# My new intake manifold



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Its almost done:


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

Serrari said:


> Its almost done:


Thats bringing DI engines to another level No TB just like a oil burner LOL  Bob.G

Looks good so far , does it hit the hood ? LOL


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

rracerguy717 said:


> Thats bringing DI engines to another level No TB just like a oil burner LOL  Bob.G
> 
> Looks good so far , does it hit the hood ? LOL


Does not hit the hood, TB is going to be installed tomorrow.


----------



## evil-e (Aug 15, 2005)

Looking good! 
Are you going to try and get flow bench testing done after it's completed?

:beer:


----------



## Joeydabomb (May 1, 2009)

Looks good man, what tune do you have to deal with the flapperless setup?


----------



## vwguy13 (Oct 5, 2008)

awesome


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

evil-e said:


> Looking good!
> Are you going to try and get flow bench testing done after it's completed?
> 
> :beer:


Flow bench testing has been done on a prototype.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

Joeydabomb said:


> Looks good man, what tune do you have to deal with the flapperless setup?


I have a custom tune.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Serrari said:


> Flow bench testing has been done on a prototype.



And what was the flow difference with stock ?

You think it will be worth it ?


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> And what was the flow difference with stock ?
> 
> You think it will be worth it ?


Not only flows better than the stock POS plastic intake manifold, aluminum its better, will disipate heat faster and will hold higher pressures. :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Serrari said:


> Not only flows better than the stock POS plastic intake manifold, aluminum its better, will disipate heat faster and will hold higher pressures. :thumbup:



Hmm interesting...

Don't really think it will help "heat wise" (the plastic manifold is cold to the touch even after hours of driving, whereas i suspect aluminum will heat soak like a MOFO under the bonnet in between runs..) but i guess there might be some improvement in flow.

What matters thought is if it is worth the gains.If you can get +15 HP with a K04...I'M SOLD...


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

GolfRS said:


> Hmm interesting...
> 
> Don't really think it will help "heat wise" (the plastic manifold is cold to the touch even after hours of driving, whereas i suspect aluminum will heat soak like a MOFO under the bonnet in between runs..) but i guess there might be some improvement in flow.
> 
> What matters thought is if it is worth the gains.If you can get +15 HP with a K04...I'M SOLD...


HP wise I dont have base numbers with the stock intake manifold, but on other cars these type of manifold get gains of +35hp.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Serrari said:


> HP wise I dont have base numbers with the stock intake manifold, but on other cars these type of manifold get gains of +35hp.


Sounds good.

Of course you'd have to factor in all the other peripherals, cause HP gains from the same exact mode rise along with other hardware like cams, different turbo etc.

But as i said i'd settle for a 15-20 hp gain on a K04 :laugh:


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

With the TB installed:


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

wow, very nice.

that'd be really easy to port for some meth. :laugh:

with that big of a plenum, I dont see any issues with the furthest 2 cylinders running out of air either.

what where the flow numbers? also, stock TB or custom one too? Doesnt look like the bulky stock one, but idk.


----------



## blackvento36 (Mar 17, 2003)

GolfRS said:


> Welcome to the Vortex
> 
> Any plans for an improved OEM replacement manifold ?
> 
> ...


Looks like he may have some sort of plan for flaps. No Other reason to use a solid (2"?) chunk of aluminum for the mounting flange. 

I don't see any gasket relief milled into the flange. Planning on running a paper gasket?


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well it's nice to see the "manifold war" is heating up.

Now let's see what (if anything) other companies have to offer.


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

rracerguy717 said:


> You might have too have 2 verision with "light " option because this manifold is nice for cusomers like the OP baller LOL , looking for HIGH HP & BT moving alot of air with boost .
> 
> But for the masses using KO4 or 2871/3071 turbo where this customer is looking for more area under the curve like myself that big plenum manifold not gonna work well IMO Bob.G


the K series motors from Honda run manifolds and plenums that are as big as this... and they are NA.

seeing as we are FWD, and turbocharged, Id honestly rather have my peak torque at or after 3,000 or 3500, but have massive gains up top, than to have tons of torque around 2500 rpm, but choke up later in the power band.

btw, GCTech, any place for extra vac taps off this puppy? preferably higher in the manifold, so meth cant get into them as readily as the stock manifold allows. im honestly tired of getting meth into my lines and having to drain them weekly... and im too lazy to go find somewhere else to tap. lol


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

Krieger said:


> btw, GCTech, any place for extra vac taps off this puppy? preferably higher in the manifold, so meth cant get into them as readily as the stock manifold allows. im honestly tired of getting meth into my lines and having to drain them weekly... and im too lazy to go find somewhere else to tap. lol


Thats why Honda's have no TQ LOL , but they need to move alot of air at high RPM . 

One manifold with big plenum wont fit all on our cars it depending on Turbo setup IMO

Thats why you should be spraying it way before the manifold so cools the IAT and dosnt pool if you want full benifit of W/M. If you dont cool the air B4 the manifold and the IAT sensor at the TB the ECU dosnt know that you have cooler dense air hence still pull timing or have it benifit you and add more timing . The only reason you should be spraying into the manifold is if your focus is to keep EGT down or using your W/M as a fueling source IMO . Bob.G


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Well i'm pretty sure if there is enough interest and the price is right someone is bound to make a K04/GT30 manifold.

I know for one i'd love to get >400 on the K04...


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

rracerguy717 said:


> Thats why you should be spraying it way before the manifold so cools the IAT and dosnt pool if you want full benifit of W/M. If you dont cool the air B4 the manifold and the IAT sensor at the TB the ECU dosnt know that you have cooler dense air hence still pull timing or have it benifit you and add more timing . The only reason you should be spraying into the manifold is if your focus is to keep EGT down or using your W/M as a fueling source IMO . Bob.G


i have my nozzle at the level of the MAP, but on the opposite side of the pipe. It should be having plenty of time to cool the air, plus get the valves and stuff soaked to keep em clean.

I could always run a small one right after the IC, but im not sure. Im still wanting to run 2 or 4 small injectors on the mani, 1 medium (d02 or d03) post IC, and 1 super small one pre-turbo.

crap, I might even just ditch an IC all together and just use meth. :laugh:


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

Krieger said:


> i have my nozzle at the level of the MAP, but on the opposite side of the pipe. It should be having plenty of time to cool the air, plus get the valves and stuff soaked to keep em clean.
> 
> I could always run a small one right after the IC, but im not sure. Im still wanting to run 2 or 4 small injectors on the mani, 1 medium (d02 or d03) post IC, and 1 super small one pre-turbo.
> 
> crap, I might even just ditch an IC all together and just use meth. :laugh:


 WOW. That's way to much spay IMOi for just using it to cool , wonder why TB Are failing LOL


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

well, with just 1 pre TB that will ever have a chance to get the TB wet, its no more likely to fail than anyone else. the pre-turbo nozzle will keep the air from getting hot, the pre-TB will get the air chilly, and the ones in the mani will pump the octane up like crazy.

id have to see how much it would flow, but id really want to stay in the ballpark of like 6-8 GPH. with a custom tune, and a larger turbo down the road, plus slightly opened up ports, TB, and piping, that would be nothing. our DO3's already flow at 6+ GPH if Devil's own's math is to be believed. it flows at 3 GPH @ 100 PSI, so @ 200 psi, it flows at 6 GPH, so @ 250 psi it flows 7.5. keep in mind that the check valve supposedly lowers that by like 15 or 25 psi or something, but you get the idea.

sub ambient charge air temps. delicious. :laugh:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Serrari said:


> Not only flows better than the stock POS plastic intake manifold, aluminum its better, will disipate heat faster


The OEM intake manifold is plastic which rarely gets hot. Metal on the other hand heats up and stays hot.


----------



## Gctech Industries (Dec 12, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> The OEM intake manifold is plastic which rarely gets hot. Metal on the other hand heats up and says hot.



Yes true but they use plastic due to production cost but is a POS for our power level.


----------



## loudgli (Aug 3, 2005)

Isn't there a limit due to the size of the throttle?


----------



## Gctech Industries (Dec 12, 2008)

loudgli said:


> Isn't there a limit due to the size of the throttle?


It would if it was the stock one , but we are using the stock bored to 65mm that will be enough for now the plan is to use one from a porsche cayenne, after we dyno we will know if we need to upgrade that and the entire cold side piping.

cheers

ps> for more picture of this buid u check out 
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4956061-Leon-Cupra-PTE-6262-build


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

The main restriction in our intake side is the throttle body, I don't know why people are calling the intake manifold a plastic pos when the piece that allows boost into it is a 2.5 inch plastic pos itself that's prone to failure once you start making the good power.


