home register FAQ memberlist calendar

Go Back   Turbobricks Forums > Mechanical > performance & modifications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-23-2022, 03:05 PM   #26
Harlard
Hurlurd?Harland?Bueller?
 
Harlard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: PDX
Default

Just for what it's worth, your power ceiling without a turbo will be about 160 whp.

I'm assuming this is NA for some reason.
__________________
Herr Harlard am Erstens
1979 242 DL




Quote:
Originally Posted by Quin View Post
I hate the car and also cannot be free of it. I dream of having a different project but cannot separate myself emotionally from this one and so remain bonded to it like Sisyphus to his great stone.
Harlard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2022, 03:13 PM   #27
redblockpowered
mails files to people
 
redblockpowered's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Swampscott, MA
Default

There are a few project cars this here flowbench research applies to, one of which is NA.

My 940 - this is just my normal car that I use to get places
Racecar - for lemons racing
Dad's friend's 244 - fast weekend car

Different solutions make sense for each.
__________________
1993 944 B230FT/M90 thread here: http://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=345277
2x 1991 245 B230F/M47 (LeMons car, street car)
I sell chips for LH 2.4!
If you live in the Northeast US, I'll drive to you and tune your LH 2.4 car!
redblockpowered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2022, 04:32 PM   #28
culberro
Ronald Culberbone III
 
culberro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Redmond, OR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redblockpowered View Post
Intake manifold swap seems outside of the scope of this (my) project. I like the cast KL one, the work and expense required is probably not worthwhile at this power level.

Depends on how in the weeds a ported B230F manifold still is, I suppose.

Either way you still have a Volvo 8V head.
So klr142s General Leif makes like 155whp (so assuming about 180 crank) with a modified k-jet intake (bigger tb, and some smoothing I believe).

That same engine, head, and camshaft combo will usually make 220 crank hp with ITBs or DCOEs. So that's a significant amount of power on the table with just the induction side.

A well warmed over 8v head can still do 260+ crank hp...
__________________
Cult Person. Pissing in your Kool-Aid.

Head work: https://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=349975

Temp Sender Adapters: https://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=348169
culberro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2022, 06:07 PM   #29
shoestring
Board Member
 
shoestring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Swampscott, 01907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by culberro View Post
I'm not sure what you have for a welder, but you can do decent work with a spool gun and a mig with aluminum. It definitely takes practice, but it's a much lower barrier to enter with.
We've got a Miller 211, so that's not the bottleneck.
__________________
I AM THE MODAL AMERICAN. Planet money #936.
shoestring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2022, 06:12 PM   #30
culberro
Ronald Culberbone III
 
culberro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Redmond, OR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoestring View Post
We've got a Miller 211, so that's not the bottleneck.
Zap zap
culberro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2022, 06:49 PM   #31
redblockpowered
mails files to people
 
redblockpowered's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Swampscott, MA
Default

My project = my car. Oops. Highly doubt I'll be touching 160 whp suction engine power (as they say) in the 940. In addition, welded up modded B230 intake is much less objectionable on a race car.
redblockpowered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2022, 11:49 PM   #32
Harlard
Hurlurd?Harland?Bueller?
 
Harlard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: PDX
Default

Do as you wish, but bothering with that intake manifold is an abject waste of time and consumables.
Harlard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2022, 10:34 AM   #33
Swedbrick
Board Member
 
Swedbrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Netherlands, Source of Grolsch
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoestring View Post
Dude I wish I could tell you that we have the means to do that. Unfortunately we would have to send the head out to have that done. It's now extremely clear to me that it's the intake side, not the exhaust, that needs all the help it can get, because of the manifold.
I'd think you'd be able to spend some time there with a dremel continously checking as you go to get it done. The big problem would be the new pistons you need to get it to work.

