A day that turned into a week, on the flow bench.
so if what dave says is correct, then a plenum size that works best for a 2.0 wont be the best for my 2.3 .... this may be a crazy idea but why dont DI make 2 manifolds. one for the 2.0/2.1 and one for the 2.3/2.4 ....like a 225cu in. for the 2.0 and a 335 for the bigger engines. but that might not be a possability.
this hobby is painful to watch sometimes. there are likely 15 different companies making manifolds for the evo. with this new testing of small plenums it would seem most all those 15 companies are going to change their designs as well. I would say testing is not over. its just beginning.
it has always been my observation that sheet metal manifolds have no business on a street car. every last one I have driven has too much low end torque loss. I always build my DSMs around the cyclone intake. dual runner is the ultimate intake hands down. its like having your cake and eating it too. It gives you more low end, torque, and fast spool than mivec does. If you are truly interested in a steet car powerband a dual runner manifold will have your attention. I am waiting of the day a dual runner sheet metal manifold is developed for the evo. right now I fell sorry for all those that have to have the latest and the greatest. they keep spending money only to find their purchase is outdated in three months.
it has always been my observation that sheet metal manifolds have no business on a street car. every last one I have driven has too much low end torque loss. I always build my DSMs around the cyclone intake. dual runner is the ultimate intake hands down. its like having your cake and eating it too. It gives you more low end, torque, and fast spool than mivec does. If you are truly interested in a steet car powerband a dual runner manifold will have your attention. I am waiting of the day a dual runner sheet metal manifold is developed for the evo. right now I fell sorry for all those that have to have the latest and the greatest. they keep spending money only to find their purchase is outdated in three months.
Correct, the best intake manifold for the 2 liter doesn't appear to be the best intake for the 2.3. I have seen much better gains on strokers with the current intake manifolds on the market than I have seen on the 2 liter. So DI's, AMS's etc intakes with the larger plenums all worked better on strokers when I used them than they did on 2 liters.
94awdcoupe, I agree, it is painful. It's even more painful to be involved in it. Think of just the intake manifold world. Nobody else has taken the time to test all these things against each other and if they did they were as stupid as I am to make it all public. I've taken more heat over intakes than I think I have over everything else combined! haha Without the testing though there are no gains. The latest and greatest only happens through testing.
I wrote up a long post on the BR Forums titled something like "Do you know how much I have spent on my EVO?" I get asked that once in awhile from a customer who is mad about "something". I've spent easily over $100,000 on my own RS, buying parts to test, replacing them with the next best thing. It is a never ending process. I go through the same thing as the customers do, constantly. I also invest the time on the flow bench, tuning, dyno time etc. to get the results and figure out what works. I think the proof to all this hard work and constant refusal to except something as being "the best" is why my car runs as fast as it does.
Too many people sit back on their asses and assume what they have bought or built is the best it can be. I don't believe in that, if I did I feel the 4G63 world as a whole would be seconds slower than it is now.
The dual runner intake, Cyclone, I have never used. It would have to work. As far as building one in a sheetmetal configuration I personally have no interest in doing it. I believe now that we've made some MAJOR gains on improving the low/mid range with HUGE gains in the top end that it is possible to build a sheet metal intake that can "do it all".
Just a year ago the aftermarket intakes being built had losses of atleast 50 whp/50 ft lbs in the low/midrange over stock with gains up top ranging widely too. Now within the last month or so we are within 10 whp/10 ft lbs of torque from the stock intake in the low/midrange. Pretty damn good especially considering the 50 whp gains up top.
There will, hopefully, always be something better coming out, if not then none of us will get faster.
94awdcoupe, I agree, it is painful. It's even more painful to be involved in it. Think of just the intake manifold world. Nobody else has taken the time to test all these things against each other and if they did they were as stupid as I am to make it all public. I've taken more heat over intakes than I think I have over everything else combined! haha Without the testing though there are no gains. The latest and greatest only happens through testing.
