Should I be doing more BMF intake testing?

[Vigo]

I agree with Shadow that unless you test a whole bunch of setups, the main thing you would be 'proving' would be that you can put the BMF on a mild setup without ruining it.

The real strength of the BMF would be on a higher-flowing head, with a bigger cam, at high rpm. Compare the BMF to a stock intake under those circumstances and you might see 50whp! Does that mean BMF buyers will gain 50whp? Not often. And while that is actually what it's 'for', i think most buyers won't actually use it that way, or wont get around to it for years. I wouldnt be comfortable placing bets on how soon i'll install mine.. but i still want it.

So what is most relevant to *prospective* buyers? Ease of install, bling factor, not causing drivability issues. The people who actually plan to use it for high flowing high rpm setups already know it's better than what they've got just by looking at it.

[Ondonti]

I agree with Shadow that unless you test a whole bunch of setups, the main thing you would be 'proving' would be that you can put the BMF on a mild setup without ruining it.

The real strength of the BMF would be on a higher-flowing head, with a bigger cam, at high rpm. Compare the BMF to a stock intake under those circumstances and you might see 50whp! Does that mean BMF buyers will gain 50whp? Not often. And while that is actually what it's 'for', i think most buyers won't actually use it that way, or wont get around to it for years. I wouldnt be comfortable placing bets on how soon i'll install mine.. but i still want it.

So what is most relevant to *prospective* buyers? Ease of install, bling factor, not causing drivability issues. The people who actually plan to use it for high flowing high rpm setups already know it's better than what they've got just by looking at it.

Even if it gains the most HP on the craziest setups, it could become a restriction in those setups. Everything in your setup has to be scaled properly to your goals. I would still rather be 75% awesome than 25% awesome if I had only 2 choices. You can't always afford or you don't always have the ability to go 100% perfect. I wouldn't demand you change your 75% awesome product so I could get 80% awesome and say your product was junk if you didn't meet the 80%. Anyone who complains has the chance to do things for themself.

[knownenemy]

The BMF won't become the choking point in a 2.2/2.5 intake system.

Our choking point will always be our heads.
We can port match them, and clean-up the combustion chambers,
open up the ports, etc, but we won't be able to get as "open" as the BMF.
No matter what we do.

Having said that;
The only possibility of the BMF becoming the restriction would be in the flange.
And although minimal, there IS room to move there.

As for testing; I still think back to back testing with other intakes would be a waste of time.
Unless the manifolds were tested on the same bench; by the same tech; in the same atmosphere; etc.

So if there are BMF owners who would like to know what they've gained with this intake,
I recommend taking it, with your old intake, to a reputable shop with a flow bench to note the results.
OR; build a flow bench to test it yourself.

For me; I intend to do some simple "flow path" testing to determine the air gets to all 4 cyls equally(or darn near).
My BMF was ordered without the side plates installed.
I wanted access to the inside of the plenum for possible baffle installation,
to try and direct the air intake to all 4 cyls equally, if necessary.
My intentions are to build a simple flow bench(very simple),
and use a vacuum leak smoke tester to SEE the airflow.
If adjustments are necessary,
I'll figure how to do that by placing different size/shaped baffles internally in the plenum.

It'll be quite a while(barring me hitting the lottery), before I get to these tests.
But when I do, I'll surely post what I learn.

[Shadow]

I didn't need any flow bench testing on the intake that is currently on the Charger to Know how well it works

[acannell]

Even if it gains the most HP on the craziest setups, it could become a restriction in those setups. Everything in your setup has to be scaled properly to your goals. I would still rather be 75% awesome than 25% awesome if I had only 2 choices. You can't always afford or you don't always have the ability to go 100% perfect. I wouldn't demand you change your 75% awesome product so I could get 80% awesome and say your product was junk if you didn't meet the 80%. Anyone who complains has the chance to do things for themself.

help...

[knownenemy]

I didn't need any flow bench testing on the intake that is currently on the Charger to Know how well it works

I think that the known volume of the intake
is about all the hard information we really needed to evaluate it pre-install.

Checking flow numbers, and measuring airflow IMHO is not even necessary.
That is; unless you're putting the BMF on an ALL-OUT sponsored Race car, trailer queen. lol

I agree Rob; just looking at the BMF with the naked eye
is proof enough for me that it outflows anything available.

[5DIGITS]

I agree with Shadow that unless you test a whole bunch of setups, the main thing you would be 'proving' would be that you can put the BMF on a mild setup without ruining it.
The real strength of the BMF would be on a higher-flowing head, with a bigger cam, at high rpm.
Compare the BMF to a stock intake under those circumstances and you might see 50whp!
Does that mean BMF buyers will gain 50whp? Not often.
And while that is actually what it's 'for', i think most buyers won't actually use it that way, or wont get around to it for years.
I wouldnt be comfortable placing bets on how soon i'll install mine.. but i still want it.

