The Top Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 Resource

Join the best E39A 1991-1992 Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 community and document your GVR4 journey.

  • Software Upgraded - Reset Your Password to Login
    In order to log in after the forum software change, you need to reset your password. If you don't have access to the email address you used to register your GVR4.org account, you won't be able to reset your password. In that case, follow the instructions here to regain access to the forum.

Paul's new toy

curtis

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
11,892
Location
Clarksville TN
Finally had a day to write code and start cutting.






Custom short runner fat plenum Cyclone. Had this idea in my head forever, lower is roughed in and will need to be gasket matched perfect to this flange and a plenum fabbed up but design is done.
 

AnotherNewb

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
1,472
Location
Orlando, FL
Can I hang out with you and bask in your awesomeness? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worthy.gif
 

desant78

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
732
Location
Clarksboro, NJ
^^ what he said! what kind of cnc do you have....?
 

curtis

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
11,892
Location
Clarksville TN
Quoting AnotherNewb:
Can I hang out with you and bask in your awesomeness? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worthy.gif



Doors always open for the Galant Guys and have had alot of people traveling stop on there way through TN.

As for what kind

Its an old training machine from tech schools and the same type one that they had where I went to school for my engineering degrees. Its an Emco Maier from Austria that use to be controlled with a numerical keypad and the ability to hold 200 lines of code. I adapted it to run with another board in the controller so it can be controlled with a PC. Now I can run I think 2 million lines of code. It adds up fast with old G/M code programming. Just to pop the single hole it took 1456 lines of code then I think the radius on the top was like 300. But I'm only taking a 1/4 of a millimeter off at a time. End mills last longer just being nice to them.

Its very exact and can hold down to 3 decimal points in metric (toybreaker isn't a fan of the metric system /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif) and is very rigid. I think the shipping weight was a little over 500 pounds. Problem is its just small the work envelope is 7 x 7 x 4 inches so things I cut need to fit into that size. I can remove the side boards and put long stuff on it but have to watch the weight but I have rotated the z axis over 90 degrees and milled out holes for studs in axles so really handy.

One of these years I'm going to stop doing anything, turn off the phone and the internet and get all the CAM stuff working and start doing 3D programs and just do drawings and let the machine write the code for me. Its not that writing it is a bad thing just takes up time. Finishing the code and drawings for this took about 2 hours and 5 minutes of that was the drawing. If the Cam stuff was working it would have took about 3 seconds. The problem I have is Austrian machine, controlled by another board and software then drawings in one language, and cam in another. The post processor stuff doesn't know what to do and the controller board doesn't have all the functions that it schould to keep up with what the cam is telling it.
 

curtis

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
11,892
Location
Clarksville TN
Hey Paul, its beer 30


 

RedTwo

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
1,917
Location
New Zealand
I bet you can't make a silhouette of a gun and slip it into someones luggage at the airport... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif
 

JB

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
5,836
Location
MA
^ /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rofl.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rofl.gif
 

boostx

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
4,326
Location
Orlando, FL
Quoting AnotherNewb:
Can I hang out with you and bask in your awesomeness? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worthy.gif


Hey are you sure you want to do that.. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif
 

steve

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
18,897
Location
NJ
Hey I hung out in that garage for a few hours and I'm fine. I mean, just look at me. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/uhh.gif
 

talontyme

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
329
Location
Portsmouth,VA.
Quoting AnotherNewb:
Can I hang out with you and bask in your awesomeness? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/worthy.gif


+3 your are the man.
 

desant78

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
732
Location
Clarksboro, NJ
Quoting curtis:


One of these years I'm going to stop doing anything, turn off the phone and the internet and get all the CAM stuff working and start doing 3D programs and just do drawings and let the machine write the code for me. Its not that writing it is a bad thing just takes up time. Finishing the code and drawings for this took about 2 hours and 5 minutes of that was the drawing. If the Cam stuff was working it would have took about 3 seconds. The problem I have is Austrian machine, controlled by another board and software then drawings in one language, and cam in another. The post processor stuff doesn't know what to do and the controller board doesn't have all the functions that it schould to keep up with what the cam is telling it.