----------



## Gctech Industries (Dec 12, 2008)

LEWXCORE said:


> The main restriction in our intake side is the throttle body, I don't know why people are calling the intake manifold a plastic pos when the piece that allows boost into it is a 2.5 inch plastic pos itself that's prone to failure once you start making the good power.


U are talking about the plastic/metalic flap on the TP, Yes is a POS we replace that unit with a 65mm SS flap , 65 we found to be good size TBsame size im using on a 800hp EVO build,the OEM plastic manifold will allow up to a 68mm upgrade , it would be interesting a dyno run with it before and after a tb upgrade but since we going to be boosting over 45psi that OEM manifold will blow.
Now stock EVO is 60mm and doing an upgrade to 65 only gains 8hp , but since the VW engine has a 56mm tb doing a 65 is a big number that could lead gains up to 15hp


Cheers


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> The OEM intake manifold is plastic which rarely gets hot. Metal on the other hand heats up and says hot.


Yeah, thats why drag race cars use plastic manifolds...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Serrari said:


> Yeah, thats why drag race cars use plastic manifolds...


Did you even read what I said:

*The OEM intake manifold is plastic which rarely gets hot. Metal on the other hand heats up and stays hot.*

Prove me wrong. 

Here's a little help:
Your factory intake manifold is made of *Polyamide*. 
Its Thermal Conductivity is 0.259 - 0.810 W/m-K
Its Specific Heat Capacity is 1.89 - 2.03 J/g-°C

Spend some time on google.com, wikipedia.com and matweb.com and come up with an answer as to why I'm wrong, OR just drive your car for an hour, hard, and touch the OEM intake manifold with your hand and do the same with your metal manifold. Tell me which is hotter. 

Drag racers and many other manufacturers make manifolds out of metal because it's easier to cast, machine, and weld metal than it is to work with plastic. Look at the photo you posted. Couple sheets of metal welded together. Maybe some machined bits at the bottom. Quick and easy. Not a big deal when running down the track in 8-12 seconds.


----------



## asrautox (Sep 9, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Prove me wrong.


In marketing being right or wrong matters little compared to how you are perceived...


----------



## DK_GTI_racer (Oct 4, 2007)

Arin is right on this - but their is ways around the heat issue, i have installed the new south powergasket to my APR motorsport intake manifold for 1.8T , the change in heat on the intake manifold is amazing - the heat on the intake manifold is no longer higher then lets say the battery or airbox in engine room. its amazing and thats even after 2,5 hours of racing  

But before because the manifold is in cast aluminum it would get red hot - think you could boil an egg on it - lol


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

meth would solve all of those issues. lol

Arin is correct though. Metal will absorb heat from the engine and radiate it away over a long time... including into your air that your pumping onto the engine itself. How many shops can weld and machine metal? alot.

how many can design and cast plastic that is EXTREMELY tough? I havnt seen one yet. :laugh:

Id still rather have a nice metal manifold with coolant running through it, or meth spraying in it, coupled with a gasket that would help keep the heat from absorbing into it from the engine itself.

but then again, the same thing could be said about an intercooler. it gets HOOOTTT, but the air inside of it gets colder, so who's to say the same wont happen in the manifold? and even then, the air wont be in the manifold long enough to get heated much before its shot into an extremely hot, high pressure environment and burned off anyways.


----------



## Gctech Industries (Dec 12, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Did you even read what I said:
> 
> *The OEM intake manifold is plastic which rarely gets hot. Metal on the other hand heats up and says hot.*
> 
> ...


Interesting, I can run my DSM EXTREAMLY hard for more than an hour and my intake will be super cold (METH FTW)


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Hmmm...

Will you guys be offering any TB porting like you posted by any chance ?

Like i send you my TB and you open it up, throttle plate and all ?? :laugh:


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

Gctech Industries said:


> U are talking about the plastic/metalic flap on the TP, Yes is a POS we replace that unit with a 65mm SS flap , 65 we found to be good size TBsame size im using on a 800hp EVO build,the OEM plastic manifold will allow up to a 68mm upgrade , it would be interesting a dyno run with it before and after a tb upgrade but since we going to be boosting over 45psi that OEM manifold will blow.
> Now stock EVO is 60mm and doing an upgrade to 65 only gains 8hp , but since the VW engine has a 56mm tb doing a 65 is a big number that could lead gains up to 15hp
> 
> 
> Cheers


PM sent


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

LEWXCORE said:


> PM sent


HEY !!!! 

:laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

Subscribed.

Been waiting to see someone do this. Curious to see the results. :thumbup:


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Subscribed.
> 
> Been waiting to see someone do this. Curious to see the results. :thumbup:


Hey Mike.

You guys do alloy stuff don't you ?

Aren't you interested in making an aluminum manifold ??


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

GolfRS said:


> Hey Mike.
> 
> You guys do alloy stuff don't you ?
> 
> Aren't you interested in making an aluminum manifold ??


It's such a special niche product, I'm not sure it's worth it, really. Very few people are doing these types of builds.

The caveat being, I'm not sure exactly how much of an offsetting gain up top this may provide when you consider there will likely be somewhat of a torque loss down low having removed the flapper system. For a big turbo setup aiming for top end power, that will have slower spool anyway, this sort of setup is ideal. For a daily driver looking for the greatest area under the curve, not so much.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2005)

We could totally do it and it would be useful to those that are pushing the cars. But there are so few that would need/want it that I don't think it worthwhile for us to offer. This looks like a promising piece though! For those that don't know, alloy manifolds work just fine, street or track vehicles. The theoretical negatives aren't that significant in the real world and if properly designed the benefits far outweigh them. It's only been the last 10-15 years that some oems have been switching to plastic manifolds... and the main reason isn't heat. The air's ability to be heated by the walls of the manifold while traveling through is very very small, conversely the benefits in terms of flow , both volume and velocity is potentially huge.



GolfRS said:


> Hey Mike.
> 
> You guys do alloy stuff don't you ?
> 
> Aren't you interested in making an aluminum manifold ??


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> It's such a special niche product, I'm not sure it's worth it, really. Very few people are doing these types of builds.
> 
> The caveat being, I'm not sure exactly how much of an offsetting gain up top this may provide when you consider there will likely be somewhat of a torque loss down low having removed the flapper system. For a big turbo setup aiming for top end power, that will have slower spool anyway, this sort of setup is ideal. For a daily driver looking for the greatest area under the curve, not so much.


Well i wasn't thinking of this type of manifold but rather an OEM replacement flow tested to outflow the stock AND accept a larger throttle body while retaining flaps.

I'm pretty sure there is a HUGE crowd out there waiting for something like thios especially if it comes with Forge's quality and support. :thumbup:

I mean there are no numbers out there at the moment but imagine if something like the above could do +20 HP (with TB mod included) and retain OEM drivability ???

Hmm ??


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> We could totally do it and it would be useful to those that are pushing the cars. But there are so few that would need/want it that I don't think it worthwhile for us to offer. This looks like a promising piece though! For those that don't know, alloy manifolds work just fine, street or track vehicles. The theoretical negatives aren't that significant in the real world and if properly designed the benefits far outweigh them. It's only been the last 10-15 years that some oems have been switching to plastic manifolds... and the main reason isn't heat. The air's ability to be heated by the walls of the manifold while traveling through is very very small, conversely the benefits in terms of flow , both volume and velocity is potentially huge.


I have to say i am a tune fanatic, meaning i love to expand a car's potential without actually pushing it too hard, simply by improving upon OEM design and function, something we all know isn't all that...efficient.

Forge has been at it with most of its products, like the wastegate, the DV, the catch can...
I can see a lot of potential in a K04 car with ported head, cams, improved manifold, larger TB.
I mean all we see is "slap that GT30 on your TFSI" cause that is simply the easier thing to do...
But just imagine a K04 car making 420 bhp using hardware that enhances the engines performance!!

But maybe i'm just being romantic...


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

GolfRS said:


> Well i wasn't thinking of this type of manifold but rather an OEM replacement flow tested to outflow the stock AND accept a larger throttle body while retaining flaps.
> 
> I'm pretty sure there is a HUGE crowd out there waiting for something like thios especially if it comes with Forge's quality and support. :thumbup:
> 
> ...


You do realize how much something you're asking for is likely to cost, right?

Consider fabricated manifolds like this *WITHOUT* throttle bodies and *WITHOUT* integrated flapper systems can cost in excess of $1500-$2000 in for similar 2.0L 4 cylinder applications. The complexity and associated costs to do it are too questionable right now.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> You do realize how much something you're asking for is likely to cost, right?
> 
> Consider fabricated manifolds like this *WITHOUT* throttle bodies and *WITHOUT* integrated flapper systems can cost in excess of $1500-$2000 in for similar 2.0L 4 cylinder applications. The complexity and associated costs to do it are too questionable right now.


