Here is a thought though. If the airflow was the same then why would the tune change? The stock ECU depends timing and fuel delivery on airflow. Now I know and trust Sean Caron and Marco without any questions. I am certain they did not change the tune to fake the results.

So timing map the ECU uses depends on airflow and RPMs two items which did not change. The only remaining factor is knock supression. With that said, is it possible a different cylinder fill increased the knock threshold and the ECU gave more timing becuase it now had the ability to. The ECU changed the tune on its own and this is why David Buschur when testing on high boost with good fuel for an all out setup didnt yield the same type of results that Marco's test did. I like to know which parts can make more power under which circumstances more testing is better. I can also see how a smooth walled piece with velocity stacks could give a more consistant air charge inside of the cylinder which is less prone to detonation. Something kind of like what they do with the lean burn cylinder heads. i wouldn't call that a conclusion but its a theory that fits the facts.

If the manifold made 40 more HP with 5% less fuel requirement and allowed the ECU to give more timing thats a nice little piece for a street car where fuel economy and detonation resistance are critical but would neither show up in the test conducted nor be wanted for a car like Badbish (buschur's test car). I'm hoping that in the end all of this testing leads to something good for the community instead of just trying to bash people.

Think about it though, the purpose of timing is to get the pressure wave hitting the piston at the exact moment to extract maximum power from the engine. You loose power when you move either direction from that point. Either pressure wave hits too late or too soon too soon is knock and too late is less power. If you tune a car to MBT with no knock on one gas then you put in higher octane gas and test again you'll loose power until you retune for the new gas because the pressure wave moves slower on higher octane. Pockets in combustion chamber of varying air density will have the same effect.

 

These things are easy compared to running something at Le Mans or Indy that runs flat out for 24 hrs or 500 miles at Indy. All this stuff has been done before years ago ie. turbo mr2 over 200 mph at Bonneville in the 80's, the turbo celicas and GTP cars in the 90's of Dan Gurneys All American Racers 1000 Hp in qualifying trim and running the 24 hrs of Daytona. It's all trickle down technology from racing. Whats the big deal? It is clear that some people like Bushur and some people don't, but you have to respect a guy for what he has done in this industry. I'm just a new guy to the Evo stuff but I'll put my resume against anyone here for engine development and I respect the hell out of him period.

 

Anyone can pull information out of a book. If you only knew how many times theory went to s*** and the guys that thought they engineered correctly because they read it in a text book at school, sat in the dyno room and said that shouldnt have happened when the engine smoked it's self and it's left to the engine builders not engine assemblers that build and dyno these things had to fix them you would really be suprised. Also all the people that are throwing rocks at Buschur havent built 1 % of the stuff he has done. So before you start throwing theory around you better have at least 30 years behind the dyno.

 

Are you directing this at me specifically? I just want to know who you are talking about if I should respond to it.

 

I made that statement in general as to some of the posts made by people who are making claims this is better or that is better and why without the data to back it up just because vendor x say its good. If these people are so talented they need to invest in all the testing equipment necessary and start building parts rather than *****ing about others. If they cant build and test the parts themselves there is no room to *****. Thats all I have to say

 

I have seen data on a Magnus that boost dropped and hp went up from about 5500rpms+. THis would seem to indicate that the engine is breathing better with the Magnus.

I have also seen data from WOT with a Weapon-R manifold (which is similar to the Standard Magnus) where power went up compared to a ported mani/65mm TB. That link is also in the Buschur finger pointing/name calling thread...but it didn't get much attention.

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...=weapon-r+mani


If you want to do the resume dropping thing, then you can pm WOT and Aby can talk to you about all the IRL, CART and ALMS engines he's built and tuned. Me, I'm just a marketing guy/car nut.

 

Appeal to authority logic fallacy aside, you haven't got a clue what the resumes of all these people are do you? Just because they don't go throwing it around doesn't mean they don't have it. The people who usually talk the loudest about their achievements and lean on them to be right tend to have the least amount of data to back them up you can chose to take it on trust, but don't be shocked that not everyone is willing to. There are probably two kinds of people around here, ones who want to go fast and ones who want to learn about cars and go fast. If you think your real world experiences aren't written in a book somewhere you need to go back to the library because lots of folks with lots more experience than you, me or david buschur have written about their experiences and knowledge gained. A good engineer excercises humility, observation and theory much more often than conclusion. For the exact reason of that example you named, I've learned better than to be as conclusive as David was about such a complicated system. If you do not acknowledge the complexity of cylinder fill and intake manifold runner design I'm questioning your level of experience in this area straight away.

