GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk3 => Topic started by: Leon27 on 17 November 2012, 15:39
-
Read this on CGTI and makes and interesting read:
http://www.clubgti.com/showthread.php?243845-16V-ABF-Intake-Manifold-Development-%28results%29
Wondering if anyone has done this on here or is considering it?
I want to keep my Anni as standard looking as possible, my only mods are Bilstein B6's and Eibach springs during my 2 years of ownership!
The bigger plenum on the inlet performs better but I was wondering if someone can explain something. Instead of cutting the manifold and welding it to create the larger plenum could you put something in front of the throttle to act as an air reserve or does it not work as well?
For example some BMW engines have something like this in front of the throttle, the N42 engine in particular has a part that possibly looks ABF friendly...
http://www.ebay.ie/itm/BMW-3-SERIES-E46-2-0L-ENGINE-INTAKE-PIPE-HOSE-/170914433136
Be interesting to try it as the air reserve section could be adapted to fit into the space where the cambelt cover is... but I'd try it only if it's worth doing.
I want to try and get the inlet manfolds matched and get the throttle body ramps done too. I've read about if you remove too much then you might get a jerky response so how much is too much to remove? Can doing just one ramp help?
Hope someone can help!
-
The BMW part is a resonator to tune the engine noise. Most likely to quieten it down/ stop a certain frequency or boom.
It has no performance benefit.
-
Why not start the discussion on the forum you got the link from? Many tests have been performed on that setup. No one on here would have been that in depth i can bet. You probably wouldn't be able to exploit any benefits without using standalone management anyway.
Removing ramps will cause jerkyness due to the map needing to be modified to suit.
-
Interesting read.
-
Interesting read.
Indeed it is mate, It'd be good to see some further testing and ideas on intake mods as it's something that potentially i could tackle myself.
-
Me too, especially shorter runners are it's an easy to do upgrade, no welding required.
-
The chap whose idea it was and myself are planning to test this final system, back to back on one of my correlation vehicles to see if there are any improvements, without and with adjusting the engine cal.
The vehicle that will be used is a MK2 Golf w/OEM Digifant 3.2 ABF unit. This car tends to test stable baseline at 150-154 bhp@6200ish rpm and ~144lbft@4600rpm.
-
Would this only really be suitable for a standalone ECU set up or applicable to a OEM / chipped ECU to run without issues?
-
Me too, especially shorter runners are it's an easy to do upgrade, no welding required.
As in just silicone hosing the two pieces back together?
-
That was how the prototype was done with good results.
-
Would this only really be suitable for a standalone ECU set up or applicable to a OEM / chipped ECU to run without issues?
Because this modification tends to increase cylinder filling for a given throttle opening and engine speed, your combustion will need optimising. On factory OE systems and WOT, the engine tends to over fuel at 4600rpm and fuel mixture can be as rich as a 10:8. The extra air this mod can deliver at those engine speeds, can enlean the mixture towards max torque lambda thus potentially leading to a drive torque improvement. Of course improved AFR is not the only input all that would enhance combustion, as the time to complete/initiate is pretty critical.
You can use any SEM or the factory ECU to deliver a more matched engine calibration. With the work that was done here, we used a megasquirt system, that was built, which then aided with rapid calibration/hardware development. Now that data is known on the hardware it would not be difficult to deliver a digifant calibration similar in philosophy to what was delivered on the megasquirt system.
-
Me too, especially shorter runners are it's an easy to do upgrade, no welding required.
As in just silicone hosing the two pieces back together?
The silicone hose was used to adjust the running length until the best torque was achieved via calibration.
Next was the development of the enlarged plenum, again with calibration. The final prototype was welded up and is in use to this day as shown in the illustration below
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v308/iliketherain/2012-05-05165630.jpg)
-
There was a shorter runner manifold for sale. Don't know if it's gone though
clicky (http://www.clubgti.com/showthread.php?257210-2-0-16v-Intake-Parts&p=2232350&viewfull=1#post2232350)
-
Thanks to everyone for putting in the time to provide such detailed and relevant information
Seems like the key to doing these mods is to get the engine management right, Wolf R - is it likely a Digifant chip could be made to suit? If you were able to I'd be very interested in it.
-
I would be intrested in seeing how easy it would be to get this running right with the modded intake, as I have a spare manifold and I can tig weld ally :cool:
-
Thanks to everyone for putting in the time to provide such detailed and relevant information
Seems like the key to doing these mods is to get the engine management right, Wolf R - is it likely a Digifant chip could be made to suit? If you were able to I'd be very interested in it.
Yes it can. I would like to complete the experiment first. Once the data is robust, then it can be repeated on another vehicle with confidence.