Ehhh... :what:

Do you take Credit Cards ?? :laugh:

Damn...In the end i'm just gonna hack up my spare OEM manifold, mold it, and make my own....

Cheapest mod EVER...


----------



## blackvento36 (Mar 17, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Did you even read what I said:
> 
> *The OEM intake manifold is plastic which rarely gets hot. Metal on the other hand heats up and stays hot.*
> 
> ...


It's kind of funny that you post all this techincal information about Polyamide after saying 
"*The OEM intake manifold is plastic which rarely gets hot. Metal on the other hand heats up and stays hot.*" Which is such a broad statement and not even remotely relevent to anything. Not really a statement I would expect from a company that manufactures intercoolers. 

The only question that matters is how hot does a .128" thick (at the very most) aluminum tube stay with an awful lot of air rushing through it?

Hint: put your hand on any aluminum aftermarket intake after driving


----------



## DK_GTI_racer (Oct 4, 2007)

I think Arin posted that to show how low the thermal conductivity is with a polymide manifold, and well my own experince is for sure that on TFSI´s they stay "cool" - but the oem intake manifold on 1.8T is aluminum and they get really hot, the same with my APR intake manifold in aluminum, but as i said before you can get an power gasket that eliminates that heat condutivity - because its really the conductivity thats the problem, the head is aluminum which really gets hot and is the main reason why heat conducts to the intake manifold, this is how aluminum works.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

Truth is the use of aluminum is just for financial/cost reasons.

It's much easier for a company that already does alloy manufactured items to just weld a couple of tubes together (of course, size, positioning etc IS a matter of R&D) than to go out of its way and develop let's say a mold to use with resin or carbon fiber matterials...

Still i believe costs would probably even up with how easy it is to use molds once you are there instead of having to weld stuff together...

As i said one of my ideas was to cut my spare manifold in half, make a mold of the two parts, and then make adjustments to the mold to see how these effect flow...But i don't really have the time to spend on something like that so....


----------



## Runin2Rich4FSi (Sep 18, 2007)

I dont think that Arin came off the wrong way at all. he just gave some information that was factual.... 

Glad to see someone finally doing an intake mani though. Adds some bling to the bay for sure.  g/l with the progress.


----------



## blackvento36 (Mar 17, 2003)

GolfRS said:


> Truth is the use of aluminum is just for financial/cost reasons.
> 
> It's much easier for a company that already does alloy manufactured items to just weld a couple of tubes together (of course, size, positioning etc IS a matter of R&D) than to go out of its way and develop let's say a mold to use with resin or carbon fiber matterials...
> 
> ...


That's extremely oversimplifying it. You could pretty much blame just about anything on cost but you would never justify the amount of money it would take to produce a composite manifold for aftermarket. That's not ordinary plastic, you can't make a silicone mold and call it a day. It needs to be held at 500* for a couple days to cure after it's molded. If your gonna order 50,000 composite manifolds (like VW does), then you can justify the cost of a manifold that has a much higher setup cost, but doesn't require any post machining (lower production cost).

There's no benefit to a composite manifold whatsoever as far as performance is concerned. Carbon fiber reinforced polyamide is still slightly weaker than 6061-T6 aluminum. An aluminum manifold itself will only ever be as hot as the cylinder head itself is. Air doesn't sit in a manifold long enough to take the temperature of the manifold anyway. Not to mention the a composite manifold will almost always look like ass with all the reinforcement ribs that are required for strength.

BTW, you make it sound like that aluminum manifold was super easy to make. It's not just "welding a couple tubes together". I'm sure that head flange spent a couple hours on a mill. You can see in the one pic that the bottom was machined for injector clearance. The holes for the runners also had to be machined since they are oval and not round.


----------



## rippie74 (Sep 26, 2007)

Serrari said:


> I have a custom tune.


Custom Tune... That's BIG $$$


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)




----------



## DK_GTI_racer (Oct 4, 2007)

blackvento36 said:


> That's extremely oversimplifying it. You could pretty much blame just about anything on cost but you would never justify the amount of money it would take to produce a composite manifold for aftermarket. That's not ordinary plastic, you can't make a silicone mold and call it a day. It needs to be held at 500* for a couple days to cure after it's molded. If your gonna order 50,000 composite manifolds (like VW does), then you can justify the cost of a manifold that has a much higher setup cost, but doesn't require any post machining (lower production cost).
> 
> There's no benefit to a composite manifold whatsoever as far as performance is concerned. Carbon fiber reinforced polyamide is still slightly weaker than 6061-T6 aluminum. An aluminum manifold itself will only ever be as hot as the cylinder head itself is. Air doesn't sit in a manifold long enough to take the temperature of the manifold anyway. Not to mention the a composite manifold will almost always look like ass with all the reinforcement ribs that are required for strength.
> 
> BTW, you make it sound like that aluminum manifold was super easy to make. It's not just "welding a couple tubes together". I'm sure that head flange spent a couple hours on a mill. You can see in the one pic that the bottom was machined for injector clearance. The holes for the runners also had to be machined since they are oval and not round.


Why dont you run without an IC then? air does not stay in the piping very long either? you are right about the reason why Vw is using the material, but not about the hole heat vs aluminum dont matter - the colder your intake manifold and air inside will make the air more dense and fill the cylinders more. their is no doubt that if you make an aluminum intake manifold identical to the oem - the oem will after 10 dyno runs make more consistent powers. You can make more with a custom like build in this thread, without a doubt....But making a really power intake manifold needs to be engineered like APR did with the 1.8T´s. that intake manifold rocks all over the place  and as i statet before, you can sort the issues with heat at hand with a powergasket


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2005)

The piping doesn't transfer the heat, well not much, it's the intercooler that does that and with an order of several magnitudes more surface area it does a much better job at exchanging the heat over the piping it travels through to get there. You show me the logs that prove your point actually has merit and I'll back off. I have done real world testing of this on many occasions.... you won't see much difference all else being equal, and if you actually make the alloy intake manifold with the intended hp level and rpm range in mind the plastic oem won't even be close. If daily driven 300+ hp per liter cars can get away with alloy so can you.

There are cars that use plastic manifolds that have certain tuning or sensor placement that can exaggerate the "bad effects" of running an alloy manifold but that mostly comes down to poor choices or idiosyncrasies inherent to them or their engine management. 



DK_GTI_racer said:


> Why dont you run without an IC then? air does not stay in the piping very long either? you are right about the reason why Vw is using the material, but not about the hole heat vs aluminum dont matter - the colder your intake manifold and air inside will make the air more dense and fill the cylinders more. their is no doubt that if you make an aluminum intake manifold identical to the oem - the oem will after 10 dyno runs make more consistent powers. You can make more with a custom like build in this thread, without a doubt....But making a really power intake manifold needs to be engineered like APR did with the 1.8T´s. that intake manifold rocks all over the place  and as i statet before, you can sort the issues with heat at hand with a powergasket


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> I have to say i am a tune fanatic, meaning i love to expand a car's potential without actually pushing it too hard, simply by improving upon OEM design and function, something we all know isn't all that...efficient.
> 
> Forge has been at it with most of its products, like the wastegate, the DV, the catch can...
> I can see a lot of potential in a K04 car with ported head, cams, improved manifold, larger TB.
> ...


That would be nice for an AWD car but at the end of the day, all that low end power is gonna do is light the tires up. A laggier setup gives a more linear power delivery and you end up spinning way less.


----------



## mk6_myke (Jul 16, 2009)

LEWXCORE said:


> That would be nice for an AWD car but at the end of the day, all that low end power is gonna do is light the tires up. A laggier setup gives a more linear power delivery and you end up spinning way less.


:thumbup::thumbup: which is why a simple k04 swap is all thats needed!lol


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

At the end of the day, the single biggest difference between a composite manifold and a sheet metal one is simply the RATE of thermal conductivity.

Both materials will get equally as hot, and both will ultimately be regulated by coolant and ambient air temps primarily anyway. The sheet metal will just arrive at that peak temperature sooner than the composite material, and the composite material will cool down quicker. With the type of driving that the vast majority of people do with their cars with these types of modifications installed, that range of change is simply NOT great enough to realize an actual performance benefit with a composite manifold. By the time the engine heats up to operating temp, you have lost the opportunity for a "cool" manifold to do you any good.

And the temperature of the charge pressure entering the intake is dictated more by ambient temp., compression within the turbo, and the efficiency of the intercooler moreso than the millisecond it spends traveling through the throttle body and the intake manifold into the head. This is why cold air intakes and intercooler upgrades often have a calculated BENEFIT on performance, while you would be hard pressed to find any calculated DISADVANTAGE to running a sheet metal intake manifold in comparison to a composite unit.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

LEWXCORE said:


> That would be nice for an AWD car but at the end of the day, all that low end power is gonna do is light the tires up. A laggier setup gives a more linear power delivery and you end up spinning way less.


