what you guys think of this for a pp?
would this work??

 

change the angle huh? not sure of effects as far as filling the chamber at that angle.... got timing for opening and closing?

 

Well, the problem is, design intake runners for that that don't run into the exhaust; is any possible benefit on the angle into the engine negated by the disruption in flow caused by the bend in the runners that would be necessecary? Or *is* there even a benefit?

 

I was wondering what the benefits would be as well, if any. The factory pp are angled downward, if I remember correctly. I want to know if that has a great effect on the way the air travels as it enters the chamber, and what the benefits are over having a straight entry. Maybe it has something to do with better mixing of the intake charge?

- Steiner

 

What intake system are you going to feed it with, and how are you going to keep the intake cool with all that 1600 degree exhaust radiant heat right next to it?

 

that is going to be a problem but you could use some kind of heat insulator.

i think the flow rate would be better.

 

Unless anyone here has done a fluid analysis, it's unprovable what effect that angle will have on chamber dynamics. Short answer: build it and see what happens.

 

air has mass, air-fuel mixture has more mass. Giving the the mixture inertia in a "better" direction should have an effect on volumetric efficiency. How much, if any would be readily seen in fluid dynamics testing. I've seen fluid dynamics animations for side ports but never peripherals.

As a fair comparison, the 6-port inserts made by Pineapple racing calim a gain of 8hp. The auxiliary ports have "similar" timing to peripherals and the effect of re-directing the inertia or the 6-ports is substantial and similar results might be attainable by re-directing the inertia on a peripheral port as well.

If someone has the time they should try and model this and get to the bottom of this....