# The JBS K04 manifold, reworked



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Since we’ve had a few words lately on manifolds for the TT225, I thought I would put up some pics and thoughts on the new JBS mani. 
First off, here are a few shots of the JBS alongside the stock manifold. 

 

 

 

 

As you can see, the JBS is massive compared to the stock. The JBS weighs in at 12.0 lbs, while the stock is 10.8 lbs. 

The JBS is ceramic coated, but eh, not the best quality. I would have preferred to have it coated myself. But not worth redoing. 

My first surprise was this. 

 

The inlets to the JBS runner inlets are 4 mils smaller than stock! You would think they would have been the same diameter, but the JBS was 34.5 ml and the stock runners were 38.5 ml 

Another surprise was how shrouded the collector exhaust is (was). Given the design of the collector, JBS had to go this way to get the large runner-collector combo to neck down to a standard K0-23 turbo. 

In my case, I had already ported out the inlet to my F23 thinking it was going to fit up to a 034 manifold, which has a larger collector exhaust throat by design. So the only logical thing to do was to open up the JBS manifold to match up to my ported F23. I’m glad I did. The pictures don’t show it well, but removing 5 ml from the collector exhaust diameter opened up the outlet a lot. There’s lots of material there to work with, so I recommend giving it a go. I know in most cases there isn’t a lot to be gained, but given the amount of shrouding, I think in this case it’s worth it. (Be sure to match up your turbo hot side also.) 

BTW, that casting material is hard!! Be prepared to take some extra time to rework the collector and buy some extra burrs and stones. 

While I was at it, I also transitioned the base plate to match up to the gasket. If you do this, be careful not to try and re-throat the runners. The transition from the base plate to the runners is abrupt and re-throating the runners may weaken the manifold at the joints. 

About 80% done porting here, just to give you an idea.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Interesting! 

Nice work Ed, I would have done the same thing (my plan is to Extrude hone that bad boy and then port where necessary). Listening to you, talking about your ported F23 inlet, is like listening to an echo of myself - we really function at the same wave length.. 

I love the collector design of the JBS because it gives enough material to go crazy and get creative with the dremel (something that the other mani always lacked). I have a feeling that the smaller ID runners is to increase velocity which is not a bad thing if the merge is not crowded and restrictive. I can see this manifold opening the door to a lot of thing that were never possible to the K04-02x; and maybe the dream of 400 whp is not totally out of reach (at least for me). 

Excited to see your final results! :beer::beer::beer:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Ed, can you measure the ID of the exhaust ports on the head itself? I'm curious about the difference in ID between the manifold and a small port head...


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Small port exhaust ports are 33mm, AEB is 36mm.


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

20v master said:


> Small port exhaust ports are 33mm, AEB is 36mm.


 Oh damn- and here I am thinking they are the same size. I wonder if mine match up...


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

The only other thing that could possibly be a negative is that runners 1 and 2 merge before the collector. Given the firing order of this engine, there might be some back feed of pressure in the number 1 runner at high RPM. But JBS did run a fluid dynamics model on this design, so I'm hoping it's minimal. 

Even if the design isn’t “perfect”, this manifold is a rock. I think it has the best chance of being a reliable piece compared to OEM. Reliability is worth a lot in my book. Time and testing will tell.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> Small port exhaust ports are 33mm, AEB is 36mm.


 Thanks Adam, somehow I knew that you'd know! 

Now Ed, what is the micrometer runner entrance ID on the JBS and OEM?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I love the collector design of the JBS because it gives enough material to go crazy and get creative with the dremel (something that the other mani always lacked).


 A Dremel isn't going to cut it with this material I went through a burring tool and 8 stones with my die grinder re-working this manifold, unlike other heads and manifolds I've done.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Thanks Adam, somehow I knew that you'd know!
> 
> Now Ed, what is the micrometer runner entrance ID on the JBS and OEM?


 

Somehow, I knew you would ask


----------



## Forty-six and 2 (Jan 21, 2007)

Anyone have flow numbers on this part manifold and the stock one?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Atomic Ed said:


> Somehow, I knew you would ask


 Thanks Ed! 

This confirms my thoughts, the JBS runner ID is better matched to the head than OEM to keep velocity intact (there is no need for me to extrude hone it). The more we find out about this manifold, the more appealing it is getting and the more it shows that JBS did their homework with the flow modeling.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Forty-six and 2 said:


> Anyone have flow numbers on this part manifold and the stock one?


 JBS hasn’t published them like they did for their K03 manifold. I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t publish them at all. The stock K04 manifold flows very poorly compared to the stock K03. If I were them, I wouldn’t want to keep explaining why their K04 manifold doesn’t flow much (if any) better than their K03 manifold. I suspect that this manifold flows around 35 - 40% better than the stock, but that just a guess on my part. 

I believe the most knowledgeable folks on the K04/K03 manifold flows is INA. I seem to remember they actually did flow testing on the stock manifolds some time back. Maybe they will chime in here.


----------



## PLAYED TT (Oct 17, 2010)

Watching this oneopcorn:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

A before and after pic of the F23 porting. Three things were done to the F23, opened up the flange about 5 ml, cut back the excess material around the wastgate, and worked the throat to a funnel-like inlet for flow smoothing. 

Again, hard to show in pictures.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Ed - does your TT have an EGT probe?


----------



## ModsTTand (Jul 8, 2009)

Grats on ur purchase and props for sharing ur finds and info's 

1- Would you consider re-coat or wrapping the exhaust mani after you finish porting/honing project? 

opcorn:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Ed - does your TT have an EGT probe?


 I have an aftermarket EGT for the housing; the same one you use. 

Hopefully we'll get this puppy fired up at the end of the month. I'm on travel now and we're still waiting on the SEM intake mani. I'm anxious to see if the F23 can maintain it's breath all the way to 7K on this 2.1L build. Your thoughts Doug?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

ModsTTand said:


> Grats on ur purchase and props for sharing ur finds and info's
> 
> 1- Would you consider re-coat or wrapping the exhaust mani after you finish porting/honing project?
> 
> opcorn:


 The JBS mani coating, while not the best, should be OK. I don't see the need for wrapping. The phyisical heat properties of this casting material is outstanding; good to 1050*C. 

I'm not a big fan of wrapping in that it collects moisture. Did it on my turbocharged motorcycle and picked up rust quickly.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Atomic Ed said:


> The JBS mani coating, while not the best, should be OK. I don't see the need for wrapping. The phyisical heat properties of this casting material is outstanding; good to 1050*C.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of wrapping in that it collects moisture. Did it on my turbocharged motorcycle and picked up rust quickly.


Yeah, no wrapping please! 

I like where this is going ED, how much boost do you plan to run?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Yeah, no wrapping please!
> 
> I like where this is going ED, how much boost do you plan to run?


Probably around 22-24 psi. 

This is going to be just a daily driver/toy. What I’m trying to build is a well-balanced car that’s fun to drive and reliable. (Well, as reliable as a TT can be) I’m thinking 300-325whp with a fat torque curve is a good formula for “taking the TT on the back roads for the weekend trips”. For me, I have no need to push it as hard as you do yours. 

We’re doing a simple DIY WMI system just goofing around. I would like to hit my target without the WMI. If I do, I can setup the “Hi octane” timing curve in Maestro to be the WMI system on and the “Low octane” timing curve to be with the WMI system off. (play mode/cruise mode)

I ran an ATP 2871 eliminator for a while at 22psi and made 328hp with it (1.8L then), but the stock exhaust manifold kept it from spooling in a timely manner. So with the opportunity to pick up a 2.1 stroker and with the Doug’s intro of the F23, I thought I’d give it a try.

I have high hopes this 2.1L/F23 combo will do the trick as a balanced setup. If it doesn’t, I have other ideas….


----------



## babarber (Nov 3, 2008)

subscribed:thumbup:


----------



## ModsTTand (Jul 8, 2009)

> This is going to be just a daily driver/toy. What I’m trying to build is a well-balanced car that’s fun to drive and reliable. (Well, as reliable as a TT can be) I’m thinking 300-325whp with a fat torque curve is a good formula for “taking the TT on the back roads for the weekend trips”. For me, I have no need to push it as hard as you do yours.


^^ that proper clear view


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

:thumbup:


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Atomic Ed said:


> The only other thing that could possibly be a negative is that runners 1 and 2 merge before the collector. Given the firing order of this engine, there might be some back feed of pressure in the number 1 runner at high RPM. But JBS did run a fluid dynamics model on this design, so I'm hoping it's minimal.
> 
> Even if the design isn’t “perfect”, this manifold is a rock. I think it has the best chance of being a reliable piece compared to OEM. Reliability is worth a lot in my book. Time and testing will tell.


I have already done this and installed it. Your firing order issue is confirmed on not just my manifold but 3 others in the UK. I am pulling the manifold off to open up the runner 1+2 merger as well as the collector overall. I only get misfires if I run 23psi and above @ 6000+rpms... 22psi is ok but it's enough to make me worry. I am going to open it up an insane amount when this does come off...

And the Dremel is almost useless on this manifold. It took me 4 hours of really working the runner to get barely 1mm out of it. Once I got it on the bench with a proper air die grinder it stood no chance. I was a bit conservative with the porting but when it comes off it's getting gutted. 

Funny thing is JBS is hinting towards my pre-existing hardware as an issue. Not their manifold. Annoying!!!!


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

spartiati said:


> I have already done this and installed it. Your firing order issue is confirmed on not just my manifold but 3 others in the UK. I am pulling the manifold off to open up the runner 1+2 merger as well as the collector overall. I only get misfires if I run 23psi and above @ 6000+rpms... 22psi is ok but it's enough to make me worry. I am going to open it up an insane amount when this does come off...
> 
> And the Dremel is almost useless on this manifold. It took me 4 hours of really working the runner to get barely 1mm out of it. Once I got it on the bench with a proper air die grinder it stood no chance. I was a bit conservative with the porting but when it comes off it's getting gutted.
> 
> Funny thing is JBS is hinting towards my pre-existing hardware as an issue. Not their manifold. Annoying!!!!


Well that sucks. I was hoping I was wrong on this point. 

I'm not sure how opening up the runner merge between 1 and 2 is going to help. Won't it allow the feedback pressure to operate on a greater surface area? Or are you thinking more volume, less back-pressure?

What's your gutting plan Spartiati? Are you going to take out the "Y" diverter in the middle of the collector? I almost removed the "Y" section, but chickened out at the last minute.

And yeah, it's tough for a manufacturer to admit there's something wrong with a product that they put so much time in. I would guess they never tested the mani with a hybird the size/flow of an F23.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Atomic Ed said:


> Well that sucks. I was hoping I was wrong on this point. I'm not sure how opening up the runner merge between 1 and 2 is going to help. Won't it allow the feedback pressure to be at a greater surface area?
> 
> Or are you thinking more volume, less back-pressure.
> 
> What's your plan Spartiati? Are you going to take out the "Y" diverter in the middle of the collector? I almost removed the "Y" section, but chickened out at the last minute.


Im going to take some of it off and knife edge it as best as I can. I can tell you that I did not port it as much as you did. I'd like to see if you have the misfire with the amount of porting you've done. That would give me some hope atleast


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

spartiati said:


> Im going to take some of it off and knife edge it as best as I can. I can tell you that I did not port it as much as you did. I'd like to see if you have the misfire with the amount of porting you've done. That would give me some hope atleast


It will be a while before we get to the startup...end of the month at best. 

I'm now thinking about pulling the mani off and cutting down the "Y" since it may be acting as a "reflective" surface back into runner 1. You may want to consider removing some (or all) of the "Y" also. I'll talk to my builder tonight.

Keep in mind I'll be running this mani on a 2.1L, so this volume increase may exaggerate this issue.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Atomic Ed said:


> It will be a while before we get to the startup...end of the month at best.
> 
> I'm now thinking about pulling the mani off and cutting down the "Y" since it may be acting as a "reflective" surface back into runner 1. You may want to consider removing some (or all) of the "Y" also. I'll talk to my builder tonight.
> 
> Keep in mind I'll be running this mani on a 2.1L, so this volume increase may exaggerate this issue.


Very likely then. I removed and made it much narrower. If it comes off again I am really going to take it down even more. I don't think much is needed to deflect the exhaust flow. I'm going to make it much thinner and take it down a bit as well as opening the port where cyl 1 and 2 come into the collector as much as I can. I'll then try and polish it as best as I can.


----------



## babarber (Nov 3, 2008)

just a thought.... doug's manifold has runners 1and2 merging before the collector as well, not saying its not there but i have never heard of this problem in his manifold


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

babarber said:


> just a thought.... doug's manifold has runners 1and2 merging before the collector as well, not saying its not there but i have never heard of this problem in his manifold


On the Frankenturbo manifold:

1) Runner one is a larger diameter to accommodate the merger
2) 1 and 2 merge before the collector
3) the collector is massive on the Franken Mani with no divider in the middle so no flow is impeded 

The jbs although having a large collector, also has some excess casting. I eliminated some but figured that would have helped. Apparently not enough. This time I will have no mercy on that manifold.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

So here is what I should have done on the first pass. Basically wallow the collector out till you can stick your head down the runners. 

I knocked the divider down about 5/8 of an inch to unshroud the runners in the collector. I left some material at the base (top?) to turn the exhaust pulse towards the turbo inlet as well as keep some of the ridges between the bolt holes for strength.










Hopefully this will keep the problem that Spartiati discovered at bay. Any suggestions for additional work before I button it up?


----------



## babarber (Nov 3, 2008)

wow that looks great my first thought was that much of a work over would compromise the sturdiness of the manifold but it looks like it could still be very strong. that being said looks like it would flow much much better then the un-modified manifold.:thumbup:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

It looks good to me Ed! There is plenty of material left in that collector and it should still be structurally sound. Looking forward to see the results!


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

:thumbup: I approve of this work. :laugh:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> :thumbup: I approve of this work. :laugh:


Amen!


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm going to send these pics off to JBS with some background about the issue, the build and the F23 turbo. It will be interesting to hear back from them. 

I'm sure one of the first comments will be my warranty has been voided


----------



## JBS Sales (May 10, 2012)

Hi guys,

I’ve been following this thread for the past couple of days and I’m pretty pleased with the response the K04 manifold is receiving 

The porting work on your manifold Ed certainly has voided the warranty but it’s all in the pursuit of hp so it’s all good 

spartiati : are you any further forward with getting the logs for the software tech to look at? 

As for 3 UK cars I only know of 2 which are on the same software done by the same company  

We did have a customer based in central Europe tuned by JD Engineering that reported 'breakup' at high RPM but that turned out to be his fuel (E85) as the car was originally mapped on high octane unleaded, this 'breakup' has now since disappeared. This very customer is producing a healthy 317bhp (a little less than you guys on the F23's)

Looking at some of the discussion regards merge collectors we did extensive testing to ensure the flow was optimised and we saw no port sharing throughout the testing.

I look forward to seeing the outcome of some of the installations, especially yours Ed


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

JBS Sales said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I’ve been following this thread for the past couple of days and I’m pretty pleased with the response the K04 manifold is receiving
> 
> ...


With it being mother day weekend here stateside I figured doing full throttle runs while police are on high alert wouldn't be a good idea. Had Friday off and did basically what Ed did. I took a die grinder and reduced the divider a fair amount, polished and deburred any rough sections of the runners and the collector and reinstalled it. So far I haven't done any logging but the car pulls happily to redline at 25 psi with no breakups. I only had the opportunity for a quick 3rd gear pull so I wouldn't say I've fully tested to see if the issue is still present under a higher load like 4th gear. I'd say the porting was a success so far. Ill get some more testing done this coming weekend. Too slammed during the week to get anything done.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

JBS Sales said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I’ve been following this thread for the past couple of days and I’m pretty pleased with the response the K04 manifold is receiving
> 
> ...


Great product guys! Kudos for putting on the market a manifold of this quality! I think I found a paper on the casting material you use and it seems to be almost impervious to heat cycling, even at 900*C. Perfect for a long term, high EGT vehicle like ours.

We are definitely pushing this manifold well beyond the 317 bhp. I believe Spartiati pushes his car to around 380 bhp on a 1.8L engine and he still has some room left to grow. Marcus will do his best to break it, given how hard he runs his TT I too want to know how all of this will behave with a big breath 2.1L, an F23 turbo and your manifold combo. 

Nothing like real world testing to remind us that “all mathematical models are wrong, but some are more useful than others”.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Atomic Ed said:


> Great product guys! Kudos for putting on the market a manifold of this quality! I think I found a paper on the casting material you use and it seems to be almost impervious to heat cycling, even at 900*C. Perfect for a long term, high EGT vehicle like ours.
> 
> We are definitely pushing this manifold well beyond the 317 bhp. I believe Spartiati pushes his car to around 380 bhp on a 1.8L engine and he still has some room left to grow. Marcus will do his best to break it, given how hard he runs his TT I too want to know how all of this will behave with a big breath 2.1L, an F23 turbo and your manifold combo.
> 
> Nothing like real world testing to remind us that “all mathematical models are wrong, but some are more useful than others”.


Hehe you said it. I would have dyno'd with this manifold about 2 weeks ago if it wasnt for my little breakup issue. My best previous dyno was 335 whp corrected. That is around the 370-380bhp mark. EGT's would average a scorching 1680-1720*F post turbine. TOO HOT!!!!

With the JBS I am seeing a modest 1510* post turbine pushing it just as hard. We'll see what it does on the rollers. I'll be happy with a solid 350-360whp. Frankenturbo + JBS =


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

spartiati said:


> Hehe you said it. I would have dyno'd with this manifold about 2 weeks ago if it wasnt for my little breakup issue. My best previous dyno was 335 whp corrected. That is around the 370-380bhp mark. EGT's would average a scorching 1680-1720*F post turbine. TOO HOT!!!!
> 
> With the JBS I am seeing a modest 1510* post turbine pushing it just as hard. We'll see what it does on the rollers. I'll be happy with a solid 350-360whp. Frankenturbo + JBS =


I'm rooting for ya. 350-360 whp (400+ bhp) would put your combo in the same level as a well tuned gt2871r. You gotta love that from a turbo that could be mistaken for a stock K04-23.

The manifold has always been a major limitation. Makes me want to drag out my old ATP eliminator and see what it would do with this ported manifold.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Atomic Ed said:


> I'm rooting for ya. 350-360 whp (400+ bhp) would put your combo in the same level as a well tuned gt2871r. You gotta love that from a turbo that could be mistaken for a stock K04-23.
> 
> The manifold has always been a major limitation. Makes me want to drag out my old ATP eliminator and see what it would do with this ported manifold.


Last dyno session there was an atp 2871r kit with sem manifold and a 70mm that was watching to see what I made. He made 360whp but honestly looking at his power and he was only making more power than me from 6000-7000rpms. Otherwise I was making alot more everywhere else. Ill see if I still have his dyno and ill lay it over mine.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

JBS Sales said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I’ve been following this thread for the past couple of days and I’m pretty pleased with the response the K04 manifold is receiving
> ...As for 3 UK cars I only know of 2 which are on the same software done by the same company


I'd like to keep the "hearsay" about this manifold to a minimum. While it's true that I have "heard" about other people having problems you can be SURE I have also "heard" of problems in the past with any number of perfectly good performance parts. We all have. And so the community knows, I support this manifold and want it to prove worthy. So if a little bit of machining is needed to refine it, that's not a big deal at all. Let's see where this goes. I have a STRONG hunch that Steve's car has been improved with this addition. :thumbup:


----------



## babarber (Nov 3, 2008)

I would like to see a comparison between this and Doug s manifold
Even more so I would like to see vendors offer this product in the us


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

babarber said:


> I would like to see a comparison between this and Doug s manifold
> Even more so I would like to see vendors offer this product in the us


My guess would be, real world performance wise, the two manifolds (with the mods done to the JBS mani) should be close to the same in performance. You could bench flow them both, but I'm not sure what you would do with the information. Too many varibles to deal with.

My perspective is that Doug's manifold is the best price point manifold on the market for the K04 as of today. On the other hand, the JBS manifold is made with probably the best material you can get for a manifold operated with the stress we put on them.

This isn't about one being better than the other, it's about choices, finally.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

JBS Sales said:


> As for 3 UK cars I only know of 2 which are on the same software done by the same company


Same Company  I suggest you look @ your products design and not look to deflect/balme others...


There are 2 Cars I know of... The SAME 2 you know of. I have told you.


To set some* Facts* Straight here, as you clearly are not accurately informed or trying to deflect the manifold issue elsewhere. :thumbdown:


Car#1: Jonp, Leon Cupra R... JBS supplied and fitted k04 manifold and JBS/Custom Code software in 2010. The customer drove away after fitment of this with a misfire at higher rpms, and has chased every other mechanical/electrical component (at considerable expense to him) after your continued denial it could be the manifold. He runs your JBS05 hybrid k04, which ran fine on its stock k04 exhaust manifold and your JBS/Custom Code software made >300bhp on my dyno. You fitted the high flow ex manifold and misfires started >5.5krpms


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

opcorn:


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

20v master said:


> opcorn:


 x2

very interesting...


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Did it just get hot in here..?

opcorn:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

Atomic Ed said:


> The only other thing that could possibly be a negative is that runners 1 and 2 merge before the collector. Given the firing order of this engine, there might be some back feed of pressure in the number 1 runner at high RPM. But JBS did run a fluid dynamics model on this design, so I'm hoping it's minimal.
> .


You are very perceptive sir
runner #2 is the one which misfires in practice


----------



## babarber (Nov 3, 2008)

i think redesigning the collector area would be beneficial for you guys at jbs rather then ignoring the problem. i know alot of work goes into designing a great performance part. even after it has hit production and is released to the public problems can still arise. going to extra mile to fix these problems like doug does with his frankenturbos really demands alot of respect and loyalty in the community that is nothing short of great for business.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

I am going to contact JBS personally and see if they want to send a manifold so I can test it. This will definitely give them the opportunity to be sure that there is an issue (or not) and if the collector porting completely solves it on a car that is truly pushed at the track and in the streets. I am sure that the community will respect them for working at addressing the issue and can vouch that I can properly and objectively test that sort of things. I hope JBS comes through and keep us excited about this awesome product.

Car that this will be tested on is a Nationally competitive SCCA Solo and ProSolo car that is also sponsored by the best companies in the business.


*This the car this will be tested on and there is no K04 powered cars that are pushed more than this on a consistent basis*


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Thanks for the UK background on the manifold Bill. 

As an old dog, I've learned that lots of field testing and customer feedback always yield a better product in the end. JBS wants this product to work more than we do. I can't imagine them ignoring all of this commentary. 

The solution isn’t as simple as we make it out though. Re-doing the primary mold, negotiating with the foundry and dealing with the current inventory will be a headache for JBS; but worth the effort for us folks who have been waiting a long time for this product. I suspect they will want to confirm all of this in-house before re-tooling. 

However, grinding out of the collector is a simple thing, even for an amateur like me. About an hour and a half worth of effort will get it done. Spartiati should come back with some important feedback soon, and I’ll do the same ….well…., not so soon. 

*JBS:* One other comment if you do re-tool. Take another look at the outside radius of runner #4 at the collector. The wall is somewhat thinner there than the rest (at least on mine). With the greater than 90* bend into the collector, the outer radius will take a pounding with gas erosion over time. If I were you, I would think about adding some extra material on the bend; and possibly reducing the input angle, if you can.

Edit: The more I think about it, if I were JBS, I would load up a pallet of these manifolds and take them to the local trade school. Work out a deal with the welding/machine shop instructor and pay the advanced students $10-$20 each to grind them down. The students get to play with exotic metals as well as a performance part and JBS could write most of it off on taxes. (At least you could here in the states.)


