# WRC engine details



## Hudy_cz (Jan 3, 2009)

I have got some pictures of 1,8T engine for WRC specific and will add some others when I get
































































































And some wideos where is this engine from:


----------



## carbide01 (Jul 12, 2003)

*Re: WRC engine details (Hudy_cz)*

Very nice


----------



## yohimbe (Jun 13, 2005)

*Re: WRC engine details (carbide01)*

damed 11:1 compression ratio with no direct injection.








and why the hell didn´t Dahlback sell tis ps intake manifold.
and I am curious what power curver this engine has.


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: WRC engine details (yohimbe)*


_Quote, originally posted by *yohimbe* »_and why the hell didn´t Dahlback sell tis ps intake manifold.


and im wondering why they picked that POS


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: WRC engine details (Hudy_cz)*

I nominate this for "Engine Porn of the Month" and need some alone time


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: WRC engine details (l88m22vette)*


_Quote, originally posted by *l88m22vette* »_I nominate this for "Engine Porn of the Month" and need some alone time









i second that


----------



## Hudy_cz (Jan 3, 2009)

*Re: WRC engine details (Hudy_cz)*

Last Evolution of Skoda Octavia WRC
Nice intake
























And Skoda Fabia WRC


----------



## Hudy_cz (Jan 3, 2009)

*Re: WRC engine details (yohimbe)*


_Quote, originally posted by *yohimbe* »_
and why the hell didn´t Dahlback sell tis ps intake manifold.


I think this Intake mani is restricted, because of the rules of WRC. I think, there must be some restrictor or smaller throttle body... dont know now


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

restrictor will be on the turbo intake for the WRC cars, 32mm or 34mm restrictor, dont remember which off hand


----------



## 1lowVento (Nov 9, 2000)

*Re: (badger5)*

WOW...never knew the 1.8T was used in WRC...always thought the VAG products ran some sorth a 2.0 16 valve turbo!


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: WRC engine details (Hudy_cz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Hudy_cz* »_I have got some pictures of 1,8T engine for WRC specific and will add some others when I get









Thank you for sharing! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Quote, originally posted by *Hudy_cz* »_
I think this Intake mani is restricted, because of the rules of WRC. I think, there must be some restrictor or smaller throttle body... dont know now








Yes you are correct.The intake manifold was part of a restriction placed per WRC regulations.Same thing with Subaru & the Focus.
The manifold was designed for equal flow,not for optimum performace.Would work great on a K03/K04 equipped car but not on anything else.
That gearbox is so much porn it isnt funny. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 16, 2008)

*Re: WRC engine details (Issam Abed)*

looks complicated haha


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 3, 2009)

*Re: WRC engine details (Issam Abed)*

what transmission is that?


----------



## 16plus4v (May 4, 2006)

*Re: WRC engine details (Hudy_cz)*









Looks like the dual cam gear setup has been around already....


----------



## yohimbe (Jun 13, 2005)

what is the advandage such an exhaust manifold ?
and skoda was not very successfull with the Fabia or Oktavia in WRC
the gearbox on a wrc car is th most expensive part, on discovery channel there was a documetation of the subaru wrc team with petter sollberg and chris atkins, I don´t know exact but I think something in the range of 100 grands Euro


----------



## jc_bb (Sep 27, 2005)

you can see the restrictor plate on the turbo inlet in one of the pics.
the dual plenum inlet is not restricted as part of the homologation rules, it is meant to be for better torque IIRC
would love to know what is going on with the turbo. Is the wastegate individually connected to each runner at the head flange here?
what is the other funky bit suspended from thr head on the back side of the exhaust housing in the pic above.


----------



## gruppe5 (May 10, 2003)

*Re: WRC engine details (Issam Abed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Issam Abed* »_
Thank you for sharing! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Yes you are correct.The intake manifold was part of a restriction placed per WRC regulations.Same thing with Subaru & the Focus.
The manifold was designed for equal flow,not for optimum performace.Would work great on a K03/K04 equipped car but not on anything else.
That gearbox is so much porn it isnt funny. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Yeah cause they are running a K03/K04 on that car??? Sometimes you make me wonder.......


----------



## rogerius (Jun 14, 2004)

thank u Hudy_cz.
One can get very good ideas from this setup and specs.I am 100% sure the IM ideea can be adapted for BT setups....and not only the IM...thanks again.


----------



## VRT (Dec 8, 2001)

*Re: (rogerius)*

I like the dual cam gear setup


----------



## BoostinBejan (Apr 13, 2009)

*Re: WRC engine details (gruppe5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gruppe5* »_
Yeah cause they are running a K03/K04 on that car??? Sometimes you make me wonder.......









Did you not even read what you quoted? He said it was a restriction made by WRC. They had no choice. Go lookup dyno graphs of WRC rally cars. Barely make 300whp with over 400ft/lbs of torque due to the restrictions. 
He was stating that for our street driven (or raced, assuming there are no restrictions) it would not be worth it for the gains, it simply evens flow across all four runners perfectly unlike our traditional intake manifold.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: WRC engine details (gruppe5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gruppe5* »_Yeah cause they are running a K03/K04 on that car??? Sometimes you make me wonder.......

















