Originally Posted by anton28

Two things we are leaving out are the transmission and rear end. How strong are these components?

Originally Posted by telum01

I've heard of a couple rear diffs going. I believe it was Bleen that broke his while launching, and I think Mikey lost one as well (or maybe it was a gear in his transmission).

Originally Posted by telum01

So if I'm looking at your design correctly, airflow is coming from the turbos, into the central box, up into the wide flat plenum, then down through the intercoolers?

If that's correct, I'm seeing a number of fasteners within the wide flat plenum. Or is that plenum a two-piece unit (lower portion is one piece, it bolts on, then you bolt on the top half of the plenum)?

So installation would be:
1) bolt lower manifolds to intercooler cores
2) bolt those onto engine
3) install fuel injectors and rails
4) bolt central inlet box to lower plate of the upper plenum
5) bolt lower plate (with inlet box) to intercooler cores
6) install top half of upper plenum

Originally Posted by anton28

What cars? Vantage? Dbs/9?

Originally Posted by AMV12V

This is what I like to see. I'm owned turbo cars for 10+ years and have been racing and building custom turbo parts since I could remember. Compression isn't that big of a problem on the AM11. I ran 25psi (93 Oct) and 38psi (E85) on a Dynamic Compression of 10.5:1 on my last car with a HTA3586 (a bit larger than the 3582 you mentioned). Dynamic compression is the important number, not static compression. MRY is very much correct in the fact that flow, chamber design, port design and even CAMs change the way dynamic compression is measured/effects performance. Just because a car has a static compression (piston) of 9.5:1 doesn't mean the REAL compression is actually that. I don't care about static compression.

A MoTec ECU should be able to run the AM11. I'm not a MoTec guy, I've done mostly OpenSource, AEM, or ProEFI so someone this a vast amount of experience with MoTec would better be able to explain the load/cells/inputs it can handle. If there were to be a Twin Turbo setup built, I would 100% say stand alone, not piggy back or flash/opensource. Also, I know the AM11 doesn't have a knock sensor on the Vantage pre S. I don't know much about the DB9/DBS in that regard, but assuming the same is true. Some will tell you running a turbo car without a knock sensor is asking for trouble, but its been done for decades (safely) before knock sensors were ever introduced. A good tuner can identify Ping/Det while tuning without a knock sensor.

Talking about IC issues. There are a few different options, and it is possible to not have a IC and be totally fine. Look at the old DSMs, they never had a FMIC from the factory and I can name a lot of other cars too that are setup in the same manner. If boost pressure doesn't go very high, you can get away without an intercooler because the compressed air isn't dangerously high. Now this may not be preferred, but it is possible. The larger the turbo the more efficient it will be and less need for a robust cooling system. Go look up Under Ground Racing if you haven't heard of them. They do twin turbo kits for Ferrari/Lambo. Those are V8/V10 and low boost they can make 700+whp with ease, but they do incorporate an air to water IC. They use PTE turbos, mostly 6262s and make that power on low boost. I would much rather do conventional tank Air to Water setup than a plenum intercooler setup. Engines get hot and you are practically making a top mount IC setup and the transient heat that transfers from the head to the IC would be undesired even with water - I wouldn't personally want this setup. 1) Water once it gets hot is very hard to cool down. 2) This is likely the most expensive setup in terms of cooling. I think a low boost twin 3586 or 3794 might be able to get away with no intercooler and easily make 700+whp. If IAT raise above the threshold, water injection would be the simplest form of cooling and only cost a few hundred bucks.

The weak point for the AM11 would be Rods then Pistons. I would do a simple Rod/Piston drop in or motor refresh with larger bearings (always a good idea with turbo cars to help with increased bearing loads). The head has a lot of work that can be done and pairing that with a set of custom high lift/duration/ramp rate cams, you could get an easy 50-75+ hp just from the head work (depending on how crazy you get, but I would max out the VE of the head on a flow bench). It is good/safe horsepower and will actually help you run more boost safely on a turbo setup than the stock head/cams. Long story short, I personally believe that 700whp is easily achievable without a lot of special work pending the ECU/injectors can be solved.

I should probably go back to work.

Mike

Originally Posted by telum01

Phenolic spacers can help solve this problem. Spacer thickness needs to be taken into account while designing the new manifolds. I ran them on my STi and they made a noticeable difference in intake manifold temps by preventing heat soak from engine to manifold. Thickness for those runs 3mm or 8mm (TMIC or FMIC, respectively, for fitment), but since this would be a custom application, any thickness can be spec'd to fit the design.

Also consider ceramic coating the manifolds to prevent under-hood temps from heating the manifolds. If possible, coat the outsides of the intercooler cores - lots of people use coating or heat-shielding tape. Coating would give a more OEM look as the tape is rather obvious.