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

badger5 said:


> runner #2 is the one which misfires in practice


spartiati here has been able to re-produce that anomaly. So he's now positioned to figure out a work-around. If anyone can... :thumbup:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> spartiati here has been able to re-produce that anomaly. So he's now positioned to figure out a work-around. If anyone can... :thumbup:


Re-produce before the collector modification or after?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Atomic Ed said:


> Re-produce before the collector modification or after?


Prior to the collector massaging I did. Lol.
I haven't done any conclusive testing but the few pulls I did on the way home felt good with no breakup.

This weekend ill hopefully have some time to do some solid 4th gear pulls at 25 psi to red line to really see what's going on.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

spartiati said:


> Prior to the collector massaging I did. Lol.
> I haven't done any conclusive testing but the few pulls I did on the way home felt good with no breakup.
> 
> This weekend ill hopefully have some time to do some solid 4th gear pulls at 25 psi to red line to really see what's going on.


So you have ported yours again like atomic_ed did yea? Same level of porting?
should make for some interesting results


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

badger5 said:


> So you have ported yours again like atomic_ed did yea? Same level of porting?
> should make for some interesting results


More or less I did about the same level of porting.... I also went in and tried to debur anything that may have been impeding flow and any rough inmperfections. I finalized it by going in with a flapper wheel and polished as much as I possibly could.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

spartiati said:


> More or less I did about the same level of porting.... I also went in and tried to debur anything that may have been impeding flow and any rough inmperfections. I finalized it by going in with a flapper wheel and polished as much as I possibly could.


:thumbup: good luck
hope the results are +ve

its a decent piece apart from its collector/runner share issue

looking fwd to the results/logs etc


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

These were the work in progress pics I took. My phone died before I finished so I never had a proper completed picture of what it was like when I installed it. I smoothed it out alot more than what is in the pictures.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

spartiati said:


> These were the work in progress pics I took. My phone died before I finished so I never had a proper completed picture of what it was like when I installed it. I smoothed it out alot more than what is in the pictures.



is that some coating on there like dougs mani's?
The jbs mani's here come bead blast as cast finished.. not coated


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

badger5 said:


> is that some coating on there like dougs mani's?
> The jbs mani's here come bead blast as cast finished.. not coated



It was delivered to me bare as well. I used VHT extreme heat coating to cover it up. 4 coats with 2 base coats of primer used. I cured it in the oven as well but during the install of banging it around and then removing it I chipped it in afew areas. The top portion looks pretty good so far. It certainly helps keep the heat down a bit.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

hows the testing going?
all good now?

got any logs etc?

:thumbup:


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

badger5 said:


> hows the testing going?
> all good now?
> 
> got any logs etc?
> ...


My dogs been really il lately. Took him to the vet and then internal specialist tomorrow. Kidney biopsies are not cheap for dogs. Ask me how I know. Hopefully by Sunday I am able to get some logs done.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

badger5 said:


> is that some coating on there like dougs mani's?
> The jbs mani's here come bead blast as cast finished.. not coated


Interesting, mine came with a coating. I assumed a ceramic coating, but now I'm not sure.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

spartiati said:


> My dogs been really il lately. Took him to the vet and then internal specialist tomorrow. Kidney biopsies are not cheap for dogs. Ask me how I know. Hopefully by Sunday I am able to get some logs done.


any luck?
hope dogs ok


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

badger5 said:


> any luck?
> hope dogs ok


$2000 at the internal specialist and 2 procedures later he is doing better.... 

No logging but afew pulls I did getting on the highway seemed like the problem was fixed.


----------



## JBS Sales (May 10, 2012)

Hi Bill,

I didn’t mean to cause any upset or anything along those lines hence why i mentioned no names.

The info I have been presented with regards JP's LCR after installation of the manifold showed no misfire at any point whilst undergoing testing, I was then advised that the misfire was present after changing software and or components.

The manifold in question was designed as a replacement for the OE unit which is a restriction as we all know. At the time of the design a number of companies were offering hybrid turbos capable of 320bhp which we took into consideration when designing it. From this point it looks as though the market has changed significantly with more companies offering K04 hybrids capable of upwards of 320bhp.

Our test TT 225 ran both the JBS05 hybrid turbo and the JBSK04 high-flow manifold with no misfires or breakup at high RPM and still to this day is running the same setup it was using for development purposes.

Further to the above we have a customer in central Europe running 317bhp on a hybrid K04 running a JD Engineering map, the only mention of high RPM break up mentioned to us was after running the vehicle on E85 rather than the super unleaded the vehicle was mapped on, this issue has now been resolved by changing back to super unleaded -









I am hoping the work both Atomic Ed and Spartiati have done will eliminate the issue currently being discussed..only time will tell

I will be running one of these on my own 1.8T Mk2 Golf shortly so Im hoping that I can put this issue to bed internally also.


----------



## babarber (Nov 3, 2008)

i speculate the reason why the car started breaking up with e85 is because e85 produces more exhaust gases then gasoline.
it seems to me that your manifold because restrictive at airflow levels that the f23 and/or e85 produce and the shared runners on this manifold amplify the problem until it causes breakup or miss fires. thats why opening up the collector for these guys is producing results.

idk about in europe but in the us people who are willing to spend that kind of $ and running a k04 hyrbrid (f23 being the most common) are gonna extract the most possible from their cars. therefore most of your customer base (in usa) will see this problem. this is just my theory so dont take it to heart but is sounds good enough for me :laugh:


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

JBS Sales said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> Our test TT 225 ran both the JBS05 hybrid turbo and the JBSK04 high-flow manifold with no misfires or breakup at high RPM and still to this day is running the same setup it was using for development purposes.
> 
> ...





> I didn’t mean to cause any upset or anything along those lines hence why i mentioned no names.


No names Lee indeed, as I noted at the time, however, you tried to blame others, for a fault which clearly lies with the JBS K04 manifold design. :thumbdown: I posted up the facts. Its not a.n.other companies issue, its a JBS issue.



> The info I have been presented with regards JP's LCR after installation of the manifold showed no misfire at any point whilst undergoing testing, I was then advised that the misfire was present after changing software and or components.


You were advised incorrectly Lee I'm afraid.
JP's Leon cupra R drove from JBS, with its JBS05 Hybrid K04, JBS exhaust manifold and JBS/Custom-code software and had a misfire on his way home.. and was reported back immediately, and was told it could not have been the manifold it must have been something else on the car. 
I reiterate, all yours...... no one else had intervened with that car. Only replacing the manifold some many months after has the misfire ceased.


You could imagine this as a one off occurance, but to ignore it at the time was a mystake. 


Many months later I am invited by James to try the JBS K04 manifold sent to me to test, which I do on another leon cupra r (also running a hybrid), and encounter exactly the same thing, Misfires on Cyl 2, which again was immediately rectified by removing the JBS K04 Ex manifold.... is 100% an issue with the manifold design. This "test" cost me a whole heap of time to rectify and rework.




> From this point it looks as though the market has changed significantly with more companies offering K04 hybrids capable of upwards of 320bhp.



BOTH leon cupra r's with misfires were doing sub 300bhp level on my dyno... whilst misfiring on cyl #2 whilst on the JBS K04 manifold. 


BOTH leon cupra r's had previously been here when on stock exhaust manifolds, and ran fine making >300bhp, misfire free on their respective softwares (neither were mine at that time)



Big question is what is JBS doing to rectify this manifold design?



> I am hoping the work both Atomic Ed and Spartiati have done will eliminate the issue currently being discussed..only time will tell


the porting and opening up of the collector seems to be the key area here...

fix that and you have a great product.


Good luck with your mk2..
(I await some issue to be claimed from its B5 80mm TIP in due course.... or am I just being paranoid  )


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Sadly, it will be several more weeks before I put my TT on the road and/or rollers. 

The builder fired the TT up over the weekend for the first time and found the fuel trims to be way out of spec. Thinking that it was a problem with his first attempt to use Maestro, he plugged in a known ECM with a REVO stage III just to confirm the fuel trims. Same problem.

Next was the intake leak test. Surprisingly, he found that the porosity of the casting on the new SEM intake manifold was so bad, the manifold was literally “leaking like a sieve”. The builder found several micro fractures in the casting and bleeding through of the casting material itself. (The builder is the local Audi service manager and has access to VAG leak testing equipment.)

SEM has jumped on this and is sending a new manifold out and wants to look at this particular manifold. 

The good news is the new engine started right up and no parts wanted to push their way out the sides of the block. 

And it goes on and on……


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

Atomic Ed said:


> Sadly, it will be several more weeks before I put my TT on the road and/or rollers.
> 
> The builder fired the TT up over the weekend for the first time and found the fuel trims to be way out of spec. Thinking that it was a problem with his first attempt to use Maestro, he plugged in a known ECM with a REVO stage III just to confirm the fuel trims. Same problem.
> 
> ...


 oh dear 
i really hope marco gets this sorted quickly @ sem


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

^2 

When an SEM intake manifold went on the FrankenTT, the transition was very smooth. No software adaptations needed, no odd behavior at all. I'm sure this is an isolated problem.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

While I’m disappointed that I’m pushed back again on getting the TT on the street, I’m not too concerned about SEM’s response. It’s just another reminder that there is no perfect manufacturing process. Small batch casting is a risky business. Most companies can’t afford a high dollar QA/QC program for low margin/low production items. 

My first thought was to just powder coat it to seal it up, but my training kicked in and said go back to SEM. I’m sure other folks that have this manifold from the same batch of manufacturing will want to keep a close eye on theirs.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> ^2
> 
> When an SEM intake manifold went on the FrankenTT, the transition was very smooth. No software adaptations needed, no odd behavior at all. I'm sure this is an isolated problem.


 with IE's manifold offering launched....... in both handed otpions also, SEM need to nail the current quality issues to not loose customers. Hope they get it sorted asap, it works very well. (I run one myself modified for 8 injectors)


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

badger5 said:


> with IE's manifold offering launched....... in both handed otpions also, SEM need to nail the current quality issues to not loose customers. Hope they get it sorted asap, it works very well. (I run one myself modified for 8 injectors)


 For a brief moment, we considered the new IE manifold, but I want the car back on the street ASAP and the new SEM should be on it's way in a day or two. There is nothing wrong with the SEM design, just a manufacturing glitch. 

However, if the next SEM has an issue, then we will move on to the IE manifold.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

Atomic Ed said:


> F There is nothing wrong with the SEM design, just a manufacturing glitch.


 Indeed... I know it is.. and had it independantly flow tested over here in the UK with nice report which was published on the forums.. and I run one.. works lovely. 
Get over the current QC issues, and it will be cool again..


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

badger5 said:


> with IE's manifold offering launched....... in both handed otpions also, SEM need to nail the current quality issues to not loose customers. Hope they get it sorted asap, it works very well. (I run one myself modified for 8 injectors)


 Direct port water/meth or 8 fuel injectors? Either way please share your setup- this sounds interesting! I've only seen this done on all out drag/race cars.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

DougLoBue said:


> Direct port water/meth or 8 fuel injectors? Either way please share your setup- this sounds interesting! I've only seen this done on all out drag/race cars.


 He uses 8 fuel injectors. I believe he started down that path before the wideband ECU's were used to control low impedance injectors with a driver.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Badgers setup he posted in another 1.8t thread 

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...k-day-1.8t&p=77431316&viewfull=1#post77431316


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

spartiati said:


> Badgers setup he posted in another 1.8t thread
> 
> http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...k-day-1.8t&p=77431316&viewfull=1#post77431316


 Good to see back Spartiati! Have you caught up with your life enough to shed some additional light on the manifold mod?


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

DougLoBue said:


> Direct port water/meth or 8 fuel injectors? Either way please share your setup- this sounds interesting! I've only seen this done on all out drag/race cars.


 mine is a racecar.. rarely used on the road.. far too quick for crappy busy british roads. 1st gear breaks every speed limit in this country 
8 injectors as I did'nt fancy the control on light load/idles on single big units.. (DTA S60 standalone) 
870cc + 750cc per cylinder, and runs 65% IDC on my current relatively low (for me) 25psi boost level.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

I am hoping the collector reworking has worked/Cured the issue to the extent JBS can believe its really happening and can get theirs modified also. 

Had another tuner call me today asking about hybrid k04 they had fitted, and has also suffered misfire on JBS manifold.......... 


Hows it going Spartiarti? 
good I hope 

:thumbup:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

^ 
Thanks for the additional info Bill. Seems like a clear pattern at this time, but an easy fix. 

Just got word that the replacement SEM intake manifold is well on its way and should have it any day now. It's going to take a couple of weeks to get the new setup sorted out and broken in before we can put it on the dyno. 

Haven't heard from Spartiarti either, but he can get pretty busy at times. Hope his dog is doing better.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Hey guys everything is well on my end. Life is getting back on track. Just paying off Vet bills for now. Dog is doing much better as well. Shar Pei's have many problems and mine has just about everything wrong with him! haha! 

As for the manifold I am certain its fixed. beating it around on the on ramps haven't felt any of the hesitations I use to ... This weekend I will 99% have some time to get down some logging sessions with maestro to make sure everything is running well.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

spartiati said:


> Hey guys everything is well on my end. Life is getting back on track. Just paying off Vet bills for now. Dog is doing much better as well. Shar Pei's have many problems and mine has just about everything wrong with him! haha!
> 
> As for the manifold I am certain its fixed. beating it around on the on ramps haven't felt any of the hesitations I use to ... This weekend I will 99% have some time to get down some logging sessions with maestro to make sure everything is running well.


 Good to hear everything is well with you and the doggy Steve!


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

spartiati said:


> Hey guys everything is well on my end. Life is getting back on track. Just paying off Vet bills for now. Dog is doing much better as well. Shar Pei's have many problems and mine has just about everything wrong with him! haha!
> 
> As for the manifold I am certain its fixed. beating it around on the on ramps haven't felt any of the hesitations I use to ... This weekend I will 99% have some time to get down some logging sessions with maestro to make sure everything is running well.


 Glad to hear on both the dog and the manifold Steve. 

Shar Pei's are so ugly, they're cute by default......great family dogs!


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Atomic Ed said:


> Glad to hear on both the dog and the manifold Steve.
> 
> Shar Pei's are so ugly, they're cute by default......great family dogs!


 That was my original reaction to them. 

Just wanted to drop in and let everyone know. The porting I did fully cured my breaking up. This past weekend I had a few 3rd-4th gear red line pulls. Made it well into the 7k region with no hesitation, breakups, or ecu light flashing about the misfires. 

A few interesting notes. I was getting about 75% injector duty cycle before on my deka 630's @ 3 bar. Now running same lambda request and same boost pressure I am about 10% higher in boost. I'd say that's a nice indication of the power increase. Third gear use to have a hint of traction loss. Now 3rd gear spins as easily as 2nd use to. Will be dynoing in the near future.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

spartiati said:


> That was my original reaction to them.
> 
> Just wanted to drop in and let everyone know. The porting I did fully cured my breaking up. This past weekend I had a few 3rd-4th gear red line pulls. Made it well into the 7k region with no hesitation, breakups, or ecu light flashing about the misfires.
> 
> A few interesting notes. I was getting about 75% injector duty cycle before on my deka 630's @ 3 bar. Now running same lambda request and same boost pressure I am about 10% higher in boost. I'd say that's a nice indication of the power increase. Third gear use to have a hint of traction loss. Now 3rd gear spins as easily as 2nd use to. Will be dynoing in the near future.


 Awesome news on all fronts:thumbup: 

Breaking traction in 3rd is pretty bad ass.


----------



## Doooglasss (Aug 28, 2009)

Glad to see everything's going well Steve :thumbup:



warranty225cpe said:


> Breaking traction in 3rd is pretty bad ass.


 Don't get your hopes up my friend, he's FWD!


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

DougLoBue said:


> Glad to see everything's going well Steve :thumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get your hopes up my friend, he's FWD!


 I was wondering. :laugh:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Thanks for the update Steve! We'll be waiting to see the results of your next dyno run! 

The new SEM manifold finally came in Monday. Fingers crossed this one doesn't leak like the last one. If all goes well, we'll head to the dyno on the 3rd.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

spartiati said:


> Just wanted to drop in and let everyone know. The porting I did fully cured my breaking up. This past weekend I had a few 3rd-4th gear red line pulls. Made it well into the 7k region with no hesitation, breakups, or ecu light flashing about the misfires.
> 
> A few interesting notes. I was getting about 75% injector duty cycle before on my deka 630's @ 3 bar. Now running same lambda request and same boost pressure I am about 10% higher in boost. I'd say that's a nice indication of the power increase. Third gear use to have a hint of traction loss. Now 3rd gear spins as easily as 2nd use to. Will be dynoing in the near future.





Atomic Ed said:


> Just got word that the replacement SEM intake manifold is well on its way and should have it any day now.


 WHO should have it any day now? Because I certainly would expect JBS to be hustling to get spartiati a properly fabricated unit. He (with a bit of seed money from FrankenTurbo as well) paid full price for the thing. Then he spent hours figuring out the problems with it for them. 

JBS: cough it up.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

DougLoBue said:


> Don't get your hopes up my friend, he's FWD!


 Damn.. lol 



[email protected] said:


> JBS: cough it up.


 Couldn't agree more. Wether they do or not will directly influence my decision on buying their manifold. And the internal surface issues better be solved as well.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

spartiati said:


> That was my original reaction to them.
> 
> Just wanted to drop in and let everyone know. The porting I did fully cured my breaking up. This past weekend I had a few 3rd-4th gear red line pulls. Made it well into the 7k region with no hesitation, breakups, or ecu light flashing about the misfires.
> 
> A few interesting notes. I was getting about 75% injector duty cycle before on my deka 630's @ 3 bar. Now running same lambda request and same boost pressure I am about 10% higher in boost. I'd say that's a nice indication of the power increase. Third gear use to have a hint of traction loss. Now 3rd gear spins as easily as 2nd use to. Will be dynoing in the near future.


 excellent results 
sounds very nice now 

when i have tested jbs vs relentless, i got better power results from relentless, but the jbs one (assuming they acknowledge the issue and fix it!) is the one more likely to keep running without cracking up. (v3 relentless one is due now, made from different material and less welds.. titanium induced 321 stainless, so say.... )


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> WHO should have it any day now? Because I certainly would expect JBS to be hustling to get spartiati a properly fabricated unit. He (with a bit of seed money from FrankenTurbo as well) paid full price for the thing. Then he spent hours figuring out the problems with it for them.
> 
> JBS: cough it up.


 you sent this to james yea? 

he is aware of my thoughts on its collector for some time now... and misfire on #2 

hope they take note and act on it


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

warranty225cpe said:


> And the internal surface issues better be solved as well.


 which ones were these? 
have i missed this? 

i have borescoped mine and its not perfect with some small lumps and bumps internally in the cast but not severe


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> WHO should have it any day now? Because I certainly would expect JBS to be hustling to get spartiati a properly fabricated unit. He (with a bit of seed money from FrankenTurbo as well) paid full price for the thing. Then he spent hours figuring out the problems with it for them.
> 
> JBS: cough it up.


 Sorry about the confusion here Doug. I've mixed in my issue with the SEM intake manifold with the main topic: the JBS exhaust manifold. 

I don't know about Steve, but if the modification works out for me, I personally expect no action from JBS, other than make it right for the other customers. 

The "any day now" was commenting on my replacement SEM manifold since the first one from them leaked badly. 

All is well in TT land.......


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

badger5 said:


> you sent this to james yea?


 We will, after we test the new one. 

Wait, the SEM or the JBS LOL?


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

Atomic Ed said:


> We will, after we test the new one.
> 
> Wait, the SEM or the JBS LOL?


 lol, james=jbs the j in jbs (and also the b and s)


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

badger5 said:


> which ones were these?
> have i missed this?
> 
> i have borescoped mine and its not perfect with some small lumps and bumps internally in the cast but not severe


 Sorry, just the known collector issue. I was working when I posted and was a little distracted.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Atomic Ed said:


> Sorry about the confusion here Doug. I've mixed in my issue with the SEM intake manifold with the main topic: the JBS exhaust manifold.
> 
> I don't know about Steve, but if the modification works out for me, I personally expect no action from JBS, other than make it right for the other customers.
> 
> ...


 Even though I proved it was the collector I'm sure they will still not admit fault.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

spartiati said:


> Even though I proved it was the collector I'm sure they will still not admit fault.


 They are going to find it difficult to accept what you and Bill have discovered from these postings and Bill’s calls to them. I’m sure there will be more “in-house testing”. Regardless of their results, the field results are always what counts. In the end, it’s a fix that needs to happen. 

Just imagine being JBS and walking back to the warehouse seeing a 100 of these manifolds ready to be shipped and thinking, “Crap!” Like I said before, time to hire some summer interns and teach them how to use a die grinder. 

Hopefully, this product will stay on the market. Even if we have to do the grinding ourselves, this manifold is needed in the marketplace.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

to put it another way.......... i get asked a lot from folks about what upgrade k04 exhaust manifold.. and i cannot recommend jbs one until they fix its collector & accept it has caused several cars issues.. 

like you say, rework what stock there is and they could sell them with clear conscience and have happy customers. 

i do still believe merge collector type will perform better from what i see.


----------



## GTIRACER2.0t (Aug 23, 2000)

Any updates with this manifold?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

GTIRACER2.0t said:


> Any updates with this manifold?


Not really, besides the fact that JBS have done nothing to rectify the issue with their collector, and just turned their heads the other way. I was very excited about this product as it finally offered a promissing cast manifold alternative for the K04 exhaust housing. However, I will not send my business overseas to buy a product that is not finished, especially when the manufacturer doesn't seem to care. JBS is fully aware of this thread but choose to ignore a sizable chunk of their potential buyers, so screw them. With the kind of work needed to make this manifold work to its potential, I'd rather do the same to the stock unit and improve the collector, which is where the restriction is. 

Totally disappointed!


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

GTIRACER2.0t said:


> Any updates with this manifold?


Like Marcus said, no updates from JBS on any "version 2" of the manifold.

If you have the time, tools and energy to modify the collector like Spartiati and I did, then yea, it's works very well. Spartiati has been running it for a while with great results.

Myself, on the other hand, only put 200 break-in miles with the new engine and a brand new exhaust spring shattered and took out some of the head components. The new, new head, with a bunch of IE goodies is about done and I should be up and running in a week or two.

At that point, I should have some feedback on the modified JBS manifold. 

Like I've said before, It's the A3N austenite cast steel that this manifold is made of is what draws me to it.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> With the kind of work needed to make this manifold work to its potential, I'd rather do the same to the stock unit and improve the collector, which is where the restriction is.


Not knocking your talent Max, but having compared both of them side by side, I don't think you'll ever be able to to get the stock manifold to flow like the JBS (modified, that is). The runners on the JBS easily flow 40-50% more, and with the cleaned up collector, the increased volume allows for a much better exhaust impulse to the turbo, with corresponding reduced EGTs.

But, you've surprized us all before. I have no problem being proved wrong Max.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Not really, besides the fact that JBS have done nothing to rectify the issue with their collector, and just turned their heads the other way. I was very excited about this product as it finally offered a promissing cast manifold alternative for the K04 exhaust housing. However, I will not sent my business overseas to buy a product that is not finished, especially when the manufacturer doesn't seem to care. JBS is fully aware of this thread but choose to ignore a sizable chunk of their potential buyers, so screw them. With the kind of work needed to make this manifold work to its potential, I'd rather do the same to the stock unit and improve the collector, which is where the restriction is.
> 
> Totally disappointed!


Agreed..

I wonder how much you could do with a stock manifold. Sounds like a Sunday project


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Atomic Ed said:


> Not knocking your talent Max, but having compared both of them side by side, I don't think you'll ever be able to to get the stock manifold to flow like the JBS (modified, that is). The runners on the JBS easily flow 40-50% more, and with the cleaned up collector, the increased volume allows for a much better exhaust impulse to the turbo, with corresponding reduced EGTs.
> 
> But, you've surprized us all before. I have no problem being proved wrong Max.


