Roman

You say you didnt want to epoxy it so how are you going to solve your problem?

I just wanna know how to add material to this manifold, in a 'safe' way.

If no has any suggestions apart from 'throw it away', then that's fine.

/end thread.

And doesnt taper to the head, it's exactly like my one, except the casting is a little off.

na the one on toymods making 188kw at the wheels is custom with big throttles to get some taper.

Glenn makes his throttle bodies like this.

He strips down silvertop 4age throttles, and recasts the throttle body to either 45,47,48, or 50mm. Fits all of the linkages back on with a new throttle plate to suit.

Then sticks this on the end of a manifold, like the one I've got. Even if there's a 50mm throttle body on, it's still going to 'flare out' to the port, because the cross sectional area of the port is approx 49x40 rounded, still more than 50mm worth of cross sectional area....

I know how he makes them, because I've probably sold him 2 dozen sets of 4age throttles over the last few years. He grinds out the manifold to suit larger throttles if/when he uses them.

All I was getting at mate is that why start with an inferior manifold that flares out and you need to reduce it. Its common place on na touring cars to have a taper manifold and its not hard to make something up. On such a sweet motor like a beams why stick something shit on, the port design on these is awesome deserves a bangin manifold

Okay so lets say I make a new manifold... How am I going to make it taper anyway? If I use two flanges and pipes, I'm going to have to diegrind and/or backfill it anyway to make it 'right'.

Machining a solid block of alloy or getting something cast is neither more affordable or less work.

I dont see how it's more logical to start again from scratch, than to add 1 or 2mm worth of material in some places, and remove probably... 1/2 a mm in other places.

what revs were those other beams making there beans? love mean na motors

Yeah same, built up NA motors are cool.

TRD motor comes on song at about 5000 or 5500rpm, but has really shit bottom end, VVTI disabled etc. Revs to about 8800 or so from memory.

Glenns setup uses dual staged injectors, VVTI, slightly different cams, lightened crank, etc etc and it's got a much broader powerband, still idles like a street car apparently, and good pull from about 3000.

Mine's fairly ordinary, just .5mm oversized pistons, balanced bottom end, ported head, and maybe quads.

Jack your car up and see what's actually limiting the lock... is it because it runs out of 'rack' or are the 'stoppers' on the steering arms hitting the lower arms? or what?

It could be something simple, sometimes taking out the stopper bolts on the steering arms gives you more lock. (assuming there are some in there)

haha, they're already pretty huge for the size of the motor, and have already been ported somewhat, while the motor was in Japan.

When I had the motor at Lynn Rogers, he wanted to know who did it, because he thought it was a pretty good job... So I'm not gonna touch that at all.

But irrespective of all of this, my question(s) still stand.

Anyone done anything similar before? With regards to what shape to make the runners, what material to use to fill it in, etc etc.

To get an idea of what it looks like in cross section versus the length, here's a quick autocad sketch.

P.S. The standard intake runner doesnt give any useful hints as to what's best... It's just a straight 45mm pipe, with an uprupt transition to the bottom part of the manifold, which is the shape of the port. Doesnt exactly seem like "The ultimate" if you know what I mean... But I'm Just being pedantic/picky/etc I guess.

The 270hp TRD engine uses standard unmodified blacktop 4age throttle bodies.... Mounted onto a manifold exactly like my one. (But of slightly better quality, as machined intsead of cast.... But costs $2000 or something stupid)

And doesnt taper to the head, it's exactly like my one, except the casting is a little off.

These people you speak of making big HP with bored out blacktop or silvertop throttles, guess what, they use them with THIS manifold.

The problem is not as bad as I make it sound, the 'lip' is probably half a mm or so.

I'm thinking that having it flare out to a larger diameter after the throttle body might be for the sake of stabilising the flow into the motor, or... something.

Excuse the mess....

Okay basically, my new intake manifold is a bit more shit than I would have hoped.

