SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> kamikaze intake not so divine
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1261189065

Message started by BurnPgh on 12/18/09 at 18:17:44

Title: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by BurnPgh on 12/18/09 at 18:17:44

Needing to tinker, and looking to match a performance intake design with my soon to be performance exhaust and other mods I decided to try my hand at Diamond Jims kamikaze design. I opted to combine OFs filter design with DJs design. I found a container at the local dollar store which fit perfectly into the intake tube and has a screw on cap. First I went ahead and incorporated the "turbulator" into the design. Doing so left about 2in from the top of the containers screwed on lid to the top of the honeycombed straws. I cut out the middle of the containters cap and left a lip in the lid to fix a screen so the poly batting wouldnt bulge out.
Test 1 - With the batting just crammed between the turbulator and screen It was far too restrictive and I couldnt get past 1/4 throttle without very serious bogging down. Verge of stall type bogging. And an immense smell of unbunrt gas.
Test 2 - Reduced the filter material by about half. Still resting on the straws behind the screen. A marked improvement over the first test but still restrictive at half throttle. Bogging was less pronounced but still serious enough to limit my travel to around the neighborhood.
Test 3 - I wasn't sure if the material was too restrictive or if i was just running super lean so I ditched the filter material all together. It ran well with no bogging or surging but was noticeably lean (lack of power). My conclusion was that the problem lay in the filter material resting against the turbulator.
Test 4 - I fixed a second screen inside the container i used allowing the filter material to be lightly compressed. 2in of fluffy batting compressed into 1in with another 3/4-1in open space from the batting to the turbulator. Ran very well but still serious bogging at about 2/3-3/4 throttle. It was more massive bog followed by a massive surge of power. Felt like I was running out of gas as soon as i hit the main circuit. From idle to 3/4 there was a noted increase in throttle response and "get up and go" I tried this same set up with varying amount of batting as filter material with no serious improvement.

I also tried fixing both screens in the lid so as to compress the filter material into a thin sheet but I couldnt get the lid to thread on. I will continue tinkering to see if that can be managed. But for now this paragraph is somewhat irrelevent.

At this point I don't know if it's working well and my main is too lean for this set up or if the filter becomes too restrictive at higher revs. Thoughts? Opinions?

For the sake of simplicity and to have a real ride in the last hour or so of pre freezing cold I opted to (for now) throw the airbox back in. I did retain the turbulator and can attest that even with a stock filter and airbox setup the turbulator shows a notable though not necessarily glorious increase in general throttle response. Just FYI.

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by Serowbot on 12/18/09 at 18:27:04

If you want good breathing and good filtration,... you need surface area...
If you're going small for cosmetic reasons,... it will require a compromise....

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by BurnPgh on 12/18/09 at 18:57:30

Not cosmetic so much as the restricted area under the seat what with wires going every which way and relocating the black box under the seat. I had intended to add a simple k&n cone eventually anyway. I just wanted to tinker and see what I could do before i payed for a filter. Anyway...I geuss the surface area is the reason DJ went with the pink dome filter design initially. Geuss I ought to go ahead and get the cone then?

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by Gort on 12/18/09 at 19:19:22

BP, mine runs fine with just a cone. Plenty of power, no problems, starts right up. Experimentation with imaginative designs is fun, but without dyno tests that you can trust, done by experienced technicians, you can't be sure if the experiment is an improvement unless its dramatic. This has been stated in many articles over the years. This is because of all the variables encountered in a amateur street test: varying road conditions, barometric differences from one day to the next, variations in engine temps from one test to the next, differences in the way the rider operates the bike from one test to the next, variations in accelerations, and most importantly, the prejudice of the rider who designed the improvement. Because of all these and more factors, you can't be sure that any slight improvement is the result of the new design without proper testing.

If I recall correctly, DJ took the bike to a dyno and it showed dramatic improvement in HP, which was contested by others who were suspect of the figures and person who ran the dyno. I could be wrong about this, but I remember something like that was in the thread.

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by BurnPgh on 12/18/09 at 19:46:48

the thing about dyno testing is 1 - No money 2 - Every time someone here does one and posts the results the results are always disputed anyway and the operators credentials called into question. Without being biased toward my design...mostly because it isnt my design, I definately notice considerable differences even just using the turbulator with an otherwise stock intake set up. As I said the difference is noticable but less than glorious (ie - im not going to the drag strip anytime soon). Im fairly satisfied with the results Ive accomplished in my experimenting. My only concern now is why am i bogging down on the main circuit as the improvement on the low end was considerable (again, not hitting the drag strip, but while im shifting into 2nd at 20-25mph with stock intake I was easily up to 30 and pushing 35 before shifting with the kamikaze and I wasnt trying to gun it any more than i usually do. Acceleration was also markedly improved). So there's 2 options - Filter material is too restrictive for high rpms or its extremely unrestrictive and causing me to be super lean. I know the 155 i have now is still slightly lean in a stock setup (stock minus the essentially baffle-less SE muffler) so Im kind of betting on that. I will continue to experiment. My "feels like im running out of gas" comment serves as an indicator to me. Just looking for second opinions.

