Manifold for my R6
 

Got it welded and sandblasted. Now I have to order some BHK Black Satin to coat it with. Luckily my gf's father has a dual stage airbrush & paint booth O0 In the meantime I am porting & polishing it.

http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/6/15414312610.jpg

http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/6/15414312698.jpg

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

r6 as in yamaha? if so your ------- crazy, but that is gonna be badass. i seen a vid of a turbo r1, nothing but sky lol.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

Yes, it's an '05 Raven Edition Yamaha R6. I'm gonna re-gear it so I won't have that wheelie problem, hopefully. This is a project I have been researching and buying very specific parts for since November. It's all beginning to take shape now and I hope I get it on the road before fall. Next up is the custom fabb'd airbox..... soon.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

hey i was considering doing this with my bike. but the manifold desing doenst allow me to do much. did you just buy a stock header cut it up. welded it back togeather with a flange like that?

cuase if you did it that way.. it saves me alot of headaches of reinvetning a proper flange.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

Yes, It's the stock end pieces and flanges along with a log style manifold I fabb'd up.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

i was thinking of using a kkk k03 turbo out of the 1.8t golfs it's basicly the smallest turbo i can find besides the IHI RHB5 VJ11.

the vj11 isn't as common as the k03 where i live at. i found the k03 to be the newest and least abuse used. not only that they are dime a dozen cheap. but the flange you have there looks to be like a small t25. i personally think t25 still to big for a standard 600cc. what type of turbo you planning to use?

also how are you planning on running the oil lines. i guessing your skiping the coolant support. taping the oil filter then the crank case.

what about fuel support. fmu, with a power commander?

i have an old carbed f3 honda. and have really weak float bowls so i can't make a blow through design. and draw through is a way i am not going to do.

so i'm planning on going efi, with custom manifold. im am going single throthle body btw. using mostly honda parts.

how are you going to do it?

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

Get a Small GT turbo from the FOR SALE forum, IMO you'd rather have a ball bearing quick spool than max power on your R6.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

ive wonderd if a 600cc sportbike might flow better/similar to a larger 1.6l car motor, like if it would spool a smaller t3 or 14b fine maybe, plus it has alot more rev range, i think my bike redlines at 14k , either way ive seen turboed gixxers and they look out of control, like they just cant get the front end down

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

ignore my post if you don't like details of why a small t3 or a 14b won't work.
i will also explain WTF post if a 600 sport bike flows more then 1.6 honda motor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the small t3 and 14b are way too big for a 600 engine.

lets take your standard 600cc engine. average rev capability for most sport motocycles are lets say 13k.

here is my notes the setup i was going to use:
cubic inches of a 600cc engine is 36.6 btw

---Engine Airflow Requirements---
(CID × RPM) ÷ 3456 = CFM [it's to find out cfm first]

36.6 x 13000 ÷ 3456 = cfm
475800 ÷ 3456 = cfm
cfm = 137.67361

[cfm is calculated for 100% VE volumetric efficiency.]
[must use 85% VE for standard engine]

137.6 x 0.85 = 116.96

also lets say we want to use a standard pressure ratio of 5psi

---Presure Ratio---
@ 5 psi

(5 + 14.7) ÷ 14.7 = 1.34:1 pressure ratio

blah blah blah and alot more math later i found the density ratio

---density ratio ---
1.23

[85% VE for standard engine] X [density ratio] = Actual Inlet CFM

116.96 x 1.23 = 143.86 Actual Inlet CFM

the actual inlet cfm is very close to 10 lb/min = 144.718 cfm.

map of a t3 40 trim
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~v/c...maps/t3-40.gif

map of a 14b
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~v/c...s/td05-14b.gif

if you draw up a line just where the pressure ratio reaches and you draw a line excatly at 10 lbs a mintue. your well BELOW the island of good efficiency. with these turbochargers producing 5lbs you'll have a crappy uncontrolable powerband. not only that but your boost power band is going only to be found the last 3k rpms in your redline. on top of that, you'll be hitting the crappy side of the effincey of the turbocharger. so it's really even more a bad reason to use these turbochargers.

only way to slove this problem would be to up the boost. but the average sport bike motocycle engine is around 12:1 compression enigne. so we can see it's way to big to actually use. but if you want to blow your engine it's fine by me.

also about your question WTF.

