thanks

 

an engine is only as good as it is put together and all its supporting hardware

 

That car also had all 6 ports bridged. So the runner problems I mentioned time and time again were not an issue.

 

the man is a genious what can i say

 

correct, if you watch the video the car braps away at idle. I have seen just aux-bridged motors that do not idle like that car did in the video

 

i couldnt edit my post from above because my mind to so damn slow.



I dont believe that the white FC that ito built had stock exhaust, considering that the thing idled so damn loud. Possibly a straight pipe/cat bypass setup.



I really like this thread, it has answered quite a few questions about the intake harmonics and flow dynamics of the FC that i have had in the back of my mind.

 

With a stock port motor, my true duals were barely louder than stock. Fast forward to my aux bridge motor. Same exhaust. My car was as loud at redline as my friends stock port S4 with RB headers, custom collector, and straight pipes. NO mufflers at all. Porting makes a huge difference in sound level.

 

i saw the car with my OWN EYES. it had two precats and a main cat!

 

gutted?

 

Well, personally I don't think these questions are answered yet...





Obviously, if you have individual runners for each intake port into the engine that shared a different port timing you would see gains, however my 6-port motor does not have the sleves or any other associated 6-port crap on it, these two runners combine a few inches from the engine, effectivly making them completly combined (WRT reversion anyway).



Now my car with these sleves gone did not loose much (IF ANY!) low end torque at all, however picked up alot in the mid/high RPMS compared to what it was like stock.



and the port timing is radically different between the Secondary and the aux ports. reversion(assuming there is some) does NOT seem to have an adverse effect on the motor at all.



ANYWAY, this is all a mute point to what i was getting at since, everyone with a sane mind will agree that if you made each inlet runner tunned length to the port timing of its respective port you will net more power.

However! what I was talking about was doing a bridge port on the scondary 'runner' if you will and not cutting into the aux port 'runner'. and possibly doing another small bridge on the aux port 'runner' but not interfering with the secondary one, after doing a little bit of measuring I think I could get this to work. Of course the aux port bridge if I did it would not extend far up since I don't want much, if any longer port duration.



Since it will be a turbo motor intake runner velocity is not as important either, smooth flow obviously is still though.

However, my fluid dynamics knowledge because rather hazey when it comes to fully turbulant gas flow so i'm probably wrong.