# ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results***



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*The Short Take:*








*The Long Take:*

_Quote, originally posted by *Dizzy* »_
First off I'd like to give a HUGE thanks to Mike @www.tyrolsport.com, Phill @www.bshftw.com, and Scott @www.usrallyteam.com. These three businesses gave sizable contributions to conduct this test with nothing to gain or lose by "sponsoring" this test. That alone speaks volumes about their support and interest in the advancement of the 1.8t community. Also, everyone that gave a contribution, no matter how small or large, we thank you as well. Lastly, the manifold contributors are owed the biggest thanks. Without your help and the use of your hardware, this test wouldn't have happened.
Now on to the data. The only real way to rank the manifolds with regards to flow would be total flow through all four runners. This is the easiest way without getting into standard deviation and outliers in individual runner flow. This does NOT correlate into which will make the most power on a given setup. Intake manifold flow is dynamic and undergoes turbulence, heat change, as well as sudden transitions, like during a WOT lift to shift. All testing is done at 28 in of water to ensure accuracy in comparisons, but flow in vacuum is entirely different than positive intake manifold pressure. All of this must be noted when trying to compare the different manifolds. The most interesting thing to me is the variance in individual runner flow.There weren't any huge surprises in regards to results of total flow, but there were some interesting notes from individual runner flow. Stock style manifolds starve the first runner. Notice the similarities in runner flow between the stock OEM big port manifold and VariantStg3's affectionately labeled "Homebrew" manifold, which uses OEM big port runners and flange. It seems as if most all the manufacturers could spend some time focusing on equal distribution. ABD and RMR seem to have the best distribution, the biggest plenums. Obviously the larger the amount of flow, the harder it is to have a manifold that evenly distributes this. For example, the Dahlback manifold, which uses the Lehman style of dual plenums for even distribution, isn't that even.A variance of 3-4 cfm isn't huge, but it is a variance. That said, a variance of 8-10 cfm isn't going to affect much in the real world anyways since this is under vacuum, and adding boost will more than likely even these out somewhat.
Another thing to pay attention to is the throttle size. All of the small port manifolds used stock throttle bodies, except the 007 small port which uses a 12v VR6 throttle. The big ports are even more varied with APR's RS4 and 007 using the R32 throttle, RMR accepting a variety of throttles, Homebrew's manifold accepting a 3" DBC throttle, and Hypertune not even having a throttle plate. We added a comparison graph between the 007 small and big port manifolds and nother between the OEM small and big port manifolds as well. 
































Comments from the flowbench operator that did the testing:
*RMR big port* Retail price $699.95
The operators spoke highly of this manifold. They thought it had plenty of plenum to get the job done, with very nice runner design and injector placement. He also noted the distribution- a variance of only 7 cfm from highest to lowest runners. (which is only 3 or 4%) They also commented on how short the runners were, and how that would shift the torque curve up in the revs signifigantly.








*Homebrew* Cost is up to end user lol
Said that it looked like it could be a good alternative to spending big money for an aftermarket manifold with a little revision. They seemed to think that the angle of the throttle plate and the 'flat' entry was killing the first runner. "Once air is moving so fast, its just not gonna turn like that, you know?" They also liked the radiused runner entrys in the floor of the plenum and that the OE injector bosses had been ground down a bit to increase the cross sectional area.








*Dahlback* Retail price is $999.00
They really didnt have anything good to say about it other than the fittings were nice and that it looked well made. They said that the Lehman style, while it may help distribution over stock, kills flow. And that this plenum design didnt do anything that a well thought out plenum and throttle angle couldnt do; basically saying that it was a trade-off that didnt have to be made.








*ABD* Retail price is $499.00
They said it was a big piece of crap. They remarked on how sloppy the lower flange was with regard to port alignment. (which i confirmed by comparing to an APR and my 007). They also complained about the casting slag. They didnt like that it used OE injector bosses. They basically said that while it performed moderately well, that it just wasnt a nice part.








*APR* Retail price is $899, $1299 with the throttle body
They really liked the build quality this one, and remarked on the quality of the casting. They did however say that the throttle angle needed to be changed in order to get it on par with regard to distribution and that the injector bosses again should not be protruding into the port entry, because it was what killed the flow.








*Hypertune* Retail price is $1399
When i pulled this out of the box, Dan smiled real big and said "Bling, bling." Again, they thought the machine work on this was phenomonal. and that the injector mounting was great. But they absolutely hated the plenum. They said it was far too thin for a big boost, big power or sprayed car. Dave said one good pop back through the intake would blow it to pieces, and then remarked on a flaw in the weld on the inside of the plenum.








*007 Small Port* Retail price is $699.00
This was the first of the aftermarket manifolds that they saw. Their initial reaction was to the throttle angle and plenum design in regard to how it should distribute air much better than the stock small port he held in his other hand. But he said that the most signifigant improvement to flow would certainly come from the injector bosses being nixed out of the runner unlike stock design.








*007 Large Port* Retail price is $699.00
This was the overall winner in their eyes. Like the small port, they liked the runner shape and injector placement. However they did say that they thought the distribution could be a little better if the entry angle and the backside of the throttle plate was revisited to compensate for such a massive throttle. They concluded by saying that if they were to build a VW, they would use this intake based on the performance vs. dollar value it has. (said they would use the 800 price diff between it and the hypertune to buy spray lol)
















*OE Small Port* Comes free with your car.
Hated the throttle angle. Again, they commented on air not wanting to make that kind of turn, and said they (VW) set themselves up for failure from the get-go by pointing the throttle at the roof of the intake over cyl 2. And again, they hated on the injector bosses.








*OE Big Port* Retail price is $319.00
they basically said all of the same things they did about the OE small port.
















Before anyone comments on their comments... Please bear in mind that they had absolutely nothing to gain or lose by doing this testing or providing the opinions they did. It should also be noteworthy that these guys build absolutely ridiculous engines for some fairly high profile race teams, and have years of building and racing experience. So please think about the commentary and its value before any remarks are made about it. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
Unfortunately, due to some manifolds needing to be returned as soon as possible and a lack of planning (DOH), we don't have pictures of all the manifolds. Most of you know what most of them look like and we do have pictures of some of them. silvercar has some that I'm having trouble getting access to and they'll be posted later along with his measurements of the different manifolds (runner, port, plenum, throttle, etc). We just wanted to get the data out as you've all waited long enough. 
007 Big Port, APR, and Hypertune (top to bottom)








Hypertune plenum








APR plenum








007 Big Port plenum








RMR plenum








007 Big Port port








APR, 007 Big Port, and Hypertune ports (top to bottom)








Homebrew manifold








Dahlback manifold








ABD manifold 








ABD ports








ABD plenum








Check back later this evening for more pics and measurements. Thanks again to everyone who made this possible. And lets try to get as many back to back dynos with different intakes to see how all this adds up. :thumbsup:


The original thread that made this all possible.


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

Great work.

DBR=Vaporware


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (zemun2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zemun2* »_DBR=Vaporware

I am actually going to dyno test it against another manifold from the list.It did perform better than stock


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_I am actually going to dyno test it against another manifold from the list.It did perform better than stock









Their longitudinal version is $1900.
Probably yields same results


----------



## O2VW1.8T (Jul 9, 2003)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*

nice results, good job for doing this work.... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

*Re: (O2VW1.8T)*

yeah, is this stickied yet?


----------



## SnowGTI2003 (Jan 8, 2004)

*Re: (O2VW1.8T)*

Interesting results there! Thanks for all the work!


----------



## spoolin turbo s (Mar 8, 2002)

*Re: (screwball)*


_Quote, originally posted by *screwball* »_yeah, is this stickied yet?

if not it should be 
good work guys http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif .........thanks for the effort and work you guys put into this http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif much appreciated http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (spoolin turbo s)*

What's 24 cfm between friends? lol... 
Thanks for putting on the test guys. With this information we can definitely state that adding a bigger Plenum will increase the overall flow of the factory runners (+ 40ish) and it will continue to have the same traits of the factory manifold.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*

homebrew FTW







now help figure out which way to angle the TB to make it easier on cyl 1 http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## 155VERT83 (Aug 1, 2000)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Wizard-of-OD)*

Great info! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## johnny5gti (Nov 17, 2002)

*Re: (spoolin turbo s)*

nice work! congrats to donR


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (18T_BT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *18T_BT* »_homebrew FTW







now help figure out which way to angle the TB to make it easier on cyl 1 http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Working on it as we speak. I am gonna incorporate as many learnings as possible and hopefully level the runners. I was also thinking about shortening the runners as well, but that take math. So I will need help...lol.


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (johnny5gti)*

I sure would like to hear what the people who designed these intakes think of these results.
Don R designed the 007 i believe, monster 007 did the fab work.
I believe [email protected] designed the APR unit.

any of you fellas care to chime in on areas you feel are victory or defeat?


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_I sure would like to hear what the people who designed these intakes think of these results.
*Correction:* Don R collaborated with Jimmy @ monster-turbo in designing the 007 and http://www.monster-turbo.com did the fab work.
I believe [email protected] designed the APR unit.
any of you fellas care to chime in on areas you feel are victory or defeat?


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_
I believe [email protected] designed the APR unit.

When I contacted Keith @ the beginning of this project,he informed me that APR had done there own testing on the manifold and that it gave a 36bhp gain.I wonder if Sam(18bora) would be willing to bolt on one of the other manifolds and hit up a dyno.
The results would be interesting to see.


----------



## FrankiEBoneZ (Jun 4, 2002)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*

One thing about the ABD, it is the most consistent across the board so cylinders wont be rich/lean. Either way a few CFM wont matter, but something to take into consideration.
Wish Momentum Tuning's intake manifold was tested.


----------



## solowb5 (Jan 16, 2007)

so the 007 manifolds are now 700 instead of the 900 i was quoted?


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (solowb5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *solowb5* »_so the 007 manifolds are now 700 instead of the 900 i was quoted?

This is transverse,not longitudinal.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*

W000T.


----------



## igotaprestent4u (Nov 2, 2002)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Wizard-of-OD)*

Looks like RMR would get my $$$


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (igotaprestent4u)*


_Quote, originally posted by *igotaprestent4u* »_Looks like RMR would get my $$$

You deducted this from the results?


----------



## SHUMopper (Jan 2, 2002)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (igotaprestent4u)*

awesome testing diz.
really some thourough work here.
The RMR manifold has always caught my interest, and with its price point and results shown i see it definetly in my future.
Question though, with a smaller sized turbo such as mine (T3 Super 60). what gains persay should i expect to see with such an addition? Just torque high up in the RPM range? More sustained power?

Also, does the monster 007 big port come available with a passenger side TB?
Thanks
Steve


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (SHUMopper)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SHUMopper* »_awesome testing diz.
really some thourough work here.
The RMR manifold has always caught my interest, and with its price point and results shown i see it definetly in my future.
Question though, with a smaller sized turbo such as mine (T3 Super 60). what gains persay should i expect to see with such an addition? Just torque high up in the RPM range? More sustained power?

Also, does the monster 007 big port come available with a passenger side TB?
Thanks
Steve

Steve, I'm not sure if the RMR is available in a small port but it is modular.
I'm not sure what kind of gains you'd see with the RMR.


_Modified by Boostin20v at 8:45 AM 2-27-2007_


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (SHUMopper)*

RMR is available in small port version for the same price.


----------



## SHUMopper (Jan 2, 2002)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (axlekiller)*

RMR can use stock 1.8t TB correct?


----------



## Wolk's Wagon (Sep 27, 2000)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Don R)*

Nice data guys, 
Congrats to Don R on a manifold well done. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## skydaman (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (igotaprestent4u)*


_Quote, originally posted by *igotaprestent4u* »_Looks like RMR would get my $$$

I see where your going with that... not a bad choice and it comes with a fuel rail and TB adapter or you could build it youself here: http://stores.ebay.com/Ross-Machine-Racing. 
Would like to see a USRT tested for comparison. 


_Modified by skydaman at 11:14 PM 2-26-2007_


----------



## bmxp (Aug 10, 2003)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Don R)*

good to know... I have an ABD intake manifold that I got for a trade... So looks like it actually does something at least... haha I might be able to dyno test it sooner or later...


----------



## i220gorb (Mar 31, 2006)

it's the best topic


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (bmxp)*

What he said. I'm going to try and dyno test my ABD. However, I plan to clean it up a little first. I noted the casting slop. I'm thinking about getting it extruded and honed. If that were to happen it may even be close to the 007 SP. 
This test is awesome though... I wonder how the RMR SP would perform. Why did VW hate us and give us SP intake manis...


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (04VDubGLI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *04VDubGLI* »_What he said. I'm going to try and dyno test my ABD. However, I plan to clean it up a little first. I noted the casting slop. I'm thinking about getting it extruded and honed. If that were to happen it may even be close to the 007 SP. 
This test is awesome though... I wonder how the RMR SP would perform. Why did VW hate us and give us SP intake manis...









because we also got small port heads









Awesome data compliation and presentation http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Cool to see that the AEB/custom plenum method was a pretty decent alternative to dropping alot of cash


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 5, 2005)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (turbotuner20V)*

great collection of data!
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif to those who helped make it possible.


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

Reason why ABD has made satisfactory results is do to its short, wide and stuby runner design. I'd like to point out that it's overall performance would not be as expected.
Trq in the mid-range would suffer and fuel atomization would be less than opitmal as a result from low port velocity and turbulent flow.


----------



## SloJTI (Oct 29, 2005)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (04VDubGLI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *04VDubGLI* »_I wonder how the RMR SP would perform.

x2...especially since mine is ordered


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (Don R)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Don R* »_Reason why ABD has made satisfactory results is do to its short, wide and stuby runner design. I'd like to point out that it's overall performance would not be as expected.
Trq in the mid-range would suffer and fuel atomization would be less than opitmal as a result from low port velocity and turbulent flow.

So what we need now is for people who have purchased these manifolds to run a few before and after dynos for comparison. 
As far as the length goes Don if your willing? I read slappy saying that if all you wanted was great flow you would just bolt a plenum to the head? this would equal great flow with no velocity. Now, for my application I believe I could use some sorter runners to help horsepower from 5K-8K and also change the torque band upward.
What would be an ideal length for the runners based on the powerband goals? My home brewing logic says bust out the saz-all and cut 2 inchs out of the middle welder back up and let'r eat, but i thought I'd ask before I turn a decent success into a complete failure.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (Don R)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Don R* »_Reason why ABD has made satisfactory results is do to its short, wide and stuby runner design. I'd like to point out that it's overall performance would not be as expected.
Trq in the mid-range would suffer and fuel atomization would be less than opitmal as a result from low port velocity and turbulent flow.

I have looked at most of the runners and I think most of the manifolds in this test(except maybe ABD one) have too long of a runner to take advantage of a bigger turbo.I can tell you this about the manifold I am building,that its about an inch and a half shorter than most of the manifolds in the test.


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

*Re: (Don R)*

Don R - I'm confused as to whether the ABD would not perform as expected in a good or bad fashion? I mean, there are obviously some increases in air flow and seem to be pretty consistent at that... 
I now am wondering if maybe it would be worth it to get it extruded and honed. I imagine that would not only clean up all of the slop, but probably even make the runners a little more efficient?


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
So what we need now is for people who have purchased these manifolds to run a few before and after dynos for comparison. 
As far as the length goes Don if your willing? I read slappy saying that if all you wanted was great flow you would just bolt a plenum to the head? this would equal great flow with no velocity. Now, for my application I believe I could use some sorter runners to help horsepower from 5K-8K and also change the torque band upward.
What would be an ideal length for the runners based on the powerband goals? My home brewing logic says bust out the saz-all and cut 2 inchs out of the middle welder back up and let'r eat, but i thought I'd ask before I turn a decent success into a complete failure.









If I had the time I'd have the pleasure in doing so...but I'm swamped with work.
With regards to your manifold...it would have been great if the OEM injector bungs protruded a lot less into the runner. IMHO, I'd suggest you leave your runners as is (Not unless you plan on revving past 8500 rpm.) - runner velocity plays an important role in increasing flow from better air flow lamination. This involves more flow vectors per cross-sectional area. Furthermore, if you were to increase the distance from runner 1 to TB entry this would help improve flow by eliminating the turbulence happening there.


_Modified by Don R at 9:16 AM 2-27-2007_


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: (04VDubGLI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *04VDubGLI* »_Don R - I'm confused as to whether the ABD would not perform as expected in a good or bad fashion? I mean, there are obviously some increases in air flow and seem to be pretty consistent at that... 
I now am wondering if maybe it would be worth it to get it extruded and honed. I imagine that would not only clean up all of the slop, but probably even make the runners a little more efficient?

I mentioned this before in the other thread. These flow results are not be considered definitive since an intake under goes dynamic flow, pressure, temps and transient flow. The extrude hone may improve it but would not be worth it.


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

*Re: (Don R)*

Thanks. I'm definitely going to try to get a dyno up w/it. Of course I still have a small turbo... but that's ok. It'll give some idea anyhow I suspect.


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: (04VDubGLI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *04VDubGLI* »_Thanks. I'm definitely going to try to get a dyno up w/it. Of course I still have a small turbo... but that's ok. It'll give some idea anyhow I suspect.

Don't expect much


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

*Re: (Don R)*

What gains would you expect to see? What would you say is the best SP intake mani then? The SP 007? Or are SP intake manifolds in general not going to show much of an increase due to an apparent max increase of about 200cfm? Sorry, hopefully someone else is a little confused or I'll feel dumb. I guess my real question is what would you expect the cfms to translate to in terms of hp/tq - I know it's a little more complicated than that, but just speaking generally.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (04VDubGLI)*

200cfm is ~133hp. The question becomes when you can move 200 cfm more. There will be gains but after you install a competent intake manifold, the head/stock cams become the next flow restriction. And yes, the SP 007 will show the best gains of the small port intake manifolds testing, but if you're not already on a big turbo setup, then you have other areas to address.


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: (04VDubGLI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *04VDubGLI* »_What gains would you expect to see? What would you say is the best SP intake mani then? The SP 007? Or are SP intake manifolds in general not going to show much of an increase due to an apparent max increase of about 200cfm? Sorry, hopefully someone else is a little confused or I'll feel dumb. I guess my real question is what would you expect the cfms to translate to in terms of hp/tq - I know it's a little more complicated than that, but just speaking generally.

None of these intakes will yield any significant gains on the stock turbo you may get an increase in trq but that's about it.
I beleive the ABD/Del Rio intake mani was designed to use with the delrio kit that uses the 28RS turbo.


----------



## VRT (Dec 8, 2001)

*Re: (Don R)*

I will be doing a before and after dyno test on my RMR as soon as I get it back


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (VRT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VRT* »_I will be doing a before and after dyno test on my RMR as soon as I get it back









Good stuff Rob, thanks again for letting us test it. The most interesting results will be from comparing before and after dynos to the flowbench results. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: (VRT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VRT* »_I will be doing a before and after dyno test on my RMR as soon as I get it back









Right-on Rob http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
I have looked at most of the runners and I think most of the manifolds in this test(except maybe ABD one) have too long of a runner to take advantage of a bigger turbo.

Are you including the length of your runner and V stack protruding above/off the plenum floor? That's only going to cause turbulent pockets of air, and you don't have the necessary full radius 1-1.5" on the stacks to make a 270* sweep into the runner entry. Would you like to send your intake for flow testing once completed to compare to these others?


----------



## igotaprestent4u (Nov 2, 2002)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_
You deducted this from the results?









pretty much, 
lets see, the RMR is one of the best flowing manifolds, with the best distribution among cylinders.
The pricing is spot on, and you have the option of different throttle body options plus the location of the throttle body,
tell me why it isn't a good buy?


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (igotaprestent4u)*


_Quote, originally posted by *igotaprestent4u* »_
pretty much, 
lets see, the RMR is one of the best flowing manifolds, with the best distribution among cylinders.
The pricing is spot on, and you have the option of different throttle body options plus the location of the throttle body,
tell me why it isn't a good buy?
















So are you taking these results as defenitive?


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (igotaprestent4u)*


_Quote, originally posted by *igotaprestent4u* »_
pretty much, 
lets see, the RMR is one of the best flowing manifolds, with the best distribution among cylinders.
The pricing is spot on, and you have the option of different throttle body options plus the location of the throttle body,
tell me why it isn't a good buy?
















Distribution can be fixed on the Homebrew, and you'd still have the throttle options with possibly less price. 007 is the same price as the RMR and can be built to spec and flows more. Like we've stated, distribution will be better under pressure, unlike vacuum. So why is RMR the winner?


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

quick question.
Runners #1 thru #4 are numbered from throttle end to opposite end yea?
throttle end runner being #1 in the results yea?
If so.... 007 small and largeport... lower on #4 runner... why is this? Plenum size in this end effecting flow? (and if so, what effect on balancing flow would there be from rotating throttle plate? )


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (badger5)*

Yes, #1 is closest to the throttle. Lower numbers on 007's in runner #4 are from the taper of the plenum. Once again, under pressure, runner #4 won't suffer from this.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_
Are you including the length of your runner and V stack protruding above/off the plenum floor? That's only going to cause turbulent pockets of air, and you don't have the necessary full radius 1-1.5" on the stacks to make a 270* sweep into the runner entry. Would you like to send your intake for flow testing once completed to compare to these others? 

Yes I am including the length of the runner and the rest of the port to the back of the head.The 4" plenum is there because of the ugly turn to the first runner and to have extra volume to maximize the amount of area around the stacks.
I used the stock intake to decide on where the"sweet spot" is and then I raised the resonant RPM 1000rpm beyond that.


----------



## rogerius (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: (axlekiller)*

can somebody elaborate on how is the flow in the runners respectively during opening/closing of the admission valves?It is an interrupted flow,isn't it?If so,isn't there plenty of time for the flow to equalize for each runner (in the pressence of an adequate plenum) unlike the test showed?Please educate me!


----------



## petesell (May 7, 2002)

*Re:*

can anyone speculate at what power levels the stocker runs out of breath in order for these manis to have a reasonable cost/benefit ratio? has there even been a back to back dyno with just a manifold swap on a BT setup?
good thread http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: Re: (petesell)*


_Quote, originally posted by *petesell* »_can anyone speculate at what power levels the stocker runs out of breath in order for these manis to have a reasonable cost/benefit ratio? has there even been a back to back dyno with just a manifold swap on a BT setup?
good thread http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

No they cant.