1600cc = 97.63CID

97.63 x 7200 rpm ÷ 3456 = CFM (using D16Z6 stock redline btw)
702936 ÷ 3456 = cfm

203.39 = cfm

203.39 x 0.89 = 172.88

your stock honda engine d16 = 172.88 cfm
your average 600 motocyle = 116.96 cfm

d16 engine > 600cc engine

your answer.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

btw my notes were for my engine which happen to redline at 13k rpms i don't have the slightest clue what the r6 redlines at. it could be 14.5k for all i know which will give a lil more play but definatly not enough to use a t3 or a 14b. like i said even the t25 is still too big.

here is a link to the maps of the t25 & k03 turbocharger.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...t25_nissan.gif

the k03 turbocharger seems to have the most play out of all the turbochargers as it'll have a very wide powerband where a suggest 5 psi pressure ratio is planned to hit. although the down side to this turbo charger you'll falling out of compressor effiency near redline. witch is fine by me seeing as all the production turbo chargers that have come out of cars will result in this but luckly it's within an acceptable range of the turbocharger. as listed it'll be within 57% effiency.

although its effiency range is definatly less the the t25 @ full power. durring it's powerband it's emplored well within the island of effiecenty.

i wouldn't be surprized to see 5psi boost at 6k rpm with the k03 where as 8.5k rpms 5psi with the t25.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...r/k03_2072.gif

but like i was saying the t25 is still to too big. turth is even the k03 is still to big.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

gsx r's redline at 17k

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

I will be using a new Garrett GT15, only going with 7PSI. No oil cooling. H2o/Meth injection for inter-cooling. I have a wide band kit, BOV, PCIII with a GM 3bar to tie into the PCIII via their HUB. This will increase fuel under boost. We are going modest with boost and overbuilding everything to be safe. Gearing will be the tricky part to keep that front wheel on the ground. I am gonna go down 3 teeth on the rear sprocket to start.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

that turbo aint going to last long. :3

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

I'm sure the oil off the engine will be fine without an oil cooler. We'll see. ;)

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

so.. 7psi would be

a pressure ratio of 1.46, and a density ratio of about 1.30

so your shooting for 137 engine hp?

nice jump considering it's about a 35% hp increase from its stock hp.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

Ball bearing is short lifespan expensive rebuild. Until you get a big mismatch in hotside/coldside baller bearing turbos don't display any significant improvement in spool - at most you get an extra 400 rpms on a Honduh (car) engine, whoopty. I have some interesting logs of more or less identical D16 with GT28E vs Disco-P, as well as 1.8/VTEC with GT35E vs GT35R, and both spool within 300 rpms of each other - is that worth BB money?

There is more spool to be had in manifold design and downpipe sizing than journal bearing vs BB.

Huh? English?


Haha, I cannot believe I am reading this ----. You realise those forumulas were crude 1940's caveman approximations for innumerate shadetree fools what can't do math more complex than single variable algebra? It held true for flatheads and GM engines during the smog era of the late 70s early 80s, and nothing more. An internal combustion engine is a LOT MORE COMPLEX THAN THAT if you want to mathematically predict or model one. However, they are freaking simple to get a real-world grasp on by using simple common sense.


A T3 or 14B is a good match for an engine that makes a tad over 100 whp stock out of the box. In the case of A6 or Y7, which both spool T3 and 14B just fine, they make LESS than an R6.

Where one of these turbos spools on a D16 is simple anecdotal information you could ask, uhm, anyone in this or most any thread on HMT? Look at a dyno of a D16 and see how much whp is being produced at point of spool. Now, look at an R6 dyno and look for the same power level - bingo, that is the point where displaced airmass is equivalent and the turbo starts whistling.

I don't even have to look to tell you that a T3 or 14B will work fine on an R6. A freaking IHI RHB5 is too small, IMO, they spool at 3000 rpm on a 1.2 liter 72 crank/62 wheel horsepower Subaru Justy and would create a twitchy hard to control spoolmonster out of an R6.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

JD is right about the BB units...but I just said go with BB because someone is selling GT unit for ass cheap on the forum. Yea thanks for showing me up Davis...again...lol

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

going to be badass!

