# Short runner intake options/opinions



## RallyeG (Oct 27, 2003)

So I need all your expert opinions on short runner intakes on a 12v VR, specifically blown applications but any FI will help. I'm considering C2's and the Schimmel. Thoughts on install, performance, fit and finish, etc. would be a big help.
Cheers


----------



## kevhayward (Mar 13, 2007)

The thread of all threads relating to 12V Short Runners! - http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4176187
Find Leebro's posts. He's made a very nice intake.
I've been using the Schimmel one for the past few years. It's often criticised for being over priced and tuned incorrectly, but I don't have any issues with it.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (kevhayward)*

My .02. Save your money for most applications. Especially on a SC application why lose the midrange TQ that the stock mani can provide?
I think you can make a case for high HP turbo setups where you simply cannot fit the turbo w/ a stock mani, have some headwork, a decent cam, large turbo, and a higher than 7k rev. limit.
For all your 300-400whp setups I just don't see what it's doing for you for the money. For cars w/ mild/stock cams/head and a normal chip rev. limit I've actually think the stock manifold w/ runner compensation is better.
If someone's got a back to back dyno/timeslip proving otherwise then please post it.








I think -THROTTLE- put an SRI on a SC VR. Maybe he has some input. I don't believe the car was any faster, but I may be mistaken and I'm not sure if that's the only change that was made.


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_
If someone's got a back to back dyno/timeslip proving otherwise then please post it.










I think this is really the only way to quantify what is happening, it's too difficult to accurately simulate/speculate what is going on. 
Regarding testing, I actually went out and bought a Schimmel intake manifold for the purpose of testing against my custom intake manifold on a ~350whp car. It's taken a long time to get the testing done, but I promise it's coming soon. I know it's not the SRI vs. OEM comparison some people are wanting to see, but it's not the easiest thing to compare because you need to fabricate new piping and redyno for each geometry. I wasn't planning on testing against the OE manifold because I won't be running the OE manifold, so that's why we haven't invested the time/money. Maybe in the future though...








edit - if several people REALLY want to see the OE vs. Schimmel vs. my intake results, I could get a quote for building the extra set of piping for the OE intake and dyno time. Would anyone be willing to contribute to that?










_Modified by leebro61 at 4:52 PM 2-10-2010_


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (leebro61)*

Honestly, I'm just surprised no one went from a stock mani to an SRI w/ no other changes and re-dyno'd to see the difference. IMO lack of evidence kind of supports my argument. I'm sure the manufacturers have dyno's but I always disregard those. Too much motivation to skew the results.
I think someone on here is going to an SRI over the winter from a stock mani and is running a similar setup to me (turbo, tune, exhaust, cams, etc.). MARATG60 maybe? It will be interesting to see the difference if any.


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

*Re: (slc92)*

I agree, especially because if you aren't building the manifolds and piping yourself, you are investing a decent amount of money. I would think people would want to know what return (if any) they got on their investment.


----------



## EL DRIFTO (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: (leebro61)*

someone on here has stated that the sri makes more power drag racing na so...
considering flow properties, plenum size, port tuning & bell mouth, 
the oe manifold has decent flow & fast plenum regaurdless of bell mouth
with peaks @ 3800, 5500 & 7500 ish
in summary with no linkable evidence but drag records
the sri flows better anywhere after 5500, where the oe has its last run in the powerband


----------



## dreadlocks (May 24, 2006)

Big Turbo VRT's go SRI because space becomes a premium real quick as turbo's/plumbing get larger.
its not like a 12v head flows well, with cams and FI you'll quickly make enough power to start having to conquer other issues before you'll really be concerned about increasing overall flow. 
IMO, Might as well stick to poor stockish flow and turn up the boost, if you swallow some valves or blow agasket its a cheap and quick fix.
If your building a race car go check out Fofa's great advice and build a completely flow tuned setup from scratch for your application. Might as well do it right if your doing it from scratch. 
you don't see pre/post dyno slips of most intake manifolds because they do not provide power gains by them selves, simply convince to run larger/simpler power adders.
*edit* 
If your NA, dont buy any SRI.. im kinda keen on variable length ones that change from long to short as the power band changes. 
If your FI, unless you got a MKIV use a stock if you can, but as you go bigger buy/build whatever you can find for the best price, use the money saved to increase boost.. If you got a MKIV replace stock ASAP
Cheers,
-R 


_Modified by dreadlocks at 9:10 PM 2-10-2010_


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (EL DRIFTO)*

Drag records?
Comparing the two using strictly theory is above my understanding as I'm not an engineer http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I have heard arguments made that below 7k the stock mani is actually better due to the runner compensation and pulse tuning? 3rd pulse? I have a vague understanding of that at best.