So what is most relevant to *prospective* buyers?
Ease of install, bling factor, not causing drivability issues.
The people who actually plan to use it for high flowing high rpm setups already know it's better than what they've got just by looking at it.

These are all great points - especially the gain factor when considering what it's being bolted to.

Bolt it on a stock vehicle and you may see 5-8HP.
On the other hand and like you said, bolt it on a strong breathing arrangement and the gains will be a function of the supporting hardware and related boost level.
I found this to be very much the case with the intake I designed, as it was worth far greater when the system demands were in place to utilize it.

To be very clear, previous indications of flow bench testing is mentioned only for those interested in the understanding why it works and/or to simply have the supporting numbers.
With this, testing is certainly not necessary to realize the benefits of any modified hardware especially when it simply works and exceeds previously used hardware.

The talent is and always will be, making it all work together no matter what is used.

[OmniLuvr]

help...

so I don't know if this is help or what, but after realizing what you did with the runners for a reason, and seeing them in person im fine with them, but I was wondering if you might do something about the 90* turn from the tb to the plenum. im thinking making the 90* turn be removable, like bolt on. so if you make the plenum a mustang or LS motor tb pattern, and bolt the 90* to that, so if you wanted to run either, you could bolt them directly to the plenum, or the 90* could be bolted on to utilize the stock style tb in a stock location? just an idea, its what im going to do to mine, which im going to have to ask you about in pm after work...

[acannell]

so I don't know if this is help or what, but after realizing what you did with the runners for a reason, and seeing them in person im fine with them, but I was wondering if you might do something about the 90* turn from the tb to the plenum. im thinking making the 90* turn be removable, like bolt on. so if you make the plenum a mustang or LS motor tb pattern, and bolt the 90* to that, so if you wanted to run either, you could bolt them directly to the plenum, or the 90* could be bolted on to utilize the stock style tb in a stock location? just an idea, its what im going to do to mine, which im going to have to ask you about in pm after work...

I definitely want to support a huge throttle body 65mm+. I did a bunch of research to find one that would be cheap and have minimal issues integrating its AIS and TPS to the stock electronics. In that case I would make a flange that would work for it and replace the existing TB flange.

Now if its desired to delete the 90 for flow reasons (less bends) then I think you would still need to space the TB bolting location off the plenum somewhat..IIRC most TB's need some clearance behind them. In that case, the elbow could be replaced with a short straight section and use the new flange.

[Vigo]

help...

I think i'm the only person who understood this because i remember what Ondonti's writing looked like before i understood it.

I think what he's referencing is that the BMF is the most useful to people who also have the most specific needs and it's a slippery uphill slope of diminishing returns if you try to accommodate them any more then the product already does. Anyone for whom the BMF is a restriction should already be at the point of being able to address the problem with their OWN fab skills and data gathering/analysis. In the same sense, anyone for whom the BMF does not pay obvius dividends probably has only themself to blame for matching parts poorly. The lack of 'bandwidth' in intake choices is certainly a problem, but it's not YOUR problem just because you are responsible for ONE of the options, so you shouldn't trouble yourself much with demands to build too many variations.

As i said, the only major sticking point that would give anyone legitimate grounds for complaint about the product is if it makes a mild setup run/drive poorly. I doubt it will and i think your car has already provided evidence against that.

These are just more longwinded ways of saying you dont NEED to do more testing.

[Ondonti]

I think i'm the only person who understood this because i remember what Ondonti's writing looked like before i understood it.

I think what he's referencing is that the BMF is the most useful to people who also have the most specific needs and it's a slippery uphill slope of diminishing returns if you try to accommodate them any more then the product already does. Anyone for whom the BMF is a restriction should already be at the point of being able to address the problem with their OWN fab skills and data gathering/analysis. In the same sense, anyone for whom the BMF does not pay obvius dividends probably has only themself to blame for matching parts poorly. The lack of 'bandwidth' in intake choices is certainly a problem, but it's not YOUR problem just because you are responsible for ONE of the options, so you shouldn't trouble yourself much with demands to build too many variations.

As i said, the only major sticking point that would give anyone legitimate grounds for complaint about the product is if it makes a mild setup run/drive poorly. I doubt it will and i think your car has already provided evidence against that.

These are just more longwinded ways of saying you dont NEED to do more testing.

Werd, except I have no idea what your epiphany up there really means.