It's a casting of the TRD quad throttle manifold for 3S.

With blacktop 4age throttle bodies, and some 110mm long trumpets.

Problem being that it's approx 80mm across at the bellmouth, tapers down to 50mm onto the front face of blacktop throttle, tapers down to 45mm at throttle plate (all is well until this point)

but then tapers back out to a ~48mm egg sorta shape at bottom of blacktop throttle, and then the same sort of shape on the mating face of the TRD manifold, but it's not a perfect match, most likely because the casting is shitty.

So there's a few areas where there's a small 'lip'.

And where the manifold bolts to the head, my port is approx 49x40 rounded, where as the manifold has a port size of 53x43mm. So too bloody big! Sucks.

So anyway, plan is to back fill both the blacktop throttles from the throttle plate onwards, and the cast aluminium manifold that bolts to the head, and grind them back out to a new shape to suit the ports.

So my question is...

Am I better having a straight 45mm runner from the throttle plate onwards, and then a quick flare out to 49x40 port shape, or a taper inwards from 45mm and then a flare outwards, or a gradual flare outwards from 45mm round to the 49x40?

I know that theoretically you want a taper inwards right up to the port, but obviously since the port has more cross sectional area than the intake runners, it's not really possible.

Also, my main question *cough*

What can I use to backfill the manifold/throttles?

I hear people use some sort of epoxy... I obviously dont want bits of... whatever being vibrated loose and sucked into my motor, but obviously there's something that people use that works well.

Any suggestions/advice appreciated, will go back to standard manifold if I cant make these bloody things work well.

rambling on while boozed is not condusive to posts that are..... good.

No real point in comparing power/weight etc I guess, the theoretical goes out the window as soon as you hit the track.

"The bullshit stops when the flag drops" as they say.

So I need less talk more action, ahahah. Hence edit.

Who are you guys kidding? You both would have got owned by the AW11.

Why? Same power, same weight, better gear ratios and final drive for carina, handling characteristics come down to personal preference IMO. Each has their ups and downs.

I've spent my fair share of time peddling around in an MR setup, (ie almost the exact setup that he was gonna use in AW11) and I dont think it's necessarily better overall than a similarly equipped FR or FF car on the track.

(at least at this sort of power level)

Holy mother of crapping christ, that looks tough.

No fair, I might have had a chance against your AW11 on the track, but now I'm screwed.

There's a specific heat treating process used when heating springs. Have too heat them, cool them quickly, heat them, do something else, or whatever. Dunno.

Can make them brittle otherwise, spring snapping at 200kph FTL.

A panhard rod

pretty sure this is leaf sprung IRS so a no go here. crazy volovosovooso.

bushes, anti roll, reset and additional lamination would be a go. its a one leaf pack right?

WTF?!

Is it a transverse leaf spring, like corvettes? or springs running down the length of the car? Weird!

A panhard rod setup could help a bit too,

Surely the rear end is located with a watts-linkage already? Or at least I'd have thought it was.. but yeah, if it's not got any form of anti-roll, you're better off stopping it rolling by adding some rather than trying to just stiffen the heck outta it.

nope! Most leaf spring setups that I've seen just rely on the springs to locate the diff in that direction.

edit: like this http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c17/NZGT/4197e05b.jpg

Definitely look at harder/extra/etc leaves, before considering lowering blocks. (lowering blocks wont stop it from tipping... might make it worse if it messes with roll centre?)

A panhard rod setup could help a bit too, I've heard that it can make quite a positive difference for a leave spring rear, doesnt stop your car from tipping if the spring rate is no good, but stops the arse end from wobbling around on the springs. (which could be more of a problem with lowering blocks, depending on size?)

180kgs?!

Thats more than my motor/gbox/everything all together.

It's amazing how well something like a KE70 sedan can scrub up, in standard form a lot/most of them look pretty crappy IMO...

But then the right wheels, the right ride height, and the right headlights/grill, and one or two other changes....