----------



## TyrolSport (Mar 4, 1999)

*Re: Re: (petesell)*


_Quote, originally posted by *petesell* »_can anyone speculate at what power levels the stocker runs out of breath in order for these manis to have a reasonable cost/benefit ratio? has there even been a back to back dyno with just a manifold swap on a BT setup?
good thread http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Based on the 386CFM of the stock small port, I wouldn't consider an intake manifold until I was over 300whp, or my turbo was maxed in it's current sub 300whp configuration.


----------



## Aeneis (Nov 23, 2006)

I rarely post on this forum anymore, but I happen to see this. BIG PROPS to everyone involved who made this possible, great objective data to override butt dynos.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: Re: (tyrolkid)*

Most "choking" on these cars is the turbo running out of steam, or back pressure in the exhaust causing the boost to fall off. I wouldn't attribute this fall off to the manifold runner length. 
The fall in power matches the original one, if it was the slightly longer runners causing the problem you would see it lose power in the upper range. 
I saw some decent gains on my car with the small port 007 till it leaned out on the dyno. Most gains were in the midrange, which is what I was looking for. I am not sure what the max gains would be up top because I leaned out, however I feel that the upgrade from stock was definitely worthwhile. Even with a measly 265 whp. The fact that I was leaning out and went up to 100% duty cycle showed a big flow increase.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
As far as the length goes Don if your willing? I read slappy saying that if all you wanted was great flow you would just bolt a plenum to the head? this would equal great flow with no velocity. Now, for my application I believe I could use some sorter runners to help horsepower from 5K-8K and also change the torque band upward.


This is my problem with the ABD manifold, the taper they have and the stumpy runners make the runners part of the plenum. Good for flow, but bad for any kind of resonance tuning. 
The OEM manifold is actually kind of short for an engine designed to run 6750 max RPM. Looks more like a honda manifold than a vw.


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

Gents, I'm going to have appologize on Stu's behalf for deleting my posts. Apparently, I have been braking the rules so I am going to refrain from any further participation.
Thanks.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (Don R)*

Don, 
enough with the fearmongering, there is no conspiracy


----------



## SAGTI (May 14, 2006)

*Re: (Don R)*

I for one would have really enjoyed Don R's continued input here.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (SAGTI)*

There are other places that this can be discussed without outside influence, or restraint.


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (Don R)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Don R* »_
If I had the time I'd have the pleasure in doing so...but I'm swamped with work.
With regards to your manifold...it would have been great if the OEM injector bungs protruded a lot less into the runner. IMHO, I'd suggest you leave your runners as is (Not unless you plan on revving past 8500 rpm.) - runner velocity plays an important role in increasing flow from better air flow lamination. This involves more flow vectors per cross-sectional area. Furthermore, if you were to increase the distance from runner 1 to TB entry this would help improve flow by eliminating the turbulence happening there.

_Modified by Don R at 9:16 AM 2-27-2007_

Well now that your not gonna participate here anymore hopefully you can get some other work done.







Thanks conspiracy creators wherever you may be.
Thanks for the input on the runner lengths I have put the saw-zall down and am backing away from the manifold. I am going to use the material I haveleft from RMR to lengthen the plenum. I only have 1.75" to play with though. I am gonna make drawings and post them on the other forum for you to gander at. Cheers!


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
Well now that your not gonna participate here anymore hopefully you can get some other work done.







Thanks conspiracy creators wherever you may be.
Thanks for the input on the runner lengths I have put the saw-zall down and am backing away from the manifold. I am going to use the material I haveleft from RMR to lengthen the plenum. I only have 1.75" to play with though. I am gonna make drawings and post them on the other forum for you to gander at. Cheers!

Not longer,shorter.


----------



## SAGTI (May 14, 2006)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_There are other places that this can be discussed without outside influence, or restraint. 

Yes I have joined up there, thanks http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
Not longer,shorter.

I think he is talking about lengthening his plenum, not his runners. 
Giving more entrance length to his plenum should help with distribution.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_Yes, #1 is closest to the throttle. Lower numbers on 007's in runner #4 are from the taper of the plenum. Once again, under pressure, runner #4 won't suffer from this. 

thanks for clearing that up
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: (petesell)*


_Quote, originally posted by *petesell* »_can anyone speculate at what power levels the stocker runs out of breath in order for these manis to have a reasonable cost/benefit ratio? has there even been a back to back dyno with just a manifold swap on a BT setup?
good thread http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

i did a back to back on mine. before was a dual plenum largeport std tbody, then 007mani with R32 tbody
gains 30bhp & 22lbft from same boost


----------



## Boostin20v (Mar 22, 2000)

*Re: Re: (badger5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *badger5* »_
i did a back to back on mine. before was a dual plenum largeport std tbody, then 007mani with R32 tbody
gains 30bhp & 22lbft from same boost


Unfortunately the dyno you've mentioned and its results have no data on how they were compared to a OE manifold.


----------



## IFIWASINMYVW (Mar 20, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Wizard-of-OD)*

What happened to USRT, or did I miss somthing?


----------



## monster007 (Feb 27, 2003)

*Re: Re: (Boostin20v)*

It was against a modded intake.


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: Re: (monster007)*

Yea, but I think i get what Stu is getting at... theoretically based on the flow data... a stock largeport OEM intake manifold my have flowed beter than the 'dahlback style' aftermarket one.
So gains may have been greater, or they have have been less if compared to an OEM stock largeport.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: (Boostin20v)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Boostin20v* »_
Unfortunately the dyno you've mentioned and its results have no data on how they were compared to a OE manifold.

thats right. it gave gains over a dual plenum largeport on stock throttle body, which in turn should have been better than stock itself.
gains are gains tho my friend.


----------



## Boostin20v (Mar 22, 2000)

*Re: Re: (badger5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *badger5* »_
thats right. it gave gains over a dual plenum largeport on stock throttle body, which in turn should have been better than stock itself.
gains are gains tho my friend.









Which has nothing to do with the question asked, about a comparison of an OE manifold to an upgraded manifold:

_Quote, originally posted by *petesell* »_can anyone speculate *at what power levels the stocker runs out of breath* in order for these manis to have a reasonable cost/benefit ratio? has there even been a back to back dyno with just a manifold swap on a BT setup?
good thread http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_Yea, but I think i get what Stu is getting at... theoretically based on the flow data... a stock largeport OEM intake manifold my have flowed beter than the 'dahlback style' aftermarket one.
So gains may have been greater, or they have have been less if compared to an OEM stock largeport.

yea except DB aint largeport and never will be and my dual plenum was largeport (lower section was stock laregport runner so injector shrouding would'nt be ideal) and upper section was radius air horns and dual plenum.
On a previous 435whp motor it gave an additional 32bhp/22lbft which is the back to back test I held out to do.
Props to monstor for making it.
does what it says on the tin for me.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: (Boostin20v)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Boostin20v* »_
Which has nothing to do with the question asked, about a comparison of an OE manifold to an upgraded manifold:










lol @ you lot
GAINS.... real ones on an actual engine!


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: Re: (badger5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *badger5* »_
yea except DB aint largeport and never will be and my dual plenum was largeport (lower section was stock laregport runner so injector shrouding would'nt be ideal) and upper section was radius air horns and dual plenum.
*On a previous 435whp motor it gave an additional 32bhp/22lbft which is the back to back test I held out to do.*
Props to monstor for making it.
does what it says on the tin for me.









whoa.. those were the gains on the duel plenum custom manifold before swapping on the 007 and gaining MORE power?


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_Yea, but I think i get what Stu is getting at... theoretically based on the flow data... a stock largeport OEM intake manifold my have flowed beter than the 'dahlback style' aftermarket one.
So gains may have been greater, or they have have been less if compared to an OEM stock largeport.

yep agreed...
will never know as the dual plenum i ran has never been flowbenched and has since been sold on.
happy with the 007 results myself... on my real engine and actual figures recorded before to after.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_
whoa.. those were the gains on the duel plenum custom manifold before swapping on the 007 and gaining MORE power?

if i think i understand what you said.. (its late here) the +32bhp/22lb were from my previousl dual plenum mani going to the new 007 mani big port on r32 tbody.
the motor was never tested on stock mani as there is'nt a largeport manifold for my motor (TT style mani on my seat ibiza)


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: Re: (badger5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *badger5* »_
if i think i understand what you said.. (its late here) the +32bhp/22lb were from my previousl dual plenum mani going to the new 007 mani big port on r32 tbody.
the motor was never tested on stock mani as there is'nt a manifold for my motor (TT style mani on my seat ibiza)

oh, ok... i thought you had a 32bhp gain going from a stock oem manifold to the custom dual plenum... then gained even more power going from the custom dual plenum to the 007.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_I believe [email protected] designed the APR unit.
any of you fellas care to chime in on areas you feel are victory or defeat?

I did indeed design the APR manifold. First let me say that the efforts of all those involved should be applauded and I also applaud everyone that designed and/or produced a manifold for the test.
My design, the APR unit, was engineered for the absolute best performance running on an engine. I compromised as little as possible in an effort to realize this objective. I did place the throttle body in a location that was most logical for the applications that this unit would see and I did utilize the factory injector seats (for several reasons.)
The APR manifold was not designed to win a flowbench test such as the one performed (although our unit performed admirably.) As any engine designer worth his weight in salt would tell you, what is optimal on a flowbench and what is optimal on an actual engine are very different. There are several 'dynamic' design considerations on our manifold that would never be measured on a flowbench test. For starters, our plenum is large, does NOT taper, and extends beyond the last runner (I would have extended it even further if I had room.) This is critical. As an intake valve opens, the air velocity surrounding the runner gets high very quickly. This has a tendency to create low pressure in the runner. The runner needs access to higher pressure air as readily as possible. The best way to do this is to utilize a large plenum and make sure that the plenum has volume surrounding all sides of each runner inlet. THIS BECOMES EVEN MORE CRITICAL ON TURBO APPLICATIONS AS INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESSURE INCREASES. In simplified terms this is why the best manifolds are designed this way. Look at the plenums on this engine (Audi R8) ->http://gallery.audiworld.com/a...l.jpg A tapered plenum in a boosted application will have progressively worse flow as you move further down the taper (the runner on the end will be very lean.) This WILL NOT be evident on a flowbench test (in fact a flowbench test will likely show flow as nice and even.)
This is completely counterintuitive to what someone would think would be optimal by watching a flowbench all day and that's because engines do not operate like a flowbench. Based on the designs that I see here, I would expect the APR manifold to outperform every manifold here in actual engine performance (in fact, I believe it has already proven this as I have not seen any performance figures close to the gains that people have been making on our manifold.) I would expect the HOMEBREW manifold and RMR to be close seconds.


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I did indeed design the APR manifold. First let me say that the efforts of all those involved should be applauded and I also applaud everyone that designed and/or produced a manifold for the test.
My design, the APR unit, was engineered for the absolute best performance running on an engine. I compromised as little as possible in an effort to realize this objective. I did place the throttle body in a location that was most logical for the applications that this unit would see and I did utilize the factory injector seats (for several reasons.)
The APR manifold was not designed to win a flowbench test such as the one performed (although our unit performed admirably.) As any engine designer worth his weight in salt would tell you, what is optimal on a flowbench and what is optimal on an actual engine are very different. There are several 'dynamic' design considerations on our manifold that would never be measured on a flowbench test. For starters, our plenum is large, does NOT taper, and extends beyond the last runner (I would have extended it even further if I had room.) This is critical. As an intake valve opens, the air velocity surrounding the runner gets high very quickly. This has a tendency to create low pressure in the runner. The runner needs access to higher pressure air as readily as possible. The best way to do this is to utilize a large plenum and make sure that the plenum has volume surrounding all sides of each runner inlet. THIS BECOMES EVEN MORE CRITICAL ON TURBO APPLICATIONS AS INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESSURE INCREASES. In simplified terms this is why the best manifolds are designed this way. Look at the plenums on this engine (Audi R8) ->http://gallery.audiworld.com/a...l.jpg A tapered plenum in a boosted application will have progressively worse flow as you move further down the taper (the runner on the end will be very lean.) This WILL NOT be evident on a flowbench test (in fact a flowbench test will likely show flow as nice and even.)
This is completely counterintuitive to what someone would think would be optimal by watching a flowbench all day and that's because engines do not operate like a flowbench. Based on the designs that I see here, I would expect the APR manifold to outperform every manifold here in actual engine performance (in fact, I believe it has already proven this as I have not seen any performance figures close to the gains that people have been making on our manifold.) I would expect the HOMEBREW manifold and RMR to be close seconds.


If the manifold is installed on a car, would it be possible to determine if there is a lean condition based on the timing pull for that cylinder?


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

*Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_If the manifold is installed on a car, would it be possible to determine if there is a lean condition based on the timing pull for that cylinder?

Possibly. The degree to which the condition will occur is relative to the amount of taper and overall area. I don't mean to imply that a tapered plenum is going to be dangerously lean, it's just not the optimal plenum design for an actual turbo engine. The main plenum should be big and open on all sides (a mini atmosphere if you will)- especially on a turbo car.


----------



## monster007 (Feb 27, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*

I would love to reply to this, but I am not supposed to.


----------



## SloJTI (Oct 29, 2005)

*Re: (monster007)*


_Quote, originally posted by *monster007* »_I would love to reply to this, but I am not supposed to.










Why not? I would like to hear this response as well


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*

cool, well I'll just keep an eye on my a/f, timing pull and knock voltages. They've all seemed ok so far.








Any reason why people w/ high power 6cyl 2jzte supra motors would use this design then. I'd imagine the 5th and 6th cyl would be even worse off?


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

*Re: (monster007)*


_Quote, originally posted by *monster007* »_I would love to reply to this, but I am not supposed to.









Why not? I would like to hear it!


----------



## fast_a2_20v (Jun 25, 2004)

He's not an advertiser so his posts will be deleted.


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (fast_a2_20v)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fast_a2_20v* »_He's not an advertiser so his posts will be deleted. 

it's a technical discussion, not an advertisement. let them go at it...professionally of course. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## SloJTI (Oct 29, 2005)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_
it's a technical discussion, not an advertisement. let them go at it...professionally of course. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

x2


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

*Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_Any reason why people w/ high power 6cyl 2jzte supra motors would use this design then. I'd imagine the 5th and 6th cyl would be even worse off?









Absolutely there is a reason. For one it works well on a flowbench and many people make the mistake of designing off what works on a flowbench. Good engine designers know where a flowbench can be used properly and where the results must be taken with a grain of salt. I am sure that there are some tapered plenum manifolds used at some very high levels of racing. This does not mean it is a good design. I gave an example of a non-tapered manifold used on the Audi R8. This is also just an example and does not mean it is necessarily the best design. And I am certainly not saying that a tapered plenum manifold should be thrown out with the trash. What I am saying is that a tapered plenum is not the optimal design for a turbocharged engine. This does not prevent it from being used all over the place in the automotive performance aftermarket. Since I was posed with the job of designing the best performing manifold for the 1.8T engine that we could I utilized the best design principles that I knew of, not what necessarily was the most popular. (Let's face it, my design looks kind of boring but the results speak for themselves.) Several of our stage 3+ customers have reported over 45 hp at the wheels and a 280-300 RPM reduction in boost onset RPM with the addition of the manifold/throttle-body assembly alone (and widened ports.)
Also let me reiterate that I have the utmost respect for the people involved in making and testing all of the manifolds here. ESPECIALLY the guys that don't own companies and designed or produced it themselves. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I am not trying to get in a pissing match, I just wanted to point out some technical aspects of the manifolds and of course these are just my opinions.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

*Re: (SloJTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SloJTI* »_
x2









x3. I'm cool with that. (Although I really need to be working and may not respond again until tomorrow.)


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_
I think he is talking about lengthening his plenum, not his runners. 
Giving more entrance length to his plenum should help with distribution. 


That is correct sir. Lengthing the plenum on the throttle side to allow for better flow through runner #1 and leaving the runner lengths alone.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_I'd imagine the 5th and 6th cyl would be even worse off?









How so?With pressure,cylinder #5 & 6 would actually benefit the same as cyl #1--->4.
Jimmy I think you should type up your post.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_For one it works well on a flowbench and many people make the mistake of designing off what works on a flowbench.

Strangly enough (or not so strange) the 007 manifold performed better than both the Jabbasport & Dhalback manifold on badger5's car.


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_
How so?With pressure,cylinder #5 & 6 would actually benefit the same as cyl #1--->4.
Jimmy I think you should type up your post.
Strangly enough (or not so strange) the 007 manifold performed better than both the Jabbasport & Dhalback manifold on badger5's car.

i know, i support the idea that the 5th and 6th will be just fine. I was posting that as a question to Brett.


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_cool, well I'll just keep an eye on my a/f, timing pull and knock voltages. They've all seemed ok so far.








Any reason why people w/ high power 6cyl 2jzte supra motors would use this design then. I'd imagine the 5th and 6th cyl would be even worse off?









I am not an engineer but this picture does not show all that much taper. It does have an angled entry for the throttle body. I think we have concluded that the angle of attack of the throttle body is more benefical to the early cylinders 1/2 in a pure flow bench test.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_
How so?With pressure,cylinder #5 & 6 would actually benefit the same as cyl #1--->4.

Nope, I disagree entirely. Again, an engine is very different from a flow bench.

_Quote »_Strangly enough (or not so strange) the 007 manifold performed better than both the Jabbasport & Dhalback manifold on badger5's car.

I am not surprised in the slightest it out performed the Dahlback (I don't know anything about the Jabbasport.) I have the utmost respect for Don and his work and the design is good but a non-tapered plenum would perform even better on an engine even though it would likely not do as well on a flowbench test.
The Dahlback manifold, on the other hand, is an obsolete and ineffective design in my opinion. The logic behind the dual plenum and the longitudinal slit is not sound. I know this was run on some very successful race cars in the 80's but it simply doesn't work as well as other designs and the design has been retired in most circles for 20+ years. There is a reason you don't see many manifolds like this. It may look cool but it simply doesn't perform.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Nope, I disagree entirely. Again, an engine is very different from a flow bench.
I am not surprised in the slightest it out performed the Dahlback (I don't know anything about the Jabbasport.) I have the utmost respect for Don and his work and the design is good but a non-tapered plenum would perform even better on an engine even though it would likely not do as well on a flowbench test.
The Dahlback manifold, on the other hand, is an obsolete and ineffective design in my opinion. The logic behind the dual plenum and the longitudinal slit is not sound. I know this was run on some very successful race cars in the 80's but it simply doesn't work as well as other designs and the design has been retired in most circles for 20+ years. There is a reason you don't see many manifolds like this. It may look cool but it simply doesn't perform.


No arguing with the leg humpers


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I did indeed design the APR manifold. First let me say that the efforts of all those involved should be applauded and I also applaud everyone that designed and/or produced a manifold for the test.
My design, the APR unit, was engineered for the absolute best performance running on an engine. I compromised as little as possible in an effort to realize this objective. I did place the throttle body in a location that was most logical for the applications that this unit would see and I did utilize the factory injector seats (for several reasons.)
The APR manifold was not designed to win a flowbench test such as the one performed (although our unit performed admirably.) As any engine designer worth his weight in salt would tell you, what is optimal on a flowbench and what is optimal on an actual engine are very different. There are several 'dynamic' design considerations on our manifold that would never be measured on a flowbench test. For starters, our plenum is large, does NOT taper, and extends beyond the last runner (I would have extended it even further if I had room.) This is critical. As an intake valve opens, the air velocity surrounding the runner gets high very quickly. This has a tendency to create low pressure in the runner. The runner needs access to higher pressure air as readily as possible. The best way to do this is to utilize a large plenum and make sure that the plenum has volume surrounding all sides of each runner inlet. THIS BECOMES EVEN MORE CRITICAL ON TURBO APPLICATIONS AS INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESSURE INCREASES. In simplified terms this is why the best manifolds are designed this way. Look at the plenums on this engine (Audi R8) ->http://gallery.audiworld.com/a...l.jpg A tapered plenum in a boosted application will have progressively worse flow as you move further down the taper (the runner on the end will be very lean.) This WILL NOT be evident on a flowbench test (in fact a flowbench test will likely show flow as nice and even.)
This is completely counterintuitive to what someone would think would be optimal by watching a flowbench all day and that's because engines do not operate like a flowbench. Based on the designs that I see here, I would expect the APR manifold to outperform every manifold here in actual engine performance (in fact, I believe it has already proven this as I have not seen any performance figures close to the gains that people have been making on our manifold.) I would expect the HOMEBREW manifold and RMR to be close seconds.

would you care to detail the reasons that you used "stock" injector bosses? I have laid hand to every manifold in this test, and several have perfect injector placement in billet, properly sealing bungs that arent killing off the port area.
my second question to the apr runner is: Why is the curve so drastic? It seems to me by the shape that it would hurt port velocity and create turbulence rather than promote it.
As to your remarks about engine builders liking straight plenums(maybe in a later post than the one i have quoted here): the guys who did the testing liked the shape of my 007 plenum... and all due respect... but i have no doubt that they have a more intimate knowledge of power gained by flow than anyone at APR.


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: Re: (badger5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *badger5* »_
i did a back to back on mine. before was a dual plenum largeport std tbody, then 007mani with R32 tbody
gains 30bhp & 22lbft from same boost


must have been a posting issue so ill say it again.







..........
If we were so bold to ASSUME that you didnt LOSE power on your previous dual plenem manifold, could we not further assume that your 007 is at least 30 hp better than an OE large port?


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

the experts are out in full swing.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_the experts are out in full swing.


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_the experts are out in full swing.










Its not about being an 'expert.' its about calling stu out on arguing simply for the sake of arguing that badgers claim of gains were not valid. I mean come on. You are the king of argument... and i know you saw right through that.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_









I'm sure since you're the REAL expert, you'll take the time to put your own manifold on a flowbench with the stock manifold as well as dyno them back to back to back up your claims. Or maybe not.