Actually...no...

The K04 has proven to be an amazing "all around" turbo with plenty of power through the powerband.

But where a turbo actually delivers that power can also be adjusted with proper cams,proper manifold, and proper tuning.

You don't need to make 1.40 € (1.40 € (400 ft))/lb torque down low to make 420 bhp up top...That can be adjusted...What also can be done is to have an OEM turbo making the same as a bigger non OEM turbo with slightly more stress simply by enhancing its efficiency and that of the engine as well.

As i said i am looking forward to an OEM K04 making 420+bhp with some new cool hardware to enhance it...


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

GolfRS said:


> Actually...no...
> 
> The K04 has proven to be an amazing "all around" turbo with plenty of power through the powerband.
> 
> ...


k04 is gonna drop off no matter what. K04 still starts running out of breath before 6k anyways. If you really wanna make less torque than hp at least go with a 2871r where it's realistic to make 450 WHP not BHP. Spending all that money on a k04 setup seems foolish to me plus I'd hate driving a FWD car with that much torque down low and then still leaves you feeling high and dry at the top of the rev band. One of my primary reasons for ditching the 3071r was that it came on too hard.. I wanted to get the car moving a bit while building boost so it wouldn't light up the fronts the way it did. To each his own but I think all that power under the curve chet is overrated. If you know how to stay in the powerband from gear to gear all you will ever need is 3,000 rpm of powerband. If serrari can get his 6262 at full boost by 5,000 and his flash tuner has enabled him to rev to 8,000 then he still has a good powerband to not fall out of boost between gears and is not going to be bad for a daily driver.

IMO making these modifications on a k04 equipped car is a waste of time and money. Use everything oem and make a better turbo choice and that will put your car where you want it.


----------



## blackvento36 (Mar 17, 2003)

DK_GTI_racer said:


> Why dont you run without an IC then? air does not stay in the piping very long either? you are right about the reason why Vw is using the material, but not about the hole heat vs aluminum dont matter - the colder your intake manifold and air inside will make the air more dense and fill the cylinders more. their is no doubt that if you make an aluminum intake manifold identical to the oem - the oem will after 10 dyno runs make more consistent powers. You can make more with a custom like build in this thread, without a doubt....But making a really power intake manifold needs to be engineered like APR did with the 1.8T´s. that intake manifold rocks all over the place  and as i statet before, you can sort the issues with heat at hand with a powergasket


 Um, you make no sense. The turbocharger itself is what creates the amount of heat that requires an intercooler, it has nothing to do with the piping. You can use piping made out of KY jelly, you're still gonna need that intercooler to reduce the air temp created by the *turbo*. 

It's funny that guys in this forum use W/M injection on an engine that uses fuel to cool the cylinders and you think a power gasket on an APR Moar Power!!! intake manifold would somehow be beneficial 

I have an idea........Why don't you calculate the surface area of the inside of an aluminum manifold like the one in this thread and the temp it's assumed to be, find out the thermal conductivity of air and the speed at which it moves through the manifold under boost. Now do the same for the stock manifold and I guarantee you that the difference in air temp to the cylinders wouldn't be worth the time it took me to explain to you why it doesn't make any ****ing difference


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

No flaps:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiSJI1WT7hs


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

What flaps you talking about? The four flaps in the intake runners?


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

sounds mean. 

id like to hear the start up after sitting over night and getting cold. park it in some place with AC or something and let it get chilly.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

Probably doesn't sound pretty.. Rs4 injectors alone make for wierd cold starts warm up.. I have my intake runner flaps out also, not a big deal.. Runs fine with no tuning changes.


----------



## Gctech Industries (Dec 12, 2008)

LEWXCORE said:


> What flaps you talking about? The four flaps in the intake runners?


 Yeah, someone had told me that it was rought at iddle witn no flaps but it just the same as before.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

Gctech Industries said:


> Yeah, someone had told me that it was rought at iddle witn no flaps but it just the same as before.


 Yeah I got the flaps out also and idle is fine it's just the cold start that's rough but i don't think it has much to do with the flaps.


----------



## dan the welder (Mar 7, 2006)

lots of nice little details on that manifold. 

and the video is awesome!!


----------



## _leo_ (May 21, 2005)

am i the only oen that thinks that looks ugly?? and the inside of it looks liek there would be alot more drag and resistance from the crappy machining and welding. 

the factory maifold is a solid design with the tb placed in the middle rather then on the end, gettign air to each bank is much easier and free flowing. 

let us know how it preforms


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

_leo_ said:


> am i the only oen that thinks that looks ugly?? and the inside of it looks liek there would be alot more drag and resistance from the crappy machining and welding.
> 
> the factory maifold is a solid design with the tb placed in the middle rather then on the end, gettign air to each bank is much easier and free flowing.
> 
> let us know how it preforms


 Hi Leo, 

I don't think it looks ugly at all! Indeed it doesn't look as a crappy machining and the welding must be like that, It you try to smooth the surface where it's weld, you would probably break the welding and have a leak of air! 

Cheers, 

Beto


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

_leo_ said:


> the factory maifold is a solid design with the tb placed in the middle rather then on the end, gettign air to each bank is much easier and free flowing.
> 
> let us know how it preforms


 It was designed for K03-k04 boost pressure NOT BT boost espec the turbo the OP is using at that point the intake and TB will be come a restriction. 

IMO the center TB in its OEM location without alot of change in design is going to be a challenge with airflow balancing your tight space there makes things limited . 

The OP manifold with TB on drivers side TB have been used for years in all platforms. 

Here a link below comparing Intake manifolds from back in the day when vortex tech section had alot passion not all ads and questions " why is my BOV not making noise anymore " LOL Bob.G 

http://www.elitedubs.com/index.php/topic,2275.0.html 

http://www.elitedubs.com/index.php/topic,2743.0.html


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

_leo_ said:


> am i the only oen that thinks that looks ugly?? and the inside of it looks liek there would be alot more drag and resistance from the crappy machining and welding.
> 
> the factory maifold is a solid design with the tb placed in the middle rather then on the end, gettign air to each bank is much easier and free flowing.
> 
> let us know how it preforms


 I'm not too sure I completely agree with this. Bob G makes a compelling point. There's more than meets the eye when having a TB placed in the center while increasing boost pressure and flow. It seems placing the TB in center would be ideal; it's how TB entry is designed and executed for such parameters that would make it ideal - The OEM design for this application, not so much


----------



## bostonaudi1 (May 14, 2006)

rracerguy717 said:


> It was designed for K03-k04 boost pressure NOT BT boost espec the turbo the OP is using at that point the intake and TB will be come a restriction.
> 
> IMO the center TB in its OEM location without alot of change in design is going to be a challenge with airflow balancing your tight space there makes things limited .
> 
> ...


 My browsers are warning this site is serving up malware. 

Some of the comments in this thread are amusing, some want more lag to even out the torque curve? VW's designs aren't efficient? I think VW has done pretty well, a 2.0T making as much power as a V8 used to, and getting 33 mpg with a flat torque curve from 1800 to nearly redline ain't too shabby (actually we can thank Audi for the engineering). VW never intended this motor to make 450 hp with a flat torque curve, its not even possible. If you want that, buy a car that came out that way from the factory (Vette etc.). 

Seems the stock intake manifold isn't doing badly when APR and others can reliably reach 350+ hp. There is a teaser stage 4 video posted by APR of the car climbing to an indicated 180mph at a rather insane pace with stock intake manifold. The key is getting the exhaust out smoothly and without restriction - the intake air is being rammed in. I don't think just opening up a big hole is the answer either, torque and response will be effected. I'll be curious to see if this effort has any merit though, IMO there are plenty of good gains available with stock intake man up to current fueling capacity.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

bostonaudi1 said:


> My browsers are warning this site is serving up malware.
> 
> Some of the comments in this thread are amusing, some want more lag to even out the torque curve? VW's designs aren't efficient? I think VW has done pretty well, a 2.0T making as much power as a V8 used to, and getting 33 mpg with a flat torque curve from 1800 to nearly redline ain't too shabby (actually we can thank Audi for the engineering). VW never intended this motor to make 450 hp with a flat torque curve, its not even possible. If you want that, buy a car that came out that way from the factory (Vette etc.).
> 
> Seems the stock intake manifold isn't doing badly when APR and others can reliably reach 350+ hp. There is a teaser stage 4 video posted by APR of the car climbing to an indicated 180mph at a rather insane pace with stock intake manifold. The key is getting the exhaust out smoothly and without restriction - the intake air is being rammed in. I don't think just opening up a big hole is the answer either, torque and response will be effected. I'll be curious to see if this effort has any merit though, IMO there are plenty of good gains available with stock intake man up to current fueling capacity.


