# MK4 intake manifold testing and porting results



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

I posted previously mk3 (ABA) ported intake results in the thread
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4276835
From that thread I received requests to test out the MK4 intake, see if porting can improved it, and compare to the mk3 intake.
The work is not finished but here is a start to the data.
*ABA OBDII Intake Manifold* 
Lower runner length is 6.2" long
Port inside diameter 32.5mm (head side)
Port inside diameter 34.5mm (opening connecting to upper manifold)
Single runner volume 150cc
Upper manifold section
Port inside diameter 34.25mm (opening connecting to lower manifold)
Runner length 3.875"
Plenum Volume 1.8L
MK3 upper manifold backside 









*AEG Intake Manifold* 
(MK4 with same intakes AEG, AVH, AZG, BEV and BBW )
Lower runner length is 6.0" long
Port inside diameter 32.8mm (head side)
Port inside diameter 40.0mm (opening connecting to upper manifold)
Single runner volume 150cc
Upper manifold section
Port inside diameter 39.8mm (opening connecting to lower manifold)
Runner length 8"
Plenum Volume About 1.8 -2.0L (internal brace was in the way)
MK4 upper manifold backside








*Flow Tests*
Stock MK4
Upper and Lower sections tested together. Each runner tested individually, with all vacuum ports plugged. Air was pushed in through the TB opening. Flow is measured in inches of water, Lower numbers indicate better flow. Low numbers are good.
Runner #1 - 13.5"
Runner #2 - 10"
Runner #3 - 10"
Runner #4 - 10.25"
Ported MK4
Flow is measured in inches of water, Lower numbers indicate better flow. Low numbers are good.
Runner #1 - 9.5"
Runner #2 - 9.5"
Runner #3 - 9.5"
Runner #4 - 9.5"
Ported MK4 lower picture








Flow tests are done with a manometer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manometer

About the manifolds:
It wouldn't be easy to bolt a mk3 upper manifold to a lower mk4 manifold. The bolt patterns don't match, and the ports don't align properly.
http://www.scientificrabbit.co...s.jpg
The lower sections of the mk3 and mk4 manifold are where the flow restrictions are. Note the mk3 manifold and mk4 have the same size port openings to the head.
MK3 top/ MK4 bottom of picture









Comparisons -
Stage I ported MK1 manifold flows about the same as the ported MK4 manifold. Stock mk4 flows a tad better than stock MK1.
MK3 test results will be posted soon.

_Modified by ny_fam at 3:42 AM 3-23-2009_


_Modified by ny_fam at 1:16 PM 5-6-2009_


----------



## MkIIIJetta94 (Aug 4, 2007)

*Re: MK4 intake manifold testing and porting results (ny_fam)*

Good stuff http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif What are you using to port the manifold with?


----------



## TMTuned99.5Golf (Jan 27, 2004)

*Re: MK4 intake manifold testing and porting results (ny_fam)*

Wow, impressive change in the numbers I must say!
It's interesting to see the huge change in runner flow on #1 as compared to the others. 
Is runner #1 for cylinder #1? If so, I wonder if it flows different than the others just because of the distance it is from the inlet.


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: MK4 intake manifold testing and porting results (TMTuned99.5Golf)*

Little over 5% average more flow per runner. 
Runner #1 is of cylinder number 1. Thats rather surprising too, but I think it had more to do with casting in the lower section of the manifold.
the short turn radius was not optimal, and much of the taper from 40 mm to 34mm happened near the radius. Porting tools just the same tools used for porting heads etc..Plus a few custom tools I use for porting intakes.
Overall nice improvements and most importantly equalized flow between runners. That will help the injection system with proper fueling to each cylinder, since the fueling system only knows what the total 4 cylinders need, not the needs each cylinder.



_Modified by ny_fam at 2:46 AM 5-1-2009_


----------



## TeamZleep (Aug 28, 2007)

*FV-QR*

So if you port the mk3 manifold, would you be just as/ almost as good as a mk4 manifold? I reallly like the idea of the mk4 manifold, but if I can get the same/better results as a mk4 by porting the mk3 intake I have laying around (upper and lower), I'd rather do that. 
Thanks for taking time to research this man!


