Maximizing Velocity in Two-Stroke Engine Intake Manifolds: Why Speed Beats Volume

waxhead

wannabe backflipper
Location
gold coast
When you're working on optimizing a two-stroke engine, the intake system's design is one of the most critical aspects to get right. It might be tempting to think that maximizing the volume of air delivered to the engine is the way to go, but in reality, the speed—or velocity—of the air-fuel mixture is what you should be focusing on. Prioritizing velocity in your intake manifold can significantly boost your engine's performance.

In two-stroke engines, both velocity and flow are important, but they play different roles. Flow is all about the quantity of air-fuel mixture that the engine receives, typically measured in cubic feet per minute (CFM). Essentially, it’s about how much mixture is getting through the intake system. On the other hand, velocity is concerned with the speed at which that mixture is moving through the intake, into the crankcase, and ultimately into the combustion chamber. This speed, measured in feet per second (FPS), is crucial for ensuring the engine is filled efficiently and performs at its best.

While it’s true that having a good flow rate can be beneficial, the key to really maximizing power and efficiency in a two-stroke engine lies in getting the velocity right.

For instance, when the intake charge first enters the crankcase in a two-stroke engine, it’s essential that it does so quickly and efficiently. This quick filling is crucial for maintaining the engine's power output. If the intake charge moves too slowly, the crankcase may not fill completely, leading to a dip in performance.

Scavenging, the process where the fresh air-fuel mixture pushes out the spent exhaust gases, also benefits from high intake velocity. A faster-moving intake charge has the momentum needed to clear out the exhaust gases effectively, resulting in a cleaner charge and more complete combustion, which in turn boosts power and efficiency.

Moreover, the faster the air-fuel mixture moves through the intake, the better it mixes and atomizes. This improved mixing is especially important in two-stroke engines because the quality of combustion relies heavily on the consistency of the mixture. A well-atomized mixture burns more completely, producing more power and reducing the chances of unburned fuel escaping into the exhaust.

Another advantage of high intake velocity is its impact on volumetric efficiency. This refers to the engine’s ability to fill its combustion chamber with the air-fuel mixture. By ensuring the mixture is drawn into the engine at high speed during each intake cycle, you’re maximizing the amount of air and fuel that enters the engine, which is particularly important in two-stroke engines where the time available for intake is limited.

Finally, high intake velocity helps to prevent reversion, which is when the air-fuel mixture flows backward into the intake during certain phases of engine operation. By maintaining a steady forward flow, high velocity ensures the mixture continues into the cylinder, rather than being pushed back into the intake tract, which can severely affect performance.

When designing or optimizing an intake system for a two-stroke engine, it’s essential to focus on factors that maintain high velocity. This includes optimizing the reed valve design, carefully matching the intake port shape and size to the engine’s needs, selecting the correct carburetor size, and ensuring the intake tract length is balanced with the engine’s overall tuning. Proper jetting is also crucial, as it helps maintain the consistency of the air-fuel mixture, preventing issues that can arise from either a too-rich or too-lean condition, both of which can affect velocity and overall performance.

In conclusion, when it comes to two-stroke engines, focusing on velocity rather than just flow can lead to significant performance gains. By ensuring the air-fuel mixture is delivered quickly and efficiently, you can improve crankcase filling, enhance scavenging, and boost the overall efficiency of the engine. Whether you’re fine-tuning your current setup or designing a new engine from scratch, keeping velocity at the forefront of your decisions will help you achieve the best possible performance. After all, in a two-stroke engine, it’s not just about how fast you go—it’s about how fast the air-fuel mixture gets there.

When we designed the Wax Racing intake, we spent a lot of time ensuring that there were no variations in the runner along the way. This was crucial for keeping the velocity as high as possible without restricting airflow. We also made sure that the exit speed of the manifold was maximized and shaped in a way that reduces reversion and stand-off in your intake tract. The result is an intake manifold that not only delivers optimal performance but also maintains the consistency and efficiency that high-performance engines demand.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    135.6 KB · Views: 39
  • 4.jpg
    4.jpg
    61.4 KB · Views: 39
  • 5.jpg
    5.jpg
    95.3 KB · Views: 38
  • 7.jpg
    7.jpg
    46.6 KB · Views: 36
  • this one.jpg
    this one.jpg
    81.8 KB · Views: 36
Location
dfw
Kawasaki did this with their big pin manifolds and carbs, especially the Keihins. Basically they made the inlet tract area no larger than the throttle plate so only the Venturi is smaller. If it was practical we would mount the carb directly on top of the reeds. Our manifolds reduce signal, single carb inlets are terrible.
 

