Gixxer Drew, I have a question without ego or what has been said in the past posts. Looking at the from the outside all things being equal, not looking at this as a Mangus or other manifold thing. With the cylinder head and camshafts being a constant for the test. A manifold consists of a plenum and runners with a TB on the end of it with the inlet size to the cylinder head fixed to a constant area and the turbo pressure and TB being equal for both tests is this correct? One would think the only changes possible are the plenum volume, runner taper, and radius for the runners from the plenum. This might be true, but at equal boost levels across the testing range in a controled enviroment ie. engine dyno with controled cooling. Can you explain why the logs ie. fuel curve,timing, and water temp shows a change? Other than VE and fill changes at WOT the major restriction is the intake valve would you agree? but with constant pressure on the backside of the valve before the valve opens and given the amount of max airflow the cylinder head can move as constant, the manifold turns into a storage container. All things being equal here the runner inlet may be the key but, here is another question to ponder while the car ran for 3 hours cooled for a couple what do you think about heat soak being a factor in the first runs as the casting will not transfer heat out as quickly as a sheetmetal part, also the injectors as they are an electronic part will heat soak quickly without fuel running thru them, as you know that heat will affectly will change snap rate ie. opening and closing rate which I have seen in the past. What about the transfer of under car heat to the fuel lines from the point nearest to any heat source back to the tank with the initial runs could that possibly have skewed results untill the fuel temp has reached a constant? With the manifold change over how much time elapsed? Could this also contribute to a lower fuel and coolant temp? Also could the initial runs data be a result from heat soak since as it was stated the hood was not lifted until it was run on the dyno? Just a few qustions to ponder while trying to make sense of why did results vs the trims not jive. No finger pointing just a discussion.

 

thank you Indy, about time someone pointed out the importance of a controlled enviroment for testing products and how thorough you should be in that control. Our race motor gets dynoed in a test cell before it ever gets installed into the car then it gets what ever minor tuning changes that are needed at the trac, and to be honest with everyone we have to make tune changes at every track due to weather conditions, altitude, track conditions. People sometimes don't realise the changes you need to make to stay on top and stay consistant at the track. I am sure AMS and David are both sitting in the car between every round making changes to the tune in the car just because of changing conditions, A controled Dyno Cell keeps all those conditions under control unlike a chassis dyno that is open to the environment, the other thing I find when people chassis dyno the car they shut it down thinking they are cooling the engine but in change are only cooling things like the intercooler and radiator while heat soaking everything else. When a street car gets tuned it should stay hot at driving temps to keep it as consistant as possable.

 

Now this is some great technical discussion. These are the kinds of posts that truly help the community understand and debate modifications, parts, and keep vendors provided the best parts possible.

One question though: Where was this level of technical discussion when Dave ran his test and proudly proclaimed that the Mangus manifold is junk? If I remember correctly, because it was Dave, it was accepted pretty much as fact with little to know technical discussion and those trying to have that discussion were either banned or had posts deleted or modified.

Don't get me wrong. I completely respect Dave for everything he has done both for the DSM community and Evo communities. Without Dave, the DSM crowd would not be as fast as it is as a whole segment. Without Dave, a lot of the advancements and understanding of what a 4G63 could do in a "DSM" form would have been possible. Without Dave, there wouldn't a DSM shootout and there wouldn't be such a close DSM community.

However, just because someone is an icon in a community of enthusiasts, does not mean that any results or sweeping comments should be taken at face value without some debate of the technical merits of the argument. Just as is happening here regarding Marco's test.

To test a part in such a complex system, there are really only 2 ways to test it: in a controlled engine room setting where every fluid/part variable ( essentially the variables Indy Evo mentioned above ) could be controlled. The other is real world wheel dyno testing which requires considerable more testing samples to minimize the impact any single uncontrolled variable ( heat soak, fuel temps, etc. ) has on the overall result set. Ultimately, the data needs to be shared completely to get all the testing samples together to see the trends/commonalities.