I thought you had something like a bridgeport with a controller attached...but this has so much more potential! good luck with getting a CAM program running...you would have so many days in your life back.....keep it up!
 

raptorWagon

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
2,827
Location
Oak Harbor, WA
Quoting curtis:


Doors always open for the Galant Guys and have had alot of people traveling stop on there way through TN.





I'll be driving through TN again in a few months lol.
 

cheekychimp

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
7,333
Location
East Sussex, U.K.
Quoting alansupra94:
I am confused. *flame suit* what does this add to our VR4s?



I'm not sure if you are asking specifically about this manifold or the cyclone in general, so I will answer for both but knowing you, I think you understand the standard cyclone concept ok.

I've looked at cyclones for a long time and in Muskrat's cam choices thread, I and DR1665 had quite a discussion regarding both standard and AMG cyclones.

A cyclone has two sets of runners one set is long the other short. The second set is closed below about 4000 rpm using butterfly valves. Below 4000 rpm during the period off boost and the transition to full boost (in a stock car) the longer runners increase velocity of air into the head and give a 40lbs increase in torque over the stock 1G manifold. At 4000 rpms the butterflies open and the air now under boost takes the shortest most direct route into the head. The longer runners remain open allowing additional flow although I am unsure if any air actually passes through these until the short runners are overrun (air taking the path of least resistance etc). The concept works. The increases in torque are documented and the cyclone flows within 1 cfm of the stock 1G up top, so on a stock setup should give no loss in power in the upper rev range.

My research is nowhere near finished on these but what evidence I have so far suggests to me that the standard cyclone isn't just a turbo specific design. They have been used on NA Galants in Europe where they were installed on NA AWD vehicles similar to your GGSX and again it seems they provide no additional power but bring in much needed torque at lower rpms to help the lower power NA engine deal with more parasitic loss from the AWD drivetrain.

Now where Brian and I disagree is when it comes to the AMG cyclone. He believes it is a NA specific design that won't benefit a turbo setup. I believe that since the standard cyclone works well in both NA and turbocharged engines, any improvements in the design that benefit the NA engine ought to similarly benefit the turbocharged engine. It should be noted here that Brian knows a thing or two and I could be wrong but real world experience with this manifold suggests that it does work well with turbocharged engines, I am just not sure why because some of the design doesn't make sense to me for either an NA or turbocharged application.

Anyway, I digress. When I started building my 'ultimate' build, I was talking about putting a cyclone on the 2.3 litre stroker to help spool the big turbo. A few guys helped me do the math and it was a no go. No doubt It would have helped down low since the theory is sound but with the additional capacity it seemed the cyclone was going to reach it's max cfm long before the theoretical 8,000 rpm rev limit and was going to create a huge bottleneck that made the big turbo pointless. I ended up getting a Forrester IM and basically forgot about this. Then the AMG cyclone with much higher flow came up in discussions and I asked Curtis about fitting one of those. He had already built one modified cyclone with a larger plenum on stock runners for another guy at that stage and had an unfinished one sitting in the shop. After some discussion he agreed to modify that specifically for the stroker. He hasn't been totally forthcoming with you guys on this, to be honest he keeps a lot back from me most of the time until stuff is finished (kind of a moot point because most of this guy's stuff is well over my head).

All I can really say is that he is working on the principle of the cyclone to improve low end torque whilst trying to move away from the stock runner setup which isn't very conducive to high end flow. He is using a combination of velocity stacks on the head of the runners, a manifold plenum/runner setup designed to utilize the Helmholtz ram effect and possibly a dual butterfly throttle body in order to retain low end torque gains with considerably better throttle response but allow airflow to rip past about 6000 rpms. I was a little dubious I admit. I'm more a low end lots of torque kind of guy and I think that I went with too big a turbo, but if Curtis is correct with his math (and I don't think he got to be crew chief on Apache helicopters by making mistakes) this thing should spool close to an EVO III and make close to 65lbs up high without missing a beat.