Although I've not seen a JBS unit first hand, I have looked extensively at your comparison pictures. There was also a reason behind all the questions about runner vs head port ID in the very first page of this thread. From what I've gathered, the improvement is going to come from the collector which obviously is the real choke point of the manifold. 

IMO, there is no need for the raised divider in the stocker, and the runner to collecter merge needs some serious massaging to increase flow. The big question is how much material is available to get it done without structurally weakening the manifold. I have a spare manifold secured from Eurospic and as soon as I get my hands on it, I'm going to town. We'll see what can be done or not


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

warranty225cpe said:


> Agreed..
> 
> I wonder how much you could do with a stock manifold. Sounds like a Sunday project


It might be more than a Sunday project to get it done properly. We know that the head port ID is 33 mm, and although the OEM runner entrance is 38.5 mm, we need to keep at least 33 mm throughout the runners. This may or may not need an extrude hone to happen, but we'll find out soon enough.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Max,

A thought I've always had is that you could fill weld up the recessed area marked below to give you more material to cut out:



This would allow you to knock down the divider in the collector quite a bit without busting out the top of the collector.

Another thing I noticed is that the runners on the stock mani narrow down a lot. As a really rough comparison, I can only get my little finger in a stock runner, but I can get my thumb in a JBS runner.

Keep us up to date on this.

Drop Badger5 a line. He's done a lot of manifold porting.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Have you been able to get your car to the dyno yet Ed? Very curious to see how your set-up pans out.:thumbup:opcorn:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Twopnt016v said:


> Have you been able to get your car to the dyno yet Ed? Very curious to see how your set-up pans out.:thumbup:opcorn:


Been waiting to see your numbers as well ED! :beer:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Let's see, it's taken a month to put together the new head with Ferra valves/Supertech springs/IE2 camshafts. This is the second new head since a brand new OEM exhaust valve spring failed and wrecked the first new head. Don't know how my builder found a set of the IE2 cams, but he did.

Just got it back together and.... only one injector was firing. The injector harness was found to be corroded and falling apart. (You warned me about this Marcus, and you were right.)

So, two new harnesses should be in next week. Dyno runs will happen...but dammmm.. I can't believe the laundry list of things that have gone wrong on this build. I've lost count.

It better be a builletproof engine by the time we're done, because I'm about ready to put a bullet into the block.

Maybe November for the dyno run. I wanna know for myself!


----------



## [email protected] (May 14, 2009)

In to see the results


----------



## [email protected] (May 14, 2009)

Atomic Ed said:


> They are going to find it difficult to accept what you and Bill have discovered from these postings and Bill’s calls to them. I’m sure there will be more “in-house testing”. Regardless of their results, the field results are always what counts. In the end, it’s a fix that needs to happen.
> 
> Just imagine being JBS and walking back to the warehouse seeing a 100 of these manifolds ready to be shipped and thinking, “Crap!” Like I said before, time to hire some summer interns and teach them how to use a die grinder.
> 
> Hopefully, this product will stay on the market. Even if we have to do the grinding ourselves, this manifold is needed in the marketplace.


 


badger5 said:


> to put it another way.......... i get asked a lot from folks about what upgrade k04 exhaust manifold.. and i cannot recommend jbs one until they fix its collector & accept it has caused several cars issues..
> 
> like you say, rework what stock there is and they could sell them with clear conscience and have happy customers.
> 
> i do still believe merge collector type will perform better from what i see.



Would not be hard to have some one with a 3-axis mill to fix the port on their stock. Would cost a few grand to have them all machined (Assuming that there are 100-250pcs cast). Getting the right tooling and finding a shop that has a lot of experience with machining heat resistant materials is another matter. Nickel based alloys/castings are very fun to machine :laugh:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Would not be hard to have some one with a 3-axis mill to fix the port on their stock. Would cost a few grand to have them all machined (Assuming that there are 100-250pcs cast). Getting the right tooling and finding a shop that has a lot of experience with machining heat resistant materials is another matter. Nickel based alloys/castings are very fun to machine :laugh:


That would be the best way to do it. But it only took me about two hours with a hand die grinder to cut mine down. And that was figgering out how to shape it and opening up the inlet flange. I could easily do just the collector diverter and smooth everthing out in about 45 min. now that I have the pattern in my head.

A fresh die is the key. Ate up my old die on this metal!


----------



## [email protected] (May 14, 2009)

Atomic Ed said:


> That would be the best way to do it. But it only took me about two hours with a hand die grinder to cut mine down. And that was figgering out how to shape it and opening up the inlet flange. I could easily do just the collector diverter and smooth everthing out in about 45 min. now that I have the pattern in my head.
> 
> A fresh die is the key. Ate up my old die on this metal!


Less rpms and coated carbide is the trick with Inconel. Eastwood sells some good carbide burrs that work well on the stuff. So does Harvey Tool. Two hours is not bad by hand :laugh:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Where you at, Ed ??? Any progress, dyno, updates? Talk to us!


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Where you at, Ed ??? Any progress, dyno, updates? Talk to us!


Well, I’ve been radio silent because I'm frustrated. :banghead: Between the builder and I, we've only made slow progress. 

The car was up and running, but two trips to the dyno revealed a rapid increase in IATs, and corresponding timing pull. Checking the outlet of the intercooler showed no significant temp increase, so we're focused on the manifold/head. We’re finishing up changing out the SEM intake manifold for an IE manifold in the hopes that this will help lower IATs with the larger plenum volume. The builder thinks this will help with the IATs enough to call it good. My theory is the intercooler and head may also still be part of the issue, in spite of the IR readings on the intercooler outlet. 

We’ve been dabbling with a homebrew WMI system using a ZEX controller and a set of A8 headlight washers. Crazy, I know, but the A8 headlight washer pumps put out 220 psi! They are a completely different design than the rest of the Audi headlight washers……I’ll post on this at a later time when we have some definitive results, one way or the other. Regardless, it’s been a distraction.

We decided that the best approach at this time is to get the TT as finely tuned as we can before we introduce the WMI. So back to the car…. 

We’re pushing the timing hard. We’re in the near 30 degree advance without the WMI, except in the max torque (mid) range. I attribute the ability to do this to the big cams and the oversize valves. We’re still running the AMU head, but I’ve got an AEB head sitting on my workbench that we may transfer the valvetrain to and slap on to help on the IATs/timing. (The AEB comes with its own tuning issues, as you know.) But we both understand that is only so much one can do to push timing without resorting to WMI....We're just trying to find that limit with this setup.

I also need to focus on the intake side. Radiator upgrade, oil cooler upgrade and MAF upgrade are all on my list. I also recognize the need to balance the intercooler sizing with the use of WMI in a daily driver mode. 

However, first pull was 303awhp which isn’t too bad for a first run. 

When the car gets turned back to me, I’ll throw up a thread and go through the build in detail. Right now, all of the supporting info is at the builder’s shop.

The last parts to put the IE manifold on should be here this week. Then it’s off to the dyno for the final run and the car gets turned back to me!


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Atomic Ed said:


> We’re finishing up changing out the SEM intake manifold for an IE manifold in the hopes that this will help lower IATs with the larger plenum volume.


That's a pretty big stretch as a conclusion to the cause of high IAT's. I'm assuming the sensor is mounted in the plenum like intended on the SEM? You're measuring post IC temps with an IR thermometer, not an actual probe in the charge path? How much IAT increase were you seeing from a non heatsoaked state in a single gear pull?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Atomic Ed said:


> Well, I’ve been radio silent because I'm frustrated. :banghead: Between the builder and I, we've only made slow progress.
> 
> The car was up and running, but two trips to the dyno revealed a rapid increase in IATs, and corresponding timing pull. Checking the outlet of the intercooler showed no significant temp increase, so we're focused on the manifold/head. We’re finishing up changing out the SEM intake manifold for an IE manifold in the hopes that this will help lower IATs with the larger plenum volume. The builder thinks this will help with the IATs enough to call it good. My theory is the intercooler and head may also still be part of the issue, in spite of the IR readings on the intercooler outlet.
> 
> ...





20v master said:


> That's a pretty big stretch as a conclusion to the cause of high IAT's. I'm assuming the sensor is mounted in the plenum like intended on the SEM? You're measuring post IC temps with an IR thermometer, not an actual probe in the charge path? How much IAT increase were you seeing from a non heatsoaked state in a single gear pull?


Thanks for sharing Ed! Looking forward to the detailed build thread so we can get into the specifics. Adam has some valid questions/concerns here, I don't see how the plenum size would effect IAT (except maybe for marginal variances between sensor plumbing location, length of runners, ability to retain/dissipate heat between manifold construction etc.). I find the pre/post IC piping test with an IR a bit sketchy as well, non-laminar flow, and heat soaking from bay heat makes this a somewhat unreliable data that is not enough to support the conclusions. If you're not getting good flow to a FMIC (can be overlooked on the Dyno and compounded with the fact that the TT's front bumper isn't FMIC friendly with its design), you'll definitely have plenum-recorded IAT go to the moon. Anyway, better testing and charge cooling revisions seems like the logical path here (swapping manifolds won't change much IMO but would be a nice way to compare the differences between brands back-to-back ). 

Water injection is a sure way to put a lid on charge temperatures and allow you to get good timing at the bottom of the curve where it counts - but relying on it only isn't the most intelligent way of setting a tune unless you have good failsafes to dial things back when things fail (especially with custom made setups and using pumps not designed/tested for the task). From my experience with all sorts of WI setups, they all malfunction or fail at some point, so your approach of ironing the the tune on standard hardware is good, although the chemical cooling if taken in consideration, would allow more advanced boost/timing without corrections. 

I say you're on your way to sick setup! Clearing the 300 AWHP mark with stuff not sorted and on your first baseline run is impressive. I can only imagine what this thing is capable of with big boost, and water injection allowing a healthier/flatter timing curve :beer:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

20v master said:


> That's a pretty big stretch as a conclusion to the cause of high IAT's. I'm assuming the sensor is mounted in the plenum like intended on the SEM? You're measuring post IC temps with an IR thermometer, not an actual probe in the charge path? How much IAT increase were you seeing from a non heatsoaked state in a single gear pull?


Well, I wouldn't say it's a definitive conclusion, just a step to try out to gauge the effectiveness of an increase in plenum size. I don't entirely agree with my builder on this, but I've learned to give him some rope to figure it out. He always surprizes me. 

And yes the sensor is in the correct position on the SEM manifold. 

We'll pul some info together when we make the next dyno run.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Thanks for sharing Ed! Looking forward to the detailed build thread so we can get into the specifics. Adam has some valid questions/concerns here, I don't see how the plenum size would effect IAT (except maybe for marginal variances between sensor plumbing location, length of runners, ability to retain/dissipate heat between manifold construction etc.). I find the pre/post IC piping test with an IR a bit sketchy as well, non-laminar flow, and heat soaking from bay heat makes this a somewhat unreliable data that is not enough to support the conclusions. If you're not getting good flow to a FMIC (can be overlooked on the Dyno and compounded with the fact that the TT's front bumper isn't FMIC friendly with its design), you'll definitely have plenum-recorded IAT go to the moon. Anyway, better testing and charge cooling revisions seems like the logical path here (swapping manifolds won't change much IMO but would be a nice way to compare the differences between brands back-to-back ).
> 
> Water injection is a sure way to put a lid on charge temperatures and allow you to get good timing at the bottom of the curve where it counts - but relying on it only isn't the most intelligent way of setting a tune unless you have good failsafes to dial things back when things fail (especially with custom made setups and using pumps not designed/tested for the task). From my experience with all sorts of WI setups, they all malfunction or fail at some point, so your approach of ironing the the tune on standard hardware is good, although the chemical cooling if taken in consideration, would allow more advanced boost/timing without corrections.
> 
> I say you're on your way to sick setup! Clearing the 300 AWHP mark with stuff not sorted and on your first baseline run is impressive. I can only imagine what this thing is capable of with big boost, and water injection allowing a healthier/flatter timing curve :beer:


Input is alway welcomed from all of you gents.

The dyno runs were made with the front clip off, so there was a clean access to the intercooler for cooling and measurement with an IR thermometer. Agreed it's not the best method, but it is an indicator.

No doubt that the entire intake path needs a lot of attention. The intercooler is the CTS design, which I like in that it fits the profile of the front clip opening, but it is a little small on capacity. One item to work on is to find a better flowing intercooler that is somewhat the same low profile. So far, the Treadstone TR8 is the closest fit with a better overall design that doesn't completely cover the radiator. And, of course, I will add in a 3 row radiator and separate oil cooler. 

Keep in mind that, for the time being, we’re intentionally pushing this setup without water/meth. Like you said, I don't want to rely on WMI for the reasons you stated. We'll get into WMI to "party" with. 

The list of things “to do” grows daily, and I suspect that when you guys chime in, there will be more to do.

I’m anxious to get this thing on the road and drive it for a while. I want to get a feel of how the combo of a 2.1 build works out with the F23 turbo. Common opinion will be that the engine is way over-built for the F23, but we’ll see.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Is like to se this JBS knock off that I've been hearing about. I wonder if it has the same collector issue.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Atomic Ed said:


> Well, I wouldn't say it's a definitive conclusion, just a step to try out to gauge the effectiveness of an increase in plenum size. I don't entirely agree with my builder on this, but I've learned to give him some rope to figure it out. He always surprizes me.
> 
> And yes the sensor is in the correct position on the SEM manifold.
> 
> We'll pul some info together when we make the next dyno run.


Were no logs done with VAG COM?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

warranty225cpe said:


> Is like to se this JBS knock off that I've been hearing about. I wonder if it has the same collector issue.


Carbon copy from what I heard!


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

20v master said:


> Were no logs done with VAG COM?


Logs were taken, but they are over at the shop, otherwise I would gladly share. We're trying to get to the dyno next week for the final test and tune run. I will definitely grab some logs. 

Thanks for taking an interest.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

warranty225cpe said:


> Is like to se this JBS knock off that I've been hearing about. I wonder if it has the same collector issue.


From what I can gleam, it isn't even a knock-off, but just a re-branded cast from the same foundry. At least thats what is being stated from forums across the pond.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Atomic Ed said:


> From what I can gleam, it isn't even a knock-off, but just a re-branded cast from the same foundry. At least thats what is being stated from forums across the pond.


This is probably the route ill go. What's the price of the JBS?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

warranty225cpe said:


> This is probably the route ill go. What's the price of the JBS?


Just make sure to port the collector before installing.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

spartiati said:


> Just make sure to port the collector before installing.


Will do. I plan on doing that and ceramic coating it. What's the retail price of the JBS unit?


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

Anyone with a link or info on where to buy the copy of the JBS? If they wont fix the problem, I dont have any moral issue with buying the knockoff.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

^^^ There is always the option of thoroughly porting the stocker! If done right, you can get results similar to fully reworked JBS or knockoff.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

abacorrado said:


> Anyone with a link or info on where to buy the copy of the JBS? If they wont fix the problem, I dont have any moral issue with buying the knockoff.


 That's what I'm thinking 



Marcus_Aurelius said:


> ^^^ There is always the option of thoroughly porting the stocker! If done right, you can get results similar to fully reworked JBS or knockoff.


 I would need to get a stocker and do the port job on the side. What about the portion where it merges and gets really small? You thinking about adding some metal there the boring it out?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

warranty225cpe said:


> I would need to get a stocker and do the port job on the side. What about the portion where it merges and gets really small? You thinking about adding some metal there the boring it out?


 That's what I did, just buy a spare manifold and do the work! I don't know if you followed my build thread but all the details of the porting work are in there. :beer: 
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5788526-Chronicles-of-a-track-TT/page4


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Some pictures of the port work (hope Ed don't mind)! 

Before: 



















After: 


Final rough port going deeper into the collector's throat 










Final collector smoothing and polishing 











*Comparison of my collector port with life size drawings of a standard T25. Still trailing the T25 but not by much, this thing will definitely hold its own! * 

















*Top* 




















*Ports and runners opened all the way to the collector (40 mm at the flange)* 



































*Bottom and collector*


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

How has this manifold held up so far? top end torque increased?


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Not installed yet.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*GT2871R spooling late*

I have already learnt a great deal reading your comments, regretably not until after going through a long painful process of installing the gt2871r eliminator on my 225 TT. 
Will this JBS manifold make a significant difference in the spool time for this turbo having already put a 3" hi flow exhaust set up with minimal improvement. 

Grateful for you opinions


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

OMD-2013 said:


> I have already learnt a great deal reading your comments, regretably not until after going through a long painful process of installing the gt2871r eliminator on my 225 TT.
> Will this JBS manifold make a significant difference in the spool time for this turbo having already put a 3" hi flow exhaust set up with minimal improvement.
> 
> Grateful for you opinions


 What's problem are you having with spool? Can you provide more detail on the setup and what it's doing that you feel needs to be improved on?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> I have already learnt a great deal reading your comments, regretably not until after going through a long painful process of installing the gt2871r eliminator on my 225 TT.
> Will this JBS manifold make a significant difference in the spool time for this turbo having already put a 3" hi flow exhaust set up with minimal improvement.
> 
> Grateful for you opinions


 Does your spool-up look like this? 

 
22 psi wastgate, N75 disconnected from wastegate​ 

Then yes, the JBS will help spool, IF your wallow out the collector as shown in this thread. Your other alternative is to port out the stock manifold like Max has demonstrated in his pictures. The one thing that pushes me towards the JBS over Max’s porting of the stock mani is the weight difference between the eliminator and the K04 turbos. The eliminator definitely will place more stress on the manifold. 

BUT, it’s just a theory. Max has yet to put time in on his ported mani and I have not yet hanged my eliminator on a JBS an run with it. (I have test fitted the eliminator and it fits, but very tight.) However, I think the JBS will keep up with the eliminator better, given its greater overall flow. 

An equally important addition to theTT225 eliminator setup is a Badger 5 TIP. Take a look at this thread: 


http://www.seatcupra.net/forums/showthread.php?t=328699 

PM Badger 5 and ask him if he will sell you the V 2.2 TIP without the adapter. Dig out the 3” compressor inlet adapter that came with the eliminator and replace the standard size adapter with the 3”. 

Of the two, I would try the Badger 5 TIP first and see if you get the spool you are looking for. If not, go with the JBS manifold.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*2871R Eliminator setup*

Turbo 2871R on a stock exhaust manifold 
550 injectors and ecu tune added fuel pump that now switches in at 3-5psi boost (It was too Noisy!) 
42 draft 3" exhaust and hi-flow cat 
Stock inter coolers 
custom inlet 2-1/2" - 3-3/4" MAF - 4-1/2" filter. 
upgraded coils (not sure what they were but strangly made the most significant improvement) 

Now getting 24psi boost but not spooling until approx 4800 rpm. 

Was hoping to get it to spool around 4000 rpm. 

I have been cornered into spendding $$$ to get this eliminator to work, I have come close but wonder if I am following a fruitless path.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Thanks 

Yes looks just like that, but being naive when I started this endeavor I expected so much more in terms of driveability and miss the almost 0 stock turbo lag. 
I have reproduced for myself what looks very similar to your recommended TIP. 

How much difference in turms of reduced RPM to spool have you discovered with the JBS ported inlet or are you yet to test it.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> Now getting 24psi boost but not spooling until approx 4800 rpm.
> 
> Was hoping to get it to spool around 4000 rpm.
> 
> I have been cornered into spendding $$$ to get this eliminator to work, I have come close but *wonder if I am following a fruitless path.*


 You are. The point of the Eliminators is to use the stock manifold. Now you're talking about swapping manifolds. :screwy: That spool is awful. A standard 1.8T will spool a 3076R by 4000 rpms on a proper manifold, and make a LOT more power. At this point, why not just run a REAL manifold meant for the power goals you have?


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

20v master said:


> You are. The point of the Eliminators is to use the stock manifold. Now you're talking about swapping manifolds. :screwy: That spool is awful. A standard 1.8T will spool a 3076R by 4000 rpms on a proper manifold, and make a LOT more power. At this point, why not just run a REAL manifold meant for the power goals you have?


 This is basically my dilemma keep going or back out and go with turbo that will spool 

Just how much plumbing would that involve? 
Which manifold? 
A new down pipe not so $ 
But just how tricky doe the intercooler routing become? 

Thanks


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Atomic Ed said:


> Then yes, the JBS will help spool, IF your wallow out the collector as shown in this thread. Your other alternative is to port out the stock manifold like Max has demonstrated in his pictures. The one thing that pushes me towards the JBS over Max’s porting of the stock mani is the weight difference between the eliminator and the K04 turbos. The eliminator definitely will place more stress on the manifold.
> 
> BUT, it’s just a theory. Max has yet to put time in on his ported mani and I have not yet hanged my eliminator on a JBS an run with it. (I have test fitted the eliminator and it fits, but very tight.) However, I think the JBS will keep up with the eliminator better, given its greater overall flow.


 You're correct Ed, the JBS (and any higher flowing manifold that doesn't represent a choke point like the stock unit) will be an improvement to his spool (and overall power) on his eliminator. 

However, I feel that it doesn't end there. The turbine housings are also highly choked-up by the downpipe section of the exhaust (even with 3" all the way to the atmospheric dump). These small turbine housings were designed to work best with expansion chambers, and we are just ignoring that and compounding the problem by demanding high pressure ratios from these baby snails. Look at how Audi designs their stock downpipes (although with much lower output in mind), they all include a nice expansion on the downpipe where it meets the turbine housing. This is very important and needed even more in our cases (hybrids, eliminators, or simply maxing out the stockers). For X inches choosen as an exhaust piping size, we need to have a Y inches expansion that matches that choosen diameter to meet the housing (there is no golden ratio and the overall pressure ratio is what dictates what would be ideal). 

I never brought up the subject before because I wanted to have concrete data to back up the theory. I already discussed with ED at FFE what would work best for my 3" exhaust and high turbine pressure output (E85 and marginally higher exhaust pulse pressure). Our modification will include a 3.5" pipe at the DP flange expanding to a 4" for a good bit before gradually tapering back to 3". This should effectively expand the turbine capacity to match the rest of the setup (think increased turbine size). I'll have more details when we're done with the DP modifications and tested the benefits (ED and I are both positive the benefits will be substantial). To come back to the eliminator subject, I think that their turbine housing is even larger than our KKK ones, this exacerbates the inherent restriction on the downpipe entrance, and make the need for an expansion chamber even more important (this is expressed by their very laggy spool onset that normally shouldn't exist). 


*This is what Audi did with the 5 cyl TT-RS (same principle applied the MK1 225 TT DP but with much lower output in mind)* 












*Side by side OEM DP and aftermarket to illustrate the expansion from the exhaust piping size at the DP entrance. * 











*This is kinda what we're going to do with the DP to implement the expansion needed. The smaller piping will be 3" and expanding as much as needed to meet with the hotside.* 











*This is what 3" represents in relation to our turbine housing flange and gasket. Clearly, 3" is a sizable restriction at the entrance of the downpipe and leaves much room for improvement. For example, Mistsubi in the CT9A EVO platform, realized this issue and went from a 9.8 to 10.5 o2 housing (bolt-on hotside extension) mid-production. This substantially helped spool and allowed much higher output throughout the powerband. *


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

I'd never seen anyone mention this before, but we discussed it thoroughly in my engine theory class. It's a shame no one uses real world examples from the highest engineering budgets, but instead slaps on a standard 3" pipe and calls it a day. Good job Max. :thumbup:


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

20v master said:


> You are. The point of the Eliminators is to use the stock manifold. Now you're talking about swapping manifolds. :screwy: That spool is awful. A standard 1.8T will spool a 3076R by 4000 rpms on a proper manifold, and make a LOT more power. At this point, why not just run a REAL manifold meant for the power goals you have?


