Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
914World.com _ 914World Garage _ New intake system
Posted by: Henshe Feb 7 2016, 12:32 PM
Mario, of the dub shop (thedubshop.net) fabed up an awesome intake for the 914. It looks great and now I can even hear the Tangerine Racing exhaust over the itb's. 
Posted by: McMark Feb 7 2016, 12:47 PM
Throw that cross bar linkage in the trash ASAP.
Posted by: jmill Feb 7 2016, 01:29 PM
Very nice. Now you can turbo it!
Posted by: rhodyguy Feb 7 2016, 04:12 PM
How is the front of the tubing, near the filter, supported?
Posted by: Mark Henry Feb 7 2016, 06:09 PM
Looks to me like CB Performance turbo system plumbing with a little type 4 tweaking.
Posted by: r_towle Feb 7 2016, 06:51 PM
Interesting, seems the cooling fan and the intake are competing for air
Posted by: Mark Henry Feb 7 2016, 08:16 PM
Interesting, seems the cooling fan and the intake are competing for air
I'd say that isn't an issue, the logic behind it is the assumption you are getting cooler intake air. Plus if I'm correct about the CB parts then that's where it would come out.
Posted by: Series9 Feb 7 2016, 08:19 PM
I think we have a new entry for "Top 10 Pointless Modifications of All Time"
Nice welds, though.
The pressure-side turbo hose clamps on an NA intake really set it off....
Hold on, while I light another cigar with a $100 bill.
Posted by: 02loftsmoor Feb 7 2016, 08:31 PM
Throw that cross bar linkage in the trash ASAP.
What do you suggest ?
Posted by: McMark Feb 7 2016, 08:50 PM
CSP Bellcrank
Posted by: porschetub Feb 7 2016, 08:58 PM
Interesting, seems the cooling fan and the intake are competing for air
You are kidding right? should make no difference.
Personally it really isn't that clever,looks expensive for little result,i think a simple tee off the connection would do it and a larger pod filter,this has been done before by a european company to better effect...not new.
Posted by: URY914 Feb 7 2016, 09:57 PM
So what is so special about it? What does it do different? 
Posted by: Andyrew Feb 7 2016, 10:08 PM
I think we have a new entry for "Top 10 Pointless Modifications of All Time"
Nice welds, though.
The pressure-side turbo hose clamps on an NA intake really set it off....
Hold on, while I light another cigar with a $100 bill.
I agree... Great looking piece of kit, but absolutely worthless for HP gain unless you plan on putting a turbo on this motor some point in the future and running those carbs...
Posted by: wndsrfr Feb 7 2016, 10:11 PM
So what is so special about it? What does it do different?
Cuts the induction noise like he said........depends on what you like & how you like it. My 2316 has a lot of induction noise--part of the reason that I love it so...YMMV.
Posted by: boxsterfan Feb 7 2016, 10:53 PM
Reminds me of: http://www.osintakes.com/
Posted by: Mueller Feb 7 2016, 11:06 PM
Nice, I wouldn't expect any performance gains but it looks decent and it should cut down on the noise.
Ignore the naysayers, everyone here has spent money on something for looks or just because they wanted it.
Posted by: Mark Henry Feb 7 2016, 11:57 PM
I'd actually like to see something very similar, except with a single Ford mustang 70-75mm TB. Of course that would need a 2270cc
I just would like to know what the performance difference would be over ITB's. 
Posted by: Jake Raby Feb 8 2016, 09:48 AM
The last time I did a comparative on a similar set up (with an even larger tubing ID) the engine lost 11HP and almost 20# of torque.
Posted by: Mueller Feb 8 2016, 10:09 AM
The last time I did a comparative on a similar set up (with an even larger tubing ID) the engine lost 11HP and almost 20# of torque.
Air cleaner setup like posted or throttle body placement like Mark mentioned?
