More Endyne B.S. less air,less fuel,less timing =more power?

[SStrokerAce]

Guys,

Have you done flow tests by sucking on the exhaust with both valves open and checked how much flow can be wasted on the setups?

It would be easy to calculate the max valve lift that both valves will have at the same time, so to quantify the scavenging flow thru the intake and out the exhaust and what things you can do to hurt or help that might be interesting.

Bret

[RMFheaders]

Remember I 'm talking about just an intake manifold here.On a B series honda.Not totally redesigning an engine.And here is the original link
http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1438471
Sorry here is the link I think you want
http://theoldone.com/components/Endyn_F ... ifolds.htm

[cboggs]

Remember I 'm talking about just an intake manifold here.On a B series honda.Not totally redesigning an engine.

Isn't the discussion about efficiency and how it can be effected by the manifold?

Wave tuning in a manifold, I would think, .. could easily effect
the blow through effect we are discussing, .. don't you think?

I think Larry M's example of the Hemi engine is a direct correlation.

Curtis

[SteveS]

I think it is about efficiency and the intake manifold. I think the key to this discussion is timing and if TOO can indeed reduce timing as much as he has claims through a manifold then, perhaps, it is possible for the other pieces to come together.........well in theory at least. By starting combustion very late, an undefined measure of losses are eliminated because the piston is not working as hard against rising combustion pressures as it ascends to TDC; that is why he stresses timing and the efficiency of the combustion process. By simply eliminating this "loss" and the associated charge components, you would use less fuel and air. How this translates into power increases and measured combustion efficiencies, I have no idea.

[RMFheaders]

Exactly .Heck with all the theories.There is no way You guys can tell me that your going to go from running 28deg.s timing making 300hp and only change the intake manifold to one that flows less air and to keep the A/R the same it needs less fuel,And with C12 you lower the timing back to 17degs.And its going to make more power? Excuse me but B.S.
Theories are just what they are THEORIES.In the REAL WORLD right now.That will not happen.
With C12 and 17deg.s of timing it won't even idle.Thats like an alcohol car running 20 degs or a fuel car trying to run 30degs.
I'm sorry if it looks like I'm going off on you guys .I'm not .But do you see what I'm saying?

[Justin Jones]

Usually when people have a business like yours they refrain from acting so immature and act professionally because if anything scares away business it's this kind of thing. If you want to bash another company, using your company's name on a public forum to do so is really not a good idea. This completely changes my perception of your character as a business owner, and I for one will not be buying a header off of you anytime soon.

BTW it might be a good idea to proof read your comments, also if you want people to take your opinion seriously, perhaps double check the spelling of endyn.

[Justin Jones]

Remember I 'm talking about just an intake manifold here.On a B series honda.Not totally redesigning an engine.

Actually that's exactly what we're talking about here. Larry designed the cams, intake manifold, pistons, headwork... Everything. It all works together. The Carbon Fiber intake manifold he also designed, however that was a one-size-fits-all intake manifold whereas his custom manifold was designed specifically to work with that particular engine.

[cboggs]

RMF,

I think there has been some good technical discussion about
how TOO's post could or could not work, .. .. but in reality until
you or I try it our selves, duplicate his tests, .. we can't say if it's
accurate or not with any conviction.

Go back and read Larry Meaux's post again, .. there's much more
in that post then appears on the first read through.
The "theories" discussed here are a solid part of a good engineering debate, ..
and through these debates we can form our own opinion.
But without such a debate how can anyone just say it's good or not??

If you're expecting a public lynching like the thread on Honda-Tech, ..
I don't think people conduct themselves in the same pathetic manner on this forum.

Justin makes a very good point about your public conduct as a business owner.

Curtis

[DaveStad]

Come on Guys !!!