chelminski

Site Supporter
Location
Poland
I understand that it's ideal for the space under the piston, as it moves upward, to fill quickly with the correct amount of mixture, ensuring it doesn't back up, is properly balanced in terms of fuel-to-air ratio, and is evenly mixed throughout its volume. But would you say that speed is more important than the other parameters, given their significant impact on efficiency and the correlation between some of them? Let’s consider a 10 mm engine with SE carburetors from Hiro. If speed is the most crucial factor, we should opt for 48 mm carburetors, but the best results seem to come from 50 mm ones. I assume that since in both theoretical cases, the vacuum created by the upward-moving piston draws in the mixture with equal force, a larger intake diameter would reduce the linear velocity of the mixture. Unless these engines have enough reserve capacity to draw in air at high speed, and the 50 mm carburetor doesn’t limit their capabilities, resulting in similar flow. I’m also curious, as I think you have polished walls in the intake manifold, which I’ve noticed is often a topic of debate. Is it better to have rough walls in the intake channel to create turbulence for better mixing, or should we aim for a laminar flow with minimal resistance, assuming the carburetor’s fuel delivery ensures proper mixing?
 
Just in this way the standup pwc industry is quite funny, everybody talks about research and development in this and that, but when it comes down to a flow chart or a dyno sheet, nothing ever is shown or rarely done.
I would love to see some engines and different carb/intake/exhaust setups actually being dynoed.

In the snowmobile industry this is done all the time
 
Location
dfw
It would take a lot of ski owners with dynos before any published information could be trusted. I have PWC magazine adds that show a FPP 701 pipe claiming 12hp one month and 19hp the next. Everything has already been developed. As I have said before, pwc owners do not stick around long enough to learn anything even if wanted to. Our suppliers are desperate to say whatever it takes to get an order.
 

chelminski

Site Supporter
Location
Poland
I think it's not worth blaming the suppliers for the lack of dyno results. It's not easy to obtain them. I believe it's great that there are people who dedicate their time and money to developing new products, and they certainly aren't making a fortune from it. I encourage keeping this discussion focused on the technical aspects since some interesting points have been raised here.
 
Yes ofc chelminski, but what I mean is, you never or rarely get any hard proof of what power this and that makes, except for what you feel in your butt and arms.
My hat is off for those dudes and companys that push this forward absolutly but everything in this buisness of aftermarket stuff is so crazy expensive that I think its a bit wierd that no one actually demands a flowchart or dyno results from it, but that I guess just is the difference of this Sport compared to others.

Like, hey lets buy a 1200cc engine for 11-12k usd, they say it has 200+ hp, so of course it has, they said so, bc you can double backflip it, but no really other proof of it.
 

Roseand

The Weaponizer
Site Supporter
Location
Wisconsin
Yes ofc chelminski, but what I mean is, you never or rarely get any hard proof of what power this and that makes, except for what you feel in your butt and arms.
My hat is off for those dudes and companys that push this forward absolutly but everything in this buisness of aftermarket stuff is so crazy expensive that I think its a bit wierd that no one actually demands a flowchart or dyno results from it, but that I guess just is the difference of this Sport compared to others.

Like, hey lets buy a 1200cc engine for 11-12k usd, they say it has 200+ hp, so of course it has, they said so, bc you can double backflip it, but no really other proof of it.
With freestyle skis dyno numbers don't mean squat unfortunately. You could have something that makes 200 hp on the dyno and sucks to ride. It has to make power in the right place, and Carbs, ignition/timing, exhaust, pump and tuning all play a massive part in how it runs.. If a ski isn't tuned right there is not much forgiveness. Not to mention so much about how it runs and how you tune it is rider preference. Some like a strong bottom hit, others want a mid to top screamer for combos. That might mean choosing a different engine..
Your best bet is riding different setups, and/or going with a motor that has a tried and true tuning recipe that rips enough to satisfy you.
 