Thanks 20v master,

I needed to be pushed in the right direction, I'm ready to returm my car to stock while I set up for a new "team line up" PLEASE help me with exhaust manifold and turbo choices for a 399 hp set up for street use mainly for my 2001 TT. 

Marcus_Aurelius 

your exhaust down pipe design inspires me. I am quite disapointed with my draft 42 so called up grade that has since wrecked my steering rack. I confess as a novice I had ignored my engine mounts and not been warned by the pro's I was spending my $ with. 

Public warning to all novices like myself; upgrade your engine mounts!!! losing power steering with out notice is no fun!

Replacing the engine mount lifted the engine by an inch but I am still not happy with the minimal clearane the draft 42 has with the steering rack: I'm ready to cut it up and make it fit safely and now with your design examples (Marcus_Aurelius) actually make it work.

Many thanks


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

I agree with 20v master on the fact that a proper t25/t3 manifold would perform a ton better. But I disagree that it's a waste of time upgrading the manifold. It all depends on what you want from your car. If its a waste of time trying to squeeze a lil more power/spool out of his setup with a better manifold than swapping your 180 to a 225 sounds pretty pointless too.  Not taking a jab at you just saying. If I already had the eliminator on my car I'd def be trying to get the most out if it before I go n have to switch out the manifold n down pipe for a proper bt setup. I'd really like to see what one of these eliminators can do on a well sorted setup. Other than atomic Ed I don't think anyone's tried using the 225 eliminator kit with a upgraded manifold.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

steve-o 16v GLI said:


> I agree with 20v master on the fact that a proper t25/t3 manifold would perform a ton better. But I disagree that it's a waste of time upgrading the manifold. It all depends on what you want from your car. If its a waste of time trying to squeeze a lil more power/spool out of his setup with a better manifold than swapping your 180 to a 225 sounds pretty pointless too.  Not taking a jab at you just saying. If I already had the eliminator on my car I'd def be trying to get the most out if it before I go n have to switch out the manifold n down pipe for a proper bt setup. I'd really like to see what one of these eliminators can do on a well sorted setup. Other than atomic Ed I don't think anyone's tried using the 225 eliminator kit with a upgraded manifold.


I didn't say that upgrading the manifold wouldn't give gains, just that it defeats the purpose of the whole package. At the end of the day, you're still trying to squeeze power out of a standard K04 manifold outlet diameter. The reason I changed my 180 to a 225 was because the engine and trans were out for a clutch and I had all the parts laying around, aka free, it allowed me to install the small port SEM manifold without a custom FMIC setup, and because a chip only 180hp motor is horribly slow in comparison to what I have now, even in greatly unsorted form. :beer: Besides, Max really wanted to see what a K04 does on AWP 9.5:1 compression. :laugh:


----------



## steve-o 16v GLI (Jun 26, 2005)

20v master said:


> I didn't say that upgrading the manifold wouldn't give gains, just that it defeats the purpose of the whole package. At the end of the day, you're still trying to squeeze power out of a standard K04 manifold outlet diameter. The reason I changed my 180 to a 225 was because the engine and trans were out for a clutch and I had all the parts laying around, aka free, it allowed me to install the small port SEM manifold without a custom FMIC setup, and because a chip only 180hp motor is horribly slow in comparison to what I have now, even in greatly unsorted form. :beer: Besides, Max really wanted to see what a K04 does on AWP 9.5:1 compression. :laugh:


I def agree with you. That's why I said it wasn't a jab at you. But me personally I like seeing things pushed where others say its pointless. It's easy to slap a bt kit on n make 300+ hp. No big "eww ahh" factor there. But swaps like yours or ppl like Max, Doug n Ed that are pushing the limits of these turbos n trying the things most would consider a waste of time is what I like reading about on here. I could care less about someone's gt3076r build that's been done over n over again. Know what I mean. 
Cheers


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

finished reading the last page and I must say I'm quite surprised at the 4800rpm spool of OMD-2013 on the 2871R eliminator. On a stock manifold and inlet, still running the n75 on maestro ( eurojet 3" turboback only ), I achieved 20 psi at 3800 rpm, and with the badger 5 inlet and INA high flow manifold ( ceramic coated and no it didnn't crack, it was nice and as new when i removed it ) i achieved 25 psi at that RPM, but at that time I was experiencing with a Forge MBC so I can't tell if it was helping or not.

But my question is what software do you run? 550cc make me think you're on Revo so it might be an issue, or you have a drawback somewhere, or my car was a special one lol.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> Turbo 2871R on a stock exhaust manifold
> 550 injectors and ecu tune added* fuel pump that now switches in at 3-5psi boost* (It was too Noisy!)


How is the pump actuation handled? With an inline pump that's a handy feature. Protects it from overheating and burning out.



OMD-2013 said:


> 42 draft 3" exhaust and hi-flow cat
> Stock inter coolers
> custom inlet 2-1/2" - 3-3/4" MAF - 4-1/2" filter.
> upgraded coils (not sure what they were but strangly made the most significant improvement)
> ...


How is your boost control set up? Running N75 or a manual boost controller?


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Fuel pressure switch*

I got the switch from the Nitrous Oxide guys,
They use it to shut off there Nitrous at low pressure, a safety device I suspect
NitrousSupply.com

Product ID: 25750
Manufacturer: Nitrous Supply
FUEL PRESSURE SAFETY SWITCH SHUT-OFF 5PSI-NORMALLY OPEN

The boost pressure is manual right now with an ATP single stage MBC
not a logical design as you unscrew it to INCREASE BOOST, something I found out after blowing an intercooler hose off while trying to curb my enthusiam for speed!


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Volksdude27 said:


> finished reading the last page and I must say I'm quite surprised at the 4800rpm spool of OMD-2013 on the 2871R eliminator. On a stock manifold and inlet, still running the n75 on maestro ( eurojet 3" turboback only ), I achieved 20 psi at 3800 rpm, and with the badger 5 inlet and INA high flow manifold ( ceramic coated and no it didnn't crack, it was nice and as new when i removed it ) i achieved 25 psi at that RPM, but at that time I was experiencing with a Forge MBC so I can't tell if it was helping or not.
> 
> But my question is what software do you run? 550cc make me think you're on Revo so it might be an issue, or you have a drawback somewhere, or my car was a special one lol.





Volksdude27 said:


> finished reading the last page and I must say I'm quite surprised at the 4800rpm spool of OMD-2013 on the 2871R eliminator. On a stock manifold and inlet, still running the n75 on maestro ( eurojet 3" turboback only ), I achieved 20 psi at 3800 rpm, and with the badger 5 inlet and INA high flow manifold ( ceramic coated and no it didnn't crack, it was nice and as new when i removed it ) i achieved 25 psi at that RPM, but at that time I was experiencing with a Forge MBC so I can't tell if it was helping or not.
> 
> But my question is what software do you run? 550cc make me think you're on Revo so it might be an issue, or you have a drawback somewhere, or my car was a special one lol.


I definitely see your point, and that's why I asked the inquiring eliminator guy, what his problem was with spool. The other transverse eliminator kits I've seen (although generally restricted in output by the turbo/manifold flange choke point) didn't show such late spool. But when he mentioned using the stock manifold, it made it plausible without necessarily having software and boost control issues. The stock manifold is not adequate for an eliminator turbine period. He could be compounding other issues with the underlying problem too (boost control and additional exhaust restrictions on top of it), but his primary issue at this point is the manifold.




OMD-2013 said:


> I got the switch from the Nitrous Oxide guys,
> They use it to shut off there Nitrous at low pressure, a safety device I suspect
> NitrousSupply.com
> 
> ...


Read reply above! Before you go crazy chasing your tail with other variables that may or may not be a factor, IMO you need to address the obvious first. Remove the big choke point (stock manifold) that's starring at you and take it from there! :beer:


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Eliminator and the jbs manifold*

Thanks guys

by the way my tune is 

United motorsports w/ 550cc inj and 85mm maf housing.

Once I fix my steering rack I'll look to get a JBS manifild I think, but I'm still considering a different turbo and manifold fo a complete custom setup. I especially like APR's new downpipe for the new TT RS. The v band attachment allows for more adjustment if only angular. I'm not happy with th draft 42 downpipe and neither is my steering rack. It just does fit well and you have since help me learn it is not a great design.
In for a penny in for a pound!


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

OMD-2013 said:


> Thanks guys
> 
> by the way my tune is
> 
> ...


That would be the smartest, most logical path to fixing the existing problem. A higher flowing manifold, regardless of which one you pick, is your next priority.



OMD-2013 said:


> Thanks guys
> 
> by the way my tune is
> 
> ...


You're misreading what I'm saying! The design of all the DP options available to us could be improved with an expansion chamber (especially for hybrids, eliminator or extreme K04 setups). If anything 42 DD is the company I rep and recommend to all because of their craftsmanship and awesome customer service. Your problem was not the DP but rather the mounts or a bad install, I (and many) run that DP and never had a single issue with fitment or quality. As a matter of fact, my expansion chamber project is going to be done on my 42DD downpipe and the dimensions sent to them so maybe they can replicate it for an "extreme version" of their DP geared towards our type of applications. I could easily have the awesome crew a 42DD do the implementation themselves, but it might be easier to have all the dimensions and data in hand before bothering them with my crazy stuff. They are also one of my sponsors BTW!


----------



## RabbitGTDguy (Jul 9, 2002)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> You're correct Ed, the JBS (and any higher flowing manifold that doesn't represent a choke point like the stock unit) will be an improvement to his spool (and overall power) on his eliminator.
> 
> However, I feel that it doesn't end there. The turbine housings are also highly choked-up by the downpipe section of the exhaust (even with 3" all the way to the atmospheric dump). These small turbine housings were designed to work best with expansion chambers, and we are just ignoring that and compounding the problem by demanding high pressure ratios from these baby snails. Look at how Audi designs their stock downpipes (although with much lower output in mind), they all include a nice expansion on the downpipe where it meets the turbine housing. This is very important and needed even more in our cases (hybrids, eliminators, or simply maxing out the stockers). For X inches choosen as an exhaust piping size, we need to have a Y inches expansion that matches that choosen diameter to meet the housing (there is no golden ratio and the overall pressure ratio is what dictates what would be ideal).
> 
> ...



Very interested to see what happens here with this for those of us with more extreme setups and want to stick with our ko4/hybrid/elminator/f23setups

Joe


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> That would be the smartest, most logical path to fixing the existing problem. A higher flowing manifold, regardless of which one you pick, is your next priority.
> 
> 
> 
> You're misreading what I'm saying! The design of all the DP options available to us could be improved with an expansion chamber (especially for hybrids, eliminator or extreme K04 setups). If anything 42 DD is the company I rep and recommend to all because their craftsmanship and awesome customer service. Your problem was not the DP but rather the mounts or a bad install, I (and many) run that DP and never had a single issue with fitment or quality. As a matter of fact, my expansion chamber project is going to be done on my 42DD downpipe and the dimensions sent to them so maybe they can replicate it for an "extreme version" of their DP geared towards our type of applications. I could easily have the awesome crew a 42DD do the implementation themselves, but it might be easier to have all the dimensions and data in hand before bothering them with my crazy stuff. They are also one of my sponsors BTW!


Marcus_Aurelius 
You are absolutely right , I did not mean to be disrespectful of a a well produced quality product (42DD). The fitting does need to be improved in my case. I have noticed the support bracket shown in your picture next to the stock exhaust is missing on mine. I have only just began to get a hands on approach myself getting on my back and grafting underneathe the car. (God bless the makers of Advil). As soon as I figure out how to post photos I'm sure I can become a more valid member. Lying under cars in earthquake country takes a little time in building confidence for late starters like myself.
There is plenty of room for your expansion chamber in that part of the engine compartment but with someone of my limited welding resources I'm thinking of taking the existing APR TTRS down pipe expansion chamber and cutting it off and adding it to the 42DD down pipe I have.
One quick simple improvement I would like to suggest for the three bolt flanges of the 42DD exhaust would be to slightly radially slot the three holes just to add an adjustment feature.

There also looks like there is room to split the pipes and double the cats would that help much?

The damage to my steering rack was somewhat superficial it broke one of the exterior hardlines,
if the replacement hard line works I can justify the $ savings on a JBS manifold. The fact is we can buy them here in the USA including shipping for less than you could in the UK (no VAT) Unless of course I should expect an import duty, should I?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Glad to see Volksdude27 chime in here. I was about drag him in here since he has been very successful with his eliminator setup.

This latest chain of comments has hit upon something that has been nagging me about the TT225 eliminator for quite a while. That is; why are the longitudinal 1.8T (A4) guys able to spool up their eliminators at around 3600 rpm where we TT225 folks have to wait to 4800 rpm for decent boost? I’ve spent a lot of time evaluating the differences and found the major differences for those longitudinal 1.8Ts than can hit boost below 4000 rpm are the exhaust mani, the TIP and the intercooler setups. The TIP and the intercooler are easy fixes, still need to be done, but still a pretty easy fix. It’s the exhaust mani that is the bugger. I think this combo of improvements gave Volksdude27 his great sucess with the eliminator, am I right Volksdude?

The TT225 manifold is the worst flowing of the OEM 1.8T manifolds out there. (INA published somewhere that actual flow rates, but I can’t seem to find them again.) The longitudinal guys have a huge advantage over the TT225 when it comes to upgrading to a mani that can flow, even through a K0-4 flange. But, at least we finally have some selections for mani upgrades now, like the JBS.

What is interesting is that the eliminators for the longitudinal and the TT225 are nearly identical. Here is my old eliminator:





And here is a longitudinal eliminator:






And here is a “regular” transverse eliminator:



Notice how there is very little difference between the TT225 exhaust housing and the longitudinal housing, much cleaner exhaust exit than the convoluted “regular” style eliminator for the transverse. I think this difference portrays well what Max was discussing earlier. (Didn’t someone post a link on turbo exhausts that the ideal exhaust would be curvilinear horn shape?)

The TT225 eliminator can be a successful setup, but it does have its plateau as 20V Master and Max pointed out. As stated before, you are ultimately limited by the K0-4 flange.

I have an itch to upgrade my old eliminator to a GTX 2867 and re-install it sometime in the future….Or wait to hear back from Volksdude27 when he publishes his eliminator upgrade results. (hint, hint) 

But for now, I have an F23 to keep me entertained for quite a while. It would be an interesting comparison.


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

Atomic Ed said:


> Glad to see Volksdude27 chime in here. I was about drag him in here since he has been very successful with his eliminator setup.
> 
> This latest chain of comments has hit upon something that has been nagging me about the TT225 eliminator for quite a while. That is; why are the longitudinal 1.8T (A4) guys able to spool up their eliminators at around 3600 rpm where we TT225 folks have to wait to 4800 rpm for decent boost? I’ve spent a lot of time evaluating the differences and found the major differences for those longitudinal 1.8Ts than can hit boost below 4000 rpm are the exhaust mani, the TIP and the intercooler setups. The TIP and the intercooler are easy fixes, still need to be done, but still a pretty easy fix. It’s the exhaust mani that is the bugger. I think this combo of improvements gave Volksdude27 his great sucess with the eliminator, am I right Volksdude?
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, All my logs were in a Laptop that crashed beyond repair, and the hard drive is corrupted. I'm planning to bring it to a pc store so they can recuperate as much as they can fromn it, and hopefully I'll have what I need. 

But the difference when i upgraded everything was sizeable, in term of spool and flow ( with oem manifold, best g/s I saw was in the 260 with manifold and inlet it boosted close to low 300 (320 some if I remember ).

No Ed I never did the HTA eliminator, Had a deal I couldn't pass on a full setup, and even if the HTA 2871R was crap, I neated 434 G/s with it, and car was holy fast!!, I'll be running a GTX2867R this summer.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*JBS Reworked*

Atomic-Ed

I'm going for the JBS manifold, can you suggest a source for a quality "windy" dye grinder and tool bits. I plan on reproducing your work to the manifold. can you offer some advice on how to match the ports to the head and turbo. Did you pay VAT for your JBS manifold?

I'm also planning on using the APR TTRSC downpipe with mods no doubt and hooking it to the remainder of my 42DD exhaust. Any suggestion on an adapter from the eliminator to the 4" v band flange.

Thanks


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Ed, can you measure the ID of the exhaust ports on the head itself? I'm curious about the difference in ID between the manifold and a small port head...


I'm getting the JBS manifold for my eleiminator set up, how can I find out what port sizes I have on my head that you and 20v Master speak of

Can you offer any suggestions for an adapter on the hot half turbo (2871r eliminator) for a 4" v band exhaust down pipe.


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

Either make yourself an adapter or cut the vband and weld a 3 bolt flange to the downpipe

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> I'm getting the JBS manifold for my eleiminator set up, how can I find out what port sizes I have on my head that you and 20v Master speak of


Large port (AEB) heads are 36mm exhaust ports, the rest are all 33mm.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

20v master said:


> Large port (AEB) heads are 36mm exhaust ports, the rest are all 33mm.


How can you identify the head ( without the obvious measuring of the port) I know I have the 2001 AMU engine is the a place to look?


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> How can you identify the head ( without the obvious measuring of the port) I know I have the 2001 AMU engine is the a place to look?


AMU = small port = 33mm.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

OMD-2013 said:


> How can you identify the head ( without the obvious measuring of the port) I know I have the 2001 AMU engine is the a place to look?


Pretty much anything that is not AEB stamped head (big port) on USDM motors = small port

Not much versed in European engine codes and specifics, so I can't help there!


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Pretty much anything that is not AEB stamped head (big port) on USDM motors = small port
> 
> Not much versed in European engine codes and specifics, so I can't help there!


I think AGU is the Euro big port casting. I've never seen one, so don't know for sure.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

AGU was turbo bigport and ADR was NA bigport (w/NA-specific cams) in Europe :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

l88m22vette said:


> AGU was turbo bigport and ADR was NA bigport (w/NA-specific cams) in Europe :thumbup:


I can't be sure of this, but I suspect the cam profile found in that European ADR engine was _port-specific_, rather than aspiration specific. My guess is based on that profile's use in virtually every head that had wide ports, turbocharged or not. So it was used in the lowly NA 1.8L -- and in the mighty RennSport 2.7L RS4 as well. The notable exceptions are wide-port AEB and AGU. That's why I'm unsure of that cam's purpose.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

From what I've seen the NA stuff was from pretty early (even the RS4 was 2000), did those profile of cams ever even make it over to North America? I'll bet emissions stopped that from happening...


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I definitely see your point, and that's why I asked the inquiring eliminator guy, what his problem was with spool. The other transverse eliminator kits I've seen (although generally restricted in output by the turbo/manifold flange choke point) didn't show such late spool. But when he mentioned using the stock manifold, it made it plausible without necessarily having software and boost control issues. The stock manifold is not adequate for an eliminator turbine period. He could be compounding other issues with the underlying problem too (boost control and additional exhaust restrictions on top of it), but his primary issue at this point is the manifold.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


JBS KO4 manifold and APR TTRSC downpipe exhaust ordered. 1 week for the manifold 3-5 weeks for the down pipe. Plenty of time for me to plan the cut and paste job on the exhaust. Glad to have made the commitment eager to discover its outcome.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

OMD-2013 said:


> JBS KO4 manifold and APR TTRSC downpipe exhaust ordered. 1 week for the manifold 3-5 weeks for the down pipe. Plenty of time for me to plan the cut and paste job on the exhaust. Glad to have made the commitment eager to discover its outcome.


:thumbup: Sounds like a plan, keep up posted!


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*JBS Manifold how much is too much?*



Atomic Ed said:


> Since we’ve had a few words lately on manifolds for the TT225, I thought I would put up some pics and thoughts on the new JBS mani.
> First off, here are a few shots of the JBS alongside the stock manifold.
> 
> 
> ...


Having just ordered the JBS manifold and APR TTRSC down pipe for my 2001 225 TT with the gt2871R eliminator turbo, I'm planning the next move for when they arrive. I assume matching the ports both sides of the manifold to be an obvious improvement (I have port envy AMU). However I question whether opening the turbo side of the manifold and turbo inlet would necessarilly help. My thinking is that when paired with the expanded chamber downpipe the pressure difference both sides of the turbo will produce a higher velocity through it, therefore faster spool. Keen to hear you thoughts.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

It is very important to do both; open up the flange area and gut out the collector. 

The K04 flange is such a choke point that you will wind up with a slower spool if you don’t open it up. Remember, the GT 2871 is designed to flow much more than either a K04-23 turbo or a hybrid equivalent that the manifold was designed for. Volksdude27 was able to obtain his quick spool-up with a manifold (034 prototype) that had both larger runners and an opened up manifold-to-turbo flange. A simple way to start out opening up the flange on the JBS is to take a regular copper flange gasket and cut out the inner stamped sealing diameter. (You will wind up with a flat gasket that is still useable.) This gives you about 5-6mm extra diameter that can be used as a transfer pattern for cutting away at your manifold flange and your hot-side inlet flange. You can go out from there if you want.

It is also important to do the modifications to the collector as shown in the second set of pictures. If you don’t, you will run into the same problems as described by Spartiati and Badge 5 earlier in the thread; more so due to the higher flow of the eliminator.

If you are new to handling a die grinder, practice on some scrape materials first. Maybe a pipe threaded into a flange (?). Practice the “in-start-cut-stop-out” technique to reduce dancing of the cutting die. Use a lubricant like WD-40 when cutting also. And tape off the flange surface to reduce nicking. Take your time!!!

Good luck. Do report back on how well this setup works for you. I am very interested in your results.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

You might also consider one of these, a 22 psi actuator that works well with the eliminator.

http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchan...de=tp&Product_Code=ATP-WGT-036&Category_Code=


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Atomic Ed said:


> You might also consider one of these, a 22 psi actuator that works well with the eliminator.
> 
> http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchan...de=tp&Product_Code=ATP-WGT-036&Category_Code=


 
Thanks for the heads up there, I’m sure I have the stock 14psi actuator, although I am getting the boost pressure not sure how reliable the lighter sprung version will be. JBS manifold arrived today, in just 2 days!! Getting a die grinder has become the critical path. I have chosen a quality Chicago Pneumatic air grinder. 
Now searching for the cast piece of a stock downpipe to make my K04 to 4" v band adapter for the new expanded chamber downpipe. I know there must be many unwanted cut up OEM down pipes out there. Flange on my present after market down pipe has warped and started to blow (improving spooltime no doubt). 
Thinking ahead my final upgrade (famous last words) will have to be the intercoolers, I like the idea of HPA's OEM replacements, pricey but I like the idea of plug and play and using the ‘saws all’ for tree trimming only.

I would like to add photos but the album feature is not available to me :banghead:

Does anyone know how effective the HPA intercoolers are for the audi TT 225hp?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

OMD-2013 said:


> Thanks for the heads up there, I’m sure I have the stock 14psi actuator, although I am getting the boost pressure not sure how reliable the lighter sprung version will be. JBS manifold arrived today, in just 2 days!! Getting a die grinder has become the critical path. I have chosen a quality Chicago Pneumatic air grinder.
> Now searching for the cast piece of a stock downpipe to make my K04 to 4" v band adapter for the new expanded chamber downpipe. I know there must be many unwanted cut up OEM down pipes out there. Flange on my present after market down pipe has warped and started to blow (improving spooltime no doubt).
> Thinking ahead my final upgrade (famous last words) will have to be the intercoolers, I like the idea of HPA's OEM replacements, pricey but I like the idea of plug and play and using the ‘saws all’ for tree trimming only.
> 
> ...



