# VRT manifolds: ATP v. Kinetic



## stealthmk1 (Aug 17, 2001)

Looking for input from someone who has taken a good look at both, maybe even side by side. The Kinetic unit looks to have more defined runners but I'm not sure if the ATP one is similar on the inside or not. Also the Kinetic has relief cutouts on the flange, which seems like a good idea to me. However, the ATP unit looks like it would retain more heat due to the greater mass (but also be heavier). Lastly, do they both position the turbo in the same place, or is the Kinteic a little lower (looks so in pics). 
Thanks


----------



## doobsta (Aug 25, 2003)

*Re: VRT manifolds: ATP v. Kinetic (stealthmk1)*

they look the same to me.
I always thought the differences were that you could run different turbos with atp style mani's...no?
can a kinetic manifold bolt up with any turbo?


----------



## Nf Vdub (Jul 24, 2006)

im pretty sure that you can use any t3/4 flanged turbo with both


----------



## doobsta (Aug 25, 2003)

*Re: (Nf Vdub)*

what about GT series?


----------



## Nf Vdub (Jul 24, 2006)

like i said before, if it's a t3/4 flanged turbo, yes.


----------



## 12Valve (Mar 7, 2005)

*Re: (Nf Vdub)*

Kinetic FTW only because the atp waste-gate flange is pointed in the wrong direction


----------



## jhayesvw (Oct 3, 2001)

*Re: (12Valve)*

i have and like the Kinetic manifold, however, i have heard/seen that it is VERY difficult to keep your factory A/C if you want to do a larger turbo on a kinetic manifold in a mk3. 
like a 35R or 40R would make it difficult to keep A/C. custom lines would probably be in order. 
the kinetic seems to mount the turbo a little lower than the ATP also, 
but the ATP is surely going to be easier to install as, i would rather pull my engine than remove my turbo manifold.


----------



## doobsta (Aug 25, 2003)

amen on removing my kinetic manifold :|


----------



## stealthmk1 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (doobsta)*

Well its going in my Mk2 anyhow, so a/c is no issue








so its a PITA to get the bottom nuts on a Kinetic?


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (jhayesvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jhayesvw* »_i have and like the Kinetic manifold, however, i have heard/seen that it is VERY difficult to keep your factory A/C if you want to do a larger turbo on a kinetic manifold in a mk3. 
like a 35R or 40R would make it difficult to keep A/C. custom lines would probably be in order. 
the kinetic seems to mount the turbo a little lower than the ATP also, 
but the ATP is surely going to be easier to install as, i would rather pull my engine than remove my turbo manifold.









I believe you can sneak a 35R in and keep the AC as long as you use the T3 compressor cover with the 3 inch inlet


----------



## doobsta (Aug 25, 2003)

*Re: (KubotaPowered)*

this would mean that the t3 hosuing fits on the gt turbo?
if so this is sweet!


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (doobsta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *doobsta* »_this would mean that the t3 hosuing fits on the gt turbo?
if so this is sweet!

I am not sure if its a modified T4 compressor housing or what but I know the option is available








*EDIT* I meant to say t04 compressor cover


_Modified by KubotaPowered at 8:01 PM 11-15-2007_


----------



## crzygreek (Jul 8, 2005)

bump for an answer to the age old question... which manifold is better? ..Which has better build quality and flow?


----------



## crazysccrmd (Mar 31, 2006)

*Re: (stealthmk1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stealthmk1* »_so its a PITA to get the bottom nuts on a Kinetic?

when doing my install it took about 3-4 hours to get the manifold on. using a 12mm open ended wrench, as that was the only tool that would fit up there. as stated above, it would probably be easier/faster to pull the engine to get it back off...


----------



## KubotaPowered (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: (crazysccrmd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crazysccrmd* »_
when doing my install it took about 3-4 hours to get the manifold on. using a 12mm open ended wrench, as that was the only tool that would fit up there. as stated above, it would probably be easier/faster to pull the engine to get it back off...









I did the whole kit in 7 hours and I pulled the engine and trans out.


----------



## crazysccrmd (Mar 31, 2006)

*Re: (KubotaPowered)*


_Quote, originally posted by *KubotaPowered* »_
I did the whole kit in 7 hours and I pulled the engine and trans out.

yeah, the rest of it went smoothly and quiclly, just that manifold







. i like it though, a little more sleeper since the turbo is positioned slightly lower. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## jhayesvw (Oct 3, 2001)

*Re: (crazysccrmd)*

knowing what i know now, i could do the mani with the engine in. i would just a 12mm crowsfoot.


