Say, that is pretty sharp isn't it. The top cover is gorgeous.
I wonder if the stacks available at place like TWM would have saved a bit of work though.
(well, if the correct size was actually 'off the shelf' available it'd be a toss up between time and tedium vs $ at that point I suppose)

Thanks for sharing.

 

I feel that there need to be some expanded history/photos/details here so that I and fellow lurkers can suffer additional pain of envy.
My compliments, BTW.

 

Very nice! It looks like it has a nice increase in volume as well as to reduce any potential flow biasing of the original plenum chamber design. Generous bellmouths are nice, but I thought they may be a bit to big for the inlet runners

Any way, there is much to be said for quality fibreglass work.

It also looks a lot like the plenum chamber design used on some of the Aussie Buick V6 engines used in our Holden Commodores from years ago.

 

Thanks Richard and thanks for the kind feedback. Allot of math went into the design,and trying to hit a target peak torque for the cams Richard has made for me. The intake runners are stock but ported out to 37+mm, I would have liked to have something in the 44mm range and thats what I made the stacks for but tappered them down to 37mm for now.I still need to test at the dyno but I like the results so far,pulls good and breaths well.
Brad

 

Excelled work there bud! (Brad came by yesterday and I must say that I am impressed with the sorting on the car.)

He went to great lengths to fine-tune everything from the relationship of the crank TDC pointer to the pulley and pulley timing markings, to fine-tuning the exact positioning of his cam-triggers and crank-triggers that drive the MoTec, to the shape of the 60 - 2 trigger-wheel and type of crank-angle sensor, to the sizing of the intake stacks and plenum volume...

Very cool! The car runs great and actually pulls strong all of the way through the 6700-6800 rpm mark to 7K! While the cams breathe real well up top, they are a bit of a compromise in torque down low (although it doesn't feel like it because of the added compression, eliminating the stock Bosch L-Jet and restrictive flapper-crapper MAF, open exhaust and other refinements).

Some of that may come back with more fuel / timing fine-tuning low down in the MoTec maps. The straight cam swap would otherwise have killed the car down low, but the other refinements brought it back down low and the pull up top is sweeeet! The dyno says that he is now right on top of my street 24v 3.0 with the GTA Stage I intake cams and GoTech in horsepower and torque!

Nicely done Brad!

 

More than the 24V??? Wow!

 

I said right on top of my STANDARD compression 24v - I did not say more... Not to take away from what ol' Brad has achieved here, but just to keep it all in perspective; this is a heavily-modified 3.0 12v with HOURS and HOURS of Brad’s EXTREMELY detailed and tenacious time invested in sorting this thing! I mean - to his credit - it has taken a great deal to finally get the power from this motor!

The compression was increased in the 10.0:1 range, disck's cams are VERY lumpy (and set up for horsepower – not torque down-low…) They are quite lumpy, the exhaust is open, the intake is open, the EMS is a very expensive MoTec fully-programmable, stand-alone EMS, the cam-pulleys are variable, the intake is a custom affair that will cost big bucks to produce, it’s an internally-balanced motor with heads ported by Steve at Progressive Automotive, the intake runners are ported, there are custom headers, the enlarged throttle-body is a custom unit, so these are hardly "stock components” as dick jameson bloated below!

Yes, and without all the complexity and cost involved. From stock components we get 275-300 HP. I prefer Megasquirt as it will work with distributor rather than wheel. Again simplicity rather than more "CHANGE"!

Complexity and cost - what are you talking about dick!? Where's the complexity and cost in what I did with my stock 24v transplant in the black car!? Oh, you mean the GTA intake cams that I DROPPED in there WITHOUT having to screw with re-shimming lifters...!? Sounds complex. You would rather run a grassroots EMS like Megasquirt through the hall-sender on the side of a sloppy old distributor!!!??? I did that with my first ever base-base GoTech install 7 years ago!

It works, but you could NEVER achieve the level of fine-tuning that Brad was able to accomplish here DUE to the precision of the 60-2 trigger-wheel and the crank-angle mag-sensor!!! Can’t – and should not – be compared! Play with carbs and leave the EMS to people who know what they are talking about!

Oh - and by the way - still waiting to see that 12 valve with "stock internal components" that makes 275 to 300 horsepower - don't care WHICH end of the car you measure the power at! While one might be able to interpolate that Brad's car has around 265-270 at the crank at this stage (based on a projected 215 to 220 at the wheels), this motor is now a long-long way from being built with “stock components” dick!!! Re-read the list of mods above again and tell me what here is stock (besides the block’s external dimensions perhaps…?)

Again, credit to Brad for what he has accomplished – he has had to do a GREAT deal more than throw together some "stock components" simply with some blowhard’s cams and voila! Sorry, Brad has had to work his arse of to bring it this far - it is a work of art now!