Let me help you here my friend "*Tyrolsport SMICs or nothing at all*". Nothing against HPA, but the Tyrol units have been put to the test again and again by members of the community and never ceased to amaze with great IAT cooling results. They are properly engineered and tested and fit well considering their size. Tyrol is a smaller company than HPA so there is a different approach to customer service and quality, you won't feel like another sale but rather like a new member of a family. The crew is also super cool with technical knowledge to spare, you'll most likely find the owner Mike answering the phone himself which speaks volume on how they operate. (I'm sure your wallet will also thank you too for going with the proven TyrolSport units). :beer:

Here is their data and dyno testing on the SMICs:
http://www.tyrolsport.com/index.php?p=page&page_id=ttsmic_detail


----------



## [email protected] (May 14, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Let me help you here my friend "*Tyrolsport SMICs or nothing at all*". Nothing against HPA, but the Tyrol units have been put to the test again and again by members of the community and never ceased to amaze with great IAT cooling results. They are properly engineered and tested and fit well considering their size. Tyrol is a smaller company than HPA so there is a different approach to customer service and quality, you won't feel like another sale but rather like a new member of a family. The crew is also super cool with technical knowledge to spare, you'll most likely find the owner Mike answering the phone himself which speaks volume on how they operate. (I'm sure your wallet will also thank you too for going with the proven TyrolSport units). :beer:
> 
> Here is their data and dyno testing on the SMICs:
> http://www.tyrolsport.com/index.php?p=page&page_id=ttsmic_detail


x2 

Love mine and they work awesome to keep IAT's cool at the track :laugh: No modifications required when installing, which is a huge plus!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I'm buying into this experiment as well.


Porting the turbine hotside:




















The Relentless V3 will come off the head for corresponding porting to its flange. :thumbup:


----------



## Dowski12 (Nov 2, 2011)

All this modification makes me wish I still had my stock setup. Looks like it would be a fun project. Keep up the awesome work fellas, will be nice to see some comparisons:thumbup:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I'm buying into this experiment as well.
> 
> 
> Porting the turbine hotside:
> ...


It's about time!  Remember a long time ago, at FFE, I suggested you should try it this? ... and somewhere in your old thread that went into the deep end, I proposed you look into downpipe and exhaust improvements to reduce downstream restrictions post-turbine to reflect your engine work and turbo setup? The concepts and rationale behind these two things are still valid and should net you decent results. Hopefully, you'll post your results here! (TT forum where mature, intelligent, and productive discussions can be had. I won't touch the circus that the 1.8t technicals has becomed - Lost way too many brain cells hanging there!) :beer:


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> (TT forum where mature, intelligent, and productive discussions can be had. I won't touch the circus that the 1.8t technicals has becomed - Lost way too many brain cells hanging there!) :beer:


It wasn't too long ago that you wondered why I don't post in there. :laugh:

Yes, this makes me wish I had done this last month when I had the engine/trans out.


----------



## Audiguy84 (Nov 14, 2006)

Hey doug did you "have" to remove the head to install the v3 manifold?


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> It wasn't too long ago that you wondered why I don't post in there. :laugh:
> 
> Yes, this makes me wish I had done this last month when I had the engine/trans out.


You are so right! Don't know why, but at the time I had hope... recently that place has turned into Facebook for cars. 90% trolling and not a single technical discussion that's not swallowed by perpetual non sense. :screwy:

Yeah, you definitely should have taken advantage when you had everything out! A nice turbine flange and throat porting with matching treatment on the manifold collector.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I'm buying into this experiment as well.
> 
> 
> The Relentless V3 will come off the head for corresponding porting to its flange. :thumbup:


Welcome to the dark side Doug! I will be curious where your EGTs land, as well as spool and boost PSI differentials.

Do you think you have enough material on the Relentless V3 collector to match this porting?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

When I sent those pictures to spartiati (our Golden-boy F23 tester) he wrote back saying, "You brought tears to my eyes." In fact, he too has been encouraging me to do this. But the kicker for me was the A/R on our new F23T for the 2.0L motors. Based on the K04-064 (it's a FrankenTurbo after all) it's a touch bigger. So with this modification in store I hope to:

record pressures and temperatures at the turbine inlet with the stock dimensions (baseline).
re-measure with the changed housing with all else the same
Up N75 boost duty to see if power increases, rather than flagging as it does on the current hot-side

Here goes nuthin!


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> When I sent those pictures to spartiati (our Golden-boy F23 tester) he wrote back saying, "You brought tears to my eyes." In fact, he too has been encouraging me to do this. But the kicker for me was the A/R on our new F23T for the 2.0L motors. Based on the K04-064 (it's a FrankenTurbo after all) it's a touch bigger. So with this modification in store I hope to:
> 
> record pressures and temperatures at the turbine inlet with the stock dimensions (baseline).
> re-measure with the changed housing with all else the same
> ...


I am pretty confident you will see a significant difference by doing this. This may have been the single largest variable between our setups. Granted they are different in their own respect but you and I have always had the talk of "Why can your car do that but mine can't"... I'm fairly confident this may be it.

Come Spring time I will be removing the turbo to massage the downpipe flange, polish things up and revisit the manifold before putting it all back together. I would like to try and squeeze out alittle bit more on pump gas if possible. 

Let me know when you are heading to the dyno again Doug. I'll gladly tag along with my trusty laptop handy!


----------



## Kacz07 (Mar 4, 2012)

I have the Repenltess V3 on my k04 and noticed a drastic decrease in spool time and much harder top end pull. It was really a game changer, IMHO.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...MS-edition-(Avus-silver-exterior-red-interior)

I really need a dyno, but will wait until I get my haldex controller in.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Kacz07 said:


> I...Relentless V3 on my k04 and noticed a drastic decrease in spool time and much harder top end pull.


At least someone's honest enough admit the spool penalty with a long-tube exhaust manifold on such a small frame combo :thumbup:. I've mentioned this in the technical forum but was somewhat challenged by some, the increased runner flow is desirable but not necessarily the substantial increase in runner length. I always feared that the long runners in these tubular manifold would tax the beloved spool characteristics. An Ed-style fixed JBS or a true ported stocker like I did would be the best of both world (increased flow without compromising spool). Who will be the first to dyno and document the spool difference with these long tube welded manifolds that seems to be pushed and "in" nowadays? opcorn:


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> (Snip) At least someone's honest enough admit the spool penalty with a long-tube exhaust manifold on such a small frame combo..... (/Snip)


Errr...ummm... I thought Kacz007 mentioned that he noticed a drastic *decrease* in spool time with the relentless V3. Doesn't seem like a penalty to me... 



Kacz007 said:


> I have the Repenltess V3 on my k04 and noticed a drastic decrease in spool time and much harder top end pull. It was really a game changer, IMHO.


----------



## Late__Apex (Dec 2, 2007)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> At least someone's honest enough admit the spool penalty with a long-tube exhaust manifold on such a small frame combo :thumbup:. I've mentioned this in the technical forum but was somewhat challenged by some, the increased runner flow is desirable but not necessarily the substantial increase in runner length. I always feared that the long runners in these tubular manifold would tax the beloved spool characteristics. An Ed-style fixed JBS or a true ported stocker like I did would be the best of both world (increased flow without compromising spool). Who will be the first to dyno and document the spool difference with these long tube welded manifolds that seems to be pushed and "in" nowadays? opcorn:


I'll have a dyno, but probably not a "A vs B with all other factors constant" test. I have no dog in this fight so I won't spend the extra resources to do a multi-step dyno regimen. At a minimum I'll have new cams to go along with the tubular. I saw that Sam was looking for test platforms for the V3 - unfortunately, that info came a bit too late for me as I had already purchased a V2 and tweaked it.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Chickenman35 said:


> Errr...ummm... I thought Kacz007 mentioned that he noticed a drastic *decrease* in spool time with the relentless V3. Doesn't seem like a penalty to me...


I guess I misinterpreted what he wrote. Decrease in spool somehow always register as more lag to me. Now I see that he meant less spool *time* or faster spool.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Late__Apex said:


> I'll have a dyno, but probably not a "A vs B with all other factors constant" test. I have no dog in this fight so I won't spend the extra resources to do a multi-step dyno regimen. At a minimum I'll have new cams to go along with the tubular. I saw that Sam was looking for test platforms for the V3 - unfortunately, that info came a bit too late for me as I had already purchased a V2 and tweaked it.


Please share Steve ... any data is good for the knowledge base! What would really be nice though is to have stock vs ported stock vs massaged JBS vs Relentless in a comprehensive comparo with no other variable.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> What would really be nice though is to have stock vs ported stock vs massaged JBS vs Relentless in a comprehensive comparo with no other variable.


I don't see that happening. However, on the FrankenTT, boost onset times between ported stock, Relentless v3 and our manifold were very comparable. The specifics for that were lost when the 1.8T forum FrankenTT thread got lost. But I cross-posted about this at Audi-sport.net. Here is the link:

http://www.audi-sport.net/vb/a3-s3-...ifold-installation-testing-2.html#post1771054


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I don't see that happening. However, on the FrankenTT, boost onset times between ported stock, Relentless v3 and our manifold were very comparable. The specifics for that were lost when the 1.8T forum FrankenTT thread got lost. But I cross-posted about this at Audi-sport.net. Here is the link:
> 
> http://www.audi-sport.net/vb/a3-s3-...ifold-installation-testing-2.html#post1771054


Thanks for the link Doug! I'm pretty sure I've seen this FAT graph between stock motor/manifold, stroked motor/ported OEM manifold, and stroked motor with Relentless high flow tubular. Somehow I feel that the differences in transient response and spool time aren't necessarily reflected in FAT tests (at least at the bottom of curve by onset of boost). I feel that a load bearing dyno without the rigid steady state operation would be better suited and more appropriate at measuring these important differences.

We should team up with Steve and a few others in the area and rent an AWD dyno dynamic for a day and properly test all our unanswered questions. The whole steady state free rolling dynojet crap with no rpm pick up point is a big hold back on really finding out what's what and who's who (so does totally relying on FAT and time to speed that are not totally controlled and consistent). We would, and the rest of the community as a result, know what's going on in all aspects with the mods that we're attempting (higher flowing manifolds, wastegate efficiency tuning, Downpipe and exhaust improvements, turbine casting massaging, etc.). opcorn:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

1/2 mile from ForceFed: http://www.performanceautosolutions.com/about/


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> 1/2 mile from ForceFed: http://www.performanceautosolutions.com/about/


I was thinking more like a Dyno Dynamics! 

Mustangs are OK and a definite step up from the basic 'crapojet' (you can adjust ramp rate and tailor the part-throttle load cells with them too), but the Dyno Dynamics are so much more advanced in software and operation, accuracy, and real life feedback.

No limits Motorsports is in LI (east of Ed's place) and have a pretty nice crew and operation (mostly cater to EVOs but will accept us with opened arms). 

http://www.nolimitmotorsport.com/gallery/v/No-Limit-Store-Pix/DynoDynamics/DSC00050.JPG.html


----------



## Dowski12 (Nov 2, 2011)

I would like to see some one make a custom manifold for the K04. Something with wider diameter runners but shorter in length then the current tubular manifolds offered for our cars. Thats pretty much the direction I went with my BT manifold. Hopeing that it will help with spool but offer the flow to make the hp numbers I want. Pic for reference.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Gasket size for JBS manifold*



Atomic Ed said:


> Since we’ve had a few words lately on manifolds for the TT225, I thought I would put up some pics and thoughts on the new JBS mani.
> First off, here are a few shots of the JBS alongside the stock manifold.
> 
> 
> ...


Are you using a custom gasket for the manifold to turbo, the stock gasket matches my new jbs manifold without opening it up?


----------



## * Dark Star * (Jun 30, 2012)

Dowski12 said:


> I would like to see some one make a custom manifold for the K04. Something with wider diameter runners but shorter in length then the current tubular manifolds offered for our cars. Thats pretty much the direction I went with my BT manifold. Hopeing that it will help with spool but offer the flow to make the hp numbers I want. Pic for reference.



I really cant see there being much improvement with wider shorter runners
turbo and manifold header still remain even with porting i cant see there
being a worthy improvement....

also problems you may encounter is exhaust gas reversion from
the short runners... personally i will use long tubular runners will 
give the most performance gains

I did a few searches on the pro,s and cons and different turbo manifold
setups here is what iv found....

benefits of longer runners 

higher peak HP
less exhaust gas reversion
lower EGT,s
detonation suppression
allow more area to fill before restriction of turbine wheel
run higher compression pistons , more advanced timing

but there is always a compromise what could be a bit of spool
but checking out dougs data with the V3 this didnt seem an issue

This is what i,ll be running with a k04 hybrid 
will be running this with my stroker engine when its eventually built


















Tubular for me every time thats my personal preference anyway


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

* Dark Star * said:


> I really cant see there being much improvement with wider shorter runners
> turbo and manifold header still remain even with porting i cant see there
> being a worthy improvement....
> 
> ...


That tubular mani looks pretty cool. Who makes it?


----------



## * Dark Star * (Jun 30, 2012)

warranty225cpe said:


> That tubular mani looks pretty cool. Who makes it?


Its made in the UK by TSR performance unfortunately very expensive
with the man hours to make this but the material used is quality .. and its so well
made ...

The exhaust mani,s do take some serious abuse thats why i spent
allot of money on the exhaust manifold ! also because i like the long 
runners too


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

warranty225cpe said:


> That tubular mani looks pretty awful.


Super long runners, no real collector, super tight bends. I'd pass.


----------



## * Dark Star * (Jun 30, 2012)

20v master said:


> Super long runners, no real collector, super tight bends. I'd pass.


Fair enough each to there own lol


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> Are you using a custom gasket for the manifold to turbo, the stock gasket matches my new jbs manifold without opening it up?


Go read post 178 again. If that doesn't help, read the first two pages again. 

Hopefully you have a copper gasket. It can be opened up for use.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*"reworking" the turbine side too*

The FrankenTT is running its prototype F23 with a ported turbine inlet. Here are some comparisons of performance vs. the original:











Spool is faster and the turbo is able to maintain commanded boost more accurately. Here are the Time-To-Speed results:











Granted, these are low-power runs at only "actuator pressure". But I think it's noteworthy that the porting has an impact at _Plain Jane_ K04 outputs. I strongly suspect this kind of "mod" would benefit a stock turbo, not just my super-sexy hybrids.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> The FrankenTT is running its prototype F23 with a ported turbine inlet. Here are some comparisons of performance vs. the original:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty cool Doug :thumbup:


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

Do you have before/after pics? 

Also, considering the success of the inlet work, have you thought about doing anything to the exhaust Doug? Something like this (sorry for the size):


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

* Dark Star * said:


> Fair enough each to there own lol


Have you installed/used this manifold?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> The FrankenTT is running its prototype F23 with a ported turbine inlet. Here are some comparisons of performance vs. the original:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for the comparison Doug! I suspect that your EGT's went down also. I find it interesting that you are able to hold boost better in the upper RPM range.


----------



## * Dark Star * (Jun 30, 2012)

20v master said:


> Have you installed/used this manifold?


Personally no but this will be installed in a few months time
with a large port head /stroker engine with a k04 hybrid.....

An independent tuner in the UK who i used to go for the odd bit of
work on my car ran one with his hybrid a couple of years back
actually his car was a doner car for the making of the manifold
by all accounts it took a beating on the dyno and performed
really well with 95deg drop in EGT,s and i think it was something
like 20bhp bolt on gains .....

im also keeping in mind reliability he ran this for a few years
no issues ...

seemed a good all round manifold so thats why i went for that one in
particular

im sure there used to be some data around but was quite a long time ago


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

* Dark Star * said:


> Personally no but this will be installed in a few months time
> with a large port head /stroker engine with a k04 hybrid.....
> 
> An independent tuner in the UK who i used to go for the odd bit of
> ...


EGT measured where? Same AFR and ignition timing? And 20 bhp gains over what, as in what all changed? Just the manifold? Were the gains across the rpm range or just up top? You need to see the two dyno curves to compare. I realize you probably don't know the answers to these questions, but the point is claims can be misleading.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Copper gasket*



Atomic Ed said:


> Go read post 178 again. If that doesn't help, read the first two pages again.
> 
> Hopefully you have a copper gasket. It can be opened up for use.


I don't have a copper gasket, the steel one I have looks like it will come apart if I open it up. Do you have a source for a copper turbo to manifold gasket.

Thanks


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Atomic Ed said:


> It is very important to do both; open up the flange area and gut out the collector.
> 
> The K04 flange is such a choke point that you will wind up with a slower spool if you don’t open it up. Remember, the GT 2871 is designed to flow much more than either a K04-23 turbo or a hybrid equivalent that the manifold was designed for. Volksdude27 was able to obtain his quick spool-up with a manifold (034 prototype) that had both larger runners and an opened up manifold-to-turbo flange. A simple way to start out opening up the flange on the JBS is to take a regular copper flange gasket and cut out the inner stamped sealing diameter. (You will wind up with a flat gasket that is still useable.) This gives you about 5-6mm extra diameter that can be used as a transfer pattern for cutting away at your manifold flange and your hot-side inlet flange. You can go out from there if you want.
> 
> ...


Going from 1.6" stock diameter to 1.8" is a cross sectional area incrase of over 25% no wonder !
need to find source for a copper gasket. Given the shape of the JBS colletor it would be possible to shape the outlet as a 3 lobed triangle getting upto 30% increase in cross sectional area if there is enough meat on the gasket and turbo housing. Are hand made copper gaskets the answer? if so what would the grade and thickness be?

please excuse my niaivety.


----------



## Dowski12 (Nov 2, 2011)

warranty225cpe said:


> That tubular mani looks pretty cool. Who makes it?


Personally I dont think the design of this manifold was very thought out. There are alot of unnecessary bends in the runners that could potentially be choke points, not to mention the extreme length of the runners in general.

Darkstar: You mention that tubular manifolds are your personal preference, any experience using them opposed to a cast manifold? Your speaking of information that was posted years ago about this manifold, but there aren't many products such as this that haven't made it onto cars on vortex, especially ones claiming to offer these kind of gains. I would think twice about using a product that hasn't been proven, especially one that has been around for as long as you claim this one has, with no hard data (still around) to back up the performance claims. Great products such as this is supposed to be, usually dont go undiscussed:thumbup:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> I don't have a copper gasket, the steel one I have looks like it will come apart if I open it up. Do you have a source for a copper turbo to manifold gasket.
> 
> Thanks


Steel one is fine. It shouldn't come apart because its pressed at one of the bolt holes, and if it does, no big deal. You could make your own gasket or run without as some do. I prefer a gasket.

You might try this:



http://www.rmoreau.com/item/907gf-severe-high-temperature-ceramic-sealant-gasket/3

Use a thin coat and keep it out of the collector.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Atomic Ed said:


> Steel one is fine. It shouldn't come apart because its pressed at one of the bolt holes, and if it does, no big deal. You could make your own gasket or run without as some do. I prefer a gasket.
> 
> You might try this:
> 
> ...


Many thanks

Finally I'm making progress,
My new JBS manifold is now affectionately known as "Big Mouth"









ic::thumbdown:

Hopefully photos load
http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8485740275/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8485739207/in/photostream


----------



## * Dark Star * (Jun 30, 2012)

20v master said:


> EGT measured where? Same AFR and ignition timing? And 20 bhp gains over what, as in what all changed? Just the manifold? Were the gains across the rpm range or just up top? You need to see the two dyno curves to compare. I realize you probably don't know the answers to these questions, but the point is claims can be misleading.


EGT measured in stock position on turbo this was run on a BAM TT
as far as i remember the testing was initially done as a bolt on
so no change in Map there was thorough testing if i come across these
results i will post the im sure these must still be available some where i
will have a little look to see if i can find them

although when mine is up and running i,ll post up some results on this forum of 
whats achieved


----------



## * Dark Star * (Jun 30, 2012)

Dowski12 said:


> Personally I dont think the design of this manifold was very thought out. There are alot of unnecessary bends in the runners that could potentially be choke points, not to mention the extreme length of the runners in general.
> 
> Darkstar: You mention that tubular manifolds are your personal preference, any experience using them opposed to a cast manifold? Your speaking of information that was posted years ago about this manifold, but there aren't many products such as this that haven't made it onto cars on vortex, especially ones claiming to offer these kind of gains. I would think twice about using a product that hasn't been proven, especially one that has been around for as long as you claim this one has, with no hard data (still around) to back up the performance claims. Great products such as this is supposed to be, usually dont go undiscussed:thumbup:


Here is why IMO it has not made it on many cars purely cost despite the gains
the cost in USD would be about $1200 people were just not prepared to pay
that much for a manifold for a small unit like the k04 hybrid

Despite some of the concerns mentioned Personally i think this will out flow
anything else on the market but i would say that it cost me a small fortune


now i just need the hard data to back it up  i,ll see what i can come up with


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

* Dark Star * said:


> Despite some of the concerns mentioned Personally i think this will out flow
> anything else on the market but i would say that it cost me a small fortune
> 
> 
> now i just need the hard data to back it up  i,ll see what i can come up with


Some pretty bold assumption there my friend! Since it's based on pure speculation, you could also say that it will also "out lag" anything else on the market as part of your statement. Anyway, I'm in for data and hopefully you can get something usable (before and after without a bunch of variables in-between to skew the data). :beer::beer:


----------



## * Dark Star * (Jun 30, 2012)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Some pretty bold assumption there my friend! Since it's based on pure speculation, you could also say that it will also "out lag" anything else on the market as part of your statement. Anyway, I'm in for data and hopefully you can get something usable (before and after without a bunch of variables in-between to skew the data). :beer::beer:


Marcus i did find the old page but logs are missing !
http://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=195993&hilit=logs&start=60
halfway down page5 and 6 was the tuner who tested it as he mention a small impact on spool but unfortunately with out you seeing the logs yourself is not much use...


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Sorry to say, but I feel that the trend here with performance small frame turbo community (pushed k04-02x, eliminators, and hybrids) have been to try and make them behave like everything that they're not... bigger, lazier turbos. Is it just me or the essence of running a small frame turbo is to retain the awesome transient response that makes them a lot more useful in real life conditions? I'm under the impression that everyone with "peanut turbos" nowadays is after higher power "up top" in steady state WOT conditions - and that's regardless of the penalties inflicted to transient response, quick spool on/off throttle, and early torque down low . If that is what someone is truly after, what's the point of staying with a small frame and not upgrading to something bigger? Anyone following that trend ever stopped and asked themselves how much of their actual use of the car is done in steady state at WOT VS gradual transient acceleration? Even in racing situations (minus a drag strip), practicality would call for an emphasis on tuning for part-throttle response and transient response if real data logging was taken into consideration (something like maxQ data for example). 

Looking for more power from small frame turbos is a slippery slope IMO! Yes, you want more power up top, and stop them from falling flat as the rpm go up, but if that's done at the expense of what make them shine down low, it really become pointless. Here are my unsolicited observations:

- I saw an era of "early-toque safe tunes" with pathetic boost onset come and become the norm (even when the rods are upgraded like they should when pushing any turbo engine)

- I witnessed advocacy for flat timing advance around peak torque for the same reason (although it's a killer of torque onset).

- And now a push for long-runner tubular exhaust manifolds although they are known to butcher response in all the other turbo platforms that are decades ahead of ours in terms of power advancements. 

Have we lost our way or just a bunch of big turbo wannabe? I can understand the guy that simply bolts on an hybrid and not really looking to get much out of it. But when people who are invested in big projects and elaborate builds, just simply go for a bit more up top while scarifying the soul of a small frame turbo setup, it's becoming obvious that people are just throwing part at these car without any real purpose. End rant! :wave:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

* Dark Star * said:


> Marcus i did find the old page but logs are missing !
> http://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=195993&hilit=logs&start=60
> halfway down page5 and 6 was the tuner who tested it as he mention a small impact on spool but unfortunately with out you seeing the logs yourself is not much use...