----------



## MKII16v (Oct 23, 1999)

*Re: (jhayesvw)*

I found shorter studs for the head that make installing the Kinetic manifold a snap. They are only 2-3 threads shorter but I didn't struggle like some of the stories I have read on here. I pulled mine in 5 minutes a few days ago.
I have a bunch of extras if anyone needs any.


----------



## scarboroughdub (Jul 8, 2002)

*Re: (MKII16v)*

the biggest advantage is that the kinetics manifold places the turbo lower.
on a vr6 you can keep the stock intake manifold and have alot more turbo options.
atp manifold with tangenal turbine housing places the turbo right at the Tb if not interferes with it.
pain of the kinetics manifold is the last 2 nuts bottom drivers side. takes some elastic arms to get those bad boys.
as for flow comparison, i dont know anyone who used both manifold with similar conditions to notice a difference.


----------



## doobsta (Aug 25, 2003)

*Re: (MKII16v)*

Where did you get studs that are shorter?
are they stock + 3 threads cut off at home StylEZ or custom?
Need to buy some crowsfeet, thanks for reminding me jhayesvw


----------



## SP00LD0NU (Jul 30, 2007)

*Re: (stealthmk1)*

Pain in the @$$ is an understatement. I'm going to suggest to you what was suggested to me. Get a pillow and be prepared to rest under your car for a good 2 or 3 hours, specially when you get to the nut all the way on the drivers side of the mani. have fun


----------



## stealthmk1 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (scarboroughdub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *scarboroughdub* »_the biggest advantage is that the kinetics manifold places the turbo lower.
on a vr6 you can keep the stock intake manifold and have alot more turbo options.
atp manifold with tangenal turbine housing places the turbo right at the Tb if not interferes with it.
pain of the kinetics manifold is the last 2 nuts bottom drivers side. takes some elastic arms to get those bad boys.
as for flow comparison, i dont know anyone who used both manifold with similar conditions to notice a difference.

this is the type of info I was looking for http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I will be using my stock intake manni for now, so looks like the Kinetic is the best choice. I will probably have my engine out for the install, since I am planning to do the chains and diff too.
Bump for anyone whos taken a look inside either one and seen how the runners look in there








To me the Kinetc just look like a better design


















_Modified by stealthmk1 at 1:31 PM 11-16-2007_


----------



## SP00LD0NU (Jul 30, 2007)

*Re: (stealthmk1)*

Kinetics all the way. I love everything about the kit. The only thing that I had a problem with was that they sent me the wrong Oil Tap to the Oil Feed on the turbo, but they sent me the correct one after I called them. Also, they are very friendly and very helpfull as well. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (stealthmk1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stealthmk1* »_
To me the Kinetc just look like a better design

Both manifolds have been used on engine making 700+whp so the above is subjective








My A4 runs the ATP manifold.


----------



## stealthmk1 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (Wizard-of-OD)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Wizard-of-OD* »_
Both manifolds have been used on engine making 700+whp so the above is subjective








My A4 runs the ATP manifold.









No doubt, I'm no engineer. Just saying the Kinetic _looks_ likw more work went in to the design process, plus it sounds like it is a better fit for my needs. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Black86GTI (Jun 4, 2002)

*Re: (stealthmk1)*

the real question is what one fits better on a MKII lol. it looks like billy1.8t fit the gt42r with out having to dent the fire wall (or if he did not much) he did have to pull the rain train out. Im still up in the air if i want to use a atp of kinetic manifold on my MKII or just make a y-pipe style top mount using the factory manifolds


----------



## stealthmk1 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (Black86GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Black86GTI* »_... just make a y-pipe style top mount using the factory manifolds

Personally I would not want that type of setup, more exhaust tubing and bends than you really need.


----------



## xanthus (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: (jhayesvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jhayesvw* »_i have and like the Kinetic manifold, however, i have heard/seen that it is VERY difficult to keep your factory A/C if you want to do a larger turbo on a kinetic manifold in a mk3. 
like a 35R or 40R would make it difficult to keep A/C. custom lines would probably be in order. 
the kinetic seems to mount the turbo a little lower than the ATP also, 
but the ATP is surely going to be easier to install as, i would rather pull my engine than remove my turbo manifold.









No. I even installed my manifold with the engine in the car...

_Quote, originally posted by *KubotaPowered* »_
I believe you can sneak a 35R in and keep the AC as long as you use the T3 compressor cover with the 3 inch inlet 

And No. 
Full AC, and 4" intake. It's tight, but it fits fine.