Edit - Then again, the fact that it ran well even if noticeably lean without any filter would indicate the filter material being restrictive at higher rpms...hmmm.... :-?

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by Gort on 12/18/09 at 19:53:21

I researched DJ's posts and he did not do a dyno on the experimental intake he made.

I misunderstood you to be complaining about his design not working well, in your post at the beginning of your thread and because of the title you put on the thread. Thats why I commented.

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/19/09 at 00:04:30

If you suspect a super lean condition, couldnt you run it up into that state & hit the kill, pull the plug & know if it was really way lean? Or tell it isnt?

Guess what Im askin is, would it help to look at the plug?
If not, why not. Not a challenge, Im just trying to learn a bit here.

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by bill67 on 12/19/09 at 02:54:54

That turbulator is like putting one size smaller carb on its helps in the low end but you lose on the top end.I tried that back in 1980. On a Moto Guzzi and Harley,with same results with both.

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by BurnPgh on 12/19/09 at 10:33:26

I could do a plug chop but even with no chrome head covers I cant get the plug out without removing the tank so it's a kind of intense road side thing. I could but its easier to just full throttle then back off and see if the mid gives me a kick in the pants. And Theres 6 inches of snow outside right now so im not going anywhere in/on anything.

bill - the turbulator you mentioned in Djs posts was IIRC a "swurl-up" or "vortex" as opposed to the honeycomb Im messing with. Or have you done the honeycomb thing aswell?

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by bill67 on 12/19/09 at 10:45:12

It the same thing. If not whats the difference.

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by BurnPgh on 12/19/09 at 16:04:16

I can only imagine the vortex type products would increase air turbulence. In any case...$1.07 beats $15 any way you slice it.

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by bill67 on 12/19/09 at 16:23:13

Did you ever try the tornado in a car?

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by Gort on 12/19/09 at 17:41:02

Bill that scam was exposed a long time ago. It does absolutely nothing except cost you money. There have been detailed test results published on the "Tornado". Once this fraud was exposed, you started to see these things sitting on discount tables in auto parts stores. As with other frauds, the many people who buy them refuse to admit failed results, and claim they feel a big difference. Thats why controlled testing is necessary:

Here is one of the the tests...Vortex devices reduce gas mileage:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html?page=2

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by bill67 on 12/19/09 at 18:17:13

I had a tornado in my Oldsmobile and my Nissan truck and the magnet on the fuel line,I can testified they don't do any good.

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by BurnPgh on 12/19/09 at 18:43:36

TornadoFuelSaver
Tornadofuelsaver.com, $70
THEY CLAIM: "... an increase in gas mileage--up to 28%!!!" "Dynometer [sic] testing demonstrates an increase of 4-13 horsepower."
BOTTOM LINE: Normally, we want less turbulence in the intake, not more.

I suspected as much. According to DJ the honeycomb acts primarily to reduce turbulence and increase air velocity. I can't say for certain on that score but I can attest that (up to 2/3-3/4 throttle) I got up to speed more quickly and easily with the kamikaze intake and even with the stock intake setup and just the turbulator noticed an increase in throttle response. Supposed to be 40* on thursday. I'll do more experimenting with filter material and pick up a 157 main from the nearest shop (even though I hate the place) and let y'all know what the deal is.

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by jabman on 12/20/09 at 00:18:26

isn't turbulence required to mix the air and fuel for combustion

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by BurnPgh on 12/20/09 at 00:46:10

from what i understand yes...to an extent. Too much turblulence will disrupt the air velocity and create less vacuum in the carb and it will function less efficiently. Increased velocity will increase the pull of fuel in the carb and increase airflow resulting in more air + more fuel = more bang. The DJ turbulator from my limited understanding increases velocity while decreasing the turbulence that would otherwise come with it so relative to eachother only the velocity is increased resulting in the above "bang" result. But I could be entirely wrong. Im really just going by seat of the pants with the stuff im doing. Really I only understand the basics of what Im doing with all of my mods but my limited understanding and positive results from those who've done it before encourage me to proceed and learn along the way. Anyway...hope I helped...If not, someone will come along and shape us both up, Im sure.