Less air,less fuel,less timing =more power , more Torque

every Dyno Operator in the World
does this almost everytime you "Tune" an Engine on the Dyno

Timing= retard the timing and pickup HP/TQ....everyone done this
at one time or another ..and vice/versa
increase timing and pickup HP/TQ..just depends what the Engine wants


Less Fuel= take jet out on an over-rich engine ....and make more TQ/HP,
everyones done that to


Less Air= reduce overscavenging , sometimes with combo of slightly retarded timining + leaner jetting to increase exhaust pressure,
yes thats worked every once in awhile


i don't know all Dyno Test Data Results from Larry Widmer/Endyne
however,
getting to specifics :

changing Intake Manifold combinations of
1-Length
2-CSA
3-Plenum Volume
4-Fuel Distribution
5-Mixture Quality

will definetly be capable of the effects Widmer stated


here's how=>

1-if one manifold has a combination of Runner Length and CSA
better than another
you can get more Ram-Effect at the Intake Valve Closing Point
"EFFECTIVELY" making you reduce timing and gain HP/TQ
ask Darin Morgan about ProStock Ve -vs- CR -vs- BTDC Timing requirements


2-the Combination of CSA + Runner Length not only affects
the Intake Closing Point but also during OverLap Period.
Wave timing "phasing" is affected also at Intake Valve Opening Point
to the extent a certain combination can definetly reduce
overscavening out exhaust enough to reduce overall
Air and Fuel used by Engine
to make a certain amount of HP/TQ and lower BSFCs and lower BSACs

the better the Port and Intake Manifold Combo
usually the Less the jet it needs as there are now
no Dead-Areas or areas of Air/Fuel Separation
..overall mixture quality is improved, less Fuel is used,
lower BSFCs

look at ProStock...do you think they have .500 BSFCs ???

3-Less Air can be due to above #1 and #2 statements also


a Chrysler SuperStock Hemi still has the
Volumetric Efficiency record on my Dyno at over 140+ VE
but at least 20+ Ve of that was going out Exhaust ports
during OverLap ...just a bad Combo of really great low-lift Flow +
very tight Centers on Cam

just a Cam change cut down Ve to 120's and made more HP/TQ with
LESS Air and LESS Fuel

Trapped Ve% is the Measured CFM minus the Ring BlowBy CFM , minus the CFM
lost during the OverLap Period, then divided by the theoretical CFM

Theoretical CFM @ 100 % Ve = CID * RPM * .000289352

TrappedVe = ( MeasuredCFM - ( BlowbyCFM + OverLapCFM )) / TheoreticalCFM


just a few quick things i could think of and had Dyno experience with


and then there's =>
1- better mixture quality in one Intake over another
that alone is enough to use less Fuel less Air and make more HP/TQ

2-better Fuel Distribution into active Flow path
again that alone is enough to use less Fuel less Air and make more HP/TQ

OK, here it is from the Endyn site.

"In a dyno test session performed on 11-5-05, we compared a carbon fiber manifold to our fabricated aluminum manifold. The test engine was an Endyn-built customer's 2-liter (89mm x 84.5mm) road racing combination. Engine specs include Roller-Wave pistons at 13.0-1CR, Endyn welded CNC head (33.5mm intakes, 27.5 exhausts), Endyn Valvetrain, including Bump-Stix cams, our +.137"Crower lightweight custom rods, sleeved GSR block, mildly modified LS crankshaft, Endyn ITR oil pump, Endyn modified Canton oil pan, Edelbrock 65mm throttle body, and one of our custom large-tube HyTech headers. We've configured this engine to run an entire season with no dependability issues.

These tests were conducted in a 35-minute time span with the engine tuned to 12.8 - 13.0-1 Lamda at all data points. Fuel used was C12. One point of interest is that when equipped with the CF manifold, we were able to reduce total spark timing to 24 degrees for best power. With the fabricated manifold, we were able to make more power with less fuel and less air, with total spark timing reduced to 17 degrees, demonstrating that the combustion event was considerably more efficient. This is the lowest total timing we've run to date on a normally-aspirated B series engine."


