Who makes ITB intake manifolds (13B)?
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Who makes ITB intake manifolds (13B)?
Who if anyone makes bolt on intake manifolds to facilitate ITBs on a NA 13B?
I'm most likely interested in a quad throttle body setup instead of dual throttle bodies.
Yes, I'm considering injection over carbs... So much for keeping it simple.
I want to figure out my intake setup before I decide my irons as I may be restricted on iron selection depending on the intake port configuration (4 port, 6 port, etc.) of what's available there for ITB manifolds.
Pictures of ITB setups very welcome.
I'm most likely interested in a quad throttle body setup instead of dual throttle bodies.
Yes, I'm considering injection over carbs... So much for keeping it simple.
I want to figure out my intake setup before I decide my irons as I may be restricted on iron selection depending on the intake port configuration (4 port, 6 port, etc.) of what's available there for ITB manifolds.
Pictures of ITB setups very welcome.
#2
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Are 4 ITBs on a motor with 2 rotors dumb?
My head feels like tuning 2 throttle bodies (2x injectors) per combusion chamber via EFI on an NA motor would just be plain confusing and/or stupid.
If I use 4 port irons I guess there would be 4 intake paths...
I don't even want to think about 6 port intakes. :S
Just thinking out loud, I have no idea what I'm doing, yet...
And I'm no engine tuner btw, obviously.
But I do like me the sound of 4 throttle bodies. I have been there many times before.
Just not on a rotary.
My head feels like tuning 2 throttle bodies (2x injectors) per combusion chamber via EFI on an NA motor would just be plain confusing and/or stupid.
If I use 4 port irons I guess there would be 4 intake paths...
I don't even want to think about 6 port intakes. :S
Just thinking out loud, I have no idea what I'm doing, yet...
And I'm no engine tuner btw, obviously.
But I do like me the sound of 4 throttle bodies. I have been there many times before.
Just not on a rotary.
#3
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,901
Received 2,644 Likes
on
1,873 Posts
i <3 my weber IDA, but efi would probably have been less expensive....
i'm not sure about manifolds, racing beat used to be like the only place, but there are lots of others now
i'm not sure about manifolds, racing beat used to be like the only place, but there are lots of others now
#4
Information Regurgitator
I found these Mazda Rotary (efihardware.com) in this thread FD3S 13B-REW N/A ITB Racecar - RX7Club.com - Mazda RX7 Forum.
They also have the kits that include the throttle bodies. Rotary Throttle Body Kits: Rotary ITB's | EFI Hardware. They are expensive though.
Also it seems most 2 rotor setups are using a single throttle body which amounts to twin ITB's.
They also have the kits that include the throttle bodies. Rotary Throttle Body Kits: Rotary ITB's | EFI Hardware. They are expensive though.
Also it seems most 2 rotor setups are using a single throttle body which amounts to twin ITB's.
Last edited by Dak; 07-24-23 at 02:19 AM.
#5
Old [Sch|F]ool
AFAIK nobody makes ITB manifold anymore. Anything you can find is a Weber manifold.
I cheated and used a modified Holley 750 as a throttle body on a Racing Beat intake manifold, which is like having 42mm ITBs, but it isn't ideal. Next best is the TWM DCOE manifold I have, which has a much nicer port volume with the throttles about 3" from the engine, but it still won't be ideal because it is designed around DCOE port spacing.
Laird (?) made a beautiful ITB manifold in Australia that all of the Improved Production racers raved about. Apparently they were making well over 300 horsepower from a non relieved bridge port (no part of intake port may pass through rotor housing, so no reliefs)
IMO unless you are racing, I would not bother. Until you get to the real pointy end of the obsession curve where you are optimizing every dimension of cross sectional area and runner length, the main benefit of ITBs is throttle response.
I cheated and used a modified Holley 750 as a throttle body on a Racing Beat intake manifold, which is like having 42mm ITBs, but it isn't ideal. Next best is the TWM DCOE manifold I have, which has a much nicer port volume with the throttles about 3" from the engine, but it still won't be ideal because it is designed around DCOE port spacing.
Laird (?) made a beautiful ITB manifold in Australia that all of the Improved Production racers raved about. Apparently they were making well over 300 horsepower from a non relieved bridge port (no part of intake port may pass through rotor housing, so no reliefs)
IMO unless you are racing, I would not bother. Until you get to the real pointy end of the obsession curve where you are optimizing every dimension of cross sectional area and runner length, the main benefit of ITBs is throttle response.
