almost horizontal.

they have a good drawing of the 787B's intake setup, it does have a 10-15 degree upbend...

pauls PP sleeve design actually puts the throttle body ON the engine, so the "intake" is like a honda, all of the runner length/bends etc happen before the TB.

we figure that way a wrap around is ok, or maybe one tube goes in front of the shock tower and one goes behind?

it doesn't seem like its a big problem, except with a carburator...