As for the intake barring finding a suitable 2.0-2.5L stock manifold from another brand, the b21f setup appears to be the way to go.
__________________
Volvo 745 - Turbo, LH2.4, M90 swap, IPD springs, 25mm/19mm swaybars, 3.54 \w racingdiff lsd, track/daily
Volvo 363 - N/A, Speeduino, GSXR ITB's, half-cage, work in progress
---------------------------------
I sell LH2.4 Chips for Europe!
Swedbrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2022, 04:09 PM   #34
crogthomas
Board Member
 
crogthomas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Default

Interesting stuff. Nice job.
I built my own flow bench a few years ago too. What surprised me is that it was really simple to do and it can be really accurate too. You've done the hard work. All you would need to do to measure actual flow rates is add a orifice of a known size between the head and the vacuum source with another manometer across it. You can either calculate the flow rate of the orifice, or get it measured on a known bench, then every pressure drop you measure across your head can be related to that orifice using a simple equation.
An AMM is a nice idea, but really difficult to calibrate. Manometers are very accurate. They are what would be used in a lab to calibrate flow devices anyway, so they only lose out in terms of user friendliness.

I think you did the right thing to reposition the manometer to the bore adaptor. The spark plug hole will be experiencing air flow across it, but you really need the manometer to be in relatively still air, to measure the pressure drop across the head as a whole. The larger you can make the chamber immediately under the bore adaptor the better. I used a 1m length of 4" soil pipe which seemed work well, but a large diameter drum of some sort would be better.

I can back up your findings about inlet manifolds. On a B230 530 head at 12mm valve lift I got about 138 CFM@28"H2O with a plasticine flow smoother on the inlet to give the best case scenario for that type of head. With the standard B230 inlet manifold added on that dropped to 120 CFM@28"H2O.
crogthomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2022, 01:11 AM   #35
redblockpowered
mails files to people
 
redblockpowered's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Swampscott, MA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlard View Post
Do as you wish, but bothering with that intake manifold is an abject waste of time and consumables.
Here are the results of an abject waste of time and consumables:

First, the racecar head came back and we had a better way to calibrate the flow bench instead of assuming all the stock ports flowed the same. This revealed that all the prior numbers were fairly optimistic, which I believe because it all seemed a little too easy.

Next we flow tested the B230 and B21 manifolds on a stock port. No restriction noted for either.

What gives? Turns out it'd probably help if you plugged all the ports on the manifold...

After this our stock port and stock B230F manifold threw down these absolutely putrid numbers:

.050" 19.6
.100" 51.7
.150" 80.3
.200" 105.1
.250" 118.4
.300" 126.3
.350" 130.4
.400" 124.7
.450" 124.7
.500" 124.7
.550" 126.3
.600" 127.1

So, not much more flow than the exhaust port. Awesome.

Esmth donated this B230F manifold which got cut up and eventually ported in the name of science:



First thing to note is all the nasty bosses in the plenum area. Those got cut off and the runner entry got smoothed particularly on the short side. Cylinder 1 and cylinder 3 are especially impacted by the throttle body stud bosses, one of which was good for some 8 cfm at peak on its own (I forget which, I think #1)



The injector bosses on the B230F manifold can be slimmed down considerably although this made only a small difference in our tests.



The big ticket seemed to be in widening the runner near the port entry, particularly on the long side.



Fortunately for me my dad took good notes of what the final product ended up being, in the name of repeatability:



And I made this little tool, which you can have the STL file for if you ask nicely (or tell me where I should upload it):



The narrow end goes in the injector boss area once porting is complete, and the wide end goes into the widest part of the runner until the notch is no longer visible. Here it is, not going, plus the first few layers got too squashed:



and of course the final results, before and after:

.050" 20.4 20.8
.100" 50.7 51.2
.150" 79.1 79.7
.200" 103.0 104.4
.250" 120.7 121.5
.300" 134.6 135.5
.350" 144.4 147.1 +1.9% (gainz not worth noting up to this point)
.400" 147.1 154.7 +5.2%
.450" 149.0 160.7 +7.8%
.500" 149.9 163.7 +9.2%
.550" 149.9 157.7 +5.2%
.600" 150.9 157.7 +4.5%
redblockpowered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2022, 01:30 AM   #36
redblockpowered
mails files to people
 
redblockpowered's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Swampscott, MA
Default