What's more realistic in this realm? Probably exactly what we are seeing here. And for that reason, observable results that are repeatable in a variety of real world tested scenarios. The overwhelming data suggests that the manifold makes more power by the various tests done by various people. Can the exact amount be quantified as Indy Evo's work has done ( referencing his 27 hp gains in the nascar world )? Nope. But what specifically hte tests on my car tell me especially when added with the body of evidence and excluded the fence post results is that it will make more power.

 

I will disclose any data that I can. Our TA car runs the bastard child of AEM on it. Cant really afford MoTec. lol
We were to convert to Autronic this year, until there was a bit of a shake up. Well see.
Anyway, what do you have in mind?

 

03, would you please provide a link to the thread with the data logs and the info Marco posted? I would like to review them if possible. Thanks

 

Fuel Injection Angle and position in relation to the head port.


Again just for discussion purposes, you may have answered it below. Dyno operation /operator is critical to consistent and accurate results. Was the log showing calculated load? Do we have a copy of the original rom? (if the stock ecu is used) How do we know what load site the computer used in order to lead the engine? Water temp in the housing may not be as accurate as we may want it to be.

Alot of these points literally can go both ways, and may not give an advantage to either component in my opinion.

Many, many of us do NOT use that type of controlled environment to tune our cars. We seem to do just fine using the tools that we have. IMHO I do not believe in that type of static testing. Maybe I am just comfortable with what I am used to but it works. I even have our MD dyno setup in a way that it gets air circulating around and under the vehicle at all times. Not these tiny little hairdryers I've seen some places use. I like to mimic real world driving conditions, but I know thee are limitations. Which I will address in your next comment.




I disagree. Even though many many people have their ways of conducting their procedures...this is something I keep as a constant. Depending on HOW you are circulating airflow to mimic real world loading conditions, this should not be an UNCONTROLLABLE problem. What I mean is you should have control over what range the car is being tuned to at all times. I prefer to test the vehicle under the worst possible condition. It allows us to see many extremes. Whether its allowing a specific amount of time to cool between runs, or constant loading and hard pulls back to back, we log our results and tune the vehicle in a manner that will be as consistent as possible, while maintaining power and reliability.
Everybody has their own way.

 

Another thought could it be injector angle? I have not seen both manifolds side by side, but I know for a fact that this change can make HP. The manifolds are limited in design by the area it has to fit into also, the location of the TB is dictated by the same area or package, therefore most manifolds are very close in design. The bellmouth at the runner looks to be a Kinsler part grafted into the plenum this in it's self helps at the transition from N/A to the pont when the PSI starts building great for street driving after that point PSI is PSI only so much air can pass through a given orifice. So this in turn points to a volume issue, can the volume effect the response? yes it can and yes it does. Just as it has been stated we can't go with Buschur's results because you dont agree with his testing methods this would have to be the same for Marco. I have never personaly met Dave (spoke with him on the phone everybody knows how busy he is with the X stuff) or Marco or seen their testing facilities, but discounting one for another just because you happen to be a customer of one or the other would be not giving this evaluation a fair shake. One thing that I have seen with chassis dynos, they have good setups to cool the rad and the intercooler but nothing under the car, and engine compartment to keep the air being sucked in at a constant air temp or clean from exhaust contamination. This alone can skew the readings. It would be a positive to use a remote air source on the chassis dyno like the engine dynos use the reason being air in the dyno cell air becomes contaminated even with extractors on the exhaust and in the room. This in turn it very possible even with a open door and the fans on the engine to still contaminate the area with unburnt fuel and exhaust. Just a few more things to think about.

 

DTM sound like you have it handled in the air removal dept. I was writing and did not see your post. We tuned our engines in the cell and trimmed them on track only a few percent either way rich or lean. The majority of my experience was in the cell although I was also the trackside tuner. Your way might work for you and I respect that. Run those tests the more results we see the better informed we become. I am looking forward to your test results. Good luck

 

Who said anything about being a customer of one or another? I have been a customer of both. And I am talking about standard testing principles in non ideal testing environments.

Given a subset of data X, if 9 of the 10 results are on one side of the results (X+)graph and there is only 1 that is a variant on the other side (X-), if you discount the upper and lower boundaries as variants, then the mass of the results set is still on the X+ side of the results set.