Theory is great, but I like real world results. Back to back dyno's. Timeslips. I'm sure it's setup dependent as well. What's best for a big cam, standaloned, BVH, 500-700whp, 8k rpm car might not be worth it on a chip tuned, mild cam, 7k rev limit, 300-400whp car.
I know 2 C2 42# cars went 11.2 and 11.5 w/ similar setups and SRI's. We'll see how I do w/ the stock mani


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (dreadlocks)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dreadlocks* »_you don't see pre/post dyno slips of most intake manifolds because they do not provide power gains by them selves, simply convince to run larger/simpler power adders.
If your FI, unless you got a MKIV use a stock if you can, but as you go bigger buy/build whatever you can find for the best price, use the money saved to increase boost.. If you got a MKIV replace stock ASAP

_Modified by dreadlocks at 9:10 PM 2-10-2010_

My take as well. If the turbo fits w/ the stock mani use it and use that $500-$1300 to make more boost which is proven to make more power. That or something else that's proven to make the car faster. 
Throw a $1300 SRI on my car and I can almost guarantee you it's not any faster. Just a hunch


----------



## EL DRIFTO (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: (slc92)*

me too & theory is all i've got to explain reality

_Quote, originally posted by *05JettaGLXVR6* »_
Fastest Street stock car runs a short runner right now.









edit it's not rocket science & the third & last pulse of the oe is over @ 5500, so anything that flows better @ that point regardless of pulse will out do


_Modified by EL DRIFTO at 4:27 AM 2-11-2010_


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (EL DRIFTO)*

Street stock? Is he talking about VW1320's car?
That car's also on standalone and weighs about 2280 w/ driver if I'm not mistaken. Who knows what cam is in it or what the rev. limit is. 
Kind of hard to draw any conclusions based on that. If that's the case I run what alot of SRI VRT's run w/ 100 less whp and a stock manifold. Pretty sure I'm also the fastest 30# chip tuned car. Does that mean the stock mani is better?


----------



## EL DRIFTO (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: (slc92)*

i give up i've got the stock mani too


----------



## marat_g60 (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: (slc92)*

I sent my spare stock manifold to nubVR to get it modified. Its getting a V shape plenum design, unlike the stock one or the 2.9, pretty much what foffa did a few years ago. Runners are getting shortened by 3" or so, and the bottle neck by the TB is getting cut off and rewelded so it has a bigger intake side. Nobody tried it, so I said why not be the first one to do it?
I rather spend my money and mod a stocker than buy a crappy SRI.
Although its gonna be running on a new custom tune, but everything will remain the same, I'll try and dyno it at the same boost so we can see if there's a significant difference.


----------



## EL DRIFTO (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: (marat_g60)*

i dont have a time or hp to quote so thats me
i wonder how an engineer would pulse toon one?
i'm not drunk yet so here goes
420mm / 25.4 = 16.53" oe port length fact
84,000 / 16.53 = 5081 rpm torque peak woops, guess that's not 5500
now if you shorten it 3 inches, that would be 13.53"
84000 / 13.53 = new peak @ 6208 http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
also by a new custom tune, you mean you're gonna change the ignition timing cause a dyno comparison is out the window for flow @ that point to the engineers
have a nice day ?


----------



## marat_g60 (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: (EL DRIFTO)*

Yea i got rid of the 42# tune. Going with the 630's and a acustom tune. So yea it wont be exactly a back to back comparison, but it'll still show top end power gains.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (marat_g60)*

That's the other issue.
I do realize it makes sense for some appplications especially very high HP ones/ drag cars etc., but why do so many focus on shifting the powerband higher than 4k-6500rpm which is what the head, manifold, and cam were designed for?
Isn't it much easier and cheaper just to make power in that powerband? 
I understand it more if you are NA b/c that's the only way you'll make power is w/ more revs, but for a turbo car why spend all the $$ and time trying to get a 5-7.5k powerband?


