arne487
Veteran Member
I wouldn't be much help with design, and I wouldn't have the first clue as to how to build one, but with good instructions and a parts list I would find a way.
I'm all for open sourcing, but I don't think you can get the materials cost below a thousand dollars, not to mention any controls, sensors or data acquisition, or as you mention, fab equipment, laptop, VCDS, etc either.FUB,
I think if we put our heads together, we could get the cost of a DIY dyno down below $1000 for sure because of the open-source design, research, and development. Of course I'm conveniently ignoring the cost of welders, tools, etcetera. Alternatively, like you say, we could do an open-source 'butt dyno' method that would control for most variables, so long as everyone used the same brand of temperature/pressure sensor and Excel macros.
Edit: Oh, I'm not including cost of laptop, VCDS, or Excel license in my DIY dyno. Is there enough club interest to proceed?
Just thinking off the top of my head, not an engineer but a gearhead. Couldn't you just use an O2 sensor instead of an smoke opacity meter? If an intake produces a leaner mixture, you would need to fatten up the fuel mixture to where the previous intake O2 readings were. Then you would get comparable results on the dyno. Does this make sense or is it too simplistic?IMO, FUB's data is an excellent discussion start to a new experimental design:
Repeat this test in reverse run order with MAF based tunes. Record smoke opacity. Compare dynometer power and torque data against smoke opacity. Perhaps smoke opacity can be gauged with something like this tool http://www.machinebuilding.net/p/p4197.htm although it would be best to plot power/smoke opacity at each rpm point.
What this data tells me is that TdiClub has some excellent engineers and scientists, and we are in need of an open-source designed, home made DIY dynometer that users can build for the $550-$750 range from easily-sourced materials. Is there any club interest in starting a thread to gauge and collect user knowledge for such a project?
A wideband o2 sensor would also work fine in my opinion.Just thinking off the top of my head, not an engineer but a gearhead. Couldn't you just use an O2 sensor instead of an smoke opacity meter? If an intake produces a leaner mixture, you would need to fatten up the fuel mixture to where the previous intake O2 readings were. Then you would get comparable results on the dyno. Does this make sense or is it too simplistic?
I don't think slapping on a part without adjusting the tune/fuel would give accurate info.
I understand what you're trying to accomplish but I don't think testing the intake with no other changes will give you meaningful data or be comparable.A wideband o2 sensor would also work fine in my opinion.
I don't believe that you should alter the tune at all to start out - if you change intake manifolds and more fuel is burnt because there is more air in the chamber, then it should make more power. If the MAF sees more airflow (and it's not saturated like most modified TDI's), then the ECU will add fuel as well which would add more power.
The whole point is to see what effect the intake manifold itself has in the system on it's own. Then with other modifications (tuning to an A/F ratio or smoke limit or seat of the pants or whatever) to optimize the overall system after we see what the intake itself should do.
Any ideas on why it flows so badly?Tested the scrol sdi intake it flows,realy bad not yet made to dual chamber. But it smokes more then my orther sdi intake. Now building anthore one based on the mk4 sdi. All metal and with dual chamber intake and long runners.
you can make 'good power' despite a lot of things working against itI run a snail on my race car and we make good power
the 1x/1y intakes are pretty well regarded (as well as a good base for a dual chamber intake), as is the PD150/130So what design intake do you guy feel is best.
We are stepping up to a 2260 turbo for next year. and keeping the 17/22 for some other engine.
Do you have any data to support this?For high power I recommend a modified D24 intake. It give you a higher flow and the big plenum is good for distribution to all 4 runners.
For ultra performance I suggest to polish the inside of the intake.
At the moment I have one D24 intake in the house.
Rub87 wrote here some data from d24 intakeDo you have any data to support this?