Maxrace you write

Less Fuel= take jet out on an over-rich engine ....and make more TQ/HP,
everyones done that to


Less Air= reduce overscavenging , sometimes with combo of slightly retarded timining + leaner jetting to increase exhaust pressure,
yes thats worked every once in awhile

But what you are missing is the A/F ratio was kept the same, so he didn't richen it up or lean it out, he kept the A/F the same.

changing Intake Manifold combinations of
1-Length
2-CSA
3-Plenum Volume
4-Fuel Distribution
5-Mixture Quality

will definetly be capable of the effects Widmer stated

Look at The welded IM and the CF one, their lengths are very similar. If you followed the "design" of the CF manifold you probably remember that the CF manifold was built more towards a 2.0L engine which the test engine was. So it's safe to assume the plenums for both engines are very similar in volume. The injectors on both IMs are located at about the same spot (close to the flange). What would be the better way to increase mixture quality? Increase or decrease air flow?

Now something else you may or may not know. During the initial public testing of the CF IM, Endyn repeated the fact that the CF manifold would flow more air and need more fuel (changed injector size) and power continued to go up. He said stuff like, wait to you see the SCFM numbers go up with this next IM.

The engine this test was conducted on was no slouch. It was near 150bhp/L, so things were working pretty darn good. I think we can all assume the tune was probably pretty good also.

You go on to talk about your VE champ and how a cam change out made all the difference, well that may have been the case for you with that engine, but there was no cam change out with this test.

Also, how many engiens are you building that need only 17 degrees of total timing for a NA application running to 9200 rpm?

IF this engine made more power with less air and less fuel and less timing, then I believe the baseline dyno runs with the CF IM were not ooptimized and if that's the case maybe the test is bogus.

[maxracesoftware]

Dave you forgot to Quote this part =>

i haven't read Widmers Post/Article or looked at his Data...so i don't know exactly what he was trying to explain ....but i just offer the above as a "possible" explanation.

it would be helpful to know exactly the Fuel Flow Rates in Lbs/Hour
for each RPM of the test comparisons...along with a ton more
Dyno test data to study.

it would have been very interesting to have been at Widmers helping with
the assembly, Flow Testing, Dyno testing, verifying Data results,
measuring all the various components in the comparisons..but i wasn't...so all i can offer is

a few "possible" explanations for his results .

[DaveStad]

You are right, that info would be very nice to see, however this time he only wanted to show us torque and bhp numbers. The previous dyno sheets he posted concerning another 2L build and testing of different intake manifolds and header back in Jan 05 listed all the standard data you record during a run.

I say the following again here for clarity, as I've written it numerous times over on Honda Tech. I have no problems with the parts Endyn sells. His pistons are Weisco and rods are Eagle along with some others. He reworks some parts like oil pumps, which any shop can do, he sells valves, Moroso catch cans, Quaife LSDs, bosch fuel pumps, and a few other companies' parts as a parts retailer. What he does on his own are cylinder heads and blocks.

What I and many others do take issue with is how he claims to machine and build everyhing better than "those" other shops. However, it seems that people who use his parts and build their own engines tend to make more power than an Endyn built engine. There have also been documented cases of the customer being told his engines makes "x' amount of power but after it's tested independently by the customer it doesn't.

Endyn also talks about all these other programs they are working on, but it's kinda funny that his whole website is dedicated to Honda parts, just a thought.

With that said, this is what I posted over on honda tech about this new intake manifold that requires less air, less fuel and less timing to make more power. My post used quotes from Larry W from a Jan 05 intake manifold and header testing thread on the Endyn Forums. BTW, this Jan 05 test and Nov 05 testing are on the same type of engine. My comments below are in bold.

Re: http://www.theoldone.com/forum...17489

TOO
The Old One
USA
8453 Posts Posted - 12/29/2004 : 8:46:27 PM
________________________________________
A few months after completing the 2-liter engine for my ITR, we built a second one, using all the same componentry, including a posted B20 block.
The headwork is identical to the ITR's 2-liter, so it's not the latest and greatest. The crank's an 89mm unit prepped like the one in the article, same pistons, etc.
The engine's been sitting on a shelf in the shop for well over a year, so we decided to throw it on the dyno today for a little R&D fun.
As it currently sits, we're using a stock S2 intake manifold, stock ITR throttle body, 440cc injectors, and a worked-over DC Sport JDM header.
We'll be running some back-to-back cam tests, as well as swapping intakes for one of our welded S2's, and the CF manifold as well. We also have a number of John's (HyTech's) headers at our disposal.
The thought's also crossed my mind that this engine just might end up in the Civic, as using it would sure save me a lot of time.
We put about 3-hours of mild-heavy loads on it today in an effort to seat the rings for some pulls tomorrow.