I admit that in some respects this design has to be a compromise because we are reducing 'some' velocity by going to a shorter runner design overall. What you need to remember is that this isn't going on a stock car, it is going on a 2.3 litre, 9.0:1 compression engine with a lightened rotating assembly. It isn't really going to suffer too much off boost. Think of it a bit like cam design. You could theoretically produce 'more torque' lower down by putting tiny cams in a huge V8 but at some point it becomes counterproductive. What Curtis is doing here is using alternative design in parallel with the standard cyclone design to retain most of the low end benefits (the remainder being made up by capacity and higher compression etc) and then adding much better off idle reponse and a killer midrange and top end.
 
Last edited:

curtis

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
11,892
Location
Clarksville TN
^Yea what he said.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif I actually was explaining and posted and then saw he beat me to it by a few minutes so I deleted it.
 

desant78

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
732
Location
Clarksboro, NJ
do you use any CFD's in your design work curtis? or is it strictly just strictly of calculations you rely on?
 

curtis

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2003
Messages
11,892
Location
Clarksville TN
This started about 01 when I was in school. The whole lets build a better mousetrap idea. Then I started drawing it adding to it taking away, pondering and doing math. I then got the lower roughed in and took it to class one night Then one of the guys in class wanted on board and he took the ideas and did up a solid model in class and thieved a program from work or some where and we started playing with it some in the lab on a spare computer. By the math, models and pressures everything looks good but when a scratch is put on an intake inside or one chunk of carbon builds up stuff changes. Then one of the professors started watching us and joined in the conversations we had over months and I tried my damnedest to take over class on the subject when ever I could. Finally he dropped in some real wisdom one day on the subject and said who makes the best intake in any car right now. I was like all depends on what parameters you give it, an intake for a V or a W will act different than an inline 4 cylinder, turbos bring in issues and baggage as well as rpm's at any given time. I then started in on helmholtz ram effects and velocity, vortices, suspension of gas or methanol in the airstream and he stopped me and said "Exactly...Damn we barely touched some of this stuff when I got my doctorate and you guys need to quit reading on the internet and watch more porn because the perfect intake can't be built". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

He's now on wife 3 with a toddler and getting ready to retire so the whole porn thing was probably bad advice but the rest and everything he put out in all the fluid dynamics classes was.

Then years went on and in the back of my mind I still want to build and finish this thing so I sat it out right where I could see it and it pester me till I finally did something with it. Since the original design things have been changed even again and partly because of space more than anything else. I still want to build this for Paul with the laminova intercoolers like we planned years ago but as I've been messing with this I really don't see how with an engine thats this close to the firewall. With the way I want the internals built it to control in coming air and that which is reverbing out of the ports it all takes up space and with the volume it needs because of being a 2.3 it just takes up space.

If you haven't heard of the laminova's do a quick google search there the baddest intercooler made just takes up alot of space because how they have to be incorporated into the design. Paul originally found some then months later I found more then more and bought out all this guy had. Where he got them I have no clue, must have cleaned out a GM plant, but there the same ones used in the cobalt SS and the new ZR1's.


So to answer your computational fluid dynamics question yes and no. I would answer yes but the member formally known as Barnesmobile forbid me or anyone else to ever speak of fluid dynamics on here ever again so I'll just answer no and wing it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rofl.gif
 
Last edited:

desant78

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
732
Location
Clarksboro, NJ
^^^that is the COOLEST THING EVER because

1. the story is hilarious
2. SOMEONE has the same desires to try and caculate a perfect intake manifold any component on our cars. I will admit, fluids was never my strong point /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dunno.gif but it's really cool to hear how someone has/is going through the hellish process of figuring it out.

....someone should post threads of overly complicated technical discussions of our cars and engineering parts for them...such as your caculations/story of this "perfect" intake manifold. It would be really cool to take what I learn in class (as a mechanical engineering student) and apply to something awesome ( like a gvr4 /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif)
 
Support Vendors who Support the GVR-4 Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications RixRacing RockAuto RTM Racing STM Tuned

Recent Forum Posts

Top