With freestyle skis dyno numbers don't mean squat unfortunately. You could have something that makes 200 hp on the dyno and sucks to ride. It has to make power in the right place, and Carbs, ignition/timing, exhaust, pump and tuning all play a massive part in how it runs.. If a ski isn't tuned right there is not much forgiveness. Not to mention so much about how it runs and how you tune it is rider preference. Some like a strong bottom hit, others want a mid to top screamer for combos. That might mean choosing a different engine..
Your best bet is riding different setups, and/or going with a motor that has a tried and true tuning recipe that rips enough to satisfy you.
You totally missed my point.
But no a dyno test on a freestyle/freeride motor doesnt suck, it still gives you proof that the motor is capable of those hp that the manufacturer has promised, it can show the differences between exhaust system, it can help with finding sweet spots for ignition and this and that.

Just like in snowmobiles, there you got variable clutches that needs tuning, just like a jetpump, but those aftermarket engines/stroker kit all gets dynoed.

I hardly doubt that any of this 1200ccs engines actually pulls 200+hp, but no one knows for sure, they havent been dynoed so everything is just guessing.
If I ever get my hands on one, it will be dynoed
 

Roseand

The Weaponizer
Site Supporter
Location
Wisconsin
You totally missed my point.
But no a dyno test on a freestyle/freeride motor doesnt suck, it still gives you proof that the motor is capable of those hp that the manufacturer has promised, it can show the differences between exhaust system, it can help with finding sweet spots for ignition and this and that.

Just like in snowmobiles, there you got variable clutches that needs tuning, just like a jetpump, but those aftermarket engines/stroker kit all gets dynoed.

I hardly doubt that any of this 1200ccs engines actually pulls 200+hp, but no one knows for sure, they havent been dynoed so everything is just guessing.
If I ever get my hands on one, it will be dynoed
Sorry @wax for the thread derail!!
Wwik, this thread has a lot more detailed talk about dynos including why engine builders in the ski world don't bother.
 
Sorry @wax for the thread derail!!
Wwik, this thread has a lot more detailed talk about dynos including why engine builders in the ski world don't bother.
Yes if you read it you see ive posted there, builders dont do it because people blindly trust them and buys stuff with hopes and Dreams, Yes they run good, but does a comp 900 pull 160+hp, and a new 1200cc around 200+? Naah i doubt it, but however they do run good.
 

waxhead

wannabe backflipper
Location
gold coast
I understand that it's ideal for the space under the piston, as it moves upward, to fill quickly with the correct amount of mixture, ensuring it doesn't back up, is properly balanced in terms of fuel-to-air ratio, and is evenly mixed throughout its volume. But would you say that speed is more important than the other parameters, given their significant impact on efficiency and the correlation between some of them? Let’s consider a 10 mm engine with SE carburetors from Hiro. If speed is the most crucial factor, we should opt for 48 mm carburetors, but the best results seem to come from 50 mm ones. I assume that since in both theoretical cases, the vacuum created by the upward-moving piston draws in the mixture with equal force, a larger intake diameter would reduce the linear velocity of the mixture. Unless these engines have enough reserve capacity to draw in air at high speed, and the 50 mm carburetor doesn’t limit their capabilities, resulting in similar flow. I’m also curious, as I think you have polished walls in the intake manifold, which I’ve noticed is often a topic of debate. Is it better to have rough walls in the intake channel to create turbulence for better mixing, or should we aim for a laminar flow with minimal resistance, assuming the carburetor’s fuel delivery ensures proper mixing?
Absolutely, CFM (cubic feet per minute) is crucial. You need to ensure that your airflow matches what your carburetors can handle—but not exceed it. When you increase the intake size beyond what the carburetor can flow, you lose velocity and port energy, which directly impacts throttle response.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting you should restrict airflow to less than what the carburetor can handle. However, you should avoid exceeding the capacity of the throttle plate. The restriction in your intake should primarily be in the venturi section, where a controlled depression is created to properly draw fuel through the jets.
 

waxhead

wannabe backflipper
Location
gold coast
You totally missed my point.
But no a dyno test on a freestyle/freeride motor doesnt suck, it still gives you proof that the motor is capable of those hp that the manufacturer has promised, it can show the differences between exhaust system, it can help with finding sweet spots for ignition and this and that.

Just like in snowmobiles, there you got variable clutches that needs tuning, just like a jetpump, but those aftermarket engines/stroker kit all gets dynoed.