PS - I also plan to put a SS screen between the carb and intake manifold. Supposedly the screen will help atomize the fuel. If so that would address the fuel/air mixing issue with the Dj turbulator.

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by diamond jim on 01/18/10 at 22:18:01

BurnPbh, give me a call and see if I can help you figure out where improvements can be made. I never tried mine with the oldfeller technique. Nah, WAY to restrictive for a higher flowing than stock setup.

The turbulator is simply the honeycomb screen that is in the air inlet side for the carb intake boot. The length of the individual tubes of the honeycomb structure should be 7 times the diameter of the tubes. Each honeycomb cell does it's part in straighteneng out the air. The summation of deturbulized air exiting the screen, each running in parallel, doesn't necessarily speed up the air as much as it removes the elements from stocl form that cause turbulence and thus slowing down the air to begin with. That is stage 1.

Every bit as important is Stage 2. The air intake boot. The venturi effect caused by a progressively narrowing of the intake between the turbulator and the mouth of the carb does wonders.

So, step 1 (remove turbulence) and step 2 (pre-carb venturi) combine to produce high velocity air which means inreased vacuum. The increased vacuum helps to pull the fuel up through the jet, while the momentum of the faster air atomize the gas better and improves cylinder filling.

Sure, any intake adjustment is going to shift power from one rpm range to another. But that's the great thing about the LS650. 95% of your riding is gonna be between about 1100-4200 rpms. The trade off is that this intake design, when used with proper filtration, works well until the overall design starts to become restrictive at about 5100 rpms. But, honestly, who the hell spends much time riding above 5100 rpms. At times that I thought I was I found out I was only pushing about 4200.

I used what I learned from the successful bike project to make an intake for my '04 Yukon. I spend 98% of the time between 800-3000 rpms. I designed it so that I'm getting some serious air velocity from start off and through my normal driving rpm ranges. I never hit 4800 rpms on the Yukon so I don't care about the the airway starting to get restrictive at that range cause i don't ever drive in that range.

I like having max intake velocity at start off (tons of torque) and at all of my usual riding rpm ranges cause I love the torque. If I wanted to ride with my bike or Yukon at 5000-6000 rpm all the time, I's just go with an open velocity stack.

Regarding the filtration material. Your pulling more air at any given rpm with the turbulator setup so the filtration material has to match the new airflow demands. That the tricky part.

Here's the setup on my Yukon. Stock, the truck was wimpy in that it lacked torque at start off but started to kick in at about 2000 rpm.

First- stock intake: notice how open the free flowing the are passage is:http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/1-34.jpg

Modded intake designed for increased air velocity at lower rpms:
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh128/russ_diamond_jim/2-23.jpg

There are three taper points with each adding a little acceleration although the narrower length contributes the most amount of velocity increase. I have a turbulator installed at the mouth of the narrower tube. The length of the narrowed portion is the main trick. Make it say 3" longer and I got gobs upon gobs of torque from start to maybe 2000 rpm then it starts to become restrictive. Make it say 3" shorter and torque doesn't kick in until about 1700 but engine runs fine at 4500 rpms (which I never do unless i'm doing 110mph- shift points are about 2800 to 3200). In fact, similar to the bike, half inch increments in length in either direction produce a corresponding change in the powerband. The idea is to determine the powerband you are in 90% of the time and design the intake to maximize flow for that range. This setup in the Yukon gives me gobs of throw-you-back-into-the-seat torque from start thru all the shift points and does great at 85mph. Above 85mph, say 90mph, the engine runs 200 rpm higher to achieve the same speed which is evidence of the intake starting to get to hit the restrictive range. But I don't drive past 80 and spend only about 10% at the speed anyways. Much more fun pulling away at the stop lights and driving around town with gobs of torque.

Title: Re: kamikaze intake not so divine
Post by diamond jim on 01/18/10 at 23:38:04

1A292F332E295B0 wrote:

Gort, I don't recall anything about my dyno results being contested or the figures being suspect. Maybe that was some coversation that went on a few months later when I was out of commission. Please, elighten me, refreshen my failing memory and direct me to those threads. I do remember saying, prior to the dyno run, that any dyno run posted on here would inherently be argued against by a few members for what ever reason (dyno model, humidity, temp, etc.). I think it was you, in fact, that said that was nonsense. So I posted anyways. Maybe it's just in some people's personality to argue. I don't know. Kind of like the air filter test stuff. I remember someone proclaiming air filter tests where the sponsored company's air filter results were gospel to some and that the competition's filters were poor performers. But please direct me to these posts you speak of. Thanks.