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

crude or not, it's still a reference we can use.
in either case, i never did mention a t3 or a 14b won't work on an R6. i did make a point saying that a 600 engine can flow enough make these turbos spoll near the high end rpm range.

i only tried to make apoint that those turbo are too big. well not unless if you think that your bike should rise to the heavens everytime you hit WOT near redline. then by all means jump and use this turbo.

i personally like being in control of my ride. i would like my boost to hit at a low RPM. i dislike looking at the sky uncontrolably. i want to have more control over my motocycle. not less. i want the power i can use not the power i have to stop from using.

i want more power to ride my bike. i don't want more power to fly my bike. also i doubt using a tiny turbo like that would make the bike 'twichy' at all. ever take a look at those turbo gsxr movies on streetfire? did you know they are using a t2 turbo on that 600. yup that's right a small tiny ass t2 turbo was able to push enough power out of that bike to make it rise at 8krpm. i woulnd't even dare consider a t3 or a 14b. to say a t3 would work fine is a load of ----. when a t2 turbo was able to do that. why would you possibly want a turbo 1/3 the size bigger.

you can see for it yourself:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q6ni_HbwjMU
http://www.turbobikeresearch.com/more.php?id=10029846&

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

http://www.turbobikeresearch.com/img/05-06turbokit.jpg wow 3400 for all that the bike comes with it right lolloolllo

doesnt chinese kids make these manifolds yet? i know i seen gsxr1k ones on one of those ssauto sites, id still use a small t3 or t25, sportbikes are lame at low rpms anyways

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

Sorry, bro. I saw BB and went off on a rant - nothing directed at you, homeslice. ;)



Crude? No. Wildly innaccurate? Yes. You have stated that a T3/14B won't spool until the upper rpms, and then plotted 5 psi as being 10lb/min of airmass and how that is "below the map" - this demonstrates how you don't even remotely have a clue. 10lb/min is 100 whp. An R6 makes a little OVER 100 whp in the upper rpms. You are stating "factually" based on "calculations" that a T3/14B won't work because it will make less power at 5 psi in the upper rpms than it will stock - or that's all I can get out of what you are saying.

PS - the reference we can all use are... ding ding ding! Commonly available dyno sheets!!! Yes!!1


One of those turbos will spool in the midrange.


Boost controllers are your friend.


Last T2 I tuned was on a 1.6 liter Miata, made 175 whp @ 11psi. Come to find out the dyno's wideband was miscalibrated and the engine is running 10.5:1 AFRs, I should be able to go back and manifest 190 whp out of it.

But, I digress. T2 is a wierdfuk flange setup, but the thing didn't spool until 3000-3500 rpms on the Miata 1.6, which is rated similarly to the higher output D16. A K03 or IHI or other small frame turbo... ach. Do you know how twitchy and uncontrollable the power delivery is on a vehicle that goes from no boost to full spool with a difference of (using Goforth's CRX as an example) 28% TPS to 34% TPS? That's a 6% window of throttle travel for you to modulate if you are trying to control power output... everything else is either full boost or highway cruise. A T3/14B will give a high output 600cc bike a solid power band while not creating a twitchy goddamn nightmare out of what is already a two-wheeled deathmachine.

I've been through a LOT more turbo setups on a LOT more cars than you have, and not everything is brand-specific. I have a lot of insight in this.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

Those kits are nice but waaaay too much money. My exhaust manifold has cost me only $180 ;) The Black Satin coating is $50 for 12oz which should cover the manifold, exhaust side of the turbo and the whole exhaust system. I emailed a lot of the sites who make those kits regarding air-boxes an exhaust manifolds, they wanted $400+ each!! My whole kit so far is about $1500 including water/methanol injection, wide band, PCIII, Turbo, flanges, gauges, etc etc. Besides, I'd rather do the research, and fabrication when I can, myself and hand pick every part in the kit. I figure the whole project will cost me $2k tops and that's high balling it. I picked up the bike for $6k it only has 3900 miles on it. So, for $8k I will have a one-off, mean ass machine that I built. Next up is the air-box, I'll post up pic's when that is done too. Which leads me to a question.

As far as the air-box goes, velocity stacks or no? I'm on the fence with the idea. I've heard of positive results tho. With my design it would actually be easier and less labor to do the stacks. Thanks in advance.