Thanks for the link! I hope you don't misread my previous post as attacking you, and your tuning approach personally (it's really just me broadly thinking out loud about the direction we're taking as a community). Like I said, I'm in for your testing, results and data. 

I really didn't need for anyone to say, show, or document data that proves what long runner exhaust manifolds does to a turbo powerband because I already know the outcome. I've build several small frame turbo cars before to compete in SCCA racing and tried pretty much anything there is to try, and personally experienced the effects before (going from stock -to two different exotic tubulars- back to a ported stock cast unit to regain what was lost down low in my track EVO). It's nothing new really, it's just like what long runners or short runners does to an intake manifold, it's been tried, tested, and documented everywhere (except maybe in the 1.8t world that is stock in the Stone Age of power making).


----------



## Late__Apex (Dec 2, 2007)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Anyone following that trend ever stopped and asked themselves how much of their actual use of the car is done in steady state at WOT VS gradual transient acceleration? Even in racing situations (minus a drag strip), practicality would call for an emphasis on tuning for part-throttle response and transient response if real data logging was taken into consideration (something like maxQ data for example).


Marcus, I have looked at my data as well as gearing-adjusted torque to the wheels and, in my case (open track road racing), I feel moving the powerband higher (less torque and more HP) will be beneficial. It has taken some time to adjust my driving style to a turbocharged FWD platform. It is still a work in progress. In fact, I've toyed with the idea of limiting peak boost "spike" (and subsequent torque) in the midrange to keep from washing out at track out and reducing heat & stress on the charged plumbing.

Anyway, I spend nearly all my time over 4,500 rpm at either WOT or off the throttle completely so I have come to the conclusion that the tubular is the right choice for me. Once I see the dyno curve and get some laps in with it I will have a better idea. Would I like a BT setup? Sure. But, as you know, if I want to maintain the option of running STU (club racing), I'm wedded to the K04.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Atomic Ed said:


> Glad to see Volksdude27 chime in here. I was about drag him in here since he has been very successful with his eliminator setup.
> 
> This latest chain of comments has hit upon something that has been nagging me about the TT225 eliminator for quite a while. That is; why are the longitudinal 1.8T (A4) guys able to spool up their eliminators at around 3600 rpm where we TT225 folks have to wait to 4800 rpm for decent boost? I’ve spent a lot of time evaluating the differences and found the major differences for those longitudinal 1.8Ts than can hit boost below 4000 rpm are the exhaust mani, the TIP and the intercooler setups. The TIP and the intercooler are easy fixes, still need to be done, but still a pretty easy fix. It’s the exhaust mani that is the bugger. I think this combo of improvements gave Volksdude27 his great sucess with the eliminator, am I right Volksdude?
> 
> ...


Atomic Ed,
Here is a picture of the jbs manifold with stock downpipe and stock turbo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8487499710/in/photostream

My new APR 4" bellowed downpipe will not arrive for another 3 weeks but I want to get started on an adapter which will be made from part of the stock downpipe casting with an eccentric flange welded on to match the v band. As you can see there is little room under the JBS manifold for the stock exhaust let alone a 4" pipe with a 4" v band measuring more like 5" in dia. The after market 3" downpipe I presently have has a mild steel flange that has warped, something I dont want to have repeated hence thew cast flange to the turbo.

I was wondering if you can tell me if the eliminator's relative positions of the manifold and exhaust outlet flanges differ slightly being a bigger turbo. I can't get access to my eliminator as yet. Any differences may help fit this new monster downpipe.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Late__Apex said:


> Marcus, I have looked at my data as well as gearing-adjusted torque to the wheels and, in my case (open track road racing), I feel moving the powerband higher (less torque and more HP) will be beneficial. It has taken some time to adjust my driving style to a turbocharged FWD platform. It is still a work in progress. In fact, I've toyed with the idea of limiting peak boost "spike" (and subsequent torque) in the midrange to keep from washing out at track out and reducing heat & stress on the charged plumbing.
> 
> Anyway, I spend nearly all my time over 4,500 rpm at either WOT or off the throttle completely so I have come to the conclusion that the tubular is the right choice for me. Once I see the dyno curve and get some laps in with it I will have a better idea. Would I like a BT setup? Sure. But, as you know, if I want to maintain the option of running STU (club racing), I'm wedded to the K04.


Steve, I agree with most of what you're saying, but your case is more of an outlier (same as mine). How much of the group in question is specifically building for road racing, drag racing, or autocross? Maybe one or two here and there... and ideally, if you weren't bound by classing restrictions, you'd upgrade to something bigger and more suited for your specific usage. It is also evident that I can make a winnable argument that any tight or technical road race track would still benefit from what you're forgoing down low for improved grunt down the straight at high revs. And all of this is without even getting into the fact that there are different approaches that would still allow to gain 90% of the top end but doesn't necessarily involve crippling the low end of things in the process. 

As a an example relevant to the topic, having the same inner diameter runners on two manifold with short and long runner designs (all else equal), would net similar improvements in higher flow but substantial delay of power onset because of the added length. And if you're having to numb your torque onset just to prevent from washing out when powering out of turns, and keep decent temperature on a sorted track car, this screams a compromise to band aid other component or system inadequacy (washing out when powering out of turns is not a result of too much power, but rather not enough traction and proper suspension to handle the little that youre making on a small frame turbo.)


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

OMD-2013 said:


> Atomic Ed,
> Here is a picture of the jbs manifold with stock downpipe and stock turbo
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8487499710/in/photostream
> ...


Looking at the pictures you posted, your concern really shouldn't be, and that's simply because you don't have to necessarily mimic the stock bend on a custom downpipe with bigger pipping. Your bend should be away from the manifold and not looking to make the sudden OEM-like U-turn (especially when there is plenty of real estate in that towards the passenger side of the firewall). I would wait till you have the turbo and everything in hand before making anything. That way you have a clearer picture of what is needed and possible within the available space.


----------



## Late__Apex (Dec 2, 2007)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> ... if you're having to numb your torque onset just to prevent from washing out when powering out of turns...(washing out when powering out of turns is not a result of too much power, but rather not enough traction and proper suspension to handle the little that youre making on a small frame turbo.)


I have a LSD and am constrained by tire width & compound so there is only so much more I can do with traction. Admittedly, my front end is not 100% dialed in, but friction circle is friction circle and if a sudden extra 30 lb/ft steps over the boundary I'm going to lose cornering traction as well. If I can trade that extra 30 ft/lb at apex-to-trackout out for 30 ft/lb from trackout to shift I can carry that all the way down the straightaway. 

It is very possible you are right and I am wrong here - you have more experience with turbocharged cars than I do. However, for me, one of the great rewards to building and driving my own car, as opposed to driving cars set up by others as I did in the past, is the mental and creative challenge of trying to gain an advantage by following your own "educated guess" and setting up a car to suit my driving style based upon my feedback. I do not expect to win any championships, the journey is the reward.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Looking at the pictures you posted, your concern really shouldn't be, and that's simply because you don't have to necessarily mimic the stock bend on a custom downpipe with bigger pipping. Your bend should be away from the manifold and not looking to make the sudden OEM-like U-turn (especially when there is plenty of real estate in that towards the passenger side of the firewall). I would wait till you have the turbo and everything in hand before making anything. That way you have a clearer picture of what is needed and possible within the available space.


Good point, I can cut the cast adaptor flange at a 30 degree or so angle and start the APR TTRS parts away from the manifold. :thumbup:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8487657572/in/photostream

The adapter will need to be bolted to the turbo while it is off the car. I dont believe access to the 3 nuts is likely with a big v band flange in the way.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> Atomic Ed,
> 
> 
> My new APR 4" bellowed downpipe will not arrive for another 3 weeks but I want to get started on an adapter which will be made from part of the stock downpipe casting with an eccentric flange welded on to match the v band. As you can see there is little room under the JBS manifold for the stock exhaust let alone a 4" pipe with a 4" v band measuring more like 5" in dia. The after market 3" downpipe I presently have has a mild steel flange that has warped, something I dont want to have repeated hence thew cast flange to the turbo.
> ...


Looking good! PM me with your e-mail and I'll send you some info. 

I'll be very interested in this setup and how it performs when done.

Ultimately, I want to test both the F23 and a GTX 2867 eliminator on my rig. Along the same line of thinking Marcus expressed above, I want to see if the quick spool of the F23 or if the extra power of my Eliminator is the better setup for me. I use my TT as a daily driver and weekend back road touring machine. It's not just about dyno runs, but how does either setup work for me on the street. The "fun" factor is the most important parameter in my upcoming testing.

Your setup with the JBS manifold and an Eliminator will be very close to my next setup to test.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Atomic Ed said:


> Looking good! PM me with your e-mail and I'll send you some info.
> 
> I'll be very interested in this setup and how it performs when done.
> 
> ...


JBS manifold mounted with ported collector, stock exhaust and ported GT2871R eliminator. I discoverd the geometry of the eliminator moves the exhaust flange about 5/8" towards the passenger side. This make the exhaust mounting tight as you warned but it fits with the stock down pipe, good luck fitting an after market downpipe though not much room to get a socket on the nuts!
The compressor side of the eliminator both inlet and outlet are way off. The adapters that where supplied make no attempt to match the stock turbo geometry so hoses dont reach. Quality is in the details, so to call the kit an Eliminator is a real "stretch" ..........excuse the pun. Rather that modifying from the stock plumbing side I'm making some adapters that will work. The 3" inlet wont fit anymore, it was rubbing before and would have failed. The combination of the new exhaust manifold new engine mounts and the eliminator geometry. I will use a 2-1/4 -3" elbow to fit with my new intake adapter. Should not make any significant difference with turbo inlet measuring about 2-3/8 dia.

I will update with adapter photos when they are done


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> JBS manifold mounted with ported collector, stock exhaust and ported GT2871R eliminator. I discoverd the geometry of the eliminator moves the exhaust flange about 5/8" towards the passenger side. This make the exhaust mounting tight as you warned but it fits with the stock down pipe, good luck fitting an after market downpipe though not much room to get a socket on the nuts!
> The compressor side of the eliminator both inlet and outlet are way off. The adapters that where supplied make no attempt to match the stock turbo geometry so hoses dont reach. Quality is in the details, so to call the kit an Eliminator is a real "stretch" ..........excuse the pun. Rather that modifying from the stock plumbing side I'm making some adapters that will work. The 3" inlet wont fit anymore, it was rubbing before and would have failed. The combination of the new exhaust manifold new engine mounts and the eliminator geometry. I will use a 2-1/4 -3" elbow to fit with my new intake adapter. Should not make any significant difference with turbo inlet measuring about 2-3/8 dia.
> 
> I will update with adapter photos when they are done


Thanks for the update! And yes, I would like to see some pics.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Forge FM225TH and GT2871R Eliminator a great match up*



Atomic Ed said:


> Thanks for the update! And yes, I would like to see some pics.


 Photos Sent via e-mail.
Best News so far
I splashed out on a Forge outlet hose, turns out it was money well spent the hose compensates for the new position of the outlet due to the eliminator GT2871R turbo, no need to make a custom adapter. :thumbup:

Just have to focus on the intake now.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> Photos Sent via e-mail.
> Best News so far
> I splashed out on a Forge outlet hose, turns out it was money well spent the hose compensates for the new position of the outlet due to the eliminator GT2871R turbo, no need to make a custom adapter. :thumbup:
> 
> Just have to focus on the intake now.


Thanks! Might try contacting Badger 5 to see if one of his TIPs would fit for the intake.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Atomic Ed said:


> Thanks! Might try contacting Badger 5 to see if one of his TIPs would fit for the intake.


They may fit easily on the right hand drive cars, I suspect the brake master cylinder is not in the way like it is on the LHD. I have had a good look at the problem and have designed a new bracket for the gear shift that is in the way. should gain an inch or so. I just need to convince some one to make it for me now.

(I did do a minor mod before on the bracket but its not enough. See photos I sent you)

I'll then install the 3" fabricated TIP that looks like a badger 5 prototype.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*3" TIP with JBS manifold and GT2871R turbo*



Atomic Ed said:


> Thanks! Might try contacting Badger 5 to see if one of his TIPs would fit for the intake.


 
Mods needed to fit 3" TIP

Shifter Bracket
http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8531927745/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8533037712/in/photostream

Cut Block!!!!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8533010538/in/photostream

Reroute ABS Brake lines

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8531900009/in/photostream

Make a new eccentric adapter for the turbo intake

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8531927771/in/photostream


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

What the heck are you cutting off the block?


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

20v master said:


> What the heck are you cutting off the block?


Redundant bracket I presume (hope)for the 6 speed TT or maybe all TT's?

Well its gone now !  Hopefully no need to use this...

Before http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8533164972/in/photostream
After http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8532050855/in/photostream

I suspect its for other tranmissions maybe automatic linkage?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8532054177/in/photostream


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Looking at the pictures you posted, your concern really shouldn't be, and that's simply because you don't have to necessarily mimic the stock bend on a custom downpipe with bigger pipping. Your bend should be away from the manifold and not looking to make the sudden OEM-like U-turn (especially when there is plenty of real estate in that towards the passenger side of the firewall). I would wait till you have the turbo and everything in hand before making anything. That way you have a clearer picture of what is needed and possible within the available space.





Atomic Ed said:


> Looking good! PM me with your e-mail and I'll send you some info.
> 
> I'll be very interested in this setup and how it performs when done.
> 
> ...


 
Here is a tool you will find useful for getting nut #3 on the JBS manifold

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8532089401/in/photostream

now 12MM


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> Redundant bracket I presume (hope)for the 6 speed TT or maybe all TT's?
> 
> Well its gone now !  Hopefully no need to use this...
> 
> ...


Not sure how you'd put automatic linkage on a manual tranny. :laugh: I don't recall that boss, on any of my FWD or AWD 02M's.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*3" TIP for GT2871R with JBS manifold*



20v master said:


> Not sure how you'd put automatic linkage on a manual tranny. :laugh: I don't recall that boss, on any of my FWD or AWD 02M's.


I think it was on the engine block, concealed by the shifter bracket.

Have you had the problems I have had getting a 3" TIP:banghead:
to fit or is there a simpler solution to move the brake master cylinder electrical plugs that are hanging in the way.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> I think it was on the engine block, concealed by the shifter bracket.
> 
> Have you had the problems I have had getting a 3" TIP:banghead:
> to fit or is there a simpler solution to move the brake master cylinder electrical plugs that are hanging in the way.


Yeah, the easiest solution is to buy a new manifold that is setup for a passenger side compressor inlet. :laugh: 









I have a 3.5" elbow and velocity stack/filter that will go on my setup this spring/summer.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

20v master said:


> Yeah, the easiest solution is to buy a new manifold that is setup for a passenger side compressor inlet. :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Looks like more than a manifold for a 225 TT, nice job though!

My shifter bracket and TIP adapter are meanwhile being made, I plan on sticking with the twin intercooler setup


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> Looks like more than a manifold for a 225 TT, nice job though!


Yeah, that's a 35R setup, and in my GTI, but it's going in my 225 hopefully by summer.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*MAF housing Horizontal or vertical ?*



20v master said:


> Yeah, that's a 35R setup, and in my GTI, but it's going in my 225 hopefully by summer.





warranty225cpe said:


> Pretty cool Doug :thumbup:





Atomic Ed said:


> Thanks for the comparison Doug! I suspect that your EGT's went down also. I find it interesting that you are able to hold boost better in the upper RPM range.


 
Can you tell me if the MAF housing needs to be mounted horizontally, I'm redesigning my TIP to feed the new setup and can get a much larger filter if I mount it vertically a little closer to the intake.

PS 4" bellowed down pipe arrives next week.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

OMD-2013 said:


> Can you tell me if the MAF housing needs to be mounted horizontally, I'm redesigning my TIP to feed the new setup and can get a much larger filter if I mount it vertically a little closer to the intake.
> 
> PS 4" bellowed down pipe arrives next week.


It's not important in what plane the MAF is mounted... vertical, horizontal, diagonal it doesn't matter. What is important is how straightened the airflow is when it's going over the sensor. The less turbulent it is, the more accurate and consistent the readings will be. Don't place the MAF housing near bends (pre and post) as they will create very turbulent flow characteristics in the housing (even with the restrictive flow straighteners retained).


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

20v master said:


> Yeah, the easiest solution is to buy a new manifold that is setup for a passenger side compressor inlet. :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How are you going to get a downpipe to clear the haldex drive shaft if you flip the compressor housing? 

I also believe the TT slant there engines back a little back to give less room, or at least what my mechanic told me when he dropped the transmission.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

jedge1.8t said:


> How are you going to get a downpipe to clear the haldex drive shaft if you flip the compressor housing?
> 
> I also believe the TT slant there engines back a little back to give less room, or at least what my mechanic told me when he dropped the transmission.


First off, it's not any more slanted than any other application of the 1.8T in original chassis. Second, there's a driveshaft there on the FWD 02M too, and the compressor housing clears it fine. One of the beauties of the V band setups is the SS turbine housings are MUCH smaller than their cast iron counterparts, and the turbine is what is hanging over the transfer case/angle drive, whereas the compressor housing is much closer to the timing belt end of the block. The DP will be tight, but Arnold at Pag Parts makes a DP for this passenger side inlet Haldex setup (it's his manifold/design too). It's been used by many people over the years so it can be done.


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

I wonder if theres a spacer you can put on the mounts to the wedge the engine slightly foward...
iron cast block more back and the aluminium head more forward, make it easier to access exhaust areas. would also seem to raise the engine very slightly. 

seems like a benefit but i dont know if the axles or driveshaft would like it. 


I purchased a DNP exhaust manifold for cheap and will be on shortly, the collector on this unit seems emptied out like how the JBS was modded.

think it would be worth the time to dremel a bevel to widen out the collector to the flange


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

jedge1.8t said:


> I wonder if theres a spacer you can put on the mounts to the wedge the engine slightly foward...
> iron cast block more back and the aluminium head more forward, make it easier to access exhaust areas. would also seem to raise the engine very slightly.
> 
> seems like a benefit but i dont know if the axles or driveshaft would like it.


Front axles wouldn't care, rear output shaft may not be happy, but your dogbone mount DEF wouldn't like it. :laugh:


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

yeah haha plus i dont know if the oil plug would work anymore.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> Front axles wouldn't care, rear output shaft may not be happy, but your dogbone mount DEF wouldn't like it. :laugh:


Who runs a dogbone anyway! Just drill new hole and be done... (I know I'm asking for it! :laugh.


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

working back behind the engine is the biggest PITA, especially when you drop a little nut on the steering rack.

luckily my subframe should be off when i put in the new suspesion, manifold and exhaust.


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

Just recieved my DNP manifold for 180 to my door.

need some thoughts on this piece.

the steel is probably 5mm thick, manifold is rather heavy and sturdy

flange to manifold is about 4cm on the ports, runners are about 3cm, collector flange is 4cm

the inside is collector is a bit worrying for me: where 2nd and 3rd runner begin to mate on inside.
there is also a bead weld on the inside that sticks out a bit, ill attempt to dremel it and see if i can make it smooth.









the outside is slightly reinforced, but not where the 3rd and 2nd runner mate, where that inside crack is located.









Other than that manifold looks solid


















So what do you think? add some reinforcment on this thing and dremel it smooth? or just plop it in?


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

I got some more pics, this one shows the 4cm flange, but it reduces down to 3cm through the runners










here i tried to show the bead weld that sticks over slightly, this is between the 2nd and 3rd runner.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

jedge1.8t said:


> I wonder if theres a spacer you can put on the mounts to the wedge the engine slightly foward...
> iron cast block more back and the aluminium head more forward, make it easier to access exhaust areas. would also seem to raise the engine very slightly.
> 
> seems like a benefit but i dont know if the axles or driveshaft would like it.
> ...


Measure the diameter of the opening at the collector for a comparison to what we have on our modified JBS manifolds.
Before you put your new manifold on check the current clearances around your current setup ie the inlet TIP and the exhaust downpipe. Then when you have your current manifold off compare the planer and center positioning of the manifold inlet and outlet to see just how much your turbo position will change. It will help give the heads up if you will need additional mods and changes.


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

port entrys and turbo flanges are 39mm

within the first cm into the entry port it reduces down to 32mm

within the first cm into the turbo flange it reduces to a smidge under 34mm

everything looks like its stock location, im going to attempt installing this wensday after i dremel out the defect i showed in my last picture, and hopefully add a little welding to inside of the mating 2nd and 3rd runner


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Looks like the knock off is selling now.. Funny that their stock photos are with the JBS logo on the manifold. They even call it a "JBS style" 

http://aigner.en.alibaba.com/produc...&edm_cta=read_msg&edm_time=realtime&edm_ver=e

Karmas a bitch hu JBS? :laugh:


----------



## volksvrsex (Feb 8, 2004)

warranty225cpe said:


> Looks like the knock off is selling now.. Funny that their stock photos are with the JBS logo on the manifold. They even call it a "JBS style"
> 
> http://aigner.en.alibaba.com/produc...&edm_cta=read_msg&edm_time=realtime&edm_ver=e
> 
> Karmas a bitch hu JBS? :laugh:



odds are the factory that is making them for JBS is selling them directly..happens all the time


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

volksvrsex said:


> odds are the factory that is making them for JBS is selling them directly..happens all the time


Oh yeah, well aware.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

warranty225cpe said:


> Looks like the knock off is selling now.. Funny that their stock photos are with the JBS logo on the manifold. They even call it a "JBS style"
> 
> http://aigner.en.alibaba.com/produc...&edm_cta=read_msg&edm_time=realtime&edm_ver=e
> 
> Karmas a bitch hu JBS? :laugh:


Foe giggles, I sent them an e-mail on purchasing 1-3 units. We'll see what they come back with.


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

Does the k03 JBS manifold have to be ported also, or is it only the k04 (S3) model?


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Atomic Ed said:


> Foe giggles, I sent them an e-mail on purchasing 1-3 units. We'll see what they come back with.


DIBBS pal :laugh:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

warranty225cpe said:


> DIBBS pal :laugh:


Done


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

abacorrado said:


> Does the k03 JBS manifold have to be ported also, or is it only the k04 (S3) model?


Haven't heard much on the K03 mani, but It does seem to do alright. Porting would depend on your setup and your goals.


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

Atomic Ed said:


> Haven't heard much on the K03 mani, but It does seem to do alright. Porting would depend on your setup and your goals.


 I meant in regard to the cylinder 2-3 occlusion on the k04 JBS manifold that causes miss at high RPM


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

Atomic Ed said:


> Done


Hey Ed, depending on what you would charge to port out the problem with the JBS manifold. I would buy one right now at that $150 price. So would you be willing to fix them like you did yours, and how much?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

abacorrado said:


> Hey Ed, depending on what you would charge to port out the problem with the JBS manifold. I would buy one right now at that $150 price. So would you be willing to fix them like you did yours, and how much?


LOL, well, first things first. 

I'm just throwing out a feeler to see if I can even get them into the states without being a commercial entity. I'm not going into "business" just to buy these. Also, there may, or may not be an export and/or import tax; which couldbe substantial. I suspect the final costs could be double.

My goal is to get a few here to play with; kinda of a group buy. 

But if this all plays through, we'll talk.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Nice! I ordered one too so I can fix" and compare on the dyno with my ported OEM. Should be an interesting comparo!


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Nice! I ordered one too so I can fix" and compare on the dyno with my ported OEM. Should be an interesting comparo!


Have you ordered one yet? Lets figure out if it's cheaper to bring them into the U.S. as a batch or as an individual.

