PPort turbo question
sorry 
02-01-02, 09:25 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Gearhead
Greg,
Do you use any kind of butterfly or anything to close off the PP when the engine is at low RPM? That would be the best of both worlds... Stock port low end grunt, and PP POWER!!!! I always love driving a PP.
Don.
Greg,
Do you use any kind of butterfly or anything to close off the PP when the engine is at low RPM? That would be the best of both worlds... Stock port low end grunt, and PP POWER!!!! I always love driving a PP.
Don.
your a genius
why didn't I think of that kinda like the 787b.
02-01-02, 11:31 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by buzz
hmmm, that is a fairly small p-port isn't it, and late opening too...
I agree that getting lots of air in to the engine is the path to big power, so on a partial p-port and 4 port arrangement there must be a significant amount of air provided to the ports, hence just re-routing the air from the standard manifold would not be sufficient to fed the beast to realise the potential power the ports could give.
(bear with me here...)
The analogy I am thinking of is when you fill a coke bottle with water and stick a garden hose in it, then turn it up-side down... the water pours down the 10 or 12mm hole in the hose and it takes say 10 sec to empty. The act of splitting that 12mm pipe into 2 12mm pipes about a foot down the hose doesnt mean that the bottle will now empty in 5 seconds because there are two outlets.... it should still take 10 secs, but the pressure in the split hoses will be less (about half I'd say...
)
So assuming my garden physics holds true, then inlets need to be seriously revised if not replaced outright to realise the power potential - and the glued up inlet manifold with the 4 ports and the small pp's as well might not really deliver anything special.
hmmm, that is a fairly small p-port isn't it, and late opening too...
I agree that getting lots of air in to the engine is the path to big power, so on a partial p-port and 4 port arrangement there must be a significant amount of air provided to the ports, hence just re-routing the air from the standard manifold would not be sufficient to fed the beast to realise the potential power the ports could give.
(bear with me here...)
The analogy I am thinking of is when you fill a coke bottle with water and stick a garden hose in it, then turn it up-side down... the water pours down the 10 or 12mm hole in the hose and it takes say 10 sec to empty. The act of splitting that 12mm pipe into 2 12mm pipes about a foot down the hose doesnt mean that the bottle will now empty in 5 seconds because there are two outlets.... it should still take 10 secs, but the pressure in the split hoses will be less (about half I'd say...
)So assuming my garden physics holds true, then inlets need to be seriously revised if not replaced outright to realise the power potential - and the glued up inlet manifold with the 4 ports and the small pp's as well might not really deliver anything special.
02-01-02, 11:59 PM
#29
Full Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Yorkton, SK, Canada
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Gearhead
I think PP's last longer than bridgeys. The intake port is similar to the exhaust port and stresses the apex seal the same. There is no thin metal bridge to crack, and the water jacket seals aren't compromised. Like everything else.. it depends on how you run them. My old roomates ran for a couple years and around 30k mi or so, and he sold the car... running strong. The engine has been put into another car.
Don.
I think PP's last longer than bridgeys. The intake port is similar to the exhaust port and stresses the apex seal the same. There is no thin metal bridge to crack, and the water jacket seals aren't compromised. Like everything else.. it depends on how you run them. My old roomates ran for a couple years and around 30k mi or so, and he sold the car... running strong. The engine has been put into another car.
Don.
What his car also turbocharged?
That makes sence what you say about why it should be better than a bridge port. Maybe the 6-12 month thing was what I heard for an all out race engine.
02-02-02, 04:52 AM
#30
Full Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gainesville, GA USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the car ran 30K. The engine is still running around in another car to the best of my knowledge. It was fairly reliable... except that we always had a little fouling problem due to the plugs being so cold. It was n/a with what I think started life as a Weber 48 d/draft, that had been modified to 51mm. We did, however shift around 9500RPM with the MSD's set to 9800. Great motor. Completely streetable if you liked driving it. I can't tell you how many times we drove the car to the store to buy bread just so we could have an excuse to go get into some meyhem.
amemiya,
I was actually considerint some Honda throttle bodies or something right at the port and having them boost or RPM actuated. That would really **** off the Honda guys. The throttle bodies they use to flow to their entire engine... we could use 2 of them for our "auxillary" power.
I think some motorcycle butterflies would probably be the perfect size. My bike has 2- 54mm tb's (v-twin).
Don.
amemiya,
I was actually considerint some Honda throttle bodies or something right at the port and having them boost or RPM actuated. That would really **** off the Honda guys. The throttle bodies they use to flow to their entire engine... we could use 2 of them for our "auxillary" power.
I think some motorcycle butterflies would probably be the perfect size. My bike has 2- 54mm tb's (v-twin).
Don.
Last edited by Gearhead; 02-02-02 at 04:56 AM.
02-02-02, 06:24 AM
#31
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The First State
Posts: 1,375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by buzz
hmmm, that is a fairly small p-port isn't it, and late opening too...
hmmm, that is a fairly small p-port isn't it, and late opening too...
02-03-02, 04:46 PM
#32
Australian Idle
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A well prepped BP or PP will live a long time. A big monster port that eats well into the rotor housings will (more likely) die first due to the seals being cut and jackets being filled in. Water leaks are usually the first sign of the engines demise. A bridge with a meaty sized bridge section will live pretty well as long as a similarly maintained and driven extend port engine.