Last edited by peejay; 07-27-23 at 10:22 AM.
The following 2 users liked this post by peejay:
diabolical1 (07-28-23),
j9fd3s (07-28-23)
#6
Rotary Freak
As above, you could join the IPRA mob (facebook mostly now?) and ask if anybody has a Laird manifold. Used to be like hen's teeth, but with rx7s mostly uncompetitive now, some might be available. Do know someone in sports sedans here who fabricated his own 4 port manifold for an REW, basically just 3/8" 6061 plate and aluminium donuts, which I'm sure a reasonably qualified fabricator over there could accomplish too.
As a very long shot, but don't think Xtreme has dealt with the public for a decade now, I remember they had something that appeared to me to be a motorcycle 4cyl TB mounted on a casting.
As a very long shot, but don't think Xtreme has dealt with the public for a decade now, I remember they had something that appeared to me to be a motorcycle 4cyl TB mounted on a casting.
#7
10000 RPM Lane
iTrader: (2)
you either want to keep them all separate or pair the primaries and pair the secondaries separate from the other.
the manifolds that pair the primary and secondary together are all crap imo. They have to be different diameters and/or lengths for that to work effectively, which will vary for NA vs FI. Which those manifolds aren’t.
Different opening timing too for a broad powerband. The Renesis intake manifold being the premier street example, and the 767B sliding trumpets being the premier individual-runner race example.
Don’t be afraid of making your own custom one either. Flanges are now easily ordered lasert cut online etc.. Here’s a custom REW turbo that was built by Tripoint Engineering back in the day and was quite effective for competition use. I’m still trying to figure out how they were able to mandrel bend the oval primary runners smoothly. The secondaries are round tube and oval formed at the engine flange.
.
.
.
per my previous comments I’m confident it can be improved upon, which is why I bought it.
.
.
the manifolds that pair the primary and secondary together are all crap imo. They have to be different diameters and/or lengths for that to work effectively, which will vary for NA vs FI. Which those manifolds aren’t.
Different opening timing too for a broad powerband. The Renesis intake manifold being the premier street example, and the 767B sliding trumpets being the premier individual-runner race example.
Don’t be afraid of making your own custom one either. Flanges are now easily ordered lasert cut online etc.. Here’s a custom REW turbo that was built by Tripoint Engineering back in the day and was quite effective for competition use. I’m still trying to figure out how they were able to mandrel bend the oval primary runners smoothly. The secondaries are round tube and oval formed at the engine flange.
.
.
.
per my previous comments I’m confident it can be improved upon, which is why I bought it.
.
.
Last edited by TeamRX8; 07-27-23 at 10:05 PM.
Trending Topics
#8
Old [Sch|F]ool
I have done it. It sucked heavily.
If you must pair runners, pair the ports of a given rotor. Do not ever have different rotors sharing a throttle blade.
That REW manifold looks like hot garbage, the runners are way too small, have no taper, and curve right before the engine instead of leading out a few inches from it. It might be fine for a turbo application where you can cover up the horrible flow with more boost.
Last edited by peejay; 07-28-23 at 08:29 AM.
The following 2 users liked this post by peejay:
diabolical1 (07-28-23),
fidelity101 (08-01-23)
#9
Rallye RX7
iTrader: (11)
I helped this guy optimize his part for 3d printing, it comes out in nylon from a powder based setup:
https://jafaengineering.wordpress.com/products/
it uses bike ITBs to a custom manifold which you can do right to the block or from the stock LIM. looks promising but I haven't test it myself yet - the FB page is more active or available if you need to message him.
https://jafaengineering.wordpress.com/products/
it uses bike ITBs to a custom manifold which you can do right to the block or from the stock LIM. looks promising but I haven't test it myself yet - the FB page is more active or available if you need to message him.
The following users liked this post:
chirmstream (08-01-23)
#10
Moderator
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: https://www2.mazda.com/en/100th/
Posts: 30,901
Received 2,644 Likes
on
1,873 Posts
pics are kind of scarce, but the Lake Cities style intake works great. it looks like it would only make top end power, because its so short, but in real life it was 2000-7000rpm.
i feel like getting rid of the 90 degree bend, helps a lot.
i feel like getting rid of the 90 degree bend, helps a lot.
