Intake manifolds...mainly questions - The Saab Link Forums

Go Back   The Saab Link Forums > Saab NG900 '94-'98 and 9-3 '99-'02 Forum > Performance Modifications for the NG900 / Old 9-3

Performance Modifications for the NG900 / Old 9-3 This forum contains PERFORMANCE related Q&A's for the NG900 and 9-3. This may also include suspension.

SaabLink.net is the premier Saab Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-12-2005, 11:01 AM   #1
Moderator
Elder
 
Tweek's Turbos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 10,303
Send a message via AIM to Tweek's Turbos
Intake manifolds...mainly questions

Ok, most of us here are running the stock Intake manifold. its a small flat part, no frills.


In contrast (pic will come Thursday) the intake manifold for a 2.3 na is a 2 level design. 2 ports on top of 2 other ports. With a stack in center. (for higher velocity?)

What I want to know is, did the non turbo 900s get a better intake manifold also? We already know the cams had higher duration than the stock cams. I can pick up another intake manifold on the cheap, so I will Thursday, and post pics. If nobody has solid answeres, I will have them flowed.

[/list]
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delorean
- pretend you are watering delicate plants...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAABseanSCANIA
can be prone to failure due to increased localized stresses in the hole penetrations
Tweek's Turbos is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-12-2005, 11:47 AM   #2
Elder
 
rcmdesign's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Erie, PA
Posts: 2,646
I'm running the 900 2.3L N/A intake manifold of course I've heard the N/A 2.3L engines were built with better stuff. But I don't know too much about it.


EDIT: Attached is a picture of the differences...
__________________
Rob
Swedish Performance
1995 Saab 900S - 2.3L DOHC N/A 150K

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
rcmdesign is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-12-2005, 04:25 PM   #3
SAAB Road Master
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 361
The N/A cars got a better pulse-tuned intake manifold. The reason for it is simple: On a turbo car, when you want more air in the engine you just turn up the boost. On a naturally aspirated car, you have to coax the air into the engine with pulse-tuning on the intake and exhaust systems, and less restrictive camshafts.

The N/A manifold should also distribute the air more evenly between the cyllinders.

On a turbo car, you might see more power at lower boost pressures with a N/A intake manifold. No idea of the sensor locations would meet up. I've thought of adapting it for T7 just for kicks and gigles, but I'd have to make custom mounts for waaaay too many sensors and whatnot. Damm.

Let us know how it goes.

Adrian~
SaabTuner is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2005, 06:04 PM   #4
Moderator
Elder
 
Tweek's Turbos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 10,303
Send a message via AIM to Tweek's Turbos
Glad to hear it, I'll pick it up for sure now.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delorean
- pretend you are watering delicate plants...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAABseanSCANIA
can be prone to failure due to increased localized stresses in the hole penetrations
Tweek's Turbos is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-13-2005, 05:58 AM   #5
Flirting With TSL Addiction
 
DC_SAAB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 739
Send a message via Yahoo to DC_SAAB
So you want the car to run leaner?? Adding more space in the plenum to run leaner, or are you going to run a program that will do the balancing act for air/fuel mixture? Is that manifold a dual plane or single plane?

I don't know if SAAB would have spent money designing another Intake manifold for the N/A if they could save with the same design on all of them. Could be wrong.

Hope you're successful, but I would look at the cfm's or measure volume for each part.., calculate your new a/f and compression ratio to understand what it will do to your hp/torque ratios. I could talk all day on Carbuerated cars, and the ease in which to tune them, but I'm definately learning from you on this one.

I'm taking bets that this will not improve your low-end much...if anything push your power up with a potential to run lean.., and cause you more tuning problems. Can I have the head you just spent all that money on?
__________________
DC
DC_SAAB is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-13-2005, 02:53 PM   #6
SAAB Road Master
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC_SAAB
I don't know if SAAB would have spent money designing another Intake manifold for the N/A if they could save with the same design on all of them. Could be wrong.
Remember the old 2.1L cyllinder heads and 2.1L intake manifolds on the C900's? Saab made the better cyllinder head for the N/A and for the larger 2.3L turbo engines. But the intake manifold was just for the 2.1L N/A. So why didn't Saab put the 2.1L intake manifold and cyllinder head on the 2.0L turbo?

