| My greatest disappointment is no effort (that I know of) was directed at flow-testing the collector. The size of the primary runners becomes a moot issue at that point. I wish we could have explored these options when we were still "at" the test bench. A phone call would have been appropriate. I'm sure by now Shawn is meeting the UPS man with his long-lost manifolds. If this were a true tubular manifold, cylinder "flow balance" may be an issue. However, as long as we are discussing a "log" style manifold, sooner or later you need to think about the combined flow....at least this is the way your engine views it. Without devoting at least some attention given to cumulative flow parameters, you might as well just get out a calculator and just add them up....unless it's already been done....300 cfm more than the flowbench? For this reason, I intentionally designed #2 runner(s) to be as large as possible to accomodate #1. Cylinder(s) #3 also benefit from a degree of "port separation", none of which is present in the stock manifolds or inconels. As I see it, nothing is worse than exhaust from cylinder(s) #1 and #2 being forced into #3. I really don't think this helps with cooling issues which are already (coincidentally) a problem for the rear bank of cylinders.....not to mention the exhaust that gets driven all the way to the intake during valve overlap. The reason I included a picture of the 3 manifolds side by side, was to illustrate a pretty major difference in manifold volume. I don't think too many others will quickly dismiss common sense when It seems so obvious.....unless you are Alias, who thinks my collector is too big. Imagine any guy thinking its too big. You're right this debate isn't over.
|
16:49:46 02/15/07