I am not sure what upsets you more, the fact that you love an overly expensive paperweight or the fact that you did not understand what I posted now and in the past.
Again as stated in previous threads:

_Quote, originally posted by *Issam Abed* »_the Dahlback/Lemans manifold was designed for EQUAL FLOW , NOT FOR OPTIMUM PERFORMANCE

If you still want to be bitter over this then be my guest but the facts still remain.On a medium modified 1.8T , the above manifold makes such a minimal power increase that you would be better off spending your money elsewhere (and I am talking dyno error power increase).You should be happy someone ponied up the funds ,bought the manifold and tested it in the name of advancement rather than regurgitating hear say. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Quote, originally posted by *yohimbe* »_what is the advandage such an exhaust manifold ?

Maintainence.Ability to change the turbocharger in a couple of minutes,etc
Pretty much the norm with WRC cars.

_Quote, originally posted by *yohimbe* »_
and skoda was not very successfull with the Fabia or Oktavia in WRC

Oh yes they were....they were just at a disadvantage due to numbers/financial backing vs Citroen,Subaru & Ford


----------



## yohimbe (Jun 13, 2005)

I watched a lot that time, Skoda was not on top often, 206 WRC was top at that time with grönholm, but thats o.t.


----------



## gruppe5 (May 10, 2003)

*Re: WRC engine details (Issam Abed)*

Issam, how does equal flow NOT equal performance??? Thats like telling me its a good idea to use unmatched injectors. Figure out how to take advantage of that and power is made and/or kept. That is important to people who design, build, and drive competition vehicles. These are things that I shouldn't have to say and you should know. You sell $600 oil pans that don't make a lick of power but it has a purpose right??


----------



## gruppe5 (May 10, 2003)

*Re: WRC engine details (BoostinBejan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BoostinBejan* »_
Did you not even read what you quoted? He said it was a restriction made by WRC. They had no choice. Go lookup dyno graphs of WRC rally cars. Barely make 300whp with over 400ft/lbs of torque due to the restrictions. 
He was stating that for our street driven (or raced, assuming there are no restrictions) it would not be worth it for the gains, it simply evens flow across all four runners perfectly unlike our traditional intake manifold. 










You go look it up, the restrictor is on the turbo, 34mm. I can read just fine.


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

*Re: WRC engine details (Hudy_cz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Hudy_cz* »_Last Evolution of Skoda Octavia WRC
Nice intake









Yes...and some of the people on this forum should take a very close look at that Intake system and see how a REAL CAI system is designed. Should end the BS that it doesn't matter if you take hot air from the engine compartment...cause the Turbo heats it up anyway ( and the intercooler cools it down ). ( Typical POS aftermarket CAI system )
Folks are always forgetting about the initial air temperature delta. IE: Under hood temps can easily exceed 150 deg F ( especially near the Turbo ). Compared to outside ambient air of say 60F to 70F and that is a significant temperature delta that can not be recovered. 
I've seen ( up close and personal ) many, many Top level turbocharged road race cars....from F1 to Lemans Prototypes, ALMS, IMSA GTP etc. All of the top level mfgs make darned sure the the Turbo is fed a fresh supply of COLD air taken from OUTSIDE of the engine compartment. Nuff said. 
Thanks for sharing those pictures










_Modified by Chickenman35 at 1:48 PM 10-26-2009_


----------



## halchka99 (Apr 18, 2002)

*FV-QR*

someone make an intake system like that


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: WRC engine details (gruppe5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gruppe5* »_Issam, how does equal flow NOT equal performance??? Thats like telling me its a good idea to use unmatched injectors. Figure out how to take advantage of that and power is made and/or kept. That is important to people who design, build, and drive competition vehicles. These are things that I shouldn't have to say and you should know. You sell $600 oil pans that don't make a lick of power but it has a purpose right??









are you dense? Equal flow is important, the point we all are making is that this intake manifold DOES NOT flow very well. Go look at the intake manifold flow thread in the 1.8t section. Fact is, this is not a real performance manifold


----------



## water&air (Aug 1, 2002)

*Re: WRC engine details (Hudy_cz)*

hudy_cz, do you work for hudy tools?
it's not often you see the word hudy here in the states unless it's hudy rc tools. 


_Modified by water&air at 1:55 PM 10-26-2009_


----------



## J-tec (May 20, 2006)

This is great! awesome post right here. That exhaust manifold looks insane, saving these pictures for sure


----------



## gruppe5 (May 10, 2003)

*Re: WRC engine details (cincyTT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cincyTT* »_
are you dense? Equal flow is important, the point we all are making is that this intake manifold DOES NOT flow very well. Go look at the intake manifold flow thread in the 1.8t section. Fact is, this is not a real performance manifold

Well I am now glad to now know that the definition of performance is strictly based on horsepower, I'll make sure to tell everyone.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: WRC engine details (gruppe5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gruppe5* »_that don't make a lick of power but it has a purpose right?

Agreed,the manifold DOES have a purpose but unfortunately that purpose can NOT be applied to a real life 300+whp application in this forum.
As unfortunate as it sounds.


----------



## jc_bb (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: WRC engine details (Issam Abed)*

no one answered my questions yet!!
WTF is that thing hanging of the side of the exhaust housing ?!!


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: WRC engine details (jc_bb)*

Dollars to donuts its the anti-lag system


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 3, 2009)

*Re: WRC engine details ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_what transmission is that?