 Its like any other mod in pur cars, I am sure you can get decent numbers with the stock exhaust, or the stock intake, but you can always upgrade to get better numbers more easy.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2005)

Or more importantly "TUNE" the car for the hp range and intended use, much like vw did when they designed the components used on the ~200 hp engine as delivered. Those assuming that vw designed the engine with the best possible components for all situations, hp levels and usage are surely new to cars and tuning or just delusional. 



Serrari said:


> Its like any other mod in pur cars, I am sure you can get decent numbers with the stock exhaust, or the stock intake, but you can always upgrade to get better numbers more easy.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

bostonaudi1 said:


> My browsers are warning this site is serving up malware.
> 
> Some of the comments in this thread are amusing, some want more lag to even out the torque curve? VW's designs aren't efficient? I think VW has done pretty well, a 2.0T making as much power as a V8 used to, and getting 33 mpg with a flat torque curve from 1800 to nearly redline ain't too shabby (actually we can thank Audi for the engineering). VW never intended this motor to make 450 hp with a flat torque curve, its not even possible. If you want that, buy a car that came out that way from the factory (Vette etc.).
> 
> Seems the stock intake manifold isn't doing badly when APR and others can reliably reach 350+ hp. There is a teaser stage 4 video posted by APR of the car climbing to an indicated 180mph at a rather insane pace with stock intake manifold. The key is getting the exhaust out smoothly and without restriction - the intake air is being rammed in. I don't think just opening up a big hole is the answer either, torque and response will be effected. I'll be curious to see if this effort has any merit though, IMO there are plenty of good gains available with stock intake man up to current fueling capacity.


 Vw's design is fine for the car's intended use...but even then, it's sub-par when compared to the competition. Chevy, mazda, subaru, etc all have similar platforms with DI that way outperform our fsi's. You've stepped into a forum that is completely tuner-influenced and alot of us want as much hp as possible and to go fast. A laggier turbo results in more linear POWER DELIVERY.... these are FWD cars. The torque spike at 2300 as delivered by let's say a k04 turbo that has been tuned to maximum boost pressure at low rpm's (making let's say 300whp and 340wtq) tends to spin tires way more than a big turbo car making 500whp and 380wtq because the big turbo car takes a second or two to build boost from low rpm's whereas the oem-equipped car instantly makes all the best power in it's power curve almost immediately after you hit the throttle. That's my argument. Plus it's nice to keep make power till you hit the rev limiter and not run out of breath. I guess it depends what "seems" most efficient to you? A motor that makes way less power at 7,000 rpm's than at 4,000 or one that starts making it's good power at 4,000 and keeps it all the way to your 7,200 limit.


----------



## _leo_ (May 21, 2005)

i agree most cars have had the TB on the driver side, mainly i think this reasoning is for the fact that coming off the intercooler from this side requires less bends, but at the same time it has to make a tight bend back into the head once it comes into the intake manifold. it is a tight space to bring the TB into the center of the manifold but my opinion is there is less flow restriction, the tubing allows for a much smoother flow over the what the intake manifold may have. 

i haven't acturally dome my own test results so i can't exactly say this way is better, its just my opinion o nthis subject, and i was maily commenting on the look and the smoothness of the inner machining of the manifold.


----------



## bostonaudi1 (May 14, 2006)

LEWXCORE said:


> Vw's design is fine for the car's intended use...but even then, it's sub-par when compared to the competition. Chevy, mazda, subaru, etc all have similar platforms with DI that way outperform our fsi's. You've stepped into a forum that is completely tuner-influenced and alot of us want as much hp as possible and to go fast. A laggier turbo results in more linear POWER DELIVERY.... these are FWD cars. The torque spike at 2300 as delivered by let's say a k04 turbo that has been tuned to maximum boost pressure at low rpm's (making let's say 300whp and 340wtq) tends to spin tires way more than a big turbo car making 500whp and 380wtq because the big turbo car takes a second or two to build boost from low rpm's whereas the oem-equipped car instantly makes all the best power in it's power curve almost immediately after you hit the throttle. That's my argument. Plus it's nice to keep make power till you hit the rev limiter and not run out of breath. I guess it depends what "seems" most efficient to you? A motor that makes way less power at 7,000 rpm's than at 4,000 or one that starts making it's good power at 4,000 and keeps it all the way to your 7,200 limit.


 Appreciate your points, but the solution to spinning tires is more lag? LSD, better tires and quattro might help you more. A fwd GTI is not the best candidate for huge power. Lag will not result in a more linear power delivery, it will result in a delay of onset of power (by definition), then the tires spin at 3500 rather than 2400 rpm. I think the smaller BT's make awesome power in a balanced way (like the K04 or 2871). But if lag and huge power are your goal, that's fine. Having run a BT with lag in the past, its not hard to be looking at the taillights of a Honda minivan at a stoplight go! I found I had to work the motor more, and it just became annoying after a while having no power until 3500 rpm and then all hell cut loose. 

In any case, will read with interest to see what sort of gains can be made with a new manifold, and how the power over the entire rpm range is effected, up or down.


----------



## _leo_ (May 21, 2005)

bostonaudi1 said:


> Appreciate your points, but the solution to spinning tires is more lag? *LSD, better tires* and quattro might help you more. A fwd GTI is not the best candidate for huge power. Lag will not result in a more linear power delivery, it will result in a delay of onset of power (by definition), then the tires spin at 3500 rather than 2400 rpm. I think the smaller BT's make awesome power in a balanced way (like the K04 or 2871). But if lag and huge power are your goal, that's fine. Having run a BT with lag in the past, its not hard to be looking at the taillights of a Honda minivan at a stoplight go! I found I had to work the motor more, and it just became annoying after a while having no power until 3500 rpm and then all hell cut loose.
> 
> In any case, will read with interest to see what sort of gains can be made with a new manifold, and how the power over the entire rpm range is effected, up or down.


 but really how much does the LSD really help. it mainly balances the power between both wheels rather then having more power on one side. you'd still spin the wheels like a mad man


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

Don R said:


> I'm not too sure I completely agree with this. Bob G makes a compelling point. There's more than meets the eye when having a TB placed in the center while increasing boost pressure and flow. * It seems placing the TB in center would be ideal; it's how TB entry is designed and executed for such parameters that would make it ideal - The OEM design for this application, not so much*


 Like Don said ,here is what a ideal center entry intake manifold , but because of tight package space in our 2L FSI engine compartment its not gonna happen like this example. 

The pic below is custom built by Ed's @ FFE for his race car  Bob.G


----------



## Banned 4 Life (Jan 25, 2007)

bostonaudi1 said:


> Appreciate your points, but the solution to spinning tires is more lag? LSD, better tires and quattro might help you more. A fwd GTI is not the best candidate for huge power. *Lag will not result in a more linear power delivery, it will result in a delay of onset of power *(by definition), then the tires spin at 3500 rather than 2400 rpm. I think the smaller BT's make awesome power in a balanced way (like the K04 or 2871). But if lag and huge power are your goal, that's fine. Having run a BT with lag in the past, its not hard to be looking at the taillights of a Honda minivan at a stoplight go! I found I had to work the motor more, and it just became annoying after a while having no power until 3500 rpm and then all hell cut loose.
> 
> In any case, will read with interest to see what sort of gains can be made with a new manifold, and how the power over the entire rpm range is effected, up or down.


 Ummm Lewxcore is dead on here, and if you ever really owned a BT car you would understand this. One breaking loose at 3500rpm is not going to happen with a gt28/30 maybe more like around 4600-5000 rpm, the whole point of a larger turbine wheel is to lsow down the offset of max boost, why on earth would you want 350-500hp at 2400rpm and nothing at 6000-7000rpm, the car is either spinning of the line or launhing like a mofo, then halfway down the strip or on hwy pulls its got nothing left. a gt28 is a totally different beast than a KO4, night and day difference. KO4 is OEM on roids, GT28 and up is like driving a totally different car. what you are also neglecting to keep in mind is that volumetrically a gt28 at 12psi is pushing way more ccfm or air than your peashooter KO3 or even a KO4, linear power is the goal, its the whole turtle and hare story. Great the rabbit got off to a great start then burned himself out like KO4 and had to rest while the turtle went a constant linear pace and beat his stupid ass to the line.


----------



## bostonaudi1 (May 14, 2006)

_leo_ said:


> but really how much does the LSD really help. it mainly balances the power between both wheels rather then having more power on one side. you'd still spin the wheels like a mad man


 I have a wavetrac lsd in my Mk5, its helps a lot, but definitely not cure-all. First can still spin like mad man, but by 2nd its getting hooked up (rather than spinning even into 3rd). Having 245-40-17's helps too. With awd though, nearly the sky is the limit for power. Drive a powerful awd car and you may soil yourself (get a ride in a 997 turbo or turbo r32).