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_

Its not about being an 'expert.' its about calling stu out on arguing simply for the sake of arguing that badgers claim of gains were not valid. I mean come on. You are the king of argument... and i know you saw right through that.

o. i guess i didn't, since i don't argue assumptions.









_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_
I'm sure since you're the REAL expert, you'll take the time to put your own manifold on a flowbench with the stock manifold as well as dyno them back to back to back up your claims. Or maybe not. 

i'm sure chuck could school you on all kinds of ways to make power. not chase a 1/4hp at a time. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_
o. i guess i didn't, since i don't argue assumptions.










Get real. You cant honestly sit there and say that his 007 install didnt make a lot of power for him. Hell, even if you throw out the dyno, he increased injector duty cycle by like 15-20% or something at the same boost pressure. Does that not usually imply an increase in power? And if anyone were going to see plenum problems causing lean conditions, would it not be badger5?? It is after all a circuit car that lives in the upper revs.


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_









Man i love this stuff. I do want to see slappy's mani tested simply because the pics i saw in the other post the thing looks as homebrewed as my mani. I mean where are the CAD drawings and the virtual Flow tests and the engineering behind the design? Post that stuff up so we know you not just looking at other designs and welding up a bunch of part like I did?
...and with all this design information now public your "Prototype" mani should shine....


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*

If you ladies dont behave I am going to have the thread cleaned up before it gets messy.
This thread isnt about who has the biggest dick or is the baddest engineering skills.Its about understanding why the results are they way they are.I for one want to know how about the Dahlback manifold.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_would you care to detail the reasons that you used "stock" injector bosses? I have laid hand to every manifold in this test, and several have perfect injector placement in billet, properly sealing bungs that arent killing off the port area.

Sure. For one, they give more flexibility with injectors (large body injectors will work, for instance.) Second, some injectors will perform more reliably with the plastic insulating insert. Thirdly, I understand how geometry effects flow and ultimate power and can incorporate design features not readily accepted by the layperson but still make more power in my design. This is because I can separate the vital criteria from the not-so-vital criteria or minimally vital criteria.

_Quote »_my second question to the apr runner is: Why is the curve so drastic? It seems to me by the shape that it would hurt port velocity and create turbulence rather than promote it.

Packaging, placement of inlet runner to plenum intersection, third part from the last answer and probably other reasons that I don't recall now.

_Quote »_As to your remarks about engine builders liking straight plenums(maybe in a later post than the one i have quoted here): the guys who did the testing liked the shape of my 007 plenum... and all due respect... but i have no doubt that they have a more intimate knowledge of power gained by flow than anyone at APR.

I would certainly challenge that statement. I have no doubt that they could determine by looking at a design what would work better on a flowbench more quickly than I can but their statements lead me to believe that they aren't nearly as good at determining what works on an actual engine. I don't know how many times I or other people need to say this but what works on a flowbench IS NOT what will necessarily work on an engine. Furthermore, spending hours on a flowbench gets you absolutely no closer to determining what will actually work on an engine. Only individually testing the different designs on an engine will. Even then, you will likely be confused because design parameters which are NOT tested in a flowbench test will skew the results. 
What is much more important is understanding what is going on in a dynamic state with the engine. Many complex and highly accurate engine analysis programs do not take things like plenum taper, and injector boss protrusion into consideration at all and yet the simulation results are extremely accurate. Yet parameters like plenum volume, runner length, runner cross-section, throttle body cross-section, etc. are taken into consideration. These programs are able to calculate the results without solid geometry of the manifolds or even cylinder heads (although there are many valvetrain specific parameters involved and the more entered the more accurate the results.) I would almost guarantee that the R8 intake manifolds in the picture that I posted were never tested on a flow bench. Why? Because that particular component did not need to be flow tested. The engineers understood the vital parameters required in the design, they knew the best basic manifold design, and did not need to waste time on such a test. Furthermore, the results would not be valuable (and potentially would be misleading) if run in the same manner as the test performed in this thread as they do not represent how an actual engine operates. (This is not to say that flowbenches are not very valuable tools in other situations!) I do not doubt, however, that much consideration was given by the Audi engineers on the runner length, plenum volume and other vital manifold parameters and I am sure many wave simulations were performed to optimize the design and likely a number of iterations were tested on an engine dynamometer.
What this comes down to is being able to separate the bulls**t from what constitutes good solid design. As one of the original founders of APR and the engineering lead for the company I have been trying to do this since day one. Any product that we design that goes under the hood is designed for performance- not by the latest fad or by going by the latest market trend. We apply solid engineering and nothing else. The basics of what makes an optimal intake manifold has been understood for a very, very long time. These fads such as heavily tapered plenums, velocity stacks, dual plenums, etc. are nothing more than that - a fad. People buy into them because they look cool and in some cases (certainly not all) they may give better numbers on a flowbench or because they have some other unique feature that appeals to the consumer but whose existence is based on flawed logic.
By applying solid engineering and logic we determine precisely what are the vital parameters and what are the not-so-vital parameters. We prioritize these parameters and then come up with the best design that works within all of our constraints. With the 1.8T intake manifold project we designed it the way it is because it was the best manifold design. Any compromises needed for fitment, etc. were minimized and are negligible. Again, the results speak for themselves. I don't know of any other manifold that has shown the gains that many people are seeing on our manifold. This is not to say that other manifolds don't work and have big gains, I expect many of the designs do but I would expect our design to outperform any of the designs that I have seen in most all real-world scenarios.


_Modified by [email protected] at 7:55 PM 2-27-2007_


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
Man i love this stuff. I do want to see slappy's Mani tested simply because the pics i saw in the other post the thing looks as homebrewed as my Mani. I mean where are the CAD drawings and the virtual Flow tests and the engineering behind the design? Post that stuff up so we know you not just looking at other designs and welding up a bunch of part like I did?
...and with all this design information now public your "Prototype" Mani should shine....









Virtual flow and cad drawings made very little more power than stock(embarrassingly enough).


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_Virtual flow and cad drawings made very little more power than stock(embarrassingly enough).

If you look closely to the graph power has been increased up to *25 whp and 25wtrq* which levels off at the end. The intake satisfied it's design intent mid-range power.


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_
Get real. You cant honestly sit there and say that his 007 install didnt make a lot of power for him. Hell, even if you throw out the dyno, he increased injector duty cycle by like 15-20% or something at the same boost pressure. Does that not usually imply an increase in power? And if anyone were going to see plenum problems causing lean conditions, would it not be badger5?? It is after all a circuit car that lives in the upper revs.









dude, i'm not saying it didn't make power.








i'm just not buying into the assumption on how much power it made over an oem. thats why i didn't see into your arguement. because you're assuming it is making "xx"whp over oem, which you truly don't know. that tank is an assumption which i have no interest in arguing about (i wasn't even the one arguing anyhow







)


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_
If you look closely to the graph power has been increased up to *25 whp and 25wtrq* which levels off at the end. The intake satisfied it's design intent mid-range power.









Yes that plot looks like your on the right track. I mean that's the point of all of these designs. It is to make more power. What we need to compile with these results is stated gains each say they made. I gave my manifold big props and said it made 30-36 Bhp early and now with these results I am thinking the Homebrew definitely contributed to higher horsepower numbers although I can't prove it, yet. 
I beleive more than a few APR guys have stated gains in the 30s as well. If there are 007 and other owners that have dynoed before and after it would help everyone to see those plots as well.
I still have the old small port manifold so if I can get'r dun I am going to rebuild the setup with the best tune I can do then switch out to the small port and see if it hurst the power.


_Modified by VariantStg3 at 9:45 PM 2-27-2007_


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*

that dyno comparison was a small port manifold w/ a stock small port head... not a large port manifold w/ a 'port matched' head.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_
If you look closely to the graph power has been increased up to *25 whp and 25wtrq* which levels off at the end. The intake satisfied it's design intent mid-range power.









On different days under different conditions(better than on the stock day).


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_that dyno comparison was a small port manifold w/ a stock small port head... not a large port manifold w/ a 'port matched' head.

What are you saying? Does that mean you can make 25/25 in the midrange even with small port BP manis and then even more with a large port matched unit?


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
On different days under different conditions(better than on the stock day).


haha, seriously? it was a few degrees different...

it's 25whp and 25wtq more than yours is making.... well actually 309whp more... since there's been no dynos of yours.


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
What are you saying? Does that mean you can make 25/25 in the midrange even with small port BP manis and then even more with a large port matched unit?

huh? small port BP (big port?) mani?
i'm saying that that dyno was w/ a stock small port OEM manifold, then with a small port 007 manifold. And since they were both small ports, the head wasn't port matched to use the large port style manifold.
apr uses a large port manifold and port matches the head to the AEB gasket size that the runners of the manifold use.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_

haha, seriously? it was a few degrees different...

it's 25whp and 25wtq more than yours is making.... well actually 309whp more... since there's been no dynos of yours.

12 deg is alot of low end power going away.Anybody else notice the choke on the top end?There is alot left on the table and I'm not really that impressed.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_

haha, seriously? it was a few degrees different...

it's 25whp and 25wtq more than yours is making.... well actually 309whp more... since there's been no dynos of yours.

Dont get all salty with me because I'm not telling you what you want to hear.


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
Dont get all salty with me because I'm not telling you what you want to hear.


lol, i'm not salty about anything, it just seems like all the options aren't being looked at in equal light.
where is the dyno of the APR small port manifold on a stock small port head for comparison?
there isn't one....
Now there is a dyno of the APR large port manifold on a ported small port head. Where is that comparison dyno?
Granted the two will be apples to oranges, but at least that will provide something else for people to argue over and use to put down the manifold they are opposed to.


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_
huh? small port BP (big port?) mani?
i'm saying that that dyno was w/ a stock small port OEM manifold, then with a small port 007 manifold. And since they were both small ports, the head wasn't port matched to use the large port style manifold.
apr uses a large port manifold and port matches the head to the AEB gasket size that the runners of the manifold use.

BP=Big Plenum sorry. 
Right, well I think it is definitve at this point that the BIG AEB style head is a large part of the gains in power. 
But looks like the big plenum on a small port set of runners still adds power compared to the stock unit. and its a bolt on...
So can we all agree that if you want the biggest gaines you will need a AEB style porting job or better, then you can add the big runner manifold of your choice and see significant gains.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_

lol, i'm not salty about anything, it just seems like all the options aren't being looked at in equal light.
where is the dyno of the APR small port manifold on a stock small port head for comparison?
there isn't one....
Now there is a dyno of the APR large port manifold on a ported small port head. Where is that comparison dyno?
Granted the two will be apples to oranges, but at least that will provide something else for people to argue over and use to put down the manifold they are opposed to.



Instead of dwelling on what we already know lets work with the rest of the actual equation.Lets talk about runner length.I know nobody wants to hear whats really going on,but there is alot more power to be gained here and most of the manifolds in this test fail miserably at half of what makes power.


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
12 deg is alot of low end power going away.Anybody else notice the choke on the top end?There is alot left on the table and I'm not really that impressed.

as far as a choke on the top end... doesn't the stock small port head only flow like 170 or something? the manifold flows higher than that, so how would that cause a 'choke'?


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_

Instead of dwelling on what we already know lets work with the rest of the actual equation.Lets talk about runner length.I know nobody wants to hear whats really going on,but there is alot more power to be gained here and most of the manifolds in this test fail miserably at half of what makes power.


that may be... but the only thing we can say about that aspect of the design is that "this would make more power probably on a dyno, but not on a flow chart"
and you know vortex of all places will go round and round if its just bouncing theories around.


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_

that may be... but the only thing we can say about that aspect of the design is that "this would make more power probably on a dyno, but not on a flow chart"
and you know vortex of all places will go round and round if its just bouncing theories around.

vortex is home of making theories fact. even if you prove them wrong, they became fact first, so it's to late. and now with this data, everyone will seem like they slept at a holiday inn.















big props to the testers. you both deserve credit. i just see this as being a theory test...and everyone will create some theory facts out of it, and bicker will continue. 


_Modified by mirror at 7:25 PM 2-27-2007_


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_
as far as a choke on the top end... doesn't the stock small port head only flow like 170 or something? the manifold flows higher than that, so how would that cause a 'choke'?

Here let me be the one to break the news to you.More flow does not necessarily = more power.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_

Instead of dwelling on what we already know lets work with the rest of the actual equation.Lets talk about runner length.I know nobody wants to hear whats really going on,but there is alot more power to be gained here and most of the manifolds in this test fail miserably at half of what makes power.

You've already been asked several times in this and the other thread. What formula are you using to calculate runner length. There are several common formulas that relate to runner cross section and runner length easily available in a Google search. Since you're much more informed on the subject, please continue the discussion with your thoughts on optimal length.


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
Here let me be the one to break the news to you.More flow does not necessarily = more power.

ok... so be the hero that takes one for the team.
design what you feel is the optimal plenum and runner begining and then test lengths of runners or how much protrudes into the plenum or whatever it is you want to do and provide us with an un-biased 'ideal' manifold.
with a before and after of course comparing it to a small port oem intake manifold on a stock head on the same day with the same conditions


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I would certainly challenge that statement. I have no doubt that they could determine by looking at a design what would work better on a flowbench more quickly than I can but their statements lead me to believe that they aren't nearly as good at determining what works on an actual engine. I don't know how many times I or other people need to say this but what works on a flowbench IS NOT what will necessarily work on an engine. Furthermore, spending hours on a flowbench gets you absolutely no closer to determining what will actually work on an engine. Only individually testing the different designs on an engine will. Even then, you will likely be confused because design parameters which are NOT tested in a flowbench test will skew the results. 
What is much more important is understanding what is going on in a dynamic state with the engine. Many complex and highly accurate engine analysis programs do not take things like plenum taper, and injector boss protrusion into consideration at all and yet the simulation results are extremely accurate. Yet parameters like plenum volume, runner length, runner cross-section, throttle body cross-section, etc. are taken into consideration. These programs are able to calculate the results without solid geometry of the manifolds or even cylinder heads (although there are many valvetrain specific parameters involved and the more entered the more accurate the results.) I would almost guarantee that the R8 intake manifolds in the picture that I posted were never tested on a flow bench. Why? Because that particular component did not need to be flow tested. The engineers understood the vital parameters required in the design, they knew the best basic manifold design, and did not need to waste time on such a test. Furthermore, the results would not be valuable (and potentially would be misleading) if run in the same manner as the test performed in this thread as they do not represent how an actual engine operates. (This is not to say that flowbenches are not very valuable tools in other situations!) I do not doubt, however, that much consideration was given by the Audi engineers on the runner length, plenum volume and other vital manifold parameters and I am sure many wave simulations were performed to optimize the design and likely a number of iterations were tested on an engine dynamometer.
What this comes down to is being able to separate the bulls**t from what constitutes good solid design. As one of the original founders of APR and the engineering lead for the company I have been trying to do this since day one. Any product that we design that goes under the hood is designed for performance- not by the latest fad or by going by the latest market trend. We apply solid engineering and nothing else. The basics of what makes an optimal intake manifold has been understood for a very, very long time. These fads such as heavily tapered plenums, velocity stacks, dual plenums, etc. are nothing more than that - a fad. People buy into them because they look cool and in some cases (certainly not all) they may give better numbers on a flowbench or because they have some other unique feature that appeals to the consumer but whose existence is based on flawed logic.
By applying solid engineering and logic we determine precisely what are the vital parameters and what are the not-so-vital parameters. We prioritize these parameters and then come up with the best design that works within all of our constraints. With the 1.8T intake manifold project we designed it the way it is because it was the best manifold design. Any compromises needed for fitment, etc. were minimized and are negligible. Again, the results speak for themselves. I don't know of any other manifold that has shown the gains that many people are seeing on our manifold. This is not to say that other manifolds don't work and have big gains, I expect many of the designs do but I would expect our design to outperform any of the designs that I have seen in most all real-world scenarios.

_Modified by [email protected] at 7:55 PM 2-27-2007_


apr have many 1250 hp 5l engines running around? without an intercooler? -- point being that it is both arrogant and ignorant to disregard their opinions.
You keep saying that APRs mani will outperform a 007 in a real world scenario... 
Well. In the world i live in... APR claims 36 BHP on a worked big port head and r32 throttle. and monster showed 20+ WHP on a small port stock head and stock throttle.
The proof is in the pudding. Im not contending that the APR isnt a good manifold at all. I just really cant see where youre getting off saying its the best.
PS. thanks for explaining the retention of the stock injector bosses. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
Here let me be the one to break the news to you.More flow does not necessarily = more power.

Correct, the other half is velocity. Where do the tradeoffs lie?


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_
You've already been asked several times in this and the other thread. What formula are you using to calculate runner length. There are several common formulas that relate to runner cross section and runner length easily available in a Google search. Since you're much more informed on the subject, please continue the discussion with your thoughts on optimal length. 

And every time I have answered it the exact same way.The only thing missing here is the requested dimensions from the manifolds that I was not given.


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
And every time I have answered it the exact same way.The only thing missing here is the requested dimensions from the manifolds that I was not given.

That information is for the designers to know. The testers should not be responsible for giving away dimensions. They can't do your R&D for you.
If you don't wanna publish your stuff either its OK.


_Modified by VariantStg3 at 10:34 PM 2-27-2007_


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
And every time I have answered it the exact same way.The only thing missing here is the requested dimensions from the manifolds that I was not given.

Vague statement? Remember, we're not as smart as you. Spell it out for us. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
That information is for the designers to know. The testers should not be responsible for giving away dimensions. They can't do your R&D for you.
If you don't wanna publish your stuff either its OK.

_Modified by VariantStg3 at 10:34 PM 2-27-2007_

So they didnt want to release that info because they knew I would tell everyone it was a failure?They want to start a test,but not let us test anything?
Whatever.Back to the porn










_Modified by slappynuts at 9:41 PM 2-27-2007_


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

How about equal air distribution to all 4 runners by something like this.


----------



## Boostin20v (Mar 22, 2000)

*Re: (zemun2)*

*KEEP THIS ON THE TOPIC OF THE TESTED MANIFOLDS*

Failure to keep this thread on the topic of the testing completed will result in this thread being locked or holed. Anyone continuing the bickering will have points deducted for each post removed.
If ANYONE has questions as to a post or about making a post please come directly to me rather than taking the false statements of others as fact.


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: (Boostin20v)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Boostin20v* »_*KEEP THIS ON THE TOPIC OF THE TESTED MANIFOLDS*

Failure to keep this thread on the topic of the testing completed will result in this thread being locked or holed. Anyone continuing the bickering will have points deducted for each post removed.
If ANYONE has questions as to a post or about making a post please come directly to me rather than taking the false statements of others as fact.

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif for the clean up


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (zemun2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zemun2* »_How about equal air distribution to all 4 runners by something like this.









This design will not offer equal runner flow. At least not the way it is drawn.


----------



## Hybrid VW (Jan 18, 2001)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_apr have many 1250 hp 5l engines running around? without an intercooler? -- point being that it is both arrogant and ignorant to disregard their opinions.
You keep saying that APRs mani will outperform a 007 in a real world scenario... 
Well. In the world i live in... APR claims 36 BHP on a worked big port head and r32 throttle. and monster showed 20+ WHP on a small port stock head and stock throttle.
The proof is in the pudding. Im not contending that the APR isnt a good manifold at all. I just really cant see where youre getting off saying its the best.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone that has designed anything that isn't confident in their work (just look at slappy's posts







). That being said, Brett isn't saying anything that wasn't accepted as fact in the original thread, but now it seems you're laying all your faith in the flowbench numbers and two very different dyno tests








If we want manufacturers and vendors to participate in these threads, we should try to refrain from "attacking" them (whether you ment it that way or not, that's how it came across to me). Unless you know Brett's educational and practicle background, telling him that it's "ignorant and arrogant" to state an opinion is exactly that


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
This design will not offer equal runner flow. At least not the way it is drawn.


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*

i wonder what that would do to the powerband...


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_









Nice picture. Looks to me each of those runner extensions are trying to be equal length?
Are ther 4 turbos coming of the back of that engine or something?


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_









Now were talking.
I wouldn't mind spending $1K on something like this.. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
This design will not offer equal runner flow. At least not the way it is drawn.

I would have to disagree, because 007 has almost equal flow and utilizes same shape mani minus the walls between the runners.
Walls are there to allow equal air distribution.
Or something like this would be fine too..


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (zemun2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zemun2* »_
Now were talking.
I wouldn't mind spending $1K on something like this.. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

To what end... and the individual TBs will cost you more the 1K by themselves.
My problem with the design is it restricts the atmosphere available to each cylinder especially in a boosted application.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_Looks to me each of those runner extensions are trying to be equal length?

Yes,the set up was made by Ohiobenz for his jetta.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (zemun2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zemun2* »_
I would have to disagree, because 007 has almost equal flow and utilizes same shape Mani minus the walls between the runners.
Walls are there to allow equal air distribution.
Or something like this would be fine too..









Under those conditions it had equal flow to all runners.This doesnt mean its going to be equal when the flow is divided up into pulses and you have vacuum and pulses all going on in the plenum all at the same time.


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (zemun2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zemun2* »_
I would have to disagree, because 007 has almost equal flow and utilizes same shape mani minus the walls between the runners.
Walls are there to allow equal air distribution.
Or something like this would be fine too..









The KEY to 007s manifold is it does not have the splitter so as much of the air in the plenum is available to each cylinder as each set of intake valves open. In your design and the picture the only air available to each cylinder is what is in the extremely long runner. Biggest problem in my best estimation would be the cavitation from the opening adn closing of the valves.


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*

Here is a better solution when using ITBs, this car has a big plenum and long runners to increase velocity when the valves open.


----------



## OhioBenz (Dec 6, 2001)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
The KEY to 007s manifold is it does not have the splitter so as much of the air in the plenum is available to each cylinder as each set of intake valves open. In your design and the picture the only air available to each cylinder is what is in the extremely long runner. Biggest problem in my best estimation would be the cavitation from the opening adn closing of the valves.