----------



## Chickenman35 (Jul 28, 2006)

*Re: WRC engine details (l88m22vette)*


_Quote, originally posted by *l88m22vette* »_Dollars to donuts its the anti-lag system

Yes indeedy.
Google WRC Anti-Lag system and some VERY interesting info comes up.
One such link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antilag_system


----------



## gruppe5 (May 10, 2003)

*Re: WRC engine details (Issam Abed)*

Kinda getting off subject but REALLY?? You don't think 300 whp @5500 rpm and 400+ lb.ft. of torque @ 6000 rpm would be desirable? I would take that all day over the same power but in the upper RPM's. 

_Quote, originally posted by *Issam Abed* »_
Agreed,the manifold DOES have a purpose but unfortunately that purpose can NOT be applied to a real life 300+whp application in this forum.
As unfortunate as it sounds.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: WRC engine details (gruppe5)*

The power is in the middle since rally cars need good midrange because of the massive variance in the driving conditions and the stop-go nature of the sport; try to fins a dyno of the ENTIRE powerband and then tell me you want that setup. It seems like everyone is forgetting that this engine is from a RACE CAR and while it may have good numbers its purpose-built and is probably not the best for the street. Its like NASCAR, everyone in North Carolina wants Dale Jr.'s ride but I bet they'd hate the gearing and would be surprised at how crappy the car was on the street. Just because an intake manifold looks cool and is used on racecars doesn't mean its THE BEST, and I really hope people don't want the manifold just because it looks cool








Anyway, intake manifold tests were done (years ago at this point) and posted on EliteDubs and the Dahlback flowed like crap, see here: OFFICIAL INTAKE MANIFOLD FLOWBENCH TEST RESULTS. The short of it was 391cfm of flow from the small-port, whereas a bigport SEM flows ~980cfm (and would still kill the Dahlback's ass in smallport configuration, PM DonR if you want to know the actual flow numbers). Hope this is enough to convince everyone!
/thread

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


----------



## gruppe5 (May 10, 2003)

*Re: WRC engine details (l88m22vette)*

So revving out to 8500 redline with lag up to say 3900 to 4300 is good?, I would like the powerband of a diesel with correct gearing and torque way down low. Alot of people are switching to the HTA GT35 for quicker spool because they want power i.e. torque sooner, correct? I am also well aware of the manifold flow bench comparisons, as much as I am about the real world application of it which you can see on the first page. You are making my point for me, "good midrange because of the massive variance in the driving conditions and the stop-go nature of the sport" that doesn't ring any bells?, sounds like the driving I do everyday. The "ENTIRE" powerband IS shown on their dynos because they usually redline at 7500 or less with 1000 rpm buffer for the shift.


----------



## BiH (Nov 27, 2000)

*Re: WRC engine details ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_what transmission is that?

Im gonna take a guess but prolly one me and you cant afford!















I used to watch WRC more years ago when speed vision was showing good racing instead of damn nascar now and in one race subary car lost a trans. he made it back to the end of the stage but his team was ready with new trans. they took the old one and put the new one in less than 11 minutes I think! unbelivable, it took me 4 hours to change clutch on my car, granted I had no idea what was I doing as I have never taken a trans out of the car. you can see those trans is a complete unit, everything is made to be changed fast and easy unlike production cars!


----------



## rogerius (Jun 14, 2004)

does anybody know for sure whether the logic behind the Lehmann design was totally abbandoned by Audi/VW on the street cars?Has anybody seen a cross section through the IM of the TTS 5cyl inline?
I would like to get some confirmation that I did not do a stupid thing by making a custom dual plenum IM for my car which by the way runs quite well with it.










_Modified by rogerius at 8:55 AM 10-27-2009_


----------



## yohimbe (Jun 13, 2005)

that manifold comparison only told us how good the manis flow at athmospheric pressure, there was no test under boost.
I am no specialist but why do I need a flow of x cfm in the mani when my intake port has the half flow of x ?


----------



## jc_bb (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: WRC engine details (l88m22vette)*


_Quote, originally posted by *l88m22vette* »_Dollars to donuts its the anti-lag system

I think it is just the wastegate for the turbo. It is a weird looking exhaust housing though and there isn't a clear picture of the hotside of the turbo
Can't tell where is vents to or how it is connected though
The wastegate on the top of the exhaust manifold with individual runners to the head flange join is the ALS. usually connected to the inlet through the WG nozzle in view.


----------



## greek 1.8t (Jan 18, 2004)

*Re: WRC engine details (Hudy_cz)*

its anti lag or Umluft thanx to issam http://www.bufkinengineering.com/Umluft.htm 
here you can see the connection from the charge pipe









_Modified by greek 1.8t at 3:17 AM 10-27-2009_


_Modified by greek 1.8t at 3:18 AM 10-27-2009_


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: (rogerius)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rogerius* »_does anybody know for sure whether the logic behind the Lehmann design was totally abbandoned by Audi/VW on the street cars?Has anybody seen a cross section through the IM of the TTS 5cyl inline?
I would like to get some confirmation that I did not do a stupid thing by making a custom dual plenum IM for my car which by the way runs quite well with it.