Dick's posts smacks of plowing with another man's cattle.

 

More than 24V

Yes, and without all the complexity and cost involved.

From stock components we get 275-300 HP. Brads intake is a nice addition but sectioned and increased capacity plenums work quite nicely. Just requires correct head work and cams and any of the tunable FI systems will do the job. I prefer Megasquirt as it will work with distributor rather than wheel. Again simplicity rather than more "CHANGE"!

 

Yes, and without all the complexity and cost involved.

From stock components we get 275-300 HP. Brads intake is a nice addition but sectioned and increased capacity plenums work quite nicely. Just requires correct head work and cams and any of the tunable FI systems will do the job. I prefer Megasquirt as it will work with distributor rather than wheel. Again simplicity rather than more "CHANGE"!

Nothing wrong with change, just as long as it's value for money .
I'm (very) slowly going through the motions of adapting a Nissan engine management system (used in a common '80's Aussie car) to my 75 to replace the Motronic system.
Why? Manufacturer quality engine management system that is easy to reprogram. Just utilize all of the original Nissan type sensors, especially the distributor/crank angle sensor, some of which are similar/same as the original Bosch system.

 

Let me know if/when you are ready to sell there, I will buy one.

Regards, Andrew.

 

This engine is very impressive. Getting the power of a lightly modified 3.0 24v from a 3.0 12v is an accomplishment. It represents a lot of effort, time and money. That intake plenum alone represents a lot of work. A Milano with 220rwhp is a very fast car, and will rarely lose a drag race.

Was this easier, or cheaper than going the 24 valve route? I doubt it. However Alfas don't compare well in these two categories against other cars, so anyone seriously concerned with that is probably better off with a WRX, have you seen how much is available for those things? The owner wanted an Alfa with a hot 12 valve engine, and it's his car. I am sure it was a labor of love, because it was not cheap or easy.

Greg

 

Comments

Jungle boy is just JEALOUS!

He forgets that 10 to one is stock compression...
You don`t need all the high tech gadgets he mentions as I have repeatedly said. Just him ranting .
The cams Brad has should not be "lumpy" if set at the timing I suggested...
Rj

 

Jungle boy is just JEALOUS! He forgets that 10 to one is stock compression... The cams Brad has should not be "lumpy" if set at the timing I suggested... Rj

Jealous!? What an idiot - I have my own Alfa toys dick - great ones at that...

Dick, at least try to hide your ignorance. The standard 164 and Milano 3.0 12v V6 is a 9.5:1 compression motor - as was the base motor that Brad utilized for his build (a standard 9.5:1 Milano verde 12v 3.0 core.) Brad had the compression bumped to about 10.0:1 by modifying the rods and the pistons!

Yes, the 3.0 litre 164 S 12v is a 10.0:1 motor standard (and so is the 24v 164 3.0 litre), but neither of these were the basis for Brad's build; nor was a 10.0:1 motor ever "stock components" for any US-model Milano as you had implied. Compression was modified in this Milano - as was most everything else!

And yes - the cams ARE lumpy as all hell (and peaky up top), with a shortfall of lowdown torque (as could be expected from "hot cams" where the timing between intake and exhaust profiles are locked on a common cam and not separated and infinitely and individually variable as they are on a 4-cam motor!) Had it not been for the HUGE efforts that Brad put in to modifying other aspects of the motor for increased power, fine-tuning the ignition timing, optimizing the cam timing settings and sorting the intake and other aspects of the motor, he would have LOST a bunch of torque down low due to the peaky cams!

In regards to compression, both JJ and RJ are correct. Yes, 10:1 is a stock compression ratio on some Alfa 3.0s. However Brad's engine probably didn't come from a 164S or some European version so for his engine 10:1 is a compression increase.

...Brad's engine has a lot more going for it than just cams. Greg

Thanks for "moderating" Greg - as always your cool head is appreciated. Yes - correct - Brad's motor did not start life as a 10.0:1 12v, nor could that motor in a Milano be considered "stock components"...

 

I suppose everyone should be jealous of Brad. He has an awesome car. In regards to compression, both JJ and RJ are correct. Yes, 10:1 is a stock compression ratio on some Alfa 3.0s. However Brad's engine probably didn't come from a 164S or some European version so for his engine 10:1 is a compression increase.

Richard, I don't think anybody doubts your cams. The most powerful Alfa 12V engine I know of ran your cams (until the transaxle suffered a catastrophic failure), but Brad's engine has a lot more going for it than just cams.

Greg

 

wow! 10:1 with 220 whp!! Now that is impressive. I wonder if the CSC headers helped.


RJ,

How different are my cams compared to the Brad's? Mine are 590/85a.

