984 replies to this topic

[alexb]

If you can make it such that you don't have to drill holes or modify anything, I think other people will be interested. The NA grills don't do much, so just opening them up and guiding some air in will improve the flow a lot. I also think that if you just go half way to the door and not open them up too wide, it looks much better than the turbo vents. The turbo vents are really slam, bam in your face. For a reason, as they work very well. But something a little more subtle and still kind of effective would be nice. Good luck!

[Rosssco]

The turbo ears are really only of major use for cars running an intercooler or other side mounted component (e.g. oil cooler rad), so for NA / SC folks, they won't be of much use. 

 

Some rear vents for the rear of the clam and for the under tray are better (from previous discussions on here)

[Aerodynamic]

Not sure what you mean with this "Some rear vents for the rear of the clam and for the under tray are better (from previous discussions on here)"

 

Rear vents as in side vents (Those I´m working on)?

 

The turbo ears are really only of major use for cars running an intercooler or other side mounted component (e.g. oil cooler rad), so for NA / SC folks, they won't be of much use. 

 

Some rear vents for the rear of the clam and for the under tray are better (from previous discussions on here)

 

[alexb]

I have an NA/SC and had some temperature management issues using the piggyback radiator set up. Changed to two side mounted small radiators at the front, which works great in my set up with a big PWR intercooler. Still had some issues with high engine compartment temperatures, especially with really high ambient temperature. Mounted turbo vents and spaced out the diffusor in the back. Problems gone. Knock on wood. I think the turbo vents work great for anybody running over 300 hp, just to cool down the stuff in the engine compartment when the going gets tough. But I don't think the vents need to be as big as the turbo vents are. Just removing the NA grills will have significant impact.

 

@Aerodynamic: rear vents as in big holes in the rear of the clam. In principle, the inflow area (side vents etc) should match the outflow area (any holes that assist in getting rid of the hot air). And with some luck at the rear of the clam you have a small vacuum, which helps getting rid of the hot air.

[Talk-torque]

A third NACA duct in the engine undertray has also been suggested before, for NAs, to lower engine compartment temperatures. I think turbos have 3 as built.

[Aerodynamic]

Ahh, yhea I have already cut out my rear so itá highe in the rear on the underside. I thought about cut out some more.

 

Anyone who have could take some Pictures of the turbo vent with dimensions in it?

 

I thought I put some alternatives up on and we can vote on prefered design. 

 

It will probably take some time.

 

 

I have an NA/SC and had some temperature management issues using the piggyback radiator set up. Changed to two side mounted small radiators at the front, which works great in my set up with a big PWR intercooler. Still had some issues with high engine compartment temperatures, especially with really high ambient temperature. Mounted turbo vents and spaced out the diffusor in the back. Problems gone. Knock on wood. I think the turbo vents work great for anybody running over 300 hp, just to cool down the stuff in the engine compartment when the going gets tough. But I don't think the vents need to be as big as the turbo vents are. Just removing the NA grills will have significant impact.

 

@Aerodynamic: rear vents as in big holes in the rear of the clam. In principle, the inflow area (side vents etc) should match the outflow area (any holes that assist in getting rid of the hot air). And with some luck at the rear of the clam you have a small vacuum, which helps getting rid of the hot air.

 

[Aerodynamic]

I need some help to decide brake setup. 

To next season I´m planning to use  these rear brake calipers.

 

They have Ø40 mm rear piston and to balance this improved rear bias, I wanted to compensate this by

using CL RC6 front and RC5+ rear to get the same front/rear distribution as I have today.

 

I also feel My front brakes today are on the limit so I started to Think about getting a 320mm(or similar) front disc 

with aluminium bells and cooling intakte from the inside instead of the outside as my current 308mm Saab disc have.

 

So if I have the same pad compound front and rear, but with the new calipers rear and 320mm front disc,

I would increase my rear brake performance with about 5% and getting better front brake at the same time (=More margin for front discs)

 

Also by doing this I am getting closer to fullfill SFRO demand for this Engine installation( they also require modified brake setup)

 

So the questions is since I already have a set of RC5+ and RC6 both fronts ( using the front pad in the rear)

 

Should I go with RC5+ both front and rear or RC6 both front and rear?

Whats the ups and downs?

 

Thanks, Per

[Rosssco]

Why not just fit a pair of OEM front AP calipers to the rear with brackets, then you won't have as much of a rear bias?

 

I know the standard brake set up is a bit too front biased, but I'm not sure I'd want a rear bias...

[Aerodynamic]

OEM front caliper have 44mm piston and OEM Brembo rear caliper have 36mm piston.

These have 40mm piston so they will be more rear bias than now.

Increase of 23% over OEM rear.

 

The question was more why to chose either brake pad compound.

Is the CL RC6 for example more agresseive to the discs than RC5+?

 

 

Why not just fit a pair of OEM front AP calipers to the rear with brackets, then you won't have as much of a rear bias?

 

I know the standard brake set up is a bit too front biased, but I'm not sure I'd want a rear bias...

 

[smiley]

 

Is the CL RC6 for example more agresseive to the discs than RC5+?

 

 

Yes.

[Aerodynamic]

Been working in CAD a bit for the side vent. Done a few variants.

 

This one feels most logic. Opening on the sides arre about 30mm

and in the middle about 40mm, maybe should add som to the middle dimensions.

 

The aim is it should be a direct replacement for the NA side vent adding a rivnut and fasten it with a M4 or M5 or so.

 

 

What do you Think, ideas?

[Aerodynamic]

A better picture of the previous side vent.

 

Or maybe a bigger vent?

 

Any thoughts about the side vents? Which looks better?

 

Did just printed a Little key ring.

 

Br, Per

[2-20]

I like the idea a lot...
For me number one is better looking.. But isn:t it restrictive..??
On the other hand i cannot see very well your number 2.

[Aerodynamic]

I dont know if it is restrictive. I made the opening 40mm wide in the middle and about 30mm on each side so it lines up with the bodie.

The best to make it bigger but still line upp is to make the opening even wider in the middle. Maybe 50 or 60.

The idea is it should pump in more air then standard NA vent and also be a simple replacement with only minimal modifications needed or none.

 

A few more Pictures of the last design.

 

 

Br, Per

[sford]

By making it a scoop you will introduce some drag but also more of a ram air function. If you want someone to test some out I'm happy to try fitting etc. I think the first one is better, or at least the one without the curve. The vx is quite angular and adding the curve doesn't follow the design style of the rest of the car. 

[Aerodynamic]

Anyone here who knows how wide the opening is on a turbo scoop?

[2-20]

I prefer the first...
And i think the scoop shape can create more flow going inside ...

[Aerodynamic]

I prefer the first...
And i think the scoop shape can create more flow going inside ...

 

Not sure what you mean, going inside?

 

So next question

3 or 5 diveders?

 

Br, Per

[chris_uk]

5

 

[sford]

5