Oh, and the port with no manifold:

.050" 21.6
.100" 53.7
.150" 84.6
.200" 112.4
.250" 135.5
.300" 152.8
.350" 166.9
.400" 166.9
.450" 166.9
.500" 171.1
.550" 173.3
.600" 175.5

The smart folks on speed-talk.com seem to suggest an expected loss of around 1% per tenth of an inch of valve lift with the intake system installed no matter what. We didn't test the B21 manifold on this port but on a stock port it came in around a 10% loss at worst. Significant improvement over the B230 manifold

Also worth reading:
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/hr...ifold-porting/
redblockpowered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2022, 04:40 AM   #37
Harlard
Hurlurd?Harland?Bueller?
 
Harlard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: PDX
Default

Glad you’re generating data-backed insights on the topic! Genuinely interesting couple of posts.

Still sticking to my hot take on the B230 manifold being poo, however
Harlard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2022, 12:10 PM   #38
linuxman51
BRANDSCHUTZVORSCHRIFTEN!
 
linuxman51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: mont, AL
Default

cool!
__________________
"They bum rushed them in their own crib, they drank all their beer, they partied with their ladies and they left with the trophy"

Now with in-house Dyno tuning!

Megasquirt Tuning!
linuxman51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2022, 12:15 PM   #39
esmth
Board Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: MA/NH
Default

If I am reading this right, there doesn't seem to be much of a benefit porting the manifold with any of the stock smaller cams below like 10.5mm intake lift? M, T, A, B?
__________________
1991 244 LH3.1 M46 402k miles
esmth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2022, 12:35 PM   #40
Harlard
Hurlurd?Harland?Bueller?
 
Harlard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: PDX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by esmth View Post
If I am reading this right, there doesn't seem to be much of a benefit porting the manifold with any of the stock smaller cams below like 10.5mm intake lift? M, T, A, B?
My conclusion here is: if you have to keep it, porting it does not hurt at all.
Harlard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2022, 12:39 PM   #41
shoestring
Board Member
 
shoestring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Swampscott, 01907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlard View Post
Still sticking to my hot take on the B230 manifold being poo, however
And you would be correct.
shoestring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2022, 01:01 PM   #42
redblockpowered
mails files to people
 
redblockpowered's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Swampscott, MA
Default

I was impressed with the results of the turd polishing effort.
redblockpowered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2022, 01:15 PM   #43
shoestring
Board Member
 
shoestring's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Swampscott, 01907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redblockpowered View Post
and of course the final results, before and after:

.050" 20.4 20.8
.100" 50.7 51.2
.150" 79.1 79.7
.200" 103.0 104.4
.250" 120.7 121.5
.300" 134.6 135.5
.350" 144.4 147.1 +1.9% (gainz not worth noting up to this point)
.400" 147.1 154.7 +5.2%
.450" 149.0 160.7 +7.8%
.500" 149.9 163.7 +9.2%
.550" 149.9 157.7 +5.2%
.600" 150.9 157.7 +4.5%
For clarification, these are the final results on the prepared head, not the stock one. They also include a couple of changes we made after we were able to flowbench the entire intake system, some of which were significant in their own right. It's Cam's thread so I'll let him tell you what we did.

What I got out of this is a couple of things:

First is that when Volvo made the...performance? variant B230FX, they knew the intake was doodoo for this purpose knew the cam would need to crutch the intake. Hence the infamous VX, with the V intake lobe and smaller X exhaust lobe. I asked my machinist (R&L Engines in Dover, NH) about the 75% exhaust to intake flow relationship (Google it if you're unaware). There's lots of internet conflict on this and while it makes sense to me, what do I know? Anyway, I asked if was a real thing and was assured that it absolutely is a real GUIDELINE, not necessarily a rule.