I wrote up a long post on the BR Forums titled something like "Do you know how much I have spent on my EVO?" I get asked that once in awhile from a customer who is mad about "something". I've spent easily over $100,000 on my own RS, buying parts to test, replacing them with the next best thing. It is a never ending process. I go through the same thing as the customers do, constantly. I also invest the time on the flow bench, tuning, dyno time etc. to get the results and figure out what works. I think the proof to all this hard work and constant refusal to except something as being "the best" is why my car runs as fast as it does.
Too many people sit back on their asses and assume what they have bought or built is the best it can be. I don't believe in that, if I did I feel the 4G63 world as a whole would be seconds slower than it is now.
The dual runner intake, Cyclone, I have never used. It would have to work. As far as building one in a sheetmetal configuration I personally have no interest in doing it. I believe now that we've made some MAJOR gains on improving the low/mid range with HUGE gains in the top end that it is possible to build a sheet metal intake that can "do it all".
Just a year ago the aftermarket intakes being built had losses of atleast 50 whp/50 ft lbs in the low/midrange over stock with gains up top ranging widely too. Now within the last month or so we are within 10 whp/10 ft lbs of torque from the stock intake in the low/midrange. Pretty damn good especially considering the 50 whp gains up top.
There will, hopefully, always be something better coming out, if not then none of us will get faster.
Evolving Member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
From: In front of a Catia screen
Testing is great...
But there is no such thing as the perfect manifold for all applications. A 350whp road racer will want a different manifold then a 11000rpm, 55psi drag car.
But there is no such thing as the perfect manifold for all applications. A 350whp road racer will want a different manifold then a 11000rpm, 55psi drag car.
Testing is great, I agree 100%.
I do not agree that there is no such thing as a perfect manifold though. I believe based on the 4G63, 2 liter engine, we are very close. Change the engine to a 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and you will need to change the intake again.
I look at it this way. Mitsubishi did a damn good job on the stock intake, as you have found with the Cyclone intake. The stock EVO8 intake works very good in the RPM range it was designed for. Extremely hard to beat it. A year ago we could only find losses of 50 whp/ft lbs in the low/mid range and then hope for gains up top that ranged from 14 whp to about 40 whp. Now we have an intake that looses 10 whp/ft lbs in the low/mid range and can gain 50 whp up top. It will work equally as well at 300 whp as it does at 700 whp, that is pretty ideal.
Build a 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 or 2.4 and you will need to start over. For a 4G63 2 liter though it seems as though we are pretty close to perfect for atleast an awfully wide range of whp and applications.
The 55 psi, 11,000 rpm 4g63 is a pretty uncommon piece. I'd venture to bet though that with a throttle body change this current intake manifold will outperform any other we have tested in that application too.............on a 2 liter.
I do not agree that there is no such thing as a perfect manifold though. I believe based on the 4G63, 2 liter engine, we are very close. Change the engine to a 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and you will need to change the intake again.
I look at it this way. Mitsubishi did a damn good job on the stock intake, as you have found with the Cyclone intake. The stock EVO8 intake works very good in the RPM range it was designed for. Extremely hard to beat it. A year ago we could only find losses of 50 whp/ft lbs in the low/mid range and then hope for gains up top that ranged from 14 whp to about 40 whp. Now we have an intake that looses 10 whp/ft lbs in the low/mid range and can gain 50 whp up top. It will work equally as well at 300 whp as it does at 700 whp, that is pretty ideal.
Build a 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 or 2.4 and you will need to start over. For a 4G63 2 liter though it seems as though we are pretty close to perfect for atleast an awfully wide range of whp and applications.
The 55 psi, 11,000 rpm 4g63 is a pretty uncommon piece. I'd venture to bet though that with a throttle body change this current intake manifold will outperform any other we have tested in that application too.............on a 2 liter.
A lot has gone on during all this testing. My mind is always moving and today I got to thinking about "building a drag car".
In December my car had made the best power it ever did. The car was set up with the Forward Facing header, HTA86, Garret GT turbine housing, BF272 cams and the V2. 677 whp and 543 ft lbs of torque.
With the car set up like that peak torque was at 6500 rpm, peak hp was 677 but power was more or less flat from 6500 up going from 663 whp to 677 at 7800.
I have tested more than a few sets of cams over the last two years in my car. I have gone back to the BF272's each time. Well I had a set of cams for a very long time that I never took the time to test. They were a custom Crane grind. I decided to finally add the cams and see what happened. Dan put them in and the power gains were enough to make me keep the cams in the car, I did lose some power in the low/mid range, more than I wanted to but the gains up top were enough to offset the low end losses.
I then started testing intakes and found that the stock ported intake brought the low/mid range power in much better than the V2. More testing found that a small plenum/longer runner intake was extremely close to the same low/mid range as the stock ported intake with good gains up top when close to 700 whp.
At this time I started wondering why in the hell the dyno never reads to the end of the graph. On 99% of customer cars the RPM matches the dyno perfectly but on my car it never seemed to be dead on. I called Mustang and was told the acceleration rate on my car was faster than the dyno was reading. A few minutes on the phone with them and some changes to the dyno and the dyno graphs finally ended where they were suppose to. Problem is doing this shifted the dyno chart to the right, making the car look quite a bit more laggy than it had before.
For example.
3200 rpm, loss of 9 ft lbs and 6 whp
4200 rpm, loss of 10 ft lbs and 9 whp
4900 rpm, loss of 42 ft lbs and 46 whp (this was the peak loss)
5300 rpm, loss of 32 ft lbs and 44 whp
5500 rpm, loss of 21 ft lbs and 33 whp
6200 rpm, loss of 1 ft lb and 14 whp
the losses at 6200 stayed basically the same through 7800 rpm
This was discouraging because all my hard work just got smacked in the face just from re-calibrating some cycling rates on the dyno.
I had to go back and run a bunch of baselines again to continue the dyno testing. After the re-calibration the intake we built was run again. For reference, our custom intake was run again after the new settings in the dyno and then the Magnus was run on that same day. That was 2-24-09. Any dyno sheets of my car on 2-23-09 or before were on the old dyno settings.
Anyway, back to my point. I then dyno'd the Driven Innovation intake on my car and was able it duplicated the great low end of the custom intake we built but then made some great increases up top too.
Today I got curious and printed off a bunch of comparison sheets from my car. The one I was most interested in was the 12-10-09 run of 677 whp compared to how the car is now. What I did to get an idea on where I stood now, was subracted the losses from the new dyno settings from where the car is now.
On 3-20-09 my car put down 709 whp/545 ft lbs of torque. Correcting these numbers to reflect what it would have made without the dyno changes the car would be at 719 whp and 560 ft lbs.
More importantly, I was concerned with the curve and the losses down low to offset the gains up top. Taking into consideration the changes in the dyno the car is currently up 42 whp and 17 ft lbs. Those gains are from about 6000 rpm and up.
Now for the losses.
3400 rpm, -2 ft lbs/0 whp
4000 rpm, -21 ft lbs/-15 whp
4500 rpm, -24 ft lbs/-21 whp
5300 rpm, -32 ft lbs/-32 whp (this was the peak loss)
6300 rpm, +3 ft lbs/+1 whp
6900 rpm, +28 ft lbs/+34 whp
7400 rpm, +32 ft lbs/+41 whp (this was the peak gain)
7800 rpm, +29 ft lbs/+40 whp
The gains in the upper rpm were greater than the losses in the low/mid range. While I don't like giving up anything in the low/mid range, the cam change will certainly make the car quicker/faster that it was.
I am hoping to gain some of that low/mid range back by changing the intake manifold again. It's going to be tough to improve on the Driven Innovation intake that is on the car now but I have one design left to try.
Before anyone asks, Crane Cams went out of business last month. As much as I'd absolutely LOVE to get my hands on about 100 sets of these cams, they are not available. The grind was custom so there are none just laying around.
I guess, right now, I did go the drag car route because I did let the car take a hit in the low/mid range.
Enjoy the information. I think I needed to write it so I could comprehend it myself!
In December my car had made the best power it ever did. The car was set up with the Forward Facing header, HTA86, Garret GT turbine housing, BF272 cams and the V2. 677 whp and 543 ft lbs of torque.
With the car set up like that peak torque was at 6500 rpm, peak hp was 677 but power was more or less flat from 6500 up going from 663 whp to 677 at 7800.
I have tested more than a few sets of cams over the last two years in my car. I have gone back to the BF272's each time. Well I had a set of cams for a very long time that I never took the time to test. They were a custom Crane grind. I decided to finally add the cams and see what happened. Dan put them in and the power gains were enough to make me keep the cams in the car, I did lose some power in the low/mid range, more than I wanted to but the gains up top were enough to offset the low end losses.
I then started testing intakes and found that the stock ported intake brought the low/mid range power in much better than the V2. More testing found that a small plenum/longer runner intake was extremely close to the same low/mid range as the stock ported intake with good gains up top when close to 700 whp.
At this time I started wondering why in the hell the dyno never reads to the end of the graph. On 99% of customer cars the RPM matches the dyno perfectly but on my car it never seemed to be dead on. I called Mustang and was told the acceleration rate on my car was faster than the dyno was reading. A few minutes on the phone with them and some changes to the dyno and the dyno graphs finally ended where they were suppose to. Problem is doing this shifted the dyno chart to the right, making the car look quite a bit more laggy than it had before.
For example.
3200 rpm, loss of 9 ft lbs and 6 whp
4200 rpm, loss of 10 ft lbs and 9 whp
4900 rpm, loss of 42 ft lbs and 46 whp (this was the peak loss)
5300 rpm, loss of 32 ft lbs and 44 whp
5500 rpm, loss of 21 ft lbs and 33 whp
6200 rpm, loss of 1 ft lb and 14 whp
the losses at 6200 stayed basically the same through 7800 rpm
This was discouraging because all my hard work just got smacked in the face just from re-calibrating some cycling rates on the dyno.
I had to go back and run a bunch of baselines again to continue the dyno testing. After the re-calibration the intake we built was run again. For reference, our custom intake was run again after the new settings in the dyno and then the Magnus was run on that same day. That was 2-24-09. Any dyno sheets of my car on 2-23-09 or before were on the old dyno settings.
Anyway, back to my point. I then dyno'd the Driven Innovation intake on my car and was able it duplicated the great low end of the custom intake we built but then made some great increases up top too.
Today I got curious and printed off a bunch of comparison sheets from my car. The one I was most interested in was the 12-10-09 run of 677 whp compared to how the car is now. What I did to get an idea on where I stood now, was subracted the losses from the new dyno settings from where the car is now.
On 3-20-09 my car put down 709 whp/545 ft lbs of torque. Correcting these numbers to reflect what it would have made without the dyno changes the car would be at 719 whp and 560 ft lbs.
More importantly, I was concerned with the curve and the losses down low to offset the gains up top. Taking into consideration the changes in the dyno the car is currently up 42 whp and 17 ft lbs. Those gains are from about 6000 rpm and up.
Now for the losses.
3400 rpm, -2 ft lbs/0 whp
4000 rpm, -21 ft lbs/-15 whp
4500 rpm, -24 ft lbs/-21 whp
5300 rpm, -32 ft lbs/-32 whp (this was the peak loss)
6300 rpm, +3 ft lbs/+1 whp
6900 rpm, +28 ft lbs/+34 whp
7400 rpm, +32 ft lbs/+41 whp (this was the peak gain)
7800 rpm, +29 ft lbs/+40 whp
The gains in the upper rpm were greater than the losses in the low/mid range. While I don't like giving up anything in the low/mid range, the cam change will certainly make the car quicker/faster that it was.
I am hoping to gain some of that low/mid range back by changing the intake manifold again. It's going to be tough to improve on the Driven Innovation intake that is on the car now but I have one design left to try.
Before anyone asks, Crane Cams went out of business last month. As much as I'd absolutely LOVE to get my hands on about 100 sets of these cams, they are not available. The grind was custom so there are none just laying around.
I guess, right now, I did go the drag car route because I did let the car take a hit in the low/mid range.
Enjoy the information. I think I needed to write it so I could comprehend it myself!
. Excellent read, my kind of data 
David,
I'm really confused right now.... You have constantly pushed time and time again, how important it is to put a part on your car that does not give up much low end and mid range power compared to stock... I know that the BF272s already give up a great deal of power on the low end, but not as much as other cams like Tomei Pro 280s and these custom Crane Cams you currently have.. It seems like you are going for an "All Out" Drag car now, eh? Then my question would be, why wouldn't you put on the Intake Manifold that makes the absolute most top end power? Is it because they sacrifice WAY too much on the low end? It kind of contradicts itself though... considering how much you lost down low with these new custom grind cams.. Do you still feel that the BF272s are the ideal setup for most all applications, including motors other than 2.0's (If you have an EVO 8 of course, since they are only made for this application).. I am the person that knows the specs of the BF272s based off of taking my own BF272s and having them put on a Cam Doctor.. They still confuse me to this day on why they make so much power and now that I'm seeing a new cam in your car... It confuses me even more.. How long have these cams been out? When you tested them, what was the application (what turbo, motor, intake mani, head, etc) and what cams did you put them up against? I am just really confused now... I thought they were the best and figured you would always keep them in your car because of how "great" they are.
And sorry for going off topic... After you enlighten me about this confusion, back on topic it is!
I'm really confused right now.... You have constantly pushed time and time again, how important it is to put a part on your car that does not give up much low end and mid range power compared to stock... I know that the BF272s already give up a great deal of power on the low end, but not as much as other cams like Tomei Pro 280s and these custom Crane Cams you currently have.. It seems like you are going for an "All Out" Drag car now, eh? Then my question would be, why wouldn't you put on the Intake Manifold that makes the absolute most top end power? Is it because they sacrifice WAY too much on the low end? It kind of contradicts itself though... considering how much you lost down low with these new custom grind cams.. Do you still feel that the BF272s are the ideal setup for most all applications, including motors other than 2.0's (If you have an EVO 8 of course, since they are only made for this application).. I am the person that knows the specs of the BF272s based off of taking my own BF272s and having them put on a Cam Doctor.. They still confuse me to this day on why they make so much power and now that I'm seeing a new cam in your car... It confuses me even more.. How long have these cams been out? When you tested them, what was the application (what turbo, motor, intake mani, head, etc) and what cams did you put them up against? I am just really confused now... I thought they were the best and figured you would always keep them in your car because of how "great" they are.
And sorry for going off topic... After you enlighten me about this confusion, back on topic it is!
I'm not sure why you are so confused. I thought I explained it pretty well.
The BF272's don't actually give up much low end compared to many of the smaller cams out there, such as HKS272, 280's and some others. When you run the BF272 against one of those cams the losses in the low/mid range are actually small and the gains up top are huge, as much as 60 whp. I just pulled a bunch of dyno sheets out of my folder to give a few examples. Unfortunately I am NOT listing the names of all the cams I have tested. I'm way beyond needing more pissing matches with other manufacturers. Let me just say there have been a substantial number of cam changes done here right on the dyno.
I have a chart in front of me with three sets of cams that all are within 3 whp of each other from 6500 up. The losses in the low/mid range however on one of them are 50-60 whp. Obviously, comparing those three, the one with the huge loss wouldn't be useful.
On the next sheet I have there are 3 more cams tested. HUGE differences in the curve. Peak power ranged only 4 whp at 8,000 rpm. Low/mid range losses as high as 170 whp lost at 5,000 rpm. That set up didn't make the same power as the other two sets of cams until 8,000 rpm. The other set up lost over 100 whp at 4800 rpm, not using that one either.
There are obviously trade offs to be made, making them intelligently is the key. Giving up power everywhere and in some areas 100+ whp losses to gain 4 whp at 8,000 rpm is rediculous, that is a poor choice.
In the case of these cams the gains on the top end, the day of the testing, were about 40 whp with losses all less than the peak gains were and all under 6,000 rpm. While I hate to lose any low end/mid range at all, at some point it is needed to go quicker/faster.
If I didn't want any low/mid range losses at all, I'd obviously be running a much smaller turbo.
As far as the intake manifold goes, I AM running the best intake on the car right now, it has the best low/mid range of any intake but the stock ported intake and has the highest top end gains of any intake I have had on my car. The intake is as ideal as I have found one to be.
Yes, I feel the BF272 cams are the best cam for nearly every 2 liter/2.3 liter application. These custom ground cams I have, I have had in my possesion for at least a year. For whatever reason, I just never got around to putting them in the car. I tested many others and just kind of gave up on finding a better cam than the BF272. I guess I finally got tired enough of seeing them sit on my desk to actually run them in the car. Now I wish I had tested them sooner so I could have had more of them ground before Crane closed. The set up on the car when I tested the car is exactly how the car sits now and how I have been talking about it. The cams were just put in about a month ago. Dates are posted above.
The BF272's don't actually give up much low end compared to many of the smaller cams out there, such as HKS272, 280's and some others. When you run the BF272 against one of those cams the losses in the low/mid range are actually small and the gains up top are huge, as much as 60 whp. I just pulled a bunch of dyno sheets out of my folder to give a few examples. Unfortunately I am NOT listing the names of all the cams I have tested. I'm way beyond needing more pissing matches with other manufacturers. Let me just say there have been a substantial number of cam changes done here right on the dyno.
I have a chart in front of me with three sets of cams that all are within 3 whp of each other from 6500 up. The losses in the low/mid range however on one of them are 50-60 whp. Obviously, comparing those three, the one with the huge loss wouldn't be useful.
On the next sheet I have there are 3 more cams tested. HUGE differences in the curve. Peak power ranged only 4 whp at 8,000 rpm. Low/mid range losses as high as 170 whp lost at 5,000 rpm. That set up didn't make the same power as the other two sets of cams until 8,000 rpm. The other set up lost over 100 whp at 4800 rpm, not using that one either.
There are obviously trade offs to be made, making them intelligently is the key. Giving up power everywhere and in some areas 100+ whp losses to gain 4 whp at 8,000 rpm is rediculous, that is a poor choice.
In the case of these cams the gains on the top end, the day of the testing, were about 40 whp with losses all less than the peak gains were and all under 6,000 rpm. While I hate to lose any low end/mid range at all, at some point it is needed to go quicker/faster.
If I didn't want any low/mid range losses at all, I'd obviously be running a much smaller turbo.
As far as the intake manifold goes, I AM running the best intake on the car right now, it has the best low/mid range of any intake but the stock ported intake and has the highest top end gains of any intake I have had on my car. The intake is as ideal as I have found one to be.
Yes, I feel the BF272 cams are the best cam for nearly every 2 liter/2.3 liter application. These custom ground cams I have, I have had in my possesion for at least a year. For whatever reason, I just never got around to putting them in the car. I tested many others and just kind of gave up on finding a better cam than the BF272. I guess I finally got tired enough of seeing them sit on my desk to actually run them in the car. Now I wish I had tested them sooner so I could have had more of them ground before Crane closed. The set up on the car when I tested the car is exactly how the car sits now and how I have been talking about it. The cams were just put in about a month ago. Dates are posted above.
Thank You So much for explaining ! It sure sounds like since you cannot offer these Crane Cams that you will continue to use the BF272s on any Evo 8 Build . I am very happy with all of the testing you have done!! I wish people realized how much time, money, and effort you put into the unbiased tests! Can't wait to order the rest of my parts for my build with you guys! Buschur FTW!!
(gonna need that undertray soon)
This thread has gotten pushed back quite a bit.
I had an idea for our last attempt at an intake manifold. It took quite awhile to get things machined, formed etc. Then it was all welded together and it sat on my desk for well over a month.
Spring is here, I took the RS out Sunday, cleaned it and took it home to my garage. On the way home I got on the car before I got to my driveway and when I hit the brakes I learned it had no power brakes and I passed my driveway. The idle also sucked and I was pretty disgusted with the car.
Yesterday I decided that it was time to make the last intake manifold swap on the car and try out the intake we built. This morning we loaded the car on the dyno and made two baseline runs, 694 was the best. The power is flat all the way past 9,000 rpm.
Without taking the car off the dyno we pulled the new DI intake off the car and installed the new BR intake on it. I again made two pulls. The best of which was 699. The curves are identical in shape and the small difference in power isn't worth discussing.
I believe that we have a good grasp on runner length and plenum size at this point and I feel it would be extremely difficult to improve on the new DI intake I had on the car or the new one we built.
I didn't take pictures of ours before installing it, never crossed my mind. I don't know if we will ever produce another one. I may even opt to re-install the DI intake so I can run what we are going to actually be selling/recommending.
A word of warning. I used the Vibrant vacuum block on the car when I put the DI intake on to make installing it easier and swapping intakes faster. IF any of you choose to do this MAKE sure you use a VERY LARGE nipple on the intake, with a VERY LARGE hose running to the vacuum block and another VERY LARGE nippple on the vacuum block. I used about a 1/4" nipple and hose and it was not nearly large enough for all the components running off the block and I had NO power brakes because of it. Just keep it in mind. I'd say a 1/2" single hose would be ideal and no less than 3/8". It may just be the best idea to give each component it's own boost/vacuum source on the intake like the factory does.
This is going to conclude the intake manifold testing. I do not see myself ever visiting this subject/testing again.
Thanks for the interest.
I had an idea for our last attempt at an intake manifold. It took quite awhile to get things machined, formed etc. Then it was all welded together and it sat on my desk for well over a month.
Spring is here, I took the RS out Sunday, cleaned it and took it home to my garage. On the way home I got on the car before I got to my driveway and when I hit the brakes I learned it had no power brakes and I passed my driveway. The idle also sucked and I was pretty disgusted with the car.
Yesterday I decided that it was time to make the last intake manifold swap on the car and try out the intake we built. This morning we loaded the car on the dyno and made two baseline runs, 694 was the best. The power is flat all the way past 9,000 rpm.
Without taking the car off the dyno we pulled the new DI intake off the car and installed the new BR intake on it. I again made two pulls. The best of which was 699. The curves are identical in shape and the small difference in power isn't worth discussing.
I believe that we have a good grasp on runner length and plenum size at this point and I feel it would be extremely difficult to improve on the new DI intake I had on the car or the new one we built.
I didn't take pictures of ours before installing it, never crossed my mind. I don't know if we will ever produce another one. I may even opt to re-install the DI intake so I can run what we are going to actually be selling/recommending.
A word of warning. I used the Vibrant vacuum block on the car when I put the DI intake on to make installing it easier and swapping intakes faster. IF any of you choose to do this MAKE sure you use a VERY LARGE nipple on the intake, with a VERY LARGE hose running to the vacuum block and another VERY LARGE nippple on the vacuum block. I used about a 1/4" nipple and hose and it was not nearly large enough for all the components running off the block and I had NO power brakes because of it. Just keep it in mind. I'd say a 1/2" single hose would be ideal and no less than 3/8". It may just be the best idea to give each component it's own boost/vacuum source on the intake like the factory does.
This is going to conclude the intake manifold testing. I do not see myself ever visiting this subject/testing again.
Thanks for the interest.