----------



## Banned 4 Life (Jan 25, 2007)

[/QUOTE] 

OMG!!! I think I just mini puked in my mouth, that is just nasty!! is that a GT35 or 40?? That snail is HUGE!!


----------



## _leo_ (May 21, 2005)

bostonaudi1 said:


> I have a wavetrac lsd in my Mk5, its helps a lot, but definitely not cure-all. First can still spin like mad man, but by 2nd its getting hooked up (rather than spinning even into 3rd). Having 245-40-17's helps too. With awd though, nearly the sky is the limit for power. Drive a powerful awd car and you may soil yourself (get a ride in a 997 turbo or turbo r32).


 awd thats for sure, they stick like they are glued to the road. i worked wit ha guy with a 05 forester hopped up, he claims hes close to 400 horse which i find hard to believe, but there is no wheel spin when he launches


----------



## bostonaudi1 (May 14, 2006)

Banned 4 Life said:


> Ummm Lewxcore is dead on here, and if you ever really owned a BT car you would understand this. One breaking loose at 3500rpm is not going to happen with a gt28/30 maybe more like around 4600-5000 rpm, the whole point of a larger turbine wheel is to lsow down the offset of max boost, why on earth would you want 350-500hp at 2400rpm and nothing at 6000-7000rpm, the car is either spinning of the line or launhing like a mofo, then halfway down the strip or on hwy pulls its got nothing left. a gt28 is a totally different beast than a KO4, night and day difference. KO4 is OEM on roids, GT28 and up is like driving a totally different car. what you are also neglecting to keep in mind is that volumetrically a gt28 at 12psi is pushing way more ccfm or air than your peashooter KO3 or even a KO4, linear power is the goal, its the whole turtle and hare story. Great the rabbit got off to a great start then burned himself out like KO4 and had to rest while the turtle went a constant linear pace and beat his stupid ass to the line.


 I think we all can agree linear power is good. No one wants 400 hp at idle and nothing up top, we want 400 hp from start to finish. Torque curves for any BT I've seen posted are not linear, but they don't have the big peak at low rpm for sure, they just start making the power more gradually. I've built several BT cars, not a Mk5 though. 

I think to reel back a bit, has anyone actually measured pressure drop through the intake system? Is that why there is interest in a re-worked intake manifold?


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

rracerguy717 said:


> Like Don said ,here is what a ideal center entry intake manifold , but because of tight package space in our 2L FSI engine compartment its not gonna happen like this example.
> 
> The pic below is custom built by Ed's @ FFE for his race car  Bob.G


 Thank You Bob. Perfect example :thumbup: 

I spin in 2nd and 3rd at around 6000 rpm on my HTA86R @ only 14 psi using a TDI Tranny...not fun


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

bump.

any flow numbers or dyno time?


----------



## Gctech Industries (Dec 12, 2008)

Krieger said:


> bump.
> 
> any flow numbers or dyno time?



waiting on the tuner (I wish there was a software available to tune this ecu's) he sent one file so far street tune @20psi 93 octane pulls very nice but we only getting 12* final 0 knock we can still up the timing but we are tight up in a chair waiting for new files,we plan to take a dyno trip in 10 days , we tested the car also a 28psi 93+meth/water pulls really fast moves side to side scary!!
while we wait I fab up a 3.5" Turbo Intake and we got the new garrett 4.5 inch thick cooler we were falling short on the precision unit. 

we keep u posted ....


----------



## BETOGLI (Jul 15, 2010)

Gctech Industries said:


> waiting on the tuner (I wish there was a software available to tune this ecu's) he sent one file so far street tune @20psi 93 octane pulls very nice but we only getting 12* final 0 knock we can still up the timing but we are tight up in a chair waiting for new files,we plan to take a dyno trip in 10 days , we tested the car also a 28psi 93+meth/water pulls really fast moves side to side scary!!
> while we wait I fab up a 3.5" Turbo Intake and we got the new garrett 4.5 inch thick cooler we were falling short on the precision unit.
> 
> we keep u posted ....


This sounds awesome... Waiting from news from you guys!

Cheers,

Beto


----------



## bostonaudi1 (May 14, 2006)

Krieger said:


> bump.
> 
> any flow numbers or dyno time?


What you also want to see are reductions in pressure drop, which would ostensibly be the reason for a new intake manifold/TB (I'm dusting off old flow dynamics memory here).

Get a differential pressure gauge, measure pressure at turbo outlet, and at intake manifold. If the custom manifold/larger TB are flowing better, there should be less drop/better flow/lower intake temps, more hp . A T off the wastegate line should suffice for one end, and intake manifold not hard to tap (most of us already have boost gauges). This would tell you if the development of the intake manifold/TB is going in the right/wrong direction way before the expense and hassle of a dyno. 

It would be quite interesting to measure this with a BT and the stock TB/manifold to see if there really is significant pressure drop, and obviously to get your baseline. Then measure again with new manifold/TB. If there is excessive drop, it means the turbo has to work extra hard to get boost to where you want it, wasting hp and generating higher inlet temps, and your efforts with man/TB should pay off if less restrictive.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2005)

True!





bostonaudi1 said:


> What you also want to see are reductions in pressure drop, which would ostensibly be the reason for a new intake manifold/TB (I'm dusting off old flow dynamics memory here).
> 
> Get a differential pressure gauge, measure pressure at turbo outlet, and at intake manifold. If the custom manifold/larger TB are flowing better, there should be less drop/better flow/lower intake temps, more hp . A T off the wastegate line should suffice for one end, and intake manifold not hard to tap (most of us already have boost gauges). This would tell you if the development of the intake manifold/TB is going in the right/wrong direction way before the expense and hassle of a dyno.
> 
> It would be quite interesting to measure this with a BT and the stock TB/manifold to see if there really is significant pressure drop, and obviously to get your baseline. Then measure again with new manifold/TB. If there is excessive drop, it means the turbo has to work extra hard to get boost to where you want it, wasting hp and generating higher inlet temps, and your efforts with man/TB should pay off.


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> True!


Then you have to find where the best spot for the MAP sensor , its always a moving target LOL 

With this cars setup im surprised the MAP sensor wasnt relocated into the intake plenum,because in the factory pipe location alot of other factors come into play like intercooling pipe dia and length, any other restriction up and down stream like intercooler ,TB , etc . 
With the MAP in the intake manifold it would even out any boost spike that maybe caused , that will drive the ECU crazy and pull back power for sure . Bob.G


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2005)

rracerguy717 said:


> Then you have to find where the best spot for the MAP sensor , its always a moving target LOL
> 
> With this cars setup im surprised the MAP sensor wasnt relocated into the intake plenum,because in the factory pipe location alot of other factors come into play like intercooling pipe dia and length, any other restriction up and down stream like intercooler ,TB , etc .
> With the MAP in the intake manifold it would even out any boost spike that maybe caused , that will drive the ECU crazy and pull back power for sure . Bob.G


----------



## CoNGLoMeRaTeGTi (Apr 4, 2007)

Banned 4 Life said:


>


OMG!!! I think I just mini puked in my mouth, that is just nasty!! is that a GT35 or 40?? That snail is HUGE!![/QUOTE]



much larger than a 35 or 40.

its a PTE large frame. has like 100mm compressor wheel.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> The caveat being, I'm not sure exactly how much of an offsetting gain up top this may provide when you consider there will likely be somewhat of a torque loss down low having removed the flapper system.





LEWXCORE said:


> Probably doesn't sound pretty.. Rs4 injectors alone make for wierd cold starts warm up.. I have my intake runner flaps out also, not a big deal.. Runs fine with no tuning changes.





Gctech Industries said:


> Yeah, someone had told me that it was rought at iddle witn no flaps but it just the same as before.





LEWXCORE said:


> Yeah I got the flaps out also and idle is fine it's just the cold start that's rough but i don't think it has much to do with the flaps.


So the flappers are basically just used to adjust the torque curve and are not a necessary engine component? I hav ebeen working on a direct port w/m setup on my TSI motor and have been contemplating idea for the flappers. I might just disconnect the actuating arm that controls the flappers, set the flappers to "open" and go for a spin and see how it performs compared to stock.

Subscribed!

Annnnnnnnnnnd bump for updates. Glad to finally see a custom intake manifold on a 2.0T MKV GTI :thumbup:


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> So the flappers are basically just used to adjust the torque curve and are not a necessary engine component? I hav ebeen working on a direct port w/m setup on my TSI motor and have been contemplating idea for the flappers. I might just disconnect the actuating arm that controls the flappers, set the flappers to "open" and go for a spin and see how it performs compared to stock.