Ahead of the long runners is a 6x6x3" plenum with a 3" inlet that you can see laying loose in the background. According to Bowling & Grippo's calculator the optimum length to the valve from the TB in a NA application is 20" which is what this mani is. Granted that is NA...
Ahead of the mani is an air/Freon IC = more volume.
This mani was built for a 11:1 ABA-16v motor, O-ringed block built to run 12-15psi max.
I havent got to test it since my son wrecked his Coupe right after the motor was done, but I'll be putting a similar one on a 2.0-16v NA w/NOS hopefully this summer.


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (OhioBenz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *OhioBenz* »_...Ahead of the long runners is a 6x6x3" plenum with a 3" inlet that you can see laying loose in the background. According to Bowling & Grippo's calculator the optimum length to the valve from the TB in a NA application is 20" which is what this mani is. Granted that is NA...

Aren't those ITBs, if so they look much closer than 20"... All the piping looks cool, but I am having a hard time seeing the actual real world value. Please post the results when you get'm.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_
oh, ok... i thought you had a 32bhp gain going from a stock oem manifold to the custom dual plenum... then gained even more power going from the custom dual plenum to the 007.


it was the other way round... dual plenum 1st then 007 which showed the gains.
sorted now I think.(as in we understand what each other are saying..)
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I would expect the APR manifold to outperform every manifold here in actual engine performance (in fact, I believe it has already proven this as I have not seen any performance figures close to the gains that people have been making on our manifold.) I would expect the HOMEBREW manifold and RMR to be close seconds.

Oh really?!?!?
lol
32bhp/22lbft compared to a dual plenum largeport previously on mine on stock tbody, compared to the new 007 mani big port with 75mm throttle.
Extremely comparitive to APR dont ya think?


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Absolutely there is a reason. For one it works well on a flowbench and many people make the mistake of designing off what works on a flowbench. Good engine designers know where a flowbench can be used properly and where the results must be taken with a grain of salt. I am sure that there are some tapered plenum manifolds used at some very high levels of racing. This does not mean it is a good design. I gave an example of a non-tapered manifold used on the Audi R8. This is also just an example and does not mean it is necessarily the best design. And I am certainly not saying that a tapered plenum manifold should be thrown out with the trash. What I am saying is that a tapered plenum is not the optimal design for a turbocharged engine. This does not prevent it from being used all over the place in the automotive performance aftermarket. Since I was posed with the job of designing the best performing manifold for the 1.8T engine that we could I utilized the best design principles that I knew of, not what necessarily was the most popular. (Let's face it, my design looks kind of boring but the results speak for themselves.) Several of our stage 3+ customers have reported over 45 hp at the wheels and a 280-300 RPM reduction in boost onset RPM with the addition of the manifold/throttle-body assembly alone (and widened ports.)
Also let me reiterate that I have the utmost respect for the people involved in making and testing all of the manifolds here. ESPECIALLY the guys that don't own companies and designed or produced it themselves. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I am not trying to get in a pissing match, I just wanted to point out some technical aspects of the manifolds and of course these are just my opinions.

Your comparisons Brett are from people porting out small port to larger to accomodate the large port APR manifold, so the gains bantered about are more than one change..... ie cylinder head has also been ported as well as larger intake manifold..... NOT that APr manifold in itself gave xyz power gain from a previously largeport head. thats the 37whp number being referred to is it not?
My comparison of 007mani was from a previously already largeport head, on a previous largeport dual plenum manifold that we already had made, then changing to 007mani with 75mm throttle.... and that change nett'd a 32bhp/22lbft gain.
Just to clarify and compare apples for apples.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_
How so?With pressure,cylinder #5 & 6 would actually benefit the same as cyl #1--->4.
Jimmy I think you should type up your post.
Strangly enough (or not so strange) the 007 manifold performed better than both the Jabbasport & Dhalback manifold on badger5's car.

just to confirm.. It out performed the Jabbasport one (which I contributed to in its design), as the Dahlback did'nt port to largeport as they said it did, and did'nt fit my car due to hood clearance issues. Never tested it, looked too small from the get go for my largeport motor.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Nope, I disagree entirely. Again, an engine is very different from a flow bench.
I am not surprised in the slightest it out performed the Dahlback (I don't know anything about the Jabbasport.) I have the utmost respect for Don and his work and the design is good but a non-tapered plenum would perform even better on an engine even though it would likely not do as well on a flowbench test.
The Dahlback manifold, on the other hand, is an obsolete and ineffective design in my opinion. The logic behind the dual plenum and the longitudinal slit is not sound. I know this was run on some very successful race cars in the 80's but it simply doesn't work as well as other designs and the design has been retired in most circles for 20+ years. There is a reason you don't see many manifolds like this. It may look cool but it simply doesn't perform.


The dual plenum was in fact run on R8's which you refer to.... from pictures I've seen.
someone needs to tell audi they got it all wrong!








Restrictor engines vs unrestricted engines on lehmann design is comparing apples and pears. No tthat its bad, it was'nt designed for our application of it. - I dont run restrictor liek most folk on here.. (luckily my race regs dont require it)


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_
must have been a posting issue so ill say it again.







..........
If we were so bold to ASSUME that you didnt LOSE power on your previous dual plenem manifold, could we not further assume that your 007 is at least 30 hp better than an OE large port?

I would have thought so yes. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I would have expected gains (never tested back to back so thats speculation on my part) that the largeport dual plenum I previously had, did in fact help on the turbo setup I ran back then... which was 390bhp and now I run >500bhp, so moved the goal posts and needed more airflow than it was designed to give me. (stock throttle body and stock throttle body sized slot in the runner to plenum join)


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: Re: (badger5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *badger5* »_
I would have thought so yes. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I would have expected gains (never tested back to back so thats speculation on my part) that the largeport dual plenum I previously had, did in fact help on the turbo setup I ran back then... which was 390bhp and now I run >500bhp, so moved the goal posts and needed more airflow than it was designed to give me. (stock throttle body and stock throttle body sized slot in the runner to plenum join)


Keep in mind they he was using the stock intake way beyond the designed function.Anything that flows more will perform better than stock.The fact that he has cams points to the fact that he is trying to move the powerband up the scale and not down.I bet something that matches the flow(about 2/3s of the test manifolds) and has shorter runners would perform much betteron this motor.


----------



## SnowGTI2003 (Jan 8, 2004)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_









Toyota called. They've got a Corolla with a missing intake manifold....


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (SnowGTI2003)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SnowGTI2003* »_
Toyota called. They've got a Corolla with a missing intake manifold....

You sure it wasnt GM missing a quad4 intake?


----------



## T-Boy (Jul 16, 2003)

*Re: (slappynuts)*

A http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif to everyone that was involved one way or another to make the test possible!


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_Here is a better solution when using ITBs, this car has a big plenum and long runners to increase velocity when the valves open.









Yep, that picture is an example of a quality design.
Instead of bickering, many of you would benefit greatly by educating yourselves on the subject. A good start would be this book -> http://www.amazon.com/Scientif...books It is 35 years old but the theory is still completely relevant. Pulse theory, wave analysis, etc. in relation to manifold design for the internal combustion engine have all been understood quite well for over 50 years and this includes the understanding of how to design an optimal intake manifold. Another excellent and more modern book is "Design Techniques for Engine Manifolds", DE Winterbone and RJ Pearson available from SAE Press. Zemun, not to pick on you at all, but if you read a few pages from either of these books you would realize that the design that you suggested would not perform very well (although it may do well on a flowbench!) but more importantly you would understand why.
I don't mean any offense by this but there does not appear to be many experts here and many people are missing the very basics. That's OK, many of these concepts are non-intuitive but there are plenty of good books that explain them.
What is astonishing is how so many people in the performance (and even racing) industry have a complete lack of understanding of basic internal combustion engine design in relation to wave interaction, manifold design, etc. I see FAR more bad designs out there than good ones- people trying to sway from tradition and create something 'blingy' and not applying solid engineering.
Guys, go read some theory on these subjects and then come back and discuss it and then apply it. This will bring you a lot further much more quickly to raising the bar on these engines. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by [email protected] at 9:21 AM 2-28-2007_


----------



## monster007 (Feb 27, 2003)

"but there does not appear to be many experts here"
Yup!


----------



## transient_analysis (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_ Instead of bickering, many of you would benefit greatly by educating yourselves on the subject. A good start would be this book -> http://www.amazon.com/Scientif...books It is 35 years old but the theory is still completely relevant. Pulse theory, wave analysis, etc. in relation to manifold design for the internal combustion engine have all been understood quite well for over 50 years and this includes the understanding of how to design an optimal intake manifold. Another excellent and more modern book is "Design Techniques for Engine Manifolds", DE Winterbone and RJ Pearson available from SAE Press. Zemun, not to pick on you at all, but if you read a few pages from either of these books you would realize that the design that you suggested would not perform very well (although it may do well on a flowbench!) but more importantly you would understand why.

Thanks for the reference








Looks like fun reading


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (transient_analysis)*


_Quote, originally posted by *transient_analysis* »_
Thanks for the reference








Looks like fun reading









Yeah, read some of the reviews of the book. 


_Quote, originally posted by *book owner* »_There is nothing in the way of forced induction. Turbochargers are not mentioned and there is a single reference to superchargers on page 17! "Fuel Injector" is mentioned once.



_Quote, originally posted by *book owner* »_My impression is that this book contains exhaust and intake design information that was current in the 50's and '60s. Very little information for modern 4 or 5 valve per cylinder engines, and fuel injection tuned intake systems.



_Quote, originally posted by *book owner* »_it lacks the basic equations and theories that describe the intake and exhaust flows. if you are a graduated student, stay away from this book. you would have learned more from fluid dynamics 101 (if you were awake in class). otherwise, this is a good basic, short to the point, easy understanding book


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*

and there's people who have tried stuff which has given results in real world, non book environment, which seem to correlate with some of the bench results seen.
Claims of manifold makes xyz power are too vague to be accurate, without further reference to the spec of motor and other changes which were also applied at the same time. (eg, porting a head to match a manifold is not just a manifold change)
I know on my own evolution on intake, I held back to specifically test one thing at a time to see what the intake 007 did for me.. curiosity as much as anything.
Bold claims such as you made Brett will invite rebuke as will the delivery and bluntness.... APR are'nt the only outfit who know about engines although reading your posts you seem to think you do.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (monster007)*


_Quote, originally posted by *monster007* »_ "but there does not appear to be many experts here"
Yup!

Tell us the runner length or go away because you have nothing else to contribute.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
Tell us the runner length or go away because you have nothing else to contribute.

Same could be said for you.


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Zemun, not to pick on you at all, but if you read a few pages from either of these books you would realize that the design that you suggested would not perform very well (although it may do well on a flowbench!) but more importantly you would understand why.

Thats it, now I'm pissed...








I'm not offended in any way, cuz i know noting about the flow. I just threw the idea hoping to get feedback from someone more educated on the subject then me.
Thanks for the link..http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_
Same could be said for you. 

Lets start with general rule of thumb (and the reason why 007 wont give us the runner length).This is a cut and paste off team integra that I found by googling.
A suggested starting point for the length of a tube with peak torque at 6000 rpm is 13 in.
You add 1.7 in. for every 1000 rpm that you want to move the peak torque below 6000.
Or subtract 1.7 in. for every 1000 rpm you want to move the peak torque above 6000.
The stock intake runner/head port on a 1.8t is ~ 10.5" and this equates to a little over 7000rpm for res freq.This is the sweet spot for stock boost/turbo.To take advantage of the powerband of a larger turbo you want to raise the powerband to a slightly higher level to see gains where the turbo powerband is at.This means we need a shorter intake runner,not longer like some of the test intakes. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
Tell us the runner length or go away because you have nothing else to contribute.

Slappy once again He has already contributed a manifold that Flows and has been proven to make power.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
Lets start with general rule of thumb (and the reason why 007 wont give us the runner length).This is a cut and paste off team integra that I found by googling.
A suggested starting point for the length of a tube with peak torque at 6000 rpm is 13 in.
You add 1.7 in. for every 1000 rpm that you want to move the peak torque below 6000.
Or subtract 1.7 in. for every 1000 rpm you want to move the peak torque above 6000.
The stock intake runner/head port on a 1.8t is ~ 10.5" and this equates to a little over 7000rpm for res freq.This is the sweet spot for stock boost/turbo.To take advantage of the powerband of a larger turbo you want to raise the powerband to a slightly higher level to see gains where the turbo powerband is at.This means we need a shorter intake runner,not longer like some of the test intakes. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


I'm aware of the formulas. I'd like to hear your take on why VAG designed an intake for 7000 rpms when redline is 6500? Also, why are you demanding measurements from Jimmy/monster when you don't seem interested in the measurements of other manifolds?


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
Slappy once again He has already contributed a manifold that Flows and has been proven to make power.

It flows in the wrong place in the poweband to take advantage of the turbo its being tested with.There is alot more left in that turbo and than intake is better than stock for this application,but not ideal for the powerband of the turbo.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_

I'm aware of the formulas. I'd like to hear your take on why VAG designed an intake for 7000 rpms when redline is 6500? Also, why are you demanding measurements from Jimmy/monster when you don't seem interested in the measurements of other manifolds? 

The formula is a starting point and it does not take into account boost and more than 100% engine efficiency.The 7000 is just used as a ballpark sweetspot in this case.
Basically if you chop 1.7" out of your stock intake its still going to raise your powerband ~ 1000rpm or lengthen it will do the opposite.


_Modified by slappynuts at 10:36 AM 2-28-2007_


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
The formula is a starting point and it does not take into account boost and more than 100% engine efficiency.The 7000 is just used as a ballpark sweetspot in this case.



Ballpark? You're kidding me right? Also, what characteristics would be displayed by a perfect intake as you describe it? Power gains over the entire rev range (once in boost)? Increasing gains with increasing rpms all the way to redline?


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_Ballpark? You're kidding me right? Also, what characteristics would be displayed by a perfect intake as you describe it? Power gains over the entire rev range (once in boost)? Increasing gains with increasing rpms all the way to redline? 

The stock intake is designed to run at a range for an extremely small turbo.When you put a larger turbo on a car you raise the powerband up alot more than stock.Your intake should reflect this and be shorter,not longer than stock.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
The stock intake is designed to run at a range for an extremely small turbo.When you put a larger turbo on a car you raise the powerband up alot more than stock.Your intake should reflect this and be shorter,not longer than stock.

Why? As I've already said, peak torque is going to be controlled by your turbo onset, not your intake manifold dimensions. Sure you can shift it some, but at what expense? Are you talking about an all out drag only car/engine/manifold? If so, you know that doesn't cover all the bases nor have much interest to anyone's street driven VW. Why do you not want runner length dimensions from any other manifolds/manufacturers?


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_
Why? As I've already said, peak torque is going to be controlled by your turbo onset, not your intake manifold dimensions. Sure you can shift it some, but at what expense? Are you talking about an all out drag only car/engine/manifold? If so, you know that doesn't cover all the bases nor have much interest to anyone's street driven VW. Why do you not want runner length dimensions from any other manifolds/manufacturers? 

Thats kinda true,but not completely.The intake will move the pwerband up and down the rpm powerband just like a larger/smaller turbo or a set of cams will.If you run a larger turbo you have already moved the powerband up the scale and you will see more power in your powerband now if you shorten the intake runners.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_
Why do you not want runner length dimensions from any other manifolds/manufacturers? 

I do.I have said I want this info from the begining.I will be able to tell you where you will be able to see the most gains over stock from this info.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (slappynuts)*

An intake is a compromise.To get gains somewhere you have to give something up.
Contrary to popular belief its not as complicated as people think(until you get into multiple runner stuff).If you know what you are starting with and know where you want to go its pretty easy to predict what will happen if you change something.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
Thats kinda true,but not completely.The intake will move the pwerband up and down the rpm powerband just like a larger/smaller turbo or a set of cams will.If you run a larger turbo you have already moved the powerband up the scale and you will see more power in your powerband now if you shorten the intake runners.

Turbo applications will generally find best results with longer runners, providing a broad flat torque curve while the turbo keeps the top end strong.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (axlekiller)*

I think the stock intake is designed for Cost, complexity, fitment. 
Your stated 7000 RPM power band on a 6500 rpm red line vehicle shows this. 
They are using the baby snail to make the low end power. 
If you were building a 7200 RPM Big turbo car, the stock runner length would be a good starting point. The calcs have been oversimplified in this case because the port area (mass in the runner) has a large effect on the resonance as well.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_
I think the stock intake is designed for Cost, complexity, fitment. 
Your stated 7000 RPM power band on a 6500 rpm red line vehicle shows this. 
They are using the baby snail to make the low end power. 
If you were building a 7200 RPM Big turbo car, the stock runner length would be a good starting point. The calcs have been oversimplified in this case because the port area (mass in the runner) has a large effect on the resonance as well. 


The T3/T4 007 dyno shows exactly what I was refering to.Its exactly as predicted.If you look at the dyno you can see that the gains are all in the lower end of the powerband(alot of it just out of the turbo powerband).If I was to guess I would guess the runner length of this manifold is ~ 1.5" longer than stock.


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
The T3/T4 007 dyno shows exactly what I was refering to.Its exactly as predicted.If you look at the dyno you can see that the gains are all in the lower end of the powerband(alot of it just out of the turbo powerband).*If I was to guess I would guess the runner length of this manifold is ~ 1.5" longer than stock.* 

oem large port. no pics of the runner length on the 007.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_
oem large port. no pics of the runner length on the 007.


007 is also 6" from base of V stack to head flange. There goes that theory.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_
007 is also 6" from base of V stack to head flange. There goes that theory. 

Show me the pics.


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_
007 is also 6" from base of V stack to head flange. There goes that theory. 

just adding fact to theory. 
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by Boostin20v at 12:46 PM 2-28-2007_


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
Show me the pics.

Mine is out being used for mockup, I don't have pics. It's 6" on centerline of the runner from face of port to base of v-stack.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_
just adding speculation to theory. 

Any proof?


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
Show me the pics.

If it is 6" is it a bad design?
If it is 7.5" is it a bad design?
Why?
I am confused by this incesent need to bash a design. What is your end goal? 
I mean why are all the folks assoiciated with Boostfactory so intent on flaming the designs. I have yet to see a reason for the hate.


----------



## transient_analysis (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_Yeah, read some of the reviews of the book.

Yeah.. I did that after posting and was turned off by the lack of equations..
It's still cheap enough that it may be a good book to try out though..


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (slappynuts)*

007mani with r32 throttle body.. running on 83mm bore 1.8T motor, stock valve sizes, TD06-20G hybrid running 50trim compressor 








Before on dual plenum, otherwise same engine (same boost-ignore text on plot)


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
If I was to guess I would guess the runner length of this manifold is ~ 1.5" longer than stock. 

















Guess again?


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*

yea, it's important to note that slappynuts is a part of BoostFactory, who will be releasing a manifold in the future.
everything he posts should be taken with a grain of salt, because he is not 'joe shmoe' giving help to the forum, there may be alterior motives behind the types of information he presents and the points he focuses on. Not to mention the manifold he seems most concerned about debunking.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_
















Guess again? 

+ trumpet inside plenum+thickness of head flange+thickness of bottom of plenum.I bet we are getting pretty close to 1.5" longer than stock.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (slappynuts)*

Your trying to color the results to suit your needs and thats not a scientific test.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
+ trumpet inside plenum+thickness of head flange+thickness of bottom of plenum.I bet we are getting pretty close to 1.5" longer than stock.

007 head flange is about 1/8th" thicker than stock. Subtract thickness of plenum floor since there's a plenum floor in the OEM manifold. And the V stack needs to have a full radius and be flush with the floor, something your design doesn't address.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_Your trying to color the results to suit your needs and thats not a scientific test.

You mean YOU are trying to color the results since you have something to gain. I don't make manifolds or sell anything. The results aren't colored, they're factual data.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_
007 head flange is about 1/8th" thicker than stock. Subtract thickness of plenum floor since there's a plenum floor in the OEM manifold. And the V stack needs to have a full radius and be flush with the floor, something your design doesn't address. 

Dont try to color the results to your favorite color.Its longer.I would say about 1.5"(exactly as predicted).Until someone can actually measure it for real this time I no longer believe your test.


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
A suggested starting point for the length of a tube with peak torque at 6000 rpm is 13 in.
You add 1.7 in. for every 1000 rpm that you want to move the peak torque below 6000.
Or subtract 1.7 in. for every 1000 rpm you want to move the peak torque above 6000.


ok, so if peak torque is at 4,500rpm, does that mean the length of the tube should be 15.5" if the suggested starting point for peak torque at 6000rpm was 13"?
and if you want to move your peak torque up to redline, say 7,500rpm, you would subtract 5"? So the runner length would end up at around 10.5"?


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
Dont try to color the results to your favorite color.Its longer.I would say about 1.5"(exactly as predicted).Until someone can actually measure it for real this time I no longer believe your test.

Says the person who wants to sell a manifold. You don't believe what test? lol


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_
ok, so if peak torque is at 4,500rpm, does that mean the length of the tube should be 15.5" if the suggested starting point for peak torque at 6000rpm was 13"?
and if you want to move your peak torque up to redline, say 7,500rpm, you would subtract 5"? So the runner length would end up at around 10.5"?


If you raise the potential of an engine up in RPM you also want to raise the potential of the intake up in the same fashion.This means a longer intake rather than a shorter one.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
If you raise the potential of an engine up in RPM you also want to raise the potential of the intake up in the same fashion.This means a longer intake rather than a shorter one.

So now for higher rpm power, you want longer runners? Are you confusing yourself?


----------



## O2VW1.8T (Jul 9, 2003)

*Re: (Don [email protected])*

why dont we pitch in to a dyno test BF vs 007 same car, same day. Maybe it will shut someone up...


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (Don [email protected])*

If you measure from the end of the radius to the outseide edge of the flange its alot more and this is whats relevant.


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (O2VW1.8T)*


_Quote, originally posted by *O2VW1.8T* »_why dont we pitch in to a dyno test BF vs 007 same car, same day. Maybe it will shut someone up...









because the BF/slappynuts manifold doesn't exist yet.
and even if it does, it's a one-off quanity of 1


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

The ABD has approx a 14.5" plenum (splitting the TB) w/approx 5" (front side)runners. I can't even figure out where the back should be measured... and the front is a bit over 5", so we'll ave to around 5", maybe a little under. In case anyone didn't get this from the original post, the runners do begin larger and narrow down to SP size. From what I'm guessing, the ports on the intake mani are probably very close to the same size as the ones on the head. I haven't taken my stock one off yet to determine this for sure? I do know I have a powergasket that I need to port match b/c the ABD's ports > powergasket's.
SP + ABD FTW!!!








