|
Sign in using an external account
|
|
|||||||||
| Register | Albums | Classifieds | FAQ | Members | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read | Vendors | Garage | TSB & Recalls |
| Welcome to AudiWorld! | ||
|
|
Welcome to AudiWorld.com.
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join AudiWorld.com today! |
| Notices |
| Performance and Tuning Discussion forum for various performance tuning techniques and questions |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 | ||
|
AudiWorld Senior Member
Garage is empty, add now
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 879
|
__________________
![]() Coming soon 3.0 01E Tec-II EMS |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
AudiWorld Senior Member
Garage is empty, add now
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 701
|
I gather one of the reasons besides the engine cosmetics of reducing the intake piping is to reduce intake temps entering the TB and lessen the effects of slow turbulent air.
Would there be a significant reduction in heat being absorbed from the length of piping being removed? how many tight (90° bends) would be lost? What material/coating is the intake piping made from - aluminium is great absorber of heat!! I would try and take some temp readings after intercooler and before TB to see if there is a significant differential, how about some cfm readings too? Just some initial thoughts! Would be good idea if it wasn't for the damn PS pump! Does the Toyota 'leccy unit run close to the Audi's volumetric flow rates?
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
AudiWorld Super User
Garage is empty, add now
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 12,623
|
I'm not sure but you may be able to change your pump style to the new one and then use those brackets if you just need to lower the pump a little bit.
__________________
I used to own a B5 A4, now I have this and am never looking back. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
AudiWorld Super User
Garage is empty, add now
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 13,204
|
off your local wrecking yard and welding a 45 degree tube with flanges on both ends so that you can move the TB farther away. May not have to worry about the PS after all. Who needs cruise control
I've been toying with the idea of fabricating my own intake manifold, but didn't want to spend more money on a Tig. Good Luck. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
AudiWorld Senior Member
Garage is empty, add now
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 879
|
The PS pump is really in the way, it looks like no matter what I will have to remove/relocate it. The TPS sensor hangs down fairly far. How much does the PES brackets move the pump? Yes, I have access to a few places that do TIG welding, so aluminum is not a problem. Moving the TB farther away from the IM will increase throttled volume, and I worry this will hurt throttle response. Maybe I will look at a few different throttle bodies and see what works best. I really want to keep it as simple as possible. I don't think there will be much of a reduction in intake temps, but I am hoping that reducing the volume of piping will improve lag slightly. My IC piping is not aluminum, it is cheap crush bent 2.5" steel pipe ( I eventualy plan on replacing it with proper piping). I don't know the specs on the MR2 pump, but I do know people have used it on porsches with good success. I will look at it more closely this weekend and take measurements. You can see from the picture that I will really lose a lot of piping, plus it will make running the wiring for the TEC-II easier if it is by the firewall.
__________________
![]() Coming soon 3.0 01E Tec-II EMS |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
AudiWorld Super User
Garage is empty, add now
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 12,623
|
__________________
I used to own a B5 A4, now I have this and am never looking back. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
AudiWorld Senior Member
Garage is empty, add now
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 701
|
It's for a Honda as usual but it's interesting anyway!
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
AudiWorld Super User
Garage is empty, add now
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 2,634
|
It is my understanding that a boosted engine is best served by the shortest runners possible, since long runners are 'tuned' to give more power in n/a applications (and I believe move to shorter length at high RPM anyway in engines with variable runner length technology).
! |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
AudiWorld Super User
Garage is empty, add now
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 13,204
|
see Hurricane's post above for why
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
AudiWorld Senior Member
Garage is empty, add now
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 879
|
Eventually I would love to but for the time being I am going to have to make the stock manifold do. I have experimented with the change over function from long to short runners, and I have found that running on just the short runners provides a nice midrange bump without a noticeable loss down low. Just for fun I did a few runs to redline on the long runners and the drop in power above 3500rpm was very noticeable.
__________________
![]() Coming soon 3.0 01E Tec-II EMS |
|
|
|
![]() |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2009 AudiWorld.com Audi Enthusiast Community










Linear Mode