----------



## BoostedDubVR6T420 (Dec 4, 2009)

We need someone to dyno a NA Vr6 with both OEM intake Vs. a short runner to know exactly the gains and/or losses. The only problem with dynoing a turbo VR is that there are way too many variables, and results would be inconclusive as eveyones setup has differences.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (BoostedDubVR6T420)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BoostedDubVR6T420* »_We need someone to dyno a NA Vr6 with both OEM intake Vs. a short runner to know exactly the gains and/or losses. The only problem with dynoing a turbo VR is that there are way too many variables, and results would be inconclusive as eveyones setup has differences.

I'm talking about the same car. Someone adds an SRI and redyno's. Surely that's had to happen at some point.
I think -throttle- added an SRI and IC to a SC VR. I don't think he redyno'd but I don't believe the car was any faster in the 1/4. I'm not 100% on that nor do I know if those were the only changes.


----------



## kevhayward (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: (BoostedDubVR6T420)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BoostedDubVR6T420* »_We need someone to dyno a NA Vr6 with both OEM intake Vs. a short runner to know exactly the gains and/or losses. 

Someone has - http://www.spturbo.com/gallery...d=223
I've posted that before and it was immediately dismissed as a faked or invalid dyno run, or some such nonsense. Seems to be the way on this forum. If people post really good numbers, the plot is a fake. If people post 'realistic' numbers, there is a problem with the tune or hardware because so and so is making 4 billion more hp with the same boost. You can't win either way.
After I removed the V9 S/C setup from my engine, I left the Schimmel intake on it and ran it like that for a while whilst gathering turbo parts. From what I felt with my butt dyno, I would agree with that dyno plot. No detectable drop in torque anywhere in the rev range and more pull at the top end.
I don't care who disputes that, on my car, that's what I observed, end of story.
Personally I don't think it really matters what intake people use. The biggest overall influence on ANY turbo engine's torque curve is turbo sizing. What does it matter if some people want use short runners to make the pipework shorter and easier for chargecooler use? If they like it, why is it such a problem to some people?
I'd love to be able to use the stock intake as I think the VR6 engine looks better with it and the injector and plug wires etc are all factory neat, but I also want to run the factory airbox, ATP mani and GT35R. Those requirements outrule the stock intake immediately.
I've compared my plots to one with a smaller turbo running the stock intake and the small torque difference between 2000-3000 isn't enough to justify the ball ache of trying to make the stock intake fit.
This debate will never come to a satisfactory conclusion. C'est la vie!











_Modified by kevhayward at 9:10 AM 2-11-2010_


----------



## BoostedDubVR6T420 (Dec 4, 2009)

Great response.


----------



## vrtme (Mar 29, 2009)

that was well said tbf


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (kevhayward)*

SPturbo is also trying to sell a $1200 manifold. 
Butt dyno= BS
Problem? I think some people just want to know if spending $1200 is justified for their setup. 
GT turbos, brand name A/A or A/W IC's, standalone, SRI's, etc. are all big $$ items. People that have them consistently try and tell you how much better they are and that you need them. That may or may not be true depending on your goals, but for many setups they simply are not needed. If you know that and still want them then knock yourself out. That's your choice.


----------



## RallyeG (Oct 27, 2003)

yeah, looks like I opened a can of worms here...


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (RallyeG)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RallyeG* »_yeah, looks like I opened a can of worms here...

Nah, some people just take it personal if you question a product they spent alot of $$ on.
May I ask what you're goals/purpose for the car are? What power, use, turbo, management, etc?


----------



## .LSinLV. (Nov 13, 2009)

*Re: (slc92)*

I guess I'll bolt mine on and see what #'s we get.....I have dyno's prior....with the MKIV stock manifold....let's see what a SP gets me?????


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (.LSinLV.)*


_Quote, originally posted by *.LSinLV.* »_I guess I'll bolt mine on and see what #'s we get.....I have dyno's prior....with the MKIV stock manifold....let's see what a SP gets me?????

Sounds good. Are you turbo or SC now? Any other changes besides the manifold?


----------



## .LSinLV. (Nov 13, 2009)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_
Sounds good. Are you turbo or SC now? Any other changes besides the manifold?

the rare VF STGIV kit....with half made GIAC tuning....best #'s on a Mustang were 309whp 298wtq using a V2 SQ. I was never able to reporduce the #'s VF stated and provided me







of 343whp....








the SRIM would be the only change since the above #'s, so I'd think it would be accurate to see what, if anything would come from it.
I planned on changing the trim on the charger with a 928 motorsports CNC impellor for 10% more flow....but I'm maxing the charger now $ ~60K rpms @ 7,200 rpms engine speed.


