*UPDATE*
SOUND CLIP : http://download.yousendit.com/A0234BF96F6C9D93
Recorded using my mobile phone, windows up.
Well, couple of us guys set down in the office, and discussed over the RBC Manifold testing being performed on the Euro...
NOTE: All tests were done in 4th gear (Closest Ratio to 1) with a real World ramp rate of 5km/h. Average ramp time was 27 seconds with ambient temp around 30 degress +
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DYNOGRAPH 1
In dynograph1, the comparison is the baseline RBC manifold and RBB manifold only. The secondary y-axis is in MAP (Manifold absoulte pressure). As part of the induction system, this test was logged to evaluate the respective manifolds ability to provide air to the cylinder head. The graph shows that the RBC manifold maintains more vacuum in the plenum chamber than when compared to the RBB manifold. This difference although small, reduces over the rev band and indicates that a larger intake aperture and/or plenum chamber would improve air quantity to the cylinder head for both manifolds. If higher performing cams were to be installed, cylinder head porting etc, it would most probably increase the vacuum in the plenum chamber in both RBC and RBB manifolds.
A log of the factory MAP sensor mounted on the intake manifold was also taken. It shows a start voltage of 2.96v falling to 2.89v at the end of the run. Throttle position was also logged and it showed that the butterfly remained open full-throttle throughout the run at 4.74v +/- 0.02v. Injector duty was also logged and reflected the cars ability to support more horsepower without issue.
A further note is that this shows also that a longer intake upstream of the throttle body will not help as the system static pressure will increase, thus reducing the total air quantity for combustion. Will confirm how the MAP is affected by this on the road at a later date.
The other item is the power band comparison between the RBC and RBB manifolds across the rev band. The power and torque difference up to 4000rpm is pretty much the same which is a little unexpected, however, it clearly shows that the RBB's longer intake runners produce better torque from around 4000rpm to 5500rpm. From around 6200rpm, the RBC manifold is by far superior with its shorter runners. Note that acceleration enrichment and engaging a different gear may alter the results, this will be tested next.
DYNOGRAPH 2
Dynograph3, has the A/F (Air/Fuel) ratio in the secondary y-axis, note that this is taken from the exhaust tailpipe. This partially explains why the RBB and RBC manifolds produce similar power up to the 4000rpm region. The leaner A/F ratios of the RBC manifold contribute to better torque as it is closer to the stoichiometric ideal 14.7:1 (approx). Between the 4000rpm and 5500rpm the RBB manifold shows more complete combustion as anticipated. Finally, from 6200rpm the mixtures start to lean off to around A/F 11.75:1 thus supporting the power advantage of the RBC manifold in that range.
DYNOGRAPH 3
Dynograph 4, is the comparison of the RBC manifold alone, and the other with A/F correction and ignition control using the PROTOTYPE interceptor ECU. Obviously showing a gain throughout the rev band after tuning. Not much but still significant at 133.6Kws
More testing to come in conjunction with more parts that have already been ordered and in transit.
HAPPY READING!
More to come
Originally Posted by EuroAccord13
im sooo lazy
Bookmarks