First off, it’s kinda odd that a shop that is so busy and back logged had the extra time to build another engine just to put it on a shelf for it to sit for over a year, but anyway back to our topic.

Then,

TOO
The Old One
USA
8453 Posts Posted - 12/30/2004 : 10:07:50 AM
________________________________________
What's available with a stock ITR throttle body, stock S2 manifold, and DC Sport JDM header?
Max power is 262HP, 176ftlbs @ 7800 RPM
Torque is over 160ftlbs from 5200 to the to our break-in redline of 8000RPM with very "safe" tuning.
There's been no blow-by that we can measure.


Then,

TOO
The Old One
USA
8453 Posts Posted - 12/30/2004 : 9:14:08 PM
________________________________________
Just for the hell of it, we threw a 65mm throttle body on the stock S2 intake this afternoon. There's a nasty step (in the wrong direction) between the throttle body and the plenum entry, so air flow was far from ideal.
The engine didn't particularly care for the results approaching 8K, but it did pick up the torque a tad in the middle.
Note that the fuel curve is about as far-off as possible and we're running a very, very conservative ignition curve with only 26 degrees peak timing.
Once I've fixed the tuning, I think it's relatively easy to see that this engine (DC header, stock manifold, etc) will be out-performing some "touted" engines that ran individual throttle bodies.

“very, very conservative ignition timing curve with only 26 degrees peak timing.” What would 17 degrees of total timing be classified as with C12? Very, very, very, very conservative.

Then,

TOO
The Old One
USA
8453 Posts Posted - 01/01/2005 : 9:13:04 PM
________________________________________
I should also mention that the program the engine's currently running on is the same as optimizewd for a similar engine we built some time ago, so once the header/manifold/throttle body combination (that this engine was originally designed to run) is in use, the additional air flow should bring the A/F numbers right where they should be. In fact, once the cams are also swapped, it'll also want 550cc injectors....

Already talking about larger injectors. Doesn’t that usually mean they want more fuel to burn?

Then,

TOO
The Old One
USA
8453 Posts Posted - 01/02/2005 : 08:59:39 AM
________________________________________
The addition of a modded S2 manifold alone will call for 12% increase in fuel...and the CF manifold will want more yet. Yes, good-breathing 2-liters have insatiable appetites for air and fuel.


Hmmmmmm, “insatiable appetites for air and fuel”. Would that be the same as saying they like more air and fuel?

Then,

TOO
The Old One
USA
8453 Posts Posted - 01/03/2005 : 4:40:44 PM
________________________________________
We made time to do a single pull with the Hytech 4-2-1 header this afternoon. It didn't fare too badly. Wait until the intake-side's uncorked....


Peak Torque was 185.9 and peak bhp was 278.4

TOO finishes this post with,

“We'll need to slow down the acceleration for the computed A/F numbers to get in line, but if you look at the BSFC's, you'll see they are dramatically improved with the John's header.
We'll try to throw a worked intake manifold on it in a day or so...and you'll see the SCFM go way up...”

So it sounds like they are looking for more airflow which we can assume is a good thing?

Then,

TOO
The Old One
USA
8453 Posts Posted - 01/03/2005 : 5:55:14 PM
________________________________________
We're testing a welded S2 manifold first with the 62mm TB. We'll try to run it tomorrow....
Our cams won't come until we've tuned the JUN cams. They're still straight-up where installed them.
We'll probably plug in the CF manifold after we tune the cams (before we install the Bump-Stix). That way we won't have people crying foul!!


And below something again about more air flow and more fuel.