I was trying to avoid giving real numbers because people seem to stick to those as some sort of fact when its just an thought exercise/example. Nobody will go around quoting 75% awesome.

You really can't build a perfect intake manifold for people looking for between 250-600whp AND with various RPM ranges. Some 8 valve setups rev low with lots of boost and some rev higher with more HP per psi boost. Intake runners are tuned length and diameter for specific rpm ranges and flow and if you actually optimise one rpm or flow requirement, you muff up the others. That is why some designers purposedly avoid resonance tuning.

I am the kind of person who would put a ridiculous intake manifold on a stock turbo stock head 8 valve just to do it as long as it was decently affordable. I could give two whoops if it only made me 1whp or 100.

Yes, the intake manifold can be a restriction even if the head is also a restriction. If Acannel made an intake manifold that was zero restriction to a 600whp setup then it wouldn't work as well on a 250whp setup. At some point the runner diameter is really going to hurt low rpm performance and 600whp setups will not perform well at low rpms no matter what their owners say. Anyone who has driven a high hp large turbo setup knows the huge difference between the rpms where you are out of boost and when you hit peak boost. The intake manifold that maximizes the 600whp setups at high rpms WILL make them feel even worse out of boost. Light cars don't notice this much but its still reality. Some high power people like optimized high rpm power, some like a more seamless powerband. No manifold can do all things perfectly. Being way better than stock is good enough for most people. For the price, its worth it when you think about how much time you would spend fooling around with your own design when you could have been making the money to pay for something that already might be better then what you would come up with. Having an affordable option messes up the whole justification of making a custom intake for most people (to save money).
2.2/2.5 also have a fairly standard modification path and ductwork where something like a 3.0 is all over the place between owners and I don't think I would be happy with a product made to fit one style of engine bay.
People who have sidewinder exhaust manifolds that might not clear should be able to make their own intake as that is very out of the norm and they have shown their own eagerness to go outside the box. Buck up.

[5DIGITS]

Werd, except I have no idea what your epiphany up there really means.

You really can't build a perfect intake manifold for people looking for between 250-600whp AND with various RPM ranges.
Some 8 valve setups rev low with lots of boost and some rev higher with more HP per psi boost.
Intake runners are tuned length and diameter for specific rpm ranges and flow and if you actually optimise one rpm or flow requirement, you muff up the others.
That is why some designers purposedly avoid resonance tuning.

I am the kind of person who would put a ridiculous intake manifold on a stock turbo stock head 8 valve just to do it as long as it was decently affordable. I could give two whoops if it only made me 1whp or 100.

Avoiding resonance tuning?.. I strongly disagree.
This would defy the very reason designers and manufacturers incorporate active tuning intake methods, to accomplish the best over-all area under the curve.
In this case, the "bigger is better" approach will come with the sacrifice of low and torque and the resulting aggressive injector boss taper, from the runner, will prematurely choke the system.
With the amount of positive effort and time being placed on this design (kudos ), a smaller runner with a less aggressive taper would potentially reduce cost and machining while improving the over-all result.. for all.
This considers that there is only so much that can be force fed to an 8V.. anything greater will have diminished returns on investment.

[knownenemy]

Asa, here's how this will go:
We'll discuss testing the BMF ad nauseum; there will be discussion, arguments, resentments formed, props given, etc.
And when it's all said and done, the only thing that will bring actual results is practical application.

Once there are enough members who've installed, and tuned with the BMF,
surely there will be suggestions and experience based comments to draw from.
What we know now is the BMF out does any factory manifold in volume, and potential.

I think the design came out beautifully, and the actual data we've got thus far
(Asa'a close to factory setup, and one other member that I know of) has been great.
The most incredible thing about the BMF is its potential and versatility.
It's becoming more evident that the BMF can be used for 200HP or 650HP+ setups with good results.
This isn't all that surprising, in that we've seen the factory 2pc. be versatile; just not AS versatile.

The design of the BMF is just something we ALL have been trying to do with the factory 2pc for years!
We've been porting, cutting, smoothing, and opening the 2pc. as much as possible forever.
All the BMF did was increase how far we could go.
If you picture the last 2pc. you've worked on(this is to anyone who has experience with a 2pc.),
the BMF is simply where you would have ported the 2pc. to, if the material was there.

My rant here may be due in part to the fact that my BMF lays quietly in a cabinet drawer,
as I progress on other parts of the build, but when I get to engine tuning, I can't wait to post results I find.

And lastly;
Maybe a thread titled, "BMF results. What's working in your setup?", would be a good idea.
This way members who have installed their BMF could post how they've gotten the best performance from it.

[acannell]

Maybe a thread titled, "BMF results. What's working in your setup?", would be a good idea.
This way members who have installed their BMF could post how they've gotten the best performance from it.