Ethan

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

okay. so 3000-3500 rpms on a 1.6L engine.

so assuming everything is 100% that's 3250rpms * 1.6L = 5200L of possible flow of air when full boost begain. so using common sense.. using the same turbo, it should.. spool at the same amount of air flow at the turbine would it not?

so to make a 600cc engine flow the equal amount of air it would need to be spining at

X * .6L = 5200L
8666 * .6 = 5200L

so we'd have to be spining a 600 engine at least a 8.6k rpms for it flow the same amount of air a 1.6l would be before spool began. now obviously the higher compression motocycle engine should spool the turbo a tad bit faster. 1.5k rpms at most sooner it would happen i'd say.

so full boost at 7k.. sounds mean. i'd ride it. i will admit that even my moto would rise with 5 psi of boost at 7k rpms. i'd have to put the stock sprockets back on. but then again i would still would have play all around in those lower rpms. anything below that and i shouldn't have enough exhaust velocity to have instaboost.

then again i was so used to 21psi @ 1800RPMS in my gay skittle.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

just wondering but, about how much boost can a stock r6 handle? boosting a bike sounds too dangerous for me haha

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

well.. unfortionatly there isn't enough information out there to actually know. often times turbo + motocycles although a neat idea, isn't a really a good one either. not too many people are out there are willing to invest on a 600 and test out to see what's it's capable of and ------ing the word. when all the fruit and labor would be squashed by reliability and a leanur powerband of a 1k motorcyle. not only that sometimes it's just flat out cheaper to buy the bigger bike (but im sure the Dredded HMT crew believes otherwise).

a turbo bike idea is often flamed on in most sportbike forums. too many people bitching about unpredictable powerbands, the inability of stopping the front wheel from rising to the air. how handleing is hampered from a change in weight distribution. and more and more bitching when people never actually tried it out and learned for themselves. it's like walking into a farm and listening to a herd of cows. saying the same ol regertitaing ---- that some fuckface wanabe know-it-all who thinks he's right.

there are too many internet racers with "Knowledgeabilites" out there who don't test out their rides for themselves. it's a shame too. i would like to see more turbo motocyles out on the road enjoying themselves.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

Not trying to rip on you or join in on this "debate" However, it seems like your calculating VOLUME when you need to be calc. AIRFLOW over TIME. Yeah. Just thought id point that out. :6

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

That's the sort of regurgitated statement I hear a lot coming some fuckface wanabe know-it-all who thinks he's right. The truth is that CR has no effect on spool time, but internet racers with "Knowledgeabilites" like to argue. Most arguers have never tried what they are talking about, and even more annoying are the ones who tried their ideas out on their personal car but misperceive the reasons why their car performs as it does because they lack perspective based on extensive experience.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

Agree'd. That's why I have not mentioned this on any sportbike forums I go on. I figured finish the project, ride it for a while to be sure of the stability, rideability and reliability. Then post it up for anyone interested.

I appreciate that I can come on here and not get the typical "just buy a literbike" comments ::). Anyone can bust out their wallet and buy a literbike, where's the challenge or learning curve in that? I like to take ---- apart, I like to tinker and build stuff..... it's fun. Thanks for the support and info guys.

BTW, any opinions on the v-stack question I posted?

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

get a 42/48 t3. Anything else is too small- Oh and listen to JD for christ sake.

probably wasting your time fabbing velocity stacks in the plenum... i believe their more effective on NA engines.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

Like I said it would be easier to do the v-stacks than it would be not to do them with my plenum design. I do know they work well with N/A as I had them on my last R6. That being said, would they not help atomize the water/meth? Can anyone think of anything negative from using them? Thoughts....

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

The nozzle is what atomizes the mixture...the design of the manifold affects how it de-atomizes.

Go the cheaper route...Cant really think of how stacks could hurt your setup...---- its gonna fly either way do whatever you want. :P

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

Atomization is an at idle problem.

The BRMS car runs large poor stomizing Precision 880cc injectors that have to be idled a half point rich to keep things smooth, 585 whp @ 27 psi, and whatever duty it was at the time (I can't recall) worked out to a 0.39 bsfc - for a boosted 1.8 liter. Nothing wrong with the burn on that setup! THe turbulent air exiting the turbo under power is going to forcibly atomize the fuel for you, no worries.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

you know what i'm going to have to disagree. personal experiance tells me otherwise. although it was only 1 personal experiance.

btw it was the biggest waste of money i ever invested into. N/a rotary + boost = fire. Pulsation damper owned = Me.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

N/A bridge port rotary + boost=410whp.
Well thats how mine turned out. C/R in a rotary are nothing to do with C/R in piston engine. We boost hi comp rotas all the time.

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

Any rotary+boost= the use of more fuel to do the same amount of mechanical work as a piston engine with less thermal eff. :1

Re: Manifold for my R6
 

Your personal experience is wrong. Displacement, cam, timing, AFR all effect spool time. CR does not.