My understanding is that the flappers are closed to a given degree (not completely) at low(er) RPM's to restrict airflow slightly which helps low end torque. As RPM's climb, the flappers open fully to increase airflow to allow for max power output.

I theory, removing them or forcing them open entirely will likely sacrifice some low end torque, but shouldn't really negatively impact peak power too much, if at all. It's just a matter of where you want your power band. Obviously _most_ people "prefer" the broadest/usable power curve they can get, but that's not always necessarily the ideal thing for each situation, and why the development of this piece isn't a bad thing as some would have you believe.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> So the flappers are basically just used to adjust the torque curve and are not a necessary engine component? I hav ebeen working on a direct port w/m setup on my TSI motor and have been contemplating idea for the flappers. I might just disconnect the actuating arm that controls the flappers, set the flappers to "open" and go for a spin and see how it performs compared to stock.



The tumbler flaps are there to promote the tumbling effect needed for direct injection engines in low load situations especially after cold start. Simply removing them will cause some pretty crappy cold starts. I'm not speaking about just starting the car but the actual operation of the vehicle after starting the car on a cold engine. With no tuning changes (and even with some) you'll likely hate the car till it warms up. Put your foot down and try to cruise around at low speeds and the car will stumble when it's cold. If you have a drag car or a race car, you can deal with that, but if you have a daily driver and need to jump in it at a moments notice, you may not be happy. 

Basically the flaps are closing at low load levels which will so air flows to the top of the intake port valve and direct air to the back of the cylinder wall which will cause the tumbling effect as it swirls around in the cylinder. Fuel is injected homogeneously directly at the swirling air which will help promote a proper mixture and a clean burn. 

In high load situations this is not needed. The flaps will open all the way.


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

rracerguy717 said:


> Then you have to find where the best spot for the MAP sensor , its always a moving target LOL
> 
> With this cars setup im surprised the MAP sensor wasnt relocated into the intake plenum,because in the factory pipe location alot of other factors come into play like intercooling pipe dia and length, any other restriction up and down stream like intercooler ,TB , etc .
> With the MAP in the intake manifold it would even out any boost spike that maybe caused , that will drive the ECU crazy and pull back power for sure . Bob.G



Are you referring to the OPs car and the location of the boost reference sensor... 2.0ts don't have a map sensor so how can you relocate something it doesn't have 

Installing the boost reference sensor in the intake manifold would then make it a map sensor and would require a boat load of work in order to get it to work correctly as it is not meant to work with the current system and show the level of vacuum that would be present in the intake manifold. 

Location overall is not as critical as you are making it out to be. Remeber it is JUST a boost reference sensor. As long as it is tuned for accordingly and not moved after it was tuned then there would be no issue at all with spikes or any other inconsistent boost levels. Again not knowing the details chances are this setup will be running a manual boost controller anyway making it less vital. 

Lets assume the plan is to use the N75 to control boost and retain for arguments sake a stock 2.5 bar absolute boost reference sensor. If a target boost level of 2.4 bar is the goal (we'll stay under so we ensure it is reading something and not maxing) on your gauge reading from the manifold and the reference sensor is placed before the TB there may be some pressure change in the intake manifold vs the IC pipe but it will be minimal (this assumes WOT). Even this minimal difference is not going to cause for a spike simply due to location.

If you are assuming that there is a drop in pressure into the manifold then the reference sensor in the IC pipe pre TB would read higher boost sooner. This will cause the ecu to start to control boost sooner and would actually reduce the chance of a spike. If you are assuming there is an increase in pressure in the manifold and the reference sensor is located pre TB in the IC pipe so it would never see this increase and that is the cause of the spike, it would in theory be an issue but in reality is not or more accurately no more an issue then the former in regards to tuning. 

Think about most simple aftermarket electronic boost controllers, if you understand how they work think about how much more complex our ecus are and why this would never be an issue for them. With these simple aftermarket controllers they often have a boost sensor of some sort which yes is often placed in the intake manifold. But most are actually getting their boost signal for the solenoid and wastegate as close to the turbo as possible since this is the highest boost pressure, there has been no drop across an IC or into an intake manifold yet. The controller has no idea what that actual pressure is, the only reason it has even a reference point for the manifold is so it has an idea WHEN to control it but not how or what the heck it is even doing. You'll start by setting a duty cycle with a start point for the desired boost level, in some cases there isn't even that manifold input and you are working with the duty cycle from 0 boost. There is also a gain feature, this gain is the key part as to why placement doesn't matter. If you know what your wastegate spring pressure is and you know what your target boost is you are simply balancing this overall desired wastegate duty pressure to maintain your 2.4 absolute on your gauge and you are using the gain to control that spike.

Take this back to the ecu in this application controlling things. Yes there is a desired boost level, but really the car is shooting for a target load and power output and it just happens to use boost in our case to get there. Depending on how it was tuned if you can achieve the same power on less boost then the ecu only cares about that, making what it is requesting for boost more important then we think. Lets however assume that tuning is being done for straight boost levels and your goal was this 2.4 bar absolute. The tuner is taking an unknown turbo, unkonw charge pipe volumne, unknown plenum volume, unknown response time of the turbo, unknown IC volume, unknown load on the engine since that will vary even with what street you are on. They have to take all this into consideration and tune for your desired 2.4 bar absolute on your gauge in the car that you want to see. They'll need to plan for how they think it will ramp up boost and it doesn't matter then if the sensor is in the manifold or in the IC pipe it will have to be adjusted. Trying to hit a target 2.4 bar in the intake manifold will cause the same spikes or flat spots and issues as it would if it was placed right at the turbo or right before the TB until it is tuned for in that specific application. The only time placement would be of concern is when it was intially being tuned, and you'll have adjustments to make either speeding up response of the N75 or slowing it down no matter where it is located. Bringing it back to our engine management and tuning though moving it to the intake manifold would require tons and tons of work just to get the car to idle right and move under its own power. The mapping is not written for the sensor to be under vacuum as it would be in the intake manifold vs its placement in the IC pipe pre tb. Adjusting for too fast or too slow boost response would be required no matter what placement, so why add the work of tuning just to get the car to idle when it will just fine with stock pre TB placement. 


Now I say specific application and before anyone goes this is why you need custom tunes blah blah blah. It is not THAT specific, once a tuner has a general idea of how the boost is going to work and what it takes to control a given turbo on your average setup that is all they need. Dialing in that boost specifically isn't going to mean squat of a difference in regards to needing a custom tune or even making another single more hp. If you are that concerned with boost and it being specific and custom never drive your car on anyday that conditions didn't 100% match the day it was tuned since even your custom tune one be precise day to day. The ability for these ecus to adapt is why we don't require custom tuning there is enough adaptation that allows for these variances. A car properly tuned on an N75 will make more consistent power and boost then someone running a boost controller.


----------



## [email protected] USA (May 17, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> The tumbler flaps are there to promote the tumbling effect needed for direct injection engines in low load situations especially after cold start. Simply removing them will cause some pretty crappy cold starts. I'm not speaking about just starting the car but the actual operation of the vehicle after starting the car on a cold engine. With no tuning changes (and even with some) you'll likely hate the car till it warms up. Put your foot down and try to cruise around at low speeds and the car will stumble when it's cold. If you have a drag car or a race car, you can deal with that, but if you have a daily driver and need to jump in it at a moments notice, you may not be happy.
> 
> Basically the flaps are closing at low load levels which will so air flows to the top of the intake port valve and direct air to the back of the cylinder wall which will cause the tumbling effect as it swirls around in the cylinder. Fuel is injected homogeneously directly at the swirling air which will help promote a proper mixture and a clean burn.
> 
> In high load situations this is not needed. The flaps will open all the way.


Since we have been agreeing a lot lately I'm going to have to second this 

From personal experience on my car I have noticed all of these issues running no intake flap or head dividers. There is a chart somewhere floating around from a training manual that basically shows the flaps are in the level position (not forcing air over the divider only) at rpms at anything above basically idle and certain load levels that would be above an idle once the engine is warmed up. It is slightly more active when cold which is why you will notice drivability issues when the engine is first started and during the early parts of your drive. Once up to temp they really seem to only be active at idle but even arm doesn't seem to affect idle. 