Im trying to generate some data for all of us ASAP. I already have some data logged, but it was with the BMF prototype and a very unique tubular header, so Im not sure how it can be interpreted, although it was at stock boost levels so the header probably didnt affect things much.

But I'm going to go forward with a production-BMF, stock exhaust manifold, along with a 0.63 chrysler housing, small turbo, and a G head with 58mm TB. But while the car is apart (lol) I'm working on a swingvalve/downpipe product so it may be awhile. I think POPE had some builds planned for early this year, maybe the BMF customers will have data before I do.

I agree, the most utility will be with how to adjust the tune and cam to get the most out of a huge intake at high flow levels. Thats where the TM world starts to get a little murky, cam and tune design. Time to raise the bar!

[acannell]

heres the data I have so far with the BMF prototype

[5DIGITS]

With the amount of positive effort and time being placed on this design (kudos ), a smaller runner with a less aggressive taper would potentially reduce cost and machining while improving the over-all result.. for all.
This considers that there is only so much that can be force fed to an 8V.. anything greater will have diminished returns on investment.

Again, it's not difficult to out do a 2pc intake unless major reconstructive surgery is performed.
What's being provided is positive reinforcement with constructive suggestions that can improve the design (for all 200 -600HP) while minimizing cost.
Hopefully this is being received as it's genuinely being sent.

[acannell]

I think some perspective would help here, since there really isn't any data on how runner length or what have you would specifically help the 2.2/2.5. Its all conjecture, but reasonable. What I'm saying is nobody has played with runner length on our engines, recorded data, and then presented it.

Our stock intake is MICRO. As in micro-SCOPIC. The throttle body is teeny-weeny. Unless the idea is that velocity is SO critical and flow is totally not, I dont see why our stock intakes are even on the map as far as modified-turbo-engine. Once you start trying to get power out of our cars, all the holes need to get ALOT bigger.

Sitting next to my daytona is an 09 LS3 Corvette, and comparing the two make me ponder some things.

Take the LS3, a 2valve per cylinder, single cam engine, with fixed valve timing, which puts out 424ft lbs of torque at 4600rpm. Our 2.2/2.5 probably does that at what, high 20's psi with a full set of typical modifications?

But whats funny is, we will do that on our TM's and think a 58mm throttle body and a 3" exhaust are "BIG".

The chevy does it with a 90MM throttle body and TWO 2.5" exhausts. And thats on a N/A engine! How big of a TB and exhaust is justified for a 500hp 2.2/2.5 TM? At least as much as a N/A 450hp engine right? But we still work in the land where anything beyond 58mm requires special fabrication skills and a 3" exhaust has somehow become the standard. ???

See a pattern here? The holes need to get ALOT bigger on our cars. We are just wasting energy pumping air through all those little holes. We are nowhere NEAR the point where things have gotten too big and all the air is going too slow. Look at the LS3 combustion chamber, it looks VERY similar to our ancient swirl head, just smoother. Oh, except one thing, the intake valve is 55mm and the exhaust valve is 40mm. Thats like +15mm and +5mm on the exhaust.

I say we can keep going bigger and bigger. The real hard limit is how big of ports and valves you can put in our little bores and heads. I think thats where Warren Stramer came in with a few atom bombs and made things so.

[zin]

The key is in removing what I call the point of "constipation". The BMF does it in regards to the intake, if the rest of the intake system is in line with performance, the head will be the limiting factor, assuming an adequate cam is in place.

Mike

[acannell]

Another way to look at it: we're moving the same amount of air on our heavily boosted, ancient 2.2/2.5 as a modern V8, but all our pipes are 1/2 the size. How does that make sense? It doesnt. If the pipes being smaller had some kind of velocity/swirl effect, you'd see it on the modern engine, where they would have had decades more experience and alot better ways of simulating and manufacturing that. But instead, you see big holes.

And I know lots of people hate chevy, I just dont know anything about the modern dodge engine. I'm sure its exactly the same situation on the 6.2L V8 Hemi. (Im pretty sure there is/was one in the past few years making the same mid 400's hp).

[zin]

Like most things, the closer you look the more complex it gets.

Big holes flow big air, but that's no guarantee of big power, what happens after the valve is often more important than the volume of flow.

Depending on the port angle, etc, a smaller hole with a higher quality flow will make more power than the head with big flow numbers.

There's actually formulas to calculate tuned lengths and port diameters to optimize resonant tuning and port velocities, as well as port taper.

I'll try to find my notes and post the formulas.

Mike

PS none will be exact, lots of variables so still a little trial and error if you want it exact, but I don't think that matters to us.