Posted by: Jake Raby Feb 8 2016, 10:12 AM
The last time I did a comparative on a similar set up (with an even larger tubing ID) the engine lost 11HP and almost 20# of torque.
Air cleaner setup like posted or throttle body placement like Mark mentioned?
Almost exactly like this. The approach path of the air into the carbs favors one cylinder more than the other, among other issues.
Posted by: rhodyguy Feb 8 2016, 10:16 AM
Nuff said. Thanks jake.
Posted by: Elliot Cannon Feb 8 2016, 12:21 PM
Nice, clean installation but seems to be a solution in search of a problem. IMHO. Normally, I would not disagree with Mark, however don't throw away the cross bar linkage. It can be modified easily. There was a thread on how to do this some years ago but I can't find it. I did mine and there is absolutely NO play in the linkage. Here's mine.
Attached image(s)
Posted by: Mark Henry Feb 8 2016, 02:41 PM
Nice, clean installation but seems to be a solution in search of a problem. IMHO. Normally, I would not disagree with Mark, however don't throw away the cross bar linkage. It can be modified easily. There was a thread on how to do this some years ago but I can't find it. I did mine and there is absolutely NO play in the linkage. Here's mine.
Hate to tell you this, but I don't like your linkage.
For one in this pic the angle of the connecting arm puts a large thrust (side) load on the carb, it will cause premature wear.
A crossbar linkage can be done, but I rarely see one I feel is acceptable. Except for the Gene Berg for a type 1, I've never seen a good crossbar set-up out of the box.
Posted by: 02loftsmoor Feb 8 2016, 04:42 PM
CSP Bellcrank
looks better that the cross bar for sure. I just can't bring myself to buy a $300+ Tangerine throttle linkage. looking for alternatives
Posted by: Harpo Feb 8 2016, 04:54 PM
What about the CSP linkage? It seems like McMark might have had a group buy. Very nice set up IMHO
David
Posted by: r_towle Feb 8 2016, 05:02 PM
Nice, clean installation but seems to be a solution in search of a problem. IMHO. Normally, I would not disagree with Mark, however don't throw away the cross bar linkage. It can be modified easily. There was a thread on how to do this some years ago but I can't find it. I did mine and there is absolutely NO play in the linkage. Here's mine.
Hate to tell you this, but I don't like your linkage.
For one in this pic the angle of the connecting arm puts a large thrust (side) load on the carb, it will cause premature wear.
A crossbar linkage can be done, but I rarely see one I feel is acceptable. Except for the Gene Berg for a type 1, I've never seen a good crossbar set-up out of the box.
Yah,
I don't like your linkage either.....not that I have personally seen your linkage.
Also, why is it all red in there? Did you run out of black pain?
The big issue I had with any cross bar linkage is the engine expands when it gets hot.
I measured mine and it was not trivial.
That expansion is not accounted for in a cross bar linkage, th cross bar just gets loose.
I ended up with Foleys cable system and it really is a one shot deal, set it and forget it.
Posted by: 02loftsmoor Feb 8 2016, 05:10 PM
Nice, clean installation but seems to be a solution in search of a problem. IMHO. Normally, I would not disagree with Mark, however don't throw away the cross bar linkage. It can be modified easily. There was a thread on how to do this some years ago but I can't find it. I did mine and there is absolutely NO play in the linkage. Here's mine.
Hate to tell you this, but I don't like your linkage.
For one in this pic the angle of the connecting arm puts a large thrust (side) load on the carb, it will cause premature wear.
A crossbar linkage can be done, but I rarely see one I feel is acceptable. Except for the Gene Berg for a type 1, I've never seen a good crossbar set-up out of the box.
Yah,
I don't like your linkage either.....not that I have personally seen your linkage.
Also, why is it all red in there? Did you run out of black pain?
The big issue I had with any cross bar linkage is the engine expands when it gets hot.
I measured mine and it was not trivial.
That expansion is not accounted for in a cross bar linkage, th cross bar just gets loose.