One thing that was noticed on my car, more so by others and no myself since I had become accustomed to it which really doesn't entirely makes sense and I never fully looked into it was the transition from decel back onto the throttle or even simply slowly changing gears. By looking into it I mean I never actually checked to see in those situations of the flappers were trying to be activated. Without the flaps installed there was a slight flat spot when getting back on the the throttle. According to the one well known chart the flaps should not have been operating at these rpm levels but the chart may not have applied to a decel fuel situation which you would have between shifts for a second. IT was nothing crazy or bothersome just several people noted this flat spot during the times I had no flaps when compared to other cars known to have flaps.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

rracerguy717 said:


> Then you have to find where the best spot for the MAP sensor , its always a moving target LOL
> 
> With this cars setup im surprised the MAP sensor wasnt relocated into the intake plenum,because in the factory pipe location alot of other factors come into play like intercooling pipe dia and length, any other restriction up and down stream like intercooler ,TB , etc .
> With the MAP in the intake manifold it would even out any boost spike that maybe caused , that will drive the ECU crazy and pull back power for sure . Bob.G


FWIW the MAP is modeled in the ECU since the ECU knows the size of the factory manifold and throttle body as well as the position of the flappers and throttle position (basically, anything which will raise pressure at the pressure sensor opening or closing) . It would seem changing the size of the throttle and intake manifold would throw these models off to some degree.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

Thanks Arin, Chris, and Mike.
This is exactly what I wanted to know! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## EL_3grab (Mar 25, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> The tumbler flaps are there to promote the tumbling effect needed for direct injection engines in low load situations especially after cold start. Simply removing them will cause some pretty crappy cold starts. I'm not speaking about just starting the car but the actual operation of the vehicle after starting the car on a cold engine. With no tuning changes (and even with some) you'll likely hate the car till it warms up. Put your foot down and try to cruise around at low speeds and the car will stumble when it's cold. If you have a drag car or a race car, you can deal with that, but if you have a daily driver and need to jump in it at a moments notice, you may not be happy.
> 
> Basically the flaps are closing at low load levels which will so air flows to the top of the intake port valve and direct air to the back of the cylinder wall which will cause the tumbling effect as it swirls around in the cylinder. Fuel is injected homogeneously directly at the swirling air which will help promote a proper mixture and a clean burn.
> 
> In high load situations this is not needed. The flaps will open all the way.





[email protected] said:


> Since we have been agreeing a lot lately I'm going to have to second this
> 
> From personal experience on my car I have noticed all of these issues running no intake flap or head dividers. There is a chart somewhere floating around from a training manual that basically shows the flaps are in the level position (not forcing air over the divider only) at rpms at anything above basically idle and certain load levels that would be above an idle once the engine is warmed up. It is slightly more active when cold which is why you will notice drivability issues when the engine is first started and during the early parts of your drive. Once up to temp they really seem to only be active at idle but even arm doesn't seem to affect idle.
> 
> One thing that was noticed on my car, more so by others and no myself since I had become accustomed to it which really doesn't entirely makes sense and I never fully looked into it was the transition from decel back onto the throttle or even simply slowly changing gears. By looking into it I mean I never actually checked to see in those situations of the flappers were trying to be activated. Without the flaps installed there was a slight flat spot when getting back on the the throttle. According to the one well known chart the flaps should not have been operating at these rpm levels but the chart may not have applied to a decel fuel situation which you would have between shifts for a second. IT was nothing crazy or bothersome just several people noted this flat spot during the times I had no flaps when compared to other cars known to have flaps.


Exactly what I'm experiencing here .. http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4981548

It's not really a big issue for BT guys, as I said its only a problem when you're in boost and the engine isn't warmed up yet

:thumbup:


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> FWIW the MAP is modeled in the ECU since the ECU knows the size of the factory manifold and throttle body as well as the position of the flappers and throttle position (basically, anything which will raise pressure at the pressure sensor opening or closing) . It would seem changing the size of the throttle and intake manifold would throw these models off to some degree.


Ok so this modeling discribed above is also based on airflow/pressure that the ko3 is putting out ? not 2871 or lets say anyother BT? That alone has to change the OEM modeling number no?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

rracerguy717 said:


> Ok so this modeling discribed above is also based on airflow/pressure that the ko3 is putting out ? not 2871 or lets say anyother BT? That alone has to change the OEM modeling number no?


I don't think so. It just measures the pressure at the sensor, then calculates the manifold absolute pressure based on variables such as temp, throttle angle, size of the throttle opening, manifold size, etc.


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> I don't think so. It just measures the pressure at the sensor, then calculates the manifold absolute pressure based on variables such as temp, throttle angle, size of the throttle opening, manifold size, etc.


Maybe its just measuring differential pressure ? 

Based on all those variables that might be the best thing like many flow bench use . Bob.G


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

My new direct port meth system:


----------



## Forge US (Jul 31, 2002)

Nice! :thumbup:


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

Why not just add fuel injectors? Meth is good and all but id rather run e85.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

Unless you angled the bungs, it seems as if all the spray would be collected on the opposite side of the runner.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

IMAN973 said:


> Why not just add fuel injectors? Meth is good and all but id rather run e85.


I am getting the fuel I need with ethanol, was running 3 knozzles before and no issues at 32psi, ran out of fuel at 22psi with just the RS4s.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

crew219 said:


> Unless you angled the bungs, it seems as if all the spray would be collected on the opposite side of the runner.


Thats the way the picture was taken, the knozzles are centered.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

Serrari said:


> Thats the way the picture was taken, the knozzles are centered.


I meant angled towards the valves instead of being perpendicular to the runner face.


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

crew219 said:


> I meant angled towards the valves instead of being perpendicular to the runner face.


They where installed that way because the part of the intake manifold is at a higher point than the runners, so gravity and pressure should do the job.


----------



## ViRtUaLheretic (Aug 17, 2008)

Thats awesome!
Pretty much exactly what I would like to build.
Im currently working on a spare stock Intake Manifold and making a direct port injection setup :thumbup:

What size nozzles are you going to use?
.75gallon/hr or 1gallon/hr ?


----------



## Serrari (Jun 29, 2008)

ViRtUaLheretic said:


> Thats awesome!
> Pretty much exactly what I would like to build.
> Im currently working on a spare stock Intake Manifold and making a direct port injection setup :thumbup:
> 
> ...


I am using Coolingmist new CM10 knozzle, 800cc/min[email protected] each.


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

Gctech Industries said:


> It would if it was the stock one , but we are using the stock bored to 65mm that will be enough for now the plan is to use one from a porsche cayenne, after we dyno we will know if we need to upgrade that and the entire cold side piping.
> 
> cheers
> 
> ...


. *** Bump with FYI to add to this thread **In one of your other threads you said that you tryed 3.6 FSI TB out of Vw and it would not work ? I had a little time today I plugged I in th 3.6L FSI TB out of VW and at cold start up it went through TB adapt and it worked just like the OEM TB I didn't have and extra person to check if it had communication with the pedal tho , was that your Problem ? Or maybe you had a dead TB? Lmk thanks Bob G*


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

rracerguy717 said:


> . *** Bump with FYI to add to this thread **In one of your other threads you said that you tryed 3.6 FSI TB out of Vw and it would not work ? I had a little time today I plugged I in th 3.6L FSI TB out of VW and at cold start up it went through TB adapt and it worked just like the OEM TB I didn't have and extra person to check if it had communication with the pedal tho , was that your Problem ? Or maybe you had a dead TB? Lmk thanks Bob G*


 You mean you connected the TB to the stock manifold ?How is that even possible ?

Or did you just plug it to the TB connector ?

Sounds encouraging though..


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

GolfRS said:


> You mean you connected the TB to the stock manifold ?How is that even possible ?
> 
> Or did you just plug it to the TB connector ?
> 
> Sounds encouraging though..


 Its to big to put in the space the stock one sits. I just plugged it in an watcted the bigger alum throttle plate open and close asit was going through TB adapt @ cold start.  Bob.G.


----------



## GolfRS (Feb 4, 2006)

rracerguy717 said:


> Its to big to pit in the space the stock one sits. I just plugged it in an watcted the bigger alum throttle plate open and close asit was going through TB adapt @ cold start.  Bob.G.


 As i said it sounds encouraging, but you should try adapting it using a VCDS to see if it adapts ok.

And of course another two things that should check ok is the "grading" of the pedal to the TB, and the
actual behavior of the TB to the ECU commands.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

When you upgrade to a larger tb, you almost always need too adjust the throttle angle sensors to get it to idle and function correctly.


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

why is everyone getting these larger throttle bodies and no love for the general public


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

LEWXCORE said:


> no love for the general public


there will be when they can come up with something that is cheap to make, but looks good enough to charge an arm and a leg for. lol :wave:


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

lol gotta love our parts market.


----------



## IMAN973 (Jun 1, 2006)

LEWXCORE said:


> lol gotta love our parts market.


 Just do what i do and make your own


----------



## LEWXCORE (Jul 7, 2007)

IMAN973 said:


> Just do what i do and make your own


lol prep one to bolt on for me and ill paypal you for the part+labor


----------



## Krieger (May 5, 2009)

LEWXCORE said:


> lol prep one to bolt on for me and ill paypal you for the part+labor


x2


----------