Originally Posted by AMV12V

I guess the next big issue would be, what is the point of 700+whp car if you can't get any traction? I doubt you would have traction with 305-315R compound tires even in 3rd. I mean it would be sick to say you have a twin charge V12 but sad to see a Honda Civic beat you to 100mph. I'm going to try and stuff the largest tire I can in the rear without modifications and it looks like the largest may be 315s. Maybe with some minor modifications we may be able to get a 345 under the rear fender? I just have no idea...

I'm definitely interested in this project. I'm new to the Aston so I'm still learning.

Mike

Originally Posted by anton28

MRY i love the idea of the top mount inter-cooler set up built in to the intake manifold but im having a hard time imagining of what you are describing. Maybe a quick pencil sketch?

Originally Posted by MRY

Thanks Mike,

I agree with many of your points. The heat soak can be addressed with timing the AWIC pump runtime, and using composite materials. You can also calculate the thermal reserve capacity of water, and see how much energy you will need it to store before sizing the tank and the radiator for the AWIC system.. (I had a long discussion with Laminova Engineering about this, and the WRC cars that use their coolers have no problems if the thing is properly engineered.) But, all good concerns.

I agree with you on the many things, and the cam timing is especially important, as you mentioned, and I'm also trying to convey, the dynamic compression can be used to engineer the system limitations etc.

For the others:

On another note, the cam timing and piston position play an important part in engineering for peak cylinder pressure. Due to timing of the flame front and ignition and valve timing, you can engineer the system to have not much more peak pressure, but much higher average cylinder pressure which is what you are after.

Rods do not fail in compression unless detonation is an issue. They usually fail in tension, and this is mostly RPM related. The bearings, pins, crank etc all see the same peak pressure, and that transition from peak to trough is what causes cyclical failure. In addition, the positive pressure charge entering the chamber while the piston is on the way up will serve as a cushion and put the rod in compression while the piston is going to TDC, and this saves rods rather than in an N/A motor where the piston is not cushioned from the incoming air charge..

Anyway, I digress..

Originally Posted by anton28

Two things we are leaving out are the transmission and rear end. How strong are these components?

Originally Posted by telum01

For the ECU, maybe reach out to rmrmd1956. He did a ton of digging into the ECU of his V8V to supercharge it. He might have some good info to get things rolling in that regard.
https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/member.php?u=447

Originally Posted by MRY

Traction is not an issue if the system is properly programmed. For example, I have driven a Ferrari F12 from 0-200mph+ on many occasions, and if a stock Civic is faster at any speed, I will run out tomorrow and buy that Civic. But, I know that is not going to happen.

As I mentioned in another post, I have also driven an AMG CL65 Renntech TT 0 to 200 mph, and with the ASR on, it is fine. The F12 has better traction control algorithms in my opinion... The CL65 is also a twin turbo unit, and has about 800 at the crank.. No sweat, runs all day long with A/C in summer.
The F12 had 3xx series Pirellis, and with the traction on in Race setting on the manettino, no spin and great flat shifts...

By the way, I currently have 295 series Michelins on the rear of my DB9, and there is space for a 3XX series. I have to get it on the lift and measure a bit, and I will be able to tell what is the max I can fit without rubbing.

Originally Posted by AMV12V

I guess my big "dislike" is the amount of money and engineering that would go into this design (although it is sweet), wouldn't be necessary unless looking to go big power. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think it would be better to meth/water inject or do a FMIC. You will have more lag with a FMIC due to pressure loss in the piping etc, but with a V12 I'm not sure that it would make that huge of a difference. We aren't dealing with a 2.0L 4 banger. But if there isn't room for a FMIC then I'm all about this design.

Agree on the timing/cylinder pressure. Usually 1* of timing = 3x cylinder pressure increase to that of 1lbs of boost. Timing is what breaks a motor a lot of times, or RPM like you stated stretching rod bolts under tension. Timing also raises the head or puts a hole between two cylinders. I have no problem with boost!!! I ran 600whp on my stock EVO motor simply due to proper timing control which also allows you to keep tq low at peak boost and add timing above that to keep a flat curve. HP doesn't break parts, tq does and tq is relative to timing/cylinder pressure more so than boost. I've heard that the V12 top ring/land area will likely fail under increase temp. I wouldn't want to run stock internals on a turbo V12.

Originally Posted by MRY

You might have to deal with blowby and crankcase breathing evac, but that is solvable as well. I have not dug into this as yet, so I don't know. However, If the car had a dry sump like the V8V, then that would help. Nothing says it's impossible to put one on, or at least an air-oil separator breather of some sort..