#11
Rotary Motoring
iTrader: (9)
Top with carb is Atkins "Lake Cities" copy cast for 6 port 13B, Left is Lake Cities for early 4 port 13B and Right is TWM dual for early 4 port 13B.
The aviation guys use these shorties too. You can rotate the entire engine/trans to get better angle/more clearance for intake.
A 13B-REW intake would come off the engine at 45 degrees if made correctly and would provide clearance that way as well if you use that engine stack.
#12
Old [Sch|F]ool
Hey, I know that pic! That's about a third of my rotary intake manifold collection. And the R53 Mini that I'm about halfway into finishing the Subaru drivetrain/suspension swap.
The one on the right is a TWM for a 4 port 13B (aka '74-78 style), the one on the left is an Atkins manifold for a 6 port 13B, the one with the Dell'Orto DHLA attached is a Lake Cities manifold for a 12A. That mess of linkage that I'm building is in the more or less exact location of the stock Nikki primary throttle shaft, relative to the engine, so I can use the stock throttle cable and OMP arm. Still have not gotten enough round tuits to figure out how to stick the TPS on it so the solenoid rack works correctly for vacuum advance, or how to integrate the crankcase breather and evap system.
The one on the right is a TWM for a 4 port 13B (aka '74-78 style), the one on the left is an Atkins manifold for a 6 port 13B, the one with the Dell'Orto DHLA attached is a Lake Cities manifold for a 12A. That mess of linkage that I'm building is in the more or less exact location of the stock Nikki primary throttle shaft, relative to the engine, so I can use the stock throttle cable and OMP arm. Still have not gotten enough round tuits to figure out how to stick the TPS on it so the solenoid rack works correctly for vacuum advance, or how to integrate the crankcase breather and evap system.
Last edited by peejay; 08-01-23 at 08:54 PM.
The following users liked this post:
fidelity101 (08-02-23)
#14
Rallye RX7
iTrader: (11)
/end rant
The following 2 users liked this post by fidelity101:
gracer7-rx7 (08-02-23),
j9fd3s (08-02-23)
The following 5 users liked this post by BLUE TII:
73rx313b (08-04-23),
fidelity101 (08-03-23),
gracer7-rx7 (08-02-23),
GucciBravo (08-09-23),
mr2peak (08-08-23)
#17
Rotors still spinning
iTrader: (1)
I spent a lot of time over the years away from the forum but still very much rotary interested and had the pleasure of picking the brain of the late Rick Engman. I wish I'd have had more occasions to get out there before he passed. He confirmed a few of my suspicions and educated me in other ways. I got to see a few neat custom projects that he had done for Jim Downing's engines that he wouldn't let me take pictures of. One thing we discussed was throttle bodies. Rick was not a forced induction person. He was a non-turbo race rotary builder and a damned good one. If it was a peripheral port engine, he always had a throttle plate per rotor, as is typical for peripheral port engines. However, things got interesting for non-peripheral port engines. He always wanted the primary and secondary ports to open and close at the same time. This was optimal to making power and the actual reason why 4 port non-turbo engines make better power than 6-port engines. It has nothing to do with the flow through the end housings as most believe but rather the fact that the primary ports close much sooner than the aux ports. This does create an interference wave in the intake manifold that hurts power.
In order to try to mitigate that and get some useful interaction, if you have primary ports that close earlier than the secondary or auxiliary ports, if present, a separated manifold in which the primary runners merge and the secondaries merge is the best option. Case in point, the Renesis. If you have primaries and secondaries that close at the same time, he merged both ports from a rotor together to use a single throttle plate per rotor. In other words, Weber style. He did not believe in 4 plates on a 2 rotor as the primaries and secondaries flow different amounts and would require differently sized throttle plates to function correctly, something no one does. I did see Paul Yaw do this with 2 throttle plates on 1 rotor about 25 years ago for an airplane. He made the same power and it was simpler and easier to setup and tune. Rick did have a neat engine that did have an 80 deg closing primary port along with 6 port end housings on a Weber style tb that made some crazy power with an 8500 rpm redline. It was very creative how he did it. Keep in mind that if you go forced induction lots of things change.
You need to think about everything together as a package and not just which engine and which intake and which exhaust, etc. It all needs to work together and be chosen as a single unit.
