VU MotorsportsIntake/Exhaust Team

Final PresentationKristina KitkoMark MelaskyPerry PetersonTim Wranovix

Project Description

• Design and build a new intake and/or exhaust system for the 2008 Formula SAE racecar

• Prepare a design report to be used in the FSAE 2008 Competition in Detroit

Problems with Current Naturally Aspirated System• Inadequate data describing the intake and

exhaust systems– FSAE team has suffered at competition due to lack

of presentable data– FSAE team is unable to make improvements to

current system due to lack of appropriate testing and modeling

Problems with Current Naturally Aspirated System (cont’d)• Intake was made from spare parts in one day• Exhaust system is very heavy

– FSAE team is using the stock muffler from the Honda motorcycle (8.5 pounds)

– Total system weighs around 25 pounds

Constraints• Described in FSAE rules:

– 20mm Venturi restrictor on intake – 110 dB max exhaust volume

• Packaging:– Fit within rear of car– Air filter, throttle, restrictor, fuel rail and muffler mounts

• Cost:– Team must report market values of components used

Deliverables

• Finished intake and/or exhaust system that is ready to be mounted on the 2008 FSAE car by April 1.

• Detailed design report – Technical data with flow modeling– Images

Options

• Naturally Aspirated– Build intake and/or exhaust

• Turbocharged– Build intake and exhaust

Natural Aspiration

• Pros– FSAE engine is setup for

natural aspiration– Cheaper than forced

induction system– Intake and/or exhaust

can be redesigned– No moving parts, so less

likely to fail– Not pressurized

• Cons– Less power than

complete forced induction

– Geometry needs to be thoroughly calculated

Turbo

• Pros– Increased power– Intake and exhaust are

designed as one system– Simpler geometry

compared to a naturally aspirated system

– Widens engine’s power band

• Cons– Expensive– Heavy– Turbo lag– Current FSAE high

compression pistons need to be replaced

– Too much power makes the car harder to drive

Competition Scoring

34%

15%15%

10%

8%

8%

5% 5%Endurance

Design

Autocross

Cost

Business

Acceleration

Skid-Pad

Fuel Economy

Turbos in Competition

• Intake system data for 93/108 teams– 82 teams had natural aspiration– 11 teams had turbos

• Overall placement– 6, 11, 14, 16, 45, 50, 53, 54, 57, 86, and 95

Schools with Turbos

• Design is scored out of 150 points• 100 points is tied for 14th with 24 cars• 80 points is tied for 38th with 30 cars• 60 points is tied for 68th with 26 cars• 40 points is tied for 94th with 10 cars

• Top cost score is 93.31

Team Florida Kokushikan LavalNC

State Cornell McGillMinnesota

StateWestern

Washington Delaware Venezuela McMasterPlacesOverall 6 11 14 16 45 50 53 54 57 86 95

Acceleration 9 8 41 1 73 67 11 53 73 73 73Skid Pad 33 12 39 18 10 62 44 43 76 76 76Autocross 7 26 33 38 10 50 71 30 70 90 90

Endurance 9 15 7 16 37.45 36 37.45 37.45 27 37.45 37.45Finish Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No NoScoresDesign 100 100 80 80 100 80 100 60 60 80 40

Cost 80.54 70.81 72.97 68.98 77.84 79.46 79.45 79.78 75.83 85.49 82.22

Engine Placement

Front of Car

Intake Ports Interface

Exhaust Ports Interface

Placement

General Intake Requirements

• Air filter mount and scoop• Throttle body redesign• Venturi optimization • Plenum volume optimization• Velocity stack design• Fuel injector positioning and mounts

Potential Exhaust SetupFiring Order 1-2-4-3

3Y 4-to-1 Dual Muffler

Next Step

• Proceeding with a Naturally Aspirated System• Begin modeling an intake system• Begin modeling an exhaust system