Honda / Acura K20a K24a Engine Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
586 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I'm currently in the process of designing a set of Independent throttle bodies to have machined. Before I actually finalize the design though, I just want to check up on a couple points.
First off: Does the angle of the throttle bodies actually matter for performance? Will ITB's angled downward perform any differently than ones that could be just 90 degrees from the block?
Second: Does the shape of the intake port (where it mates with the head) actually matter that much? Or should I just design it to exactly match the size and shape of the ports in the head?
and Third: Would it make a difference to have the butterfly valves running horizontally across the throttle bodies versus vertically in them?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,965 Posts
This is one section,the other could be the Advance engine design section.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,294,967,294 Posts
The first things I would ask, are:
-What are you trying to design differently that is not offered in the current selection of aftermarket ITB offerings?
-What are your performance goals? Response, or power? Is this only for your particular build, or will this be used on multiple engines of varying output/performance demands?

The ITB should be an extension of the port. From the perspective of the air, it should not know that there is a difference in the transition from the ITB to the port. The less you make the air change direction, the better.

Plate orientation will play a role in this. Vertical plates will have the air tumbling to the sides, whereas horizontal plates will have the air moving to the roof or floor. This is perspective based. Air knows no orientation. It is best to think of it as air 'falling' down, to the port/valve.

Plate proximity will determine responsiveness. The closer it is, the better the response, but the poorer the air quality as it reaches the valve. Something to consider.

You should use some different software to experiment with prior to paying for materials or tooling. It will save you money in the long run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
586 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
The first things I would ask, are:
-What are you trying to design differently that is not offered in the current selection of aftermarket ITB offerings?
-What are your performance goals? Response, or power? Is this only for your particular build, or will this be used on multiple engines of varying output/performance demands?

The ITB should be an extension of the port. From the perspective of the air, it should not know that there is a difference in the transition from the ITB to the port. The less you make the air change direction, the better.

Plate orientation will play a role in this. Vertical plates will have the air tumbling to the sides, whereas horizontal plates will have the air moving to the roof or floor. This is perspective based. Air knows no orientation. It is best to think of it as air 'falling' down, to the port/valve.

Plate proximity will determine responsiveness. The closer it is, the better the response, but the poorer the air quality as it reaches the valve. Something to consider.

You should use some different software to experiment with prior to paying for materials or tooling. It will save you money in the long run.
Thank you. I'm using solidworks (well a version of solidworks) to design the throttle bodies themselves. The reason why I wanted to make my own set was because I saw some deficiencies in the current selection that I thought I could work on and improve. The plan is to have adjustable runner length incorporated into the design so the consumer (in this case myself as it is a prototype) can adjust for low end torque/high end power. I might just have my head ported to about as big as it can go and then just build the ITB ports to match that. Sound reasonable?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,294,967,294 Posts
Basics of the engine are dictated by fuel/flow properties, and if you have a target output, that is easy to work with.

I would advise leaving the head stock. It keeps the testing consistent, and if you plan to sell in the future, it makes for much easier marketing using data that people can correlate with.

The factory heads can flow a lot, and the volume is more than enough for 90% of 'performance' builds.

Using a software for flow properties, like pipemax, the lotus offering, or from blaire, would be a lot more suitable than a 3D design suite. Ve and differentials over time are what you should be using for your design criteria. You are starting in the middle with Solidworks. You will not know how to work backward/forward based on your results if you do not experiment with the flow sims.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
586 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Basics of the engine are dictated by fuel/flow properties, and if you have a target output, that is easy to work with.

I would advise leaving the head stock. It keeps the testing consistent, and if you plan to sell in the future, it makes for much easier marketing using data that people can correlate with.

The factory heads can flow a lot, and the volume is more than enough for 90% of 'performance' builds.

Using a software for flow properties, like pipemax, the lotus offering, or from blaire, would be a lot more suitable than a 3D design suite. Ve and differentials over time are what you should be using for your design criteria. You are starting in the middle with Solidworks. You will not know how to work backward/forward based on your results if you do not experiment with the flow sims.
I actually hadn't even considered this approach to it. I was going to use a flow bench to test it and machine a little here and there to improve it. Using a flow simulation software thought, now that is a good idea. Thank you Sir, I will definitely use that Idea :up:
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top