Based on the number of results from independent sources, and my own experience, I can only draw conclusions for myself and present them for others to evaluate. I wish Dave had given the rest of us the same opportunity to scrutinize his data to evaluate the merits and determine for ourselves if it was just an anomoly or not, regardless if it was the "old" design or not.

DTM, good luck on your testing. Based on what I have read here, you seem to have a good head on your shoulders and a firm grasp on objective testing techniques. Will be interesting to see what you come up with.

 

Nick blah blah blah blah blah hurry blaH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH up blah blah blah blah with blah blah blah blah blah the blah blah blah blah blah test blah blah blah blah so blah blah blah blah blah we blah blah blah blah dont blah blah blah blah blah have blah blah blah blah to blah blah blah blah blah listen blah blah blah blah to blah blah blah blah this blah blah blah airbag blah blah blah blah anymore blah blah blah blah.

 

Tervenor this was not directed to you it was a general statment. 04wwrs do you have anything constructive to say? like you said I hope Nick gets this test done I look forward to it and wish him luck I'l take the results any way is comes out.

 

My apologies then in assuming so.

 

Indy, I truely appreciate this post: it's constructive, objective, and raises many good points. These are the types of posts that we, as a community, want to see and the ones that we can actually learn from.
I can assure you guys, that Nick will conduct these tests in the most unbiased and fair way as possible. I can tell by the way you and many others speak on this forum, that you guys do in fact have some knowledge and experience in this field. I can also tell you that Nick really does know his sh*t when it comes to cars in general, but even more specifically in our cases here, when it comes to the Evo. Since the intake manifolds have become such a recent issue here, I am excited to see Nick even become interested in testing the Magnus manifold because he was always one to tell me not to waste my money on an intake manifold. I still believe that he is completely correct with this statement as the stock manifold has proved itself time and time again to achieve consistent and great power all the way up to around 500whp. I have taken note of some manifolds, in particular, that have still sparked my interest because I am close to the power level where an aftermarket manifold would benefit my particular setup and I am one to always look for anything then will help to make my car produce more power. To find the one that will NOT lose any low end power and will increase top end power is the EXACTLY the one that I am looking for, and I believe it is pretty safe to say that I am speaking for the majority of the community in this case.
Dave's manifold testing was awesome and I appreciated it greatly. It is great to know that we will have more testing on certain intake manifolds by others as well, from some more "mild" setups (DTM), "intermediate" setups (Buschur), to the most extreme (Paul and ETS). These ratings are based are cars producing at least 450whp so don't think that I am referring to Dave's 9 second Evo as being anything but intermediate, haha.
Anyways, looking forward to this test and would love to invite any of you, Indy/Gixxer, to give Nick a call if you really want to talk technically about this test. Just be sure to share your conversations with us.

 

http://www.teamnabr.com/vbb/showthread.php?t=27030

I suggest everybody that is truly interested in fair comparisions to take a look at the data and evaluate it for themselves. I would fully welcome somebody challenge what I have seen in the logs and we continue with useful debate on the subject. I would post up the charts I have made to show what I am talking about, but it may sway what others see to the point of negating a fair debate. That and I no longer have a place to host pictures anyway...


I couldn't agree more. I disagree with a lot of Buschur's tests because he refuses to provide complete information when he does his testing. As I said, I have to respect Marco for providing complete information on THIS test.

But, I can say for fact that Marco has pulled the same **** many times in the past. I have gotten in several different arguments with Marco over the years on NABR when I asked for more data when he made claims about how superior his products are. All I got in return from him was "I am god, trust what I say" type of responses and all of his little nut swinging asshats on there would attack me for questioning his tests.

All these vendors either need to stop trying to manipulate the community and post REAL tests with complete data. Or they need to stop the public testing that is just creating misinformation and stupid arguments and leave the testing up to those willing to go to the full extent of providing all the information need to make a fair comparison.

 

Paul has stated that he will submit all the data he has when he tests all these intakes on his race car granted the results are not for the average stock or just over stock cars, but he has even agreed to submit the actual tune files and log files for each intake to us to show what was different between each intake and what in the tune needed changing for each intake to produce peak tq and hp for each. https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=310479 it will probably take days to get all the testing done when he starts.