Bends are a minor detriment compared to changing the diameter of the pipe. Obviously running the cold air intake straight from the manifold to the throttle body to the maf to the filter is ideal, however, if you are running a more conventional setup then you want to focus on maintaining a smooth, identical diameter through the whole intake tract.
Bends are called "minor losses" while changes in diameter and friction are called "major losses" in fluid mechanics text books. So you can see why that stock ribbed hose is complete trash.
Instead of focusing on bends and pipe length, design should focus on a continuous smooth pipe surface of unvarying diameter.
Adam, first off I want to say thanks for your feedback. I actually enjoy your "backed" evidence. You know that there are a couple out there that are bias in their suggestions. Just so everyone knows, but I am not talking about anyone that has posted in this thread.
Now, onto the topic. I apologize for talking about bends and I did not intend to portray that bends are the most important determiner in power production.
Before I speak briefly on friction and diameter, it has been a long time since I have seen a stock ribbed piece unit. Is it "ribbed" on the inside? Anyone got pictures?
Indeed, bends are minor losses. This does not mean that it should not be considered, which you know. Again, as you know a change in the direction of air (aka. bend) causes the air to lose energy and inertia.
Now onto friction, a smooth pipe is not as ideal as one might believe. This all goes back to laminar vs. turbulent flow in relation to the roughness of the surface, based off of Reynold's number. Air flows over a boundary from the wall. Air does not flow against the wall so I do not see that the aftermarket wall offerings are restrictive. Air speed at the pipe wall is, in effect, zero. Air flows over this boundary...
I agree with keeping the diameter as even as possible, within reason, but this two is not the end all either.
IE, if you have a manifold with a 75mm opening, you should run a 75mm throttle body, 75mm tubing, and a 75mm MAF for optimal flow. Affecting the turbulence of the flow should be avoided even at the cost of bending the tract.
Don't take my word for it, google head loss, minor loss, major loss, darcy-weisbach, etc.
With this in mind, when someone claims that size X throttle body can flow Y CFM, I tend to take that flow value with a grain of salt. I really don't care how much air throttle body flows on someone's flow bench. If that criteria was used, then pretty much every throttle body would flow enough for any 8.2 deck combo. The flow value that I care about would be if that throttle body were attached to the exact same intake tract that I installed on my car. In that case, I guarantee one would find that the throttle body that had the same inside diameter as the entire intake tract would flow more, and have less turbulence, then a mismatched tract despite the manufacturer's claim that the mismatched throttle body has enough flow.
Here is where my problem with keeping everything exactly the same. You know that a 75mm MAF is not going to flow as good as a 75mm open pipe. The MAF sensor, like the throttle body blade and screws, obstruct this flow and piping linearness. So what is one to do?
This is the point where I believe that the flow numbers may actually have some reason behind them. Not just because the #1 throttle body company in the nation says so. Now keeping the diameter is a great place to start no doubt
I see a gain being done with a better matching of the throttle body size to the intake piping as well. I cringe when I see someone stick on a 4.00" powerpipe or home made pipe (101.6mm), and then have a 65-70-75mm TB. This is an abrupt change of air flow and I can see a gain from this, not because the throttle body could not flow enough, but because the abrupt change of size is then increased.
I see post that the throttle body cannot flow enough
As you stated, this is not the case, but just mismatched parts.
On a side note, a larger pipe decreases air speed. A smaller pipe increases air speed.
Some people would then say... but the manifold necks down from 75mm to 65mm. My response is that the engineers that designed the intake manifold have a reason to reduce flow pressure and increase velocity at that point. What that is, I don't know, but engineer's in general are pretty sharp and as an engineer, I will tell you straight up I would never implement a design without a reason and math to back it up. Perhaps increasing velocity at that point aids the air to evenly distribute itself to the cylinders?
Because nobody read that, I'll summarize and say I think Paul will pick up some ponies because switching to a larger throttle body will minimize head loss, NOT because he was lacking flow from just the throttle body. Less loss, more air, more power!
Adam (got an A in Fluid Dynamics!)
Yes, the Holley Systemax has a 75mm opening where the throttle body mates up. It does neck down to roughly 65mm a couple inches in. I believe this is to increase air speed (remember, smaller pipe increases air speed), and with the large-small-large tract going into the upper plenum, I believe you are onto something. Since air flows along the boudary layer of air along the wall, it could help distribute the air more evenly to each manifold runner, therefore into the combustion chamber.
I have seen some stick 75-90 mm TB's on the Systemax and have kept the "two inches" in the intake unported. This creates an abrupt change again.
If the engine actually needs it, port INTO the intake, not just the intake opening to "match" a throttle body.
I fully respect the engineering background. I am around a few of these guys. My brother is in school now for mechanical engineering and we have spoke of topics such as this. He has been apart of fluid dynamics, static, dynamic classes as well. My father is an electrical engineer/business master's graduate, and my uncle is an industrial engineer. Anyways, enough of my ramblings. I have really begun to self-teach myself some of this air/fluid theory myself. It is quite interesting...
Now, I got an "A" in public speaking, but that does not mean I should go give a State of the Union address
Thanks for the feedback and perspective. I hope you did not take any of my comments as derogatory, because I actually agree with A LOT of what you have stated.
I had a much longer post, but it did not post