----------



## RallyeG (Oct 27, 2003)

Here's a short list:
fully built head, going to 268's
(Building bottom end now)
v1 blower on c2 software running 15psi
fmic
3" cat-back
MkII VR swap (see sig)


----------



## marat_g60 (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_That's the other issue.
I do realize it makes sense for some appplications especially very high HP ones/ drag cars etc., but why do so many focus on shifting the powerband higher than 4k-6500rpm which is what the head, manifold, and cam were designed for?
Isn't it much easier and cheaper just to make power in that powerband? 
I understand it more if you are NA b/c that's the only way you'll make power is w/ more revs, but for a turbo car why spend all the $$ and time trying to get a 5-7.5k powerband?

One of the reasons Im doing this is because I want to see if it'll make more power at the same boost. It made 416whp at 20-20.5psi. If it makes 430whp+ at the same boost because its revving higher and breathing better, I will be satisfied. If it doesnt produce any better numbers, at least I know I tried. Another reason for revving higher, I will loose more bottom end to mid range torque, which is what Im after. I also picked up a apexi avcr that should take care of most of the traction problems in lower gears.


----------



## kevhayward (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_SPturbo is also trying to sell a $1200 manifold. 
Butt dyno= BS
Problem? I think some people just want to know if spending $1200 is justified for their setup. 
GT turbos, brand name A/A or A/W IC's, standalone, SRI's, etc. are all big $$ items. People that have them consistently try and tell you how much better they are and that you need them. That may or may not be true depending on your goals, but for many setups they simply are not needed. If you know that and still want them then knock yourself out. That's your choice.










Qeulle surprise.....
You clearly have an issue with people spending money on their builds. Freedom of choice. Deal with it.
Do you wander around the malls singling out people with Omega watches and tell them a $10 Casio will tell the time equally well?
You taken a few 'bolt ons' and declared yourself as the definitive VRT expert. "Ooh look at me running a stock engine with stock compression at 12psi with zero problems". So what else have you done? How many different turbo and intake combinations have you tried? How many different engine management systems have you tried? What gives YOU the experience and right to declare that my butt dyno = BS?
I remember during your transition from S/C to turbo you were asking all manner of stupid and obvious questions and needed several opinions before committing yourself. Be brave, take a chance, learn something off your own back.
All the guys building big power VRTs have been there, done it, broken things many times over and got the Tee shirt. You have built ONE VRT engine with a very modest and cheap spec and assume that gives you the right to mix it with the big boys..... please.
P.S. I don't normally blow up like this on forums, I try to be open minded and impartial, but your attitude stinks.



_Modified by kevhayward at 4:14 AM 2-12-2010_


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (kevhayward)*

Issue? I just point out that it's not needed on alot of setups. Case in point. You went standalone, overbore, SP mani and awic, BVH, and cams to make 350whp. You could have made 400whp easily w/ a stock block, chip tune, stock cam, stock manifold, and ebay IC and saved what $5k? I understand why you have issues w/ my statements








No on the approaching people, but in a watch forum where someone asked for opinions like this one? I'd say the guy w/ the pricey watch wasted his money to impress strangers b/c he feels inadequate http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
No expert here sir. If you think I am then I'll take it as a compliment







Asking dumb questions? 
Big boys? High Hp? WTF are you talking about? My setup runs well for what it is so yes I will comment on it. If I wanted 500-700whp I'd have it. I know 300-400whp setups and I know how to do them cheap and reliable. You wont see me giving advice on how to make 700whp.
You have taken my "budget" views on 300-400whp setups personally sir b/c you spent a boatload quite frankly on power you could have made for 1/3 of what you spent. That is your choice, but the fact that you're so sensitive about it tells me you aren't very comfortable w/ it


----------



## vrtme (Mar 29, 2009)

that is 350 whp at 11 psi though. I bet its one of the most reliable 350 whp set ups on here. and im also curtain that it will driver better.
The point is that you can make that power a lot cheaper and i myself will go for a cheaper route. but if I had the money id go for the best set up that I can.