I hardly doubt that any of this 1200ccs engines actually pulls 200+hp, but no one knows for sure, they havent been dynoed so everything is just guessing.
If I ever get my hands on one, it will be dynoed
A jet ski engine operates quite differently from other engines because it never really experiences sustained load. The moment you hit the throttle, it quickly flares to max RPM. The challenge with using a dyno for tuning is that it can impose a massive load on the engine with a slow ramp rate, which can lead to engine damage.

While this approach might work for snowmobiles—I’ve seen it done in videos on YouTube—it’s not ideal for jet ski engines. If you try to tune a two-stroke jet ski engine on a dyno, you’ll likely end up with a very rich mixture just to keep the engine safe. An inertia dyno might be a better option since it doesn’t hold the engine down with a high throttle plate angle. This situation is somewhat similar to over-propping your jet ski, but in a worse way. At least with an over-prop, there’s a chance your engine might survive.

As far as I know, there’s only one dyno currently set up specifically for jet skis. While it's been mentioned that it’s been used, there’s no video evidence of it running, despite the owner having a YouTube channel.
 

waxhead

wannabe backflipper
Location
gold coast
Yes if you read it you see ive posted there, builders dont do it because people blindly trust them and buys stuff with hopes and Dreams, Yes they run good, but does a comp 900 pull 160+hp, and a new 1200cc around 200+? Naah i doubt it, but however they do run good.
ET did dyno his engine, although he didn’t post the power figures, he did share the torque. From that, I calculated it was making around 167 hp, if I recall correctly. This was some time ago, but if you're interested, you can find the thread on here with a quick search.
 
A jet ski engine operates quite differently from other engines because it never really experiences sustained load. The moment you hit the throttle, it quickly flares to max RPM. The challenge with using a dyno for tuning is that it can impose a massive load on the engine with a slow ramp rate, which can lead to engine damage.

While this approach might work for snowmobiles—I’ve seen it done in videos on YouTube—it’s not ideal for jet ski engines. If you try to tune a two-stroke jet ski engine on a dyno, you’ll likely end up with a very rich mixture just to keep the engine safe. An inertia dyno might be a better option since it doesn’t hold the engine down with a high throttle plate angle. This situation is somewhat similar to over-propping your jet ski, but in a worse way. At least with an over-prop, there’s a chance your engine might survive.

As far as I know, there’s only one dyno currently set up specifically for jet skis. While it's been mentioned that it’s been used, there’s no video evidence of it running, despite the owner having a YouTube channel.
Yes different curves for the engines, but hook it up to a modern dyno and use all the brake varibles you want you can simulate a jetpump/clutch, not tolkning about som old Dynomite Land and Sea crap.
Yes the tuning will always be off a bit from when its finally installed in machine, but you will have the numbers the engine can produce..

Yes saw what ET did, but never saw any correction info how he was running that Land and Sea dyno, so cant really trust the numbers 110%

But I really like your progression and development of parts, keep it up
 

waxhead

wannabe backflipper
Location
gold coast
Yes different curves for the engines, but hook it up to a modern dyno and use all the brake varibles you want you can simulate a jetpump/clutch, not tolkning about som old Dynomite Land and Sea crap.
Yes the tuning will always be off a bit from when its finally installed in machine, but you will have the numbers the engine can produce..
Potentially, I guess you could. I'm not a dyno expert, but I'd love to see what a modern dyno with a skilled operator could achieve. I imagine it would be much easier with a four-stroke engine, but with a two-stroke, those slow ramp rates everyone talks about could definitely lead to detonation and significant heat issues.
 

IceRocket1286

Site Supporter
Location
Metro Detroit
Yes different curves for the engines, but hook it up to a modern dyno and use all the brake varibles you want you can simulate a jetpump/clutch, not tolkning about som old Dynomite Land and Sea crap.
Yes the tuning will always be off a bit from when its finally installed in machine, but you will have the numbers the engine can produce..

Yes saw what ET did, but never saw any correction info how he was running that Land and Sea dyno, so cant really trust the numbers 110%

But I really like your progression and development of parts, keep it up
What modern Dyno do you recommend or know of that allows for these simulations? Curious to read about them.
 
What modern Dyno do you recommend or know of that allows for these simulations? Curious to read about them.
Well alot of them you do this on now, both water and eddy braked ones,
Super Flow
Dyno jet
Go Power systems to name a few

Its mostly up to you as a tuner/control of the dyno that limits what pulls that is possible/want to do
 
Top Bottom