I think this is the same deal. The turbo didn't "need" it to reach 185 bhp, and it costs a little more to make. But, just like the 2.1L head and intake manifold, if you put it on the turbo car you gain a little flow/horsepower.

Makes sense. But someone has to test it eventually! Just make sure all this work comes with a custom ECU tune. DC is right about it making it run a little lean without one.

I bet guys back in the day were saying the same thing to C900T boys who wanted the naturally aspirated cyllinder head and intake manifold. Now it's a very popular mod.

Adrian~
SaabTuner is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-13-2005, 05:38 PM   #7
Moderator
Elder
 
DeLorean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a compound on a hill
Posts: 7,595
Send a message via AIM to DeLorean
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaabTuner

I bet guys back in the day were saying the same thing to C900T boys who wanted the naturally aspirated cyllinder head and intake manifold. Now it's a very popular mod.
popular because it gets results, problem spot being LH 2.4 cars (89-93 C-900's) use airflow to gauge when to cut the fuel. A mod like a 2.1 head and intake + a GOOD intercooler will get you enough airflow into the engine to snap your fuel right off, even with a stock APC! this is why people came up with the "resistor mod" IMO, the better way to go about things is to either run a stand-alone ECU, or to get the 2.4 system custom tuned.

not sure exactly what results you will get with the NG 900, but I'm willing to bet the 2.3 manifold will give you improvement over the 2.0
DeLorean is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-13-2005, 05:41 PM   #8
SAAB Road Master
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
not sure exactly what results you will get with the NG 900, but I'm willing to bet the 2.3 manifold will give you improvement over the 2.0
I agree 100%. We need results to be sure though. I don't know how much the improvement will be.

The big reason I think he should get it is because camshafts and pulse-tuned intake manifolds are designed for eachother. Since he has the 2.3i camshafts, the intake manifold's pulse tuning should be perfect for the 246* of intake duration.

Either way, though, we need results ... I would try this myself if my sensors were more compatible. I think he might be able to pull this off though since the T5 cars have the MAP sensor in the throttle body and not on the right-hand side of the plenum.

I didn't know about the LH 2.4 using the MAf sensor. Damm! I wonder how my to-be-ported 2.1L head and manifold will do without the IC ...

Adrian~
SaabTuner is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-13-2005, 05:41 PM   #9
Elder
 
PaulH's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 5,805
Send a message via AIM to PaulH
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaabTuner

I bet guys back in the day were saying the same thing to C900T boys who wanted the naturally aspirated cyllinder head and intake manifold. Now it's a very popular mod.
popular because it gets results, problem spot being LH 2.4 cars (89-93 C-900's) use airflow to gauge when to cut the fuel. A mod like a 2.1 head and intake + a GOOD intercooler will get you enough airflow into the engine to snap your fuel right off, even with a stock APC! this is why people came up with the "resistor mod" IMO, the better way to go about things is to either run a stand-alone ECU, or to get the 2.4 system custom tuned.

not sure exactly what results you will get with the NG 900, but I'm willing to bet the 2.3 manifold will give you improvement over the 2.0
yeah ive heard that happens think im gonna need to unplug the APC till i get the ECU tuned, still cuts out at like 13-14psi.

Paul
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
PaulH is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-14-2005, 10:20 AM   #10
Moderator
Elder
 
Tweek's Turbos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 10,303
Send a message via AIM to Tweek's Turbos
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC_SAAB
So you want the car to run leaner?? Adding more space in the plenum to run leaner, or are you going to run a program that will do the balancing act for air/fuel mixture? Is that manifold a dual plane or single plane?
With my propane setup, I already actually run rich. I also plan on custom ECU tuning to even things out if need be. Our cars do run rich under full boost as a protection, and I feel that the ecu may correct itself anyhow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC_SAAB
I don't know if SAAB would have spent money designing another Intake manifold for the N/A if they could save with the same design on all of them. Could be wrong.
Nope they did, one for the turbo NG900 and one for the NA NG900.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC_SAAB
I'm taking bets that this will not improve your low-end much...if anything push your power up with a potential to run lean.., and cause you more tuning problems. Can I have the head you just spent all that money on?
I expect power to definately moved up the rpm band, I will have my rev-limit raised also. And nope, The head is going to be the centerpeice of my high flowing top end setup.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delorean
- pretend you are watering delicate plants...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAABseanSCANIA
can be prone to failure due to increased localized stresses in the hole penetrations
Tweek's Turbos is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-14-2005, 10:33 AM   #11
Elder
 
stevehayes01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 3,976
Send a message via AIM to stevehayes01 Send a message via MSN to stevehayes01 Send a message via Yahoo to stevehayes01
Looking forward to seeing your results on this one! It will be very interesting to see if it gives you anything more on the top end and midrange power bands.