I know of a 10a pp in a r100 hillclimb car that revs like there is no tomorrow, and has beening doing it for at least 12 years.
It gets down to attention to detail in the building and then driving style and maintenance. Race engines tend to have a shorter life than road engines because they have the living daylights revved out of them. note, these have all been normally aspirated engines. The same "should" hold true for a forced induction engine.
One question about closing off the butterflys to the pp and running it on the side ports, wouldn't there still be the "PP overlap period" (and associated engine grumpyness) as the port is still there and still open while the exhaust is open - granted, there will be no fuel/air going into the pp's inlet tract, but there will still be a mix in the combustion chamber from the side port, and this will still be capable of going out the exhaust port via the gaping cavern that is the pp.
I know of a 10a pp in a r100 hillclimb car that revs like there is no tomorrow, and has beening doing it for at least 12 years.
It gets down to attention to detail in the building and then driving style and maintenance. Race engines tend to have a shorter life than road engines because they have the living daylights revved out of them. note, these have all been normally aspirated engines. The same "should" hold true for a forced induction engine.
One question about closing off the butterflys to the pp and running it on the side ports, wouldn't there still be the "PP overlap period" (and associated engine grumpyness) as the port is still there and still open while the exhaust is open - granted, there will be no fuel/air going into the pp's inlet tract, but there will still be a mix in the combustion chamber from the side port, and this will still be capable of going out the exhaust port via the gaping cavern that is the pp.
02-03-02, 07:59 PM
#33
Full Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gainesville, GA USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
buzz,
I never thought of that. Shouldn't the exhaust port be pretty much closed by the time the side intakes are open? I know that there will be some overlap, and some exhaust gas in the chamber that is the PP, but I don't think there will be as much flow. I guess it also depends a lot on port placement and size. This is something to think about. Thanks for bringing up another issue. I was also going to leave the primary's stock and do a mild "street" on the intermediates.... kinda like a 3 stage intake. Hell, this thing is gonna be as complicated as the factory twin seq. turbo system by the time I'm done.
Don.
I never thought of that. Shouldn't the exhaust port be pretty much closed by the time the side intakes are open? I know that there will be some overlap, and some exhaust gas in the chamber that is the PP, but I don't think there will be as much flow. I guess it also depends a lot on port placement and size. This is something to think about. Thanks for bringing up another issue. I was also going to leave the primary's stock and do a mild "street" on the intermediates.... kinda like a 3 stage intake. Hell, this thing is gonna be as complicated as the factory twin seq. turbo system by the time I'm done.
Don.
Last edited by Gearhead; 02-03-02 at 08:01 PM.
02-03-02, 08:59 PM
#34
Old [Sch|F]ool
The combi-port (I like the "jetty port" name - half a bridge 
too bad it can be confused with J-port) will cause exhaust dilution, that's why they will still idle nice n' lumpy, but looking at it objectively, even at part throttle the actual airflow will be coming from the side ports until the secondary ports (be they secondary side bridge or peripheral) so there won't be as much vacuum as when idling, so less exhaust dilution when under part load. And when the secondaries do open, look out! 
too bad it can be confused with J-port) will cause exhaust dilution, that's why they will still idle nice n' lumpy, but looking at it objectively, even at part throttle the actual airflow will be coming from the side ports until the secondary ports (be they secondary side bridge or peripheral) so there won't be as much vacuum as when idling, so less exhaust dilution when under part load. And when the secondaries do open, look out!
02-04-02, 12:52 AM
#35
Australian Idle
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A friend had been toying with the idea of a normally aspirated partial PP running full size p-ports on secondaries and mild porting on the primaries through the centre plate. THis is because local registration laws specifically preclude PP's, and they have a maximum 96db noise limit for pre 1986 vehicles (his is a 1970-something holden gemini wagon - a small isuzu thing to all non-aussies). He'd wanted a traditional looking inlet to fool the inspectors and a standard type idle until the pp secondaries kicked in. After kicking the idea around it occured to me the issue of the port overlap will still be present, even though the p-port will be devoid of it's own inlet charge. I'd expect there to be no overlap between the side ports and the exhaust port, but the p-port will be open in between the side port and exhaust port... perhaps diluting of "venting" some of the inlet back out the exhaust. It wouldn't be much, but we would expect it to give the big, loud idle.
On a small and late opening P-Port like the in scoot pics the "potential" (and I have to call it that as I cant confirm it actually happens) overlap period would be very minimal.
On a small and late opening P-Port like the in scoot pics the "potential" (and I have to call it that as I cant confirm it actually happens) overlap period would be very minimal.
02-04-02, 09:13 PM
#36
Full Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gainesville, GA USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many degrees overlap does a stoc TII have? I know the intake ports don't open until the rotor face starts to pull away from the rotor housing, at which point the exhaust port is pretty much closed. I guess that you will have to port the crap outta the exhaust port to make it worthwhile, and that may give you some overlap if you move the closing up. Am I thinking correctly that if the intake ports are closed while the exhaust is open, then you won't have reversion?
Don.
Don.
02-07-02, 10:27 AM
#38
Full Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gainesville, GA USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The partial would have a later opening than a Mazda factory race housing due to the lower lip of the port being higher. It would, however, open much earlier than a standard or street port. I would be more like the timing of a bridge with relieved housings. It may open just a bit later, depending on whose bridge you compare it to and exactly where the pp is cut.
Don.
Don.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