This is a hobby and kev blanty likes trying out different set ups and products on the market... not because he wants more power... he could just turn the boast upto 20 psi and make some silly good numbers. 
He does it because its something his interested and enjoys spending his money on it, which is fine.
Admit that you would rather have his setup over yours if you could afford it. and if you had to drive daily the peace of mind would be nice


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (vrtme)*

The notion that it's better b/c it's more expensive is the heart of the discussion.
If I wanted a GT turbo, standalone, built motor, SRI and AWIC then I would have them. The cost of said items are not justified IMO for my goals. 
I've beaten my car at the track for 2 years w/ out a hiccup. Who's setups not reliable?
I have my view of building a 300-400whp car. It doesn't offend me that someone chooses to spend 2-3x the amt. needed to make that power reliably. If it offends you that someone did it 2-3x cheaper then maybe you shouldn't have spent all the $$.
I'll use the watch example. It's like a guy w/ a Rolex getting pissed b/c I say my Timex does the same thing his does. Think about why he's getting pissed


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_
I've beaten my car at the track for 2 years w/ out a hiccup. Who's setups not reliable?



You've been a 'few times' over the last few years and you 60' the car like it's on radials. Next.


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*

How would you know how many times I've been to the track? How many times were you at the track last year?
I run a smaller tire, a heavier car, and higher air pressure. Is the ~.05-.1 difference that hard to understand? 
Your car is a slow POS that makes no power as seen in your trap speed. 
Next



_Modified by slc92 at 6:37 PM 2-13-2010_


----------



## RallyeG (Oct 27, 2003)

Thanks for keeping this post on track fellas


----------



## vrtme (Mar 29, 2009)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_The notion that it's better b/c it's more expensive is the heart of the discussion.
If I wanted a GT turbo, standalone, built motor, SRI and AWIC then I would have them. The cost of said items are not justified IMO for my goals. 
I've beaten my car at the track for 2 years w/ out a hiccup. Who's setups not reliable?
I have my view of building a 300-400whp car. It doesn't offend me that someone chooses to spend 2-3x the amt. needed to make that power reliably. If it offends you that someone did it 2-3x cheaper then maybe you shouldn't have spent all the $$.
I'll use the watch example. It's like a guy w/ a Rolex getting pissed b/c I say my Timex does the same thing his does. Think about why he's getting pissed











id rather where the rolex


----------



## vrtme (Mar 29, 2009)

*Re: (RallyeG)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RallyeG* »_Thanks for keeping this post on track fellas

keep your standard inlet if turbo size/ manifold lets you.

If you have to then both your chosen SRIs will do the job... and you will own a rapid VRT.

If you want better power though out the rev range then theres a dude on here thats made something thats technicality better than both OEM and all SRIs that's on the market.. but this hasn't been proven yet.
theres nothing else to know really


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (vrtme)*


_Quote, originally posted by *vrtme* »_
id rather where the rolex









That's where we differ. I'll take the Timex and spend the $$ I saved on something else that actually does something


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_Is the ~.05-.1 difference that hard to understand? 

Is it hard to understand that you don't 'beat' your car at all compared to many of those who have come before you with the same weight/tire and cut a much better 60'? Apparently not.
As for me last year, I had a rough one. "Life" must have gotten in the way. Where were you most of the last ten years when people like me were laying the ground work to make some of this stuff "easy?" Exactly.
In any case, I find it amusing that you're preaching the 'you don't need that to do X' when a bunch of us caught a rash of your own mouth spew when we were telling you the same thing.


_Modified by need_a_VR6 at 7:27 AM 2-14-2010_


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_
Is it hard to understand that you don't 'beat' your car at all compared to many of those who have come before you with the same weight/tire and cut a much better 60'? Apparently not.
As for me last year, I had a rough one. "Life" must have gotten in the way. Where were you most of the last ten years when people like me were laying the ground work to make some of this stuff "easy?" Exactly.
In any case, I find it amusing that you're preaching the 'you don't need that to do X' when a bunch of us caught a rash of your own mouth spew when we were telling you the same thing.

_Modified by need_a_VR6 at 7:27 AM 2-14-2010_

Hey dude. I don't race to impress you or any of the other dk heads in the drag forum. I do it my way. My goals. My budget. If you disrespect what I'm doing you'll get the same in return. If you find another 30# chip tune car running 11.8x's at 120mph at almost 2700lbs then please let me know. 
This internet bickering/following my posts is also a bunch of BS. If something is bothering that much let's talk about in person.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

I look forward to hashing this out in person.


----------



## pimS (Jan 7, 2009)

I think the downside of almost all sri's ( the loss of power in midrange) can also be seen as een positive thing, it saves your gearbox.
My sri is absolutely pathetic in midrange in comparison to the std mani. but it made my engine high rpm-happy, wich i like


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_I look forward to hashing this out in person. 

X2 http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------