I was thinking of going 11:1 compression (from my 10.5:1 JE pistons). Still doable with those 91 octane and the big cams I think. But my heads are stockish and I think that is the major bottle neck.

 

Can't we all get alone, after all were Alfa guys this isn't Ford vs Chevy!
It's true I've spent a load of loot and yes it is a crime of passion but the main reason I got started on this was I was tired of getting beat up on by other makes at Alfa track days. My car always handle well but an extra bump down the straight isn't a bad thing!
Richard I coud'nt be happier with your cams, that was a 25 hp bump from a Delta cam and it may have a little more.
Bottem line is I've always like the mark and the racing heritage and enjoy tweeking it.
Brad

 

Poor old JJ

Again you are wrong JJ. The stock 2.5 and 3.0s were 9.0 to one. The "S" had 10 to one as well as the "L". What an idiot and ******* you are!

But at least people have the opportunity to see your real nature

Brads cams had the LCs, (lobe seperation angle) set for both tq & hp(111 degree LSA). Unlike your regrinds done at delta... So much for your "South African" bull****.

His timing of the cams is questionable, and I know you don`t have a clue to where it is.
You`re a nutcase Jungle Boy.

Zamani, Brad`s cams are RJR472+3(6) intake/ 82 exhaust. not peaky typical RJR low early duration for torque. Funny Brad said he was very happy with cams... I guess JJ sees the dark side since he isn`t doing as well from a power gain with his expensive 24 V motors. Brad just needs to time them correctly. These are 12mm lift intake and 11mm exh. at valve. Won`t pass E testing on the left coast.

 

Again you are wrong JJ. The stock 2.5 and 3.0s were 9.0 to one. The "S" had 10 to one as well as the "L". What an idiot and ******* you are!

Are you sure about that Richard? It seems to me that the GTV6 2.5 has 9:1 and the Milano 3.0 has 9.5:1.

I am not sure why we are arguing over compression. We all agree that Brad's car is a Milano. Milanos didn't have 10:1 compression from the factory so Brad's car has had a compression increase.

Greg

 

Greg is correct.
3.0L is 9.5:1
3.0S is 10:1
Old 2.5 is 9:1
155 2.5 V6 is 10:1


RJ,

Wow 12mm lift!!! Although I think WA also have similar emission tests.

 

My Potenziata has the "S" pistons and cams and the heads have now been skimmed twice. It has done about 4,000km since a full rebuild, including new sleeves and pistons, guides etc, as well as a very nice porting job. Am I correct in thinking the compression would be upwards of 10.5:1? I realise it is hard to estimate exactly.

 

Brad`s development

Had a long talk with Brad. Seems he`s had a while developing the motor he got from JJ. It was not what was represented by JJ and only made 159HP. (hmmm Stock?) Brad noted that you never see Dyno data from JJ. Wonder why

He has yet to go to the dyno since curing serious ignition problems with the Mo-tec and changing the induction. Should makre good power when cams are retuned as I suggested last evening. Engine was running poorly when last dyno was done. (see excerpt from his email)

As the rest of you do I choose to ingore Jungle Boy`s rants & defences. He is just out to make a buck, just be careful in dealing with him.

Brad is going to the dyno later this month and results should be stunning.

Hi richard, It's been awhile since we last talked and I thought you
might get a kick out of this. First of all I chased down my glitch at
6200 rpm, long story but after talking w/motec I figured out some
issues with crank trigger placement and timming also I change the hall
sensor to a Bosch mag that was designed for a more narrow tooth wheel
like the electromotive I have. No more hickup!
So more tunning and I was seeing #4&3 plugs very rich and 2&6 white
lean. More time checking everything out and more time w/motec,
Swiching wires ,coils and injectors around and motec said to look at
the plenum. I did and after many calculations this is what I came up
with,shaped out of a block foam and layed up in glass. End results all
plugs are burning dead even and it has better flow but no dyno yet.
See what think. Thanks Brad

 

Brad noted that you never see Dyno data from JJ. Wonder why

I have to chime in on this one. In JJ's defense, there is a video on this site of JJ dyno testing a 24 valve setup, and you can see the dyno results on the actual dyno screen. Then engine made north of 300rwhp, which as far as I know is the highest verifiable dyno result in a Milano ever posted on this site. I don't remember what engine it was, probably a big bore variant, and yes, I am jealous.

Greg

 

Regardless, the plenum Brad made looks like it would work for a 24V conversion too. You can get the custom 24v runners to fit the 12v plenum from Beninca and you'd have a great intake. That plenum is just gorgeous!!!!!

BTW Brad, does your calculation show you need a bigger volume than the stock plenum?

 

RJ why would it not pass. With a good cat and the dyno test they use now it seems to be a lot easier to pass then the old stupid idle test. Is there any smog numbers with this set up. The new problem is now you have to use a new style cat in CA which will make it even cleaner but cost a lot more. I do think they can burn out easy on rich motors and have to wonder if they will hold up on something like a L-jet that goes pig rich when the TPS switch clicks.

I kinda think the problem is cat life more then anything. but a programmable ECU with closed loop O2 feed back. I would think make up for a lot.

It seem that good running motors smog well and bad running motors fail smog regardless of other things like CR overlap etc. but it just might be my sample size.
But in the past a well tuned modded motor smoged better them OEM as things were just better. better timing, better mix control. better burning of the mix in the head etc.
and better sealing as it is a new motor..

So I kinda want to know why it would fail. As I have to live here in the peoples republic of California.
I like to know any info related to smog in case it comes up.

 

I think that good plenum performance is a function of plenum geometry not raw volume. There is no rule of formula for plenum volume. Do a search on plenum volume and you will come up with answers between 1/2 and 6 times the engine displacement!

I think the main problem with the stock plenum is that the ends only extend past runners for 3 and 6 by about 1/2 in. or so. Also, the right (inlet side of the plenum) only extends to the right of the runners by about 1". So cylinder 3 is stuck in a pretty tight corner. 6 is also but it isn't quite as bad since the plenum roof is taller on that end it is closer to the throttle.

My research suggests that the ends of the plenum should extend at least 2" beyond the last runner.

Also bell mouths raised off the floor allow the runners to pull in air that is away from the stangnant boundary layer.

It looks like Brad's plenum addresses all of these issues.

Another myth that I have heard is the stock runners are not long enough to be tuned to the operating range of our engines. I thing the stock runners are tuned to the 4th harmonic at about 6500 rpms.

Brad,

What are you using for the fuel pressure regulator? Did you move it because of interference with the plenum?

Great work! Thanks for sharing the pictures.

Jeff

 

Another myth that I have heard is the stock runners are not long enough to be tuned to the operating range of our engines. I thing the stock runners are tuned to the 4th harmonic at about 6500 rpms.

It's a very tricky subject, but designing a manifold to produce peek torque at 6500RPM isn't exactly ideal for a road car.
I'm going so sight 'majority rules' here .
Most car manufacturers design manifolds with much longer runners and they typically design their engines to provide the broadest possible torque curve.
Ford Australia achieved 100% volumetric efficiency on their mid 90's 4 litre, 12 valve 6 cylinder engine using their dual length inlet manifold design. 100% volumetric efficiency was achieved on the longer runners (357Nm@3000rpm).

 

A good setup will pull closer to 120% VE with normal asperation. (100% is a shame, not a point of pride)
Beyond that you've gotta get real tricky with cams and such, and/or go to forced induction.

 

If you could point me in the direction of a standard, road going, common car/engine that produces 120% VE, then I'm all eyes.

 

Cam overlap alone will produce higher than 100% VE as the wave rushes out the exhaust, then as the exhaust closes, the follow on intake air that is still moving at high velocity stuffs the chamber with X amount more volume than that of the cylinder alone.

EDIT:
Max for normally asperated is purported to be 137%, average joe anycar without any work done, around 80%~85%

Formula for calculating VE = 3456 x CFM / CID x RPM

Words to read

Beyond that, you'll have to do your own research.

 

Cam overlap alone will produce higher than 100% VE as the wave rushes out the exhaust, then as the exhaust closes, the follow on intake air that is still moving at high velocity stuffs the chamber with X amount more volume than that of the cylinder alone.

If you could point me in the direction of a standard, road going, common car/engine that produces 120% VE, then I'm all eyes.

And how is having that much overlap going to help a road car that doesn't have variable valve timing perform at low engine speeds?

 

How do you know how much overlap, or lift, or duration is or isn't needed to exceed 100%?
An hour ago you didn't even know you could go beyond 100% with normal asperation.

 

Hang on a second!!!!!
1st of all, I never said an engine couldn't go over 100% VE I sighted a real world example of a standard, common car that achieved 100% VE at sane engine speed (3000rpm) using manifold runner length.
I have read of Jaguar RACE engines that achieved 120% VE, but the relevance of a race engine to a road engine is very little!

And you still haven't named names of a STANDARD, COMMON, PRODUCTION CAR that has achieved 120% VE at sane, typical road car use by Joe Bloggs, engine speed!
And make it a 2 valve per cylinder, non variable valve timing 1 too!

 

Not my job to research that, especially as it's almost never published and I'm not interested in punching numbers all night long into a calculator to find them just to satisfy your curiosity.

 

That didn't stop you from making claims tho............

 

that didn't stop you from making claims tho...

..!., ..........