----------



## Death Trap (Feb 14, 2006)

*Re: (xanthus)*

My Kinetic manifold fits great in my mk2. Tons of room between the firewall and turbo.


----------



## doobsta (Aug 25, 2003)

Xanthus how boost your running ?
Specs?
The setup looks unreal!
Nice work!


----------



## CDJetta (May 11, 2004)

*Re: (doobsta)*

I've got the ATP manifold with the stock intake manifold on there and i'm using a T04S 60-1 turbo. The compressor housing is pretty darn big. Right now with the stock intake manifold my boost piping is literally resting on top of the compressor housing but that's all going away when I get my short runner intake done. No biggy. I'd say I have half an inch to an inch between my turbo and my firewire with the VF mounts in there.


----------



## xanthus (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: (doobsta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *doobsta* »_Xanthus how boost your running ?
Specs?
The setup looks unreal!
Nice work!

It's a stock VR, Garrett GT3540R .82 A/R, 7.5PSI C2 30# chip. 3" DP custom WG reroute. It's been flawless after I got the throttle tip in adjusted. I been driving it for a little over a year like that, I'm not real happy with power delivery though. 
The plan is the go 15-18 PSI with dual SMIC's, 42# injectors, C2 chip, and a fuel system upgrade. I can get away with a return less system right now because it's just low boost - but still not that good.
I'm working on my 89 Rabbit Cabriolet, it's getting a 20V upgrade and a BT. So that's taking up my money and time.



_Modified by xanthus at 2:36 PM 11-17-2007_


----------



## Corradokcid (Nov 6, 2006)

*Re: (xanthus)*

people have nay say'd the ATP mani for years but has anyone outflowed the thing yet???? ATP all the way here.....good price...proven product......easy to install...
i like the kenetic one alot its a sweet looking mani.....i personally would just go with the ATP because i've fitted a couple and its a no brainer.....unless your looking to push well over 800whp i would always suggest the atp mani.....and even at those HP number i cant see the ATP mani having issues


----------



## JettaConA-G60 (Jan 30, 2006)

if you are going to take the head off when the motor is out then install the manifold then it is a hellof alot easier! good luck


----------



## MKII16v (Oct 23, 1999)

*Re: (doobsta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *doobsta* »_Where did you get studs that are shorter?
are they stock + 3 threads cut off at home StylEZ or custom?
Need to buy some crowsfeet, thanks for reminding me jhayesvw

They are studs that are just a couple threads shorter than stock. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
Installation of the manifold only takes 20 minutes tops with em. Like I said, I have about 85 left over as I was only able to get them 100 at a time. 


_Modified by MKII16v at 12:36 PM 11-18-2007_


----------



## crzygreek (Jul 8, 2005)

Have you had any problems with the nuts backing off of them quicker than the reg. size ones because of the fact that they are shorter?


----------



## stealthmk1 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (crzygreek)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crzygreek* »_Have you had any problems with the nuts backing off of them quicker than the reg. size ones because of the fact that they are shorter?

I wouldn't think that would be an issue if the nut threads are fully engaged.


----------



## MKII16v (Oct 23, 1999)

*Re: (stealthmk1)*

I am using new factory lock nuts with the thick washers so there shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## doobsta (Aug 25, 2003)

*Re: (xanthus)*


_Quote, originally posted by *xanthus* »_
It's a stock VR, Garrett GT3540R .82 A/R, 7.5PSI C2 30# chip. 3" DP custom WG reroute. It's been flawless after I got the throttle tip in adjusted. I been driving it for a little over a year like that, I'm not real happy with power delivery though. 
The plan is the go 15-18 PSI with dual SMIC's, 42# injectors, C2 chip, and a fuel system upgrade. I can get away with a return less system right now because it's just low boost - but still not that good.
I'm working on my 89 Rabbit Cabriolet, it's getting a 20V upgrade and a BT. So that's taking up my money and time.
_Modified by xanthus at 2:36 PM 11-17-2007_

Not happy?? why not?
Have you dynoed it? looks healthy as ****!
Your engine bay makes me droool lol....
returnless meaning what exactly?

Seriously well done


----------



## xanthus (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: (doobsta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *doobsta* »_
Not happy?? why not?
Have you dynoed it? looks healthy as ****!
Your engine bay makes me droool lol....
returnless meaning what exactly?

Seriously well done

Not happy because the SRI kills the torque. the .82 A/R makes boost come on late. My short gear ratio makes poor use of the power I do have. It does not drive like a regular VR6 but with "more power" it's a light switch at 4K. It's a beast on the top, and I respect that guys like big power out of large A/R turbo housing, but this is my DD and not a drag car. I don't need to make 450whp+ at 110mph... I want my boost a lot lower in the RPM range to compensate for the loss of torque from the SRI. Before ANYONE says a thing about "baking tires" it's called learning how to drive with power. -FOOT CONTROL- There are limits to everything.. at that point add AWD.








