08-01-2013, 01:50 PM
(07-01-2013, 10:51 PM)Ruan Wrote: I fail to believe that Peugeot spent millions on designing an air intake system for a 90HP Turbo Diesel engine... They will have discovered that at low power, there's no need for a high performance air intake system... They were not worrying about whether the ram air effect is good enough at 70mph on a 90hp engine, when the same engine was producing 110hp on the same inlet, we know the inlet is good at 150hp, but I severely doubt it's good much past that...
Sure you can make more power than that, but you're going to be compromising turbocharger life, the amount of vacuum placed on the compressor will be silly..
They would have said make the air intake system as compact as possible as long as it does it's job at 110hp...
The 136HDi's inlet system is much better...
All this without a single experimental test.
You should go work for BMW making engines. You can just look at parts box diagram and decide how good it is
I appreciate what you are saying, but if you are not even willing to do a simple test to prove the concept then you may as well just burn your money.
No one has proved anything yet with regards to this poor pipe. They just look at it and give it a hard time for not looking flash.
Has anyone considered that the constantly reducing cross-section is probably the most important factor up to the compressor inlet?
That the cross-section although changing in shape does it smoothly?
Has anyone calculated the throat diameter change and determined the efficiency curve for flowing air at different speeds and mass?
Ie, will going too big cause it to be less efficient?
Will going big be good for peak power but cause poor response at low demand?
If engineering really were as simple as saying 2" and make it smooth for 200bhp, 3" and make it smooth for 300bhp, then life would be nice... but it's not that easy I don't think
Dave
