New Intake Pics

[Carlriddle]

I give up..........

Looks like it moves the power down too.  I think what Fabr is gettin at is most engine will run better with some airbox than with no box even the plastic factory stuff.  If it was no increase in a stock setup, it looks much better/cleaner so it has to be faster.  Mental race game.

[fabr]

Yes,Carl,that is exactly what I meant and was/is a legitimate question. Didn't mean to offend . Don't see why it would have.

[MC]

Its a GM Ecotek in a off road race car, the stock stuff isn't going to work is it...

[Hammerworks]

6HP and 5FT LBS Torque over an open throttle body, thats cool.

My bad...I new I remember reading something about velocity stacks but it is for port injected engines.

This is from some book.. I forget.

"Useless on port injected engines. The manner in which the airflow enters the plenum will have no effect unless it is restricting air flow, or increasing the airflow. Velocity stacks worked well on carburated, and/or mechanical fuel injection engines where the velocity stack provided a longer "tube or column" of air within which the air would be accelerated within a closed column. The effect was to increase the velocity which increased the momentum of the moving air, and it's ability to flow into the combustion chamber with greater velocity, thus decreasing the drag effect on the downward stroke of the piston during the intake cycle since the weight of the moving air carried it into the combustion chamber..
Additionally, in carburated engines, the increased velocity entering the carburator increased the flow of air through the carb and it's venturi, thus increasing air/fuel flow for a given throttle plate angle, and better atomization of the fuel.
 This effect also helped mechanical fuel injection such as the old hilborn fuel injection systems. The air was contained within the tall stacks as it was accelerated, and this provided the same benifits as the carbed engines.
 Todays port injected engines would not benefit from this because the fuel is atomized as it departs the fuel injector located at the intake port, and the internal runner passageways of the intake are optomized for airflow acceleration enroute to each cylinder head port."

[fabr]

Its a GM Ecotek in a off road race car, the stock stuff isn't going to work is it...

Will you just answer the question? The question is whether or not it was a comparison between an open throttle body and your intake or not. If it was a comparison between those 2 things do you have a dyno comparison between your intake and and what is commonly used now? That is what matters. I apologize if these questions anger you. They are legitimate questions any know ledgable builder should/would ask however.Would you answer them the same way? I don't think so.

[BDKW1]

It would be interesting to put an elbow and UMP on it to see just how much is lost with one. Now that would be a good real world comparison as a lot of people run that set-up. I have a feeling you would see much bigger gains......

[fabr]

6HP and 5FT LBS Torque over an open throttle body, thats cool.

My bad...I new I remember reading something about velocity stacks but it is for port injected engines.

This is from some book.. I forget.

"Useless on port injected engines. The manner in which the airflow enters the plenum will have no effect unless it is restricting air flow, or increasing the airflow. Velocity stacks worked well on carburated, and/or mechanical fuel injection engines where the velocity stack provided a longer "tube or column" of air within which the air would be accelerated within a closed column. The effect was to increase the velocity which increased the momentum of the moving air, and it's ability to flow into the combustion chamber with greater velocity, thus decreasing the drag effect on the downward stroke of the piston during the intake cycle since the weight of the moving air carried it into the combustion chamber..
Additionally, in carburated engines, the increased velocity entering the carburator increased the flow of air through the carb and it's venturi, thus increasing air/fuel flow for a given throttle plate angle, and better atomization of the fuel.
 This effect also helped mechanical fuel injection such as the old hilborn fuel injection systems. The air was contained within the tall stacks as it was accelerated, and this provided the same benifits as the carbed engines.
 Todays port injected engines would not benefit from this because the fuel is atomized as it departs the fuel injector located at the intake port, and the internal runner passageways of the intake are optomized for airflow acceleration enroute to each cylinder head port."

Old info but now pretty well known to be somewhat bogus. Velocity stacks don't know or care if fuel is in them.In a nutshell what they are talking about is the effect of crappy cam design of the past and a basic lack of understanding of airflow in an engine causing fuel standoff and the attempts to contain the fuel standoff before things were understood better..It's been several years now but I used to attend the Superflow yearly conference in Colorado Springs. What was discussed there is so far beyond what most people think they know is mind boggling. What I'm getting at is that I've spent more than a few hours on a flowbench. I have a slight clue as to why I'm asking MC the questions. I'm not trying to be a prick.

[fabr]

It would be interesting to put an elbow and UMP on it to see just how much is lost with one. Now that would be a good real world comparison as a lot of people run that set-up. I have a feeling you would see much bigger gains......

Quite possibly but without that dyno comparison ...........................................

[fabr]

Is this the ecotec commonly used in racing and what was used in the dyno run?
 I know very little about the ecotec engine line.



Displacement: 2384cc

Compression Ratio: 11.2:1

Assembly Site: Spring Hill, Tennessee

Configuration: Dual Overhead Camshafts (4 valves per cylinder)

Horsepower/Applications:
182 @ 6700 rpm (Chevrolet Captiva)
182 @ 6700 rpm (Chevrolet Equinox)
182 @ 6700 rpm (GMC Terrain)
182 @ 6700 rpm (Buick Regal)
180 @ 6700 rpm (Buick Verano)

Torque:
172 lb-ft @ 4900 (Chevrolet Captiva)
172 lb-ft @ 4900 rpm (Chevrolet Equinox)
172 lb-ft @ 4900 rpm (GMC Terrain)
172 lb-ft @ 4900 rpm (Buick Regal)
171 lb-ft @ 4900 rpm (Buick Verano)

Features: Variable Valve Timing
Direct Injection    







Engine Family: ECOTEC

 

This is GM's bread-and-butter ECOTEC engine and the first non-boosted ECOTEC to sport direct injection, expect it to be phased out in favor of the 2.5-liter in the coming 2-3 years.

[fabr]

 Or is it the 2.2 commonly used?







 General 2.2 Ecotec information

    Specs:
    Type: 2.2L L4
    Displacement: 2189cc
    Compression Ratio: 10.0:1
    Valve Configuration: Dual overhead cams
    Assembly Line: Tonawanda, NY
    Valve Lifters: Hydraulic roller finger followers
    Bore x Stroke: 86 x 94.6 mm
    Firing Order: 1-3-4-2
    Fuel System: Sequential fuel system
    Fuel Shutoff: 6500 rpm
    Horsepower: 135 hp @ 5200 rpm
    Torque: 142 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm

[fabr]

I guess I must have pissed someone off.

[Carlriddle]

Not the 1st, prob not the last. 

I really wanted to buy one of his intake for my 12r just too expensive for the one off.  The roundy round guys really like his stuff.

[fabr]

I like his stuff also. I just don't think that the question was out of line but the silence is deafening. IF the 2.4 is the engine commonly used, the intakes actually makes LESS power than stock but ,on the other hand,IF the 2.2 is the one then there are substantial gains. I'm guessing that the 2.4 is the commonly used one and that is why someone got pissy. If I'm wrong I apologize.

[Yummi]

[fabr]

That helps a lot. Thanks yummi.   At best ,it appears to be better than stock airbox and at worst it appears to actually lose a bit. BDKW nailed it though. A good dyno comparison would be an ump or equivalent  and MC's intake.

  This brings up the subject of dyno results in general.New topic.