Re: Flat 4 engine intakes

"John_H" <john4721@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ejdiv397kk76la64qp3dohtj301cv8h3rr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Jason James wrote:
> >
> >Now we have the Suby, which the earlier motors were pretty tame, but
then
> >came the turbo models. Is it true to say, that these engines need more
boost
> >to get the 160 odd kws, compared to an inline engine?
>
> Without doing the sums I'd suggest that the specific torque figure for
> a WRX (Nm/litre/At) would be directly comparable with any other
> cylinder configuration.  Therefore its power output will also be
> comparable.
>
> In any case... what relevance does the length of the intake tract have
> in a forced induction engine?
>
> Nor is there any reason why they couldn't be set up to produce buckets
> of low down torque other than the fact they'd probably break something
> behind the engine....  Especially since a four cylinder engine puts
> exactly the same loadings on its transmission components as does an
> eight cylinder producing half the torque!

I like the physics of an engine. A few years ago, someone posted a site
showing a Plymouth or Dodge V8 donk with 2 twin-barrel carbs mounted on
opposite sides of the valley, with long intake pipes crossing over. It
looked impressive, but I think Noddy gave the opinion, that such a set-up
would be very peaky, presumabley related to the length vs diameter of the
runners. Now I think everyone has seen a beetle engine with a single
barrel
carb mounted high on top of the engine with extraordinary long intake
runners. Those cars were very difficult to stall (no doubt a function of
other variables as well). I've always wondered if the Suby flat 4 has
similar characteristics? I thin the WREX runs 1.3bar? If correct that's
pretty high?

Jason