Second is that air is heavy and hates to turn corners, wherever they are. Wherever you can help it through port efficiency rather than port volume will help.

Finally, when you're REALLY TRYING HARD to improve performance, you really need to pull yourself back and see the package as a whole, from where air first enters your influence to when it returns to atmosphere. It's easy to look at it as a combination of individual pieces, but that might not get you the best result.

In short it took us probably 6 months to figure out that we could get about a 20% improvement in the intake system. Knowing what we know now, I took this opportunity to order a custom cam from Jones Cams in Denver for this engine. We'll let you know how that goes...next Summer.
shoestring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2022, 01:47 PM   #44
culberro
Ronald Culberbone III
 
culberro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Redmond, OR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redblockpowered View Post
I was impressed with the results of the turd polishing effort.
And you should be! I think you're developing a well balanced system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoestring View Post
In short it took us probably 6 months to figure out that we could get about a 20% improvement in the intake system. Knowing what we know now, I took this opportunity to order a custom cam from Jones Cams in Denver for this engine. We'll let you know how that goes...next Summer.
And a 20% increase is SOLID as a system. When I port a head and then someone says they're using the stock manifold I just ask "then why am I porting the head????"

That cam should be a very nice setup for you. I don't know how aggressive the ramps are, but I hope you're getting something that's less pointy than a VX
culberro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2022, 12:04 PM   #45
redblockpowered
mails files to people
 
redblockpowered's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Swampscott, MA
Default

https://grabcad.com/library/volvo-b2...porting-tool-1

In case anyone's interested, here you go.
redblockpowered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2022, 05:02 PM   #46
Swedbrick
Board Member
 
Swedbrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Netherlands, Source of Grolsch
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redblockpowered View Post
https://grabcad.com/library/volvo-b2...porting-tool-1

In case anyone's interested, here you go.
Yoink
Swedbrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2022, 08:47 PM   #47
redblockpowered
mails files to people
 
redblockpowered's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Swampscott, MA
Default

There's a 631 head here now. Great flow with no manifold, sub-530 level with ported B230F manifold (on both). Discuss.
redblockpowered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2022, 12:12 AM   #48
redblockpowered
mails files to people
 
redblockpowered's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Swampscott, MA
Default

The 631 is a pretty neat design. The combustion chamber is located entirely in the piston and head gasket, and the intake port uses this much more modern high swirl heavily biased design:



Results were initially pretty promising:
631
0.05 20.4
0.1 51.2
0.15 79.7
0.2 110.9
0.25 139
0.3 155.7
0.35 165.8
0.4 175.5
0.45 177.8
0.5 180

But then something odd happened. Here it is versus a stock B230F port, both equipped with our test ported manifold:
631 listed first, then the 530.

0.05 17.5 20 +13.90%
0.1 42.9 51.7 +20.40%
0.15 72.1 82.7 +14.80%
0.2 97.5 108 +10.70%
0.25 117.6 123.1 +4.60%
0.3 131.3 133.8 +1.90%
0.35 139.9 140.8 +0.60%
0.4 146.2 143.4 -1.90%
0.45 150.9 146.2 -3.20%
0.5 154.7 147.1 -5.10%

Hmm?
redblockpowered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2022, 02:28 AM   #49
Harlard
Hurlurd?Harland?Bueller?
 
Harlard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: PDX
Default

Compare the angle of the throat of the port relative to the mating flange to that of the runners on the manifold. My guess is that there is s sharp turn that does not exist in the other combination.
Harlard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2022, 10:09 AM   #50
blkaplan
50 shades of beige
 
blkaplan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Default

Those 631s are odd ducks, I always wondered if they would be good platforms for modifications, I wonder how thick the runners are compared to normal 530 stuff.
__________________
www.BEIGEPOWER.com
Kaplhenke Racing Facebook
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkKratoz View Post
The only safe bet is Ben.©
blkaplan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.