Seriously though, now...
Since no one has brought any other intake manifolds into play, I figured maybe I'll try to learn something outside of the main argument. I'm sure I'm not the only one following this, so maybe there can be some more practical application as many were hoping for originally. 
So according to the adding 1.5" rule... the ABD design should have moved _down_ in the RPM range? Wasn't the stocker 13" and designed to do 7000 rpms? So the ABD should be like in the 5500-6000 rpms range? Also, according to another theory shorter runners are good for... top end? I believe that's what somone had said earlier at least? If anyone could explain what my ABD _should_ theoretically do I'd appreciate it. It seems to have flowed ok in the original post, but certainly didn't get good reviews. And at this point I've read a bunch of people saying bench-flowing (or whatever it's called) is next to worthless in telling performance.







So, someone please explain what my intake manifold should be good for. Nothing is not a valid answer


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (04VDubGLI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *04VDubGLI* »_The ABD has approx a 14.5" plenum (splitting the TB) w/approx 5" (front side)runners. I can't even figure out where the back should be measured... and the front is a bit over 5", so we'll ave to around 5", maybe a little under. In case anyone didn't get this from the original post, the runners do begin larger and narrow down to SP size. From what I'm guessing, the ports on the intake mani are probably very close to the same size as the ones on the head. I haven't taken my stock one off yet to determine this for sure? I do know I have a powergasket that I need to port match b/c the ABD's ports > powergasket's.
SP + ABD FTW!!!








Seriously though, now...
Since no one has brought any other intake manifolds into play, I figured maybe I'll try to learn something outside of the main argument. I'm sure I'm not the only one following this, so maybe there can be some more practical application as many were hoping for originally. 
So according to the adding 1.5" rule... the ABD design should have moved _down_ in the RPM range? Wasn't the stocker 13" and designed to do 7000 rpms? So the ABD should be like in the 5500-6000 rpms range? Also, according to another theory shorter runners are good for... top end? I believe that's what somone had said earlier at least? If anyone could explain what my ABD _should_ theoretically do I'd appreciate it. It seems to have flowed ok in the original post, but certainly didn't get good reviews. And at this point I've read a bunch of people saying bench-flowing (or whatever it's called) is next to worthless in telling performance.







So, someone please explain what my intake manifold should be good for. Nothing is not a valid answer









Shorter runners will raise the resonant rpm so it will peak higher rather than lower than a stock one.


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

*Re: (slappynuts)*

So... I need to rev to the moon? Sorry if I'm confusing things at this stage in the game. What about the larger collector? What is the relationship b/t the collector size, the runners, and the RPM range?


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (04VDubGLI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *04VDubGLI* »_So... I need to rev to the moon? Sorry if I'm confusing things at this stage in the game. What about the larger collector? What is the relationship b/t the collector size, the runners, and the RPM range?

Not really.For each 1.7" shorter that your intake is you can expext ~ 1000 rpm higher.This is measured from the top of the runner at the plenuium or the top of the velocity stack to the outer edge of the head flange.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
Dont try to color the results to your favorite color.Its longer.I would say about 1.5"(exactly as predicted).Until someone can actually measure it for real this time I no longer believe your test.

you see my dyno plots of before and after 007mani... length wise or whatever...
whats the observation on torque delivery and wotnot?


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (badger5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *badger5* »_
you see my dyno plots of before and after 007mani... length wise or whatever...
whats the observation on torque delivery and wotnot?

It increased the tq but not so much on the HP end.The reason being is because if you compare the intake lengths to stock you can see that if you add the velocity stack,the weld,and the thickness of the bottom plate to the 007 runner length you have a longer than stock runner length.You would have a better top end if the runners were shorter.


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_
Any proof? 

any proof to what? you ask me to provide proof of a picture taken by a tester? the pictures speaks more words than your pointless bantering.


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_
oem large port. no pics of the runner length on the 007.










Because the 007 is installed on my car. Not because im hiding anything http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
It increased the tq but not so much on the HP end.The reason being is because if you compare the intake lengths to stock you can see that if you add the velocity stack,the weld,and the thickness of the bottom plate to the 007 runner length you have a longer than stock runner length.You would have a better top end if the runners were shorter.


















The weld???? are you kidding me? the weld goes on the outside... in the weld relief. not in between parts








Seems like a masta fabrikata such as yourself might already be privvy to such information.
as said- the 007 flange is .125" thicker than OE. and the stack comes into the plenum (im estimating) .500" so wow... a whopping .625 difference. 
Secondly, your attack on the runner length choice is off base anyway. The car it was designed on runs a typical setup. I bet 75% of the typical UG turbo car owners in this forum fully spool around 4k rpm.Im running a setup thats powerband looks remarkably like the one in Jimmys dyno. So I for one would like to increase my power in those revs. I dont understand how choosing a part that is optimized for your car is leaving anything on the table? Seems that it should be called optimizing your setup to me... How in the hell can you argue with 20+ whp and wtq from 4500 on up to 6500? increasing and lengthening the torque curve in those revs specifically will make the car FASTER. There is absolutely no way you can refute that.
finish your piece and send it to me. (12v throttle) Ill swap it on and dyno them without ever coming off the rollers. On a dyno dynamics lowboy 450... My car spools in the low 4k range, runs 22 psi, and redlines at 7400, like every one of yuor target customers.... 
Yes or No?, and we will end the debate.
PS. just saw a newsflash on CNN: Not everyone is revving 10k on a 42r


----------



## Shad (Feb 8, 2003)

*Re: (transient_analysis)*


_Quote, originally posted by *transient_analysis* »_
Thanks for the reference








Looks like fun reading









Not that fun at all, but very clarifying. I found it somewhat hard to read, as english is not my nature language.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_

The weld???? are you kidding me? the weld goes on the outside... in the weld relief. not in between parts








Seems like a masta fabrikata such as yourself might already be privvy to such information.
as said- the 007 flange is .125" thicker than OE. and the stack comes into the plenum (im estimating) .500" so wow... a whopping .625 difference. 
Secondly, your attack on the runner length choice is off base anyway. The car it was designed on runs a typical setup. I bet 75% of the typical UG turbo car owners in this forum fully spool around 4k rpm.Im running a setup thats powerband looks remarkably like the one in Jimmys dyno. So I for one would like to increase my power in those revs. I dont understand how choosing a part that is optimized for your car is leaving anything on the table? Seems that it should be called optimizing your setup to me... How in the hell can you argue with 20+ whp and wtq from 4500 on up to 6500? increasing and lengthening the torque curve in those revs specifically will make the car FASTER. There is absolutely no way you can refute that.
finish your piece and send it to me. (12v throttle) Ill swap it on and dyno them without ever coming off the rollers. On a dyno dynamics lowboy 450... My car spools in the low 4k range, runs 22 psi, and redlines at 7400, like every one of yuor target customers.... 
Yes or No?, and we will end the debate.
PS. just saw a newsflash on CNN: Not everyone is revving 10k on a 42r









There is a .25 more length to get to to bottom of the plenium on the 007 + .25 bottom plate and atleast .5" (but probably .75" radius.Thats 1.25" or almost the 1.5" I predicted by looking at the dyno and the powerband.


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
There is a .25 more length to get to to bottom of the plenium on the 007 + .25 bottom plate and atleast .5" (but probably .75" radius.Thats 1.25" or almost the 1.5" I predicted by looking at the dyno and the powerband.


Is the OE manifold not equipped with a floor?


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (silvercar)*

this thread is just kinda burning out... we can talk about fractions of inches and estimates of length all day, and we can debate their impact for weeks.
someone post a new thread or IM me when slappynuts/boost factory completes and tests their manifold and does a dyno comparison w/ the 007.


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*

actually slappy is prolly pretty close....you can't exclude the velocity stacks inside the plenum as length....








inside of the apr unit. oem should mirror this....








what makes me laugh, is you have a designer ([email protected]) who gave a technical reason on why he designed the intake the way he did, and the research he put ahead of himself before finalizing it...and you girls discredit him to no end. you discredit his design to n end, because it doesn't match your ideal design. i have a solution for you flow know it alls...design your own mani, an come back to see us. 


_Modified by mirror at 2:55 PM 2-28-2007_


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_this thread is just kinda burning out... we can talk about fractions of inches and estimates of length all day, and we can debate their impact for weeks.
someone post a new thread or IM me when slappynuts/boost factory completes and tests their manifold and does a dyno comparison w/ the 007.

That would be more than an inch and its equal to alot of rpm in the wrong direction.


----------



## O2VW1.8T (Jul 9, 2003)

*Re: (mirror)*

http://www.supraforums.com/for...rtual
another manifold test


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_what makes me laugh, is you have a designer ([email protected]) who gave a technical reason on why he designed the intake the way he did, and the research he put ahead of himself before finalizing it...and you girls discredit him to no end. you discredit his design to n end, because it doesn't match your ideal design. i have a solution for you flow know it alls...design your own mani, an come back to see us. 

_Modified by mirror at 2:55 PM 2-28-2007_

I didnt try to discredit him. I did question him. He provided answers to defend his point of view. its a discussion. 
I did point out (and still maintain) that it was arrogant for him to say its the best manifold on the market without providing any more proof than the tapered plenum style, which he pointed out as less than optimal, that his makes more power.


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_
I didnt try to discredit him. I did question him. He provided answers to defend his point of view. its a discussion. 
I did point out (and still maintain) that it was arrogant for him to say its the best manifold on the market without providing any more proof than the tapered plenum style, which he pointed out as less than optimal, that his makes more power.

well...
he has shown the manifold makes power. and he has explained from a technical/engineering stand point on why his design is superior to others. yet, nobody else has daproof on why he's wrong, other than flowbench numbers.


----------



## SloJTI (Oct 29, 2005)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_
....other than flowbench numbers.









Which have already been stated by the testers and designers of these manifolds to have very limited, if any, meaning on a forced induction motor


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_
well...
he has shown the manifold makes power. and he has explained from a technical/engineering stand point on why his design is superior to others. yet, nobody else has daproof on why he's wrong, other than flowbench numbers.










Um... did you not see the dyno test of the tapered plenum? Looks as healthy as APRs to me. Again, nothing against the APR. Its just the arrogance that bothers me.
Ill lay fifty down that dizzy sees more WHP than they did BHP when he does his back to back dyno. you or brett want to take that bet?
Slappy, will you send me yuor manifold to dyno test?
Since the flow doesnt matter and all


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_

Um... did you not see the dyno test of the tapered plenum? Looks as healthy as APRs to me. Again, nothing against the APR. Its just the arrogance that bothers me.
Ill lay fifty down that dizzy sees more WHP than they did BHP when he does his back to back dyno. you or brett want to take that bet?
Slappy, will you send me yuor manifold to dyno test?
Since the flow doesnt matter and all









i http://****************.com/smile/emlove.gif this thread. i post up some pics, etc, and all you guys want o do is argue.














the way you guys are carrying on about yourselves would steer pretty much everyone away from another masses test. good job. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (SloJTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SloJTI* »_
Which have already been stated by the testers and designers of these manifolds to have very limited, if any, meaning on a forced induction motor 

this test was to demonstrate all the engineering theories typical people don't understand. just another great test to get nothing accomplished but bickering. 


_Modified by Boostin20v at 8:20 PM 2-28-2007_


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_

Um... did you not see the dyno test of the tapered plenum? Looks as healthy as APRs to me. Again, nothing against the APR. Its just the arrogance that bothers me.
Ill lay fifty down that dizzy sees more WHP than they did BHP when he does his back to back dyno. you or brett want to take that bet?
Slappy, will you send me yuor manifold to dyno test?
Since the flow doesnt matter and all









Are you guys going to do some dyno tests?


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*

Allright can we get some back to back dynoing going on?


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_Allright can we get some back to back dynoing going on?

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


----------



## Cptmorgemaker (Aug 9, 2004)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Wizard-of-OD)*

Looks good quick Q where do you buy the monster 007 manifolds


----------



## Rippinralf (Jun 21, 2002)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Cptmorgemaker)*

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


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_
well...
he has shown the manifold makes power. and he has explained from a technical/engineering stand point on why his design is superior to others. yet, nobody else has daproof on why he's wrong, other than flowbench numbers.









"combined with porting a smallport to largeport" the APR mani with 75mm throttle has claimed 37whp gains as posted yes.
Subtle yet significant bit being its also going from smallport to largeport as well as adding a 75mm throttle onto the mani.
My own feelings are the biggest factors in the gain are the largeport and 75mm throttle, the plenum being the least significant of that particular trio. (same goes for my 007mani and its R32 t'body, the 75mm throttle is the bigger gain IMHO going up from 59mm stock, being as I was already proper bigport before on my previous dual plenum mani)
The boasting and arrogance of post is the dissapointing reflection on APR/Brett
would be nice to try both contenders on the same motor and see what happens, and how the airflow bench tests correlate on a real engine...
{edit- bobqzzi engine test would be a superb one if it came off - see other thread}



_Modified by badger5 at 6:26 PM 3-1-2007_


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (badger5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *badger5* »_
"combined with porting a smallport to largeport" the APR mani with 75mm throttle has claimed 37whp gains as posted yes.....

Well my experience with the small port to big port manifold is the larger throttlebody and match porting the small port manifold to my aeb head did not allow the 75mmTB to work well at all. 
My numbers did not improve significantly until I put big runners and a Big Plenum into the mix.
Small Port Mani 75mmTB intake, match ported to AEB head.








Large Port AEB runners and RMR D-Channel 75mmTB match ported to AEB head


----------



## 20vK (Oct 21, 2005)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*

Out of interest, is there any flow data out there that compares the flow of 2 identical plenums - one with velocity stacks, one without?
I would be very interested to hear if any of the manifold designers tried both options, and what they found the results to be, either in a flow bench situation, or on a dyno.
If this has not yet been done, would it not be worth trying in an effort to come up with the "ideal" mani. Naturally, different things are happening in each differently shaped mani, (and set-up), but is there any common ground when it comes to this?
Also, can someone explain to me how the flow data translates to theoretical power support levels? From my general understanding, 150 cfm of air flow into an engine equates to an approximate 100bhp, so can we tell the power limits that each mani will comfortably support from this data? I would appreciate it if someone could point me in the right direction on this one.
A big thank you to everyone involved in the test - has made for very interesting reading, so far
Rich


_Modified by 20vK at 8:36 AM 3-1-2007_


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (20vK)*

Stock large port Vs stock small port manifold there was only ~40CFM difference. 
I would say runner size is not going to yield much without the appropriate plenum improvements to go with it. 
28" Of water = 28*.03613 = 1.01 PSI. 
At each of those flow rates, the losses will be approximately 1 PSI of boost. 
If you are pushing the CFM close to the test number then you are losing a pound of boost from the plenum to the back of the valve. This is of course generic as the actual flow rate into a cylinder is very dynamic. This test is for comparative purposes only. 


_Modified by enginerd at 12:51 PM 3-1-2007_


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
Well my experience with the small port to big port manifold is the larger throttlebody and match porting the small port manifold to my aeb head did not allow the 75mmTB to work well at all. 
My numbers did not improve significantly until I put big runners and a Big Plenum into the mix.
Small Port Mani 75mmTB intake, match ported to AEB head.








Large Port AEB runners and RMR D-Channel 75mmTB match ported to AEB head









Runners being important to the total flow ability of the 75mm throttle obviously... Not much point in just porting out the ends of the runners to match the head when the rest of the runners (smallport) are still small (if I understood your mani's correctly)
The 2nd one with larger runners performed better on the 75mm throttle then yea?
There's other differences in the mounting of the throttles also between the 2 pictures, which would correlate to the comments on some of the bench tested mani's to.
What sort of differences did they have between them when you ran them?
Was it plenum related in the main or runner related do you think? (I am thinking runners predominantely in the 2 example pictures above)



_Modified by badger5 at 6:25 PM 3-1-2007_


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (badger5)*

Yeah I agree the small port was a work around to get the car moving. The Large port picture is the "Homebrew from the test and flowed 700 CFM with number 1 runner being the worst.
Unfortunately, there is not a scientific answer to your question because I made other changes during the switch over, but I was able to get 62Whp more from the entire system. 303 to 365FWhp.
I am going to try and do a more scientific test when I get the car retuned (Just got my ECU back from Australia) I am going to do some back to back dyno pulls with the old manifold. I am also going to try and source one of the stock Pass Side large runner manifolds and test is as well.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_

Um... did you not see the dyno test of the tapered plenum? Looks as healthy as APRs to me. Again, nothing against the APR. Its just the arrogance that bothers me.
Ill lay fifty down that dizzy sees more WHP than they did BHP when he does his back to back dyno. you or brett want to take that bet?
Slappy, will you send me yuor manifold to dyno test?
Since the flow doesnt matter and all









I'll take the bet and provide the dyno.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I'll take the bet and provide the dyno.

Then why don't you offer up your mani and throttle and we'll dyno them both on my car?


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I'll take the bet and provide the dyno.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_
Then why don't you offer up your mani and throttle and we'll dyno them both on my car? 

I would love to but proper testing has been accomplished on our mani and the results are well published. I'll sell you one at cost for the sake of the testing and you should be able to easily classifieds your money back if you don't decide to keep it. I'll grind the APR logo off for you.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_Yeah I agree the small port was a work around to get the car moving. The Large port picture is the "Homebrew from the test and flowed 700 CFM with number 1 runner being the worst.
Unfortunately, there is not a scientific answer to your question because I made other changes during the switch over, but I was able to get 62Whp more from the entire system. 303 to 365FWhp.
I am going to try and do a more scientific test when I get the car retuned (Just got my ECU back from Australia) I am going to do some back to back dyno pulls with the old manifold. I am also going to try and source one of the stock Pass Side large runner manifolds and test is as well.

that will make for some interesting results.
i know when i held back my cam install cos i wanted to know what the mani did for me alone.
cams going in next so i'll know what they do too.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I would love to but proper testing has been accomplished on our mani and the results are well published. I'll sell you one at cost for the sake of the testing and you should be able to easily classifieds your money back if you don't decide to keep it. I'll grind the APR logo off for you.









Well who's car are you gonna test the manifolds on.
You have a car to test on.
So APR's Dyno with "APR's test car" and swap out Axlekiller's Mani and Throttle. You could do it at the BBQ...sell tickets.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I would love to but proper testing has been accomplished on our mani and the results are well published. I'll sell you one at cost for the sake of the testing and you should be able to easily classifieds your money back if you don't decide to keep it. I'll grind the APR logo off for you.









it would be an interesting comparison if bobqzzi's engine test had such a comparison performed "independantly"
what will be will be


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
Well who's car are you gonna test the manifolds on.
You have a car to test on.
So APR's Dyno with "APR's test car" and swap out Axlekiller's Mani and Throttle. You could do it at the BBQ...sell tickets.










I was gonna use Adam's car. I don't have one here right now with our mani on it. I have a TT 225 that will have the mani in a short while but I don't think the owner would want the mani swapping and stuff going on.
We are mostly putting the mani's on in house to customer's that have sent their vehicles here for commissioned builds. We are an engineering firm first and foremost so other than our own testing, we don't have cars coming in and out on a continual basis like a performance shop or service center.


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*

So if he sees more than 37 hub hp on your dyno from simply swapping from his current small port passenger mani to his 007 drivers largeport and appropriate pipe changes (which should basically mimick the method you used to obtain your results [?]), then you pay me 50 bucks? Ill drive down and watch, just to collect my money in person.








*****************************************************
But yes, I will gladly dyno any passenger side entry manifold back to back on my car so long as it works with my IC piping. otherwise i will need the appropriate TB and collector to test too.... 


_Modified by silvercar at 12:47 PM 3-1-2007_


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I would love to but proper testing has been accomplished on our mani and the results are well published. I'll sell you one at cost for the sake of the testing and you should be able to easily classifieds your money back if you don't decide to keep it. I'll grind the APR logo off for you.









if an S4 throttle body bolted up I'd take you up on that


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (turbotuner20V)*


_Quote, originally posted by *turbotuner20V* »_
if an S4 throttle body bolted up I'd take you up on that

Its close, but no cigar


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_So if he sees more than 37 hub hp on your dyno from simply swapping from his current small port passenger mani to his 007 drivers largeport and appropriate pipe changes (which should basically mimick the method you used to obtain your results [?]), then you pay me 50 bucks? Ill drive down and watch, just to collect my money in person.








*****************************************************
But yes, I will gladly dyno any passenger side entry manifold back to back on my car so long as it works with my IC piping. otherwise i will need the appropriate TB and collector to test too.... 

_Modified by silvercar at 12:47 PM 3-1-2007_

no, we will take whatever b.t. car is provided that has a turbo at least the size of a 28rs and bolt either mani first, dyno 3 or 4 pulls then hussle to install the second mani to keep the ambients as close as possible then dyno 3 or 4 pulls again. whoever makes the highest average hp and trq throughout the power band and across the pulls wins.
ours is not passenger side and if the car is not plumbed for driver's side when it arrives, we will need to discuss payment for the parts necessary to plumb it correctly.
also, the owner of the test vehicle will need to provide a complete list of mods prior to the testing so I know what is going to be showing up.
In Adam's case for example, we would need to do both runs with the dump open and I can't remember which fmic he has but we would need to make sure its of proper size, I'm sure it prolly is.
Ideally, I would like to see 2-3 cars with different setups trying the same testing in the same conditions as well. 


_Modified by [email protected] at 12:57 PM 3-1-2007_


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*

adam's car would be the best vehicle to test on i'd imagine because of his close proximity to APR.
he runs a precision 600hp core btw.

(how far are you guys from Kansas City?







... 3076r, driver side TB, precision 600hp core, 'port-matched' AWW head w/ a 007 large port manifold, S4 TB tho)


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Can the BF! get in on this as well?


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
no, we will take whatever b.t. car is provided that has a turbo at least the size of a 28rs and bolt either mani first, dyno 3 or 4 pulls then hussle to install the second mani to keep the ambients as close as possible then dyno 3 or 4 pulls again. whoever makes the highest average hp and trq throughout the power band and across the pulls wins.
ours is not passenger side and if the car is not plumbed for driver's side when it arrives, we will need to discuss payment for the parts necessary to plumb it correctly.
also, the owner of the test vehicle will need to provide a complete list of mods prior to the testing so I know what is going to be showing up.
In Adam's case for example, we would need to do both runs with the dump open and I can't remember which fmic he has but we would need to make sure its of proper size, I'm sure it prolly is.
Ideally, I would like to see 2-3 cars with different setups trying the same testing in the same conditions as well. 

_Modified by [email protected] at 12:57 PM 3-1-2007_

First off, that sounds like a good test http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif It would be interesting to see the results. But secondly, thats not the bet i offered


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*

I'm down for whatever. But first you don't want to use a mani for testing w/o me buying, then you say you'll bolt it and my 007 on another 28R(+) turbo setup and dyno both? Confused. lol I can buy an APR mani, that's not a problem. We were going to use the one that we used for the flowbench test but my R32 throttle didn't bolt up to your manifold, nor did a V8 S4 throttle I bought for the same reason (I've already sold this throttle). Either way, provide the dyno, and once my IC piping is fabbed for driver's side (2 weeks







), we can proceed. 
On a side note, I had planned to dyno TT225 manifold with stock throttle, use an adapter with R32 throttle, then swap to 007 using the same adapter run backwards with the OEM throttle, and finally the R32 throttle on the 007, all on the same dyno on the same day. Either way, when my IC piping is ready we'll get this going. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## transient_analysis (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: (axlekiller)*

hehe.. that throttle is in the mail to me, but I'd be happy to loan it out for this test








or I could do the dyno on my car since I also have the 007 manifold


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (transient_analysis)*

It doesn't fit the bolt pattern of the APR mani.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_I'm down for whatever. But first you don't want to use a mani for testing w/o me buying, then you say you'll bolt it and my 007 on another 28R(+) turbo setup and dyno both? Confused. lol I can buy an APR mani, that's not a problem. We were going to use the one that we used for the flowbench test but my R32 throttle didn't bolt up to your manifold, nor did a V8 S4 throttle I bought for the same reason (I've already sold this throttle). Either way, provide the dyno, and once my IC piping is fabbed for driver's side (2 weeks







), we can proceed. 
On a side note, I had planned to dyno TT225 manifold with stock throttle, use an adapter with R32 throttle, then swap to 007 using the same adapter run backwards with the OEM throttle, and finally the R32 throttle on the 007, all on the same dyno on the same day. Either way, when my IC piping is ready we'll get this going. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

I meant at least a 28rs for whoever provides the car. You bring your car with the 007 and we'll swap on ours afterwards, I know your turbo is bigger than a 28rs so its all good. I just meant I didn't want someone with a ko4 or ko3s offering up their car as the intake won't make any power.
The t.b. should bolt. I think we may enlarge the holes a little though.
Sounds good. Just im, pm. call or email me when you are ready and we can try to set it up for a Saturday but show season is starting so it may be a little hard to coordinate schedules but we'll get it done.
p.s. How much is the wager?


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*

The bolt pattern of a stock R32 throttle didn't match up to your manifold. The wager, well that's between you and silvercar. He wants to come watch, when's the BBQ again?







The rest sounds good though. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_

p.s. How much is the wager?


the original wager i offered was that dizzys 007 install would _net_ him >37hp. However, i will extend the same original 50 dollar wager (not that its a great deal of money, but enough that the point would be made...







) that the 007 setup simply puts more under the curve than the APR setup. I know that the dyno is load bearing so thats good; but i would also expect you to provide the run files. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_
the original wager i offered was that dizzys 007 install would _net_ him >37hp. However, i will extend the same original 50 dollar wager (not that its a great deal of money, but enough that the point would be made...







) that the 007 setup simply puts more under the curve than the APR setup. I know that the dyno is load bearing so thats good; but i would also expect you to provide the run files. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

if you're going to back pedal, at least know what your wager was. 

_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_
Ill lay fifty down that dizzy sees more WHP than they did BHP when he does his back to back dyno. you or brett want to take that bet?


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (mirror)*

BF! is going to win anyways


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_
if you're going to back pedal, at least know what your wager was. 


Who knows how to calculate area under the curve?







If you want to get picky, the 36whp gain on Sam's car included porting the small port head. I'm already on a big port head which means dynoing with a small port mani on my current setup wouldn't be a simlar comparison. We can however do like I said, TT225, APR, and 007 so that there's a small port on the head as a baseline with no other changes besides intake manifold and throttle. Sound like a basket full of peaches?


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_
if you're going to back pedal, at least know what your wager was. 


I fail to see how offering the same monetary wager for what amounts to the same test (bent to suit APRs requirements) is back pedaling.
50 dollars with keith or brett either one that the 007 setup will make more power than the APR setup. engrish doesnt come much more plainly than that. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
Stop calling me out on BS. Ill not buy into your games a second time, so any further posts on the same lines WILL be ignored.


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_
I fail to see how offering the same monetary wager for what amounts to the same test (bent to suit APRs requirements) is back pedaling.
50 dollars with keith or brett either one that the 007 setup will make more power than the APR setup. engrish doesnt come much more plainly than that. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
Stop calling me out on BS. Ill not buy into your games a second time, so any further posts on the same lines WILL be ignored.

games? you're the expert. go design a manifold big nut. go to it.








your original bet was dizzy would make more WHP than APR did BHP. then back pedal to say he will make more than 37whp. which one is it, cause you're confused. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by mirror at 6:36 PM 3-1-2007_


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_BF! is going to win anyways










So youre sending that to me to test against my 007 manifold?


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_
So youre sending that to me to test against my 007 manifold?

Whos going to be at this test?


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
Whos going to be at this test?

goonies.


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
Whos going to be at this test?

Probably just myself and the owner of the dyno facility i use. Standup guy, and a nice place.

http://www.dyno4mance.com


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_
games? you're the expert. go design a manifold big nut. go to it.








your original bet was dizzy would make more WHP than APR did BHP. then back pedal to say he will make more than 37whp. which one is it, cause you're confused. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Modified by mirror at 6:36 PM 3-1-2007_

37 whp over a stock small port manifold, stock throttle, and 28' of 2" IC piping. I still maintain that, but Keith said no changes to the ductwork. This is an offer of compromise.


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (axlekiller)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axlekiller* »_
Who knows how to calculate area under the curve? 

with the DD dyno we can have those numbers before we even come off the rollers...


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_
with the DD dyno we can have those numbers before we even come off the rollers...









How will the winner be determined?


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

I'm down for $50


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
How will the winner be determined?

well the 007 is installed (with 66mm throttle) so OE testing is out. I think just a simple set of power pulls should do the trick right? whichever manifold puts the most area under the curves from say... 4k to 7.4k wins? I can have him color code and plot the curves on the same graph to display. Likewise with the boost and afs from the corresponding runs. (all runs are numbered also)


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_
well the 007 is installed (with 66mm throttle) so OE testing is out. I think just a simple set of power pulls should do the trick right? whichever manifold puts the most area under the curves from say... 4k to 7.4k wins? I can have him color code and plot the curves on the same graph to display. Likewise with the boost and afs from the corresponding runs. (all runs are numbered also)









See your already starting to work the test to what you would like to see happen.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
See your already starting to work the test to what you would like to see happen.

And once again, you don't have any alternative suggestion as to how it should be done, much less a manifold to have tested.


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
See your already starting to work the test to what you would like to see happen.

how would you want it structured?


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_
how would you want it structured?

People with a little less bias doing the testing maybe?The people doing the test were all over praising the last winner of their test before the test was even conducted.Just the way they declared a clear winner and paraded it around all over the Internet was just embarrassing and it was so close that there is no way anyone could ever have any idea which one would make the most power.Now they want to see which intake makes power "under the curve" because there manifold fails to produce at the top end.Yea right this is ridiculous.


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
People with a little less bias doing the testing maybe?The people doing the test were all over praising the last winner of their test before the test was even conducted.Just the way they declared a clear winner and paraded it around all over the Internet was just embarrassing and it was so close that there is no way anyone could ever have any idea which one would make the most power.Now they want to see which intake makes power "under the curve" because there manifold fails to produce at the top end.Yea right this is ridiculous.

Bias? Since silvercar and myself can manipulate an independent flowbench as well as APR's dyno, I can see how we skewed the results.








It's become obvious that no matter what we do, you won't be convinced of anything. Meanwhile, continue to boast that you make the best manifold with the most power with no proof. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by axlekiller at 9:35 PM 3-1-2007_


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
See your already starting to work the test to what you would like to see happen.

So Slappy, is your manifold built to deliver only at te top end? 
I would imagine that if you manifold flows as well as hoped it should make power everywhere as it is the Best design for the 1.8t. This first comparison is between 007 and APR. 
I am interested in the test and am sure others are as well. APR is offering up a bunch here. The dyno and a direct competion between Manifolds. I would like to see your manifold stacked up against the rest, but you have to be willing to play within the rules decided upon, not turn every idea for running the test into a conspiracy against you succeeding. You have said it all along. The designs you have seen are inferior and yours is superior. 
I don't know if anyone even wants to listen to you anymore (sans mirror), but if you can get yours into the test you should jump at the chance. Superior Design will always win.
Good Luck...


_Modified by VariantStg3 at 11:10 PM 3-1-2007_


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_
See your already starting to work the test to what you would like to see happen.

No. Im not. My turbo starts getting busy at about 4000 and my car redlines at 7400. Im interested in making my powerband raise up. So, in my eyes, whichever manifold does that is the best one. when yuore talking about making a car faster, you cant focus on one number or one component. I want to know what will improve my system. We all know that the car with the longest and strongest torque curve wins the race. 
If you have an alternative suggestion for "scoring" the test, feel free to share it and we can discuss it here http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Im not set on anything. But i have learned from the last test that rules need to be written in stone before testing ever starts. Its the only way somebody cant talk circles around the results and devalue them
I never touted anyone as the winner before. I simply questioned APR. I still see no harm in that.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*

Alright do I have to come in here every 4 pages and tell you ladies to pipe down?I dont want to see the thread holed,it had ALOT of useful information.
That being said:
*1.* Chuck build a manifold,show them what BF's got!
*2.* Lets get these dyno comparison's going
*3.* Who ever wants to bitch,take it to aol or the IM's.


----------



## sciroccoR (Dec 23, 2003)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_
We all know that the car with the longest and strongest torque curve wins the race. 
If you have an alternative suggestion for "scoring" the test, feel free to share it and we can discuss it here http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Im not set on anything. But i have learned from the last test that rules need to be written in stone before testing ever starts. Its the only way somebody cant talk circles around the results and devalue them
I never touted anyone as the winner before. I simply questioned APR. I still see no harm in that.

the car with the best handling/best driver/best pit stops/best aero/most usuable and biggest torque curve wins the race provided it has the best tires too! 
i agree, it's a good idea to write the rules of the experiment before hand. it's called scientific method and is taught...um, i think in 5th grade. not sure. anyway, you certainly learned it in mandatory school. 
either way, data interpretation is important. declaration of the "winner" of an experiment should be as close to mathematical as possible. look at the way the car mags do a comparo, the have a whole bunch of metrics that are described before hand. in the end, they stumble over themselves apologizing that they need to make a conclusion. this is similar but i don't see any need for anyone to declare a winner as some like silvercar are interested in one range; others in another. you don't see people saying 4:1 exhaust header is better and 4:2:1 is worse do you? (well, maybe some places







)
the info provided in this thread is great. it is a shame that the bickering and slandering couldn't have been posted elsewhere so we don't have to wade through all 7 (whoa, excuse me, 9!!!) pages to find if there's more useful info here.














as wiz suggested, take it elsewhere, please?


_Modified by sciroccoR at 5:16 AM 3-2-2007_


----------



## mirror (Dec 18, 2006)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
So Slappy, is your manifold built to deliver only at te top end? 
I would imagine that if you manifold flows as well as hoped it should make power everywhere as it is the Best design for the 1.8t. This first comparison is between 007 and APR. 
I am interested in the test and am sure others are as well. APR is offering up a bunch here. The dyno and a direct competion between Manifolds. I would like to see your manifold stacked up against the rest, but you have to be willing to play within the rules decided upon, not turn every idea for running the test into a conspiracy against you succeeding. You have said it all along. The designs you have seen are inferior and yours is superior. 
*I don't know if anyone even wants to listen to you anymore (sans mirror), but if you can get yours into the test you should jump at the chance. Superior Design will always win.
Good Luck...*
_Modified by VariantStg3 at 11:10 PM 3-1-2007_

chuck has at least provided why he is designing the manifold the way he is. same with APR. the other 2 are mearly cheerleaders. i'd rather read good technical info which has been provided by APR and BF! as opposed to reading sly, childish, remarks with no merit. these 2 cheerleaders didn't help produce/design/engineer the manifold they are running...yet attempt to make everyone seem like they have done more. all they know is what they have been taught (to this point) in school, and what they have been told. 
fwiw, you may think i am biased because i run BF! in my sig. i do because paul has always hooked it up, and BF! cares about one thing. help making VW's go fast. 
continue ladies.


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_Alright do I have to come in here every 4 pages and tell you ladies to pipe down?I dont want to see the thread holed,it had ALOT of useful information.
That being said:
*1.* Chuck build a manifold,show them what BF's got!
*2.* Lets get these dyno comparison's going
*3.* Who ever wants to bitch,take it to aol or the IM's.

We are in Agreement!!!


----------



## sciroccoR (Dec 23, 2003)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
We are in Agreement!!! 

if you're not all in agreement, you should be. nothing's complicated here.


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (mirror)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mirror* »_
chuck has at least provided why he is designing the manifold the way he is. same with APR. the other 2 are mearly cheerleaders. i'd rather read good technical info which has been provided by APR and BF! as opposed to reading sly, childish, remarks with no merit. these 2 cheerleaders didn't help produce/design/engineer the manifold they are running...yet attempt to make everyone seem like they have done more. all they know is what they have been taught (to this point) in school, and what they have been told. 
fwiw, you may think i am biased because i run BF! in my sig. i do because paul has always hooked it up, and BF! cares about one thing. help making VW's go fast. 
continue ladies. 

I will agree the proof is in the pudding and we are on our way to a test. BFs/Slappynuts has a design that might do well and all of us want to see it. There has been childish remarks everywhere. 
So far we have had a "real race" = flow bench test and the 007 has come out on top. We need another "real race" = dyno output ability to rould out the results.
Slappys manifold is still in the "Bench Race" catagory. I do think is design has merit but no backing proof as of *yet.*
Finally, your comment about wanting to make *VWs go fast.* We all have that desire here. You, me, Slappy. Axle, Silver, Brett, Keith, Tuner. WE ALL WANT THE SAME THING!!!


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*

You guys are already changing the basis of the test to suit your winner.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*

Here are the stakes, at least ones that I think are amusing 
If APR wins adam has to have a 3 foot wide APR banner on his car for 3 months, and the 007 crew has to have GoAPR banners in their sig.
If 007 wins, APR has to tell the vortex (who they basically own) to let them advertise the manifold on here for 3 months, and stickie the topic.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_Here are the stakes, at least ones that I think are amusing 
If APR wins adam has to have a 3 foot wide APR banner on his car for 3 months, and the 007 crew has to have GoAPR banners in their sig.
If 007 wins, APR has to tell the vortex (who they basically own) to let them advertise the manifold on here for 3 months, and stickie the topic. 


How does the BF! fit in?


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

Hmm, Ill have to work on that one.








maybe you can propose something. Do you have a drivers side large port design?


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_Hmm, Ill have to work on that one.








maybe you can propose something. Do you have a drivers side large port design? 

Are you doing the testing?I can make a driver side on I guess.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (slappynuts)*

No, I apologize for confusion, I am not involved in the testing. 
I just put my .02$ in for a proposed wager. I don't think there should be a monetary wager involved in a test like this. 
To make testing comparable (with apr manifold) they would all need to be drivers side large port manifolds. 
Changing intercooler, and plumbing would skew the results for pass side vs drivers side manifolds. It would also add hours to the testing. 
Swapping manifolds and TB's on drivers side manifolds, you could probably get 3 - 4 of them done in a day. Different TB sizes would just require different reducers.


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_No, I apologize for confusion, I am not involved in the testing. 
I just put my .02$ in for a proposed wager. I don't think there should be a monetary wager involved in a test like this. 
To make testing comparable (with apr manifold) they would all need to be drivers side large port manifolds. 
Changing intercooler, and plumbing would skew the results for pass side vs drivers side manifolds. It would also add hours to the testing. 
Swapping manifolds and TB's on drivers side manifolds, you could probably get 3 - 4 of them done in a day. Different TB sizes would just require different reducers. 


So we are building a manifold for a specific car then?What are the specs of the car?


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (slappynuts)*

What i read shows APR offering to Dyno Adam (Axlekillers) Car with the largeport 007, and the APR Manifold.


----------



## Electron Man (Sep 21, 1999)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Wizard-of-OD)*

Looks like quite a bit of hard work went into this project.







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
The data shows that there isn't a significant difference in air flow between the top four.
Have a couple of questions related to some of the observed flow imbalances between manifold runners (no manifold in particular):
Are the flow figures for each runner an average of three runs?
What other testing, if any, was done to quantify the repeatability and reproducability of the flow bench (or other measuring equipment) used to generate the numbers?
There is some (hysteresis related) variation inherent in all flow testing equpiment...just wondering if anyone checked to see how much, that's all.










_Modified by Electron Man at 11:52 AM 3-2-2007_


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (Don R)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Don R* »_I'm down for $50









HEY! you're not allowed to post here! I'm gonna tell on you!!!


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
HEY! you're not allowed to post here! I'm gonna tell on you!!!









I thought I'd try


----------



## slappynuts (Feb 27, 2005)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Electron Man)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Electron Man* »_Looks like quite a bit of hard work went into this project.







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
The data shows that there isn't a significant difference in air flow between the top four.
Have a couple of questions related to some of the observed flow imbalances between manifold runners (no manifold in particular):
Are the flow figures for each runner an average of three runs?
What other testing, if any, was done to quantify the repeatability and reproducability of the flow bench (or other measuring equipment) used to generate the numbers?
There is some (hysteresis related) variation inherent in all flow testing equpiment...just wondering if anyone checked to see how much, that's all.









_Modified by Electron Man at 11:52 AM 3-2-2007_

Does all this data = HP?Thats the $25000 question.


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (slappynuts)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slappynuts* »_You guys are already changing the basis of the test to suit your winner.

I made a suggestion. Im not trying to skew anything. Think about it logically. Would i not want to know if i had an inferior part installed on my car just as much, if not moreso, than proving i already have a good part?
My car only revs 7400. If i could go higher i would, if for nothing more than to suit your claims of topend losses. If you would like the test to go higher, perhaps you should find somebody on standalone with a solid lifter head and stock small port manifold to do your test








Primedia mags has an engine masters shootout every year. The design rules are laid out with great detail in advance. Then they dyno the contestants engines. they add up the total value of the HP and TQ every 50 RPMs (i think) from the start of the dyno till the redline (also set in rules). The scores wind up in the tens of thousaunds obviously. But that is how they determine the winner. biggest number.
Why isnt that a fair comparison? Just suggest an alternative. Unless its whoever makes the biggest peak number (in which case i would encourage suicide







)
Hell, if you let me keep it for a couple of weeks Ill run them both at the dragstrip on the same boost and see which works better????


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (silvercar)*


----------



## danzig20v (Feb 9, 2006)

wow i leave the country for a few weeks
decide to sell my car
and i come back to see this has actually happened!
awesome work guys!!!
this is a great asset for the id=27 vaults


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_
I made a suggestion. Im not trying to skew anything. Think about it logically. Would i not want to know if i had an inferior part installed on my car just as much, if not moreso, than proving i already have a good part?
My car only revs 7400. If i could go higher i would, if for nothing more than to suit your claims of topend losses. If you would like the test to go higher, perhaps you should find somebody on standalone with a solid lifter head and stock small port manifold to do your test








Primedia mags has an engine masters shootout every year. The design rules are laid out with great detail in advance. Then they dyno the contestants engines. they add up the total value of the HP and TQ every 50 RPMs (i think) from the start of the dyno till the redline (also set in rules). The scores wind up in the tens of thousaunds obviously. But that is how they determine the winner. biggest number.
Why isnt that a fair comparison? Just suggest an alternative. Unless its whoever makes the biggest peak number (in which case i would encourage suicide







)
Hell, if you let me keep it for a couple of weeks Ill run them both at the dragstrip on the same boost and see which works better????

Tap Tap


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*

Now where's the pic of the slit in there? I'm betting there isn't one.


_Modified by Boostin20v at 8:34 PM 3-5-2007_


----------



## Boostin20v (Mar 22, 2000)

*Re: (axlekiller)*

Clean it up guys


----------



## axlekiller (Oct 16, 2006)

*Re: (Boostin20v)*

Since we all know that this flowbench testing isn't definitive, how would you like to see manifolds tested? 


_Modified by Boostin20v at 9:51 PM 3-5-2007_


----------



## malcman (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: (axlekiller)*

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif so I keep it in my views for later


----------



## sh{}e (Aug 7, 2004)

*Re: (malcman)*

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


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

In about a week I may be sending down another intake manifold for flow testing


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (Don R)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Don R* »_In about a week I may be sending down another intake manifold for flow testing









For what motor combination (transverse or longitudinal) if transverse which way does the TB face?


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
For what motor combination (transverse or longitudinal) if transverse which way does the TB face?

Deciding on that shortly. It's a 007/Homebrew beast


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (Don R)*

Sweet 850 CFM or maybe 900 and a resonance tune for 8500-9000 Rpm?


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_Sweet 850 CFM or maybe 900 and a resonance tune for 8500-9000 Rpm?


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*

So why did the Dahlback manifold perform so poorly? I though double plenums would be best of equal distribution and overal flow?


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: (18T_BT)*

1) Position of the slit in relation to the runner ports should come in from the bottom tangent to the contour of the plenum.
2) That casting does not have V-stacks to help collect the curtain of air coming in. From the flow distrubution you can see that the cone (primary plenum) helps increase air velocity to runner 1 & 2 furthest from the TB.
3) Cars running this sort of plenum usually have to abide by some restrictions of their racing class.


_Modified by Don R at 3:16 PM 3-6-2007_


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (18T_BT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *18T_BT* »_So why did the Dahlback manifold perform so poorly? I though double plenums would be best of equal distribution and overal flow?

it also has flaws in the bottom of every runner. The casting starts to close up right above where it was faced for the flange.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (silvercar)*

So tell me with all these flaws how Dahlback can advertise this:


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_So tell me with all these flaws how Dahlback can advertise this:










Well, for the small amount that it does flow over stock on a 300hp crank, I do beleive it would make 10-15hp crank. The advertisement ain't ****tin you


----------



## bwell01 (Oct 17, 2004)

*Re: (Don R)*

i think the ABD mani will be dyno'd this coming friday. the car was dynoed about a month ago so the numbers should be comparable. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Eldi (Mar 28, 2003)

*Re: (bwell01)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bwell01* »_i think the ABD mani will be dyno'd this coming friday. the car was dynoed about a month ago so the numbers should be comparable. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Just aligned with Tom about this new Dyno session plan on the ABD manifold. Is it going to be done on your car or on Tom's TT , or both ?
Make sure that you leave the same injecotrs and other parts inside with which you last dynod, so the comparison of "before / after" the ABD manifold is going be consistent and produce the required "net" difference of the manifold.


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_So tell me with all these flaws how Dahlback can advertise this:









Might they also be saying we gained 10-15 Hp when combined with a Front Mount intercooler?Maybe their test included the addition of a front mount intercooler from the "stock manifold and stock side mount intercooler."


_Modified by VariantStg3 at 7:26 AM 3-7-2007_


----------



## igotaprestent4u (Nov 2, 2002)

*Re: (VariantStg3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VariantStg3* »_
Might they also be saying we gained 10-15 Hp when combined with a Front Mount intercooler?Maybe their test included the addition of a front mount intercooler from the "stock manifold and stock side mount intercooler."

_Modified by VariantStg3 at 7:26 AM 3-7-2007_

why? did someone make 300hp on stock sidemount, unlikely


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (igotaprestent4u)*


_Quote, originally posted by *igotaprestent4u* »_
why? did someone make 300hp on stock sidemount, unlikely 

YES I HAVE!!! APR Stage 3 comes with 280Bhp on the stock side mount intercooler. My first dyno after the kit was installed some 6 years ago was 261FWhp @ 15% loss = 300 Bhp, and the addition of my front mount was 272FWhp @ 15% loss = 312Bhp. Many people have made 300Bhp on the side mount. There might only be making it in 60 degree weather, but their making it.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_So tell me with all these flaws how Dahlback can advertise this:










Because when you ask them directly, they answer when combined with further tuning - which is what they said to me.
Maybe the further tuning is what actually gave gains which they attributed to the mani alone?


----------



## VRT (Dec 8, 2001)

*Re: (badger5)*

LOL


----------



## bwell01 (Oct 17, 2004)

*Re: (Eldi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Eldi* »_
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Just aligned with Tom about this new Dyno session plan on the ABD manifold. Is it going to be done on your car or on Tom's TT , or both ?
Make sure that you leave the same injecotrs and other parts inside with which you last dynod, so the comparison of "before / after" the ABD manifold is going be consistent and produce the required "net" difference of the manifold.

everything is the same except the intake. im waiting on the results before i buy an intake mani







so it wont be on my car. but if the abd shows good gains i will probably purchase one since the price isnt bad and my goal is 390-400 whp. i dont want to be doing any internal work so i will stop there until i either get a bunch of money or someone decides to do my internals for free http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (bwell01)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bwell01* »_
everything is the same except the intake. im waiting on the results before i buy an intake mani







so it wont be on my car. but if the abd shows good gains i will probably purchase one since the price isnt bad and my goal is 390-400 whp. i dont want to be doing any internal work so i will stop there until i either get a bunch of money or someone decides to do my internals for free http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

regardless of price or gains, its a poorly machined part... very sloppy


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_So tell me with all these flaws how Dahlback can advertise this:











They can advertise whatever they like. and honestly... 10-15 BHP isnt all that impressive. I would also like to see the dyno to prove it. Otherwise, itll never be more than words to anyone.
If youd like to check out my profile, I think you'll see that im more than qualified to spot a machining error.










_Modified by silvercar at 12:49 PM 3-7-2007_


----------



## Don R (Oct 4, 2002)

*Re: (silvercar)*


_Quote, originally posted by *silvercar* »_If youd like to check out my profile, I think you'll see that im more than qualified to spot a machining error.

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


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (Don R)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Don R* »_Well, for the small amount that it does flow over stock on a 300hp crank, I do beleive it would make 10-15hp crank. The advertisement ain't ****tin you









http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Thats why I am arranging to have the manifold dyno tested against something else (possibly ABD) on a GT30R equipped Jetta.I bought the manifold to have it tested against 034's unit (







) but was kind of disappointed that even though flow was almost even across the runners,it was still very low compared to stock.
For the record this manifold is used on the Skoda WRC which made *[email protected] & [email protected]*.


----------



## VariantStg3 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*

I bet it works great in the low 300 range. Earlier Don mentioned that slitted dual plenums were used in "Restricted" racing classes. Makes sense that they would want a really good even flow especially if they are restricted by power output.
Off Topic - When are they gonna bring back Gruppe B Rally Cars, oh i miss them so?


----------



## silvercar (Aug 23, 2004)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Thats why I am arranging to have the manifold dyno tested against something else (possibly ABD) on a GT30R equipped Jetta.I bought the manifold to have it tested against 034's unit (







) but was kind of disappointed that even though flow was almost even across the runners,it was still very low compared to stock.
For the record this manifold is used on the Skoda WRC which made *[email protected] & [email protected]*.









Wouldnt the test results be more useful if it were against an OE manifold?


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_So tell me with all these flaws how Dahlback can advertise this:










Turbonator or what ever they call it also advertises 30 hp gains..

_Quote »_How much more horsepower can I get?
Designed to enhance fuel atomization, the Turbonator can produce increased horsepower. An emissions lab, licensed by the EPA conducted tests on vortex generators that produced results as high as 20 horsepower. Other independently conducted tests yielded results as high as 35 HP.

http://www.turbonator.com/faq.html


----------



## Junk T.I. (Sep 18, 2003)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Wizard-of-OD)*

hotness


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Thats why I am arranging to have the manifold dyno tested against something else (possibly ABD) on a GT30R equipped Jetta.I bought the manifold to have it tested against 034's unit (







) but was kind of disappointed that even though flow was almost even across the runners,it was still very low compared to stock.
For the record this manifold is used on the Skoda WRC which made *[email protected] & [email protected]*.









FIA restrictor fo 34mm on them too... 
Pretty high boost I would guess for that torque.


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

Where did that ABD intake dyno go anyhow? Any news on that?


----------



## turbotuner20V (Mar 16, 2004)

*Re: (04VDubGLI)*

it had some variables in the testing that made it hard to determine what the ABD manifold really did.


----------



## 04VDubGLI (May 20, 2005)

*Re: (turbotuner20V)*

... what exactly does that mean? So, it was dyno-tested, but there were issues? PM me if you don't mind, I'm curious...


----------



## bwell01 (Oct 17, 2004)

*Re: (04VDubGLI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *04VDubGLI* »_... what exactly does that mean? So, it was dyno-tested, but there were issues? PM me if you don't mind, I'm curious...

it was dynoed but there were 2 degrees of timing added which may have compromised the dyno. the same octane was used though as far as i know.


----------



## mxman (Jul 31, 2003)

*Re: (bwell01)*

dahlback, let us make a car that needs two engines to make 900 hp!


----------



## Seraphim9932 (Jan 7, 2007)

*Re: (mxman)*

I must be the stupidest guy here, but for the life of me I can't find links to buy any of the above manifolds, although the RMR seems easy enough to find. the 007 is coming so highly recommended that I was going to look into buying one but I can't seem to locate how.
(Reason for upgrade?) well, the rubber hose that goes to the Y valve under the intake has a leak and when pressurizing my intake system would only hold 3 psi max. So I need to change out all of that stock crappy hose for better aftermarket stuff, and I figure while getting under there it would be best to replace the manifold with an aftermarket unit. If I can do it without replacing the manifold, I will spend the money on a Snow Performance stage 2 w/meth kit










_Modified by Seraphim9932 at 10:48 AM 7-14-2007_


----------



## Seraphim9932 (Jan 7, 2007)

*Re: (mxman)*

I must be the stupidest guy here, but for the life of me I can't find links to buy any of the above manifolds, although the RMR seems easy enough to find. the 007 is coming so highly recommended that I was going to look into buying one but I can't seem to locate how.


----------



## 18T_BT (Sep 15, 2005)

*Re: (Seraphim9932)*

http://www.elitedubs.com/index....html


----------



## PhilW (Jan 3, 2006)

The tapering down and opening out at the end will cause lower pressure at where the injectors sit which will cause the spray pattern to be sucked into the middle of the port. See Bernouilles theory.







. lol.
I'm surprised that not many of the runners are tapered for increased velocity.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (PhilW)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PhilW* »_See Bernouilles theory

Assuming the velocity of the pressurised air remains constant throughout the runner.Now explain why the production piece does not have this:
















*stock oval port ---> larger circular port opening*


----------



## DonSupreme (Apr 11, 2006)

Wizard,
Whats the status on the longitudinal manifold 034 is supposed to be building?


----------



## DonSupreme (Apr 11, 2006)

I see, well I hope Bob gets his out soon.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Wizard-of-OD)*


----------



## turbo-daddy (Dec 28, 2002)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Wizard-of-OD)*

damn, alot of info. gotta read more later http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Kain420 (Dec 8, 2001)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (turbo-daddy)*

did this bet ever take place?


----------



## concept-R (Jun 10, 2008)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Kain420)*

Hello
i´m searching for the Homepage of Monster 007??
reguards


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (concept-R)*


_Quote, originally posted by *concept-R* »_Hello
i´m searching for the Homepage of Monster 007??
reguards

The 007's were made by monster-turbo.com but are no longer available, you may want to contact them. The 007 was designed by Don R, who also designed the SEM intake mani that will be out shortly. 








I have an 007 and will be selling it when I move over to the SEM intake.


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (concept-R)*

its no longer in production. It is being replaced soon with the SEM manifold designed by the same person as the 007. You are either going to have to find a used 007 or wait for a SEM


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

with some SEM manifold on the way, you will likely see some 007's appear on the market shortly after.


----------



## concept-R (Jun 10, 2008)

*Re: (badger5)*

I take what I get!
Everyone who sell a intake mainfold can write me at [email protected] .
I think i´ll get one from Adam but safety is safety.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** ([email protected])*

Does anyone know if a ballpark $$ has been mentioned for the SEM?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (l88m22vette)*


_Quote, originally posted by *l88m22vette* »_Does anyone know if a ballpark $$ has been mentioned for the SEM?

$825







Not inlcuding the Throttle Body. 80mm Throttle Body is $225


_Modified by [email protected] at 3:58 AM 6-16-2008_


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** ([email protected])*

Any deal for early adopters?







Also, how will the SEM compare to the 007BP?


_Modified by l88m22vette at 11:20 AM 6-13-2008_


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (l88m22vette)*


_Quote, originally posted by *l88m22vette* »_Any deal for early adopters?







Also, how will the SEM compare to the 007BP?

_Modified by l88m22vette at 11:20 AM 6-13-2008_

An Official Release will be soon and I will go over the specs then










_Modified by [email protected] at 9:35 AM 6-13-2008_


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** ([email protected])*

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


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (l88m22vette)*


_Quote, originally posted by *l88m22vette* »_Any deal for early adopters?

Due to the limited quantity of production I doubt there will be any deal.It will also maintain the value of the manifolds....
These manifolds WILL sell.


----------



## inivid (Aug 25, 2003)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Wizard-of-OD)*

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


----------



## Dragonfly (Dec 9, 2003)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (inivid)*

Any word on the SEM intake?


----------



## ejg3855 (Sep 23, 2004)

I also would like to know about the SEM, it seems like less work than swapping a head just for the large port.


----------



## vincent-mk1 (Sep 27, 2007)

*Re: (ejg3855)*

Would it also fit on a 16vg60 motor or ,..better to look for another model?


----------



## UntouchableGTI (Apr 30, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
An Official Release will be soon and I will go over the specs then









_Modified by [email protected] at 9:35 AM 6-13-2008_
























I know nothing


----------



## O2VW1.8T (Jul 9, 2003)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (UntouchableGTI)*

SEM manifold is on its way to me







and the results are awesome. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## UntouchableGTI (Apr 30, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (O2VW1.8T)*


_Quote, originally posted by *O2VW1.8T* »_SEM manifold is on its way to me







and the results are awesome. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

me 2 me 2-----------------> excited


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Wizard-of-OD)*









Send me a PM if you want 1.








p.s. if you have a small port head it is not an issue as I include an transition phenolic spacer to those who DONT have an AEB head.


----------



## O2VW1.8T (Jul 9, 2003)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (INA)*


_Quote, originally posted by *INA* »_








Send me a PM if you want 1.








p.s. if you have a small port head it is not an issue as I include an transition phenolic spacer to those who DONT have an AEB head.
 http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Should get mine from INA soon







thanks


----------



## UntouchableGTI (Apr 30, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (O2VW1.8T)*


_Quote, originally posted by *O2VW1.8T* »_ http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Should get mine from INA soon







thanks

theoretically me too


----------



## gtimitch (Nov 20, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (UntouchableGTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *UntouchableGTI* »_
theoretically me too
















Me too.
Yea, there gona sell alright, they very well may sell out as soon as they are released.


----------



## Durbo20vT (Apr 30, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (O2VW1.8T)*


_Quote, originally posted by *O2VW1.8T* »_ and the results are awesome. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

indeed they are







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


----------



## SAVwKO (Mar 8, 2003)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (INA)*


_Quote, originally posted by *INA* »_








Send me a PM if you want 1.








p.s. if you have a small port head it is not an issue as I include an transition phenolic spacer to those who DONT have an AEB head.

lol...you obviously musta not been listening to don...and just thinking about th $$.
I'll be picking up Jeff's this weekend.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (SAVwKO)*

How do you guys know?...Man word gets around quick


----------



## SAVwKO (Mar 8, 2003)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** ([email protected])*

Don, when you're good you're good.


----------



## halchka99 (Apr 18, 2002)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_How do you guys know?...Man word gets around quick









you musta been drunk


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

Damn...


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (SAVwKO)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SAVwKO* »_
lol...you obviously musta not been listening to don...and just thinking about th $$.
I'll be picking up Jeff's this weekend.









No....just about customers with future plans of upgrading to a large port head.Not really looking for a debate.


----------



## SAVwKO (Mar 8, 2003)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (INA)*








aight den mr. salesman.


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (04VDubGLI)*

Which of these would best suit a K04-o2x setup like urs? i know u have ABD but if u could goagain would u gowith ABD?


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (stevec1.8t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SAVwKO* »_







aight den mr. salesman.

I do what I can to provide quality parts and quality TECHNICAL information to this forum.Having a degree in Engineering and almost 10 years experience in VW/Audi allows me to do that.

_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_Which of these would best suit a K04-o2x setup like urs? i know u have ABD but if u could goagain would u gowith ABD?

What turbocharger do you have right now?


----------



## SAVwKO (Mar 8, 2003)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (INA)*


_Quote, originally posted by *INA* »_Not really looking for a debate.

ssh


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (INA)*

K03s .. Used to think I wanted a 2871R or a 3071R but..gas in NY is not cheap..so If i can find a K04-02x cheap enough 2 piece together Ill do that and viceversus for a GT28RS .. ppl have been telling me to upgrade my mani for a while but is it worth it? the numbers recorded they were not on stock turbo right?


_Modified by stevec1.8t at 9:38 PM 8-13-2008_


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (SAVwKO)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stevec1.8t* »_K03s .. Used to think I wanted a 2871R or a 3071R but..gas in NY is not cheap..so If i can find a K04-02x cheap enough 2 piece together Ill do that and viceversus for a GT28RS .. ppl have been telling me to upgrade my mani for a while but is it worth it? the numbers recorded they were not on stock turbo right?

No,but the reason Don did the dyno runs @ low boost settings was to prove how the manifold would perform on say a K04 or a K03S.It all depends what YOU want to do.The key to making power is by increasing engine efficiency.


----------



## stevec1.8t (Jun 27, 2007)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (INA)*

yeah but how low is boost on a 3071R-15lbs is prolly damn close to 25lbs on a k03S..dont u think?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (INA)*

I thought I might add to this...Bill Brockbank (Badger-5) took the opportunity in having his LP 80mm SEM intake flowed by http://www.JNLRacing.com.
Thanks again Bill http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Quote, originally posted by *Badger-5 Email Correspondance* »_From: JNL Racing <[email protected]>
Subject: SEM Manifold test results
To: "BILL BROCKBANK" <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, 15 October, 2008, 12:21 AM

Overview
Mathematically the internal runner size on each runner has an identical cross sectional area to the intake mouth of a big port head if we make the assumption it is a perfect rectangle. Obviously we are in a scenario where in real life the intake has radiused sides so there is mathematically scope to open the mouth of the cylinderhead port further than the standard port mouth size without loss of flow. Further experimentation would have to be done to actually work out what the threshold is and as to how much effect the port design has on it.
Testing Method
The flow results of each individual runner Number 1 being closest to the throttle body which in this case cyl number 4 closest to the gearbox. All flow figures have been pulled at 10" on a digital bench calibrated to a superflow 110 with allowances for atmospheric conditions whilst tested. A calculated equivalent using a 1.673 correction factor has also been made for a 28" test pressure result for comparison with existing results from other sources. From experience time and time again the mathematical 10" to 28" conversion actually yields results 1-1.5% lower than an actual tested 28" at flow figures between 250-300cfm. On the individual runners 3 seperate pulls where made at different bench operating temperatures (heat build up over time from extended running of the motors) and an average taken from the results.
CFM Report
Percentage variation between each of the individual runners is a maximum of 1.54% between the highest and lowest. An acceptable variation for high performance mapping purposes when using a single lambda probe to determine the average of 4 cylinders is considered to be 3-4% deviation from minimum to maximum. So the manifold falls well below this safety range.
FPS Report
At 10" test pressure port/runner velocity is considered at choke at 209fps which equates to 350fps at 28". The runner velocities where measured as central as possible to the runner at the cylinderhead flange exit/entry point. Higher velocities where recorded towards the sides however it was difficult to record a constant across the 4 runners for comparison so it was decided to take the lowest velocity found at the centre of the runner as the comparison point. As can be seen all runner velocities far exceed choke point which within a cylinderhead port would be considered detrimental to the power output of the engine (similar to running too much timing advance). However such characteristics in a manifold can be deemed beneficial in improving throttle response at certain points in the rev range. 

SEM Manifold Results
Test Pitot SCFM 
Intake Pressure FPS 
1 10 269 162.3 
2 10 282 164.5 
3 10 287 164.8 
4 10 288 162.4 
Test Pitot SCFM 
Intake Pressure FPS 
1 28 450 271.6 
2 28 472 275.3 
3 28 480 275.8 
4 28 482 271.7
Flow test involving a mildly ported testhead
As an experiment we have also taken a mildly ported large port head with standard port mouth sizes to mate up to the SEM manifold. (Again flowed at a 10" test pressure). As you can see although there is a drop it is considered quite minor in the grant scheme of things averaging between 2.5-3% drop across the complete lift range.
The most surprising thing here though is that although runner 1 flows physically worse than runner 3 it only exhibits a 2.5% drop across the range against the 2.9% drop of runner 3 which will be down to the slower runner velocities that were recorded. Which goes to show that runner flow without the equation of the head can be quite deceptive and should only be taken as a guideline as to how well they are matched to each other not of their final ability. I also shows that port/runner velocity plays an important part in final combinations.
Common to both runners tested on the head; when measuring port/runner velocity at the port mouth of the head with the intake bolted on the port velocity became approximatelly the average of the two items when tested individually.
For example runner one measured 269fps on it's own and port 1 measured 227fps on it's own. Once the intake was bolted onto the head the port/runner velocity averaged out at 245fps. (All three velocity measurements taken as central to the runner/port as possible).

Final Overview
The SEM manifold for use on a standard head application will potentially see small gains in tq and hp in the mid to top range over a standard manifold due to the high runner velocities, providing it is correctly matched with the right throttle body (not too large) there will be improved throttle response over a standard manifold. There may be a small sacrifice of power in the low rev range as it will take extra time to fill the larger plenumb chamber however this would have to be tested on a dyno to verify. 
For big power/high rpm application it would be considered a highly desirable manifold to have specifically because of the large plenumb chamber giving a large storage capacity of boost pressure for the cylinders to draw from. This means less of a pressure drop during gear changes and would be ideally suited to track orientated vehicles whether drag or circuit. For drag race/big turbo - high boost application it would be advised to open the ports up to slow the runner velocities down accordingly, whereas circuit cars with smaller turbo's and lower boost settings will benefit from the higher velocities for out of the corner throttle response on the standard port/runner size. *Comparing the figures of the SEM manifold against existing test results floating around the net not only does it outflow the best manifolds out there at the moment but it is also the most consistant across all four runners even outdoing my previously favoured RMR manifold which has a
2.8% variation across the runners.*
Courtesy of http://www.JNLRacing.com
Feel free to recirculate as desired, I've also attached a few dodgy pics of the phone of the setup. Unfortunatelly my camera battery went flat and didn't have a charger on me. At one point I'll do the AGU intake aswell as the AEB to compare it to. However I've just hit a massive back log as I'm taking delivery of another 4 jobs tomorrow so probably wont get onto it for at least another 2-3 weeks. Will get the manifold back in the post tomorrow by Special delivery as the couriers wont insure it. If you can also get me a price on a big port one for Karl as he's going to be needing one. I'll have to confirm throttle body choice before order though as we dont want it too big. For some reason the VAG turbo boys in America haven't realised yet that a forced induction engine favours a smaller throttle body than naturally aspirated. Same reason if you look at a small block chevy with a supercharger and a blow through carb setup they make the carb for
supercharger use out of a 750cfm body whereas a naturally aspirated equivalent engine would run either an 850 or 950cfm carb depending on cam and head spec.

-- 
Kind regards
Jean-Paul
http://www.JNLRacing.com



























































_Modified by [email protected] at 5:25 AM 10-17-2008_


----------



## DonSupreme (Apr 11, 2006)

Very nice....
P.S. I also like the piece about the throttle bodies.


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: (DonSupreme)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DonSupreme* »_
P.S. I also like the piece about the throttle bodies.

no kidding. Lots of Evos making 500awhp+ on 35r's with a 65mm TB


----------



## DonSupreme (Apr 11, 2006)

*Re: (cincyTT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cincyTT* »_
no kidding. Lots of Evos making 500awhp+ on 35r's with a 65mm TB

My thoughts exactly.....


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (cincyTT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cincyTT* »_
no kidding. Lots of Evos making 500awhp+ on 35r's with a 65mm TB

True... I used to make 485bhp on stock t'body but then found another 32bhp from the R32 t'body and 007 mani
I race against 600-700bhp EVO's in my race series and they all run std t'bodies.. I say why make it harder when you can go bigger and gain power for not extra boost?










_Modified by badger5 at 10:50 PM 10-15-2008_


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

*Re: (badger5)*

Really good results, it blew 007 away, damn. I love when there are quality products on the market that just lock you up like this one so you don't really have to do any re-searching before you buy a product lol

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif DonR, really good job. If manifold is ordered for AEB head, ports should just match right? No extra 'matching' required?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: (mescaline)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mescaline* »_Really good results, it blew 007 away, damn. I love when there are quality products on the market that just lock you up like this one so you don't really have to do any re-searching before you buy a product lol

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif DonR, really good job. If manifold is ordered for AEB head, ports should just match right? No extra 'matching' required?

Thanks, yes sir there is no need to port match the standard AEB config, although you can increase it if you decide to gasket match it or go larger to 8mm overbore.


----------



## RobSonic (Sep 26, 2008)

So would a 65mm TB be a much better option than the 80mm one then? What's the downside of a TB that's too big?


----------



## JNL (Dec 13, 2007)

*Re: (RobSonic)*

I don't normally post on this forum but I figured as the whole email was posted I should clarify the throttle body situation, which was originally discussed at greater length on the phone.
First of there is no point having a large throttle body if anywhere within the boost run there is a restriction in the pipework, i.e. narrower than the throttle body itself. As this will end up being the choking point in the equation.
e.g. if you are running 63mm pipework for your boost run you want a 2.5" core intercooler and a 65mm throttle body. This will then give you the best physical throttle response with minimal pressure drop. 
In the same token if you have a cylinderhead that flows 245cfm at each port the theoretical capacity (obviously pending cam duration and overlap) is a total consumption of 700+cfm. At this point if you have a suitably sized turbo to feed the right airflow into the head (this is what the compressor maps come most in use for) then it is important that the plenumb chamber can be filled as quickly as you are drawing from it at high rpm. 
Otherwise the result wil be a boost deficiency at high rpm. In this case mathematically an 80mm throttle body will be the most suitable for the application providing that the boost run is sized accordingly to suit.
So does one go for a larger or smaller throttle body? Ultimatelly this comes down to the boost run and driving preference. Bill (Badger5) for example races his car round a track and spends most of his life at high rpm. So at this point a slow pick up from idle is not as important. The same will apply to a car that lives on the drag strip.
Whilst on the other hand if your car is a weekend warrior that spends most of it's life on the road a 65mm throttle body with a 63mm boost run will see you comfortably to 550hp with a much more pleasurable driving experience.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: (JNL)*

Jean-Paul, I appreciate your contribution and for the great analysis on the SEM Intake http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## JNL (Dec 13, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Not a prob Don, I'm just glad it does what it does as the intake has been a stumbling block on a project we're working on as it was essential to have the meat to open the ports coupled with even distribution and high flow. 
Up until now we we're thinking of going for the RMR manifold as we felt it was more important to have even flow distribution for a high hp application for mapping purposes than max flow as we could always crank the boost up. However this issue has now been resolved.
We'll be sorting one out in the near future for our project, after which I'll do a second analysis where we actually open the runners up further and see what the effect is as obviously I couldn't go and hack into Bill's one


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: (JNL)*


_Quote, originally posted by *JNL* »_We'll be sorting one out in the near future for our project, after which I'll do a second analysis where we actually open the runners up further and see what the effect is as obviously I couldn't go and hack into Bill's one









Let me know if you need anything http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: (mescaline)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mescaline* »_Really good results, it blew 007 away, damn. I love when there are quality products on the market that just lock you up like this one so you don't really have to do any re-searching before you buy a product lol


This is why some of us that know the real deal from the pretty show pieces have been so excited about this manifold for so long.







I'll have my flowbench results back hopefully today or tomorrow as well. I've got both small and large port versions ready to go. Now who wants one?


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
This is why some of us that know the real deal from the pretty show pieces have been so excited about this manifold for so long.







I'll have my flowbench results back hopefully today or tomorrow as well. I've got both small and large port versions ready to go. Now who wants one?









Yea but well, people usually want clear proof and not just a word for cash they are paying and this is what i call a proof. Anyway I am definitely getting one soon.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: (mescaline)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mescaline* »_
Yea but well, people usually want clear proof and not just a word for cash they are paying and this is what i call a proof. Anyway I am definitely getting one soon.

Jean-Pauls analysis is pretty much bang-on in reference to our 8 months of R&D http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## RobSonic (Sep 26, 2008)

So for my 63mm IC pipework I should be running a 65mm TB on my car (fast road, occassional trackday)? 80mm TB hasn't shown any negative effects on my 300hp car, it rips at high revs and is fine at low revs.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: (mescaline)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mescaline* »_
Yea but well, people usually want clear proof and not just a word for cash they are paying and this is what i call a proof. Anyway I am definitely getting one soon.

your welcome.
we have been waiting for these and had snippets of info shared quietly since Xmas.. so nice to see it both does as expected, and is available now.
These tests were independantly run here in the UK with JP providing the facility and where with all to do a most excellent (said in a bill & ted voice) job.
props to him and thanks for that,
props to DonR for the design and SEM in the balls to go all out to produce them


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** ([email protected])*

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


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *badger5* »_
your welcome.
we have been waiting for these and had snippets of info shared quietly since Xmas.. so nice to see it both does as expected, and is available now.
These tests were independantly run here in the UK with JP providing the facility and where with all to do a most excellent (said in a bill & ted voice) job.
props to him and thanks for that,
props to DonR for the design and SEM in the balls to go all out to produce them


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


----------



## CTS Turbo (Oct 2, 2008)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_ http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

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


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Clay @ CTS Turbo)*

3x


----------



## q225 (Nov 24, 2008)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** ([email protected])*

Isn't flow testing really best suited for non forced induction cars. Once boost is applied the physics of air flow changes. / Correct.
I've also seen some prts manufactors do "testing" with larger turbos then claim huge gains. I've seen TDI tuners do this to show large gains but then later admit running larger fuel pump or iced fuel. Untill I see the intake manifolds tested on a pure stock setup//


----------



## JNL (Dec 13, 2007)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (q225)*

Yes you're right flow dynamics indeed change under pressure. There is a multitude of mathematical formulaes out there that allow you to calculate the theoretical cfm by use of the pressure ratio as used in compressor map graphs.
As for doing a dyno run with a manifold on a standard setup well to put it quite mildly is completelly pointless. Anyone that is looking at starting modifications on an OEM turbo application seeking more hp is seriously barking up the wrong tree if they are looking at investiong in an intake as their first port of call. Yes there may be some gains or even losses in particular areas of the rev range, but money vs ponies gained it is the wrong route to take.
For example if you were to take a booste engine and port the head to the max it could physically flow and boltit onto a standard intake/exhaust setup you will never see the full potential gains.
Because 1) The standard restrictive exhaust system will create too much backpressure meaning you won't expell all waste gasses from the combustion cycle resulting in increased EGT's and richer AFR readings. Ultimatelly you need to back of timing and fuel and you won't make the full hp/tq potential. 2) Same applies on the intake if the manifold or intercooler or throttle body is less in flow than the head it will starve the engine of air relative to it's actual capability. Less air = less fuel and ultimatelly less power then the full potential. The idea of flow testing any intake or exhaust is to see whether it acts as a restriction to the rest of the system. Doesn't really matter what the results are so long the testing method is consistant across the setups as all items within all the setups will behave identically under pressure.
With regards to an OEM application the intake is definatelly not the initial restriction in the case of the 1.8t hence the reason why tuners are not testing the mani's on standard setups.


----------



## 20thAEdub2615 (Jan 10, 2008)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (JNL)*

is there a company out there that makes a good passenger side manifold other than abd?


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (q225)*


_Quote, originally posted by *q225* »_...Untill I see the intake manifolds tested on a pure stock setup//









i think you are mising the point of this completely...








no one should think SEM is suited to stock setup...
modded motor, bigger turbo need only apply.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (badger5)*

On a stock 225TT there was a ~10hp/15+ft/lb gain, with better numbers throughout the powerband...there was just a long thread with this info. And yes, it has far better increases with better parts.


----------



## VWGolfA4 (Apr 5, 2000)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (l88m22vette)*

What's the OEM part number for the AUG manifold?


----------



## 16vturbo gti (Dec 24, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (VWGolfA4)*

wow relay good info i like the dhalback witch looks like the old audi design for the ur quarto it may not flow the most it flows the most even


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (16vturbo gti)*

It does look sweet, but its only for a small-port


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (l88m22vette)*


_Quote, originally posted by *l88m22vette* »_It does look sweet, but its only for a small-port









blinky/exttreme has a big port version on his car.


----------



## speeding-g60 (Aug 1, 2004)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (cincyTT)*

when de Audi version coming out????? dont make me put the AWIC where the rain tray is


----------



## BeasTToftheEast (Sep 20, 2007)

What extra work goes into using the large port SEM over the small port since I'm going with a 30R not too far down the road


----------



## BeasTToftheEast (Sep 20, 2007)

anyone?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (speeding-g60)*


_Quote, originally posted by *speeding-g60* »_when de Audi version coming out????? dont make me put the AWIC where the rain tray is









Workin on it








Version 1 
Version 2 

_Quote, originally posted by *TTguy30* »_What extra work goes into using the large port SEM over the small port since I'm going with a 30R not too far down the road

If you are going from a small port to a large port we supply a template to gauge how much you have to port the intake ports to AEB/AEB gasket match or even 4mm larger. Reserve a few hours for the work.


_Modified by [email protected] at 3:42 AM 1-30-2009_


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

Bump for feedback on those with SEM and 80mm dbw t'body.
Any unwanted side effects seen?
thx


----------



## BeasTToftheEast (Sep 20, 2007)

Would going large port be a big step up from small port?


----------



## ColoradoSoul03 (Sep 14, 2006)

*Re: (TTguy30)*

Has anyone ever thought of an equal length manifold? Kind of like a tuned header but for intake rather than exhaust. Smooth mandrel bends. Go look at a 3rd gen Eclipse 4-cylinder and you'll see what I mean







Sounds like I might have a homebrew project.....


----------



## veedubwolfsburg (Jun 4, 2007)

*Re: (ColoradoSoul03)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ColoradoSoul03* »_Has anyone ever thought of an equal length manifold? Kind of like a tuned header but for intake rather than exhaust. Smooth mandrel bends. Go look at a 3rd gen Eclipse 4-cylinder and you'll see what I mean







Sounds like I might have a homebrew project.....

From what I've heard, this type of manifold would be a good setup for those looking for a boost in low end torque. I'm unsure of its effects on top end power though, as I believe it works against you in that category.


----------



## ColoradoSoul03 (Sep 14, 2006)

*Re: (veedubwolfsburg)*


_Quote, originally posted by *veedubwolfsburg* »_
From what I've heard, this type of manifold would be a good setup for those looking for a boost in low end torque. I'm unsure of its effects on top end power though, as I believe it works against you in that category.

Really? The matched flow would hinder high end? Hmm, everything is a compromise, lol.


----------



## 01BoostedGTI (Nov 15, 2005)

*Re: (ColoradoSoul03)*

OK, I'm not going to lie...I didn't read all of the 12+ pages of thread here....but I do need to know something....I have an ABD Mani. I am having such a hard time find the right sized hex key to remove the OEM Injector Inserts and place them in the ABD. Anyone know 1) what size the Hex Key is and 2) where I can get one? VW here in GA won't let me see it, tell me what size it is, or anything....they basically said, "Yoiu're on your own!" Frustrating.....so any help would be appreciated. thanks all...and awesome testing....


----------



## Boostin20v (Mar 22, 2000)

*FV-QR*

Use a bolt head. screw two nuts on to the end of the bolt and use them to turn the seat out.


----------



## DonSupreme (Apr 11, 2006)

*Re: (01BoostedGTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *01BoostedGTI* »_OK, I'm not going to lie...I didn't read all of the 12+ pages of thread here....but I do need to know something....I have an ABD Mani. I am having such a hard time find the right sized hex key to remove the OEM Injector Inserts and place them in the ABD. Anyone know 1) what size the Hex Key is and 2) where I can get one? VW here in GA won't let me see it, tell me what size it is, or anything....they basically said, "Yoiu're on your own!" Frustrating.....so any help would be appreciated. thanks all...and awesome testing....

I don't know for sure, but I think its a really large hex --- like 21 or 22 mm.
Not the most commonly used tool.


----------



## 01BoostedGTI (Nov 15, 2005)

*Re: FV-QR (Boostin20v)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Boostin20v* »_Use a bolt head. screw two nuts on to the end of the bolt and use them to turn the seat out.

ok, so i think you very well may be a genius! thanks you.......you are a lifesaver......


----------



## 16plus4v (May 4, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (01BoostedGTI)*

So to update this thread. Don has submitted information stating the SEM intake manifold is designed for turbo's in the GT3076r+ frame. Which is the presumed end result of the APR >  SEM dyno which was deleted.
*Big port APR with R32 TB > Big port SEM with 80mm TB *
*Small Port SEM with 80mm TB > Small Port 007 with stock TB*
Please correct me if i'm wrong. Since the thread was black hole'd.
Maybe we can have the dyno plots posted in this thread to keep it "on topic".


----------



## MomoJetta (Apr 16, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (16plus4v)*

I was wondering if i could drop a big port 007 manifold without to much problems, all i have is a apr flash a fmic and a apr tbe


----------



## jk35 (Sep 1, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (Boostin20v)*

17mm head bolt, and spun it with a pipe wrench (Audi 058 AEB "Large Port"" All but one are cracked, chipped and basically destroyed. what are those plastic inserts called? and where can I buy 4 new ones?
Is this one of these things that makes it cheaper to just buy another manifold? Because if the injector inserts are priced ridiculously, that's going to just push me that much closer to purchasing a kickass IM. RMR looks really appealing (since I'm longitudinal) and the fact that it includes a fuel rail is definitely an added value...
As I am understanding, the SEM won't work on my configuration? Is this true?
Besides RMR, what else is out there (that works well)


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (jk35)*

In the works and up'n coming...


----------



## water&air (Aug 1, 2002)

*Re: FV-QR ([email protected])*

^ oh man the guys that want a pass side tb mani are gonna be pissed. lol


----------



## jooleeo (Jan 17, 2008)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (SloJTI)*

where to buy the 007? cant find it haha TKS.


----------



## ethorman (Jun 18, 2006)

You may be able to custom order them, if not then you can only find them used, most people go with the SEM Manifold, its taken off the 007 but is said to flow more. Good luck!


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (l88m22vette)*

Issam, what happened to that Dahlback manifold you received?


----------



## INA (Nov 16, 2005)

*Re: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results*** (Pat @ Pitt Soundworks)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pat @ Pitt Soundworks* »_Issam, what happened to that Dahlback manifold you received?

Not Dahlback
Skoda WRC...
waiting for fab department to free up some time to build all the intercooler piping we need.Doing a real world test of whatever manifolds I have available to me.

_Quote, originally posted by *jooleeo* »_where to buy the 007? cant find it haha TKS.

This is what you want








http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=4026443


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

*FV-QR*

Ah, I thought they were one and the same.


----------



## smugfree3 (Feb 20, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (Pat @ Pitt Soundworks)*

so, im wondering why anybody would even bother with anything other than a homebrew/aeb mani. i just finished mine and love it. i had the aeb mani layin around, bought roughly 100bucks of stuff from RMR, and payed a local welder 100 bucks to put it all together (including radiusing the inside where the runners meet the plenum. 
it only cost me 200, but i cant see anybody else payin more than 300 for this whole project after sourcing the aeb mani from a local junkyard.
i mean, 200-300 bucks for 700cfm versus $800 for 785. talk about diminishing returns...


----------



## cesarel (Aug 13, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (smugfree3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *smugfree3* »_so, im wondering why anybody would even bother with anything other than a homebrew/aeb mani. i just finished mine and love it. i had the aeb mani layin around, bought roughly 100bucks of stuff from RMR, and payed a local welder 100 bucks to put it all together (including radiusing the inside where the runners meet the plenum. 
it only cost me 200, but i cant see anybody else payin more than 300 for this whole project after sourcing the aeb mani from a local junkyard.
i mean, 200-300 bucks for 700cfm versus $800 for 785. talk about diminishing returns...

you have pics?


----------



## VRT (Dec 8, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (smugfree3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *smugfree3* »_so, im wondering why anybody would even bother with anything other than a homebrew/aeb mani. i just finished mine and love it. i had the aeb mani layin around, bought roughly 100bucks of stuff from RMR, and payed a local welder 100 bucks to put it all together (including radiusing the inside where the runners meet the plenum. 
it only cost me 200, but i cant see anybody else payin more than 300 for this whole project after sourcing the aeb mani from a local junkyard.
i mean, 200-300 bucks for 700cfm versus $800 for 785. talk about diminishing returns...

That unit made 700 cfm but not all are going to be equal. The others are ceratin to have the same results every time. I don't mind spending money for a product that will produce every time


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

Me neither, I got a used RMR w/ some goodies for $5Bills. I can't see that as a bad investment.


----------



## smugfree3 (Feb 20, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (cesarel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cesarel* »_
you have pics?


this s****y cell phone pic is the only one ive got right now
but as far as variance between the custom jobs go, how bad could you screw up?? its a generic plenum that is always the same attached to factory runners that are also always the same. 
and lets say for the sake of argument that you make one and it "only" flows 600cfm. its still a tremendous bang for buck on the dollar vs. cfm scale and still leaves you facing shelling out another 500 or so bucks for 190 more cfm. like i said, diminishing returns.


----------



## cesarel (Aug 13, 2009)

thats nice the pic not that nice but it looks pretty good! nice job.


----------



## 16plus4v (May 4, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_In the works and up'n coming...

















It's NOV !! Lets GO !!!


----------



## tedgram (Jul 2, 2005)

Any updates?


----------



## CA Solt (Feb 23, 2003)

*updates*

Doesn't APTuning make an intake manifold now?
Any dyno results for that unit?


----------



## DMVDUB (Jan 11, 2010)

Passenger side SEM manifold PLEEEEEEEZ


----------



## OneFiftyThree (Aug 26, 2009)

*Good Thread*

Very good 411 here.
Thanks to all who contributed


----------



## 1999.5GTIVR6 (Jun 15, 2011)

The holy Grail of IMO. 
http://www.intengineering.com/integrated-engineering-1-8t-transverse-intake-manifold.html 

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## nuff said (Nov 22, 2011)

*intake manifold numbers/ratings*

After looking at the flow chart comparos for the top intake manifolds from this chart made in 2007
There is one integratged engineering manifold that blows the doors off anything listed here and at good cost savings.Total flow cfm from all 4 runners was 1179cfm !!!! averaging 294.75 cfm per runner and all within .5% of each other offering superior balance also .At a cost of 800 bucks,this 1.8t 20 v mani is the best of the best and near perfect.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

:beer::beer:

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## screwball (Dec 11, 2001)

1999.5GTIVR6 said:


> The holy Grail of IMO.
> http://www.intengineering.com/integrated-engineering-1-8t-transverse-intake-manifold.html
> 
> :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:



uh boy....


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

nuff said said:


> After looking at the flow chart comparos for the top intake manifolds from this chart made in 2007
> There is one integratged engineering manifold that blows the doors off anything listed here and at good cost savings.Total flow cfm from all 4 runners was 1179cfm !!!! averaging 294.75 cfm per runner and all within .5% of each other offering superior balance also .At a cost of 800 bucks,this 1.8t 20 v mani is the best of the best and near perfect.


:beer:


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

Interesting bump.
$100 bet that IP checks out to regular in here... :laugh:
I am sure at some point someone will test the IE manifold against the others on the market.

p.s. Please do not ruin a good thread with trolling.


----------



## BeasTToftheEast (Sep 20, 2007)

I know it's been a few years, but I'm curious if that test was ever done comparing the SEM to the IE transverse intake manifolds.


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

I've posted about that a few times because I did a comparison between stock, sem and ie. A few times it laughingly was deleted.


----------



## BeasTToftheEast (Sep 20, 2007)

What did you find?

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk


----------



## Marcus_Aurelius (Mar 1, 2012)

opcorn:


----------



## All_Euro (Jul 20, 2008)

Vegeta Gti said:


> I've posted about that a few times because I did a comparison between stock, sem and ie. A few times it laughingly was deleted.


What a joke... that's the kind of thing that'll make me stop buying from a vendor. Hope the results pop up again somewhere....


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

Sem is the best all around. IMO


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

If you plan on doing lots of drag and don't mind bottom end loss but a fat fat topend the IE is perfect.


----------



## BeasTToftheEast (Sep 20, 2007)

O ok

Sent from my SM-G860P using Tapatalk


----------