I somewhat recall that there is some things they can do from over there to help get through all of the import puzzle, but only for single items to individuals. I'm checking.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Atomic Ed said:


> Have you ordered one yet? Lets figure out if it's cheaper to bring them into the U.S. as a batch or as an individual.
> 
> I somewhat recall that there is some things they can do from over there to help get through all of the import puzzle, but only for single items to individuals. I'm checking.


Word on the street is $175. I imagine if we got a GB going, we could get a few ordered. Im in for 1:thumbup:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Anyone have any idea how bad the R&R of the manifold is?


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

warranty225cpe said:


> Anyone have any idea how bad the R&R of the manifold is?


Max says it can be done in the car in 30 minutes if everything isn't hot. I need some of the midgets Max has working on his car. :laugh:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

20v master said:


> Max says it can be done in the car in 30 minutes if everything isn't hot. I need some of the midgets Max has working on his car. :laugh:


 haha, no joke. Sounds like theres some magic involved :laugh:


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> Max says it can be done in the car in 30 minutes if everything isn't hot. I need some of the midgets Max has working on his car. :laugh:


The conditional was "no seized or broken hardware" if memory serves me well


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> The conditional was "no seized or broken hardware" if memory serves me well


Meaning lots of penetrating (dont get dirty) fluid sitting overnight, and some heat!


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Fitting the JBS Manifold*



Marcus_Aurelius said:


> The conditional was "no seized or broken hardware" if memory serves me well


The manifold goes on fairly quickly if you do the nuts in the special order, its fitting the turbo GT2871R turbo in my case that takes time. Last nut of manifold needs to go on without washer. Its tight. I would not like to attempt putting an after market downpipe on with the turbo up tight to the JBS manifold. The stock downpipe went on easily after trimming the flange and opening the bolt holes. Still working on the TIP and modified gear shifter bracket. hope to have it on by Saturday. Then I'll cut up my new APR TTRS
downpipe and fit it to the turbo via part of the OEM flange body.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8556328408/in/photostream

TIP is growing

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8555217711/in/photostream


----------



## RabbitGTDguy (Jul 9, 2002)

warranty225cpe said:


> Word on the street is $175. I imagine if we got a GB going, we could get a few ordered. Im in for 1:thumbup:


I would be in for this...not going BT, sticking with the workhorse ko4 and a hybrid at most if need be  was going to port the OEM but if this proves more valuable...then the sky is the limit 

More flow vs. OEM = Win Win 

Joe


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

warranty225cpe said:


> Looks like the knock off is selling now.. Funny that their stock photos are with the JBS logo on the manifold. They even call it a "JBS style"
> 
> http://aigner.en.alibaba.com/produc...&edm_cta=read_msg&edm_time=realtime&edm_ver=e
> 
> Karmas a bitch hu JBS? :laugh:


I'll be posting thorough details about a similar item in the coming days. As you'd imagine, the manufacturer approached us to see if we'd want test samples. I took them up on the offer. But their unit is not a "factory second" or spinoff of an originally JBS product. It'll be different. Whether that's good, bad or indifferent I mean to find out.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I'll be posting thorough details about a similar item in the coming days. As you'd imagine, the manufacturer approached us to see if we'd want test samples. I took them up on the offer. But their unit is not a "factory second" or spinoff of an originally JBS product. It'll be different. Whether that's good, bad or indifferent I mean to find out.


Good to hear Doug. 

If it is a cast unit, and you have a say in it, push for A3N cast steel. A3N was developed for casting exhaust manifolds in turbo applications. I think I sent you a paper on it some time ago.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*225 TT 4" inlet*



20v master said:


> Yeah, the easiest solution is to buy a new manifold that is setup for a passenger side compressor inlet. :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
New bracket for shifters made room for a bigger TIP

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8566221111/in/photostream

Now have 4" inlet from bigger air filter

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8567317676/in/photostream

Not on the road yet though, found the week point of my eliminator GT2871R, the soft probably mild steel studs for the oil return. Unknowingly stripped the thread, oil in driveway. Happy to say I managed to get the studs out with turbo installed modified the oil return shroud to accept M8 SHCS. Sunday so have to wait untill tomorrow morning to get new gaskets and put it together again.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*Machining the "China-fold"*




















We'll knock out the opening to 45mm or so.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> New bracket for shifters made room for a bigger TIP
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8566221111/in/photostream
> 
> ...


 Man, that is looking very nice! Hopefully all of the extra work pays off. Give us some first impressions feedback later on.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> We'll knock out the opening to 45mm or so.


 Hey! That's cheating! Gotta get in there with a die grinder or it doesn't count! LOL 

One other thing I did was to taper the back side of the flange to reduce turbulence transitioning from the collector into the turbine hot side. 

Put up some pics when you are done.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

wonder what jbs are thinking of the china factory selling their design to anyone who asks.. 

its freely advertised for sale on websites for such things 

i would be upset if i were them.... Not that I am them, nor upset :facepalm:


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

badger5 said:


> wonder what jbs are thinking of the china factory selling their design to anyone who asks..
> 
> its freely advertised for sale on websites for such things
> 
> i would be upset if i were them.... Not that I am them, nor upset :facepalm:


 Exactly..


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

badger5 said:


> wonder what jbs are thinking of the china factory selling their design to anyone who asks..
> 
> its freely advertised for sale on websites for such things
> 
> i would be upset if i were them.... Not that I am them, nor upset :facepalm:


 I have no remorse for them whatsoever. They blatantly dismissed my findings and blamed my hardware and tune. Even after I ported (only variable) and confirmed that the collector was the problem. 

Karma ...


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

spartiati said:


> I have no remorse for them whatsoever. They blatantly dismissed my findings and blamed my hardware and tune. Even after I ported (only variable) and confirmed that the collector was the problem.
> 
> Karma ...


 My thoughts exactly. Karmas a bitch


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*JBS ported Manifold stock 225 exhaust with GT2871R Turbo*



Atomic Ed said:


> Man, that is looking very nice! Hopefully all of the extra work pays off. Give us some first impressions feedback later on.


 
JBS PORTED MANIFOLD STOCK EXHAUST vs STOCK MANIFOLD 3" HIGH FLOW EXHAUST (42DD)

Oscar goes to JBS Manifold and the porting work :thumbup:, car (turbo) performs much better, looking forward to getting custom exhaust on the car.

Sorry I cant provide the technical data back up funds are going towards the new downpipe and exhaust system build.

Blood, sweat and tears on the way though, the studs on the eliminator turbo for the oil return are soft as butter, discovered a stripped thread once car was back together. Oil in driveway:facepalm:
Getting the studs out with the turbo installed is a job I wish on no one. Putting the oil line back on with 8mm SHCS just as challenging. Got it all back together just to discover a power steering fluid leak. Thinking I might have pinched a line getting the sub frame back on was about to cry for a week. Turned out just had to tighten a hose clamp on the front driver side. 

The shifter bracket worked well smooth gear changing and room for nice big TIP.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Photos JBS Manifold installed Bigger TIP modified shifter bracket*

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8531927745/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8533010538/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8566221111/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8567317676/in/photostream


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

spartiati said:


> Karma ...


 indeed :thumbup:


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Ported JBS and stock exhaust*



Atomic Ed said:


> Does your spool-up look like this?
> 
> 
> 22 psi wastgate, N75 disconnected from wastegate​
> ...


 Have now put 100+ miles on the manifold I believe the graph has moved 1000rpm in the best way even with the stock exhaust, more responsive through out the gears/revs. Promise to Dyno once I build the exhaust system


----------



## jedge1.8t (Jan 27, 2012)

Idk how you guys have the patience to install these manifolds. I had the subframe out and on a lift and still couldn't get the turbo out. Way to many feed return lines with brackets, i couldn't fit my hands in there. 

I realized though manifolds should be equal runner distances though if you plan on a real gain other than porting. 

This type of mod is best done with the head pulled


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> Have now put 100+ miles on the manifold I believe the graph has moved 1000rpm in the best way even with the stock exhaust, more responsive through out the gears/revs. Promise to Dyno once I build the exhaust system


 That's good news indeed! 

Hopefully with the new exhaust system in place, you will see full spool around 3500-3800 rpm. Volksdude27 has nearly the same setup and is able to hit this spool-up target. 

Dyno numbers would be great. And if you could, do a requested versed actual boost as above. And of course we'll want to know all of the usual details, EGTs, IATs, timing, etc. 

Thanks for the update. 

Edit: And one other thing, you might talk to your software folks, UM (?), and see if they are limiting boost onset/modulating boost conservatively with their software. If you have upgraded rods, boost modulation could be reduced/eliminated to help with spool. My graph above was with running just the wastgate acuator. You might consider going to a 22 psi wastegate acuator, if you haven't already.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Atomic Ed said:


> That's good news indeed!
> 
> Hopefully with the new exhaust system in place, you will see full spool around 3500-3800 rpm. Volksdude27 has nearly the same setup and is able to hit this spool-up target.
> 
> ...


 Will I be able to log EGTs, IATs, timing, etc. with my newly purchased Ross-Tech software when the time comes?


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> Will I be able to log EGTs, IATs, timing, etc. with my newly purchased Ross-Tech software when the time comes?


 
Yes, you will.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Atomic Ed said:


> Yes, you will.


 Do AMU's have the EGT sensor? Also, I thought it wasn't a true K type thermocouple and basically read a safe range, sort of like the coolant temp sensor.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

20v master said:


> Do AMU's have the EGT sensor? Also, I thought it wasn't a true K type thermocouple and basically read a safe range, sort of like the coolant temp sensor.


 Nope, it's a calculated EGT based on a host of inputs. It's generally way off, from actual EGTs (say recorded in the usual manifold collector spot) because modifications that alter the inputs signals throws the calculations off. The only way to use the calculated EGT is to do a few pulls to establish a good baseline, and then change a variable (timing for example) and record the variation in calc EGT.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Nope, it's a calculated EGT based on a host of inputs. It's generally way off, from actual EGTs (say recorded in the usual manifold collector spot) because modifications that alter the inputs signals throws the calculations off. The only way to use the calculated EGT is to do a few pulls to establish a good baseline, and then change a variable (timing for example) and record the variation in calc EGT.


 That's what I thought. The secondary o2 sensor also can be logged for a temp value, but that's post cat and far downstream from where meaningful EGT data would come from. So no, he won't be able to log EGT with VAG COM. :thumbup:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

20v master said:


> Do AMU's have the EGT sensor? Also, I thought it wasn't a true K type thermocouple and basically read a safe range, sort of like the coolant temp sensor.


 Oops, your are correct. Forgot that he is still on the AMU ECM. No true EGT output. 

Along this same line, after 3 weeks of dinking around with tuning the AMU ECM, we're throwing in the towel and going wideband (AWP). My tuner just couldn't get the narrowband set up to his liking. It would run OK on the narrowband, but he wants better control for future tuning and doesn't want to leave anything on the table. (He is a perfectionist, maddingly so.) He's starting with a raw AWP ECM and changing some base parameters before loading the stock tune, then loading the Maestro on top of that tune.....way, way above my pay grade! 

So the TT is benched....again. :banghead:


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Atomic Ed said:


> Oops, your are correct. Forgot that he is still on the AMU ECM. No true EGT output.
> 
> Along this same line, after 3 weeks of dinking around with tuning the AMU ECM, we're throwing in the towel and going wideband (AWP). My tuner just couldn't get the narrowband set up to his liking. It would run OK on the narrowband, but he wants better control for future tuning and doesn't want to leave anything on the table. (He is a perfectionist, maddingly so.) He's starting with a raw AWP ECM and changing some base parameters before loading the stock tune, then loading the Maestro on top of that tune.....way, way above my pay grade!
> 
> So the TT is benched....again. :banghead:


 How much is envolved switching to a wideband ECU is it simply plug and play with ECU, tune and new upstream 02 sensor or are there other wiring issues. I was considering a second bung for a wideband o2 sensor in the new downpipe but maybe ECU would be better. What about VAG COM will it effect its operation ie recognise a different type ECU?


----------



## volksvrsex (Feb 8, 2004)

OMD-2013 said:


> How much is envolved switching to a wideband ECU is it simply plug and play with ECU, tune and new upstream 02 sensor or are there other wiring issues. I was considering a second bung for a wideband o2 sensor in the new downpipe but maybe ECU would be better. What about VAG COM will it effect its operation ie recognise a different type ECU?


 you have to change some wires on the ecu and the plug on the o2...the best way is to buy the raceline wideband harness..it taps into ur harness and is easy to do. 
change ur ecu and o2 and ur done 
vagcom will see the new ecu


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Atomic Ed said:


> That's good news indeed!
> 
> Hopefully with the new exhaust system in place, you will see full spool around 3500-3800 rpm. Volksdude27 has nearly the same setup and is able to hit this spool-up target.
> 
> ...


 My new stealth improvement is a combination of flow straighteners for the intake before i drop the subframe again and mod the downpipe.

check out this new product

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8592015634/in/photostream
more of the same treartment to the MAF housing to come


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> My new stealth improvement is a combination of flow straighteners for the intake before i drop the subframe again and mod the downpipe.
> 
> check out this new product
> 
> ...


Interesting, where did you find these?


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Atomic Ed said:


> Interesting, where did you find these?


 
Got out the Laser cutter and produced a small batch 3-1/2" OD and 4" OD
I am yet to modify the MAF housing, the honeycomb for the filter is 25mm thick with 3mm holes.

Polycarbonate honeycomb in 25mm, 20mm & 12mm will use 20mm upstream on MAF and 12mm downstream. Hope to see some improvment with more accurate sensor reading of a clean laminar air flow and plenty of it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8592003155/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8592002871/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8592002111/in/photostream


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> Hope to see some improvment with more accurate sensor reading of a clean laminar air flow and plenty of it.


And how will you know you're seeing more accurate readings? Will you baseline before and after without the honeycomb?


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Flow straigntener for large intake filter*



20v master said:


> And how will you know you're seeing more accurate readings? Will you baseline before and after without the honeycomb?


I have blanks without honeycomb that I can easily switch in and out.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Nice work, but wouldn't that stuff need to be mounted right in front of the sensor to be somewhat effective? With a V-stack at the filter, and at least 6" of straight piping section before the housing, I usually ditch the flow straighteners and go for overall flow instead. It has been proven in the DSM forums that the flow penalty isn't worth it when there's some decent section of straight piping before the housing, the accuracy variations (with or without) are within the noise range of different pulls.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Intake flow*



Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Nice work, but wouldn't that stuff need to be mounted right in front of the sensor to be somewhat effective? With a V-stack at the filter, and at least 6" of straight piping section before the housing, I usually ditch the flow straighteners and go for overall flow instead. It has been proven in the DSM forums that the flow penalty isn't worth it when there's some decent section of straight piping before the housing, the accuracy variations (with or without) are within the noise range of different pulls.


 
Understood but the 225TT plumbing as you know is anything but straight for the intake. My modified shifter bracket has given me the larger inlet I’m looking for and mounting the MAF housing vertically a larger filter with 4” opening. The MAF housing will have 20mm thick honeycomb upstreamof the sensor and 12mm downstream. Compromises have to be made but encouraginga more laminar air flow through the tight confinements will I believe will getit to where it needs to be more efficiently.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

OMD-2013 said:


> Understood but the 225TT plumbing as you know is anything but straight for the intake. My modified shifter bracket has given me the larger inlet I’m looking for and mounting the MAF housing vertically a larger filter with 4” opening. The MAF housing will have 20mm thick honeycomb upstreamof the sensor and 12mm downstream. Compromises have to be made but encouraginga more laminar air flow through the tight confinements will I believe will getit to where it needs to be more efficiently.


Laminar flow? The purpose of the honey comb is to straighten the airflow over the sensor, nothing more, nothing else. A flow straightener, let alone a pair, is also the worst thing you could do to actual laminar flow, simply because you're severely disrupting the very dynamics that make the laminar process possible. Not trying to dictate where you go with this, but I'd get a v-stack at the filter (there is more to gain in that than the other gimmicks) - and place the sensor housing vertically, as you mentioned, but with as much distance as you can afford away from the filter (where all the turbulence will be, if left without a v-stack).


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> I usually ditch the flow straighteners and go for overall flow instead.


Same. 



Marcus_Aurelius said:


> Laminar flow? The purpose of the honey comb is to straighten the airflow over the sensor, nothing more, nothing else. A flow straightener, let alone a pair, is also the worst thing you could do to actual laminar flow, simply because you're severely disrupting the very dynamics that make the laminar process possible.


Correct. Laminar means defined separate layers at different velocities, yet little turbulence. The honeycomb just breaks up all those layers and adds to turbulence, which is simply chaotic velocities in this case. Velocity stack/bell mouth > flow straightening grids/honeycombs.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Lamiinar air flow for precision*

Preliminary testing yeilds more responsive pickup at lower revs and a lower rev at idle
happy with the results. Looking for a more precise driveable tune through perecision appears to be working sofar with a cleaner morew laminat air flow across the MAF


REF:
Polycarbonate honeycomb in 25mm, 20mm & 12mm will use 20mm upstream on MAF and 12mm downstream. Hope to see some improvment with more accurate sensor reading of a clean laminar air flow and plenty of it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-201...in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-201...in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-201...in/photostream


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

20v master said:


> Same.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Laminar means defined separate layers at different velocities, yet little turbulence. The honeycomb just breaks up all those layers and adds to turbulence, which is simply chaotic velocities in this case. Velocity stack/bell mouth > flow straightening grids/honeycombs.


Maybe so but only if you have laminar flow to begin with.


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> Preliminary testing yeilds more responsive pickup at lower revs and a lower rev at idle
> happy with the results. Looking for a more precise driveable tune through perecision appears to be working sofar with a cleaner morew laminat air flow across the MAF


Lower rev at idle? Idle RPM and torque is a set function in the ECU, not affected by MAF readings. More responsive is subjective and with your ~90* bends before and after the MAF, it's far from laminar. 



OMD-2013 said:


> Maybe so but only if you have laminar flow to begin with.


Which is why all you need is the velocity stack.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

OMD-2013 said:


> Preliminary testing yeilds more responsive pickup at lower revs and a lower rev at idle
> happy with the results. Looking for a more precise driveable tune through perecision appears to be working sofar with a cleaner morew laminat air flow across the MAF


How much accuracy are looking to get? MAF readings are good, but not as precise as you're hoping for (show me two identical maf logs, even ran at the same preset load on a dyno back to back, and I'll rest my case). On top of that, they are not the only driving factor to "driveability" of the tune, thing like o2 feedbacks (which btw is another sensor that will never be surgically precise) have as much, if not more, bearing on driveability (mostly done at part throttle and close loop).




OMD-2013 said:


> Maybe so but only if you have laminar flow to begin with.


Weren't you the one looking for laminar flow by compounding turbulent and flow restricting components in your TIP? You seem set in what you think will work best, but we're not saying "flow is what you should seek to improve" just for the hell of it (why do you think that Bill's TIP is so successful? It improves flow by increasing *volume *for the compressor to suck from). Good luck!


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

Marcus_Aurelius said:


> How much accuracy are looking to get? MAF readings are good, but not as precise as you're hoping for (show me two identical maf logs, even ran at the same preset load on a dyno back to back, and I'll rest my case). On top of that, they are not the only driving factor to "driveability" of the tune, thing like o2 feedbacks (which btw is another sensor that will never be surgically precise) have as much, if not more, bearing on driveability (mostly done at part throttle and close loop).


That was kinda my point. If your AFR at idle is 14.7, how much more accurate can your MAF readings be? Without knowing how much correction the o2 is providing over the MAF value alone, you wouldn't know how "accurate" the MAF reading is. Also, MAF setups are more accurate at lower flow rates, ie idle and part throttle, but MAP setups increase the accuracy for high flow rate, ie high boost, high rpm. The full 3" inlet is a worthy effort, but all this quest for laminar/less turbulent flow through the MAF in hopes of more "accurate" readings is, well, something I wouldn't spend so much time/effort on. Like Max said, hopefully you'll get what you're after.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

*China-fold going onto a motor tonight*


----------



## 20v master (May 7, 2009)

:thumbup:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

My "Chinafold" came in last night. It is definitly not of the same quality of casting of the JBS mani. There is two spots of imbedded casting contamination, probably silicone, in the mating surfaces and a there is also a lack of clean separation from the mold in the runners. It's gonna need some TLC to clean it up. And, I have a real doubt that the casting material is really A3N material, like JBS's mani.

But, that's not to say it's worthless either. It just needs some cleanup to meet my standards. And if it isn't A3N, it may be fine if it's cast with a high quality ductile iron.

If I didn't already have the JBS mani on the TT, I would install the Chinafold and run with it.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Let's see pix of the flaws. Also, does it have a JBS logo on the collector?


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Let's see pix of the flaws. Also, does it have a JBS logo on the collector?


Doug, does your chinafold have the JBS logo? Interesting if it does. Guess they used the exact same molds. Doubt they would go through the trouble/cost of using quality materials though.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

warranty225cpe said:


> Doug, does your chinafold have the JBS logo? Interesting if it does. Guess they used the exact same molds. Doubt they would go through the trouble/cost of using quality materials though.


early jbs ones has much linishing marks on them to cleanup, so chances are its the identical base casting, just not cleaned up. Looking fwd to pictures of it.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

badger5 said:


> early jbs ones has much linishing marks on them to cleanup, so chances are its the identical base casting, just not cleaned up. Looking fwd to pictures of it.


Interesting. That makes me wonder what the inside of the runners look like. Maybe worth it to smooth all that out.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

20v master said:


> That was kinda my point. If your AFR at idle is 14.7, how much more accurate can your MAF readings be? Without knowing how much correction the o2 is providing over the MAF value alone, you wouldn't know how "accurate" the MAF reading is. Also, MAF setups are more accurate at lower flow rates, ie idle and part throttle, but MAP setups increase the accuracy for high flow rate, ie high boost, high rpm. The full 3" inlet is a worthy effort, but all this quest for laminar/less turbulent flow through the MAF in hopes of more "accurate" readings is, well, something I wouldn't spend so much time/effort on. Like Max said, hopefully you'll get what you're after.


Thanks for the advice, untill recently (JBS Manifold installed) I have been disapointed with my upgrades, the tune/setup produced nothing but coal dust. I'm just trying to remove any excuses from the supplier for a clean quality tune. Having removed/replaced and reinstalled everything myself (JBS manifold, turbo and exhaust system) The car has not performed better. I am still concerned about it still running rich and want to do what I can to prevent that. I'm pleased with being able to fit an K&N RD-1460 air intake and will, like you suggest turn my focus on other things i.e. the new exhaust system. I'm about to cut up the APR downpipe, I will also add an extra O2 bung for a wideband O2 sensor should I not switch the ECU. planning on doubling the CATs that 42DD use ie 2x 3" dia then back to the magnaflow cat back. Magnaflow R&D are not to far away so I plan on discussing my proposed exhaust with them before I commit.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Turbo to Chinacopy/JBS manifiod.*



[email protected] said:


>


Suggest you check turbo and exhaust flange clearance to the manifold. Mine was very tight (GT2871R & stock downpipe) also manifold nut #3 needs to be almost home first or you may need one of these.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8532089401/in/photostream

Happy JBS Manifold owner.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Atomic Ed said:


> My "Chinafold" came in last night. It is definitly not of the same quality of casting of the JBS mani. There is two spots of imbedded casting contamination, probably silicone, in the mating surfaces and a there is also a lack of clean separation from the mold in the runners. It's gonna need some TLC to clean it up. And, I have a real doubt that the casting material is really A3N material, like JBS's mani.
> 
> But, that's not to say it's worthless either. It just needs some cleanup to meet my standards. And if it isn't A3N, it may be fine if it's cast with a high quality ductile iron.
> 
> If I didn't already have the JBS mani on the TT, I would install the Chinafold and run with it.