The TTS Intake Manifold looks like a dual plenum type but it is not. It actually similar to SEM's design...but again too small of a plenum.
The Lehmann style intake acts a restriction for one and two, it promotes equal flow distribution. Runners are usually longer for tip-in and transient boost conditions not only but as mentioned before for mid-range power.


----------



## baileysjetta (Feb 22, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*

the gear box is a XTRAC unit http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## rogerius (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
...but again too small of a plenum.
The Lehmann style intake acts a restriction for one and two, it promotes equal flow distribution. 

So Don, can we get a huge plenum and still have a second chamber for equal flow distribution? Would it enhance performance if the restriction is eliminated?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: (rogerius)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rogerius* »_
So Don, can we get a huge plenum and still have a second chamber for equal flow distribution? Would it enhance performance if the restriction is eliminated?

Too big of a plenum will affect flow distribution if there's not enough flow.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (yohimbe)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gruppe5* »_You don't think 300 whp @5500 rpm and 400+ lb.ft. of torque @ 6000 rpm would be desirable?

And HOW do you propose to achieve this on a street car without ANTILAG? Your off the shelf Garrett turbo cost pennies compared to what a WRC turbocharger costs...
This is getting really off topic now.

_Quote, originally posted by *yohimbe* »_there was no test under boost.

Oh yes they were.
Dahlback manifold tested on an Audi TT made literally 7hp gain....
Lets revert back to the original test where we saw the first "prototype" of the SEM manifold flow the highest. Real world results confirmed that this manifold would go on to be the #1 performance manifold in the 1.8T market.
_In conclusion flow testing a manifold DOES indeed tell us HOW a manifold will perform._


----------



## gruppe5 (May 10, 2003)

*Re: (Issam Abed)*

I dont know, how about you start with proper exhaust manifold design, high compression, efficient turbochargers and proper tuning. You may not replicate them exactly but you can get close. All the information you would need is readily available. YOU offer "Performance Solutions'' , get to work.


----------



## speeding-g60 (Aug 1, 2004)

*FV-QR*

dunno if they will let me post, i am restricted now.
BUT:
friend of mine posted this to me from Germany....


----------



## simon-says (Oct 21, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (speeding-g60)*

That manifold looks like it takes 4 more injectors in the plenum.


----------



## yohimbe (Jun 13, 2005)

@ Issam Abed
max. HP gains are good, but what is about the mid range perfomance ? how did the dahlback performe in midrange on that test ?
(I am no suporter from the dahlback mani. but I am curious why this mani was used that often from audi,Skoda... that time)


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (simon-says)*


_Quote, originally posted by *simon-says* »_That manifold looks like it takes 4 more injectors in the plenum. 

thats what i was thinking. The gas helps cool the air charge some. Cant remeber if its indy or f1 that uses this also


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 3, 2009)

*Re: WRC engine details (BiH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BiH* »_
Im gonna take a guess but prolly one me and you cant afford!
















guessing is not allowed!


----------



## Hybrid VW (Jan 18, 2001)

*Re: (yohimbe)*


_Quote, originally posted by *yohimbe* »_@ Issam Abed
max. HP gains are good, but what is about the mid range perfomance ? how did the dahlback performe in midrange on that test ?
(I am no suporter from the dahlback mani. but I am curious why this mani was used that often from audi,Skoda... that time)

The dyno really wasn't THAT impressive on an APR Stg3 (IIRC) car. Something like 5-8whp & wtq peak with slightly stretched tq. curve, maybe 2-300 rpm? Other intake mani's have made more power on both ends of the chart.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: (gruppe5)*

The reason the WRC engines make only ~300hp but ~450ft/lbs of torque is because of the anti-lag, race fuel, and flow restriction (to some degree flow restriction = torque); you can build a 10:1 2.0 with a tubular header, 3071 .63 turbo, and bigport head and STILL make more power with a SEM over a Lehman-style because, wait for it, the larger single plenum allows more flow throughout the rev-range, rather than being designed to accommodate a sweet spot in the engine setup. That engine setup is super-efficient (to the point of some probably arguing that the 71 .63 is too small) and the intake manifold swap would still produce double-digit gains; the Lehman _does_ give equal flow distribution but seriously, who cares? It doesn't do it in the best way possible and actually ends up being a restriction because it only can flow as much as the small inlet between the plenums allow. BTW, you know the Dahlback was originally a racing intake manifold, and not specifically designed for the street, right?
Another factor is probably that the SEM is about 20+ years ahead of the Lehman is terms of design, knowledge, and available technology. Yes, VAG used one on the R8, but again that is a purpose-built racecar and not everything that is good for racing is good for the street (this is basically the on-going "2871R vs. 35R" argument of usable power vs. BIG power, how many revs are needed, how much timing, log vs. tubular manifolds, etc.). In the end it is the numbers that matter, and the data (as I posted) does not back up the claims to theory that the Lehman-style should be better - I don't care about how much theory or logical assumption is involved in this thread, the numbers show that the SEM (and several others) beat it.


----------



## gruppe5 (May 10, 2003)

*Re: (l88m22vette)*

The reason WRC engines make 300hp is because the regulations say they must, if you think that they work their way up to that point your wrong. Anti-lag doesn't make power. The SEM manifold is great, I have never said anything bad about it. I would much rather have my powerband mimic a WRC car as close as possible than the typical GT35 equipped car powerband, I do not see how that is a point that you would want to argue?? A super efficient low revving high power car, I care, you keep the movement towards high RPM going if you like, I think its a waste of time and resources. WRC and LMP vehicles have used the dual plenum manifold, those are 2 completely different disiplines and it works. Companies like Cosworth and Audisport, they care. The inlet between the plenums has the same cross section of the throttle body if not 110% of it so I wouldn't exactly call that a restriction, at least no more than I would refer to the throttle body as a restriction ( I know that it is, my point is that it is no more of one ) Yes,, everything made for a race car is not good for the street, but that argument goes out the window when we are putting GT35's and 6 puck clutches on our street cars. I would say that the dual plenum design has 20+ years of development, it is still used and much is known about it but them again I am an optimist. Equal flow distribution is important, whether it be fuel or air if you don't get that I'm sorry, do you think that was not a factor in the design of the SEM manifold? If you strictly base "performance" off of power produced then I question your logic. How you make power is just as, if not more important than how much power you make.


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: (gruppe5)*

Do I have a GT35 and 6-puck clutch? No. Will I ever use that setup on the street? No. Did I ever say I was more interested in peak power over powerband + driveability? No (ask around, I've hated on big-ass turbos quite a bit). At this point I really don't understand how you are still arguing for the Lehman, its been proven to be worse, end of story. Cosworth and Audi Sport are primarily race car development companies, and they parts they make and bolt onto engines primarily go into race cars. You don't understand "race parts" that are on street cars, but you still argue for a part that is designed primarily for a race engine and which is most effective in racing conditions. 
I know that WRC cars are regulated to 300hp, and its the regulations that dictate which parts companies use (so they get the most out of what they are allowed). If FIA came out tomorrow and told the teams that they can produce 400hp you would see plenty of parts redesigned and the Lehman would get re-done or dumped. You're not going to get the kind of powerband you want with a built street 1.8T (or 2.0, which is what the WRC engine is), just deal with it already, or move onto a different engine/platform. I've re-read all of your posts and it seems like you are dead-set on getting a Lehman intake manifold, regardless of explanation and evidence so just get one and show us your wonderful single-digit gains. Enjoy the second flame war when you start mentioning flow distribution and all the other stuff you've harped on while everyone else lists the better options available


----------



## gruppe5 (May 10, 2003)

*Re: (l88m22vette)*

I didn't accuse you of having anything, learn to read. So why cant I have a WRC type powerband?? Because YOU say so?? Are you that numb? Pay attention. I do NOT need you to explain to me what "race parts" are, I was making a point, half the products designed and sold by sponsors on this forum are "race parts". Yeah they would throw away the Lehman manifold because it has never been used on a 650hp engine either right?? I have had a Lehman manifold, not dead set on anything but there you go with assumptions. Proven to be worse huh? I will say it again because you are the resident genius. When you strictly base PERFORMANCE on power produced I question your logic. Look at the trends, quicker spool, less boost, efficient tubular manifolds, and now higher static compression, add all of this up and what do you get?? A powerband that is creeping lower and lower down the rev range. Again, I applaud the SEM Manifold, I have never said anything bad about it. I posted when Issam stated the lehman style manifold is only good for a K03/K04 equipped car, which is wrong. You can see that very FACT by the photos posted in this thread ( or maybe you can't see whats right in front of you and thats the problem ) I remember when ball bearing turbos were the "exotic" item that was "too exspensive" and "impratical" for a street car. Now they are the norm so please don't preach to me about what the possibilities are.


----------



## baileysjetta (Feb 22, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (speeding-g60)*

is that manifold from tibuc ab in sweden i met him at the pri show last year he also offers that manifold with barrel valves http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (baileysjetta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *baileysjetta* »_is that manifold from tibuc ab in sweden i met him at the pri show last year he also offers that manifold with barrel valves http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

No throttle body here Trev


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: (gruppe5)*

Omg, you win, I don't care anymore. Enjoy trying to build an engine with 300hp and 450ft/lbs of torque










_Modified by l88m22vette at 6:09 AM 10-29-2009_


----------



## gruppe5 (May 10, 2003)

*Re: (l88m22vette)*

Wow, your cool. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: (gruppe5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gruppe5* »_Wow, your cool. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 

Mr. Cool ICE to you pal!!








But seriously, nothing you have said makes sense. Cant really have peak tq past peak hp, its simple math.


----------



## ethorman (Jun 18, 2006)

I dont think I have ever seen a dyno of peak torque past peak hp.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (gruppe5)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gruppe5* »_I would much rather have my powerband mimic a WRC car as close as possible than the typical GT35 equipped car powerband.

Then get a GT3071R and an SEM manifold....not a WRC spec set up.
p.s. with the help of a friend a WRC Skoda intake is on its way over to me.We will see how much theory is behind the power


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: (ethorman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ethorman* »_I dont think I have ever seen a dyno of peak torque past peak hp. 

Torque vs. Horsepower 
That is because horsepower is measured based on torque readings, and if you look at any dynograph anywhere the hp/torque lines cross at 5250rpm - torque is higher before this point, hp is higher after; it is a function of the power calculation http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## gruppe5 (May 10, 2003)

*Re: (cincyTT)*

NO REALLY??? Everything I have said makes sense, if YOU cannot make sense of it I'm sorry but I have a feeling that you don't WANT it to. Why don't you copy and paste everything I said so far in this thread and then tell me it doesn't make sense, go ahead. I didnt say anything thats out of reach. I can pick out things that others have stated so far that are dead wrong. Maybe instead of seeing what you want to see you should read what I actually wrote, I know it goes against what VW vortex is known for, but its ok to buck the trend every once in a while. I have made some very valid points and counter points that have been completely ignored in favor of convenient interpretation. You guys are too much


----------



## cincyTT (May 11, 2006)

*Re: WRC engine details (gruppe5)*

Ok.... ill do that JUST for you









your response to Issam and the intake manifold being better suited to a ko3/4

_Quote, originally posted by *gruppe5* »_
Yeah cause they are running a K03/K04 on that car??? Sometimes you make me wonder.......









The plenium size is to small for this size turbo which kills the flow rate and over all power. A better sized plenium would increase power over the entire rpm band. See SEM dynos on Don's 3071r from low psi to moderate psi.

_Quote, originally posted by *gruppe5* »_Issam, how does equal flow NOT equal performance??? Thats like telling me its a good idea to use unmatched injectors. Figure out how to take advantage of that and power is made and/or kept. That is important to people who design, build, and drive competition vehicles. These are things that I shouldn't have to say and you should know. You sell $600 oil pans that don't make a lick of power but it has a purpose right??









Equal flow is a requirement of performance for a good tune. The only added benefit of the Dahlbach manifold over the stock is the even flow since the stock overfills 1 and underflows 4. Performace is a subject of terms. Anything better in the car world that is better than stock is termed performance but doesnt mean its the best available for a application. No one would spend the extra $500 for this manifold just because of its application here when a far better SEM manifold would make more power, have almost even flow, and cost far less. As for the oil pans, its not a power adder. Its made for 3 reasons, ground clearence, more oil capacity, and most of all, keeping oil from leaving the sump on hard cornering.


_Quote, originally posted by *gruppe5* »_
Kinda getting off subject but REALLY?? You don't think 300 whp @5500 rpm and 400+ lb.ft. of torque @ 6000 rpm would be desirable? I would take that all day over the same power but in the upper RPM's. 


Sorry, math is not your friend. Like i have posted before, cant have peak tq past peak hp since hp is a calculated by tq and rpms. 

_Quote, originally posted by *gruppe5* »_So revving out to 8500 redline with lag up to say 3900 to 4300 is good?, I would like the powerband of a diesel with correct gearing and torque way down low. Alot of people are switching to the HTA GT35 for quicker spool because they want power i.e. torque sooner, correct? I am also well aware of the manifold flow bench comparisons, as much as I am about the real world application of it which you can see on the first page. You are making my point for me, "good midrange because of the massive variance in the driving conditions and the stop-go nature of the sport" that doesn't ring any bells?, sounds like the driving I do everyday. The "ENTIRE" powerband IS shown on their dynos because they usually redline at 7500 or less with 1000 rpm buffer for the shift. 

So you want low end power, but you would like to have 300whp at 5500rpms and 400wtq at 6k? A realistic setup with say a 28rs will make 300wtq before 5k and 300whp from around 5000-7k, So again...








People are switching to HTA type turbos for its earlier spool and increased power over the equivalnt sized turbo. Also you adjust your driving to where the power is, you dont hang out in the 3k range on a gt30 turbo, just like you dont hang out in the 6k range on a ko3.


_Quote, originally posted by *gruppe5* »_I dont know, how about you start with proper exhaust manifold design, high compression, efficient turbochargers and proper tuning. You may not replicate them exactly but you can get close. All the information you would need is readily available. YOU offer "Performance Solutions'' , get to work.

not many people are going to spend 10k on a setup for a car thats not streetable. A good designed cast manifold or tube will make great power. Also, they run higher octane where we have to stay 10:1 or below to keep using pump.

Ill just stop there, cause i cant take anymore of your ranting posts. So many better options available since most of us live w/o rule books


----------



## skywalkersgti (Mar 27, 2007)

*Re: WRC engine details (cincyTT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *16plus4v* »_
Looks like the dual cam gear setup has been around already....

more then you would think


----------



## gruppe5 (May 10, 2003)

*Re: WRC engine details (cincyTT)*

The bulls**t you just posted makes me laugh.
1. You are assuming the powerband
2. Performance IS a subject of terms, terms that involve MORE than POWER, read that again if you don't get it.
3. I'll let you argue that with the "magical wizards'' that build engines for WRC and LMP
4 & 5 lets combine them. NOTHING I said isn't streetable, combine that stuff WITH a 28rs and see where you end up. You are the one with the rule book, I am the one saying do something different and Issam even hinted that he was doing something along these lines ( although he deleted it ) 
I have not once said that ANYTHING was the "best option" or made the "most power" I never even tried to compare it to the SEM, YOU keep doing that, I don't care about that and you do not seem to understand that. Reading comprehension is not your friend. I AM NOT COMPARING ANYTHING. This WAS a conversation about equal flow and perfomance, you and your buddy have now turned it into a bitch fest. I know what makes good power trust me I do not need you to explain that to me, it can be had a number of different ways with heaps of different equipment and techniques. Most of those techniques follow the SAME guidelines i.e. cookie cutter. AND THAT IS WHAT I AM GETTING AT!!!!!! When someone decides to do some R&D and keep pushing the limits of what is perceived as possible then you will see results, and not limits in terms of power production, that has been done and proves next to nothing. And people spend 10K + on non streetable setups everyday, but the funny thing how refined those setups have become over the years due to what?? Oh yeah R&D and pushing the limits of "PERFORMANCE" ( NOT POWER ) I really hope you get this now, really I do.


----------



## Pat @ Pitt Soundworks (Nov 14, 2008)

*Re: WRC engine details (Issam Abed)*

I'm still kind of confused as to how the lemans style is inherently a restriction. The passage connecting the primary and secondary chambers is (as said) 110% of the throttle area.


----------



## rogerius (Jun 14, 2004)

*Re: WRC engine details (Pat @ Pitt Soundworks)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Pat @ Pitt Soundworks* »_I'm still kind of confused as to how the lemans style is inherently a restriction. The passage connecting the primary and secondary chambers is (as said) 110% of the throttle area.

maybe the specific application manifold shown above, has that restriction in flow (or maybe not, we don't know for sure).This does not mean that I cannot build one for my personal use and make sure to: 
1. use a large Throttle body along with the corresponding plumbing from the intercooler to TB
2. make sure to allow at least 110% of TB crossection for the passage between the 2 plenums
3. make sure the large plenum is 1.5-2.5 times the engine capacity
4. use velocity stacks for the runners inside the plenum
5. use the large port runner
Thus one can have a decent (flowing manifold with equal flow distribution . We can get both worlds IMHO.


----------



## badger5 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: WRC engine details (rogerius)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rogerius* »_
maybe the specific application manifold shown above, has that restriction in flow (or maybe not, we don't know for sure).This does not mean that I cannot build one for my personal use and make sure to: 
1. use a large Throttle body along with the corresponding plumbing from the intercooler to TB
2. make sure to allow at least 110% of TB crossection for the passage between the 2 plenums
3. make sure the large plenum is 1.5-2.5 times the engine capacity
4. use velocity stacks for the runners inside the plenum
5. use the large port runner
Thus one can have a decent (flowing manifold with equal flow distribution . We can get both worlds IMHO.









I used to run a largeport dual plenum custom intake on my ibiza..
stock t'body.
Swapped to 007mani with R32 throttle body, also largeport.
2 changes I know, t'body bigger and manifold change to 007.
007 manifold flowed more for the same setup and gained 32bhp/22lbft torque bolt on.
Equal flowing cylinder fill was the idea behind the dual plenum, and I guess the cross section of the fill slot between the throttle and main plenum was pretty much 1:1 cross section with the stock tbody
Now did the tbody make the difference to airflow or the mani, or combination... answers on a postcard. It did make more power and torque everywhere tho. Not considered dual plenum since personally.
Restrictor cars, however.... different rules


----------



## skywalkersgti (Mar 27, 2007)

*Re: WRC engine details (Issam Abed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Issam Abed* »_
It really is rewarding in the end isnt it









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


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: (Issam Abed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Issam Abed* »_
Then get a GT3071R and an SEM manifold....not a WRC spec set up.
p.s. with the help of a friend a WRC Skoda intake is on its way over to me.We will see how much theory is behind the power









Manifold will be here in the morning. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: (Issam Abed)*

I can't wait for pics/results http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Afazz (Feb 10, 2002)

*Re: (l88m22vette)*

Plenum arguments aside, there is probably $100,000 in plumbing alone. Some of those drybreak connectors are upwards of $600 each, and some of that hose is $50/ft. In to study this later.


----------



## dkbottles (Feb 25, 2009)

*Re: (Afazz)*

WRC cars are designed to overcome the required 34mm restriction in the turbo inlet that limits the HP the car can make by limiting the amount of air that can be sucked in via this rather small hole. The higher the RPM the more air is required by the motor so clearly there is a big advantage to move the power band well down the rpm range. Lower RPM's reduce the amount of torque multiplying effects the gearing can have at any given wheel speed so making lots of ft/lbs becomes very important. In the long ago days of say GpB when they did not have restrictors they made less Tq. and More HP then used gearing to get more wheel torque. 
For us, not limited to the FIA WRC rules, making a High Tq at low rpm motor is a massive waste of money, we are much better off letting the thing rev and using a shorter final drive. All non turbo rally cars do this, 9000 RPM red lines in the A7 cars showed this is very effective. The new S2000 cars are likewise high reving, the 207 is reported to make 280Hp at near 8500 rpm. 
With the anti leg turned off the cars still make the same HP and Tq numbers. 
I have driven un restricted, restricted and normally aspirated rally cars - make sure you understand the whole picture before you go and try to replicated the WRC cars.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

This is a discussion we have had many times in the past. 
1) If the slot is too large and "not" a restriction- it will not function as a nozzle to evenly distribute the airflow. You get closer and closer to a single open plenum. Cars with restrictors - both WRC and LMP- don't mind this because the mass flow rate is limited anyways. 
2) Just because it is 100% or 110% of the throttle area does not make it not a restriction. Even a piece of 2.5" straight pipe is a restriction- every bit of piping and plumbing has a pressure drop. You can bet your #@*#% that a blunt slot- with a poor, square entrance AND discharge is an additional restriction. The square edged slot is in fact the worst possible thing you could really put there from a "pressure drop" perspective- and that's WHY it does what it does- causes even distribution. If it didn't have any pressure drop, air charge wouldn't build up in the 1st small plenum to evenly distribute into the second. 
They don't make much sense to use in the atmosphere of unrestricted / no rules "street" or drag racing. Yes, there is a good point to having the distribution even, but careful single plenum design can accomplish this in most cases anyways. 
I might add, one advantage that the dual plenum setup does have is that it may isolate the main plenum from turbulence caused by a partially open throttle- it may be that there are part throttle scenarios where the dual plenum will provide far more even airflow then even a properly optimized single plenum. That said, not too many engines die a part throttle death. 
One thing I don't understand is that- when single plenum manifolds have been proven to outperform these dual plenum setups in OUR circumstances, time and time again... Why people insist on having them? Is it just because of pictures like this show them on high dollar (very restricted) race engines? To be honest, if you could put a toaster oven in there and it made power over the target powerband, I'd be cool with that... But when it *costs* power- not to mention being bulky and quite expensive to manufacture- I really scratch my head?
To me, the only thing that is relevant is what makes the most power over that customer's requested powerband. 
Does anybody actually have anything showing a circumstance in an unrestricted engine where one of these manifolds is in fact the best bet? 


_Modified by [email protected] at 11:12 PM 12-17-2009_


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Does anybody actually have anything showing a circumstance in an unrestricted engine where one of these manifolds is in fact the best bet? 
Quite the opposite...
look out for TEST 2 OF 3.
Everyone that rode the WRC Skoda intake manifold band wagon is in for a huge surprise.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 2, 2009)

That was my point







I have seen all the tests, but wanted the people obsessed with these to try to come up with something. 
Believe me, I am very, very far from that bandwagon haha. I think i'm guilty of raising hell on every wrc clone manifold thread for the last half decade. 







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


_Modified by [email protected] at 11:36 PM 12-17-2009_


----------



## gdoggmoney (Feb 21, 2004)

For those of you interested in the dry break connectors:
http://www.staubli.com/en/conn...ports/
http://www.staubli.com/typo3co...188d1


----------



## Hudy_cz (Jan 3, 2009)

*parts*

If you want some parts, you can order anything from WRC








Homepage
PARTS


----------



## Hudy_cz (Jan 3, 2009)

I see links doesnt work. There are new with parts from WRC

http://www.jukamotorsport.cz/en

What about testing of that manifold?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

gruppe5 said:


> Issam, how does equal flow NOT equal performance??? Thats like telling me its a good idea to use unmatched injectors. Figure out how to take advantage of that and power is made and/or kept. That is important to people who design, build, and drive competition vehicles. These are things that I shouldn't have to say and you should know. You sell $600 oil pans that don't make a lick of power but it has a purpose right??


Not trying to get involved in a 1.8T debate these days but....

equal flow distribution will help with a more consistent/powerful flame front and will reduce individual cylinder calibration correction by the ecu.

However, these gains are minimal and are more for safety and simplicity as opposed to power output.

Equal flow distribution is not a terrible concern for OEM's as its difficult to accomplish perfectly and they have introduced other technologies and control strategies to make it a non issue.

That being said, it will help minimally and I could see an argument that the gain doesn't warrant the expense.

Intake tuning is an interesting science.

For example, for years people thought our 1.8T intake wasn't the best on the market for power because it was shown to flow less on a flow bench than other offerings. However, back to back intake mani swaps on the dyno always show a gain when the APR IM is on vs. the competition.

Even cylinder distribution was a feature we attempted to incorporate in our design but incoming air management proved to be more valuable than overall flow.


----------



## Cassius (Feb 20, 2012)

Sorry for dragging up an old topic, but I have a few thought's on the matter that I'd like to hear your opinions on.

First of all. The SEM intake that seem to be so well thought of. This "type" of intake, being it SEM och homebuilt usually owerflows the runners at the back of the plenum, this increases with higher boost. So, for a High boost application that specific type of intake manifold might not be the best one to use.

Secondly, last I heard WRC car's weren't really pushing 20-30PSi like many street cars but something closer to 60! Using a dual chamber plenum like the Skodas earlier in this topic or the Dahlback Racing manifold would regardless of boost give even distribution!

An intake manifold that starves one (or more) cylinders would also promote detonation earlier since the AFR would be off for that (or those) cylinders, yeilding boost levels and power! So, again even flow is good!

Down to the point. An intake that flows say 900cfm at the best runner, but say 700 in the worst wont automaticly be better than an intake that flows say 600 on all runners. Correct?

On an other matter, I recently heard of a Volvo S40 1.8T here in Sweden that made 600hp using a "Lehman" style, dual chamber intake. Same engine used an intake style similar to the SEM intake before but then only made 570ish hp. The way I understood it, they could run a little bit higher boost with the new intake over the old one, giving them the last ponies. I cant remeber the torque gain, but it was higher than the hp gain. This Volvo is a street car.

So depending on what kind of engine you are building and what levels of boost you are planning on running, I'd say that dual chamber intakes infact can be really good, even for street use! Or am I wrong?


----------



## my2000APB (Jun 3, 2007)

ok now boosted itbs into the debate, they require a more even distribution than a standard single tb


----------