I ended up with Foleys cable system and it really is a one shot deal, set it and forget it.
tell me of the Foleys cable system
Posted by: Elliot Cannon Feb 8 2016, 07:57 PM
My linkage has been like this for over 10 years. Never had a problem with carb wear. I had lots of red paint laying around. Engine expansion?? The cross bar is threaded on each end, the bolts (some use shoulder bolts) are screwed into the end of the cross bar and fit snugly in the heim joints but can slide slightly. Never had a problem with expansion. The linkage is adjusted so both carbs reach WOT at the same time and at the same rate. I can see where it can be easy to criticize this set up just from the way it looks. I have threatened to change it many times but if it works (and it does) why change it? 
Besides it was pretty cheap to do which in my case was the motivating factor. 
Posted by: BeatNavy Feb 8 2016, 08:11 PM
Reminds me of: http://www.osintakes.com/
This made me laugh. How did this not catch fire???
It was brilliant!Original thread: http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=230686&hl=OS+Intakes
Posted by: Series9 Feb 8 2016, 08:29 PM
Trust me, if you take a little time to set up a CB linkage, it's more than adequate for your 120hp push-rod H4.
Posted by: Eric_Shea Feb 8 2016, 10:57 PM
Perfect thread for "how to learn never to post anything on 914World". 
Posted by: McMark Feb 8 2016, 11:26 PM
Trust me, if you take a little time to set up a CB linkage, it's more than adequate for your 120hp push-rod H4.
And then keep setting it every couple months. And then buy a new one in a couple years when it wears out.
Posted by: 396 Feb 8 2016, 11:58 PM
This is another interesting tread, you gotta give the Dub House credit for attempting to create a better mouse traps.
Ps, you should see my kill swith cable in front of the windshield. .. it looks like a 10 year old configured it. Ya, I have other toys that I pay top $ to have work performed on them, but then that's me.
Posted by: Elliot Cannon Feb 9 2016, 01:34 AM
Here's the thread I followed to improve my linkage. http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=91831&hl=
Posted by: matthepcat Feb 9 2016, 02:21 AM
Kinda seems like an intake for forced induction.
Posted by: edwin Feb 9 2016, 07:24 AM
Looks like one of my weekend projects from early last year.
My mate has a dyno and we were playing around with noise and trying to tame a shitty map signal.
Ended up going Tps for the ecu anyway so I took it off again.
Attached thumbnail(s)
Posted by: wndsrfr Feb 9 2016, 07:38 AM
Ended up going Tps for the ecu anyway so I took it off again.
Going OT...what ecu are you using....I'm on SDS & could never get a good mps with the 2316 on itb's so have been on tps & it's fine. Uses closed loop for cruising, & seeks 14.1 afr nicely.
Posted by: rhodyguy Feb 9 2016, 07:59 AM
The shouldered bolts Elliot mentioned eliminate the spring loaded ends the CB units come with. Bolts like the original Wietmister? and the one Triad used to offer. You set the end play when the engine is hot and the bolts/jam nuts lock it in place. Very effective. I wish I had never gotten rid of the Triad linkage I used to have.
Posted by: McMark Feb 9 2016, 08:01 AM
Ended up going Tps for the ecu anyway so I took it off again.
Going OT...what ecu are you using....I'm on SDS & could never get a good mps with the 2316 on itb's so have been on tps & it's fine. Uses closed loop for cruising, & seeks 14.1 afr nicely.
That because of the ITB, not the ECU.
Posted by: Series9 Feb 9 2016, 08:06 AM
How about:
Loose the ITBs, attach the intake directly to the manifolds, and source a single throttle body from a 3.2 (or similar).
Then, it's a mod with a purpose and there's no more linkage debate.
Posted by: edwin Feb 9 2016, 08:17 AM
Ended up going Tps for the ecu anyway so I took it off again.