Here are the photos of the inclusions:





Notice below the "lump" in the runner. That is probably sand imbedded onto the wall. My best guess is the scaling on the sides of the wall and the lump are there from not enough, or no, release media used in the casting process.



Again, not what you want to see, but fixable with work. The JBS mani had none of these issues.

I think I'll contact the seller with these pics and see what they have to say

And here is an overall shot of the manifold:


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> Thanks for the advice, untill recently (JBS Manifold installed) I have been disapointed with my upgrades, the tune/setup produced nothing but coal dust. I'm just trying to remove any excuses from the supplier for a clean quality tune. Having removed/replaced and reinstalled everything myself (JBS manifold, turbo and exhaust system) The car has not performed better. I am still concerned about it still running rich and want to do what I can to prevent that. I'm pleased with being able to fit an K&N RD-1460 air intake and will, like you suggest turn my focus on other things i.e. the new exhaust system. I'm about to cut up the APR downpipe, I will also add an extra O2 bung for a wideband O2 sensor should I not switch the ECU. planning on doubling the CATs that 42DD use ie 2x 3" dia then back to the magnaflow cat back. Magnaflow R&D are not to far away so I plan on discussing my proposed exhaust with them before I commit.


I think it is time for you to consider a new tune. If I remember right, you have a "out of the box" tune that I suspect may be holding you back.


----------



## warranty225cpe (Dec 3, 2008)

Atomic Ed said:


> Here are the photos of the inclusions:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I'd like to see what a good extuede honing of this manifold would do. I bet that and a good ceramic coat, and you'd have a great piece.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

Atomic Ed said:


> Here are the photos of the inclusions:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let us know what the CN seller has to say.. if these are seconds or typical of what they are producing. did yours arrive in a jbs box? The jbs one I have here has some inclusions internally also, similar to yours, but none on machined faces.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

badger5 said:


> Let us know what the CN seller has to say.. if these are seconds or typical of what they are producing. did yours arrive in a jbs box? The jbs one I have here has some inclusions internally also, similar to yours, but none on machined faces.


Interesting exchange. Here is the actual text:

*Me:*

_Attached are some pictures of flaws I have found in the Manifold I purchased from you. I would like to arrange for a replacement.

Thanks you for your service._

*Sales Rep:*

_hi ED,
ok. can u please send usd 220 to my paypal [email protected] before i can send the manifold ?_ 


*Me:*

_PLEASE re-read my message and look at the pictures I sent you!!! I do not want to buy another manifold. 

I want a replacement for the one that I purchased from you that is flawed._


*Sales Rep:*

_we sold u this product usd 175+ usd 42 (air shipping)
it is a very very low price u know . yet u now are asking for a replacement product free of charge ,and free shipping. u are aksing for too much !_


*Me:*

_It is a very simple question. Do you stand behind your product or not?

Surely you don't expect me to just order another one with a flawed one in hand? _



After my last e-mail, there has been no response. I 'm not really surprised about this, nor do I expect the sales people to make good. But those of you considering buying one directly, you should know that you get what you get. No returns, no refunds.

So if someone does hook up with this company, they will have to charge considerably more per unit to cover the bad ones that will show up. 

Oh, the manifold did show up in a JBS box.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Atomic Ed said:


> ...those of you considering buying one directly, you should know that you get what you get. No returns, no refunds.
> 
> So if someone does hook up with this company, they will have to charge considerably more per unit to cover the bad ones that will show up.


You're right, Ed. I've already figured that our manifold sales price would have to remain $350 if we switch to a "China-fold". There will be waste, we'll need to machine it. But it might very well merit that price-point nevertheless.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> You're right, Ed. I've already figured that our manifold sales price would have to remain $350 if we switch to a "China-fold". There will be waste, we'll need to machine it. But it might very well merit that price-point nevertheless.


That would be a very fair price point. At that price, it wouldn't be worth it to "roll the dice" and buy one directly.

What about the casting material? I would push hard to stick with A3N over gray iron, even if you have to kick up the price some. Your customers would thank you in the long run.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

I was offered these same units for $99 USD + shipping....also Atomic Ed I would file a paypal claim 
Reading this thread and seeing the latest updates is one of the reasons why I will only produce products in North America. Someone @ JBS is having some sleepless nights.


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Issam Abed said:


> I was offered these same units for $99 USD + shipping....also Atomic Ed I would file a paypal claim
> Reading this thread and seeing the latest updates is one of the reasons why I will only produce products in North America. Someone @ JBS is having some sleepless nights.


I went into this purchase pretty much knowing this would be the outcome, so I'm not really upset. Honestly, the prototype you tried to launch was the best design so far in my mind. 

But, if you can find them, the PRC has some of the best foundries in the world. My close friend worked with a company that was bringing on-line a new type of injector nozzles for fluidized bed coal fired plants. Of all the foundries that participated in the blind cast testing, including a lot of the high end, U.S. foundries, only two foundries in the PRC were able to consistently meet the quality standards for production of these new injector nozzles. PRC can manufacture high quality products, the problem is finding the right manufacturer over there.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

Atomic Ed said:


> Honestly, the prototype you tried to launch was the best design so far in my mind.


It was but circumstances caused it to receive a nail in the coffin. 



Atomic Ed said:


> PRC can manufacture high quality products, the problem is finding the right manufacturer over there


IMHO That is not really the problem. 
The problem is your product molds ending up in the hands of your *competitors suppliers*. One thing I learnt about China or at least manufacturing in China is the cost for molds for manifolds / turbine housing / whatever is so cheap because it is split across countless foundries. In other words , they all share the upfront cost as they know (all too well) that eventually your product will end up in the hands of others. Why sell 100 to one when they can sell 1000 to many? They screw over 1 guy to gain the business of 99 others. This concept of doing business is the main reason why I refuse to do business with the far east. 
I'd rather pay triple to have a manifold casted in a Michigan foundry than one casted in the Guan Dong province. In the case of JBS , they bit the bullet and now everyone else will benefit. If it was me someone would be turning heads...


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

Issam Abed said:


> IMHO That is not really the problem.
> 
> The problem is your product molds ending up in the hands of your *competitors suppliers*. One thing I learnt about China or at least manufacturing in China is the cost for molds for manifolds / turbine housing / whatever is so cheap because it is split across countless foundries. In other words , they all share the upfront cost as they know (all too well) that eventually your product will end up in the hands of others. Why sell 100 to one when they can sell 1000 to many? They screw over 1 guy to gain the business of 99 others. This concept of doing business is the main reason why I refuse to do business with the far east.
> I'd rather pay triple to have a manifold casted in a Michigan foundry than one casted in the Guan Dong province. In the case of JBS , they bit the bullet and now everyone else will benefit. If it was me someone would be turning heads...


Agreed. Here in the U.S. we think we can change the culture over there just because we see the ethics of it differently….ain’t gonna happen. Sharing resources, materials, and jobs, has been a part of their culture many more years than we’ve been a country. It’s still a socialistic country, in spite of their emergence in the world market. 

The case I shared above was such a specific material production, it wasn’t a problem because they were the only end user. I spent time in Japan working a liaison issue with a major power company that had several Westinghouse nuclear power plants. The power company soon announced to Westinghouse that they were going to manufacture the reactor vessels locally. The Westinghouse president, of course, wanted damages and compensation under international patent laws. What I couldn’t get him to realize is when you hand over the design drawings, under Japanese law, you turned over patent rights also.


----------



## Dobermann33 (Apr 21, 2013)

*JBS Manifolt*

Hello Forum this is my first post !! Im from Germany and im happy that i found this thread 

i have exactly the same problem !! i bought this JBS K04 manifolt and i was thinking i can now make my car ( Seat Leon Cupra R ) very fast !!  

im really disapointed from this JBS Manifolt. 

misfire misfire and misfire always at 5k or 6k rpm and only on cylinder 2 

i have a K04 Hybrid Turbo and this JBS Manifolt and high flow exahaust system installed. 

what is the JBS Factory doing for this problem !! i think they know that !! 

Its not a software problem its manifolt problem !! 

i want to give back my JBS Manifolt 

can someone tell me did someone tryed to give the mani back ??? is this possible or not ?? 

next week i will phone to JBS factory


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

JBS never acknowledged the problem. They know it exists but always blame the user, hardware or tune. I showed them a back to back comparison of their manifold ported vs unported and they stopped responding to my emails. 

It can be made to be a good manifold. It takes a little time to port the collector but after that it will run just fine. I do not think they will take the manifold back though.


----------



## TTQ225 (Apr 21, 2013)

*a new one with JBS high-flow manifold*

Hello guys, 

This is my first post, too. I am also located in Germany. 
I am following this threat a long time. And I have the same issue since I have replace my manifold with an JBS high flow one. 

Unfortunately I do have the same "bad" experience with this manifold on my TT 225 APX machine :banghead: 

I tried several things to aviod the missfire at 5500 U/min in the past. 
My set up is a normal K04-23 from "BAM" with modified intake. 
I sharpened and polish the collector of the manifold. 
I replace the original Cat to a twin 100 cell one. 
Olso I tried a 70mm exhaust to get off this annoing missfire at 5500, but without success. :-( 

Is there any other thing that I can do to get the JBS manifold working??? 

I hope somebody can help on this issue! 

Thanks and greetings from Germany. 

Best 
TTQ225 

BTW: how can I insert a image?


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

TTQ225 said:


> Hello guys,
> 
> This is my first post, too. I am also located in Germany.
> I am following this threat a long time. And I have the same issue since I have replace my manifold with an JBS high flow one.
> ...


 Duplicating how Spartiati modified his JBS manifold should work, but I've just noticed that all of Spartiati's JBS manifold porting photo's have disappeared. Probably due to the recent changes at PhotoBucket. I've PM'd him to see if he can reattach them. 

Regarding attaching pictures. You upload your Photos to a " Cloud " service such as PhotoBucket or Flicker. You then have an Option to share photos by copying a special URL to those photos. You then Paste that URL in your Post here ( Use the " Edit " function in your Post to add photos later ) . This will embed the Photo in your Post.


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

Other option, probably easier for UK residents, is to pay a visit to the JBS head-quarters at night and throw the manifold through the front window!! Maybe then they'll get the message :banghead:


----------



## volksvrsex (Feb 8, 2004)

:thumbup: 


Chickenman35 said:


> Other option, probably easier for UK residents, is to pay a visit to the JBS head-quarters at night and throw the manifold through the front window!! Maybe then they'll get the message :banghead:


 :thumbup:


----------



## TTQ225 (Apr 21, 2013)

Chickenman35 said:


> Other option, probably easier for UK residents, is to pay a visit to the JBS head-quarters at night and throw the manifold through the front window!! Maybe then they'll get the message :banghead:


 You are right, probably this will work... :laugh: 

For me it is a pain in the ass to buy a high performance goods like the JBS manifold and the result is missfire at 5k! 

Anyway I will contact user spartiate regarding images of modified manifold to get it working... 

Best from Germany eace: 
TTQ


----------



## ttwsm (Feb 27, 2011)

Doesn't this feel like an opportunity in disguise for JBS? The foundries have what appears to be a flawed design. There appears to be a fix. Certainly they could put in the time, and a perhaps some cost, and rework their inventory? They used superior materials. They could exchange ones that are out there but that aren't already reworked, and rehab / resell the ones that come back. Now they have their value proposition back - a superior, _and exclusive_, product for a premium price.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*JBS mods*



TTQ225 said:


> You are right, probably this will work... :laugh:
> 
> For me it is a pain in the ass to buy a high performance goods like the JBS manifold and the result is missfire at 5k!
> 
> ...











I followed Atomis Eds lead on opening up the collector on my JBS manifold before installing.
I was very happy with the result once installed even with the stock exhaust.
No misfires for me on any trackday

you can see some of my photos here.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/omd-2013/8486830972/in/photostream

http://s1354.photobucket.com/user/o...t=3&o=2&_suid=1366765984594021708385556034737
Good luck


----------



## Dobermann33 (Apr 21, 2013)

Chickenman35 said:


> Other option, probably easier for UK residents, is to pay a visit to the JBS head-quarters at night and throw the manifold through the front window!! Maybe then they'll get the message :banghead:


 
+1 :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: 

Im a software Tuner and i have test many things !! and for now im sure its not the software its to 100% the manifolt !!! 

I bought this manifolt because i thought its ready developed ! but its not !! its tested by customer !! 

IM really angry about the high price ! for this price i expect a finished product !! 

and i think JBS must have the balls in pants to solve this misfire problem !! 

they can not say its a software problem ! I think all JBS Mani User musst have this misfire problem with strong software !! 

Best Regards from Germany 

Dobermann 

@TTQ225 wenn lust hast können wir mal quatschen oder schreiben !! meld dich einfach mal ! 

Gruß !!


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

Dobermann33 said:


> +1 :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
> 
> Im a software Tuner and i have test many things !! and for now im sure its not the software its to 100% the manifolt !!!
> 
> ...


 They don't give a damn. I have maestro and told them I tuned it myself. They said that was the problem. Then they said it was the injectors, then the fuel pump. 

After porting? Problems solved and radio silence from JBS after. 

Here are my porting pics:


----------



## TTQ225 (Apr 21, 2013)

Dear Spartiati, 

Thank very much for upload and proving the images. 
I did not rework the collector so much like you. I only polish and sharpen the slitter inside of the collector. 

thanks again! 

Best regard 
TTQ


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

OMD-2013 said:


> .... No misfires for me on any trackday


 I'm curious how your new Eliminator/JBS setup did at the track. How was the spoolup and/or transient response? Happy with the setup? What would you do different? Dyno results anytime soon? 

Details please!


----------



## Atomic Ed (Mar 19, 2009)

TTQ225 said:


> Dear Spartiati,
> 
> Thank very much for upload and proving the images.
> I did not rework the collector so much like you. I only polish and sharpen the slitter inside of the collector.
> ...


 You really need to cut the divider down quite a bit. This should eliminate the misfires.


----------



## Dobermann33 (Apr 21, 2013)

spartiati said:


> They don't give a damn. I have maestro and told them I tuned it myself. They said that was the problem. Then they said it was the injectors, then the fuel pump.
> 
> After porting? Problems solved and radio silence from JBS after.
> 
> Here are my porting pics:


 
Hello spartiati, 

thank you for upload the pics 

this will solve the problem for sure ?? 

what is with the respone from the Turbo ?? it has become worse or same ? 

What is with EGT ?? did you test it ? 

best regards !


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

100% cures my misfiring problem. 23psi tapering to 20-21 by red line I see about 1550-1600*F 12" after the turbo


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Performing this much machining to the collector outlet of a "China-fold"... 












...has allowed our test car to exceed 270 g/s airflow with no misfiring or EGT spike. This is the fix. Now the question is who will produce such a solution for the marketplace.


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Atomic Ed said:


> I'm curious how your new Eliminator/JBS setup did at the track. How was the spoolup and/or transient response? Happy with the setup? What would you do different? Dyno results anytime soon?
> 
> Details please!


 Very happy with the car it performed very well. Spring mountain motorsport ranch is a terrific track.
My car was not quite as exciting as my freinds R8 and no where near the thrill of a Radical SR3 I got to go in. 
Also got a ride in a new TTRS nice!

Still working on the exhaust system will post updates as it comes together. Anticipating more excitement when its fitted with plenty of power to take on the TTRS. Added an extra o2 sensor bung to measure temp if I dont go to wide band.

I can understand why every one is so upset with the JBS stock exhaust manifold but because I followed your lead and went straight to the ported version my experience is all good.

Just got 2 pairs of forge control arms on their way, will lower the car another 1/2" then shop for the competition haldex controller.

Rear brake upgrade seems to be hard to find but I want to do it with the haldex upgrade.


----------



## wheezzy (Feb 11, 2004)

psst....I need a hook up,


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

Here is the test results for the materials analysis we had done on this unit.


----------



## Dobermann33 (Apr 21, 2013)

Hello Folks,

i notice on the JBS Page is the K04 manifold not to find !! 

only the K03 is there !! 

did they take it out from there programm !! ??? or im wrong ??? 

BR Dobermann !!


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

Dobermann33 said:


> Hello Folks,
> 
> i notice on the JBS Page is the K04 manifold not to find !!
> 
> ...


I called them they said they were sold out and would not have more unless demand for a rerun was there. Strange not to rerun a good seller?


----------



## Volksdude27 (Nov 25, 2005)

That doesnt surprise me at all. Design with known flaws that they were aware of ( even if they never admitted it or corrected ) and with the copies all over the place that needs as much work togood it was to make it good its no surprise that they let down a product that they never really supported anyway

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

spartiati said:


> 100% cures my misfiring problem. 23psi tapering to 20-21 by red line I see about 1550-1600*F 12" after the turbo


Thats really hot, I don't see that in my turbine housing. 

I'm barley getting 1400F, check your timing maps.


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

ejg3855 said:


> Thats really hot, I don't see that in my turbine housing.
> 
> I'm barley getting 1400F, check your timing maps.


Timing maps are perfectly fine. Running 18ish* at full spool increasing to 23-25* towards the top end.

I am now seeing a steady 1450-1500* under extended full throttle runs (25-30 minutes on the road course). 

My temps are likely hotter than most since I am really pushing a significant amount of exhaust gas through the KKK flange to achieve the power levels I am running.


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

*FV-QR*

awful defensive, and I am sure I am pushing just as hard as you. I usually see 1250 under extended runs sometimes some spikes.

We are running 25psi to redline. Similarish timing 24deg.

I'm using the crappy FT manifold.

Who tuned the car?


----------



## spartiati (May 19, 2008)

OK

1250 under load is low. How old is that sensor? E85? 

Tuned by me via maestro. Running great for 3 years no problem.

Defensive was just that the stock flange is typically a restriction especially when pushing these smaller frame turbos. Heat is a natural byproduct.


----------



## BW-Boosted (Jan 3, 2014)

Hey guys. 
I'm new here and at first want to introduce myself. My name is Frank, 31years old and I'm from Germany. 
(Sorry for writing not perfect english)

I'm driving the Audi S3 8L 1.8t with the 225HP BAM engine.

I bought also the JBS manifold and made some modifications which I want to share with you. 
What do think about it? Good? Bad? 
In march I will install it with a modified 023 turbocharger. Target boost should be 1,5bar (22psi)






































































































------------Step 2


Before









After:










Cyl. 4









Cyl. 3









Cyl. 1:









Pipe 1+2









Pipe 3









Pipe 4



















Flange









Inlet









Inlet











---------Rotor finshing


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

Volksdude27 said:


> That doesnt surprise me at all. Design with known flaws that they were aware of ( even if they never admitted it or corrected ) and with the copies all over the place that needs as much work togood it was to make it good its no surprise that they let down a product that they never really supported anyway
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


is it a copy when its the same manufacturer?


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

BW-Boosted said:


> Hey guys.
> I'm new here and at first want to introduce myself. My name is Frank, 31years old and I'm from Germany.
> (Sorry for writing not perfect english)
> 
> ...


nice work, what tools did you use to get into the bore ports? looks a nice finish.
bore outlet of collector looks a little larger than std but not big.. Whats your gasket choice for this? 40mm bore on std ones.

:thumbup:


----------



## BW-Boosted (Jan 3, 2014)

> nice work, what tools did you use to get into the bore ports? looks a nice finish.
> bore outlet of collector looks a little larger than std but not big.. Whats your gasket choice for this? 40mm bore on std ones.


Thanks
The diameter is ~1mm more than std. Not that much bigger as other did.

About the tools...don't lough. I just used a eletrical drilling machine with a flexible shaft with a small 10mm stainless steel cutter for the first modifications as you can see in the first pictures.

For the rework inside i used a long 30cm milling cutter as it shown in the picture below.
Bough from ebay for ~15 bugs




















The final finish is done with a stainless stell polisher and a slide grinding


EDIT:
here's another picture where you can see the flexible shaft


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

BW-Boosted said:


> Thanks
> The diameter is ~1mm more than std. Not that much bigger as other did.
> 
> About the tools...don't lough. I just used a eletrical drilling machine with a flexible shaft with a small 10mm stainless steel cutter for the first modifications as you can see in the first pictures.
> ...



thankyou..
thats a long cutter! damn! 

I'll look for one of these next.

good work..


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

Very nice work. Congrats :thumbup:

Those flexible shafts are something that I use once every ten years LOL. Invariably collecting, dust until one day you are working in a confined area...then they are worth their weight in Gold!! :laugh:

With a long cutter like that, I can see where a high speed air drill or high speed electric 1/4" grinder would not work. You need the lower RPM of a regular drill. Flexible shaft is a good idea for a long tool like that :beer:


----------



## BW-Boosted (Jan 3, 2014)

Yes, I agree with you. This is also my experience. The result is much better with a lower shaft speed, so I used a adjustabel milling machine.
I will install the manifold in nearly two month, because I have to wait for my new rods. (Want to install those together)


----------



## OMD-2013 (Jan 27, 2013)

*Eliminator with JBS manifold giving fast spool and more boost than wanted!*

<a href="http://" target="_blank">http://


Atomic Ed said:


> I'm curious how your new Eliminator/JBS setup did at the track. How was the spoolup and/or transient response? Happy with the setup? What would you do different? Dyno results anytime soon?
> 
> 
> Details please!


It has been long while since I updated you with my eliminator set up. I have now got the custom exhaust fitted.


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

Bumping this really good thread to see how everyone is doing with their reworked JBS-design manifolds. Here are a few pics of mine (reworked and modified for a v-band external outlet) that is going strong with no exhaust reversion and excellent EGT numbers on a relatively pushed hybrid.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 1, 2009)

I don't believe the JBS manifold is in production any longer. In its place is a replica being fabricated in China. We offer this product, which we call the "ChinaFold". We CNC machine and port the rough casting to ensure quality fitment and high exhaust flow. Our testing of exhaust gas temperatures on pump gasoline show it can support above 350 crank horsepower. On water-methanol enhanced pump gas it's approached 400bhp with our F23 hybrid turbo. We have not tested it on E85. Here are a couple of pictures:


----------



## XLR8NTT (Feb 27, 2003)

Reviving an old thread that is still very relevant today!

In preparing for a Ko4 hybrid type of upgrade soon (TTE360?)... I ordered one of these "JBS" clone manifolds from china. Looking to do all of the same porting work as shown in this thread. 

Hopefully I can keep a fast spooling, flat torque curve yet still kick up the horses a bit! 

Also toying with the idea of cryogenically treating the manifold after porting and then also ceramic coating the inside and out as well... has anyone done either?


----------



## Boulderhead (Oct 21, 2012)

XLR8NTT said:


> Reviving an old thread that is still very relevant today!
> 
> In preparing for a Ko4 hybrid type of upgrade soon (TTE360?)... I ordered one of these "JBS" clone manifolds from china. Looking to do all of the same porting work as shown in this thread.
> 
> ...


Of course Max did  Before u go crazy, what are you using the car for? 

You can open up the stock manifold and invest some $$$ elsewhere if you aren't going to be pushing hard on the track all the time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## XLR8NTT (Feb 27, 2003)

I've got a 2002 225 Quattro coupe with a grand total of 29k miles... 

lots of suspension work and typical bolt ons. 

I only take it out on the weekends and run the typical mountain roads in WNC 151,276, Deals Gap... etc... This car is in no way a DD. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rczJM76T0Cc

Looking for more pull out of the corners but don't want to the lag associated with a BT.


----------



## Boulderhead (Oct 21, 2012)

XLR8NTT said:


> I've got a 2002 225 Quattro coupe with a grand total of 29k miles...
> 
> lots of suspension work and typical bolt ons.
> 
> ...


Nice, we are in similar boat except mileage. I ended up opening up the stock manifold when I went with the hybrid setup.

Might be leaving some power on table, but was nice to reuse existing manifold and put the money saved into completing the exhaust. Just my 2 cents


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

