Peugeot 16v turbo conversion inlet manifold design

[mandic]

Dunno yet, maybe MegaSquirt (sort of DIY ECU for those who dont know what it is)

thank you

Ziga

[Guy Croft]

What a pity. If you are going to run that system, all I can say is the 'very best of good luck'. I don't want to see Megasquirt on this site at all again until someone who has used it writes a fully documented tutorial about it - and the success he had. Note I stress 'success'.
In fact I asked for several similar articles but so far only PeterT in Australia has written one - and an outstanding article it is.
That's an educational/experimental system, I read their site and frankly had little idea what any of it meant.
My strong advice would be to buy a fully functional system from the aftermarket. You should certainly Peter's article and also read Geoff Ward's submission on this site before contemplating going down that road.

GC

[mandic]

Well to be honest I'm not a fan of this DIY ECU stuff as all, that's why I said "maybe" in the previous post, but a friend of mine has MS on his car, Mazda Mx3, running 230NA HP with 180HP of NOS and is working fine for 4 years now. He has also helped to put together 2 other cars, one being Fiesta RS1800 with Eaton M62 and NOS and the other Honda Accord turbo, cca 450HP. I'm not saying MS is a ECU to go with, but in those cases it worked and performed very well.

It is also true that some other "performance" ECU might have done job better or equally good.

I'm still undecided regarding the ECU, as the engine needs to be put together first to see what sort of things choosen ECU will need to support and then go form there. I'm opened to suggestions, have seen MS in action and it seems good, especially when You see the price tag as well. But I also think going Emerald, MoTeC, DTA, etc. route is a way to go, especially at the engine I'm building as every detail counts and it would be a shame not to use a proper ECU.

thank you

Ziga

[Guy Croft]

OK,

no question but I like your philosophy and approach.

If you do go MS - please write about it here. Please take time to read those 2 articles I mentioned by the way.

G

[mandic]

Now lets get back to the topic title;

Which design do You think is better?



Right one having less inclination, but smooth air path, where left one faces no "cross/tract area" change and then 7‚° inclination to speed the air up. Left setup is used on Mi16 engines running Jenvey individual TBs.

thank you

Ziga

[mandic]

OK,

no question but I like your philosophy and approach.

If you do go MS - please write about it here. Please take time to read those 2 articles I mentioned by the way.

G

Will do!

thank you

Ziga

[Guy Croft]

The one one the right would definitely be my choice.

The abrupt change in section near the entry to the port on the left-hand runner could well induce turbulence in the airstream right at port entry. I would not expect the airflow to stabilise within the vicinity of that angle. Harder to make and why bother?
I might be wrong, might have no effect at all, but only CFX or real-time airflow tests would prove.

GC

[mandic]

Couldn't agree more. I'd go (and I did when designing the mani) for right one, but am wondering why everybody goes for left one when putting ITBs. Probably it's down to part availability and work involved. As one could always take GTi6 manifold which shares right (on upper picture) design and then put some short Tbs (30mm) at the end of the runner. But nevertheless it did show flow gain when You flow tested the head with adapter on. Might be even better with that other design (right one).

Will perform virtual flow test, but first need to take care of the program, as it keeps crashing down. Will post some data in near future.


thank you

Ziga

[Acki]

But the throttle body in the middle or make the pipe smaller fromt the first to the last cylinder.

Like this: