Let me start by saying that Im not a vendor Evom anymore!

Thank you guys for the kind words! I work hard to satisfy my customers! I always listened to what everyone is looking for and as you can see that is what I provide! Some did not believe in me and my products but that never stopped me from trying to be the best!

I have records, dyno sheets and many achievements to back everything up!

Dave thank you for testing my manifolds this really means lots to me!

 

Nice gains. Is that manifold available yet?

 

yes i beleave they are. just contact tom at Driven Innovations. he's a great guy.

 

We will carry this manifold from Driven and yes they are available.

We are going to conduct one more test with one last design we are building and then that's it.

Let me call this now...............you are going to see a movement from other intake manufacturer's now all of them building intakes with properly sized plenums and a change in runner length's.

I feel I have learned a lot through all this testing at this point. My personal belief is too many people read books, used computer simulations and other knowledge they read to come up with the intake manifolds that have been available. Yes, many of them perform well up top and make good power up top. The majority also have HUGE losses in the low/mid range power and despite what some "evom experts" might think/type/say, I am not a DRAG only shop, I concentrate on the entire power band. If that's not clear to everyone than some people may need to do some reading of all the testing I have done and what my goals have been.

Anyway, between the initial 7.5" runner/230'ish cu in plenum intake we built working so well and now Tom's 6.5"/225 cu in plenum working even better, it's very obvious many things were not considered and were flat out overlooked by other companies making intakes. This is not a slam against them. Had I just read on the internet, books etc. I'd have come up with the same things; huge plenum and short runners. When every intake that I tested though has large losses in the low/mid range though it was obvious to me something had to be changed from all the rest.

Definetely on the right path now.

Tom, thank you for keeping a positive attitude and open mind through all this. With my testing of all the other intakes, promotion of others and everything else that went on you could have easily been discouraged and probably found a reason to even be pissed off at me. I'm glad we kept a good relationship and you were open minded to build this intake and let me test it.

I'll be glad when this is done this time.

Thanks for the interest everyone.

 

If manufacturers arent constantly redesigning or trying to change the product they offer then it's only common sense that they are going to fall behind people that are applying information from books, computer simulations, and other sources of scientific knowledge.... There are a few, not many, manifolds out there that allow for adjustable runner length, I believe Hyper tune offers this and Wilson's billet/cnc manifold will too.

The fact of the matter is that there is no "one shoe fits all" with intake manifolds. Manifolds that work best on your RS are not going to work optimally on people that have FP Green's and stock turbos on their cars, every motor and individual has different VE's and goals for their motor, the Wilson V2 might suit an autocross setup perfectly, where as the Magnus cast manifold might suit a 6-700whp drag car much better.

Dave if you are not a drag-focused shop, it appears that way. Not that there is anything wrong with drag racing, or making an evo do it, just that the needs of a drag car are vastly different than those competing in other arenas.

Don't forget Dave, a couple of months ago there were only one or two manifolds you would even consider selling or running, and yet times change.....

Scorke

 

There have been numerous intake manifolds built over the last 6 years for the EVO. Every single one of them has similarity in the design. Everyone of them has stuck to the theory of having an oversized plenum. I feel at this point I have proven that the plenum size is not determined by the turbo size or the horsepower of the engine, as most things you can find and read will have you believe. The two people I trusted since this intake manifold testing started over a year ago, both told me that the plenum size is determined, mainly, by the cubic inches of the engine. This has held 100% true to every test I have performed and every single test I have seen posted. The intake manifolds that are currently being produced that I have had the chance to test have all worked much better on stroker motors than they do on 2 liters. This proves to me, beyond a doubt that the plenum size is determined mostly by the cubic inches of the engine. I do not feel the turbo size has much if any effect on how the intake manifold performs, I have confirmed this for myself by running stock turbo and large turbos on the same intake manifold and finding the same gains/losses in the same areas of RPM.

Rather than reading books, buying computer simulation software and looking at green/red/yellow swirly pictures, I have found it best to just build it and test it and buy it and test it. I'd say from the looks of Driven Innovations new intake my testing of the small plenums and results got his attention enough to give something new a try. It was a huge success.

I also do not believe that "the needs of a drag car are fastly different than those competing in other arenas". I would say that it is fairly obvious that you have either not been following the constant changes made to my RS or you have been and are not "comprehending" what I am doing. I don't think there is anyone who can argue that my RS is rediculously quick/fast for what it is. I feel this is because I have NOT spent my time trying to build a power band that is all about the peak number. I know I need more top end power, no doubt to run as fast as the car is you cannot do it with a 400 whp peak power made from 3,000 rpm to 8,000 rpm, not going to happen. I have, however, continued to work the low/mid range of the car constantly. I have not been willing to take any low/mid range losses in the car. THAT is why my car ET's/MPH's like it does. Everything I have learned on my RS can be put to direct use on any stock turbo, green/red based turbo and have stellar results. Don't think so? Look at Tom Powell's car and Brian Denman's cars, both have gone 9.5's at 145 mph on the Red, did you happen to see the hp/torque curves on those two cars? Tell me my process doesn't work...........

There are still only two intake manifolds I would recommend or sell. Still the same stock ported intake and still a Driven Innovations. The list hasn't gotten longer or shorter the top intake has just changed, I'm guessing the design will change one more time too.

 

I was going to post a comparison of two builds but to be honest, trying to prove my point without doing a back to back test would make me look like a fool. The comparison I was going to post showed a bad *** Green build that made 300 more ft lbs of torque at 4200 rpm than my car does, that alone makes my point look horrible. At 5500 rpm though the comparison is over and the Green was beat by 300 whp.

The only way to show what I am trying to say is to take two builds run both with small turbos and both with large turbos.

There may eventually be a Red or Green put on my RS, I guess if and when that day comes it would make for some interesting dyno comparisons.

For now, just look at Tom and Brian's EVO's. They have followed what I have recommended (for the most part) and you can see the times/curves the cars made on the Red and what Tom's made on the FS635 and the HTA86. Soon you will see Brians on an HTA86 too.

 

Well for looking at a full power band car, such as someone who daily drives their evo, would a manifold like the driven innovations or the stock ported manifold be better? They both make great gains, but when low boost and low rpms are where the car usually operates what's the better choice?

 

man my eyes hurt from reading lol thats alot of info ... but GOOD info

 

Plenum size should be not only engine displacement, but peak rpm too.
A good plenum balances the air getting pulled out into the cylinder with the air coming in. Too small and the engine doesn't operate as efficiently as it could, and too big you have a lot of dead air space ruining response...

everything is a balance...

 

Is it possible that, the absolute ideal and perfect manifold for an Evo would only require small changes to accomodate different specs? And is it also possible we are still nowhere near to reaching that perfect design? And therefore whatever happens to be the best for Dave's car right now, is also the best for every spec Evo because we are at this stage taking steps progressing toward he perfect manifold. And whatever manifold is closest to that ideal design is going to be the best?

 

Crcrain I'll respond to thatpost in a bit, currently driving back down to school and am browsing on my iPhone, gimme 3 hours or so

Scorke

 

Yes, but the small changes require changing almost every dimension, length/area of runner, size/shape of the plenum, inlet/outlet size will vary upon application, the overall design in terms of overall shape of the runners, inlets(runner inlet and manifold inlet), shape of outlet, will remain the same....

I doubt it, we cannot be massively off if any sort of solid math was done in terms of the the specific VE of the setup(RPM limit,thoeretical airflow limit, actual flow limit, displacement,stroke... lots of math). Now, what each manifold is designed around is going to be different... Magnus's was built on the intention of being able to flow 1000hp and 50 psi of air, that requires totally different sizes and dimensions over a FP green or stock turbo setup... not essentially a different design but it will most likely be scaled much bigger(design difference I would call having raised, staggered velocity stacks like in the AMS Cast Manifold vs the Magnus having 4 holes) size difference in terms of volume of plenum, length of runners, size of runners.

No, what Dave is progressing towards is the best manifold for a 2 liter, 8-9.5k rpm redline built, 700-800whp capable turbo. That is going to be a different animal vs what I would define as "best". I think any product or component set that gives you nothing but benefits over the previous component is the one that is "optimal". I would rather have 20 HP at 4k rpm than 10 hp at 8k rpm, but thats just me, so the amount of power added over stock WITH NO LOSSES WHATSOEVER OVER STOCK, whilst gaining in places that the stock manifold cannot compete would be my first choice for an intake manifold. To do that you need to either completely redesign each one for each application or modify the stock one and accept some compromises at hopefully a lower cost.

Scorke

 

scorke, I am not being a jerk. I would like to ask that since this thread is technically based and I have done my absolute best to keep it full of actual testing and facts, that you start a new thread with your "theories" in it. What you are typing is what you have read from other vendors, what they have said about their product and what they are using to advertise their ideas/products. There is no fact to it, just advertisement and it simply doesn't belong in this thread.

What I am doing is real testing. No computer simulation, no textbooks. From what I am seeing, the math and computer simuations are useless and so is the flow bench.

I complete disagree with your continued statements about one intake not working with other turbos or RPM ranges. I've disproved it on the dyno over and over again. You are simply stating what everyone else has been saying for years and they seem to be wrong, as a matter of fact, I will go ahead and say it, they are wrong.

Building one intake and making a change to it and finding that change to be better and then calling it an ideal product doesn't make it ideal, it just makes it better than the first one.

I'll go as far to say I bet I have tested more intake manifolds on an EVO than anyone else at this point. My ideas, intakes I have bought etc. There is an obvious pattern at this point and it's pointing towards building an intake that isn't like everyone else's.

I've already shown the best intake manifold for 600 whp and then found it to not be as good at 700 whp. So your theory of one intake to work from 700-800 whp is incorrect. Now we have found two intake manifolds that will beat the best intake at 600 and do the same at 700whp. When this is all done I will go back and post dyno sheets to prove it is also superior at 300-500 whp.

The intake is not based on whp or the turbo size, that I am sure of.

 

1.Nothing in the above post is something I have read or been told, but something I have been taught, as much as you might hate it, math, books, science, play a HUGE part in making this stuff work well. Building a car without a ruler would be pretty stupid wouldn't it?

2. I never said that one intake manifold that suits one setup WILL NOT work on another, merely that it wont be optimal. Put the intake manifold that works best on your RS on a stock turbo evo and that is running a wilson, or one of your ported intake manifolds and then say that one intake manifold suits all applications.....By pure math, again I know you don't believe in it, but by pure mathmatics max RPM is one of the 4-5 variables that changes how much air an engine can flow, if you change that the "best" intake manifold changes.

3. The 7-800 whp thing was just some random example, I have no idea what manifold that is currently offered is best for that application...I'm sure some work well and some don't.

4. "Building one intake and making a change to it and finding that change to be better and then calling it an ideal product doesn't make it ideal, it just makes it better than the first one." , um, yeah?

5. I never said that the intake was based on WHP or intake size, merely that Magnus designed theres around those parameters too.

Scorke