Going OT...what ecu are you using....I'm on SDS & could never get a good mps with the 2316 on itb's so have been on tps & it's fine. Uses closed loop for cruising, & seeks 14.1 afr nicely.
I agree with McMark about it being the ITB that are the problem not the ecu.
I use a Haltech Sprint 500 in the 914 and also my daily driven Saab. Great bang for buck?
I only ever did this as a temp solution.
The next phase is a bit more in depth but will take a little while.
Posted by: Darren C Feb 9 2016, 08:17 AM
Interesting centre linkage you have there Edwin.
If the crank arms are at 45 degrees like standard twin carbs, you have your centre twin arm crank set up incorrectly.
http://s265.photobucket.com/user/DarrenLCollins/media/DSCI0384_zpsdzmbnnvy.jpg.html
I see this quite a lot, even with the dreadful cross bar linkages. Throttle cable movement when transmitted through a crank unless set right will give you an exponential throttle opening.
Hopefully my sketch shows what I mean. since the main crank point (where the throttle arms attach, scribe an arc; once they pass over the crest of any arc lateral movement is compromised by side movement, giving a disproportionate throttle opening in comparison to gas pedal depression).
Perfect proportional throttle is achieved if the centre main pivot has arms the same length as the carbs or throttle bodies; and the throttle cable bell crank arm length is calculated at a 90 degree rotational pull arc, based on linear cable pull.
Posted by: Racer Chris Feb 9 2016, 10:33 AM
...
Throttle cable movement when transmitted through a crank unless set right will give you an exponential throttle opening.
...
A cable wrapped around a pulley has linear throttle response. Just sayin'
Posted by: DBCooper Feb 9 2016, 10:54 AM
Probably not, Chris, the coefficient of flow over a butterfly valve to its angle of opening isn't linear. Means it doesn't matter how you open the butterfly, throttle response isn't going to be linear.
Posted by: 396 Feb 9 2016, 10:56 AM
...
Throttle cable movement when transmitted through a crank unless set right will give you an exponential throttle opening.
...
A cable wrapped around a pulley has linear throttle response. Just sayin'
Chris,
Very logical, takes me back to my physics days.
You Da Man.
Posted by: Darren C Feb 9 2016, 11:00 AM
...
Throttle cable movement when transmitted through a crank unless set right will give you an exponential throttle opening.
...
A cable wrapped around a pulley has linear throttle response. Just sayin'
I never mentioned a pulley, you're correct but in an unrelated way to the original meaning, as Cooper says and my observation of Edwin's photograph.
Posted by: rgolia Feb 9 2016, 11:19 AM
How about one of these? A little pricey but do they work?
Posted by: rhodyguy Feb 9 2016, 11:24 AM
A "little pricy"? 
dual paper filters and rain hats work great.
Posted by: Mark Henry Feb 9 2016, 12:13 PM
How about:
Loose the ITBs, attach the intake directly to the manifolds, and source a single throttle body from a 3.2 (or similar).
Then, it's a mod with a purpose and there's no more linkage debate.
I'd actually like to see something very similar, except with a single Ford mustang 70-75mm TB. Of course that would need a 2270cc
I just would like to know what the performance difference would be over ITB's.
The last time I did a comparative on a similar set up (with an even larger tubing ID) the engine lost 11HP and almost 20# of torque.
Air cleaner setup like posted or throttle body placement like Mark mentioned?
Almost exactly like this. The approach path of the air into the carbs favors one cylinder more than the other, among other issues.
Ended up going Tps for the ecu anyway so I took it off again.
Going OT...what ecu are you using....I'm on SDS & could never get a good mps with the 2316 on itb's so have been on tps & it's fine. Uses closed loop for cruising, & seeks 14.1 afr nicely.
That because of the ITB, not the ECU.
Basically that was my question in part because of MPS signal issues and the intake noise.
In my case at a ballpark 180hp, losing 10hp in a street car wouldn't be that big of a deal.