TOO
The Old One
USA
8453 Posts Posted - 01/03/2005 : 9:02:21 PM
________________________________________
It depends on the application. As you can see from the latest pics (and dyno sheet) we presently have one of John's 4-2-1 headers on the engine. Personally, I like the torque this header produces, so it's an excellent choice for street and road racing. We currently have two more (headers)on the way for road-racing 2-liters for foreign customers. This IS the header that'll ultimately go in my Civic, regardless of peak power numbers. I think some folks are going to be shocked when we finally let this thing go past 8K. We've previously made power with this same header all the way past 10K.
I can tell you all this with certainty...it'll have to have 550cc injectors as we let more air in with different manifold combinations.


Then a 70mm TB and the AIR Carbon Fiber IM

TOO
The Old One
USA
8546 Posts Posted - 01/16/2005 : 8:09:25 PM
________________________________________
We'll see what else is in it tomorrow. I took the day off. The AIR combination with the 70mm throttle body scored a series of 294's, but after a couple pulls with the Bump-Stix, I plan to try another heavily welded manifold for what I believe will be a surprise.
Mike...you know that there's never any controversey around here!
________________________________________--
.....The Old One....

Then,

TOO
The Old One
USA
8647 Posts Posted - 01/22/2005 : 9:04:05 PM
________________________________________
We stuck the 65mm TB and a reworked S2 manifold on "old trusty" today to do some electrical control testing with Jim Harley today.
The engine has well over 60 hard runs on it now. It's still running the same Mobil1 oil we put in it a couple weeks ago.
The cams are ours running straight-up. Tuning was with Hondata. We swapped in a set of 550's as the last runs with the 440's and the CF manifold and 70mm TB had the injectors at 100% for a good portion of the upper rpm scale. We did one tuning pass, and as you can see we're just a tad lean (we've found the engine likes 12.8-1). I was rolling out of the throttle at 9200-9250. I have to say that this combination looks awfully good to me for a street 2-liter running 93 octane. The torque (and HP) are pretty sweet, especially to someone who prefers to limit RPM (like me).


And

TOO
The Old One
USA
8647 Posts Posted - 01/22/2005 : 9:42:37 PM
________________________________________
Peak timing was 31 degrees at WOT. We use a lot more timing at lower throttle angles and lighter loads.


Then in response to a question,

TOO
The Old One
USA
8647 Posts Posted - 01/26/2005 : 08:21:31 AM
________________________________________
Justin's head is a couple generations beyond the head on the 2-liter engine from an airflow standpoint, however, it's not the same as the largest-valve heads we're doing for race-only combinations. The large valve heads have minimal valve to valve clearance, which we don't feel is necessarily a smart thing for an endurance racing, or street engine.
BTW, here's a road racing engine that's shipping to one of our foreign customers at the end of the week.

Hmmmmmm, back on that airflow talk again.

Then,

TOO
The Old One
USA
8647 Posts Posted - 01/27/2005 : 3:55:36 PM
________________________________________
The largest difference is the compression ratio and piston to head clearance. This 2-liter engine has less compression than the race engine and it also has more room for rod stretch. We're also not running race gas.

As for the dyno numbers here....Once the 2-liter's in the Civic, we'll run it on a dynojet to see what the power comparison looks like.
Since we use a planetary gearset for shift simulation along with as several coupled drive shaft connections , there are some driveline associated losses in our system, so we're not reading true flywheel HP with the dyno here in the shop.

So, from Endyn's posts above, just 11 months ago, it sure sounds like he wants more air and fuel to make more power. Don't we all? So I don't think he found something in these last 11 months that he couldn't find in the last 30 years that makes more power with less air, less fuel and less timing while running 108 octane C12 at only 17 degrees total timing from 6800-9600 rpm. But maybe that's just my common sense kicking in.

[SStrokerAce]

Wow, you really came to the wrong place for crap like this.

To me it seems like you are really mounting an attack against Larry W and asking for ammunition?

Either way I think you pretty much killed this discussion, because I strongly doubt Mr. Meaux is going to play into this, which is a shame because it's a intresting topic and he is well versed in cylinder heads, motors and dyno testing.

If you could please keep your posts to either direct technical engine questions or answers it would be much appreciated by members such as myself.

Thanks,

Bret