MX-3.com

wytbishop wrote:

_-Night-Shade-_ wrote: You can teach yourself anything these days, the difference between that and going to school for it is that you get a fancy piece of paper, for the most part.

That is a very bold and wildly inaccurate statement Igor. I love you like a little brother but...um...no.

This.

Daninski wrote:I feel the intellectually challenged are not being proportionally represented here so I've decided to take up the flag for them. We never graduated from any institute of higher learning and the only club we'd be qualified for might be 'The Hair Club for Men' but all that aside. I feel nothing can replace or get you through this world of ours more than some good 'common dog' (common sense). My 5 cents.

Common sense is practically required(or should be) for survival on this planet, and I agree to a point... Beyond that, the experience(s) of 1 man or woman will never come close to the experiences of even 5. Let alone Thousands...

I'm Pre-Engineering, if you can call it that at this point. I took far too long to pay off my debts and get to a clean slate for college, but I'd have to be a complete tool to think it would be easy. I'm intelligent, and I know enough to understand how little I'm capable of learning in this lifetime. The beauty of learning, you can do it until you're dead. Unless you already know everything of course.

Hell, only an idiot thinks they know everything; You don't need a fancy piece of paper to see that.

Sleeper6 wrote: Take for example the adjustment bolts on a B6 alternator, the front top bolt is easily accessed where-as the lower bolt head that also should be loosened is placed under the manifold? Sure it works and fits all your engineering requirements but it isn't very practical, why not put it on the proper belt side. Maybe thats just my un-educated common sense side talking, or maybe, just maybe its the resentment that someone else who also holds atleast a 4yr degree was so ignorant as to design something like that.

I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding among some of the contributors to this conversation as to what an Engineer actually does and how a thing like an adjustment bracket is commissioned and designed. In the company I work for the Engineering group is fairly small. 8 people working on a wide variety of projects. In a case like that a single person often works on a project from beginning to end and is involved in most and sometimes all aspects of a design and the eventual creation of a final product.

But in the case of a company like Mazda and the design of a Car there are hundreds of people from Graphic Designers to Technologists to Engineers working in dozens of teams. When the engine group is TOLD by the Project Leader that they are using the B6 engine in the new MX-3 Precidia, it’s up to them to make things fit.

In the case of the guy who actually did design the adjustment bracket for that alternator you might think someone popped into his cubicle and said…”Hey Phil, we need an adjustment bracket for the alternator in the new MX-3 project. Can you whip something up for us?” In fact what likely happened, back in 1986 when it was first used on a first gen 323, is…

”Phil, we need you to design a bracket that will be used for the next 20 years, on every car the B series engine ever goes into, both RHD and LHD, FWD and AWD, B6, B8 and BP engines. It has to be simple and easy to use, low profile and have minimum moving parts.”

“And we need it by Friday.”

“And it has to cost less than $6.”

Then Phil has to calculate the design shear stress of the pivot and pinch bolts because a 12mm bolt costs $.05 more than a 10mm bolt and over the lifespan of the part number 5 or so million of them will be made and that extra nickel will add up to a wasted $250,000 which will cause his boss to fire him.

He needs to calculate the bending moment on the slider bracket, where the maximum bending moment occurs and at what belt tension and what safety factor to use because some moron with a crow bar might decide that the factory specs aren’t tight enough. If the bracket buckles his boss will fire him.

He needs to decide what materials to use and what torque spec to apply to the pivot bolt and the pinch bolt. Is the material of the alternator housing strong enough to withstand that torque value? If every end user on the planet strips the nut on their alternator his boss will fire him.

Then after he’s figured all that out he has to lay it out so that it will fit in a A-spec, E-spec and J-spec model. It has to fit with engines with EGR and without, SOHC and DOHC heads and all their intake manifold variations.

Any decently handy farmer can make a bracket that will fit his application and last 100 years out of angle iron and whatever hardware is laying about. An Engineer designs a bracket that is exactly as strong as it needs to be, costs as little as possible to manufacture and can be used in as many applications as the people who pay him want it to.

And one last thing on a personal note. Getting a degree in Engineering is arguably the most difficult educational endeavor that there is. While most people were sitting up reading the internet so that they could sound like they know what they're talking about on the forums, I was up every night till 3am and then I was up again at 7 for class...or a tutorial...or a lab.

I didn't finish my Engineering degree because I couldn't reconcile the purely theoretical nature of the education with the things I wanted to do in my career. I left university and became a Technologist instead so believe me I understand your point. But of the 106 students that I started my 2 technical program with exactly 26 graduated. These were people who thought like you do, that it's just a piece of paper.

Exactly.

_-Night-Shade-_ wrote:As far as cars go, yeah I have a better understanding of the automotive physics and mechanics than some people studying engineering out there. You can teach yourself anything these days, the difference between that and going to school for it is that you get a fancy piece of paper, for the most part.