And they can look totally sweet.

In saying this, my vote goes for +1 to "TE27 FTW"

roffle, why would you leave your bonnet off to show a really rugged looking engine bay?

yeah regarding ^^^^^ stuff, know what you mean orion.

Like my 80s POS will probably be worth 4-5k when I've finished it if I wanted to sell it, doesnt matter if it's completely rebuilt from ground up, there's just no appeal for what I've got. And I'm perfectly happy with that.

But that's why my car is categorised into the 'hobby/money pit' category rather than 'sensible financial investment' category.

I'd steer clear of cars full stop, if I was looking to invest money.

However if saying it's an investment is how you rationalise having more 80s cars, I'm cool with that.

I guess you gotta think about the target demographic for who would pay a stupid price for the cars, once they've 'matured'.

I mean, heaps of people love rotaries, I dont doubt there's some people out there willing to pay some serious coin for a car that's MINT. A mate of mine just bought a low kms RX2 coupe for about 20k, completely standard, hubcaps & all.

And someone offered him $100k (in cash!) for his 808, RX3, and RX7.

However a starion.... Hmmm, doesnt really seem to have the same sort of fanbase/appeal IMO, and I dont think it ever will.

Same thing with your DR30(s) if you came to sell....

Not that they're not cool, but how many people out there dont even know that they made skylines before the R32?

Coefficient of drag would be around .35 or .36 at a guess.

50-55% weight over front wheels would be a fair estimate I reckon.

You should be able to get all the info you need from the following sites:

http://english.auto.vl.ru/catalog/toyota/

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Pit/ ... gines.html

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Pit/ ... boxes.html

Or, you could just download cartest instead.

Best looking cars in this thread IMO! (And oldrx7s wagon. awesome)

Not diggin the front lip on the blue (rx3?) though, but apart from that looks tough as!

As for the car he was gonna get, aaaah I cant remember exactly he showed me the pics when I was rather boozed.

Looked like an 808/rx3 coupe or something, but I cant remember specifically what.

To be honest he's a bit of a dreamer, I'd be more surprised if he actually bought it than didnt. But it just bought up the 'yeah boe 17s would be mean' comment which is why I started this thread.

And I'm glad I did, been some awesome pics in here! Cheers to all who have posted some pics. good shit.

Glendene Engine Reconditioners (aka GER) seem to have a good reputation, I know a lot of toyota guys who have had their engines built there.

And nice and handy for us West Auckland folks too.

Regardless of the angle of the lower arm, if the wheel goes over a bump of the same size in each case, the change in camber stays the same.... I dont see how it couldnt? Seeing as how the lower arm is still following the exact same radius...

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying...

What your sketch is out on though is where the wheel mounts, and the direction of the camber change . The LCA is traveling in an arc, from pointing down traveling up to flat it effectively pushes the wheel out from the car at its bottom mounting point. This increases dynamic camber. However as it travels past horizontal the arc of travel pulls the bottom of the wheel in towards the car, decreasing your camber.

The key flaw in your diagram is the wheel being at a constant angle to the LCA, its a constant angle to the strut not the LCA and is not attached at the pivot point but a little further up the strut generally.

Callum

Okay yep, I see what you mean...

I guess that in a real life scenario you adjust the camber via the top of the strut, rather than magically being able to change the hub/strut angle to suit the LCA position. Or using RCAs to space out the front track, if they're offset.

Thinking about suspension makes my brain hurt.

best to get the angle down even if it is a pain in the ass. anything past flat will reduce camber as suspension compresses, so you'l be loosing camber when you need it most.

I remember someone saying this a while ago, and it didnt sound logical to me. So I drew up an exaggerated sketch in autocad....

Regardless of the angle of the lower arm, if the wheel goes over a bump of the same size in each case, the change in camber stays the same.... I dont see how it couldnt? Seeing as how the lower arm is still following the exact same radius...

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying...