# 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project.



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*THE INTRODUCTION* 
Hey everybody..
Time to start the planning stages of a new intake manifold. Figured this would be the best forum for the brain dump.
My planned goal is to have an intake manifold that is modeled after the OEM manifold complete with the changeover valve and resonance port but with larger runners.
Lets try to keep the thread on that topic. I do not want a short runner nor the CVP.
The end result should be a manifold that fits the stock mounting points and plumbing that just kicks up the dimensions of the runner area to allow the engine to breath easier hopefully allowing a respectable gain up top while trying to minimize losses down low.

At this point, the all motor guys on the 3.2's are making +25% more power out of the engine than it came from the factory with and seeing rev limiters set 800+ RPM higher than stock. 
I'm pretty sure the engineers didn't have this in mind when they designed the stock intake manifold. Below is a picture I took of a stock intake manifold I cut up to show the runner cross section. Yes, that is a water bottle cap sitting on the runner.. they are _tiny_!!!!


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (PowerDubs)*

*INITIAL THOUGHTS*
Packaging is going to be the biggest challenge here.
Due to the coil packs the runners will not be able to be wider so they will need to be taller. The upper plenum 'ceiling' will be raised to match the runner height so this will increase it's volume by default.
The stock manifold sits soo close to the engine that it rubs the valve cover from the factory. It literally rubs off the paint and makes a smooth spot. That will need to be a major spot to watch in addition to the spark plug wire cap clearance.
The changeover port barrel tolerance is critical. Look at the picture I am posting below.
Anyone who is not familiar with the manifold design in detail, study this as well- https://acrobat.com/#d=YyIcQzOsQ7SsDus9OUNeWg


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (PowerDubs)*

*Real world resonance port effects*
Here is a dyno overlay of the short runners only VS the long runners only (Credit Jeff Atwood)


----------



## robocopywriter (Jun 18, 2004)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (PowerDubs)*

Funny. I looked at the picture and didn't think anything. Then I happened to see a a water bottle cap just incidentally and went "holy sh*t!"
How much clearance is under the hood?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (PowerDubs)*

*Initial parts*

To start off with, I will look to INA for their ability to supply an intake to head flange and TB flange, both of which should be available with no issues and appear to be of fine quality.








If I am not mistaken, that flange is sized to accept the oval tubing available from Ross Machine racing. Issam?
We'll have to find a way to bend it.

















RMR also makes matching oval velocity stacks which will be implemented in the upper plenum.










Here are the runners as they come into the upper plenum (I cut off the plenum)









Due to how close together the 6 runners are in the plenum, the velocity stacks will have to have the flanges cut to butt to each other as such-


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (robocopywriter)*


_Quote, originally posted by *robocopywriter* »_Funny. I looked at the picture and didn't think anything. Then I happened to see a a water bottle cap just incidentally and went "holy sh*t!"
How much clearance is under the hood?


Hard to believe that we are pushing 300+ HP through those huh?
Unsure on hood clearance at this point, I think we should be OK though.. just measuring the section I have sitting here the runners (at this point) are only 1.75 high, that oval tube is 2.37. Should be small enough to clear, big enough to make a difference in flow. 

But I'm not opposed to finding a spare hood and running an older school muscle car style bulged hood _if I have to_..


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (PowerDubs)*

Here is a production plastic intake and the initial aluminum prototype manifold with the resonance chamber cover removed so you can see the insides.

No idea why the prototype had the indentation on the bottom of the upper plenum. I ran both on my car with no functional differences. Weird..


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (PowerDubs)*

Josh,
have you looked into the manifolds like what ABT did for design inspiration?


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*

Nice Josh Lets keep this gooing and on a road to production hopefully.I am one of the few that have been wanting a new manifold for the longest time


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

A few thoughts...
-Oval bells lose flow (power) compared to even the simplest round bells. 
-The oval to square transition in the INA flange is very quick and changes the direction of the air away from the port sides. I am not sure if this is good or not, just an observation.
-Good luck bending that oval tube along the long axis.
-Get a lighter car so you don't have to worry about torque








That all being said, I would go from the head and transition to round as quickly as possible and then fab everything from there up in round. This will make the bells harder to fit, but from a flow point of view you're up from the bells all the way to the head flange transition. You might want to CNC a plate for the plenum wall with the stacks integrated. Sure, off the plenum floor is better, but it's a lot less to fab. For the area near the plugs just 'vice' the round into an oval in those sections to clear the coilpacks. 
That's all for now, I'll think more and post later..


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_-Good luck bending that oval tube along the long axis.


I can CNC 2 halves for him (12 pieces in total) and he can weld the oval tubing to that.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_-Oval bells lose flow (power) compared to even the simplest round bells. 


Yea,..but look at the stock setup above..tight fit to cram 6 runners where we need them to be.
I think we are looking at something like this-
*000000*
*OOOOOO*

Make sense?


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_-The oval to square transition in the INA flange is very quick and changes the direction of the air away from the port sides. I am not sure if this is good or not, just an observation.


I think there is not much of a choice here.. I'm not going to create a whole new flange, and there has to be some sort of a transition regardless unless each runner was shaped to it's corresponding port. 
Hopefully in my wishful thinking the transition in the INA flange will serve to increase the velocity of the air into the ports which if it did would be a good thing.


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_Good luck bending that oval tube along the long axis.


Won't be..my idea is to squeeze a transition in the tubing to make it go from tall and skinny to short and fat before the bend starts.. the stocker does the same thing.. which will make the bend easier and allow more room for clearance.


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_Get a lighter car so you don't have to worry about torque 


Yea yea.. I know you welcome the TQ loss Mr I disable the manifold valve.. there is only so much FWD can handle.










_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_I would go from the head and transition to round as quickly as possible and then fab everything from there up in round. This will make the bells harder to fit, but from a flow point of view you're up from the bells all the way to the head flange transition. You might want to CNC a plate for the plenum wall with the stacks integrated. Sure, off the plenum floor is better, but it's a lot less to fab.


That may be easier, not entirely sold on the idea of better though. The factory probably had a reason why they stopped making round runners like the old 16v's and started making them square. Maybe it was just packaging issues as well.. but have you seen the 3.6 VR head ports? They are crazy..


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_For the area near the plugs just 'vice' the round into an oval in those sections to clear the coilpacks. 



Yea, We will have to do that even with the oval tube as it is a little too wide anyway.
For those that need a visual, HPA did the same thing here-


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (Issam Abed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Issam Abed* »_
I can CNC 2 halves for him (12 pieces in total) and he can weld the oval tubing to that.

I'm not following you.. can you sketch it? http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (Issam Abed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Issam Abed* »_Josh,
have you looked into the manifolds like what ABT did for design inspiration?










Is that even functional? Where are the plug wires?
Looks like they are starving the # 6 cyl something awful.
About the only thing I like about it is the fact that they made the runners removable from the lower section so I would be able to swap cams without having to put the front end into the service position. That is what I *really* like but it would be difficult to do and still incorporate the changeover valve and resonance port.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_
I'm not following you.. can you sketch it? http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

I will draw it up tonight for you. Paul is right in the sense that there is no way you can mandrel bend the RMR oval tubing in a tight radius like that. I am machining up some flanges now that are to the exact perimeter of the R32 intake port (i.e. as if you had a spacer between the manifold and head).
So basically this is what will happen (modelling off only 1 port)
CNC flange ---> (2) CNC'ed 180* tight bends which will be welded together to form 1 part ----> flange tapped for M6 bolts -----> gasket ----> flange welded to RMR circular tubing which will now span OVER the valve cover ---> CNC'ed plate with 6 holes for each runner ----> Plenum ----> Throttle plate.
make sense? Essentially a 2 piece manifold.


----------



## XJGPN (Feb 6, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (Issam Abed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Issam Abed* »_
I can CNC 2 halves for him (12 pieces in total) and he can weld the oval tubing to that.

I think this is the key right here, do a curved runner out of CNC'd halves that integrate a slight taper in them and a gradual transition from the port shape to round. Then you would end up with 6 round outlets (technically inlets) facing back at the firewall. From that point I would use standard trumpets that can be purchased in many diameters and run them into a plenum located where the OEM plenum is.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (Issam Abed)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Issam Abed* »_make sense? Essentially a 2 piece manifold.


Yea..gotcha.. just like above.. but I'm stubborn and am not willing to give up the resonance port.
It can still be done, the changeover valve might just need to be moved higher.. which would effectively lengthen the 'short' runners which we don't want.
The only way around that (which gets convoluted) would be to make the section containing the short runners/changeover valve/resonance port removable which would uncover the bolts holding the main runners to the lover section. A 3 piece manifold.
Yea.. I'm crazy.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Remove radiator
Fit with smaller style side rad (Honda del sol type)
Have the 'resonance' port and changeover valve stick straight out instead of trying to curve it up
?
Profit
I see what Issam is saying about the lower manifold transition, it's going to be interesting for sure. 
There's a difference between disabling the changeover and just not using it. I would have had to use it in the first place








Anthony's ITB'd car has the 6 bells on almost stock 12v spacing with just crushing the short three bells down a bit to clear. The 3.2 port spacing can't be that far off.
Also you could give up the stock style COPs for remote mount and plug wires. 
I have more to say but limited on time.


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

So you want to run the flapper?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

He *really* wants to run the flapper. A more cost effective solution would be mailing him a sawzall or a Mk2/3 shell. But, this has been deemed unacceptable.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

Paul,
There is a reason this is titled the OEM+ project. This isn't a race car. Nobody is going to get rid of the coil packs , nobody is going to remove the radiator, fans, etc. 
Besides, can you see a del sol radiator cooling a 300+ hp engine effectively? 90+ degree weather, stop and go traffic?.. no thanks.
I know there are sacrifices that could be made which would simplify this, compromises that could be made, shortcuts that could be taken.. but that is not what this is about. I could easily slap a plenum on 6 runners and call it a day. I think I can do better.
You should use the changeover ports (and cam timing).. there is a reason they are there.








As for Dowd's 12v.. there is a difference between the splayed out spacing off the head and the space constraints inside the upper plenum. 
We need to fit 6 runners with decent transitions into a space of 12 inches-


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_He *really* wants to run the flapper. A more cost effective solution would be mailing him a sawzall or a Mk2/3 shell. But, this has been deemed unacceptable.









Oh Boy this is going to be fun.


----------



## XJGPN (Feb 6, 2008)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_No idea why the prototype had the indentation on the bottom of the upper plenum. I ran both on my car with no functional differences. Weird.. 

You had the original VW prototype intake manifold on your car? Do you still have it? While it would be a shame to cut apart something like that, why not just have that extrude honed and with a little fabrication you could add to the plenum volume? That should get you where you want to be.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (XJGPN)*


_Quote, originally posted by *XJGPN* »_
You had the original VW prototype intake manifold on your car? Do you still have it? While it would be a shame to cut apart something like that, why not just have that extrude honed and with a little fabrication you could add to the plenum volume? That should get you where you want to be.

Yea, I had it.. was made an offer I couldn't refuse to sell it.


----------



## Mike Solo (Jan 26, 2005)

*FV-QR*

That piece is long-gone. Went to Stephanie Sadorra, the model/pr0n star, IIRC.
Josh, great thread. I can't wait to see what you guys come up with.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (Mike Solo)*

Actually it went from her to her ex. He sold it to me then I sold it to a guy in Canaduh who has it on his turbo R.


----------



## DannyLo (Aug 2, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

hmm I want to play in solidworks


----------



## Mike Solo (Jan 26, 2005)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Actually it went from her to her ex. He sold it to me then I sold it to a guy in Canaduh who has it on his turbo R.









Ahh, my mistake! Thanks for the correction, I thought you had it first. Just went back & found the thread, sorry!


----------



## Robthirtytwo (Jun 6, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

hey josh did u check out the R36 mani?
http://www.egmcartech.com/wp-c...6.jpg


----------



## beachball6 (Apr 22, 2003)

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif (recent topics)


----------



## zetarhopike (Oct 6, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (Robthirtytwo)*

the r36 (BWS or BLV, I think?) intake isn't "variable" as far as I can see but here are the PNs and a pic anyway:


----------



## howzit-eksee (Mar 24, 2005)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_A few thoughts...
-Oval bells lose flow (power) compared to even the simplest round bells. 
-The oval to square transition in the INA flange is very quick and changes the direction of the air away from the port sides. I am not sure if this is good or not, just an observation.
-Good luck bending that oval tube along the long axis.
-Get a lighter car so you don't have to worry about torque








That all being said, I would go from the head and transition to round as quickly as possible and then fab everything from there up in round. This will make the bells harder to fit, but from a flow point of view you're up from the bells all the way to the head flange transition. You might want to CNC a plate for the plenum wall with the stacks integrated. Sure, off the plenum floor is better, but it's a lot less to fab. For the area near the plugs just 'vice' the round into an oval in those sections to clear the coilpacks. 
That's all for now, I'll think more and post later.. 


Im no expert, but why would round have better flow than oval/vw square? If anything, there is more turbulence in a round cylinder vs an oval/square that "channels" flow......(yes there would be more turbulence if there was an "exit", but its all sealed and vacuumed with no "spouts/openings" to speak of)
This is not a statement, its a question....
I believe VW did switch to oval/square for a reason, and as more people on these forums study, the more they "discover" how everything VW does has a reason and how advanced it is, to me, this is no different. I do realize sometimes its cost plus efficiency plus space that influence the shape of some of these designs, but if you read some of the programmes, you can tell VW makes engine performance/efficiancy a priority over anything else, so i think that this design was intentional.



_Modified by howzit-eksee at 3:37 PM 1-21-2010_


----------



## howzit-eksee (Mar 24, 2005)

*Re: FV-QR (Robthirtytwo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Robthirtytwo* »_hey josh did u check out the R36 mani?
http://www.egmcartech.com/wp-c...6.jpg

Its hard to study the R36 for this application since its FSI no?


_Modified by howzit-eksee at 3:44 PM 1-21-2010_


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (howzit-eksee)*


_Quote, originally posted by *howzit-eksee* »_
Its hard to study the R36 for this application since its FSI no?

_Modified by howzit-eksee at 3:44 PM 1-21-2010_

Exactly with the R36 being FSI don't think that we can use that manifold.Not sure how the set-up works with the FSI works.Since we are needing the change over for the low end.Hmmm gonna have to read into it


----------



## j-dub (Oct 22, 2000)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_
but have you seen the 3.6 VR head ports? They are crazy..


No, but here are the only pics I could find. 








It looks like the Intake Manifold is very similar to the 3.2


----------



## zetarhopike (Oct 6, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (j-dub)*

Looks like I was wrong about the intake being not variable, I've got to ask where you found those pics? I spent the better part of an hour looking for something like that...


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

There was a very good article published recently that compared a bunch of intake bellmouth designs. The quick synopsis is that when you compare round to oval bells, the oval profile flows less per a given area, even compared to a 'simple' round bell. There are gains to be had optimizing the round bells further with elliptical profiles, etc. I'll link it up once I find where it was hosted.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (j-dub)*

why dont you make a flange that converts from 3.2 on the head side and 3.6 on the manifold side.








take this flange and weld it up to this with transition runners.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_There was a very good article published recently that compared a bunch of intake bellmouth designs. The quick synopsis is that when you compare round to oval bells, the oval profile flows less per a given area, even compared to a 'simple' round bell. There are gains to be had optimizing the round bells further with elliptical profiles, etc. I'll link it up once I find where it was hosted. 

what about round vs. square.


----------



## RipCity Euros (Sep 23, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (fourthchirpin)*

You could do something like this, but retain the OEM changeover.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

http://www.profblairandassocia...t.pdf


----------



## Issam Abed (Feb 12, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (newcreation)*

I made a flange for [email protected] before for his 3.6 NA project.
Josh that flapper motor has to go.


----------



## VR6ix (Oct 27, 2003)

*FV-QR*

I have ideas floating around in my head exactly the same as *PowerDubs*... but for a 12-valve motor, which does NOT have the constraints of the coils sticking out the top of the head. Basically, a new upper manifold that incorporates the resonance chamber but has shorter runners, either trumpeted into a plenum or with ITBs...
... and most of my idea was based on fab'ing a custom cowl-induction hood. Inspiration directly from factory cowl induction hoods on Camaros, Chevelles, etc. One for clearance and Two for the cowl-induction benefits. Three for blowing past the 200whp "limit" on the 12v and Four for doing something way out of the box. Five is making it all work in a 4-seasons car, rain, snow, etc. I'm currently at Step #-1, so this topic is interesting to finally see posted.

If I get real ambitions I'll try to model it up in SolidWorks before 2011 happens, but I'm only at the "quasi-enlightened layman" knowledge level regarding legit tuning and the physics behind everything. Topic Watched to say the least! Good luck!


----------



## Brake_Dust (Sep 24, 2001)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (PowerDubs)*

signing in to read later http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Slampig (Jun 20, 2008)

*FV-QR*

watching this.


----------



## R32Freddie (Mar 2, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (Slampig)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Slampig* »_watching this.

x2


----------



## Nemesis-Brad (Aug 17, 2009)

I originally talked to Josh about this , if someone can draw this part up I'll offer my fabrication and welding skills to make the first prototype up .


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (Nemesis-Brad)*

I've had several people ask me to draw it or measure. 

The person doing the fab needs to have a stock manifold as well as a head/valve cover to test fit along with any measurements.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

Guys.. to do this complete custom intake manifold will cost a lot of money. I have no problems with that, It will just take a while to come together.
I've got an idea that may be doable for CHEAP that might make exactly the difference I'm looking for without having to spend thousands on a complete new manifold.
I've got to go out for the afternoon/evening, but I might have progress pictures / details later tonight or sometime tomorrow.
The answer was right in front of me the whole time in this picture.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

Well what might that be Josh the answer that was infront of you the whole time???


----------



## stirfriedx9 (Apr 23, 2005)

*Re: (newcreation)*

looking at that picture im thinking you need two stock plastic manifolds to make this work. cut the top off of one right at the top, then cut the top off the second one halfway down around the seem where the two halves of the manifold join together. put that top onto the other, and presto...you increased only the height of the runners and plenum. the problem is molding the two halves together, so that they dont leak. thats my guess anyway....


----------



## Det. John Kimble (May 20, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (Slampig)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Slampig* »_watching this.

Definitely watching this thread

__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view


----------



## R32_alex (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (Det. John Kimble)*

i've been refreshing this page like 40 times a minute







sitting at work here getting excited for results. Hopefully your idea works out for you Josh. definitely watching this thread. More power to you


----------



## grammaticus (Aug 1, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (R32_alex)*


_Quote, originally posted by *R32_alex* »_i've been refreshing this page like 40 times a minute









x2


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (grammaticus)*

I had time to get some work done on it last night. I've been out all day and have to go back out this evening.. but I might be able to get some more work done on it later tonight. 
I found out something else last night I wasn't expecting that may be inherently wrong with EVERYONES manifolds..and could be a super simple easy fix.. I just need to do a couple measurements and test fits. I don't know if this 2nd part will make any true power difference at all...but just knowing it is wrong bothers me.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*

Can't wait to see what you have found or thinking about cause i am not sure have my spare in front of me and apart


----------



## VW-FF (Jul 28, 2009)

Trying to be patient, refresh, refresh, refresh, ugh nothing lol


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_
I found out something else last night I wasn't expecting that may be inherently wrong with EVERYONES manifolds..


Jesus #[email protected])* Christmas Secret Squirrel spill the beans and then I can tell you if you've had your head in your ass lately or it's a good idea.


----------



## R32_alex (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

if you paypal $10 he will tell you.


----------



## Saabstory02 (Jul 25, 2009)

Subscribed; this is better than Days of our Lives http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
Joking aside though; I just want to say thank you to you for all your work, experimenting and effort in pushing these motors beyond the limits with NA power. Oh yeah, and I want to know what you found that's wrong with my manifold as well!

















_Modified by Saabstory02 at 6:45 AM 1-27-2010_


----------



## R32_alex (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: (Saabstory02)*

I imagine the 08 r32 manifolds would be slightly different. no?


----------



## Saabstory02 (Jul 25, 2009)

There may be slight differences, but without removing both and measuring they appear to be pretty much the same.
Besides, he did say everyone's...










_Modified by Saabstory02 at 11:48 AM 1-27-2010_


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (Saabstory02)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Saabstory02* »_ I want to know what you found that's wrong with my manifold as well! 


Sorry...I should have clarified. It would be impossible for the MK5 to have the issue I was speaking of.


----------



## Saabstory02 (Jul 25, 2009)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_

Sorry...I should have clarified. It would be impossible for the MK5 to have the issue I was speaking of.









No worries, either way I've learned more about the R's intake in this thread than in 7 months of ownership







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


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*

HMMM come on guy


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (newcreation)*

Hey guys.. getting a lot of PMs wanting to know whats going on.
I was going to wait until I had some pictures to explain everything, but that won't be until tomorrow at the earliest. I had to go buy a right angle adapter for my dremel.. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Add to that a plastic welder, and we have a nice smelly low budget project going on.

First up is the simple thing I was surprised about. 
The manifold I am using for my project is like new, came off a very low mileage car. While I was working on it the other night, I stuck my finger in it to wipe away some shavings and I discovered the changeover valve doesn't line up!!
It is off enough that it makes a lip on one side and a drop off on the other .. factor in both openings on the rod and and the pulses moving back and forth and you have 4 spots on EACH runner that disrupt airflow.
Should be easy enough for me to measure how far off it is and shim it.









Now on to part 2- (the actual modification that I am hoping will make a difference.)

What are the 2 main things that effect where the power is tuned on an intake manifold?
Runner length and runner diameter.
I can't do anything with the stock manifold about runner diameter.. but I can about the runner length. Look in the resonance port. I can shorten the 'high speed' runners roughly an inch 'just' by grinding them away. Should kick the peak power up 500rpm or so.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Won't the distance from the port outlet to the power port plenum wall (the part removed from the metal one) be a factor in resonance tuning? Planning on just cutting out the dividers in the resonance ports down toward the changeover valve?
A customer of mine actually had documented track gains removing the changeover rod totally. I'm wondering now if it's misalignment that could be a factor that when it's removed it can have stronger wave reflections.
I still think you should plastic weld two of them together vertically for more port area.


----------



## climbingcue (Feb 2, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_
I still think you should plastic weld two of them together vertically for more port area.









I thought that would also be the best idea...


----------



## Brake_Dust (Sep 24, 2001)

*Re: (stirfriedx9)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stirfriedx9* »_looking at that picture im thinking you need two stock plastic manifolds to make this work. cut the top off of one right at the top, then cut the top off the second one halfway down around the seem where the two halves of the manifold join together. put that top onto the other, and presto...you increased only the height of the runners and plenum. the problem is molding the two halves together, so that they dont leak. thats my guess anyway....

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
who has a band saw?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

I have a small band saw, but trying to increase the main runner size would be extremely difficult and LOTS of cutting and grinding, test fitting...and the odds of getting the parts back together and sealed solidly is unlikely. If someone thinks they can pull it off.. DO IT. I've decided not even to try it (and I'm pretty adventurous)
Shortening the 'high speed' runners as I am doing is something most people could do themselves if they are handy...and I think it should make a positive difference.

_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_Won't the distance from the port outlet to the power port plenum wall (the part removed from the metal one) be a factor in resonance tuning? 

It is my understanding that pulse reflection occurs at the end of runners / opening of plenum. The area 'opened up' by shortening the runners effectively becomes additional plenum area. In theory this will also benefit us.


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_A customer of mine actually had documented track gains removing the changeover rod totally. I'm wondering now if it's misalignment that could be a factor that when it's removed it can have stronger wave reflections.
 
Well, if the rod was removed totally there are a LOT of changes going on to the airflow. It wouldn't surprise me if the now empty rod chamber acts like a mini plenum initiating the pulses earlier than with it in place. The issue I would have is the associated turbulence from the other side and edges. Also, the low end would suffer..not that it would matter on a track.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

Received a helpful PM-
"Great find Josh on the change over rod. From what it looks like. The rod can move well over .100" within the tube. It looks like the openings are off by .100" and there is still additional room for the rod to move further. I was thinking about making a spacer real quickly on the lathe to see how it will fit inside there. I am going to try to make it out of delrin..."
I'm glad to see others interested in this.
I'm about to head downstairs after I eat and see if I can make some progress. I'll take some pics while I'm at it. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

You're correct the main pulse from the 'open pipe' is determined only by the runner length but there's a secondary wave from the plenum wall and distance and plenum volume are factors. This is why some plenum manifolds can make more power then ITB's for a given runner length and diameter.
I look forward to the testing.


----------



## XXX008XXX (Mar 26, 2002)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

just use a short runner!!!!!


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

Took some prelim pics after working with the new angle attachment for my dremel.
While working to keep what I think would be a favorable knife edge to the splitters, I did a quick rough measurement and I was able to shorten the divider 5/8ths.
Of course now that I am thinking about how the manifold breathes up from one runner, across and down the next.. I might flatten / round off that knife edge close to what the factory had in there. Funny how while working the grinder, I forget what I was working on and went straight for head port design.









This is the initial rough cut. I'll 'polish' everything up once all the major chop work is done on all runners. Looks better in real life than in the pics. I've got shavings _everywhere_..
Note the dividers are not straight because the runners themselves are angled if you look at the outside of the manifold.


----------



## R32_alex (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (XXX008XXX)*


_Quote, originally posted by *XXX008XXX* »_just use a short runner!!!!!

I believe that was not Powerdub's intention. One of the first things to try is to modify the stock plastic manifold and see what happens rather than shelling out thousands. Josh might be onto something.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

If you filled the outer part of the manifold with epoxy or jbweld you could probably make them quite a bit shorter yet.


----------



## XXX008XXX (Mar 26, 2002)

*Re: FV-QR (R32_alex)*


_Quote, originally posted by *R32_alex* »_
I believe that was not Powerdub's intention. One of the first things to try is to modify the stock plastic manifold and see what happens rather than shelling out thousands. Josh might be onto something.

josh knows i am busting on him.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_If you filled the outer part of the manifold with epoxy or jbweld you could probably make them quite a bit shorter yet.

They can't be removed entirely as the air needs to be directed into the ports on the roller. I already have to patch over the depressions on the outside between runners as it is.
I have finished the dremel work. Now I just need to hit the insides with some fine sand paper and it will be ready to seal back up.
Having never used a plastic welder before this ought to be interesting.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*

Guess i'll be opening up my spare manifold for some fun as well.Nice p/m from whom ever is making that shim i got that measurement today but i don't have a lathe to work something that small.Hopefully if he can make them.I am down to pay for that to be made since i can't do it on the lathe at work.
Another thing is it worth porting the lower half of the runners from the head up to the changeover might do it anyhow when i'm in there


_Modified by newcreation at 5:48 PM 1-28-2010_


----------



## dubnick32 (Jan 15, 2009)

my buddy has a g35 and the higher flow achived on the intake manifold is achived by putting a 5/16 approx gasket in. they get 20 whp from this without a tune. this is what he says anyway. i wonder if this would work on our engines. anyone herd of this?


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (dubnick32)*

I heard of it.Did it on my buddies Z see there manifold is in sections.Its a plenum spacer and its made for the Rev up engine which is 06 up.


----------



## DannyLo (Aug 2, 2006)

*Re: (newcreation)*

interesting.
definitely love the passion you have man http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
more people need to be like you 
I kind of want to do this to a 2.8 manifold if i can find a cheap one.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

I got a spare 2.8 manifold if you want to go gutting.


----------



## DannyLo (Aug 2, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

how much do you want for it? There's one on ebay for $80 right now i'm thinking of scooping up


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

I was asking 150 shipped but willing to deal.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*

he still needs to pick up my exhaust manifolds lol.


----------



## DannyLo (Aug 2, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (fourthchirpin)*

haha the exhaust manifolds i'm going to have to pass on...for now at least. i don't feel like taking the whole car apart again just to get them off the car and put other ones on.
Although an intake manifold could be a fun project i could do and then install in a short period of time to test...plus i could reinforce it for boost in the process with maybe some epoxy and rivets


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (L.I. Dan)*

its all good.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (dubnick32)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dubnick32* »_higher flow achived on the intake manifold is achived by putting a 5/16 approx gasket in. they get 20 whp from this without a tune.


I remember reading something about a plenum spacer on that engine having good results.
20whp? I'd be ecstatic with 5.. hell even if there isn't a power 'gain'.. I'll be happy if it extends the peak power say 500rpm.

I've received a couple PM from people who aren't clear on what I did so I threw this together-


----------



## R32Freddie (Mar 2, 2009)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_

I remember reading something about a plenum spacer on that engine having good results.
20whp? I'd be ecstatic with 5.. hell even if there isn't a power 'gain'.. I'll be happy if it extends the peak power say 500rpm.

I've received a couple PM from people who aren't clear on what I did so I threw this together-










Wow! Awesome! Let us know how this works out please.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_

I remember reading something about a plenum spacer on that engine having good results.
20whp? I'd be ecstatic with 5.. hell even if there isn't a power 'gain'.. I'll be happy if it extends the peak power say 500rpm.

I've received a couple PM from people who aren't clear on what I did so I threw this together-











plenum spacers only work on alu manifolds








No heat transfer addin plastic to plastic
and in your case adding another 1/4th inch isnt going to help at all.
Btw is it possible for you to remove an inch or so in lenght on the upper part of th mani?
I did this port n polish on my MK4 and it basicly didnt even give me 0.5hp.
basicly dyno error was larger then the gain.
i did the upper part and port match vs the head.
bit easier with the 2 pice early verision plastic manifold.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Foffa, he is not talking about a phenolic spacer on an aluminum manifold. He is talking about a spacer that increases the actual plenums volume which can (and does) make a difference on some engines.
Can't shorten the upper runners on this engine since the main plenum and TB will hit the valve cover.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Foffa, he is not talking about a phenolic spacer on an aluminum manifold. He is talking about a spacer that increases the actual plenums volume which can (and does) make a difference on some engines.
Can't shorten the upper runners on this engine since the main plenum and TB will hit the valve cover.

plenum spacer mounted n the TB ?
To make a difference it need to be atleast 30% of the plenum size.

Yo can remove 1 inch of runners in the front resonance chamber on the R32.
We did it 6 years ago.
Then just plastic weld it together. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
or casco "marine" glue it


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_plenum spacer mounted n the TB ?

no- http://www.nicoclub.com/articles.php?id=274245


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

Josh those are the exact spacers i installed on 2 of my buddies 350z's


----------



## CaptainQualude (Oct 29, 2008)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

This is sort of like the BMW S52 intake manifold swap for the S50 intake manifold. When are you going to mount the ported manifold & test it?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (CaptainQualude)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CaptainQualude* »_This is sort of like the BMW S52 intake manifold swap for the S50 intake manifold. When are you going to mount the ported manifold & test it?


Do you have links to those posts? I like reading about stuff..

I still need to weld this sucker back together and install. I should be able to knock that out in the coming week. The dyno is the easy part.


----------



## lil_kano (Apr 11, 2007)

*FV-QR*

in terms of our manifold where would you add a spacer? in between the upper and lower half?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (lil_kano)*

??
Our manifolds have no upper and lower half.
I was just saying how shortening the dividers was effectively enlarging the changeover plenum and someone posted how an increased plenum on a different car had positive results.


----------



## lil_kano (Apr 11, 2007)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_??
*Our manifolds have no upper and lower half.*


that i know, which is why i was asking. sorry, miss-communication.


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_
I was just saying how shortening the dividers was effectively enlarging the changeover plenum and someone posted how an increased plenum on a different car had positive results.


ok, i see what you're saying now.
so what kind of effective increase in the plenum are we talking?
look forward to the results!!


_Modified by lil_kano at 12:46 PM 1-30-2010_


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_
no- http://www.nicoclub.com/articles.php?id=274245

Nice http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
But it feels like this work with your plenum is going to be lots of work for basicly dyno error like power gain.
Are you going to test both the plastic ported and then a single plenum with issams stuff?
Make sure to get som nice angle stacks and not just straight pipes
like the http://www.g-e-t.biz ones


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_But it feels like this work with your plenum is going to be lots of work for basicly dyno error like power gain.


It might be a waste of time, but we will never know until we try.

I hate to bring it up over and over again for those that are sick of seeing it, but on my old 16v, I modified the upper part of the intake manifold by increasing the plenum size and shortening the runners 1.5 inches and achieved what I think is favorable results for such minor changes..and on a virtually stock engine. (chip, catback, oem euro intake cam)


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_

It might be a waste of time, but we will never know until we try.

I hate to bring it up over and over again for those that are sick of seeing it, but on my old 16v, I modified the upper part of the intake manifold by increasing the plenum size and shortening the runners 1.5 inches and achieved what I think is favorable results for such minor changes..and on a virtually stock engine. (chip, catback, oem euro intake cam)

















hard work is free.
Buts its alot of work









Try to get INA to sponsor your car or similar.
Leebro migh also do something nice for it.
90MM maf and the larger GM TB and moved air box with battry delete.
And a VW MK1 radiator and 70C thermostat







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


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*

yepp ina 80mm plug and play TB from gm


----------



## CaptainQualude (Oct 29, 2008)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_

Do you have links to those posts? I like reading about stuff..

I could if you want, but it's a more primitive setup (non-variable) & just a pure bolt on mod. You're removing one & bolting on another that has more surface area where the port meets the head.It looks the same, but flows much better for upper RPM power. It's really just old school technology.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (CaptainQualude)*

Found links and read up on it. Bigger runners and plenum, go figure.








So tonight I tried plastic welding some scrap pieces of manifold together. It didn't go real well. Tomorrow I will go find some sort of plastic epoxy instead, as I don't want this sucker falling apart..


----------



## Nemesis-Brad (Aug 17, 2009)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

Instead of plastic welding it try taking the manifold to a shop that handles ski base repair , they have a neat gun hat fuses melting plastic into cracks . You could "tak" the manifold cover in a few places then fuse in the melted plastic into the larger areas and then sand and finish .
Pic of P-tex extruding gun


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (Nemesis-Brad)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nemesis-Brad* »_Instead of plastic welding ....fuses melting plastic into cracks . 


Plastic welding *is* fusing melting plastic into cracks. 
There are numerous different kinds of plastic, some this procedure works very well on, some it doesn't work at all. Ours didn't like the process.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

maybe try plastic epoxy u can sand and paint just don't know how strong it is


----------



## Nemesis-Brad (Aug 17, 2009)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_

Plastic welding *is* fusing melting plastic into cracks. 
There are numerous different kinds of plastic, some this procedure works very well on, some it doesn't work at all. Ours didn't like the process.

Well yea








I was suggesting the Ptex extruder as it might fill the gabs a bit better and this stuff sticks to anything , and VERY hard to remove .
Just thought you might have better luck with this type of system instead of the one you were using .


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (Nemesis-Brad)*

Yea he was just a cheapo style plastic welder anyhow he said.I know each type of plastic needs a certain amount of heat and the right type of plastic to join them as well.The type i have been looking at join the two together and adds in filler.Temps can reach 1000 degrees cause certain thick hard plastic need alot of heat to make the process go quick and fast to get it to fuse together i have done alot of plastic bumpers with a cheapo but the plastic is also different


----------



## benny_mech (Mar 5, 2003)

*Re: (newcreation)*

A lot of the auto body guys swear by this stuff:
Fusor


----------



## Det. John Kimble (May 20, 2006)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *benny_mech* »_A lot of the auto body guys swear by this stuff:
Fusor


I have used that a few times on projects and it works perfect, but then again it was on bumpers and a grill so the plastic may be a little different but it is well worth a try


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*










lol


----------



## RipCity Euros (Sep 23, 2007)

*Re: (fourthchirpin)*

Duct tape, if it can hold boostz, then it should be able to hold non-boostz
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxdzqETBPBY


----------



## Robthirtytwo (Jun 6, 2008)

*Re: (RipCity Euros)*

thats just ghetto deff no josh style lol


----------



## R32_alex (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: (Robthirtytwo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Robthirtytwo* »_thats just ghetto deff no josh style lol









Word. MacGyver style _might_ be ok though.
I was going to say you can take Josh out of the ghetto but you can't take the ghetto out of Josh.
But Josh flat out isn't ghetto as witnessed in his modifications. If anything its gonna be like double TIG plastic welded to the sixth power... If that doesn't exist he will make it exist all for the sake of 24v R32 manifolds.
Looking foward for the possible bottleneck fix. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (R32_alex)*

Oh..this very well may be ghetto..and won't be pretty. Initially..
This is just for a proof of concept. If I can get any sort of gains from playing with the stock manifold, it will justify moving forward with spending thousands on a non-ghetto custom made aluminum one.


----------



## R32Freddie (Mar 2, 2009)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Oh..this very well may be ghetto..and won't be pretty. Initially..
This is just for a proof of concept. If I can get any sort of gains from playing with the stock manifold, it will justify moving forward with spending thousands on a non-ghetto custom made aluminum one.

Do you think it`ll be better then the hpa one?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (R32Freddie)*

Think about what you just said.. *sigh*


----------



## R32_alex (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

The HPA manifold lost a significant amount of power down low.


----------



## R32Freddie (Mar 2, 2009)

*Re: (R32_alex)*


_Quote, originally posted by *R32_alex* »_The HPA manifold lost a significant amount of power down low.

I had no idea, im a newbe hardcore.


----------



## R32Freddie (Mar 2, 2009)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Think about what you just said.. *sigh*

Give me a break this is all new to me. 
I still wish you all the best with this http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## RipCity Euros (Sep 23, 2007)

*Re: (R32Freddie)*

You could stuff rocks in an OEM intake and still get better results than HPA


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

Is there any gains up top from the HPA? Or is it all just meh?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (PowerDubs)*

From my first post, first page-


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Lets try to keep the thread on that topic. I do not want a short runner nor the CVP.


There is plenty of posts on the CVP that you can see it's 'results'. I don't want to derail this thread. 

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


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

*Re: FV-QR (Slampig)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Slampig* »_watching this.

iam in


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

The ONE guy (killacoupe) that runs a car with a CVP is having good track results and a pretty high dyno for a stock 2.8 block. Something is working, just don't expect 'mad torques'


----------



## ElTacoGallo (Dec 2, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_The ONE guy (killacoupe) that runs a car with a CVP is having good track results and a pretty high dyno for a stock 2.8 block. Something is working, just don't expect 'mad torques'









pics or it didn't happen


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (ElTacoGallo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ElTacoGallo* »_
pics or it didn't happen

how about a video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCLF8Ep4WcA
and yes I have seen the CVP on his car.
but like Josh said lets keep the CVP talk to a min.


----------



## R32Freddie (Mar 2, 2009)

*Re: 3.2 VR6 OEM+ intake manifold project. (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_From my first post, first page-

There is plenty of posts on the CVP that you can see it's 'results'. I don't want to derail this thread. 

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









x2 i did my research after this was said. Go search the cvp does suck for what it is.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*

Anyone know what type of plastic the oem R manifold is made of.I have been looking on the back of mine for the letter to see but mine just has the oem vw part number.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (newcreation)*

Smelly plastic.. definitely made of smelly plastic!! 

At least when combined with a dremel for hours at a time.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

Ok.. couple more pics and I think I will try to put it back together tonight since we are going to get a snowstorm.

First up.. just to make sure it wasn't just this 1 manifold that had the rod misalignment, I cut open another spare manifold I had lying around from the bottom looking up into the changeover rod.
Sure enough, the rod is not where it should be just like the other manifold. How VW let this slip through the cracks, I do not know. But I know that even something as simple as these lips can cause enough turbulence to slow things down when the air is trying to come through at high revs.
Because this is not aligned properly each runner has 4 lips disturbing the flow.. 2 on the way down and 2 on the way up = a mess.









Thanks to a fellow vortexer on here who measured his own and made me a spacer and mailed it to me!! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I haven't test fit it yet, but will tonight.










Next up.. since I was hitting this thing with the dremel anyway, I decided to remove the lip that protrudes inside the upper plenum from the star shaped block off plug that our car does not need. It sits right behind the TB and is another small thing that disrupts airflow. I will seal up the hole from the outside when I put the rest back together.

Here is what I am talking about (cut open / off another manifold for a clear shot)









And finally...since I am going to plug up that hole, I ground down the tabs that hold the block-off plug in..and while I was at it, I removed the filler webbing between the upper runners. (just for fun)


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*

sweet i did mine as well


----------



## BSD (Jul 8, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (newcreation)*

Why not just get a short runner?








Lol, i'm kidding. Nice work so far. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Steve-


----------



## VR6ix (Oct 27, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (newcreation)*


_Quote, originally posted by *newcreation* »_Anyone know what type of plastic the oem R manifold is made of.I have been looking on the back of mine for the letter to see but mine just has the oem vw part number.

the 12-valve version is stamped PA-66 GF-35: Polyamide (Nylon) 66 with 35% glass filler
if the 24/R32 manifolds use the same material, you'd need a nylon-friendly epoxy to stick 'er together.


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: (Nemesis-Brad)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Nemesis-Brad* »_Instead of plastic welding it try taking the manifold to a shop that handles ski base repair , they have a neat gun hat fuses melting plastic into cracks . You could "tak" the manifold cover in a few places then fuse in the melted plastic into the larger areas and then sand and finish .


Ptex is way too soft. ( I used to do national warranty and repair work for several ski and snowboard manufacturers)


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (VR6ix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VR6ix* »_
the 12-valve version is stamped PA-66 GF-35: Polyamide (Nylon) 66 with 35% glass filler
if the 24/R32 manifolds use the same material, you'd need a nylon-friendly epoxy to stick 'er together.

I'd suggest something from Ciba-Geigy. they make the best bonding adhesives.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (TBT-Syncro)*

I'm using a combination of QuikSteel 'plastic repair' epoxy putty and Permatex 'plastic weld'.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

I wanted to find the right plastic welding stick for the right plastic you know.Gonna try a good plastic welder that can reach temps up 1000degrees.Each plastic has its own point where you are able to work it properly just can't find the numbers on the back have to look again


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Nylon 66 with a filler is going to want some heat for sure.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_Nylon 66 with a filler is going to want some heat for sure.

So hopefully i can get it to work then


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*

ok found the proper plastic welder for specifically doing radiator end tanks and intake manifolds and i found the proper nylon rods to weld
also it is nylon pa 66 found it on the back under s sticker near the manifold part number


_Modified by newcreation at 6:55 PM 2-6-2010_


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (newcreation)*

Hey guys.. I am nearing completion of the mods I have done to the factory manifold and should be installing/testing it soon if all goes well.
Just wanted to let you know that this thread has been passed on to the people over at Cosworth.
If anyone is capable of building a manifold to get power out of this engine, they are.

For those of you not familiar with them, look at the intake manifold they produced for the Nissan VQ35
http://www.cosworthusa.com/sto...ct=89

*If anyone else is serious about making power out of this engine, NOW is the time to speak up as this is the current response I received-*


_Quote, originally posted by *Cosworth* »_We will investigate your suggestion
further and get back to you. I must mention it will be difficult for
me to suggest development unless I can prove the demand is there. If
you can assist with that it would be greatly helpful.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

Dear Cosworth i am down for a manifold


----------



## MKIVR32 (Feb 11, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (newcreation)*

I would be interested for sure. As long as the price is reasonable like the one you linked above.


----------



## emueller1 (Nov 28, 2008)

ditto! long as it can be used for boost later Q


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

If the price is similar to the VQ35 one it seems like a no-brainer.


----------



## Nemesis-Brad (Aug 17, 2009)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Hey guys.. I am nearing completion of the mods I have done to the factory manifold and should be installing/testing it soon if all goes well.
Just wanted to let you know that this thread has been passed on to the people over at Cosworth.
If anyone is capable of building a manifold to get power out of this engine, they are.
*If anyone else is serious about making power out of this engine, NOW is the time to speak up as this is the current response I received-*

YES please !!!!!







http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
This would be the MOD to end all MODS , YES Josh I want a Costworth intake manifold !!!!!
Good good on serching this one out BTW !!


----------



## dubnick32 (Jan 15, 2009)

if one can be made to fit the mkv im in for sure


----------



## L-I-V-I-N (Jan 26, 2009)

interested


----------



## BMPR32TX (Apr 6, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (MKIVR32)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MKIVR32* »_I would be interested for sure. As long as the price is reasonable like the one you linked above.
 If "THE PRICE IS RIGHT" HAHA, no seriously.


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (BMPR32TX)*

chance of Cosworth making a manifold for the incredibly small market that is the VW 3.2 = slim to none


----------



## lil_kano (Apr 11, 2007)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_chance of Cosworth making a manifold for the incredibly small market that is the VW 3.2 = slim to none

In hopes to an answer to that, what exactly is their idea of demand, josh?


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

I am down.


----------



## beachball6 (Apr 22, 2003)

a possible price point and actual data is all I need. The lower the price the better obviously


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (TBT-Syncro)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TBT-Syncro* »_chance of Cosworth making a manifold for the incredibly small market that is the VW 3.2 = slim to none


Well aware.. never hurts to ask. Worst they can say is no. Honestly, do you think they sell many to the Nissan guys either?

One way or the other I will build a new manifold for this car.. if I can have the professionals do it, we all benefit.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: FV-QR (lil_kano)*


_Quote, originally posted by *lil_kano* »_
In hopes to an answer to that, what exactly is their idea of demand, josh?


Already asked and waiting on a reply.. hopefully tomorrow.


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

*Re: (Draxus)*

bump up .... if the gains are solid, im down.


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

very interested


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_

Well aware.. never hurts to ask. Worst they can say is no. Honestly, do you think they sell many to the Nissan guys either?



dont you know the VQ motor is a way more versatile motor then our 24v. there are ALOT of different variations of the VQ you got your VQ30, VQ35, VQ37...then you got some with bigger cams then others, and some have higher compression then others also(all within the same displacement family and you can still mismatch parts. not to mention the VQ is an aluminum block). Alot more interesting then our 3.2/2.8 exchanges we have.

But still Id love to see them take a shot at this I know this would benefit turbo and NA.


_Modified by fourthchirpin at 8:41 AM 2-9-2010_


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: FV-QR (fourthchirpin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fourthchirpin* »_
dont you know the VQ motor is a way more versatile motor then our 24v. there are ALOT of different variations of the VQ you got your VQ30, VQ35, VQ37...then you got some with bigger cams then others, and some have higher compression then others also(all within the same displacement family and you can still mismatch parts. not to mention the VQ is an aluminum block). Alot more interesting then our 3.2/2.8 exchanges we have.

But still Id love to see them take a shot at this I know this would benefit turbo and NA.

_Modified by fourthchirpin at 8:41 AM 2-9-2010_

I have done alot of work on VQ's n/a turbo suprcharged set-ups


----------



## DasTeknoViking (May 25, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (newcreation)*

I came from 8 years of VQ modifying before I switched back to VAG world.
VQs not all the same... 95-99 3.0L are not the same as the later 3.5Ls and then there are variations of CVTC ones with dual CVTC and single and none. You got RevUps, you got HR and VHRs etc.
Maxima people tend to swap out the 3.0 blocks out to 3.5s and disable CVTCs. When it comes to NA VQ power, Maxima owners are the pioneers. 270FWHP from stock internals stock CR VQ30DE-K.
Our stock intake is similar to that of the 00-01 VQ30DE-K with its dual stage runner and resonance chamber. I'm trying to find pictures of the intake to show ya how it works.


----------



## VW-FF (Jul 28, 2009)

i'm down as long as its not an crazy out the ball park price


----------



## RogueOne (Jun 23, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Hey guys.. I am nearing completion of the mods I have done to the factory manifold and should be installing/testing it soon if all goes well.
Just wanted to let you know that this thread has been passed on to the people over at Cosworth.
If anyone is capable of building a manifold to get power out of this engine, they are.

For those of you not familiar with them, look at the intake manifold they produced for the Nissan VQ35
http://www.cosworthusa.com/sto...ct=89

*If anyone else is serious about making power out of this engine, NOW is the time to speak up as this is the current response I received-*


Yes, yes, yes, yes!
I know someone here in Michigan who has worked with the local Cosworth shop, don't know if that is relevant info.
If they come out with an intake that absolutely makes more power I am down!
Have you posted over at R32oc?


----------



## cmw2738 (Apr 5, 2006)

I would very interested as well.


----------



## yellow bunny (Dec 21, 2004)

*Re: (cmw2738)*

Interested in the intake (as long as it will work in the MKV generation R32). http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## DasTeknoViking (May 25, 2008)

*Re: (yellow bunny)*

Put me down, will motivate me enough to install a stock pile of parts I have laying around that require putting the front end into service position.


----------



## nkgneto (Dec 4, 2004)

*Re: (DasTeknoViking)*

I'd be interested.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (nkgneto)*

Don't forget this engine is used in the following cars-
VW R32
VW EOS
VW Touareg
VW Phaeton (overseas)
VW New Beetle RSI (overseas)
Audi A3
Audi TT
Porsche Cayenne 
YES Roadster (overseas)

Of those cars, I'd say the Audi guys would be most likely to do engine mods. It's not a huge market, but it is something.


----------



## RogueOne (Jun 23, 2008)

*Re: (DasTeknoViking)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DasTeknoViking* »_Put me down, will motivate me enough to install a stock pile of parts I have laying around that require putting the front end into service position.









Remember your grammar. I don't think you're going to install a pile of stock parts. You're going to install a stockpile of (performance) parts.
"I helped my uncle Jack off a horse.
I helped my uncle jackoff a horse."


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (RogueOne)*

OMG.. that was funny.


----------



## R32_alex (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

i just LMAO'd in a work meeting.


----------



## DasTeknoViking (May 25, 2008)

*Re: (R32_alex)*

LOL







thanks for cheering me up as I go on in life in a FWD R32 right now


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Don't forget there are going to be more and more swaps done as those engines become more readily available.


----------



## YoungRepublic (Jun 29, 2005)

Josh/Cosworth,
My wishlist is as follows:

-Keep the price under $1000
-More durable than the stock version (mitigate the risk of ballooning/popping under boost)
-Retain dual runner design
-A little more power -- wouldn't expect more than 5 BHP
-For insiders: allow me to laugh in the face of CVP owners








-Brian


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (YoungRepublic)*

Ill spend over 1k for a good manifold with positive results.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (YoungRepublic)*

Hi Brian,
I'm not Cosworth, but I'll give you what I think the answers would be-
-There is no way they are going to produce a cast manifold that retains a dual runner design for under $1,000.
-I'd assume it will be cast aluminum so it will be strong.
-If it isn't dual runner than I don't want it. There are plenty of people willing to fab a single runner length manifold for cheap..but that has a lot of drawbacks.
-I'd imagine 5bhp will be no problem at high RPM with larger runners and a larger plenum.
-I'll bet $10 the minor grinding of the short runners I did to my stock manifold with a dremel and some expoy will have better results than the CVP (if it holds together)








- Josh


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Hi Brian,
I'm not Cosworth, but I'll give you what I think the answers would be-
-There is no way they are going to produce a cast manifold that retains a dual runner design for under $1,000.
-I'd assume it will be cast aluminum so it will be strong.
-If it isn't dual runner than I don't want it. There are plenty of people willing to fab a single runner length manifold for cheap..but that has a lot of drawbacks.
-I'd imagine 5bhp will be no problem at high RPM with larger runners and a larger plenum.
-I'll bet $10 the minor grinding of the short runners I did to my stock manifold with a dremel and some expoy will have better results than the CVP (if it holds together)








- Josh

Copy lol.Hope this works out.Also hope your manifold holds together


----------



## mk3gtidriver (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: FV-QR (PowerDubs)*

I'm in on this. While a budget minded manifold would be nice, it's not realistic. We all wanna make more power. As PowerDubs has shown with all his hard work and time, this is the next step and one that will require some more time and work of a company such as Cosworth. Hell, non of the power mods for our cars are "cheap", especially when you want quality to go with it. Hows that old saying go "If you wanna play, you gotta pay".


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

Three options for anything to do with cars:
1 - Fast
2 - Cheap
3 - Good Quality / Reliability
You can only pick two.


----------



## surffly (Feb 18, 2009)

why so excited about the cosworth manifold? 
it didnt seem like great gains on there website.
im not being a dick im just trying to understand what that set up would offer. is it the idea that it will let other mods make better use of their power? ie let headers or ported head have larger gains.
i understand that its all about making the package work but for 1300 bucks on a manifold was was hoping to see the cosworth manifold making more gains....or was i blind and reading the graph wrong?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (surffly)*

Anyone else want to field this one for me?


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Anyone else want to field this one for me? 










I thought about it a few minutes ago but i am getting tired of re-explaining everything when its already in the thread


----------



## JCWolf1.8T (Mar 12, 2004)

*Re: (newcreation)*


_Quote, originally posted by *newcreation* »_Ill spend over 1k for a good manifold with positive results.

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


----------



## DannyLo (Aug 2, 2006)

*Re: FV-QR (newcreation)*

I want one for a 2.8 24v!!!
They're different heads (most of you know this, just wanted to post for information)
ie: 3.2 intake manifolds are not interchangeable with 2.8 intake manifolds, although many other parts from these engines are.


_Modified by Lieutenant Dan at 10:59 PM 2-9-2010_


----------



## DasTeknoViking (May 25, 2008)

*Re: FV-QR (Lieutenant Dan)*


_Quote »_
why so excited about the cosworth manifold?
it didnt seem like great gains on there website.
im not being a dick im just trying to understand what that set up would offer. is it the idea that it will let other mods make better use of their power? ie let headers or ported head have larger gains.
i understand that its all about making the package work but for 1300 bucks on a manifold was was hoping to see the cosworth manifold making more gains....or was i blind and reading the graph wrong?

VQ35DE in RWD/Z33/V35 configuration has a single stage intake manifold, its hard to improve low end characteristics of an engine w/o using a resonance chamber or dual stage runners. This intake makes the engine breathe on top end, stock VQ cams are weak to begin with. Gains shown on top end clearly show ya what can be made given more RPMs. I did some diggin and the car in question had a raised rev limiter in order to show gains to be had with a ECU flash- like one from TechnoSquare.
3.2 VR isn't like a VQ35, their similarities are- both have 6 cylinders and 24V. Don't base your findings off one engine, what works on a VQ might work even better on a VR. VQ was a tough engine to gain power on NA to begin with. Most of them struggle to gain 30WHP NA w/o crazy bolt ons and high CR pistons. We don't know how the VR will respond to a new intake manifold, but we hope it will work with great results.


----------



## mars2 (Sep 16, 2008)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

Don't forget this engine is used in the following cars-
VW R32
VW EOS
VW Touareg
VW Phaeton (overseas)
VW New Beetle RSI (overseas)
Audi A3
Audi TT
Porsche Cayenne 
YES Roadster (overseas)
You just have Forgot the VW Transporter T5 V6 and it's family the Carravelle, California, Multivan....
I would be intrest by one of those manifold for my T5 V6 4motion.


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

*Re: (mars2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mars2* »_Don't forget this engine is used in the following cars-
VW R32
VW EOS
VW Touareg
VW Phaeton (overseas)
VW New Beetle RSI (overseas)
Audi A3
Audi TT
Porsche Cayenne 
YES Roadster (overseas)
You just have Forgot the VW Transporter T5 V6 and it's family the Carravelle, California, Multivan....
I would be intrest by one of those manifold for my T5 V6 4motion.

PowerDubs, can you make sure Cosworth gets this info? I don't think they realize how many vehicles use this engine.


----------



## surffly (Feb 18, 2009)

so it is belived that the gains will be better on our motor because of the two stage runners?
what do you mean about its been explained? the idea of the cosworth manifold was only just brought up. also i understand that people like powerdub are working very hard on a project like this so there must be something to it. all i was saying is that the graph for the vq35 motor wasent as much of a gain as i would have thought, not peak or over a range.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (surffly)*


_Quote, originally posted by *surffly* »_so it is belived that the gains will be better on our motor because of the two stage runners?
what do you mean about its been explained? the idea of the cosworth manifold was only just brought up. also i understand that people like powerdub are working very hard on a project like this so there must be something to it. all i was saying is that the graph for the vq35 motor wasent as much of a gain as i would have thought, not peak or over a range.


Those gains i believe were on a stock motor with out any loses.So you start adding parts and a tune you then have a manifold that can take the flow of the upgrades


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (surffly)*


_Quote, originally posted by *surffly* »_so it is belived that the gains will be better on our motor because of the two stage runners? the idea of the cosworth manifold was only just brought up.

I don't know why people keep refering to 'the cosworth manifold'.. the discussion is about making 'a' cosworth manifold.
There is no cosworth manifold for our cars, and if they ever do build one it will be completely different than the nissan one and the results will be in no way comparable.
I only posted the nissan part as an example of the quality work they are capable of for people that were not familar with them. That is where it's contribution to this thread ends.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_
I don't know why people keep refering to 'the cosworth manifold'.. the discussion is about making 'a' cosworth manifold.
There is no cosworth manifold for our cars, and if they ever do build one it will be completely different than the nissan one and the results will be in no way comparable.
I only posted the nissan part as an example of the quality work they are capable of for people that were not familar with them. That is where it's contribution to this thread ends.


So poeple don't get what we are doing and trying to achieve here Josh.


----------



## surffly (Feb 18, 2009)

i see what you are talking about now.
very cool and a big thanks to the guys that have the means and knowhow to do this type of work. 
anyone have expirence with a rapid protype tool? we have one hear at school and the guys on the FSAE team were able to make a very cool intake manifold for the car. its a 600cc motorcycle motor running a restictor the size of a quarter but still makes 80hp
it would be more money for the first one but could be made with exact specs and be made rather fast
just a thought


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

I could totally make up a model in Solidworks to have made. Just no access to a machine.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (Draxus)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Draxus* »_I could totally make up a model in Solidworks to have made. Just no access to a machine.

Feel free to make a model.. we like pretty pictures.

__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

Do you have dims for the manifold? I am still hunting to a R32 to buy that hasn't been raped by the previous owner.
Jesus, I am making a aftermarket part for a car I don't have yet. haha


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (Draxus)*

Nope..no dimensions, and once you get one in your hands and look at it closely.. this will be no easy task. It is a very tight fit in numerous locations.


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

Didn't seem that bad from when I looked in the engine bay. Do you have a VW document with any kind of pictures?


----------



## Nemesis-Brad (Aug 17, 2009)

*Re: (Draxus)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Draxus* »_I could totally make up a model in Solidworks to have made. Just no access to a machine.

If you make the solid model I can have them machined http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I still want a Cosworth intake thought !!!!!!!


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (Nemesis-Brad)*

The only people I know that have the actual specs are these people-
http://www.actech.de/assets/ca...l.pdf
And trust me, I tried talking to them a long time ago and they aren't sharing due to 'legal contracts'.
I emailed them again a few minutes ago to see if maybe I get someone more sympathetic to the cause.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

Wow are manifold chillen in the pick but cast instead of plastic


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (newcreation)*

Yea...those are the guys that built the prototype for VW that I had.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Yea...those are the guys that built the prototype for VW that I had.


I figured why they still have it up on the site.Do you still wish you had that manifold?It would have been really easy to change and mod that manifold


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_Yea...those are the guys that built the prototype for VW that I had.

As mentioned before if you need some things translated into german than I'm your man


----------



## l88m22vette (Mar 2, 2006)

*Re: (Draxus)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Draxus* »_Three options for anything to do with cars:
1 - Fast
2 - Cheap
3 - Good Quality / Reliability
You can only pick two.

I hate this automotive mantra so much I actually feel pain when its said







There will NEVER be a solid pricepoint for any project, and you can always be cheaper than the next guy, but you have to pick and choose and scour the 'net; also, essentially any specific part for a VAG car is more than a Honda or Chevrolet equivalent, so you also have to factor in the base car. Reliability and good quality should also not be together, an SRT4 is very reliable but is a Neon otherwise, I'd prefer to pay for quality up front and make the car more reliable with mods. Can we please bury this one?


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

I was speaking parts, not the car.
You can buy a part that is well made and reliable. aka wont light on fire. But it either wont go fast and be cheap, or go fast and be money.
Mind you this was a joke and you just ruined it.
lol


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*FV-QR*

Still, it's true for pretty much anything.


----------



## ArpyArpad (Jan 4, 2002)

*Re: FV-QR (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_Still, it's true for pretty much anything. 

even women!


----------



## Det. John Kimble (May 20, 2006)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *MKIVR32* »_I would be interested for sure. As long as the price is reasonable like the one you linked above.


x2
very interested in this


----------



## R32-BOSS (Jan 15, 2009)

any updates?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (R32-BOSS)*

My homemade hackjob manifold is done except for a spray of paint.
On the official project front, I'm talking with several different companies about getting a stock manifold 3D scanned and modeled so we can have a company make a new one.
That would need to be a group effort though, as the cost of the scan/modeling alone will be a couple thousand. Then we have the cost of actually making new ones (no clue yet).
If nobody else can commit to such an undertaking then I eventually will just have a 1-off custom one fabricated for myself. (again several thousands)


----------



## dubnick32 (Jan 15, 2009)

MKIV and MKV manifolds are the same or are they a bit different? If this will work on the MKV i will help with some of the cost but not to much. times are tough for all.


----------



## ArpyArpad (Jan 4, 2002)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

anything new?


----------



## Mike Solo (Jan 26, 2005)

*FV-QR*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_
VW New Beetle RSI (overseas)

That car made it to Mexico, so it's continental too.


----------



## Vincenth12 (Mar 27, 2009)

I am a Quality Engineer at Dorman Products. We are the worlds largest manufacturer of OE replacement parts. If you need a 3-D scan of that manifold I can get it done. We have several Faro Arms with that capability, as well as a former Faro Applications Eningeer on staff. He does drive a WRX though....


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (Vincenth12)*

Welcome to the discussion. Thanks for the offer. We may take you upon it. Any idea of the cost?
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

this is why I love vortex. the connection to so many different people most are uneducated but every so often you find people who can actually make the scene better by their specialized skills.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (Vincenth12)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Vincenth12* »_If you need a 3-D scan of that manifold I can get it done. 


Bueller?... Bueller?


----------



## c0peXXX (Jul 17, 2005)

*FV-QR*

id be interested as long as gains are sufficient... i love the design for the S4.


----------



## Usacjudge (Feb 14, 2004)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

I would absolutely be interested in a cast dual runner intake manifold to replace the plastic one, even if performance gains aren't huge (but I would hope for some).

__
Image uploading. Refresh page to view


----------



## dubnick32 (Jan 15, 2009)

I was hoping for another light weight plastic one. What's wrong with plastic. A plastic cast should be cheaper than aluminum too, right?


----------



## CaptainQualude (Oct 29, 2008)

*Re: (dubnick32)*

It balloons under boost. If you leave the FI guys out, your potential sales target is cut in half.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (CaptainQualude)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CaptainQualude* »_
It balloons under boost. If you leave the FI guys out, your potential sales target is cut in half.


I've never seen an R32 manifold break. I've seen a standard 2.8 24v one but I would bet money the failure was caused by a tuning issue (backfire) over sheer boost pressure.

A 'plastic' manifold should be quicker and cheaper to have produced. I hope the guy that offered to scan one shows back up.


----------



## Saabstory02 (Jul 25, 2009)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

Can anyone confirm that the MKIV and MKV manifolds are the same? If so I would be interested.


----------



## Vincenth12 (Mar 27, 2009)

*Re: (fourthchirpin)*

I think I can get it done for a reasonable price. Can you send some photos of it in its current configuration? 
[email protected]


----------



## mars2 (Sep 16, 2008)

any news on powerdub modified intake manifold


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (mars2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mars2* »_any news on powerdub modified intake manifold


It is chilling on my workbench. I'm busy with other stuff...


----------



## xjkx (Nov 3, 2009)

very interesting read! i'm interested. do you want me to gauge interest at R32OC?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (xjkx)*

Sure


----------



## ReflexR137 (Mar 6, 2009)

*Re: (DasTeknoViking)*

I would definitely buy the intake if they made it!


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

*Re: (ReflexR137)*

I tried to have someone here at work do this but he wouldn't cause he isn't into cars.I will have to check into our other office and see if they can make a scan


----------



## poogs (Dec 21, 2007)

*Re: (newcreation)*


_Quote, originally posted by *newcreation* »_I tried to have someone here at work do this but he wouldn't cause he isn't into cars.I will have to check into our other office and see if they can make a scan

I am also interested. I hope this project of yours goes through! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## dubnick32 (Jan 15, 2009)

Has anyone tried to inspect the inside of these intakes with a snake camera? Milwaukee and Rigid both make nice ones.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (dubnick32)*

What for?
I've cut one completely into pieces. There is no part of the inside I haven't seen.


----------



## koko5869 (Feb 15, 2006)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PowerDubs* »_What for?
I've cut one completely into pieces. There is no part of the inside I haven't seen.

can you think of or see any reason they made it out of 2 pieces instead of just casting it as one?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (koko5869)*

It is made from more than 2 pieces, and I don't think it would be possible to make it as 1 piece (seamless)


----------



## dubnick32 (Jan 15, 2009)

i looked inside the intake with the camera snake. complete waste of time. cutting it apart was a great idea powerdubs.
my build is almost done. exhaust is installed completely.


----------



## Speck29 (May 12, 2004)

*Re: (dubnick32)*

Josh, great job with all your hard work on this. I am very interrested in this as well, along with I will be sending you an IM about info on the cams and head work as well... Thanks again for all of your hard work and information! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*Re: (Speck29)*

Just received an email from Cosworth. Honestly I was expecting a no, so this is somewhat encouraging-
"We are still discussing, this is a long process but if I have any solid
updates on whether we will proceed or not I will let you know."

I wrote back saying thanks, and asked if they could give me a number on how many would need to be sold to make it a reality.


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

I have a .:R now. So you have a def +1.


----------



## poogs (Dec 21, 2007)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

I wrote back saying thanks, and asked if they could give me a number on how many would need to be sold to make it a reality.







[/QUOTE]
Great job PowerDubs! A lot of us are waiting for their answer.







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


----------



## cody818 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: (poogs)*

man, this NA build just gets better and better. very interesting read!


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

Josh, id totally buy one too. I mean if u think about it. your geting a small gain with this new manifold, but thenagain with all of one's supporting mods, ie Cams, Hiflow exhaust, ur ported head, lets just throw in FI. Your powergains overall could be such a difference.


----------



## JRutter (Nov 25, 2009)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

Just found this thread - I am interested in one for the mk5.


----------



## corradovrsick (May 19, 2006)

*Re: (PowerDubs)*

powerdubs id be all for this, let me know when or what id have to do but count me in http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## R32Freddie (Mar 2, 2009)

*Re: (corradovrsick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *corradovrsick* »_powerdubs id be all for this, let me know when or what id have to do but count me in http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Im gona stay na, so let me know as well.


----------



## rxfx101 (Sep 29, 2003)

*Re: (R32Freddie)*

powerdubs, have you considered creating two separate plenums for each "bank" of cylinders?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

[Frustrated]Well, this is going no where fast. At first I tried the plastic welder that I bought, but I couldn't get satisfactory results regardless of which type of stick I used. I even tried scrap pieces of a spare manifold itself..no go.

Next up I tried a plastic specific epoxy stick. Several of them actually. It didn't adhere well once dried as I was able to get it to lift and essentially peel it off.

Lastly after much further searching I stripped it down again and tried a 2 piece mix epoxy supposed to work on like any plastic, be super strong and very high heat temp. Maybe I am being anal.. but I took a flatblade screwdriver and gave it a wack acting as a chisel and was also able to get it to lift and work my way around the whole damn thing peeling it up. [/Frustrated]


Maybe I am being overly cautious and maybe it would hold up just fine to the forces the engine vacuum would put on it... but I don't want to have it on the back of my mind at high revs..high mph. Besides, I don't want to risk damage to the engine either.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Issam Abed said:


> I will draw it up tonight for you. Paul is right in the sense that there is no way you can mandrel bend the RMR oval tubing in a tight radius like that. I am machining up some flanges now that are to the exact perimeter of the R32 intake port (i.e. as if you had a spacer between the manifold and head).
> So basically this is what will happen (modelling off only 1 port)
> CNC flange ---> (2) CNC'ed 180* tight bends which will be welded together to form 1 part ----> flange tapped for M6 bolts -----> gasket ----> flange welded to RMR circular tubing which will now span OVER the valve cover ---> CNC'ed plate with 6 holes for each runner ----> Plenum ----> Throttle plate.
> make sense? Essentially a 2 piece manifold.




As per my post above...it looks like it is time to jump into the fire and spend the money to build an aluminum manifold. How soon will you be available to get the ball rolling? http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

PowerDubs said:


> As per my post above...it looks like it is time to jump into the fire and spend the money to build an aluminum manifold. How soon will you be available to get the ball rolling? http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


But isn't that just a long runner manifold? I thought the whole goal was to maintain the changeover.


----------



## mars2 (Sep 16, 2008)

Why don't you wrap the manifold with fiber glass and epoxy resine.
Can even be done very nice if use Carbon fiber.
but I will first test with fiber for costing.


----------



## spitfire481 (Mar 21, 2007)

funny you bring that up. i just finished up my manifold and upper half of the core support in carbon. mostly just to learn how it works, and to do something a little different but if you plan on cutting up runners and whatnot and want to seal them back up its defiantly feasible in carbon. really you could use a sculpting foam that is resistant to epoxy, shape it and smooth it out the way you want the runners to be, then use a release agent and wrap them in carbon. then you can use a brake clean/etc to dissolve the foam and have a complete runner ready to be bonded to the tb end and changover end


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

Look what I found on a UK forum about the HPA CVP NA 'Package':

Full thread: http://www.r32oc.com/group-buys/10250-hpa-inlet-manifold.html 

Read through it, it is interesting.



> Typical Highflow cats unite the dual section nearly straight after the cats. For the short runner intake to be optimized, these duals need to run a longer course. Recommendation would be to sell the existing cams and install our CVP system. If you wish to make your own custom exhaust and cal follow this format, a packge of Cams, intake and software could be offered.
> 
> *The profiles are proprietary, but the duration is that of a Schrick 272. As we introduce a timing offset between matched intake valves, we create a strong fuel draw capability down low to support the short runner intake.*
> 
> I hope this helps to answer your questions. My team is with me at a trade show this week and our acess to the forum will be limited until Friday, Feel free however to send any questions into our sales desk and staff there will reply in my absence.\\


----------



## NICKS32 (May 25, 2010)

anything new about this topic?


----------



## tribetype40 (Dec 17, 2005)

*Scanning of manifold*

Hi, I've just stumbled on this thread as I'm searching for an r32 inlet manifold for a corrado project of mine. As it happens I have recently started a company offering 3d scanning at a more sencible cost, with the aim to appeal to the 'enthusiast' modder/engineer/hobby market. As you have discovered getting things scanned currently cost thousands very quickly. 

I would like to offer to scan the manifold for £500. For this I can supply an stl surface model. If you can supply me with a manifold that you don't mind me cutting up I will also scan the interior surfaces. This means you can interigate the info, cut sections etc through any point and get material thicknesses etc. 

I will post a few examples of my work, please pm me or drop me an email if you would like to discuss this further. This is a really interesting project you doing and getting the accurate scan data into cad is likley to save you so much time! 

Accuracy is sub 0.2mm


----------



## tribetype40 (Dec 17, 2005)

*Examples...*


----------



## Deconus (Apr 21, 2005)

Uhh, dunno if this has been asked before, but can the changeover system be completely removed and capped off without any adverse affects?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Deconus said:


> Uhh, dunno if this has been asked before, but can the changeover system be completely removed and capped off without any adverse affects?


 


Page 1, post 3 shows the results of the runners opened one way or the other. Having 'just' either is not desireable as shown in the curves.


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

I think the simplest solution here would be to recreate the stock intake, slightly modified.

Basically, the change over just changes the resonance of the intake. It really doesn't flow anymore since the section that goes into the head is the choke point. (If I remember correctly).

Couldn't we just calculate the runner size and length to get it's volume. Then get the changeover port volume.

With that info, we can make a new intake with the same resonance, but without the small ports.

...if that makes sense. Just a top of the head idea.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

C'mon man..

Page 1, post 1, sentence 2-

"My planned goal is to have an intake manifold that is modeled after the OEM manifold complete with the changeover valve and resonance port but with larger runners."


Yes, reproducing our manifold with larger dimensions is the way to go. Problem is, to have the stock manifold 3d scanned costs $$$ and then to find a company that can take that data and cast or mold a new manifold with the changes we want costs $$$$+

Very few people besides myself are interested in such a thing, so I'm not going to front what could be half the value of the car to do this.

Which is why I dremeled the spare stock manifold I had.. but can't find a suitable substance to rejoin the pieces.

I've got other ideas in my head, I just don't have the resources/skills (welder) to make stuff happen.


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

PowerDubs said:


> C'mon man..
> 
> Page 1, post 1, sentence 2-
> 
> ...


I feel like a retard. I thought you were just trying to gore out the stock manifold. This has been going on so long that I think I have forgotten what the initial plan was. haha

What materials have you used to try and join the pieces you have? 

I don't remember what its called, but we have some stuff here at the shop that will glue/melt plastic together. Works great on our projects.


----------



## lil_kano (Apr 11, 2007)

Another issue is the unknown of whether there is a benefit to be gained from doing this at all.

If not companies like Cosworth would have been all over this already.

I can image it being like headers for the 3.2vr6. Who can justify sepnding $1300+ for a small power gain...


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

lil_kano said:


> Another issue is the unknown of whether there is a benefit to be gained from doing this at all.
> 
> If not companies like Cosworth would have been all over this already.
> 
> I can image it being like headers for the 3.2vr6. Who can justify sepnding $1300+ for a small power gain...


 


There should definitely be a gain, the RPM pulse tuning is a pretty straight forward science. Raising the tuned point, raise the power peak. Couple that with increased CFM capability and now you're on to something. The factory never intended on 7300RPM. 

Cosworth would 'have been all over this already' if there were a lot of people that wanted them. There isn't much of a reason for them to spend the time and money to build one if there is only a handful of people that buy them. 

Headers make decent gain across the entire rev range. If they weren't a MAJOR pita to install you would see a LOT more people doing them.


----------



## lil_kano (Apr 11, 2007)

If you say it i believe you.

I guess its more of how the consumer views the product.

For example the headers...every thread all I see is everyone commenting on how the cost is too high for the power gain. well in terms of N/A motors.

However, as you said, there is a gain to be had that couples with other mods to have a better powerband...

:banghead:

Lack of a large aftermarket part makers really sucks. makes us have to source our own test and design for new products. 

i mean, look at the plenum mani for the VQ motor. i'm sure that didn't come around because of popular demand but because the majority of buyers saw the gains after one person did. possibly even by some sort of sponsorship.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

yes...but they knew that the market existed if the gains could be shown. (that engine is VERY popular) 


Our low volume engines have a minuscule number of people interested in making power comparatively. 

(and IMO turbos killed hot rodding on almost all cars regardless of make)


----------



## lil_kano (Apr 11, 2007)

Exactly.

Hmm...I wonder if our buddies across the pond might have some interest as well?

Would be nice to see this option available for NA motors. Possibly even to be used on FI applications.

Sent you an IM.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Cleaning up the garage over the weekend and see the hacked up / modified intake manifold sitting collecting dust as it has been for a few months now. I'm bummed that I can't try it out yet.

Since I cannot seem to find a suitable epoxy to put it back together myself, I broke down last night and googled plastic repair services. I have contacted several with the background story and pictures. I will let you know if any of them decide to take on the project. Should be easy enough for professionals.

:thumbup::beer:


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

Hold tight on dropping a bunch of money on that. 

I spoke to HPA and they are releasing their "custom" cams and software and intake.

Sent you some details in PM.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Don't take this wrong.. but all that means to me is proof that there is more left in this engine.

I certainly won't be getting rid of my Schrick cams, C2 software, Supersprint headers, etc to get it either.

Kudos for them if they raised the bar. I truely like that. I'll just try to get there in my own way.


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

PowerDubs said:


> Don't take this wrong.. but all that means to me is proof that there is more left in this engine.
> 
> I certainly won't be getting rid of my Schrick cams, C2 software, Supersprint headers, etc to get it either.
> 
> Kudos for them if they raised the bar. I truely like that. I'll just try to get there in my own way.


Oh yea. I wouldn't get rid of anything you have. I was just saying don't spend a few thousand on the plastic repair. :beer:


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Not that I expect plastic repair to cost anywhere near thousands...but if I wasn't going to change out all my hardware then why would HPA's results stop me from wanting to finish this manifold?


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

PowerDubs said:


> Not that I expect plastic repair to cost anywhere near thousands...but if I wasn't going to change out all my hardware then why would HPA's results stop me from wanting to finish this manifold?


I was just thinking that if you were going to spend a bunch of money you might want to wait to see what came around.

No worries.

But, at this point, from what you told me. I will believe the HPA stuff when I see a forum member do a dyno run after they buy it first. hahaha


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Anyone know the basic specs on the HPA secret cams? Something with bigger lift I hope..


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Anyone know the basic specs on the HPA secret cams? Something with bigger lift I hope..




its been years. and they have never released such info.


----------



## David L (Dec 23, 2001)

fourthchirpin said:


> its been years. and they have never released such info.


They sell cams without spec of the lift? :what: :screwy:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Honestly I'm not sure how they sell anything.


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

David L said:


> They sell cams without spec of the lift? :what: :screwy:


No, they don't sell them yet. Hence all the hate.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

Draxus said:


> No, they don't sell them yet. Hence all the hate.


anybody who makes cams offers cam-specs. Nobody will ever buy cams not knowing the specs of the cams. NOBODY. Dyno's can lie.


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

fourthchirpin said:


> anybody who makes cams offers cam-specs. Nobody will ever buy cams not knowing the specs of the cams. NOBODY. Dyno's can lie.


Oh, I agree. What I mean was, they made the intake manifold then never came out with cams. Now they are hinting the cams are done and ready for sale. But we still don't have d1ck as far as info goes.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

fourthchirpin said:


> Nobody will ever buy cams not knowing the specs of the cams. NOBODY.





Really? Funny you say that because I'd counter that the vast majority of people who buy cams don't know a damn thing about the specs or what they mean other than knowing '260' or '276' means 'bigger' or 'smaller'. Hell, I'd be surprised if half even have a basic understanding of what cams do in general, much less delve into specs.


Just for fun, here are the 'specs' of the Schrick 268/264 cams overlayed with the 272/272 cams.


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

Aye.


----------



## CasuallyWreckless (Aug 27, 2007)

Three for blowing past the 200whp "limit" on the 12v? Does this guy realize 12v's have 172hp stock?:screwy:


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

The fabricator is ready to start work on making a dual runner, OEM style intake manifold for our cars.

He is going to need an R32 head and valve cover for mock up.

Does anyone have one? Damaged is fine..(better even!)


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I got you boss.


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

Oh ****! :beer::beer::beer::beer::beer:


----------



## nomomk3 (Jun 9, 2006)

I don't believe it.


----------



## JarrettJettaVR6 (Jul 10, 2005)

I need to read through this..subscribe


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

Nice, let's see what result we get.
I am in for one, give it's does it's job. I would prefer it better over C2 stage IV short runner...


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

*BUMP*

Updates please


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I'm a very slow shipper but it'll get there.


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

PowerDubs

If you to increase diameter of long runners in order to flow better, we will reduce flow velocity. I wonder if we will hurt TQ at 2000RPM in favor of making a gain at 3000RPM?

That is assuming I correctly understand the modifications you trying to do. 

Disclaimer: I got no faintest idea on intake technology


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Who drives at 2000rpm?


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

Just looking at it from boosted R32 point of view. I need my early 2K RPM flow to help spool the turbo.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

You can't find a lower gear to be in?


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

I just passed wind at 2k rpms.


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

need_a_VR6 said:


> You can't find a lower gear to be in?



Not rally if you are already in first, starting from standstill.
Some additional flow around 2000-2500RPM would be nice to reduce turbolag in C2 STAGE III.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I think I can spin tires if I let the clutch out from idle.. why want more?


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

need_a_VR6 said:


> I think I can spin tires if I let the clutch out from idle.. why want more?


I shall stay on the topick, so sorry no comment. Do not want to wrek nice thread. :thumbup:


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

Bump for updates :wave: 

As it's taking time, I may end up getting SRI for now and then see what you guys come up with. My top end is choking a bit.


----------



## newcreation (Nov 23, 2003)

Hows this coming along Josh?????


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

need_a_VR6 said:


> I'm a very slow shipper but it'll get there.


 


All waiting on this man. :facepalm:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

It's literally sitting under my feet at my desk.. I just need a few spare minutes... but they're scarce!!


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

need_a_VR6 said:


> It's literally sitting under my feet at my desk.. I just need a few spare minutes... but they're scarce!!


 Are you retarded?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

I scrolled down and read the part where you are using it for a footrest and I was going to post something.. but then I scroll down further and this guy calls you a retard.  

Stay classy San Diego.


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

Could we get some more detailed description on this dyno overlay? 
How was it done and what HP and torque curves go with what dyno runs? 
(Credit Jeff Atwood)


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

he just keep the flapper changeover valve locked open for one run and closed for the other run


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

Does your new intake design have some good math and actual flow testing behind it? 
Before you can just improve the OEM design you need to know how the OEM is helping or hurting power through the entire power band. 
This is a great overlay - you never get to see side by side dynos for same setup but different intake lengths and diameters. 
Find It interesting that the max torque power band for the short runner and long runner are same rpm. 
Can I have some data on the runners length, cross section, plenum volume, TB diameter, CC per cylinder number of valves per cylinder, valve stem diameter, compression ratio, valve lift(intake and exhaust). Do you have flow data for the head?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

ny_fam said:


> Does your new intake design have some good math and actual flow testing behind it?
> Before you can just improve the OEM design you need to know how the OEM is helping or hurting power through the entire power band.


 

All I know is that the runners on this engine are tiny. Go on page 1 and look at the pic. That is a water bottle cap sitting ON the runner.. 

The factory never intended on the power we are making. Enlarging the long runners and plenums will make power, no doubt about it. Shortening the short runners will raise the peak. I'm not talking making huge changes to the design nor do I expect huge gains. Modest on both ends and I'll be happy. 





ny_fam said:


> Can I have some data on the runners length, cross section, plenum volume, TB diameter, CC per cylinder number of valves per cylinder, valve stem diameter, compression ratio, valve lift(intake and exhaust). Do you have flow data for the head?


 
Paul would know this stuff better than I. 

I have some of it in my notes on my other PC that is out of operation for the time being. 

Aftermarket cams for the 24v VR6 have 11mm lift. 


Here is the flow chart for my head-


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

Ill drive to oxford PA and pick up the head n intake mani and drive it to Josh's fabricator in jersey on my way to CT. next month... if he doesnt ship it by then...


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Shipping TOMORROW

I have a lot of the BJS head data in the 24v forum in a comparo thread to the 2.8L BDF head here: http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?3968536


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

^^ tracking number  :laugh: Anyway im looking forward to such things


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I emailed them to Josh


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Tracking says they were delivered at 9:45AM this morning.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I'm not timely but **** gets done. I'm going to put that on my website.eace:


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

need_a_VR6 said:


> I'm not timely but **** gets done. I'm going to put that on my website.eace:


link to said site?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

KPTuned.com it begs for updates... but time is small.


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

free bump


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I know it's all there... where's the update?:wave:


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

hes waiting on me...Intake mani will be shipped today. Apologies from this guy


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

It's nice to know I wasn't the latest!


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

lol,thanks


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

Josh, i FINALLY got a hold of a sweet little old lady named BEV at FedEx and will be picking up the Package after work and Re shipping it back out to your guy. with any luck it will be there there no later than THURSDAY and i will stop feeling bad about the delay. :laugh:


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

:thumbup::beer:


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

I'm getting confused and mixing threads in my mind. So i thought I better ask 

> will this work on the R32 MK V (guess it does)
> any rough estimate on price
> how does the install compare to installing cams (as I have two left hands I have to get it installed)?
> what is the tuning geared for? gains all over, gains on top, losses below, better mids ,..... as not all is possible there must be a focus (if that happens in reality is a different story)

Thanks!


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

FED EX's Status is DELIVERED so need_a_Vr6 everything should be in place :thumbup:


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

BOUDAH said:


> FED EX's Status is DELIVERED so need_a_Vr6 everything should be in place






I received this picture with a text message tonight. 

Looks like it didn't survive the trip.


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

ARE U SERIOUS..... Is that a big deal for him? does he have to have that on there? I never opened the box, just forwarded it on.....


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Nah, we don't need it for the test fitting and measuring for the new manifold. 

Just sucks that you won't be able to use this stocker anymore.

I guess if all goes well though, you won't need to. :thumbup:


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

JW, how long did the Fabricator say it would take?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

No ETA yet. I'll be sure to keep everyone updated as I find out progress.


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

i know...im impatient, lol


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Impatient to see results, or impatient as you have a couple thousand dollars burning a hole in your pocket?


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

PowerDubs said:


> Impatient to see results, or impatient as you have a couple thousand dollars burning a hole in your pocket?


Well both actually but mainly for this thread i am impatient for a product with results....the hole in my pocket is going to the shop doing my Cams and other stuff... today or tomorrow...


----------



## KoolTrix (Feb 6, 2007)

...watching :thumbup:

i have a friend who is a fabricator.. but he's waiting to setup his own shop before we can do anything. I have an additional stock manifold just sitting in my basement for just this occasion. 

cant wait to see these results...:thumbup:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Should be interesting.

Selling my 272s if someone needs some more power in the meantime.


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

This question does not pertain to an SRI or the CVP exactly but do you NEED the runners from the TB inlet to the Resonance chamber?

Like what heppens if u took the TB area and cut off the runners on top and mated it with the resonance chamber. 

Do the Runners need to be there i guess is what im asking for it to work properly?


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

Going of what I know, OEM design keeps each runner separate from TB onwards. Inside change-over chamber runners are keep separate too. This is to keep flow velocity high I would imagine. 
I cannot see how what you propose can be implemented and properly working.

BTW, Mercedes have nice Continuously Variable Intake manifold out on the road now. It"s like greatly improved version of VW two-stage system. Google it, there are few papers out on it reviewing it's technology.Main principles of operation are surprisingly similar.


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

It was jsut an idea to lose the runners i had in my head. Just wondering the signifigance of them. Im sure VW wouldnt have them there if it wasnt important, JS


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

If you are asking such a question, you really need to google some intake manifold design basics.

After that, hit up Amazon and buy some advanced books on the subject.

And don't take this as me being a dick.. as soon as I bought my first computer, I looked up as read as much as I could find about engine design and theory. I've also bought probably 20 books on Amazon about everything from yes, intake manifold design, to camshaft design, ecu / engine tuning, head porting, etc.


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

no offense taken, thats why i am asking. Will do, thanks for the hint.


----------



## VdubbPeach (Mar 25, 2008)

opcorn: interested, watching.


----------



## Rmeitz167 (Dec 16, 2007)

Read the whole thread :thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Basil Fawlty (Sep 7, 2003)

In...and would read again! :thumbup:


----------



## ThatVdub (May 28, 2010)

Not being a dick, but after all those books and over a year on this, where are you with this now???


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

Rmeitz167 said:


> Read the whole thread :thumbup::thumbup:


Ross, u talking to me, lol



ThatVdub said:


> Not being a dick, but after all those books and over a year on this, where are you with this now???


He is currently having his fabricator make the new manifold. He finally got the head, Intake Mani for the test ft..


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Honestly a bunch of his time he was waiting for me to get my spare head, get what I needed to get done with the spare head, have the head sit under my desk at work for a few months.. and then get it all to the fabricator. 

It's interesting for sure, I'd like to know if it's worth the effort in those heavier cars.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

ThatVdub said:


> Not being a dick, but after all those books and over a year on this, where are you with this now???




Have you ever done anything to a car that involved custom machine work, outside the box? It takes time.

Boring my TB to 80mm took several months to complete.

Porting my cyl head took almost a year from start to finish.

Getting Schrick to make the 272 cams took _forever_.

This intake manifold is going to be much more involved that any custom intake manifold that I have ever seen anyone make. It won't be done quickly, nor cheaply.

Besides, why are you in a rush? It's not like you are the one who will be using it (or paying for it).


----------



## ThatVdub (May 28, 2010)

PowerDubs said:


> Besides, why are you in a rush? It's not like you are the one who will be using it (or paying for it).


Because, I want this ugly plastic thing off my car/engine, so I can do a lil painting....
I am willing to pay for something that can give me power and upgradability for when I go FI. 
Yep, I have decided to go FI, but it will take about a year.


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

ThatVdub said:


> Because, I want this ugly plastic thing off my car/engine, so I can do a lil painting....
> I am willing to pay for something that can give me power and upgradability for when I go FI.
> Yep, I have decided to go FI, but it will take about a year.


get an SRI or a HPA's CVP if you're going FI. This Manifold is targeting Naturally Aspirated Engines. Not saying it wont work just saying this maniold will most likely be more expensive than any SRI or CVP on the Market.

In that last thread u psoted regarding SRI's on NA....well reverse what was said for FI.


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

EVERYONE FOLLOWING THIS ALSO??


http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...ke-manifold-and-NOT-FI-Please-post-your-pic-s!


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

What? i saw this before i saw his other thread updated. I was jsut commenting that he shouldnt waste his money on this one if hes dead set on FI... didnt mean to thread jack..just trying to avoid going off course.


----------



## ThatVdub (May 28, 2010)

BOUDAH said:


> What? i saw this before i saw his other thread updated. I was jsut commenting that he shouldnt waste his money on this one if hes dead set on FI... didnt mean to thread jack..just trying to avoid going off course.


Yep, going toward FI and SRI :thumbup: :beer:

Just want a nice/light SRI, not some bulky/heavy chuck of cast (certain SRI's I have seen so far)


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

ThatVdub said:


> Because, I want this ugly plastic thing off my car/engine, so I can do a lil painting....
> I am willing to pay for something that can give me power and upgradability for when I go FI.
> Yep, I have decided to go FI, but it will take about a year.


Plastic intake actually has one nice function: it does not conduct heat from engine in to intacke charge. So one may want to apply thermal coating on SRI or any other aftermarket intake to reduce inter/heater effect. Shiny aluminium finish is only good for looks.

I had C2 STAGE III runing for 20,000 on my MKV, I can tell you that without SRI + CAMS it's a bastard of a setup with TQ spike at 3500RPM. Guys are right, SRI and CAMS are must with this setup to flatten out TQ curve. Talk to Jeff @ UM.
With N/A it's totaly different ball game by the looks. They 'need' to keep 3000RPM TQ up, therefore design considered inthis thread.

My 0.02c


----------



## ThatVdub (May 28, 2010)

simple_man said:


> Shiny aluminium finish is only good for looks.
> 
> I had C2 STAGE III runing for 20,000 on my MKV, I can tell you that without SRI + CAMS it's a bastard of a setup with *TQ spike at 3500RPM*. Guys are right, SRI and CAMS are must with this setup to flatten out TQ curve. Talk to Jeff @ UM.
> With N/A it's totaly different ball game by the looks. They 'need' to keep 3000RPM TQ up, therefore design considered inthis thread.
> ...


What a nice post! Going to fwd to my thread. This one seems dead...


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

Josh, Do you have any sketches to waht this new one will look like. I guess i am having a ahrd time "imagining" exactly what you guys are talking about. is it going to be a dual runner or jsut a larger runner height wise.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Like stock with the dimensions increased. Larger runners, larger plenums.


----------



## Basil Fawlty (Sep 7, 2003)

...slightly off topic, but is there any reason Schrick didn't produce a variable geometry IM for the 3.2?


----------



## graeme86 (Jun 27, 2003)

...because they came with one from the factory?


----------



## Basil Fawlty (Sep 7, 2003)

graeme86 said:


> ...because they came with one from the factory?



You know which one I'm talking about though...


----------



## graeme86 (Jun 27, 2003)

Yes indeed - my friend just picked up a Schrick for his Mk 3. 

This one was nice too...


----------



## Basil Fawlty (Sep 7, 2003)

Is that the famous prototype? p.s. I'm really digging your OEM plus website!


----------



## graeme86 (Jun 27, 2003)

No prototype, just the Pierburg VW Motorsport VSR was for sale a few months ago in the classifieds.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

When I had a VGi I didn't use the flapper either.. . whoops wrong thread!:laugh:


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Ok, the fabricator wants to know if anyone else besides myself wants one of these manifolds? 

The issue is that the changeover valve housing has to be machined as simply welding the runners to a 'tube' will distort it. (clearances are critical there) 

If there is only going to be 1 made (mine) then it is going to be *very* expensive. The more made naturally the lower the cost. 

In an ideal world, I'm sure everyone would want to wait and see what happens with mine before they make up their mind.. but I don't think it is going to happen that way. Unless other people get on this train before it leaves...there will probably only ever be 1 made. 

So.. I'm gathering names of people seriously interested. Speak now or forever be stuck breathing through these *tiny* runners-


----------



## Draxus (Jan 6, 2009)

Yep, I want one. As long as its not over $2,000 I can justify it.


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

Interested but the interesting question is $$$$


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Draxus said:


> Yep, I want one. As long as its not over $2,000 I can justify it.


 

That's probably about right, if we can get enough people interested. Just to put it in perspective, if I have to have just a single one made..the initial estimate quoted is $4k+/-


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

I want a total $$$$... out the door, taxes/tags and title. 


but seriously.... what kind of power will this make, hypothetically? 

we talking 10-15 whp? or 10-15 hp? 

i will withdraw any thought of this if its not at least 10-15 whp....


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

Jesse, an actual number cant be given....lol But if u have other mods, such as Cams or headers...im sure it will be a bigger number Plus, if it ends up being a dud.....you can sell it on ebay for some stupid amount of money, lol 


Josh. if its around 2, i would also like one. i honestly jsut need more of a timeline when it will be done to make sure i can properly plan to have the money, lol Like if hes gonna be done in a month. i cant do it....


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

BOUDAH said:


> Jesse, an actual number cant be given....lol But if u have other mods, such as Cams or headers...im sure it will be a bigger number Plus, if it ends up being a dud.....you can sell it on ebay for some stupid amount of money, lol
> 
> Josh. if its around 2, i would also like one. i honestly jsut need more of a timeline when it will be done to make sure i can properly plan to have the money, lol Like if hes gonna be done in a month. i cant do it....


 
BOUDAH, I agree that a final power # cant be generated, but.... a round about basic figure SHOULD be able to be drawn, or so i would hope. I dont want to have to "sell"it on ebay for stupid money to recoup my investment. I mean, would you buy a $2k mani if you knew there were no gains at all....??? :screwy: I ****ing wouldnt, i know that..... 

i couldnt honestly do it if i couldnt get that 10-15 whp gain on basic mods, which the way everyone talks should be 100% attainable... or so i beleive. 
more SHOULD be able to be made with other supporting engine upgrades, cams, p&p head, **** like that... 

i applaud josh for pushing the limits and dragging all of us on his coat tails, but outside of himself who will put up $4k + to get NOTHING... or minimal gains?? or $2k... even 
to a man as smart as him, even this should be crystal clear


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

If the manifold is the limiting factor then you can get a feel for comparing the cross sections of the limiting stock one (posted above) and the head port itself. Josh, you measure what you have pictured above?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

No, but I can.. it is on my workbench still I believe. 

Also, remember this isn't just about outright flow. The newer manifold will have larger primary and secondary plenums..and larger runners themselves affect resonance tuning (power @ x RPM). Both of these things could be beneficial on a performance engine. 

(not directed towards you Paul, as I am aware you are well versed in this..just a comment for the general lurkers) 


I'll go measure now..


----------



## Brake_Dust (Sep 24, 2001)

spitfire481 said:


> funny you bring that up. i just finished up my manifold and upper half of the core support in carbon. mostly just to learn how it works, and to do something a little different but if you plan on cutting up runners and whatnot and want to seal them back up its defiantly feasible in carbon. really you could use a sculpting foam that is resistant to epoxy, shape it and smooth it out the way you want the runners to be, then use a release agent and wrap them in carbon. then you can use a brake clean/etc to dissolve the foam and have a complete runner ready to be bonded to the tb end and changover end


 :thumbup:


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Well, with me not being an engineer.. I have nothing better to measure with than a tape measure, so I figured I'd snap a picture instead. 

When trying to make power, any restriction is a bad restriction because once the air slows down, it itself becomes a restriction. 

On the VW 16v 4 cyl, keep in mind the factory had 3 manifold, 40mm runners, 42mm runners and 50mm runners. The 50mm runners (euro market) were much larger than the intake ports, and made something like 10hp over the other manifolds up top if I remember correctly.


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

lol, thats quite a difference


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

PowerDubs said:


> The newer manifold will have larger primary and secondary plenums..and larger runners themselves affect resonance tuning (power @ x RPM). Both of these things could be beneficial on a performance engine.


 It will affect power @ rpm and hopefully positiv  
but all depends on what it will be "tuned" for. Just gains at the high end (larger diameter) with losses below or ...... as intakes and air flow (resonance/ velocity/ ......) are above my knowledge I retained from my engineering courses ....


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

PowerDubs said:


> When trying to make power, any restriction is a bad restriction because once the air slows down, it itself becomes a restriction.


 Typically with a restriction you'll see a localized _increase_ in velocity, which will lead to a drop in pressure. Downstream of this restriction when the flow decelerates you won't recover all of the pressure drop, and this will drive some of your losses. 

On the machining front, I hear you loud and clear. Luckily it seems like the R32 crowd is more willing to put down some cash. When I was looking at making a few 12v manifolds people wanted to pay mass produced cast manifold prices (or less) for billet parts... and that wasn't going to happen :laugh:


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

leebro61 said:


> Typically with a restriction you'll see a localized _increase_ in velocity, which will lead to a drop in pressure. Downstream of this restriction when the flow decelerates you won't recover all of the pressure drop, and this will drive some of your losses.
> 
> On the machining front, I hear you loud and clear. Luckily it seems like the R32 crowd is more willing to put down some cash. When I was looking at making a few 12v manifolds people wanted to pay mass produced cast manifold prices (or less) for billet parts... and that wasn't going to happen :laugh:


 

so what should these cost?? say if they do a gb and get 10 peeps to put up a grand apiece, does that get it done? 

or am i dreaming?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

You can barely get a crappy short runner for 1g and that is with casting imperfections and all..


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

PowerDubs said:


> You can barely get a crappy short runner for 1g and that is with casting imperfections and all..


 OK, so that came out wrong... 

how it was ment was, if you know 10 peeps are going to buy one at $2k reguardless of power gain, then those peeps should not be scared to put up $500. -$1000. as a deposit on the R&D on this..... at that point if your not satified with the product or the outcome your out your investment/deposit. If it looks good and you want to continue, then pony up the rest of the cash for the build. that would at least get 1 made and dyno tested for results. And it should be done on a STOCK car... not a full build like PDUBS motor.... that would be a seriously skewed scale. 

does that make sense..?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

No, that doesn't make any sense at all. 

While I am sure we can get someone with a stock car to test it on, that should hardly be the 'standard'. 

Who puts a $2k+ intake manifold on a stock car? Nobody. 

Anyone who would buy this already has intake/cams/cats/flash/exhaust. I would put this ahead of headers if it was available.. but many guys serious about power already have headers since no intake exists.


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

PowerDubs said:


> No, that doesn't make any sense at all.
> 
> While I am sure we can get someone with a stock car to test it on, that should hardly be the 'standard'.
> 
> ...


 
ok.... so stock is the WRONG werd... I dont have cams, i dont have headers... i dont have a catback.. 

i do have cats/flash.. intake, etc. 
so is it not worth it for me then???


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Intake, cats, flash? 

Yea, there would still be gains and a change in power band..but you'd be stupid not to pick up a set of TT cams somewhere for $600 and throw them in while you are at it.


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

PowerDubs said:


> Yea, there would still be gains and a change in power band..but you'd be stupid not to pick up a set of TT cams somewhere for $600 and throw them in while you are at it.


 LOL, he just sold a set, lol


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

PowerDubs said:


> Intake, cats, flash?
> 
> Yea, there would still be gains and a change in power band..but you'd be stupid not to pick up a set of TT cams somewhere for $600 and throw them in while you are at it.


 yea had them, sold them. 

will do later, with chains and clutch. not now.... really didnt see the $$$ spent on it right now as a solid investment. ie: powergain over cost. 

so that being said, 

if this is as you say, "a now or never affair" then i want to be included for LATER.... 

hence why iam still lurking. 

so my idea of gb deposits funding the initial R&D, does that still sound insane or off the wall? why do you think that wouldnt work?


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

PowerDubs said:


> Intake, cats, flash?
> 
> Yea, there would still be gains and a change in power band..but you'd be stupid not to pick up a set of TT cams somewhere for $600 and throw them in while you are at it.


 I'm in a similar boat. But with an MK V there are no "cheap" cams around. My thinking is intake or cams this year and the other possibly next. 

Cams > advantage shown gains 
Intake > gamble, but costs around the same (as I can't do the install and cams are probably more $$ to install vs intake) / gains unknown but if I want to sell the car easier to reverse 

Not enough money for both this year ..... what to do ....


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

hammeredGLI said:


> yea had them, sold them.


 

Oops 





hammeredGLI said:


> .... really didnt see the $$$ spent on it right now as a solid investment. ie: powergain over cost.


 
If investment, gains per $, etc even cross your mind then this isn't the thread for you. Hell, any car mod for that matter as most are not the best way to spend (or save) money.. 




hammeredGLI said:


> if this is as you say, "a now or never affair" then i want to be included for LATER....


 
Is it just me, or does the sentence not even make sense? 






hammeredGLI said:


> so my idea of gb deposits funding the initial R&D, does that still sound insane or off the wall? why do you think that wouldnt work?


 

Well, if you were around for the HPA CVP fiasco about 4 years ago.. lets just say I am not a proponent of people paying up front for a product of unknown results (unwillingly). 

The difference here is that HPA took everyone's money to pay for producing the intake manifold claiming it was the best thing since sliced bread (when they really didn't have a clue) and when it was bought and tested by an independent with horrible results they refused to give back the deposit money because they had already spent it. 

If people here were 100% aware that they would be putting up money towards a piece that may or may not have good results then that would be fine... however, I don't expect many (if any) besides myself to actually follow through and put up the cash with no bitching when all is said and done.


----------



## Basil Fawlty (Sep 7, 2003)

There goes that hpa sponsorship! If you're more of a hood popper then performance minded the hpa was pretty to look at. IMS...


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

w/e to your opps comment, i dont think you really read what people type 




PowerDubs said:


> If investment, gains per $, etc even cross your mind then this isn't the thread for you. Hell, any car mod for that matter as most are not the best way to spend (or save) money..].


 
your taking my comment out of context..... 

IF YOU REREAD WHAT I SAID.... was, i sold them because i wasnt going to open the motor up to do cams, when sooner then later iam goning to need to do chains and prob a clutch. why not wait, see if i can find 268/264's like i would like to have and then do it all at one time.... 
so right now the install money of just cams alone would be a waste... does that make sense now Josh? 



PowerDubs said:


> Is it just me, or does the sentence not even make sense?].


 

it means, if i only have an opportunity to buy this part now, with this thread.... i will. in hopes later once my build progesses it will be utilized. Or like BOUDAH has suggested many time, RAPE someone on ebay or the forums for my money back... 

does that make sense now josh? 



PowerDubs said:


> Well, if you were around for the HPA CVP fiasco about 4 years ago.. lets just say I am not a proponent of people paying up front for a product of unknown results (unwillingly).
> 
> The difference here is that HPA took everyone's money to pay for producing the intake manifold claiming it was the best thing since sliced bread (when they really didn't have a clue) and when it was bought and tested by an independent with horrible results they refused to give back the deposit money because they had already spent it.
> 
> If people here were 100% aware that they would be putting up money towards a piece that may or may not have good results then that would be fine... however, I don't expect many (if any) besides myself to actually follow through and put up the cash with no bitching when all is said and done].


 
well, they did it then.... and hell you even said you may spend $4k an not see any gains.. or minimal. so why the hell not do it...


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

PowerDubs said:


> Well, with me not being an engineer.. I have nothing better to measure with than a tape measure


 Get me tape measure too, I'll even round up a 1/16" for error's sake but it looks like there are some big gains possible.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Get me tape measure too, I'll even round up a 1/16" for error's sake but it looks like there are some big gains possible.


 

You're going to love this. Multi part post, just for fun. 



Here is the part I showed above- 

1 x 1 3/8


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Sooo...now I'm thinking to myself- "I wonder where the smallest cross section is" as the part I showed above was just a random cut. 

Sooo.. back on the band saw we went. 


Next slice? 1 x 1 1/4 little smaller...


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Back on the band saw... 

Next slice? 1 9/16 x 3/4


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

The last section with the intake gasket set on it, then the same section sitting next to the actual end of the intake manifold (ports themselves)


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

wow.. 

great illustration of what your doing over there. 

great work josh! 

keep the pics coming


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

what happens if you completely remove the dividers that you were dremeling away at. How would that affect airflow.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Irrelevant as I was unable to find a way to reassemble the plastic securely. 

Also, that was only my little side project while I was bored last winter..the dividers I dremeled would have a small effect on the pulse tuning of the short runner section, BUT remember that section is still fed/sourcing it's air from the long runners. They are the choke point, everything else is just optimization.


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

i believe the real problem with producing more power is the angle of the cylinders/pistons. This could be the very problem/glich you are looking for. Our motors are considered hybrids due to the positioning of the cylinders/pistons. hybrid meaning a mix between a V shaped and an inline shaped 6. This is the only reason it was able to fit under the hood using the same bacis model as the mk3. Im not saying there is no more power to be had, but i think you need to keep this in mind when tuning the motor.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

So from the BDF vs BJS thread: 



me said:


> _Intake Long_
> 
> BJS 41.25mm high, 35.55mm wide - approx 1457.3625 sqmm port area
> 
> ...


 So those port areas are ~2.25in2 

Going by Josh's pics: 

1) 1 x 1 3/8 = 1.375in2 area 

Area ratio vs head: .61 

2) 1 x 1 1/4 = 1.25in2 

Area ratio vs head: .55 

3) 1 9/16 x 3/4 = 1.17in2 

Area ratio vs head: .44 

Not surprising the 'race crowd' is putting some big numbers down through these heads with non stock intake manifolds.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Ok Paul, having seen the #'s, for everyone's benefit here..do you agree with my belief that there is a substantial restriction in the size of the runners that is limiting the engines power output? 

There have been several people that have told me "I would buy one if I knew it was going to make power"..and my response has been, well I can't prove it until it is built and dynoed... but I know it will make more power. 

Call it as you see it, if you don't agree with me I'm cool with that. I'd just like to hear your response and thoughts...


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Huge increases in top end power should be possible with the *right* manifold. If you make the ports bigger total torque will drop, but you'll gain a lot in the top end where the stocker just can't cut it. You'll get around some of this with your variable flapper, but don't be surprised that you still lose torque there. 

Going by area alone you'd assume that it's worth 40%+ power but we both know that's unrealistic. I wouldn't think that 20% is out of the question.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

I'd be happy with 5%.




- Josh
(yes, sent from my phone..excuse the typos)


----------



## VdubbPeach (Mar 25, 2008)

any more updates?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Project is in a holding pattern to see if anyone else is going to join in. 

People say they are interested, I've shown the restrictive cross section of the stocker.. but nobody appears to actually want one. 

As it stands right now, for a single manifold, we are looking at an estimated $4,000+/- and I am just not going to spend THAT much. 

We need to get some other people to get the cost down to a bearable level or else this isn't going to happen. :banghead:


----------



## VdubbPeach (Mar 25, 2008)

wow that is alot of money! youve probly heard this before.. but if i had it, i would be in. would love to make some good N/A power. Good luck and ill keep watching.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

We get enough people, we can probably cut that cost in half.


----------



## lil_kano (Apr 11, 2007)

Well I'll be honest right now and say I can't afford that. Been looking at a house purchase and I don't think an intake mani should take priority. something inside says different but I'm trying to ignore that little voice. :laugh:

Anyway, has anyone tried putting this info out to our fellow R owners across the pond? I'm with there being more Rs over there you might get a few more interests. Just a thought.


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

lil_kano said:


> Well I'll be honest right now and say I can't afford that. Been looking at a house purchase and I don't think an intake mani should take priority. something inside says different but I'm trying to ignore that little voice. :laugh:
> 
> Anyway, has anyone tried putting this info out to our fellow R owners across the pond? I'm with there being more Rs over there you might get a few more interests. Just a thought.


 
x2 on the euro market.... 


and $3k is out of the question, $2k is prob the top of my budget. That would even need to be supported. 

I still belelive that i would prob just go stage 1 or 2 s/c or spend $5k and go turbo. meh.... 

got time to decide. 

iam gonna spend $2k on a daily driver now anyway.... :laugh:


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

What is driving the $4k number? Does that include design/drafting or is that purely cost + NRE (setup & fixturing)?


----------



## Basil Fawlty (Sep 7, 2003)

leebro61 said:


> What is driving the $4k number? Does that include design/drafting or is that purely cost + NRE (setup & fixturing)?


 From a more recent thread... 



powerdubs said:


> The biggest issue apparently is he can't just weld runners onto a tube for the changeover valve as it will distort. It needs to be a machined piece which is $.


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Huge increases in top end power should be possible with the *right* manifold. If you make the ports bigger total torque will drop, but you'll gain a lot in the top end where the stocker just can't cut it. You'll get around some of this with your variable flapper, but don't be surprised that you still lose torque there.
> 
> Going by area alone you'd assume that it's worth 40%+ power but we both know that's unrealistic. I wouldn't think that 20% is out of the question.


 That is why I'm not sold. For a weekend car that might be fine but for a dd ....... but as the same applies to ss and turbo there should be a market ...


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I'm getting a manifold made for my new motor. It's for 5k+rpm. it doesn't have a flapper. It'll come in around 1k. You pay for what you need. That flapper torque costs $$.

Josh, any idea what the machined flapper piece is going to look like? I have a few connections with people that can do small run proto work.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

No idea Paul.. but you have Howie's contact info right? If not, I'll PM you his #. See what he has to say.

If this doesn't ever come to be, then I need you to spec me out a single length traditional style intake. The existing short runner is TOO short. I think it's runners are *maybe* 3 inch.

What is the average length of the R32 intake ports? I know you have it in a thread somewhere...I'm just too lazy to search. It is almost 12:30 am after all. I have to go to sleep... dynoing the E85 conversion tomorrow.


----------



## ArpyArpad (Jan 4, 2002)

would it makes sense money wise to buy a premade short runner and modify?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Yeah I have it in my email somewhere. I'll see where his head is at when I have a few minutes. 

The short ports are 3-3.5" the longs are 6-6.5" range off the top of my head. I know the difference is almost 3.25" on the nose. I have too many numbers in my head to give you a straight answer... and my spare head is...

In any case a 13" long (valve to stack) is a good length to shoot for for a street car. However that puts the short port (long runners) about even with the back of the core support on my car. I can get a plenum in there but it'd be smaller then I'd want to run. I'm personally going to go with 10-11" total runner length and a much bigger plenum. I'll still have to run a half rad pushed way to the side, and run an oil cooler to make up for it. Combine that with no accessories other then AC and the packaging isn't that bad. Start adding that stuff and you end up with whats available.. it fits.


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

bluewater just added a few mani's to their selection i believe. Josh maybe you should bring gabe in on this, maybe he will throw down some money here so this project can get done. You would probably have to give him dibs on the design. 4k is rediculous, even if you get say 10 people who want it, your still going to be paying3k+ correct? Also what will this new mani do in terms of compression, surely we are going to see the compression change with a larger mani no? Shouldnt the first move be new valves/springs/rockers. In order to get rid of the restriction id think you would have to up all those parts no? Or maybe its just a matter of getting the correct tune? keeping the valves open a bit longer on the intake side maybe. For this mani to improve the cars performance your going to need a custom tune. That would mean jeff and more money for him to devote time. you basically gotta sell this project to gabe after you get it done. meaning spend 4k out of pocket on 1, get the numbers over to gabe, and maybe he can create a mani package that includes a tune from jeff. I mean that sounds like the most logical way of doing this. I promise you your not going to get enough vortex people to spend 3k+ on a NA part. They are all going to say exactly what hammered (jesse) said. " why not get an sc for that price." http://bwperformance.com/products/engine/mk4-24v-short-runner-intake-manifold you most likely have already seen this, it only costs 1.2k. Please tell me how your mani costs 3x this amount.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

xVolksR32x said:


> Please tell me how your mani costs 3x this amount.


It's quite simple he's going to have a *changeover assembly, secondary runners and a resonance chamber*. 

Figure that cookie cutter manifold costs 1.3k it's not hard to imagine that a long runner, dual purpose, stock like manifold, big runners, big plenum all made out of alum with a precision machined changeover would be 3-4x that.

Makes sense to me $$ wise. Worth it? Dunno what's 50lbft of torque at 2500rpm worth?


----------



## lil_kano (Apr 11, 2007)

xVolksR32x said:


> Please tell me how your mani costs 3x this amount.


Your not taking into account that Josh is keeping the stock changeover valve design. To get something like that manufactured as a one off piece is not cheap. Have you ever looked into getting something machined. Even something as small as a key chain can seem pricey for what it really is (a piece of metal). But unless you know what machining cost no one is going to see value or worth...

I bet if big numbers show up everyone will bend over and grab their ankles to get one though. :laugh:


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

xVolksR32x said:


> Also what will this new mani do in terms of compression, surely we are going to see the compression change with a larger mani no?


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

alright im starting to understand. so your indeed keeping the runners lengthy, sorry i havent read the previous 12 pages, ill do that tomorrow at work:laugh: The power would surely be worth it, i just dont like the cost, but then again if it looks awsome under the hood, maybe i could spring for it.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

xVolksR32x said:


> alright im starting to understand.




intake manifold & compression ratio = Apples & Orangutan

Are you sure you understand?


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

yeah compression is mainly delt with within the block where as the mani is outside the block and is open to outside air meaning ambient pressure. In other words completely different compartment. Now let me read and see exactly what your trying to do here. Before i was going to leave it up to you but now i actually want to know what the changes are because 4gs is a pretty penny. From previous knowledge it was my understanding that if your shorten the runners your going to get more top end, and when you lengthen the runners your going to get more bottom end. 1st stupid question) Keeping this in mind how do you expect to gain up top by lengthening the runners. Maybe my previous knowledge was incorrect? 2.) when you were dremmeling away at the dividers i think you may have inadvertantly made it worse, those dividers were smooth before you started, now they look pretty rough and are not as efficient at directing air in the correct direction. In my mind you might as well remove them completely and actually take the time cut seperate pieces and glue or mold them in there. You can make the pieces thinner. I think the dremmel made it rough and a bit worse. you can also make them longer so they extend completely from top to bottom. the picture makes it look like they dont extend completely from one side to the other. This actually was indeed what you were trying to do, but wouldnt making the plenum smaller be more benificial... i mean if you could increase the rate at which it works then you would have smaller masses of air moving through, but moving through much quicker. You understand what im saying? anyhow just some thoughts after reading half. I think someone may have commented on the size of the dividers, i didnt see a response.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

4k is if I just build one.

If we get enough guys, we can cut that # in half.


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

ok but i think more work needs to be done, read above i made some remarks about the dividers. Also where did you get the extra mani from, did u buy it? There has to be other area's in which our aftermarket parts can take more advantage of the stock mani. Anything else you have seen or have you scoped it all out and these are the only area's. I mean lets say you get it down to 2g's. I think more changes should be made or were are paying alot for what seems to be not much of a difference


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

xVolksR32x said:


> From previous knowledge it was my understanding that if your shorten the runners your going to get more top end, and when you lengthen the runners your going to get more bottom end. 1st stupid question) Keeping this in mind how do you expect to gain up top by lengthening the runners.


In a nutshell that would be correct, but a) the diameter changes too (more flow) and b) the mani has long runners and short runners as the OEM > short runners with larger diameter will allow for more hp


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

i see, so the increse in diameter we are talking about here is how much again, about .100. and due t fitment issues the size cant really change that much. Maybe the design needs to be completely altered. You dont have to alter it yourself, but maybe a sketch just to see what other designes are feasible.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Fwiw the manifold for my motor is will feature a 2" ID runner at the stack...


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

xVolksR32x

I don't know you personally, and you may be a great guy. Don't take this the wrong way, but seeing you repeatedly comment about what I am doing, have done or will do and how you think it should be changed when you don't even have a basic understanding of engine design is irritating. 

I know you are enthusiastic and want to learn, but at this stage of your car hobby you should sit back, read as much as you can. Not to say you can't ask questions.. but some of the things you say make me want to bang my head against a wall. :banghead:


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

...and let me add that I certainly don't know everything, so don't take this as me being a know it all. I just try to know when I am in over my head and default to people around me that know more than whatever it is we are doing at the time.


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

yea i understand that i dont understand. ill just sit back and read, this stuff is confusing without actually seeing it. The pictures were good, just not enough for me to get a full understanding.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Josh that was about the nicest possible way you could have put that, contrats, sir. I couldn't even get the brain space to comment. :wave:


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

last thing. If your asking people to blindly fork over lets say 2k without proven dyno(s), it would purely be a Guesstimation that it would make more power correct?. What would be the difference between you and HPA in reference to the cvp. None it would basically be the same... You say it will make power, and then we buy it. Then we find out we only made .5 - 1 hp. You indeed would be HPA #2. To be a true customer friendly person... you should pay for it and dyno it...post the results. If your so confident it will make more power, you could always charge us say 100 dollars more per unit to make up for your loses. Then all you need is to sell 20 units to be paying what we did. And better yet if you sold more....you could get it even cheaper. I mean am i wrong here by saying what needed to be said?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Here's how I look at it.. you can get an off the shelf manifold that you KNOW will lose low end torque due to no flapper for 1.3k. If I cared about that (everyone here does or they wouldn't be paying any attention) that extra 700 or so shouldn't be a huge deal. That flapper is worth 30-50lbft of torque in the most used part of the rpm band. 

Go pull the vac line to your flapper and go drive. Feel whats missing? That's what the off the shelf short runners feel like, except some more top end. 

Josh's should do both if designed right. He's not a company so it's not surprising he might not want to pony the capital, and if he does and it works it's HIS... buy in now before the price goes up


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

xVolksR32x said:


> last thing. If your asking people to blindly fork over lets say 2k without proven dyno(s), it would purely be a Guesstimation that it would make more power correct?. What would be the difference between you and HPA in reference to the cvp. None it would basically be the same... You say it will make power, and then we buy it. Then we find out we only made .5 - 1 hp. You indeed would be HPA #2. To be a true customer friendly person... you should pay for it and dyno it...post the results. If your so confident it will make more power, you could always charge us say 100 dollars more per unit to make up for your loses. Then all you need is to sell 20 units to be paying what we did. And better yet if you sold more....you could get it even cheaper. I mean am i wrong here by saying what needed to be said?


a) learn how to write better and
b) learn how to read better
PowerDubs stated:
There have been several people that have told me "I would buy one if I knew it was going to make power"..and my response has been, well I can't prove it until it is built and dynoed... but I know it will make more power.

So NO guarantee. And he lets us share the risk (and possible rewards). And the difference between HPA and PowerDubs is ...... HPA is a business and PowerDubs is not (at least not iro VW)! He is NOT in the business to make $$$ with selling parts.:banghead:
He said what he had to say. If you want to get a new manifold (that probably works well) do it. Otherwise don't. Why would he buy 20+ manifolds? Because you want it all?

Change my mind > option C) stay out of here


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

you dumb ass, im not telling him to buy 20 manifolds. Im telling him to buy 1. If it makes more power then take orders for more, just mark up the price. No one will mind since he indeed designed it. B.) learn how to understand what he is actually doing. He is asking several others to pay for his idea which is unproven...he is basically banging heads with HPA saying he can make a better manifold....which he MAY be able to do. Untill he proves he can beat them...WHY IN HELL WOULD SOMEONE SPLIT THE COSTS ON A MANIFOLD THEY DONT KNOW WILL MAKE MORE POWER...............


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Here's how I look at it.. you can get an off the shelf manifold that you KNOW will lose low end torque due to no flapper for 1.3k. If I cared about that (everyone here does or they wouldn't be paying any attention) that extra 700 or so shouldn't be a huge deal. That flapper is worth 30-50lbft of torque in the most used part of the rpm band.
> 
> Go pull the vac line to your flapper and go drive. Feel whats missing? That's what the off the shelf short runners feel like, except some more top end.
> 
> Josh's should do both if designed right. He's not a company so it's not surprising he might not want to pony the capital, and if he does and it works it's HIS... buy in now before the price goes up


yes i know its his  and i know the dude is capable, thats why i am here waiting for the benefits. Just trying to make it easier for other people to get in on it so it can be made! eitherway im not going to talk on here anymore, it will get made or it wont. If it gets made just dont count me out.:laugh:


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

xVolksR32x said:


> you dumb ass, im not telling him to buy 20 manifolds. Im telling him to buy 1. If it makes more power then take orders for more, just mark up the price. No one will mind since he indeed designed it. B.) learn how to understand what he is actually doing. He is asking several others to pay for his idea which is unproven...he is basically banging heads with HPA saying he can make a better manifold....which he MAY be able to do. Untill he proves he can beat them...WHY IN HELL WOULD SOMEONE SPLIT THE COSTS ON A MANIFOLD THEY DONT KNOW WILL MAKE MORE POWER...............


You dumb ass:banghead::screwy:. He is not producing these manifold. So he would have to buy them first before he could resell them. Learn how to understand what he is actually doing. He is not asking to pay for his idea. He is presenting his idea and asking if anyone want the manifold. Plain and simple. He is not competing with HPA >> attack them as their gains are unproven and they are in the business

PD asked Schrick to get a new set of Cams > WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD HE SPEND TIME AND MONEY FOR UNPORVEN GAINS? He got the head P&P WHY THE HELL WOULD HE DO THAT?
Both costs his $$$ and showed little gains. He is an ethusiast. Most people understand this. You don't. 
People joining him on the mani know that they are taking a risk.


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

xVolksR32x said:


> Just trying to make it easier for other people to get in on it so it can be made!


How are you doing that?


----------



## Basil Fawlty (Sep 7, 2003)

It's a shame forced induction has crushed the demand for such a potentially cool product.


----------



## CaptainQualude (Oct 29, 2008)

Basil Fawlty said:


> It's a shame forced induction has crushed the demand for such a potentially cool product.


Or did it? What if you bought this manifold, ran NA for awhile, & later decided to go FI? Wouldn't that work out better than just FI alone?


----------



## Basil Fawlty (Sep 7, 2003)

CaptainQualude said:


> Or did it? What if you bought this manifold, ran NA for awhile, & later decided to go FI? Wouldn't that work out better than just FI alone?


I tend to agree, if you're talking about the hardest of hardcore enthusiast. However, there _is_ a reason why a company like Schrick hasn't stepped up with a VG IM for the 3.2l VR6. The truth is; everybody and their brother is looking "boost" their R and that will be their first major mod, sometimes even before brakes and suspension let alone a substantially better IM, P&P head, cams etc...


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

I agree 100%

Turbos killed hotrodding.

Yes there are turbo guys that still push the boundaries, yes there are turbo guys that would benefit from this manifold, yes there are turbo guys that know more about engines than I do..

As a whole however, the younger generation of car guys know less about how engines work and don't care why. They drop the car off at a shop and hand over the credit card.

Hell, even modern cars just being as fast as they are even without a turbo has killed a large portion of the hobby. V6 mustang bone stock makes 300hp? For most people that is plenty so they have no reason to tinker.


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

BlixaBargeld said:


> You dumb ass:banghead::screwy:. He is not producing these manifold. So he would have to buy them first before he could resell them. Learn how to understand what he is actually doing. He is not asking to pay for his idea. He is presenting his idea and asking if anyone want the manifold. Plain and simple. He is not competing with HPA >> attack them as their gains are unproven and they are in the business
> 
> PD asked Schrick to get a new set of Cams > WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD HE SPEND TIME AND MONEY FOR UNPORVEN GAINS? He got the head P&P WHY THE HELL WOULD HE DO THAT?
> Both costs his $$$ and showed little gains. He is an ethusiast. Most people understand this. You don't.
> People joining him on the mani know that they are taking a risk.


im not going to argue. He could easily ask the manufacturer to make 1. Pay it out, dyno it, get results, post them. MORE PEOPLE SEE THE 50+ horsepower. Seeing as the design is his...he goes back to the mani and asks for however many more. Gets a bg rate, adds $ 100.00 to make up for his initial investment. Tell me that cant be done. Also notice how not EVERYONE got a P&P and the people who bought the 272's got rid of them, maybe not all but i would venture to say half including josh himself! So wtf are you talking about?????? GG go BLixaFcknBeer and chill out


----------



## xVolksR32x (Aug 11, 2006)

and im not saying the 272's were a bad idea. I would have sprung for them if i had the money at the time which i didnt. Im just saying it would be nice to have a dyno first this time around.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of that 'stuff taken off' works when the manifold issue is fixed... if I had a few g's and a car heavy enough to care about tq @ 2500rpm I'd be in.


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

need_a_VR6 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if some of that 'stuff taken off' works when the manifold issue is fixed... if I had a few g's and a car heavy enough to care about tq @ 2500rpm I'd be in.


If my car would be modded enough me too  but as it is it probably would not be the wisest step


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

xVolksR32x said:


> im not going to argue.



At this point, I want you not to talk, much less argue. You have no idea what you are talking about and are quickly getting on my sh*t list.

You weren't even around for the HPA manifold debacle so don't even dare to compare me to the BS they pulled. HPA presented a product with all sorts of hoopla and took pre-sale non-refundable deposits of 75% if I remember correctly. Once one of the manifolds was in private hands and tested (guess who was there) it had horrible results. Nobody else had one yet, they hadn't been released or shipped. HPA wouldn't give back the money because they had spent it having the manifolds made.

I'm not selling anything, I'm not profiting anything. I'm asking if anyone wants in. I'm upfront about the unknown risk. This is probably a 1 time opportunity. Selling a stock as a high risk, possible high return is different then selling it as a sure thing.






xVolksR32x said:


> Tell me that cant be done.




Can't be done..again you don't know what you speak of..





need_a_VR6 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if some of that 'stuff taken off' works when the manifold issue is fixed...



I've said that a million times, in posts for regarding the ported head, in posts regarding the 272 cams, in posts regarding the larger cats and bigger exhaust. This kid is too busy running his mouth to read/learn/comprehend.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

BlixaBargeld said:


> If my car would be modded enough me too  but as it is it probably would not be the wisest step




I'd venture a _guess_ that what I have in mind for the manifold would benefit a bone stock engine.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

At least the runners won't be smaller then the stock head ports.:wave:


----------



## CaptainQualude (Oct 29, 2008)

need_a_VR6 said:


> At least the runners won't be smaller then the stock head ports.:wave:


How is eliminating air flow reversion supposed to help?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

CaptainQualude said:


> How is eliminating air flow reversion supposed to help?




Reversion on the intake side is a good thing.. the whole basis of pulse tuning in fact. 

Even on the exhaust side where you see old muscle cars guys advise 'leaving the lip'.. I would be surprised if it was actually beneficial when a properly designed exhaust was built with attention paid to branch lengths, diameter, step down, collectors, crossovers, etc.


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

PowerDubs said:


> I'd venture a _guess_ that what I have in mind for the manifold would benefit a bone stock engine.


Hmmm ..... maybe the manifold would be an alternative to cams for the first step (and then cams later on) ..... PM send


----------



## BlixaBargeld (May 5, 2008)

xVolksR32x said:


> MORE PEOPLE SEE THE 50+ horsepower. Seeing as the design is his...Tell me that cant be done. Also notice how not EVERYONE got a P&P and the people who bought the 272's got rid of them, maybe not all but i would venture to say half including josh himself! So wtf are you talking about?????? GG go BLixaFcknBeer and chill out


What are you talking about?

He never mentioned 50+ hp from the manifold. Don't make things up

"his design" > everyone could copy it if they want. There will not be a patent (as there is nothing to patent)

Josh didn't get rid of p&p or 272 or ....

So WTF are you talking about?


----------



## CaptainQualude (Oct 29, 2008)

PowerDubs said:


> Even on the exhaust side where you see old muscle cars guys advise 'leaving the lip'.. I would be surprised if it was actually beneficial when a properly designed exhaust was built with attention paid to branch lengths, diameter, step down, collectors, crossovers, etc.


Maybe that's why anti-reversionary headers where designed?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

When placed 'just right' and of the right step size, they're very beneficial. Take a look at a roundy-round header.


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

Josh, has there been any updates on this from Jeffs Fabricator? i know youve been busy, that recent intake thread remidned me.


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

ive been out of the loop. is this prototype still happening?


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

I take it as it was canned. 
No wonder really. The share cost of this venture alone will send an average enthusiast on this board broke 

I have mine OEM intake sitting in the box. I looked in to it and even if I get it measured and drawn up in CAD at minimal cost, manufacturing of this bastard in aluminium will set me back 6-8K for one off. That is if I am lucky and no issue arise. Hardly worth the effort.


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

well Josh said like 4k for his was the cost to be made. Since he jsut bought a new Rear end...not sure if that set him abck any.

Jsut figured id see if anything actually happend with it.

Frankly i think if the changeover valve can be replicated and made from a solid block , have a flange made, bend the tubing, and then ud need the pelenum/TB mount and then welded up..in theory cost should be minimal if u do it by urself.

it would be a 2 or 3 peice when said n done but i think one could be made cheapish. around a grand or 2.


----------



## fourthchirpin (Nov 19, 2004)

intake ports are like 33% bigger from what I can see. no measurements.


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

iam still watching..


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

Anyone see the new UM S.R.I mani?

Or whoever made it.. Sick. Do want


----------



## VdubbPeach (Mar 25, 2008)

Havent seen it. Please post a link Jesse! :thumbup:


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

VdubbPeach said:


> Havent seen it. Please post a link Jesse! :thumbup:


Pic









Only retail add for it fs


http://bwperformance.com/products/intake/mkiv-r32-intake-manifold


----------



## VdubbPeach (Mar 25, 2008)

Wow, now that's pretty :beer:


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

VdubbPeach said:


> Wow, now that's pretty :beer:



I think i wanna do this S.R.I mani, 268's and a U.M tune... Then see where iam at.

Would you p&p the head also?


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

hammeredGLI said:


> I think i wanna do this S.R.I mani, 268's and a U.M tune... Then see where iam at.
> 
> Would you p&p the head also?


I would think twice about this set up, unless you race weekly 
May become too bias towards 5000+RPM.

I run SRI + 268/272 + UM + Turbo.
When running with no boost, you can feel lack of mid-rpm torque that was there before removal of OEM intake. Aggressive cams do not help ether. 

On boost it's a winner set up :thumbup:
I tried both OEM cams and intake VS SRI+cams


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

simple_man said:


> I would think twice about this set up, unless you race weekly
> May become too bias towards 5000+RPM.
> 
> I run SRI + 268/272 + UM + Turbo.
> ...


Well assuming i go that mani just for looks...lol and a tune, would u just go stock cams? Or maybe 264's?

Now its not my daily and i do run it evertime i drive it... I dont wind the high rev though either


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

Mate, I know too little to comment someone else set up . Try getting thru to Jeff @ UM, or any other pro.
Consider doing upgrades keeping what you like to do in the future in mind. If staying N/A, then loosing OEM intake with variable tract length will not 'feel' right as engine looses some mid-rpm torque that you already used to.
On the other hand on N/A motor, cam's deliver questionable value when you consider there's cost and labor necessary to install them...


----------



## jmh2002 (Jun 28, 2007)

simple_man said:


> I run SRI + 268/272 + UM + Turbo.
> When running with no boost, you can feel lack of mid-rpm torque that was there before removal of OEM intake.


Interesting. In what rpm range would you say you feel this with your setup?


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

jmh2002 said:


> Interesting. In what rpm range would you say you feel this with your setup?


Going of 'but dyno', so take it as I feel it.
3000-4000 is when it feels like it's now linear torque. OEM felt harder (spiky) in that range.


----------



## hammeredGLI (Dec 15, 2005)

no one has run a mani like this with cams and a tune to my knowledge and alot of people say it wont work..

i see the cvp package and i would like to do something similar with a bit less of the "package" need.

hpa you have to get all the parts.. cams/mani/dp's/cats.. **** like that.

i'd like to do something different, the mani is sexy and hell high rev n/a is sexy. lol

anyone eles have a thought on what cams to run?


----------



## FLATBLACKMK2 (Oct 10, 2003)

:beer::thumbup:opcorn:


----------



## MachtSchnell (Oct 31, 2010)

PowerDubs said:


> The issue is that the changeover valve housing has to be machined as simply welding the runners to a 'tube' will distort it. (clearances are critical there)


 I've been watching this thread for awhile but.... 

Why do the runners NEED to be welded to the change over tube? Think about how the Lotus Exige's frame is held together, it is bonded together with epoxy not welds. Even the aircraft industry uses epoxies for bondage. The epoxy will (in many cases) be stronger than the substrate to which it is bonded (in this case, the aluminum). 

This would not effect reliability in any negative manner, although it would drastically reduce the cost of production! 

Side note, will it would be compatible with the 2.8l:beer::thumbup: 

Good Luck with this!! 
B.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Find me an epoxy that will bond thin walled aluminum tube, air tight, and can handle high heat, expansion & contraction.


----------



## MachtSchnell (Oct 31, 2010)

PowerDubs said:


> Find me an epoxy that will bond thin walled aluminum tube, air tight, and can handle high heat, expansion & contraction.


 Well there are quite a few manufacturers out there. There is Dow Automotive, 3M and even LocTite. There are many more quality manufacturers of products out there as well. I wouldn't rely on the home depot special though. 
The new Audi R8 uses some of Dow's adhesives for its aluminum panels. Pretty sure that's what Lotus also uses. 

I used to work at a Ford dealership, and we used to see ford explorers where the lift shock for the rear window would separate from the glass. By separate I mean that the hinge and epoxy pulled a nice divot out of the glass. Point being is that adhesives are very strong. 

The right choice of adhesive would definitely do the job you need. But to get a good adhesion, the material would have to be thoroughly prepped and likely acid etched. 
Even after all this prep, it would still be less than milling and/or cnc machining. 

B.


----------



## KoolTrix (Feb 6, 2007)

bump. whats the status? I've been hiding for a couple months.

I have an extra intake manifold that im willing to donate to anyone that needs it for R&D.

my fabricator buddy who we discussed this idea of scanning the manifold into a computer and making it piece by piece from scratch with bigger measurements, just seemed to have disappeared.

no callbacks, no email backs, no text backs.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Marv,

There is only myself and 1 other confirmed guy that are willing to put up a couple grand each to have these made.. problem is, the estimate from the fab guy is 4k if only making 1. 2 won't drop the price much, if any..


----------



## Randres88 (Nov 19, 2007)

sent some previous build thread links to a CNC friend of mine to have him mock up some ideas for a SRI for more mid range power. should be getting back to me with his blueprints in a few weeks. 

if anyone has anything worked out already that they need machined together send me some specs and i'll see if he can help out. he has materials ready so they're not gonna be high cost.


----------



## Rmeitz167 (Dec 16, 2007)

Cant someone do something like nub did for a mk3 "long runner"

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?4476077-LRI-VR6-mani


----------



## VdubbPeach (Mar 25, 2008)

Did this get abandoned?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Very dropped. I might be working on making an adapter to fit the 3.6 manifold on the 3.2 head. Waiting on a manifold and not hopeful on it being easy, simple or cheap.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

VdubbPeach said:


> Did this get abandoned?




I didn't abandon it.. I went down with the ship. Nobody else on it but me.. all by myself..


Something like this can't happen with just 1 person.


Paul, an R32 turbo guy just did a Porsche manifold (and valve cover, etc) swap. The runners look taller, the secondary plenum looks like the top comes off and a spacer could be put in to increase volume. Still not cheap.. but bolts directly to the head. TB is on the other side though.. so plumbing will need to be dealt with.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

You abandoned ship!

Good info. Its for a Corrado on standalone so the intake side doesn't matter a ton. 

Ps thanks for the tip on that thing. Ended up snagging it.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Sweet! Now you have to make it work... Somehow..


- Josh
(yes, sent from my phone..excuse the typos)


----------



## VdubbPeach (Mar 25, 2008)

By the way, I wasn't bashing. Just curious because i noticed it wasnt being bumped anymore.


----------



## mars2 (Sep 16, 2008)

Maybe start from a Eurovan V6 Im with some welding to get what could be a great IM. 

idea came when reading this post: 

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...-...The-Saga&p=77904008&posted=1#post77904008 

should be easy to weld as it is aluminium 
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5319892-Aluminum-24v-VR6-Intake-Manifold 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/INTAKE-MANI...AN-99-04-VR6-AXK-/120781209285#ht_1599wt_1165


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

PowerDubs said:


> 4k is if I just build one.
> 
> If we get enough guys, we can cut that # in half.


Depending how much we can cut this down, I may be interested.

I boosted my A3 3.2 and now if we run anything over 20psi, it starts leaking at the gasket. If only I had a metal manifold, I could probably turn the boost up no problem.


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

krazyboi said:


> Depending how much we can cut this down, I may be interested.
> 
> I boosted my A3 3.2 and now if we run anything over 20psi, it starts leaking at the gasket. If only I had a metal manifold, I could probably turn the boost up no problem.


This project was Nixed... u can look into the HPA manifold though. i am incorporating this into my build, its only 2k comapred to 4 as in here before the project got abandoned.


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

BOUDAH said:


> This project was Nixed... u can look into the HPA manifold though. i am incorporating this into my build, its only 2k comapred to 4 as in here before the project got abandoned.


Yea, that's what I saw. I was recommended to stay away from the SRI b/c it'll affect my torque negatively.


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

krazyboi said:


> Yea, that's what I saw. I was recommended to stay away from the SRI b/c it'll affect my torque negatively.


didnt u say uw ere turbo?


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

BOUDAH said:


> didnt u say uw ere turbo?


That is correct (also, I'm a turbo/car noob so a lot of my knowledge is limited. I try to gather information from random sources and put together what I think is correct).

Sad, I know.


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

krazyboi said:


> That is correct (also, I'm a turbo/car noob so a lot of my knowledge is limited. I try to gather information from random sources and put together what I think is correct).
> 
> Sad, I know.


pmed u


----------



## mars2 (Sep 16, 2008)

You are true SRI will afect low end torque and spool.
the same rule that happen at 1 atm happen at 2atm or what ever boost.
Alway's remenber that NA is already boosted at 1 atm (14psi or 1 bar)
Your 20 psi is in real 34PSI absolute.
So the same rule for intake manifold if NA or Boosted.


----------



## mars2 (Sep 16, 2008)

Read All the post from Foffa2002 in that thread:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...-your-VR6-short-runner-intakes&highlight=show

he is an automotive engineere and have done lot of test.
that's why I want to stay with Oem change over valve on my Supercharger set up.


----------



## mars2 (Sep 16, 2008)

that summerize it well. it's for VR6 but apply even more fro R32 with changeover valve:

"Boosted or N/A is no difference.
The engine we call N/A work at 15psi .
So if it works well N/A it will work even better at an extra 15psi.


Every really angry turbo motor will produce big nr´s N/A.


So if you dont have to change the OEM VR6 MK3 manifold dont do it.
There is no reason what so ever to spend that cash if you dont go to the next level and get som wild cams and built head and chase power after 7000rpm.

But lots of guys change whatever they can just to be able to have that EIP sticker on the car "


----------



## krazyboi (May 19, 2004)

mars2, thanks for the info. i'm going to read up on that.

right now, i'm right around 400 awhp and 430 awtp. my engine is fully built and the only limiter now is the intake manifold. it's my daily driver so perhaps the extra power isn't needed. i just like knowing how much power this monster is capable of doing. i figure, if i've put $xxx amount on the car already, why not keep going. it's probably not financially smart at the moment, but it's nice knowing i have a rare car doing crazy things.


----------



## jampy (Nov 20, 2010)

PowerDubs said:


> *Real world resonance port effects*
> Here is a dyno overlay of the short runners only VS the long runners only (Credit Jeff Atwood)


 watchin this results of short runners in solitary,do not understand why everyone thinks in bigs losses of torque with sri in n/a...it is true that lose torque on the beginning but stay up for longer time,and the power gains is substancials,for me in particular it is not importan the torq bettwen 3-3'5k,i'm not go to the supermarket with my r32 and i dont have dayli drive...i think have enought torque for drive on legal roads..


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

Some people like to take OEM and improve it across the board :thumbup: 
What you referring to with SRI is purpose build to suite the application. It's different view / priority this is why it matters. 

I myself run SRI, but I am turbo as per signature. HOWEVER if above mentioned project would succeeded I would paid for this intake. As in mine case it would allow me to spool turbo some 500RPM earlier. This is especially important when in first gear and load is low.


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

Some interesting data:










I am keep coming back to this idea of making my own OEM+ intake as well :screwy:
I know, it will cost heap and I know it will have to be redone number of times to optimise - but it fascinates me


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

If torque concerns you it would be cheaper to get a variable turbine turbo working then designing a proper changing manifold.


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

need_a_VR6 said:


> If torque concerns you it would be cheaper to get a variable turbine turbo working then designing a proper changing manifold.


I know, in fact I was sizing my space between engine/firewall the other day to see if compound turbo set up will fit there. It's relatively cheaper and high gain.

But still, trying to work out perfect intake system is tempting. I was imagining small OEM size runners that are some 2-3inch longer with addition of secondary high HP resonant chamber and large runners like OEM but with Individual Throttle Bodies, as well as perfect designed resonant chamber that is FEED with air as well. 
Almost like two separate intake manifolds, feeding via one main throttle body....

Unfortunately, I am not original here, Porsche used this idea some years back :wave:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

That is how the vwms vsr and Schrick vgi work. 

Not sure compound is a good idea on gas boost is too low. Holset he351ve might be interesting.


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

simple_man said:


> Some interesting data:


Was digging thru some old data I got on my drive, thought I share.

To add some mud to the water, here is how real life dyno test stack up against theory on above plot. Tested 40mm vs 330mm intake runners. Keep in mind, there is already some 300mm+ in the intake length (valve to the end of oem manifold) 










Wonder if trumpets are any good, here is dyno with and without:










Now throw a few more variables to make your day:
- Intake Pipe diameter variation (major impact)
- Intake resonant chamber Volume 
- Intake resonant chamber inlet pipe length and how it enters the chamber
- VR6 specific difference in distance to the intake valve and how you deal with it
- Cam profile and timing to capture the pulse wave



Test mule:


----------



## DmcL (Sep 30, 2012)

simple_man said:


> Was digging thru some old data I got on my drive, thought I share.
> 
> To add some mud to the water, here is how real life dyno test stack up against theory on above plot. Tested 40mm vs 330mm intake runners. Keep in mind, there is already some 300mm+ in the intake length (valve to the end of oem manifold)


330's and shoehorn in a decent sized turbo that hits full boost around the 5500rom mark on that zetec... lol


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

That would create an nice combination! You got intake tuning for max TQ while off-boost. With max assist for a spool and when VE starts to fade away, here comes the turbocharger in it's peak efficiency.
Interesting alternative is to do opposite:
Use short runner tuned for 6000-7000RPM and use turbo that comes on boost early at 3000RPM. That would generate very nice, long and flat torque curve.

All that is just in theory.


----------



## DmcL (Sep 30, 2012)

something like this then 

http://autospeed.com/cms/title_-Turbod-for-Torque/A_111106/article.html


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Your torque will die up top with a turbo sized for quick spool regardless of intake tuning. Exhaust backpressure rules in that equation.


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

PowerDubs said:


> Marv,
> 
> There is only myself and 1 other confirmed guy that are willing to put up a couple grand each to have these made.. problem is, the estimate from the fab guy is 4k if only making 1. 2 won't drop the price much, if any..


Add one more to your list of willing/paying guy. I have a friend who owns a machine shop who also owes some $$. Let's get this project rolling again!


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Meh. The time has passed. I'm on to bigger and better things. 

Sorry. 

Feel free to carry the torch. I'll watch with interest.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

For anyone carrying it on, I will be willing to hassle you accordingly.


----------



## kevhayward (Mar 13, 2007)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Very dropped. I might be working on making an adapter to fit the 3.6 manifold on the 3.2 head. Waiting on a manifold and not hopeful on it being easy, simple or cheap.


Did this ever happen?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Never got a manifold from the interested party.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

Looking into this, looking to build a combo intake and exhaust mani. Started design on intake getting access to a r head next month for dimensions. 










:beer:


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

I've been doing a bit of design, and looking at different materials. I debated over the idea of going with square, oval, or round runners. In the end i decided on round because of the availability of the tube. 

I took some measurements on the intake ports and i thought that i would go with 1.75"id pipe as it has a surface area of 2.4 sq. in. the ports on the head are right around 2.28 sq in. 

Here is what the transition flang would look like. It is 1-1/2" thick. that may be a lot of aluminum so if need be i could make a phenolic or carbon to reduce intake temps. 

I have a lot of work to go and a lot to learn. I need some direction about runner lengths as well as volume. 




















:beer:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

For no resonance chamber 13-14" would be decent for high rpm second pulse tuning. You need much longer to get the first pulse. 

Volume is a much funnier thing, I have seen anywhere from .5x displacement to 3x displacement work well. A lot depends on design and throttle body size.


----------



## mldouthi (Jun 26, 2010)

rhcp4life said:


> I've been doing a bit of design, and looking at different materials. I debated over the idea of going with square, oval, or round runners. In the end i decided on round because of the availability of the tube.
> 
> I took some measurements on the intake ports and i thought that i would go with 1.75"id pipe as it has a surface area of 2.4 sq. in. the ports on the head are right around 2.28 sq in.
> 
> ...


 Do you have a twist "path" in the loft from square to round? Or is that just how the image can across?


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

mldouthi said:


> Do you have a twist "path" in the loft from square to round? Or is that just how the image can across?


 The software puts that twist in.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

need_a_VR6 said:


> For no resonance chamber 13-14" would be decent for high rpm second pulse tuning. You need much longer to get the first pulse.
> 
> Volume is a much funnier thing, I have seen anywhere from .5x displacement to 3x displacement work well. A lot depends on design and throttle body size.


 How are you calculating the pulses. I'm new to this. How much longer would it need to be for the 1st pulse, assuming that's better. 

Also I would probably be using the oem throttle body


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Try this http://www.bgsoflex.com/intakeln.html

Thats the best easy one. There are others like pipeworks or engine simulators.


----------



## mldouthi (Jun 26, 2010)

rhcp4life said:


> How are you calculating the pulses. I'm new to this. How much longer would it need to be for the 1st pulse, assuming that's better.
> 
> Also I would probably be using the oem throttle body


 Here is a very crude calculator 
http://www.wallaceracing.com/runnertorquecalc.php 
and some good info here also. 
http://www.team-integra.net/forum/b...e-manifold-tech-runner-size-calculations.html 


What software are you using? I would love to have the bolt pattern and port openings in a cad file to mess around with, I dont own a vr6 but I do enjoy messing around modeling car parts.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

The cross section part of the Wallace calculator seems quite odd... unless it's made for a specific distance from the valve without designating that distance.


----------



## mldouthi (Jun 26, 2010)

need_a_VR6 said:


> The cross section part of the Wallace calculator seems quite odd... unless it's made for a specific distance from the valve without designating that distance.


 Right, thats why I mentioned its a crude calculator. There are a bunch of factors that arent taken into account on the calculators. But its a starting place.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

Hey guys, currently using Mastercam to program in.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

Does anyone know the distance from the flange of the head to the intake valves? 
needing the both the long and short. 

:thumbup:


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

rhcp4life said:


> Does anyone know the distance from the flange of the head to the intake valves?
> needing the both the long and short.
> 
> :thumbup:


 Ill need exhaust as well when the time comes


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I have them written down somewhere might have told Josh at one point too.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

need_a_VR6 said:


> I have them written down somewhere might have told Josh at one point too.


 I saw your thread with port dimensions of 3.2 and 2.8 24v heads, I may have looked over it but I didn't see it.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I took lots of measurements then but I didnt post them all. If they were the same between heads I didn't bother.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

No biggie ill have access to a head in a couple weeks. Did some more design today, I took some material out of the flange and added a 15 degree angle to the adapter. More room for runner lengths. 
I'm struggling how to calculate runner lengths. It seems as if I want to see peak torque around 5000rpm my runner diameter should be around 2sq in. While the head port openings are around 2.3 sq in which puts me over 6000rpm peak torque. I want peak torque around 5k but I don't want to restrict flow with 2sq in runners. 

Any ideas

As far as the runner lengthens do I just match the the desired rpm with the 2nd 3rd harmonic ( which ever one is practical)?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

I wouldnt make the cross section any smaller than the inlet. There should be a choke point before the split that you can check vs the min dia in the calcs. 

As far as length, more or less. First pulse is generally a very long and unpackageable runner (unless its over the head like stock) with the second pulse being the best compromise. Third pulse is generally small so by then the length matters less.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

need_a_VR6 said:


> I wouldnt make the cross section any smaller than the inlet. There should be a choke point before the split that you can check vs the min dia in the calcs.
> 
> As far as length, more or less. First pulse is generally a very long and unpackageable runner (unless its over the head like stock) with the second pulse being the best compromise. Third pulse is generally small so by then the length matters less.


 Not following you here. You say there should be a choke before the split are you referencing from the plenum to the runners or where should the choke go? 

Also you say the 1st pulse ( does that mean the 2nd harmonic?) is very long and Unachievable. But the stock manifold does it. I would like to create an over the head like stock but with a bit more flow. 

Maybe create slightly larger plenum than oem


----------



## mldouthi (Jun 26, 2010)

rhcp4life said:


> Not following you here. You say there should be a choke before the split are you referencing from the plenum to the runners or where should the choke go?
> 
> Also you say the 1st pulse ( does that mean the 2nd harmonic?) is very long and Unachievable. But the stock manifold does it. I would like to create an over the head like stock but with a bit more flow.
> 
> Maybe create slightly larger plenum than oem


 1st pulse means your runner plenum combo is long enough so that the sound wave made from a cylinder firing leaves the head goes up the runner hits the back wall of the plenum and makes its way back down the runner to the valve opening right as it opens again. 2nd pulse means is bounces back and forth twice before the valve opening again. The 3rd pulse ends up really weak from all the bouncing around, for lack of a better way to put it, and therefore the runner length that short doesnt have as big of an effect. As need_a_VR6 stated. 

Hope that helps, or answers what you were asking. Im interested in what was meant about the choke point also.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Yes, the choke point I was referring to is in the head, it should be right before the divider in the port. 

1st pulse = 2nd harmonic. Something that has about a 22" long runner with a big plenum would probably work decently as long as the runners have large enough diameter. Josh pointed out how small the choke point is in the stock manifold and it's not short like a venturi cone and will cause a restriction. You might need different coils to package that well. 

For the resonance tuning, don't think about reflected waves from anything bouncing off of surfaces, just consider the distance from the valve mouth to the effective runner length. Any reflected waves other then that are minimal at best. 

There are lots of points to think about here, and it all depends on where you want to make your compromises. I ended up with a ~13" runner length with 2"ID runners and a GIANT plenum with 82.5mm throttle body. We'll see if it works.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

When do you dyno?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

2015 or sooner


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Here is the old upper 16v manifold I made for my MK2. 

The guy that has it now is building an engine and will be using it. 

I used the fat 50mm runners, shortened them 1.5 inches and welded on a plenum off a 42mm intake manifold. 

It bolts on same as stock. Can be swapped off in 5 minutes at the dyno.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

You post that but no the dyno chart? BOO :wave:


----------



## BOUDAH (Aug 15, 2008)

y not jsut attach a leaf blower to ur intake tube. /thread


----------



## Basil Fawlty (Sep 7, 2003)

BOUDAH said:


> y not jsut attach a leaf blower to ur intake tube. /thread


 bro do you even lift?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

need_a_VR6 said:


> You post that but no the dyno chart? BOO :wave:


 



Here is the dyno I did on it. 

The specs at that time were a just a stock 2.0 16v engine with factory european intake cam, eurosport airbox, chip, catback. I might have had a header on it as well, I don't remember. 

It would probably really shine on a car with a more aggressive setup- bigger cams, 1.8 head (flows better) or a ported head, maybe a displacement and CR bump.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

Nice, proven results. im excited to get this ball rolling again.

Interesting you gained power both at 4.5 and on the tails end. Is this because the general size of the runners changed. Just bigger runners so more air.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

The colors are hard to see on that chart, but it is a loss on the midrange for a gain up top. 

For someone who is racing, shifting at redline each gear, well worth the tradeoff. 

For your average person who doesn't ever rev out the engine, no good.. but of course that isn't the point anyway.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

I was informed this weekend that the R32 head has the cams compensated for the flange to valve distance. if you were to make the intake runners different the car i feel you would also have to get a set of custom made cams to have the same duration to take advantage of equal runner lengths. 

Does this seem right or am i missing something. 

:beer:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Go


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

NA


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

Then keep your "just boost it" comments to yourself then. I am an enthusiast I want to do it because no one else has. Follow suit and gtfo!


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

rhcp4life said:


> I was informed this weekend that the R32 head has the cams compensated for the flange to valve distance. if you were to make the intake runners different the car i feel you would also have to get a set of custom made cams to have the same duration to take advantage of equal runner lengths.
> 
> Does this seem right or am i missing something.
> 
> :beer:


 To stay on topic


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Based on my crude bench tests they dont seem to be. However, I only have accuracy down to .020" lift. TT or another cam mfg might know for sure.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Based on my conversations with Schrick when I was having the 272/272 made, there is no compensation. 

Like talking to 1 person at any company however, there is a chance they were misinformed or just plain wrong.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

Im not sure where the person got the info that the cams are different to make up the distance, but i know he tried to prove it to me by showing me the TT's website. 

It states: 
VR6 24v----- 264°/260° 

the 264 is under IN. Duration 
the 260 is under EX. Duration 

Does that just explain the duration of the exhaust lobe vs intake lobe? 
This makes more sense to me. 

Link to said site 

:beer:


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Yes the split is intake vs exhaust. Real split duration cams will have a slight cranking compression bias with the shorter one being higher. I have never seen a 24v read comp like that.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

I might be off base, but I assumed any cyl compensation wouldn't change the duration or lift.. just the offset timing of the lobes itself IO/IC EO/EC


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

The AFP cams had different duration on the same lca. The goal was probably to make ve across banks comparable, and the 12v can have some interesting flow characteristics front to rear where the 24v port shape and size is more consistent.


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

Just happy to see this project back in motion! Let me know how I can help.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

zippy_109 said:


> Just happy to see this project back in motion! Let me know how I can help.


Cost too much, your not going to be able to increase both top end and bottom end with out some type of flapper.. With the cost of developing a flapper for variable runner intake.. your half way to a small turbo set up


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

Why is everyone so willing to tell others how to spend their money? This thread isn't about what's cost affective by your assessment. Take it elsewhere, please. If I wanted a turbo I would have already done it. Money isn't as much of an issue as finding the right people to do the job right. I have other fish to fry at the moment, but if this looks stalled out again at the end of this year, it will be time to call the debt my machinist friend owes me.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

Very well then, carry on.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

I drafted some basic designs for intake flange maybe ill post them when I get to a computer tomorrow. But to get 1 pulse there is not enough room. But interested to see what you have up your sleeve. I was just yelling at some one earlier I'm the thread for mentioning turbo, then I go and do it... Ohh well I realized I don't have developmental money to do a variable runner.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

zippy_109 said:


> Money isn't as much of an issue as finding the right people to do the job right. I have other fish to fry at the moment, but if this looks stalled out again at the end of this year, it will be time to call the debt my machinist friend owes me.




No offense, but I'll believe it when I see it. I've proven many times that I'll throw thousands at a project just to see what happens. I never had anyone else follow through with promises to join in the adventure..so I moved on.

I know the right people to do the job, but it will cost you somewhere just shy of 5k to have *1* manifold built to spec that will still have a changeover.


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

PowerDubs said:


> No offense, but I'll believe it when I see it. I've proven many times that I'll throw thousands at a project just to see what happens. I never had anyone else follow through with promises to join in the adventure..so I moved on.
> 
> I know the right people to do the job, but it will cost you somewhere just shy of 5k to have *1* manifold built to spec that will still have a changeover.


Did you complete a design? Is it something you're willing to share? I'll believe it when I see it. 

Every time I've asked in the past, I just get the "it's not worth it" quote..

So


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

zippy_109 said:


> Otherwise, it's off to my machinist buddy to call in the debt.


Has he done intake manifold design/testing before? What areas of the stock intake manifold are you looking to improve on specifically and why do you think they are an issue? What sort of analysis are you planning on doing to make sure your buddy doesn't just generate an expensive paper weight? What are you hoping to achieve with this project?

It's been a while since I've read through the first pages of this post. I know Powerdubs had a few ideas for some things he would like to change about the stock design. I'm just curious to hear what you would do differently. I wish you the best in whatever route you choose to pursue and I would be happy to offer suggestions/feedback if you're receptive to advice


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

leebro61 said:


> Has he done intake manifold design/testing before? What areas of the stock intake manifold are you looking to improve on specifically and why do you think they are an issue? What sort of analysis are you planning on doing to make sure your buddy doesn't just generate an expensive paper weight? What are you hoping to achieve with this project?
> 
> It's been a while since I've read through the first pages of this post. I know Powerdubs had a few ideas for some things he would like to change about the stock design. I'm just curious to hear what you would do differently. I wish you the best in whatever route you choose to pursue and I would be happy to offer suggestions/feedback if you're receptive to advice


Thanks for the warm welcome. 

All I would have the machinist do is fab the valve chamber of the stock manifold in aluminum, to use the stock insert and vacuum mechanism. That would be the foundation of any variable manifold design


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

zippy_109 said:


> Thanks for the warm welcome.
> 
> All I would have the machinist do is fab the valve chamber of the stock manifold in aluminum, to use the stock insert and vacuum mechanism. That would be the foundation of any variable manifold design


Sorry, I get excited when people start talking intake manifold design :laugh:

The point that I was trying to make is that intake manifold design is complex (even without the variable geometry), and your last few posts made it sound like you were going to just drop off a stock manifold at a machine shop and say "here, make this out of aluminum". Thanks for clarifying your intentions


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

leebro61 said:


> Sorry, I get excited when people start talking intake manifold design :laugh:
> 
> The point that I was trying to make is that intake manifold design is complex (even without the variable geometry), and your last few posts made it sound like you were going to just drop off a stock manifold at a machine shop and say "here, make this out of aluminum". Thanks for clarifying your intentions


No trouble. I hope to get a couple of them from him for what he owes me. Ideally any design should strive to be as modular as possible. It would be easier to just weld to this valve, but a bolt flange would allow reuse trail-and-error. One thing that comes to mind is the stock short track reflection chamber. The top could be bolt on allowing to stack machined shims to increase the chamber size for tuning. Another could be long runner to top plenum bolt flange as well to both tune long runner length and/or top plenum size. This may be overkill and adversely impact the cost. But this isn't about being cost effective now, is it? 

But as I've stated above, I've asked for current design parameters from others but nobody is sharing anything other than - it's too expensive. So, has anyone gotten a 3d scan of the stock manifold to use to model?


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

I'll post some solid files of what I have later tonight. Basically I had a hpa intake mani and I took measurements off of it and made a flange to convert from "square" ports to a common round tube size.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

The HPA manifold sucks donkey nuts. Don't use it for anything..


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

PowerDubs said:


> The HPA manifold sucks donkey nuts. Don't use it for anything..


I trade it to my mechanic for parts and maintenance. he has a turbo car to put it on. :thumbup:

And i won it at WiTW 13' best $10 raffle ticket ever.


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

PowerDubs said:


> The HPA manifold sucks donkey nuts. Don't use it for anything..


Anyone ever do an NA dyno run with it in short-runner only trim? The dyno's I've seen of it in full trim NA on a stock motor show that it gains slightly only at the very top. But looking at it visually it only has three small long runners up to the TB and no plenum at the top. Seems the like this is even more restrictive than the stock mani.

It could be that in short runner trim it gains even more at the top. It would be interesting to know just to compare the geometry of the short runners in comparison to the stock mani.


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

Mastercam File of intake flange
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tbnfqqk533i2ktp/24VVR6INTAKE.MCX-6

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2b22bl9ypmph15k/intakeside24vVr6.PNG
https://www.dropbox.com/s/w3cab9va4rs12tk/headside24vVr6.PNG


----------



## rhcp4life (Apr 12, 2011)

zippy_109 said:


> Anyone ever do an NA dyno run with it in short-runner only trim? The dyno's I've seen of it in full trim NA on a stock motor show that it gains slightly only at the very top. But looking at it visually it only has three small long runners up to the TB and no plenum at the top. Seems the like this is even more restrictive than the stock mani.
> 
> It could be that in short runner trim it gains even more at the top. It would be interesting to know just to compare the geometry of the short runners in comparison to the stock mani.


 Have you got anywhere with this recently?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Almost any design that will fit without cutting half the front apart isnt anywhere near optimal. The hpa runners with a larger plenum could be intersting.


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

rhcp4life said:


> Have you got anywhere with this recently?


Sorry, I don't have one in hand. I was just making observations.


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

rhcp4life said:


> Mastercam File of intake flange
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/tbnfqqk533i2ktp/24VVR6INTAKE.MCX-6
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/2b22bl9ypmph15k/intakeside24vVr6.PNG
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/w3cab9va4rs12tk/headside24vVr6.PNG


Flanges are already available. What's your goal with this design?

BTW, I'm looking for a cheap stock intake mani for scanning. It doesn't have to be pretty or functional, but it does need to be intact and not hacked up.


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Almost any design that will fit without cutting half the front apart isnt anywhere near optimal.


Can you elaborate what you mean here? I don't follow..




need_a_VR6 said:


> The hpa runners with a larger plenum could be intersting.


That and three more long runners. ;-)


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Yes for pulse tuning effects the runners need to be very long. For optimum high rev performance you need a decent plenum and runner diameter. With stock packaging (hood, radiator/fans) the "right stuff" won't fit.


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Yes for pulse tuning effects the runners need to be very long. For optimum high rev performance you need a decent plenum and runner diameter. With stock packaging (hood, radiator/fans) the "right stuff" won't fit.


The stock runners fit.  Yes, I know.. restriction. Are you saying there is no room for larger diameter runners in the stock length and position? Of course, larger diameter affects pulse tuning as well.. What we need to start with is a 3D scan of the stock mani in a format someone can use to do a flow analysis. From there design differences can be explored. I've asked before about a 3D model and all I get back is "don't to it", "too expensive", etc.. which I'll have to translate as, "nobody has done this yet." 

A web search comes up with numerous shops doing full 3D scans into whatever file format you wish. I have no cad/flow tools, so what is the preferred file for flow analysis?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

zippy_109 said:


> I've asked before about a 3D model and all I get back is "don't to it", "too expensive", etc.. which I'll have to translate as, "nobody has done this yet."




Actually, the correct translation means 'time to open your own wallet if you want something done'.


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

PowerDubs said:


> Actually, the correct translation means 'time to open your own wallet if you want something done'.


Could be. But it felt more like, "I wasn't willing to open my wallet, so you better not be either!" ;-)

No, I know you've bled over the NA VR more than anyone. But I'm now willing to bleed also. You just don't seem willing to believe it.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Stock runners do fit, but a huge restriction. You can 3d scan the outside, but the inside is problematic. From a design standpoint a clean slate is needed. The resonance points with the changeover can be approximated but not calculated exactly with the stock geometry. 

Bleed green and you will get somewhere.


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Stock runners do fit, but a huge restriction. You can 3d scan the outside, but the inside is problematic.


It would have to be cut apart and scanned in pieces. 



need_a_VR6 said:


> From a design standpoint a clean slate is needed. The resonance points with the changeover can be approximated but not calculated exactly with the stock geometry.


Without a dynamic model of the unit, everything would be guess work.



need_a_VR6 said:


> Bleed green and you will get somewhere.


No doubt.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

A really good dynamic model is big time/$. The basic physical dimensionin is the easy part. To do dynamic flow as the cyls interact/pulse is going to take quite awhile to model. 

I know Josh cut that one manifold off to document the choke point past the plugs, but I dont remember an area measurement of it. Thats a good place to start.


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

If I were you, I would not spend my resources chasing time accurate CFD results (and this is coming from a guy who runs CFD for a living and writes CFD for fun). I would start with 1D hand calcs to try to get in the ball park on runner lengths, cross sectional area targets, etc. These will tell you if your design is even feasible.

If/when you get into CFD use it to optimize plenum shapes, plenum to runner transitions, runner to flange transitions, and so on.

Section cuts every few inches on a stock intake manifold would be a great way to quickly identify short comings.


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

leebro61 said:


> If I were you, I would not spend my resources chasing time accurate CFD results (and this is coming from a guy who runs CFD for a living and writes CFD for fun). I would start with 1D hand calcs to try to get in the ball park on runner lengths, cross sectional area targets, etc. These will tell you if your design is even feasible.


True. Even as a starting point, IF there's room to increase the long runner cross section, this by itself will raise the resonant point. To bring it back down to the stock RPM peak, we'd have to increase length - so is there even room for that?? If the answer is 'yes' and 'yes', then a model may be worth doing.



leebro61 said:


> If/when you get into CFD use it to optimize plenum shapes, plenum to runner transitions, runner to flange transitions, and so on.


But once I'm into CFD, I'm into CFD. ;-) So having the stock unit fully modeled could be invaluable. 



leebro61 said:


> Section cuts every few inches on a stock intake manifold would be a great way to quickly identify short comings.


Powerdubs did slice n' dice his, but it looks too hacked to be used to scan. I think the stock long runners were uniform size over the length of the flat/straight bits. Not sure once it curves down into the head.

So you run CFD for a living? Have you ever modeled a Helmholtz resonator on an intake?


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

zippy_109 said:


> True. Even as a starting point, IF there's room to increase the long runner cross section, this by itself will raise the resonant point. To bring it back down to the stock RPM peak, we'd have to increase length - so is there even room for that?? If the answer is 'yes' and 'yes', then a model may be worth doing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do aerodynamic design work for a living, and running CFD is a huge part of that. The majority of the CFD we run is time average (or "steady state"). We will eventually migrate to time accurate solutions, but for right now the computational cost is still much too high (among other concerns). I have not done any resonance modelling myself, but I would guess it involves an unsteady CFD starting solution and then some sort of linearized approach to solving multidimensional wave equations and lots of assumptions/approximations in between.

What I'm hoping to convey is, you'll get the most bang for your buck from a quick hand calc. You may find some additional performance from a reduced order, steady state CFD to optimize certain regions of the manifold. I don't think you will get any benefit from chasing resonance modelling or time accurate boundary conditions (valves opening and closing). That kind of work is better suited for academia where people can spend years of their life trying to correlate a single CFD model to a lab test result. :laugh:

The problem with a 3d scan of the stock manifold is that the model won't be parametric, so it won't be much help to you when you go to create an updated design. You would also likely have to simplify the geometry considerably to go from a 3d scan to a CFD grid.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Changing the diameter doesn't change the resonance point (rpm). It will change the bulk velocity and profile, but that's it.


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

need_a_VR6 said:


> Changing the diameter doesn't change the resonance point (rpm). It will change the bulk velocity and profile, but that's it.


Okay, just went back to the book to confirm. That being the case, we may get most of what we're after by replicating the stock dimensions with larger ID long runners. So first order of biz is to have the valve portion of the mani fab'd in Aluminum. Got a WTB for a mani out. Nothing yet..


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

From a practical standpoint I would:

Make a "high rpm" long runner manifold and make sure it meets those needs. Modify/redesign as needed. 
Then try and add the resonance chamber using the stock design as a starting point. 

Unless you get the high rpm part working, why do anything at all...


----------



## zippy_109 (Jun 11, 2002)

need_a_VR6 said:


> From a practical standpoint I would:
> 
> Make a "high rpm" long runner manifold and make sure it meets those needs. Modify/redesign as needed.
> Then try and add the resonance chamber using the stock design as a starting point.
> ...


The long runners lower the peak RPM. The resonant chamber it attached to shorter runners to give a short pulse return path to move the torque peak to the high RPM range. But I'm willing to be wrong.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

No you are right. 

http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_212.pdf

Its all in there. 

Making the torque pipes flow and adding the resonance chamber later seems tough. I would still figure out the right high flow design from a length and plenum perspective then go back and try and make a chambered manifold.


----------



## simple_man (Jun 18, 2006)

I will throw this data in 

Few variables to consider....


----------



## leebro61 (Nov 7, 2001)

Interesting, what is the source of the data... guessing academia? Definitely need more details before drawing conclusions, although I will say the general trend of the runner length and runner diameter plot agree with my expectations. Thanks for sharing :wave:


----------



## theMidnightSun (Apr 23, 2017)

You might revisit this now that 3d printers are all over the place. A "hacker space" would love to work on something like this and ford uses 3d printers for its prototype intakes because they're cheap and fast, so the plastics must be strong enough.
I came to the party late so i cant see the pictures since they're missing.

Also what is the likely hood that the Performance Port Valve fails to open or close in the current manifold? Being its vacuum based and doesn't seem to have a electrical value to monitor (that i can tell), any obstruction or slight leak could keep it closed or open. 
The real world dyno results show the effects of each and its a bit scary.


----------



## 95daffe (Feb 2, 2019)

Some news since this time?


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

All these years later I just received an email from someone do a 3.2 all motor project overseas. 

He asked me for any advice on how to make more power out of that engine.

I had sold my R32 a few years ago now, but I before I sold it I had an idea I wanted to try- but never did.


Cut the roof / lid off the lower plenum cover- create a spacer as tall as you can without hitting your hood- unless you want to cut a hole in the hood. 

The engine uses the long runners until mid-range rpm when it switches a valve that opens the shorter runner area.

The air still comes in the TB and long skinny runners but the lower section open provides not only a reflection pulse- but another thing I originally hadn't considered-

Importantly- the lower plenum area is shared between all 6 runners, so while one cyl is pulling air out of it the other cyls aren't so it is being refilled from the unused cyl for that portion of the cycle time . 

So in the original low rpm position where each cyl is strictly breathing only through it's own long skinny main runner, but when the short runners open that small plenum becomes it's own different air supply tank cumulatively fed off all 6 small runners. In that position we no longer need to think about a cyl bottlenecking at that water bottle cap area.

When the engine is modified with bigger cams, bigger exhaust, higher redline, etc- you need more air in less time. By increasing this lower plenum volume you give the engine more air storage space to use.

I never got to test this before I sold the car- but I would expect a gain at higher revs where you are trying to make peak power. It won't effect lower end or tq because that valve will be shut back to using just the long runners as normal.

I suppose someone could tap a vac gauge into the small plenum and see what it reads under load on a dyno before cutting the top off. I would assume the larger the plenum, the closer to atmo.


----------



## ny_fam (Apr 3, 2004)

Bigger plenum favors high rpm power. Plenum to large makes the engine bog down at low rpms.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Good thing we are only talking about increasing the high rpm plenum eh? 

Really wish I could have tested / dynoed / dragged this theory before I sold the car. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

The bog with a large plenum can be tuned out. 

I wonder how much the secondary plenum volume really matters. Its really the effective wave length that changes the powerband. As long as that plenum can stay near atmospheric at wot it should be "big enough." I think a vacuum gauge/transducer on the secondary plenum may show something.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

As long as that plenum can stay near atmospheric at wot it should be "big enough."


Agreed- but not sure it would be at 6-7k+


Who still has one of these cars and a willingness to buy a vac guage, poke a little hole, and go dyno? 

Or..is there a digital vac gauge that has a hold peak reading option? Then street testing could be quick and easy.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

You were the only one motivated enough!


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Nah- there are still guys playing with these engines...and probably will be so for a long time to come.

Might not be in R32....but there were a lot of cars and trucks as you know so lots of donors.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Lots of motors just not as much care. In a light car, short runner and send it.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Yah..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KoolTrix (Feb 6, 2007)

PowerDubs said:


> Who still has one of these cars and a willingness to buy a vac guage, poke a little hole, and go dyno?


I have extra manifolds I can toy with :thumbup:

anyone have an idea where I can buy a vac guage?


----------



## KoolTrix (Feb 6, 2007)

PowerDubs said:


> I had sold my R32 a few years ago now, but I before I sold it I had an idea I wanted to try- but never did.
> 
> Cut the roof / lid off the lower plenum cover- create a spacer as tall as you can without hitting your hood- unless you want to cut a hole in the hood.


I'm sure we can reach out to the new owner and see if he can test this. I would be interested as well


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

You can get a vac gauge almost anywhere. Big thing is ability to look at it at wot


----------



## KoolTrix (Feb 6, 2007)

would this work? https://www.amazon.com/Manometer-Differential-Backlight-Ventilation-Measurement/dp/B07K7HT3XJ

I have about 2-3 extra intake manifolds. I try to buy them for cheap from time to time when I see the for sale.

my goal was to one day cut them up for 3D scanning. Externally then Internally. Once scanned, use some CAD software to increase the sides just enough for everything to fit.

With 3D printing getting more popular, I figured it was only a matter of time before 3D scanning/printing was cheap enough to make a better OEM+ intake manifold. 

I've been following this thread for years, and believe in all the work Josh (PowerDubs) has done. The last bottleneck is our Intake. Trying to increase airflow without sacrificing torque. 

We want to increase our numbers, not just transition the power band from lower to higher (HPA CVP Intake). 

I'm also still curious about the Bigger Throttle Body idea as well. Not sure if that was in this thread or a different one, and Josh can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but the bigger TB's dont open up 100% during WOT when you go with the bigger TB. I believe it has something to do with the software/tune and air flow sensor. 

Also, if we did the vacuum testing, are there any other logs we want to capture (using VAGCOM).


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

When I did my custom bored 80mm TB, the car felt livelier until it would throw a CEL for adaptation limit reached.

I did not know Jeff Atwood at the time, so I sold it. He told me he could 100% fix the tune to make that TB work. Another thing I wish I did if things had worked out differently.

I don't know if it actually made any true power, or just that it was getting more air per the cars given throttle position unexpectedly.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

Marv,

That is not only perfect because it has peak record function, but it also has a differential reading which is awesome!

You can BOTH plenums and if there is any vac at high rev WOT- you can see if it is just the lower plenum, or the higher plenum as well.

You can also see if those readings change when a bigger TB is installed. (removing a choke point).

I love this ****.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

*SCRATCH THAT*

Just scrolled down and read specs- you will need something with a larger range than +/- 2PSI


Would you agree Paul?


----------



## KoolTrix (Feb 6, 2007)

this should work :laugh: 
https://www.amazon.com/Testo-552-Digital-Vacuum-Bluetooth/dp/B06XJHRWGV/ref=sr_1_12
https://www.testo.com/en-US/testo-552/p/0560-5522

I'll hit up my buddy, see if he already has one. Also need to see if the local dyno shop is even open.
I remember he used to do 3 runs for $100. I wonder how much he'll give me for just a couple of hours to test/play around with different things.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

Probably don't need a huge range as it should max out at 0psi but that is a guess.


----------



## PowerDubs (Jul 22, 2001)

If cars maxed out at 0 PSI vac there would be no gain to air filters / boxes....and we already know they make a substantial measurable difference on the R32.

I get the idea that bottle necks move around- and some are worse than others- I just don't agree that Vdub designed the stock manifold plenums with 330-340-350 all motor bhp in mind at 7k+ rpm

I'll say- by all means Marv, get the 2lb +/- meter, tap and plug into each plenum and let us know what's what. No need to dyno since that box will record peak.

Just sat down and gave it a quick thought. I'm no mathematician, nor engine designer, but lets round atmo up to 15, round the engine to an easy 300 crank- so if everything being equal (which hardly ever happens)- that means 20bhp for every psi.

So 2psi should be enough...unless I am thinking about this wrong somehow now. You won't gain 40bhp on a manifold modification. I'd be very happy with a solid consistent 5whp if a plenum spacer is all it took.

The meter alone will tell you both plenums activity without need for modification or dyno. Heck- I might buy one to try on my motorcycle. I've been playing modifying that and dynoing.


----------



## KoolTrix (Feb 6, 2007)

I just dug through my basement. I have 2 extra manifolds that I can toy with. I'll grab the vacuum gauge first and then go from there. stay tuned!


----------



## vw1320 (Jul 11, 2000)

Cool to see this thread get some activity once again. As some may know I have been playing with a 3.2 motor in my 24v mk4 gti. Basically a fwd r32 at this point (knuckles, steering rack etc are all r32 when its not in dragstrip mode). I have tested a fair bit of stuff already but I haven't bothered to mess with a stock intake manifold. I can confidently say I am making more than any stock motor 3.2 has made naturally aspirated and I find low rpm torque to be more than sufficient without the stock intake. I have considered playing around with the stock intake as I have a few laying around but its hard to knowingly take a step back.  Yes in a heavy car low rpm tq is nice but my theory is if I am going full throttle at a low enough rpm where the stock intake would be a big advantage I am probably in the wrong gear to start with. It would be great to have the best of both worlds but the stock intake gives up too much up top for the gains down low. At least for me. 

For those curious about power the car has already trapped over 112 mph in 90+ deg weather weighing 2650 lbs. Its a stock motor with cams, intake manifold, and a custom downpipe on AEM Infinity that I wired and tuned.


----------



## Ajfrassetto (May 17, 2017)

im only a part time expert, but my calculations put you around 286.88 hp. side note, what else is done to the head? Asking for a friend.


----------



## vw1320 (Jul 11, 2000)

Better check the batteries in your calculator I think they might be bad, 

Have your friend pm me a budget, how much power he wants, and a credit card number and I will build him a longblock just like it.


----------



## Ajfrassetto (May 17, 2017)

vw1320 said:


> Better check the batteries in your calculator I think they might be bad,
> 
> Have your friend pm me a budget, how much power he wants, and a credit card number and I will build him a longblock just like it.


Got a hard enough time just getting it to run :banghead::banghead:


----------



## KoolTrix (Feb 6, 2007)

Ajfrassetto said:


> im only a part time expert, but my calculations put you around 286.88 hp. side note, what else is done to the head? Asking for a friend.


dont you know the rules? always show your math


----------



## KoolTrix (Feb 6, 2007)

vw1320 said:


> I find low rpm torque to be more than sufficient without the stock intake. I have considered playing around with the stock intake as I have a few laying around but its hard to knowingly take a step back.  Yes in a heavy car low rpm tq is nice but my theory is if I am going full throttle at a low enough rpm where the stock intake would be a big advantage I am probably in the wrong gear to start with. It would be great to have the best of both worlds but the stock intake gives up too much up top for the gains down low. At least for me.
> 
> For those curious about power the car has already trapped over 112 mph in 90+ deg weather weighing 2650 lbs. Its a stock motor with cams, intake manifold, and a custom downpipe on AEM Infinity that I wired and tuned.


I'm a little confused by your statement. when you say stock intake, are you referring to the actual intake, or the intake manifold? 
I'm assuming this is the same setup as in your signature block "[email protected] Quickest (Only?) All Motor Mk4 - 3.2l of fun"

Do you have a thread of your build? I would be interested in seeing more of it. I'm not 100% sure how MK4/GTI compares to the R32 in weight difference. seems like you have an extra 400-500# lighter (at least) than some other light R32s. 

Also, are you running stock cams? 

If there's one thing I've learned, is that CVP or short runner intake manifolds just move the powerband (from low end power to high end power). I've been in some R32's with HPA's CVP and it just felt like a turd. My old cammed R32 ate him up. but if you're looking for all top end, higher trap, then you should be fine with that setup, esp with Cams, which really opens up mid range and top range, without sacrificing low end. 


otherwise if you want to keep the low end as well, than all of us looking for ways to improve the current intake manifold is ideal. I ordered the gauge. hopefully I'll find some time this summer to get it all tested and post it here.


----------



## Ajfrassetto (May 17, 2017)

KoolTrix said:


> I'm a little confused by your statement. when you say stock intake, are you referring to the actual intake, or the intake manifold?
> I'm assuming this is the same setup as in your signature block "[email protected] Quickest (Only?) All Motor Mk4 - 3.2l of fun"
> 
> Do you have a thread of your build? I would be interested in seeing more of it. I'm not 100% sure how MK4/GTI compares to the R32 in weight difference. seems like you have an extra 400-500# lighter (at least) than some other light R32s.
> ...


GOOD LUCK GETTING ANY INFORMATION OUT! HES TIGHTER THAN FORT KNOX!  In the end, you have a Naturally Aspirated car. Why are you worried about power at low RPM? (serious question) NA cars need RPM to make power. Therefore moving the tq curve and power band into higher RPM's. I just never understood why everyone in the VW world is all worried about loosing low end tq on vrs when you install a short runner and continuing to use the OEM intake. Just my .02


----------



## 95daffe (Feb 2, 2019)

*r32 intake manifold projrct*



PowerDubs said:


> As long as that plenum can stay near atmospheric at wot it should be "big enough."
> 
> 
> Agreed- but not sure it would be at 6-7k+
> ...


Thanks to Believe in some guys like me with r32 all motor in mk2 plateform. So, as you mentionned it earlier we need to see waht happen since engine is at WOT, for that i installed ( in lower plenum) 1.8t tps and a GM pressure sensor (0/2 bar absolute pressure).we need temperature later for air Density.

temperature and pressure sensors signals will be logged to my INNOVATE LM-2 and graphs could be examined.
I'm waiting for a date to dyno it. if it take too much time, i'll run on road for a solid log.

i work for a car Builder which used BOSCH ECU and engineers, i had some discussion with us about mk4 r32 engine, they promised me some informations if i gave them some more time because they were present in this engine developpement .

Oem mk4 manifold use two side of intake :
-dual variable runners lenght
-Helmholtz intake resonnator ( upper and dual plenum)
we doen't have time to developp all this, but for place problem in engine bay, they were obliged to make sacrifices:
Helmholtz law says for a maximum efficience max 3 cylinder filling a plenum and plenum volum will be between 65 to 80% ==>1.04l to 1.290l for cyl 1/3/5 & an another plenum for cyl 2/4/6.

If we respect that law, minimum plenum volum will be 2.08L, in Helmholtz plenum, we Don't care runners volum, We've measured it : v ≈ 1.687L !!

oem intake lower volum need to be increase in volume up to 30% each bank, i'm trying to make some fiber work …….to be continued


----------



## vw1320 (Jul 11, 2000)

My point is complaining about low rpm power to me is like complaining about not enough power at part throttle - it just means you aren't driving the car properly. Downshift and get the rpm's up to where they need to be. Yes a heavy car like an r32 is always going to feel better with more tq down low but they sold MK4 Jetta wagons with 2l 8v motors that were plenty driveable. Its not like putting a short runner on a 3.2 turns it into this dog that is dangerous to drive. The solution is to just use the right gear. Just like the stock intake is a compromise - trading high rpm power for low rpm tq, so are most short runners. I would say I likely make the same tq down low as a completely stock r32 did and vastly more the higher you rev it. 

I don't have a build thread but its a pretty basic setup. No I am not on stock cams. Don't really see the point of either stock cams or intake manifold when trying to make power na. I have been tempted to maybe try a stock intake manifold just to see the difference but pretty hard to take that step backwards. I am always trying to make more power not less. 

Hopefully I will get out there sooner rather than later and get some new numbers for my sig


----------



## 95daffe (Feb 2, 2019)

*r32 intake manifold project*



vw1320 said:


> My point is complaining about low rpm power to me is like complaining about not enough power at part throttle - it just means you aren't driving the car properly. Downshift and get the rpm's up to where they need to be. Yes a heavy car like an r32 is always going to feel better with more tq down low but they sold MK4 Jetta wagons with 2l 8v motors that were plenty driveable. Its not like putting a short runner on a 3.2 turns it into this dog that is dangerous to drive. The solution is to just use the right gear. Just like the stock intake is a compromise - trading high rpm power for low rpm tq, so are most short runners. I would say I likely make the same tq down low as a completely stock r32 did and vastly more the higher you rev it.
> 
> I don't have a build thread but its a pretty basic setup. No I am not on stock cams. Don't really see the point of either stock cams or intake manifold when trying to make power na. I have been tempted to maybe try a stock intake manifold just to see the difference but pretty hard to take that step backwards. I am always trying to make more power not less.
> 
> Hopefully I will get out there sooner rather than later and get some new numbers for my sig



according to me, you missed some informations….in first thread, deal was achieve a decent engine bhp without trading torque @low end in all motor, because it could killed drivebability in mk4 plateform with 1580kgs!!!
today to make power on r32 engine,this is a money & time question: pistons oversized with high CR, headwork, cams with 280deg 12mm lift and you could get 100bhp with oem intake…..there is no interest in this formula without spending a lot of cash money.

Not trading torque and increase top bhp, this is the real and initialised project. alot of people make some decent bhp but….engine couldn't be used in daily :facepalm:


----------



## vw1320 (Jul 11, 2000)

95daffe said:


> according to me, you missed some informations….in first thread, deal was achieve a decent engine bhp without trading torque @low end in all motor, because it could killed drivebability in mk4 plateform with 1580kgs!!!



You are missing my point. Even with cams and a short runner manifold at no point does my car make less tq than a stock r32. Considering VW/Audi used this motor in countless thousands of cars and deemed it sufficient for something as heavy as a Touareg I think its pretty silly to claim these mods kill driveability. Yes I make less tq down low than one modified to make max tq at low rpm, but I still make the same or more as these cars did from the factory. Even if I didn't I would still make way more than the what 115 ft lbs that the 2l 8v made that VW had no issue putting in who knows how many mk4s - including very heavy Jetta wagons. 

Instead of waiting or some unicorn manifold that is never going to appear I have built one of the highest hp all motor 3.2 vr6s that anyone has and I did it with a stock longblock.


----------



## Ajfrassetto (May 17, 2017)

95daffe said:


> according to me, you missed some informations….in first thread, deal was achieve a decent engine bhp without trading torque @low end in all motor, because it could killed drivebability in mk4 plateform with 1580kgs!!!
> today to make power on r32 engine,this is a money & time question: pistons oversized with high CR, headwork, cams with 280deg 12mm lift and you could get 100bhp with oem intake…..there is no interest in this formula without spending a lot of cash money.
> 
> Not trading torque and increase top bhp, this is the real and initialised project. alot of people make some decent bhp but….engine couldn't be used in daily :facepalm:



Engine couldnt be used in daily? Not sure what you mean by that. Because you make 200 ft/lbs of tq instead of 230 at 3300 rpms, that makes it impossible to drive as a daily? Thats like saying a honda is impossible to drive as a daily because it only makes 150 ft lbs of tq TOTAL, and 250 hp. :what:


----------



## Vex_man (Jul 5, 2012)

*Split plenum*

I have been following this thread on and off for years and was thinking if splitting and isolating the bottom plenum into 2 chambers for the first and second 3 cylinders (1,2,3 and 4,5,6), increasing their volume, increasing the tb and pipping size from intake and center feeding that into the top plenum from the middle and behind. Would this be a viable solution to add HP.

Maybe even separating into 2 TB


----------



## Ajfrassetto (May 17, 2017)

Vex_man said:


> I have been following this thread on and off for years and was thinking if splitting and isolating the bottom plenum into 2 chambers for the first and second 3 cylinders (1,2,3 and 4,5,6), increasing their volume, increasing the tb and pipping size from intake and center feeding that into the top plenum from the middle and behind. Would this be a viable solution to add HP.
> 
> Maybe even separating into 2 TB





ive seen in the honda world, couple guys run 2 throttle bodies, some even run 3. Although as i say that, they run into 1 big plenum, but no real gains over ITBs, or even 1 big throttle body. I personally run 1 very big plenum, with a 90 mm throttle body. The runners are external runners above the plenum and are equal length. There are some things that i would change, to make a little more power, but this style intake has worked really well.


----------