I have not Dyno'ed it. Guesstimate of 260whp, maybe 270 on a cold day.
The SP fuel reg adapter makes the fuel rail a return-less fuel system. The fuel rail is not in a loop. At higher HP levels this causes cylinders 4, 5, and 6 to have fuel pressure drop off. This problem becomes even worse after the engine heat soaks and begins baking fuel.
Thanks for the compliment.


----------



## doobsta (Aug 25, 2003)

*Re: (xanthus)*

lol....your post made me sad !!!








I totally understand what you mean tho.
Glad you posted this here, for some of us..BIG power is what we want, regardless of when we can use it.
Your post ALMOST convinces me that the most fun can be had probably with a t4 60-1, the SRI looks amazing but if in combination with a late spooling turbo it kills torque that much, it must hurt when DD.
I dunno, I like to hear eveyones opinions as it helps to guide where I would like to be eventually.
Right now I am on 6 psi of boost with a kinetic kit lol...I am loving it but 6 psi got old after 300 miles!
I have a FMIC here but did not install for some reason and now am starting to rethink the whole IC bit.
Now I am looking at pushing maybe 15 psi + next summer with a a quaife and clutch as I slowly gather the parts for it....
Id love to have 500 hP and the bragging rights to with it but not if I wont enjoy driving it lol...
Well its all a learning experience really, the mistakes you make now help planify the future I guess.


----------



## DMehalko(DM) (Nov 1, 2004)

*Re: (doobsta)*

I have the kinetic mani and love it!


----------



## jhayesvw (Oct 3, 2001)

*Re: (xanthus)*

i installed my manifold in just about 2 hours with the engine in the car too.
im just saying that the ATP mani is EASY to put in.
as for HP numbers. Jeff Key/Billy T run the kinetic mani. they made 730+ wheel HP last time i talked to them a few months ago. thats in the ballpark of 800+ crank HP. 
So, the kinetic mani obviously flows fine too.
Xanthus, you make 270 wheel at 7psi?? are you regulated by the WG spring only?? or a MBC??


----------



## xanthus (Feb 23, 2005)

*Re: (jhayesvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *doobsta* »_lol....your post made me sad !!!








Right now I am on 6 psi of boost with a kinetic kit lol...I am loving it but 6 psi got old after 300 miles!
I have a FMIC here but did not install for some reason and now am starting to rethink the whole IC bit.
Id love to have 500 hP and the bragging rights to with it but not if I wont enjoy driving it lol...

You hit the nail on the head. Gotta enjoy driving it, especially if it's your DD.
Wasn't trying to make you sad.







I was just being realistic, and relaying how I felt about the setup. 
I want to get my intercoolers installed and drive it on ~15psi for a while before I make any major decisions on changing turbo A/R or my final drive gear ratio. Intercoolers change the whole beast. However, so far the biggest change in performance was changing my final drive ratio.
I'd say intercool it before you make any decisions on where you want to go next. You also have a C2 chip, crank it up to 10lbs and see if that satisfies you for a while. Get a 3" DP too. You have a lot of headroom to change the way the engine runs as it is now, without a lot of cost involved. 


_Quote, originally posted by *jhayesvw* »_Xanthus, you make 270 wheel at 7psi?? are you regulated by the WG spring only?? or a MBC??

It's a gross estimation on HP, 270 at the top end I'd say it's closer to 260. I really don't care much about the number, if it was 330 and still drove the way it is I'd still think it could be better.
I'm running a unregulated (No EBC/MBC) 8lb spring in the WG, but my gauge only says 7.5 psi. My boost gauge could be off (boost gauges are notoriously off). I could be pushing 9 psi for all I know. I'd need an MAP sensor hooked up and properly calibrated controller to know for sure.


----------



## stealthmk1 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (xanthus)*

thanks for all the imput either for ATP or for Kinetic. Is anyone having issues with wastegates interfering with other componants on either manni?


----------



## MKII16v (Oct 23, 1999)

*Re: (stealthmk1)*

If you have an ATP manifold, the ATP wastegate rotation flange is a must have in my opinion. It gets your Tial 38mm aimed straight down just like the Kinetic manny.


----------



## CDJetta (May 11, 2004)

*Re: (MKII16v)*

definitly get the rotation flange. I didn't and I made up my wastegate dump. It was a b1tch to make. My wastegate dump is seriously about 1cm from the DP, .5cm from one of my DP bolts, and 1.5cm from the manifold. It's a frigging tight fit!


----------



## stealthmk1 (Aug 17, 2001)

*Re: (CDJetta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CDJetta* »_ My wastegate dump is seriously about 1cm from the DP, .5cm from one of my DP bolts, and 1.5cm from the manifold. It's a frigging tight fit!

have you got any pics of this?


----------



## crzygreek (Jul 8, 2005)

bump


----------



## CDJetta (May 11, 2004)

*Re: (crzygreek)*

I try and take pics of everything I do.


----------



## Noobercorn (Aug 17, 2007)

*Re: (crzygreek)*

kinetic manifold is a whore to put on. ATP is easier. food for thought.


----------



## crzygreek (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: (crzygreek)*


----------



## DaBeeterEater (Aug 17, 2007)

*Re: (crzygreek)*

i wish i got a kinetics, you cant keep the stock intake mani, if you have a atp, i had to do this, to make it work, and it works great, makes madddd torquee, along with the elbow its a 2.9 clone also


----------



## #1 S T U N N A (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (DaBeeterEater)*

Is there any other Turbo manifolds for the 12v besides Kinectic or ATP? Just Curious why they don't have Full Race turbo manifolds like this one 
VVVVVVV








Aren't tubular manifolds better than the Cast Iron mani's like ATP and Kinectic meaning as far as flow?? Can someone enlighten me on info. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Kaddy (Sep 29, 2002)

*Re: (#1 S T U N N A)*


_Quote, originally posted by *#1 S T U N N A* »_ Aren't tubular manifolds better than the Cast Iron mani's like ATP and Kinectic meaning as far as flow?? Can someone enlighten me on info. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

While a properly built tubular manifold will provide better results, both the Kinetic and ATP manifolds are fairly well designed so the difference wont be substantial, certainly not enough to move away from the reliability of a cast manifold in my opinion.
The only time I really see a valid case for going to a custom tubular manifold on a vr6 engine are:
1) if you're running a divided entry turbine housing and want to make the most of it
2) if you're building a car w/ packaging concerns and need the turbo in a different location then either the Kinetic or ATP manifold would place the turbo


----------



## 6CyLinderDeathPunCH (Feb 7, 2013)

Gonna bump this back up for some questions I have. I have had plans to boost my rado for some time. I’m slowly getting pieces together to eventually accomplish the goal. I have purchased a old kinetics kit with the kinetics turbo mani. But my goal was to keep my stock round collar mani and keep a/c too. But from reading the comments on this thread it seems to me that its one or the other. Looks like if I want to retain the stock mani it would be easiest done with the kinetics manifold because the tb sits lower. But because of the way the kinetics mani is Angled lower it wouldn’t be easy to keep the a/c. In which case atp mani would be better suit. I have a buddy right now that is interested in my kinetics mani and is willing to trade me for his atp mani. Before I make that decision I’d like to figure out what is best for what I’m looking for. 

If I must run a Sri and atp mani to keep the a/c I would go that route before keeping my stock mani with the kinetics t mani and not having a/c. Anyone out there running either of these T manifolds while keeping the stock manifold and a/c?


----------



## Rapid Decompression (Dec 5, 2004)

6CyLinderDeathPunCH said:


> Gonna bump this back up for some questions I have. I have had plans to boost my rado for some time. I’m slowly getting pieces together to eventually accomplish the goal. I have purchased a old kinetics kit with the kinetics turbo mani. But my goal was to keep my stock round collar mani and keep a/c too. But from reading the comments on this thread it seems to me that its one or the other. Looks like if I want to retain the stock mani it would be easiest done with the kinetics manifold because the tb sits lower. But because of the way the kinetics mani is Angled lower it wouldn’t be easy to keep the a/c. In which case atp mani would be better suit. I have a buddy right now that is interested in my kinetics mani and is willing to trade me for his atp mani. Before I make that decision I’d like to figure out what is best for what I’m looking for.
> 
> If I must run a Sri and atp mani to keep the a/c I would go that route before keeping my stock mani with the kinetics t mani and not having a/c. Anyone out there running either of these T manifolds while keeping the stock manifold and a/c?


I ran the Kinetic mani with AC in my MK3 for years. A lot of it is going to be turbo size and air filter setup to clear the lines and stock manifold. Lots of pics on my old thread...
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4631047-I-always-wanted-a-white-Jetta/page2
Page 8 has relevant pics as well..
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4631047-I-always-wanted-a-white-Jetta/page8


----------