LMAO

You can teach yourself anything these days?

Nd4SpdSe wrote:I agree with both sides. Being smart usually means you have an education but doesn't mean you have to have one to know what you're talking about. Also, having an education either doesn't mean you're smart and knowledgable either...

My experience and personal opinion with Engineers is that they're too stuck on the math. Just cause the math says something works in a certain way, doesn't mean it will. Also just cause the math says it's impossible, doesn't mean it isn't either. They also get bored and like to over-engineer things beyond practicality, lol!

Give us a example of "stuck on the math".
They also get bored and over-engineer things beyond practicality?

I cant believe what i am reading. Yeah engineering may seem like its easy to do and full of "common sense" but I can sure as hell tell you that its not.

Juans_93_MX3 wrote: Give us a example of "stuck on the math".
They also get bored and over-engineer things beyond practicality?

I cant believe what i am reading. Yeah engineering may seem like its easy to do and full of "common sense" but I can sure as hell tell you that its not.

Bugatti Veyron.

Anyways now that we know all you engineer types are united how bout back on topic to model a mx3 bay for some practical application? I for one would find it very useful for my summer plans to know the spacial measurements of a 2.5 in regards to intake mounting and hood clearance for my future plans.

On topic again, I think it's a great idea. However... Unless one or two people who REALLY know their stuff get involved, and dedicate lots of time and effort to this project... Not to mention an empty engine bay, then it probably won't happen.

It's sad to say it, but it's honestly more likely to flop than fly.

Ya know I seem to recall that engineers build the Titanic where as amateurs built Noah's Ark.

Juans_93_MX3 wrote:

_-Night-Shade-_ wrote:As far as cars go, yeah I have a better understanding of the automotive physics and mechanics than some people studying engineering out there. You can teach yourself anything these days, the difference between that and going to school for it is that you get a fancy piece of paper, for the most part.

LMAO

You can teach yourself anything these days?

Do you live in a cave or something? Actually I don't even know why I'm wasting my time replying to this post.



Hey I'm not here to offend anyone, and I'm not against engineers by all means. If not for engineers I wouldn't have the pleasure of my MX-3. I'm just here to remind you about the cold fact that just cause you're studying engineering doesn't neccessarily mean you have a better understanding in that aspect than someone that doesn't, and justifying your opinions based on the fact that you're an engineering student is not very credible (ex: "I'm right because I'm an engineer!"), in fact it's just sad. If I had to back up my claims on the basis that I'm studying engineering I would feel pretty insecure. wytbishop knows I've had plenty of technical conversations with him and brought ideas to the table that even he hasn't considered. I could go on to point out some of the most influential and technical examples of engine builds and custom suspension and brake setups that have been done out there by regular guys who aren't engineers and just did their research, but pointing out specific examples is irrelevant.

_-Night-Shade-_ wrote:As far as cars go, yeah I have a better understanding of the automotive physics and mechanics than some people studying engineering out there. You can teach yourself anything these days, the difference between that and going to school for it is that you get a fancy piece of paper, for the most part.

Honestly, I can see why people took this as a jab... Still, trying to justify it just adds insult to injury Igor.

It's the mark of a wise man to admit a mistake. You can't get past what you can't admit, and I know you are better than that.

Ive given up on ever proving an engineer wrong, in the end all your doing is proving a different engineer right.

Again back on topic can we get a proper engine modeled atleast? Or if any of you could point me in the right direction to research proper transition sizes for intake runners to maximize distribution combined with fuel ports. Thanks!

Sleeper6 wrote:Ive given up on ever proving an engineer wrong, in the end all your doing is proving a different engineer right.

Again back on topic can we get a proper engine modeled atleast? Or if any of you could point me in the right direction to research proper transition sizes for intake runners to maximize distribution combined with fuel ports. Thanks!

Your first sentence is dead on!

The second one, are you referring to equalizing the air distribution between intake runners? It's harder than it sounds, much harder. You may be better off individually tuning each cylinder's A/F ratio. MSIII will allow this, it really depends on your goals... Personally, I've been mulling this over all week, funny that you brought it up(unless I'm misunderstanding your question )

I'm an engine member on our FSAE team. We're building a one off custom CF intake maifold for a F4i. Designing a manifold is much more finicky than you'd think.

You basically NEED a flow sim program, and then to back up a decent prototype, a flow bench. Everything else is shooting in the dark.

You need to in the very least you need your HP curve, MAP reading, and AIT reading. Once you determine the speed through the TB, should calculate the Reynolds number to see how the air is behaving, and then design it accordingly.

Our first design was utter failure because we underestimated the speed of the incoming air (its actually close to half mach) and the flow sim suggested we were feeding cyl #4 2.6x as much air as cyl 1, simply because the designer didn't account for the magnitude of the momentum effect at those speeds.