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (TeamZleep)*

I can't answer the mk3 vs mk4 question yet, I don't have all the data yet. But will post it here when I have it.
I know that the mk3 intake responds a lot by porting, but the flow numbers will have to speak for how much.
Thanks 
ny_fam


----------



## macanic21 (Feb 20, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (ny_fam)*

Someone should chop the upper MK4 manifold apart at the plenum and rotate it 180* so that the TB would be facing the same way as the MK3 manifold. It looks like it would be close to the same location from the pics. This way you could keep the stock intake geometry in front of the TB.
Has anyone ever shortened one of these to MK4's try to get more top end?


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (macanic21)*

Interesting idea.
Though I don't think runner length is the reason the mk4 peaks sooner than the mk3. I think it has to do with the wedge in the intake ports of the head. The runners are 40+ mm at the plenum end, this is not a restriction. Fact is that the runners are long enough for ram tuning starting at
6792.18 rpm,	5036.9 rpm,	3930.31 rpm,	3167.14 rpm,	2518.45 rpm.

I suspect that the wedge was for emissions, created more swirl or something. But effects the flow.
Some one correct me if I'm wrong here.




_Modified by ny_fam at 12:31 AM 4-6-2009_


----------



## TeamZleep (Aug 28, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (ny_fam)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ny_fam* »_I can't answer the mk3 vs mk4 question yet, I don't have all the data yet. But will post it here when I have it.
I know that the mk3 intake responds a lot by porting, but the flow numbers will have to speak for how much.
Thanks 
ny_fam


I'll be waiting for your results!


----------



## Jettaboy1884 (Jan 20, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (TeamZleep)*

Very nice. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
Staying Tuned.


----------



## dustinwassner (Apr 4, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (Jettaboy1884)*

for better fuel mileage would it be better to use a stock mk3 manifold or an mk4?


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

doesnt matter


----------



## dustinwassner (Apr 4, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (tdogg74)*

is there a power increase with one vs. the other?


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

trick question.
the mkiv will flow more air at higher rpm.


----------



## dustinwassner (Apr 4, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (tdogg74)*

more just an honest one. so there is no difference at lower rpm then


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (dustinwassner)*

For stock intakes I'd take the mk4.


----------



## mk111volf (Mar 16, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (macanic21)*


_Quote, originally posted by *macanic21* »_Someone should chop the upper MK4 manifold apart at the plenum and rotate it 180* so that the TB would be facing the same way as the MK3 manifold. It looks like it would be close to the same location from the pics. This way you could keep the stock intake geometry in front of the TB.
Has anyone ever shortened one of these to MK4's try to get more top end?

haha, i took a similar idea a step further with my old car....








of course that car didn't have a MAF.
I'm new to the 2.0 so I haven't gotten into much brainstorming on it yet


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (mk111volf)*

Here are the latest and final porting results.
Flow Tests
Stock MK4
Upper and Lower sections tested together. Each runner tested individually, with all vacuum ports plugged. Air was pushed in through the TB opening. Flow is measured in inches of water, Lower numbers indicate better flow. Low numbers are good.
Runner #1 - 13.5"
Runner #2 - 10"
Runner #3 - 10"
Runner #4 - 10.25"
Stage I Ported MK4
Flow is measured in inches of water, Lower numbers indicate better flow. Low numbers are good.
Runner #1 - 9.5"
Runner #2 - 9.5"
Runner #3 - 9.5"
Runner #4 - 9.5"
Stage III Ported MK4
Flow is measured in inches of water, Lower numbers indicate better flow. Low numbers are good.
Runner #1 - 9.0"
Runner #2 - 9.0"
Runner #3 - 9.0"
Runner #4 - 9.0"
Cheers
ny_fam


----------



## the_q_jet (Mar 19, 2005)

*FV-QR*

question can you get a pic of what you removed to equalize flow on runner #1....might gimme somethin to do this week


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

You never posted the flow numbers for the MKIII manifold.


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (tdogg74)*

I didn't forget. Been working on this intake, and a few others for clients and getting the engine set on my Rabbit.
The ABA is next though..


----------



## dustinwassner (Apr 4, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (ny_fam)*

yea im curious as well as to what you did to even the numbers out.


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *ny_fam* »_I didn't forget. Been working on this intake, and a few others for clients and getting the engine set on my Rabbit.
The ABA is next though..


Good. I can ad that to this thread: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3875757


----------



## waveusgoodbye (Apr 11, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (tdogg74)*

has anyone tested the results of an mk4 intake manifold on an mk3?


----------



## independent77 (May 23, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (waveusgoodbye)*


_Quote, originally posted by *waveusgoodbye* »_has anyone tested the results of an mk4 intake manifold on an mk3?

should have a dyno plot in the next few weeks


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (independent77)*

Same setup with mk3 and then with mk4 dyno plots would be perfect.


----------



## the_q_jet (Mar 19, 2005)

*FV-QR*

bump for more results


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (the_q_jet)*

Thanks for pushing for results !!!
I'll try and pump it up on the priority list. I need to finish 2 Stage 3 G60 intakes by Wednesday.
The stage 3 mk4 intake will be making it to its home this week, we hope to get a back to back dyno of it too.


----------



## SLVR SLUG (Dec 10, 2006)

*FV-QR*

wow you really took your time to even out all the runners.. i bet that #1 runner was a bish to get to flow like the others.


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (SLVR SLUG)*

Should hear soon how this works out.


----------



## TMTuned99.5Golf (Jan 27, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (ny_fam)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ny_fam* »_Should hear soon how this works out.


Yup yup!
Tomorrow I'll be installing the intake on my car.
For initial testing between the stock and the Stage III porting I'll have my VAG-COM software attached to see what all I can measure with it.


----------



## TMTuned99.5Golf (Jan 27, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (TMTuned99.5Golf)*

Ok peoples, I got the intake installed and did some data logging before and after I swapped to do a comparison. I'm currently sifting through the data to do some comparisons for the points I marked out when driving. The test was driving up a huge hill, closest place I could find where I could go from dead stop to wide open, roughly .25 mile long.
The get up and go from a dead stop improved slightly but the top end is a lot better! 4th gear is a bit more fun to wind out now.








The data that I have is from first turn on with the intake so I'm not certain how much the ECU will adapt later to the increased air flow. 
I'll try to post results later if I can get some fancy charts done.


----------



## Jettaboy1884 (Jan 20, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (TMTuned99.5Golf)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TMTuned99.5Golf* »_ The test was driving up a huge hill, closest place I could find where I could go from dead stop to wide open, roughly .25 mile long.
...
The get up and go from a dead stop improved slightly but the top end is a lot better! 4th gear is a bit more fun to wind out now. 

Awesome!
I was thinking: One way to compare would be to take a video of the speedometer as you accelerate up the hill, say in 2nd or 3rd gear, through the whole rev range. Then, use the timer on the video to compare how long it accelerates through the powerband. IE: 30-40mph, 40-50mph, 50-60mph, and so-on. That should give a fairly useful "dyno" comparison to work with. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## TMTuned99.5Golf (Jan 27, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (Jettaboy1884)*

Ok, so here are 2 charts that I compiled from the data that I was able to log. I chose the relation of the engine speed to the MAF reading since the faster the engine moves, the more air it'll need creating more flow past the MAF right?
It's not the best chart by any means but it was the first thing I thought of doing. The roads around where I was are all curvy and up/ down hills. I will still go and take more measurements when I can find a nice long flat road where I can do a 2nd and 3rd gear only pull recording the MAF, RPM's and vehicle speed. 
Something that you can't tell by the results is the amount of time it took me to do the hill climb. With the stock intake on it took me about 39 seconds and with the ported intake about 30 seconds ( time stamps the software recording ). 
Yes when I ran the stock intake I shifted to 5th gear too soon (maybe part of the longer time). When I had the ported intake on, my car just took 4th gear so easily and kept pulling easily.
Anyways, here's what I got so far. Again, I will swap manifolds back and forth still yet to gather more data. All I can say is that I am very pleased!


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (TMTuned99.5Golf)*

Wow! Those are fantastic results. Fact that you can tell the difference with the butt-dyno at low rpms and high rpms indicates that we are not talking about loss of power or just +1 HP, but more than that. Added bonus that the data from the data logger seems to be saying the same thing. Though I've never seen the MAF data like this, but makes sense its reading that more air is going through the system. 
Thanks for your hard work and willingness to try out and test a ported 8v AEG intake. I know ported intakes aren't talked about that much as a performance upgrade, mostly head work is or other bolt-ons. But when your looking to get the most out of your engine, you can't leave any component un-tuned. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Now I need to finish up my ABA intake work and get some tests done with it.


----------



## TMTuned99.5Golf (Jan 27, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (ny_fam)*

Something else I thought I'd note about my car since I've put about another 100 miles on it since the swap over. 
The overall engine power seems to be a bit smoother. I know when I initially did the first test run that as I was leaving the house, when I would take my foot off the gas all the way and let the car decelerate the engine didn't seem to "buck" as much. Hard to describe really but it was noticeable.
Figure I should post all that I've gotten done to my car so people can see that I'm somewhat close to stock but with typical upgrades.
Only engine mods so far:
Autotech 270* cam
HD dual springs
K&N Panel filter in the stock box (ya, I'm not even running a CAI!)
Cutoff rear muffler and straight pipe in place.
Now when I throw this intake on my new motor, it should scream even more!


----------



## the_q_jet (Mar 19, 2005)

*FV-QR*

jus boost it.


----------



## SLVR SLUG (Dec 10, 2006)

Yep yep. What he said.


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: (SLVR SLUG)*

If your running boost its even more important that each port flow the same, other wise you can run lean and destroy a cylinder.


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: (ny_fam)*

Still hear good reports from TMTuned99.5Golf, now that he has more miles on the new intake.
I know the AEG was used for testing in this case, its expected that this upgrade will also work with other mk4- AVH, AZG, BEV and BBW engine codes too.
Anyone recommend a good source for the mk4 8 valve intake manifolds (upper and lower)?


----------



## the_q_jet (Mar 19, 2005)

*FV-QR*

i'm bout to finish up my short runner tomorrow so you can have mine for a lil $


----------



## tdogg74 (Mar 1, 2002)

*FV-QR*

As great as all the road tests are, when are we going to see some dyno comparisons? I want numbers.
stock vs ported either MKIII or MKIV....I dont care. Someone cough up the cash and get this done.


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (the_q_jet)*

Send me a pm when your ready to sell the stock mk4 intake

Dyno back to back is in the plans .


----------



## ghoastoflyle (Jan 21, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (ny_fam)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ny_fam* »_
Dyno back to back is in the plans .









http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## TMTuned99.5Golf (Jan 27, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (tdogg74)*


_Quote, originally posted by *tdogg74* »_As great as all the road tests are, when are we going to see some dyno comparisons? I want numbers.
stock vs ported either MKIII or MKIV....I dont care. Someone cough up the cash and get this done. 


Don't worry Travis, I'll be coughing up the cash here shortly. I just need to make an appointment with the tuning shop. I was told I could get them back to back for $65. Time is my only issue, especially with memorial day weekend coming up here. In the next 2 weeks I should have dyno data. 
Today I got some road tests where I bounced the needle in the red in a few gears. I'll swap in ther stock for some more road test data and post the results.


----------



## MonkeyBusiness (Jun 11, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (TMTuned99.5Golf)*

Dyno yet?


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (MonkeyBusiness)*

I suspect if we sent some paypal money his way he'd get it done.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------