On a side note --(Just my opinion here) When you look at the 2.1L Manifold on a C900 I believe you would get much better flow and power results not using the 2.1 head but by using a 2.0 block with a 2.3L head running a N/A intake cam with the 2.1L intake manifold and a stand alone fuel management system like the Megasquirt.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

stevehayes01 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-14-2005, 11:40 AM   #12
SAAB Road Master
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehayes01
On a side note --(Just my opinion here) When you look at the 2.1L Manifold on a C900 I believe you would get much better flow and power results not using the 2.1 head but by using a 2.0 block with a 2.3L head running a N/A intake cam with the 2.1L intake manifold and a stand alone fuel management system like the Megasquirt.
The 2.1L head is the 2.3L head.

The 2.1L intake cam is a little more focused on low-end and mid-range. On a turbo car it would be a trade off; you'd need less boost in the midrange, but more up top to make the same power-curve as before. The 2.1L and 2.0L intake runners are also the same length and overal design, so the pulse-tuning should not care which to any significant degree.

The trouble with having a more restrictive cam for high RPM is that if you're forced to run higher boost up-top you'll also have higher EGT up top. EGT is generally already highest at peak-power, all other things equal, so why tempt fate and make it worse?

Whereas, if you have a restrictive camshaft in the mid-range, you can safely raise boost to make the same torque without much fear as the tendancy to knock is more closely related to cyllinder-pressure (IE torque) than to boost pressure itself. If you have a poor intercooler though, the extra boost will create too much extra heat.

Both ways will probably work, but on a C900 torque breaks the gearbox right-quick, so I would be worried about flow more than boost.

Stand-alone is a great idea though.

Adrian~
SaabTuner is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-14-2005, 11:49 AM   #13
Elder
 
stevehayes01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 3,976
Send a message via AIM to stevehayes01 Send a message via MSN to stevehayes01 Send a message via Yahoo to stevehayes01
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaabTuner

The 2.1L head is the 2.3L head.

Adrian~

Actually there are differences in the 2.1 and the 2.3 on the C900's even though the castings are the same. Only slight but from all the people I know who have done head swaps there is more work involved on a 2.1 head than using a 2.3L head.

The differences actually come into play on the piston sizes of the block that is mated to the head.

Taken from another forum:
B212 gasket is different. B202 and B234 use 90mm pistons; gasket holes are sized accordingly. B212 uses 93mm pistons; holes are therefore larger.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

stevehayes01 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-14-2005, 01:00 PM   #14
Moderator
Elder
 
DeLorean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a compound on a hill
Posts: 7,595
Send a message via AIM to DeLorean
I'm not sure what you are talking about as far as
Quote:
there is more work involved on a 2.1 head than using a 2.3L head.
it's really as simple as this, if you use a 2.1 OR 2.3 head on a 2.0 block, you use the 2.0 gasket for the head, and the 2,1 gaskets for the manifolds. if you were running a 2.1 liter engine and were to use a 2.0 gasket.... lets just say bad things would happen. my car used to have a 150K 2.1 liter head on it, but when I rebuilt the bottom end I swapped the head with a freshly rebuilt 2.3 head, there was NO variation in installing the 2.3 head over the 2.1 head. as far as I can tell the 2.1 head and the 2.3 head are absolutely identical.
DeLorean is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-14-2005, 01:09 PM   #15
Elder
 