This is in my bug I will be also looking at my A1 exhaust to see if I can quiet it down a bit. I guess I'm getting old.
Posted by: Series9 Feb 9 2016, 01:48 PM
MAP sensor signal is a definite problem with ITBs. With a /6, you can smooth it out with a vacuum manifold that attaches to all six TBs. With a /4, you really can't. You have to perform "blending" in the programming of the ECU.
Doing a single TB and loosing the ITBs would likely solve that problem.
Posted by: r_towle Feb 9 2016, 01:49 PM
How about one of these? A little pricey but do they work?
I happen to love that setup and will eventually suck it up and buy it.
In Germany there are very strict noise pollution laws.
Imagine living near the autobahn, and in many villages they are quite close to it.
Cars going over 100 MPH make quite a bit of noise, especially late at night when there is nothing else making noise...and a howling car goes by.
That system from CSP really does help reduce the noise, and I believe it uses a fairly easy to obtain paper air filter...
Rich
Posted by: Series9 Feb 9 2016, 02:09 PM
That's cool, but the MAP sensor problem will only be fully solved by putting the whole arrangement under vacuum, behind a single throttle body.
Posted by: sixnotfour Feb 9 2016, 02:22 PM
WOW, I have never seen a thread go more sideways, without anyone really looking at what he has.....
what ever !!Posted by: Mark Henry Feb 9 2016, 02:51 PM
WOW, I have never seen a thread go more sideways, without anyone really looking at what he has.....
what ever !!I might be the one to make it start going sideways, But I and many others in this thread know exactly what he has.
Megasquirt with crankfire ignition, CB Performance TB's and induction parts. Cool, but pretty standard fare now.
That said the OP was referring to the intake, right?
Posted by: Series9 Feb 9 2016, 02:59 PM
The "sideways component" of this thread has been the linkage conversation. Everything else has been germane.
Posted by: sixnotfour Feb 9 2016, 06:16 PM
I don't know either person on this post , maybe his terms were generic....what I take from this is he is happy with how it runs and is quiet (ITBs) to hear his exhaust, sounds to me like a happy guy...
He didn't ask for your approval...my bad...
Posted by: Steve Pratel Feb 10 2016, 05:39 PM
How about one of these? A little pricey but do they work?
Saving my pennies for someday.....
Back a few posts someone mentioned throwing away the CB arm linkage, and the resulting Q was asked "what do you suggest"
CFR has a throttle cable linkage that works great, is simple, easy to install, and looks great. HIGHLY recommend it..... Worth every $$.
Posted by: rgolia Feb 10 2016, 05:47 PM
Does anyone know what unit from CSP is best for a 2 liter?
Posted by: trojanhorsepower Feb 10 2016, 05:53 PM
Perfect thread for "how to learn never to post anything on 914World".
Amen brother! Nothing like a little common courtesy to make a person feel welcome. Oh wait, this is the opposite of that....
Posted by: wndsrfr Feb 12 2016, 06:50 AM
How about:
Loose the ITBs, attach the intake directly to the manifolds, and source a single throttle body from a 3.2 (or similar).
Then, it's a mod with a purpose and there's no more linkage debate.
Yep...that would give you a good mp signal, smooth throttle at normal cruising and have plenty of flow at w.o.t. and quiet it down nicely....
Posted by: nathansnathan Feb 12 2016, 05:38 PM
I've been working on something similar, I got the blowthrough boxes and the filter from pacific customs, ump brand. I just got the tubing to connect it all from spectre performance. My goal is to reduce intake drone.
I'm planning on using a scat linkage probably, as the tangerine pulley linkage pictured isn't going to fit with shorter csp manifolds which are port matched.
Posted by: Racer Chris Feb 13 2016, 07:38 AM
I'm planning on using a scat linkage probably, as the tangerine pulley linkage pictured isn't going to fit with shorter csp manifolds which are port matched.
My recent revisions might provide the cable clearance to the tin & plug wires that you need.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)