In order to try to mitigate that and get some useful interaction, if you have primary ports that close earlier than the secondary or auxiliary ports, if present, a separated manifold in which the primary runners merge and the secondaries merge is the best option. Case in point, the Renesis. If you have primaries and secondaries that close at the same time, he merged both ports from a rotor together to use a single throttle plate per rotor. In other words, Weber style. He did not believe in 4 plates on a 2 rotor as the primaries and secondaries flow different amounts and would require differently sized throttle plates to function correctly, something no one does. I did see Paul Yaw do this with 2 throttle plates on 1 rotor about 25 years ago for an airplane. He made the same power and it was simpler and easier to setup and tune. Rick did have a neat engine that did have an 80 deg closing primary port along with 6 port end housings on a Weber style tb that made some crazy power with an 8500 rpm redline. It was very creative how he did it. Keep in mind that if you go forced induction lots of things change.
You need to think about everything together as a package and not just which engine and which intake and which exhaust, etc. It all needs to work together and be chosen as a single unit.
The following 2 users liked this post by rotarygod:
73rx313b (08-08-23),
diabolical1 (08-07-23)
#19
I actually own Rotaries
iTrader: (40)
I spent a lot of time over the years away from the forum but still very much rotary interested and had the pleasure of picking the brain of the late Rick Engman. I wish I'd have had more occasions to get out there before he passed. He confirmed a few of my suspicions and educated me in other ways. I got to see a few neat custom projects that he had done for Jim Downing's engines that he wouldn't let me take pictures of. One thing we discussed was throttle bodies. Rick was not a forced induction person. He was a non-turbo race rotary builder and a damned good one. If it was a peripheral port engine, he always had a throttle plate per rotor, as is typical for peripheral port engines. However, things got interesting for non-peripheral port engines. He always wanted the primary and secondary ports to open and close at the same time. This was optimal to making power and the actual reason why 4 port non-turbo engines make better power than 6-port engines. It has nothing to do with the flow through the end housings as most believe but rather the fact that the primary ports close much sooner than the aux ports. This does create an interference wave in the intake manifold that hurts power.
In order to try to mitigate that and get some useful interaction, if you have primary ports that close earlier than the secondary or auxiliary ports, if present, a separated manifold in which the primary runners merge and the secondaries merge is the best option. Case in point, the Renesis. If you have primaries and secondaries that close at the same time, he merged both ports from a rotor together to use a single throttle plate per rotor. In other words, Weber style. He did not believe in 4 plates on a 2 rotor as the primaries and secondaries flow different amounts and would require differently sized throttle plates to function correctly, something no one does. I did see Paul Yaw do this with 2 throttle plates on 1 rotor about 25 years ago for an airplane. He made the same power and it was simpler and easier to setup and tune. Rick did have a neat engine that did have an 80 deg closing primary port along with 6 port end housings on a Weber style tb that made some crazy power with an 8500 rpm redline. It was very creative how he did it. Keep in mind that if you go forced induction lots of things change.
You need to think about everything together as a package and not just which engine and which intake and which exhaust, etc. It all needs to work together and be chosen as a single unit.
In order to try to mitigate that and get some useful interaction, if you have primary ports that close earlier than the secondary or auxiliary ports, if present, a separated manifold in which the primary runners merge and the secondaries merge is the best option. Case in point, the Renesis. If you have primaries and secondaries that close at the same time, he merged both ports from a rotor together to use a single throttle plate per rotor. In other words, Weber style. He did not believe in 4 plates on a 2 rotor as the primaries and secondaries flow different amounts and would require differently sized throttle plates to function correctly, something no one does. I did see Paul Yaw do this with 2 throttle plates on 1 rotor about 25 years ago for an airplane. He made the same power and it was simpler and easier to setup and tune. Rick did have a neat engine that did have an 80 deg closing primary port along with 6 port end housings on a Weber style tb that made some crazy power with an 8500 rpm redline. It was very creative how he did it. Keep in mind that if you go forced induction lots of things change.
You need to think about everything together as a package and not just which engine and which intake and which exhaust, etc. It all needs to work together and be chosen as a single unit.
The following users liked this post:
diabolical1 (08-10-23)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Maxwedge
1st Generation Specific (1979-1985)
0
08-03-19 09:13 AM