- 1. Intake sizing. (score: 1)
- Author: "Keith Turk" <kturk@ala.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:35:43 -0600
- Okay now we got the question framed with the right subject... let me give you a bit of my experience.... We were thrashing in 03 to get the Modified sports car ready in a very short period of time, t
- /html/land-speed/2005-02/msg00365.html (8,395 bytes)
- 2. Re: Intake sizing. (score: 1)
- Author: "Jon.the.Wise" <jon.the.wise@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:37:34 -0800
- But bigger is not always better. If you look at Mitsubishi's 4G63 head design, you'll see that the older heads had larger intake ports, but the newer heads with slightly smaller ports have a better a
- /html/land-speed/2005-02/msg00403.html (8,800 bytes)
- 3. RE: Intake sizing. (score: 1)
- Author: "John L Staiger" <staiger3@starband.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:34:19 -0500
- As an interesting note, GM's build manual and software for the IRL Aurora expect to see 3 lbs at >210MPH... John --Original Message-- ... Okay now we got the question framed with the right subject..
- /html/land-speed/2005-02/msg00404.html (8,587 bytes)
- 4. Re: Intake sizing. (score: 1)
- Author: Bryan Savage <b.a.savage@earthlink.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:46:09 -0800
- About 30 years ago a guy in L.A., Jerry Branch, said that air flow QUALITY was more important than quantity. And he proved it repeatedly. Bryan
- /html/land-speed/2005-02/msg00405.html (8,480 bytes)
- 5. RE: Intake sizing. (score: 1)
- Author: "Dave Dahlgren" <ddahlgren@snet.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:41:07 -0500
- You are always better off with a port that is the correct size for the engine than too big. too big and the torque goes down. it is pretty hard to make any HP without torque. the average engine losse
- /html/land-speed/2005-02/msg00412.html (10,010 bytes)
- 6. Re: Intake sizing. (score: 1)
- Author: "Thomas E. Bryant" <saltracer@awwwsome.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:30:56 -0800
- This last weekend, Joe Mondello spoke at the NW Banquet revealing gobs of info on this subject. At one time it was thought that bigger was better, but that myth has been abandoned long ago. Joe talk
- /html/land-speed/2005-02/msg00415.html (9,037 bytes)
- 7. Re: Intake sizing. (score: 1)
- Author: Bryan Savage <b.a.savage@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 12:30:38 -0800
- Thanks Tom, that's very interesting. I was reading some Hemi history recently and they talked about long runner vs short runner. When people drove the two cars, not knowing which was which, they all
- /html/land-speed/2005-02/msg00426.html (9,598 bytes)
- 8. Re: Intake sizing. (score: 1)
- Author: "Joe & Lynne Lance" <jolylance@earthlink.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:18:40 -0500
- There's more to it than just the momentum (inertia) of the air in the stack. Way back in 1960 I wrote a student engineering paper on ram induction after Stu Hilborn, Leo Goosen (of Meyer Drake/Offy),
- /html/land-speed/2005-02/msg00435.html (9,490 bytes)
- 9. Re: Intake sizing. (score: 1)
- Author: "Pork Pie" <pork.pie@t-online.de>
- Date: 22 Feb 2005 21:44 GMT
- As I remember, if you talk about the air (ram) box intake, we got this topic some months ago - if Keith keep all the comments - the answer will be there. Front opening "small", behind an airbox with
- /html/land-speed/2005-02/msg00439.html (7,728 bytes)
- 10. RE: Intake sizing. (score: 1)
- Author: "James Tone" <James.Tone@AES.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:53:46 -0800
- I contacted Dave D. concerning air intakes and devices to control the air. Dave supplied me with all the sizes and angles for the intake "box" Everything is taken into account. Cubic inches, # of cyl
- /html/land-speed/2005-02/msg00463.html (8,999 bytes)
This search system is powered by
Namazu