stevehayes01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 3,976
Send a message via AIM to stevehayes01 Send a message via MSN to stevehayes01 Send a message via Yahoo to stevehayes01
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
I'm not sure what you are talking about as far as
Quote:
there is more work involved on a 2.1 head than using a 2.3L head.
it's really as simple as this, if you use a 2.1 OR 2.3 head on a 2.0 block, you use the 2.0 gasket for the head, and the 2,1 gaskets for the manifolds. if you were running a 2.1 liter engine and were to use a 2.0 gasket.... lets just say bad things would happen. my car used to have a 150K 2.1 liter head on it, but when I rebuilt the bottom end I swapped the head with a freshly rebuilt 2.3 head, there was NO variation in installing the 2.3 head over the 2.1 head. as far as I can tell the 2.1 head and the 2.3 head are absolutely identical.
The gasket mating is what I was talking about and from what I have been told there were a few other small modifications that had to be made for the 2.1L to work properly. This is second hand information as I personally have not made this swap. But there has to be a reason that everyone recommends using a 2.3L head over a 2.1L other than just for kicks. If you look at almost any post on what should I use a 2.1 or a 2.3 it is hands down on the 2.3 as the "least troublesome" direct bolt on swap for heads to a 2.0 block.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

stevehayes01 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-14-2005, 01:14 PM   #16
Elder
 
PaulH's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Reading, PA
Posts: 5,805
Send a message via AIM to PaulH
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehayes01
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
I'm not sure what you are talking about as far as
Quote:
there is more work involved on a 2.1 head than using a 2.3L head.
it's really as simple as this, if you use a 2.1 OR 2.3 head on a 2.0 block, you use the 2.0 gasket for the head, and the 2,1 gaskets for the manifolds. if you were running a 2.1 liter engine and were to use a 2.0 gasket.... lets just say bad things would happen. my car used to have a 150K 2.1 liter head on it, but when I rebuilt the bottom end I swapped the head with a freshly rebuilt 2.3 head, there was NO variation in installing the 2.3 head over the 2.1 head. as far as I can tell the 2.1 head and the 2.3 head are absolutely identical.
The gasket mating is what I was talking about and from what I have been told there were a few other small modifications that had to be made for the 2.1L to work properly. This is second hand information as I personally have not made this swap. But there has to be a reason that everyone recommends using a 2.3L head over a 2.1L other than just for kicks. If you look at almost any post on what should I use a 2.1 or a 2.3 it is hands down on the 2.3 as the "least troublesome" direct bolt on swap for heads to a 2.0 block.
yeah you know before i did it i heard those sorts of things thrown around about how its a hassle to do, but i just did it on my car with a 2.1 head and a 2.1 manifold and it was a direct swap. all you need to remember is that you need all the fuel rail equipment for it to work right, other than that its a direct bolt up affair. i think its another case of the good ol TSNers making c900 tuning seem more difficult than it really is .


cant wait to see how it works for ya tweek


Paul
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
PaulH is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-14-2005, 01:15 PM   #17
Moderator
Elder
 
DeLorean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a compound on a hill
Posts: 7,595
Send a message via AIM to DeLorean
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevehayes01
But there has to be a reason that everyone recommends using a 2.3L head over a 2.1L other than just for kicks. If you look at almost any post on what should I use a 2.1 or a 2.3 it is hands down on the 2.3 as the "least troublesome" direct bolt on swap for heads to a 2.0 block.
this is obviously because people don't know what they are talking about the 2 are IDENTICAL! my guess is that people recommend using the 2.3 head over the 2.1 because the 2.1 engines have an reputation for being un-reliable due to pre mature head gasket failure. of course this has nothing to do with the engines or the heads, they just used crappy gaskets that the coolant eats through...
DeLorean is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-14-2005, 01:16 PM   #18
Elder
 
stevehayes01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 3,976
Send a message via AIM to stevehayes01 Send a message via MSN to stevehayes01 Send a message via Yahoo to stevehayes01
Possibly so you know how stigmas get built up to things.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

stevehayes01 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-14-2005, 01:17 PM   #19
Moderator
Elder
 
DeLorean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In a compound on a hill
Posts: 7,595
Send a message via AIM to DeLorean
yeah, my vote is TSNers making trouble with mis-information. I would say a solid 50% of what people take as "fact" on TSN is total BS
DeLorean is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-14-2005, 01:20 PM   #20
Elder
 
stevehayes01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 3,976
Send a message via AIM to stevehayes01 Send a message via MSN to stevehayes01 Send a message via Yahoo to stevehayes01
I know a handful of people (in the UK) who have done the swap that had some issues with the 2.1L heads but my guess is that it was more of a fluke if what you guys are saying is correct here.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

stevehayes01 is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiTweet this Post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the The Saab Link Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Vehicle Info.
Enter your vehicle information (year, model, mods)
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
All content is copyright The Saab Link and it's original authors.


 

Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.