Nothing i asserted was claiming to be truth and I never leaned on my experiences (and I do have some) building and racing cars. I don't ask anyone to take my theories on faith alone. I suggest what I suggest and then expect them to do research on their own and decide for themselves what they agree with and do not. Then they can build their own cars accordingly. I can take a wild guess that people are on this board to share knowledge, if you intend to share knowledge argument is almost always going to be a byproduct. Argument can be constructive when done correctly. Some people are just sensitive that the slightest questioning of their results is somehow an insult to them. Critical thinking and questioning is an important part of gaining knowledge. I think to suggest otherwise is cheating the people of this forum out of their opportunity to learn.

 

Well said.

 

How many cylinder heads and intake manifolds have you designed for factory backed professional race teams? You said " Nothing I asserted was claiming to be the truth and I never learned on my experience" that just about says it all about your experience. I intended for people to wake up and listen to those who have actually done something ie Buschur, AMS and others that build and test their own stuff. I was not taking a swipe at you in general, but you must feel a little insecure with your abilities and have alot of extra time on your hands as for me I'm welding in a intake and sending a prototype evo 9 cylinder head to CNC for my own use. Are you doing that? probably not. You may or may not have flow bench in you garage but I sure as hell do so before you start to make personal atacks and talking about cylinder filling and runner design you better have the talent to back it up. Atlvalet I'm one of the guys that may have designed the parts your guys may have tuned. I realize there are alot of talented people here and I have no ax to grind with any of them as you said we are all here to possibly learn thing from other to shorten the learning curve. And by the way How long have you worked in the racing industry? Nuff said

 

You seem like one of those typical car guy blowhards who get their panties in a bunch at the slightest tweak of their ego, no offense. It's what, to me, makes things get old real quick on this and any other forum. I have a really talented writer friend who always mentions which big name director is doing his commercial this month...and who needs that kind of self-aggrandizing crap. So, do us all a favor and don't behave like my friend.

How about this...you're the super-smartestest guy I've ever met on the Internet...now, can you please play nice and contribute data/thoughts/feelings on things without all the chest-thumping? Thanks.

Funny you mention that, as soon I'll be getting vendor status...

 

I am only going to say one thing since more testing is coming from more people. If you aren't testing the original design it has NOTHING to do with the old style intake I tested. Please refrain from comparing any results or comments on other designs to what I tested.

 

I guess you guys are just too smart for me, so just go out a market parts you had nothing to do with. I am proud of you getting vendor status. I wish you much sucess.

 

The I never learned on my own experience was a typo supposed to read "LEANED" on, that should clarify. I knew something wasn't right in that paragraph.

I'm not just some shmoe and I'll go into as little detail as possible here because frankly this is pointless and stupid but you insist. Last season alone, things that I engineered, either single handedly caused or contributed greatly towards victories in the races run I assisted in 3 different teams. My first crew experience was a top ten car for a national racing series we managed 8th and I was one of 3 man total crew.

One of the drivers for a car I worked on 06/07 seasons (that took first in a well respected time attack race in 06, 3rd and 4th in the races it ran this year while having some other major problems) was so impressed that he offered to drive my car for free because if I could do that for them what could I do with the car where everything was done exactly how I wanted it. At this very ****ing moment I am working on a guess what? 4g63 cylinder head and I have built four or five in the course of racing my eclipse (that just missed a 3000CC production land speed record by 0.6mph last season). I could give you some milestones of what I achieved with those heads to try and match with the head you are working on so that we could flex e-muscles and go on and on about who's heads are better. I chanced to walk into one of the best EVO shops in the country because we had rented their AWD dyno to tune my friends car and they offered me a job on the spot, maybe they could clearly tell I had no idea what I was talking about? I also earned a Mechanical Engineering Degree from a top 10 school. I sit down at the dinner table and have discussions about cylinder heads and intake manifolds with exactly those people who you are saying have the real experience and we SHARE ideas and sometimes they teach me because I know theres so much to be learned and sometimes they learn things from me. But none of that has absolutely jack **** to do with the validity of a specific argument. I bet money that if I met you in real life I would have shown you a lot of respect for what you've done and wanted to chat you up and learn from you as well.

Now that we can establish that I have some level of experience in this area (although probably less than yours) I would like to point out that with this experience comes ZERO arrogance that I ****ing know and anyone else doesnt. In the big picture of the motor sports world I am nothing, there are so many with such truly awesome achievements and my own pale in comparison to those of David Buschur (as much as I dislike the guy). However this does NOT negate my argument about cylinder fill. The only thing that would is evidence to the contrary of which you have provided ZERO. So if you have some ****ing data to the contrary please provide it and if you do not then shut the **** up about how you know everything because it doesnt do **** to help us find a solution or progress what people in this community (including me) want to learn.

I offered a potential theory on what might have caused the varying results, one that did not discredit David's testing it gave way to understand why he had those results and who would benefit from them and same to the opposing results. I'm not throwing out there that I know more than he did just that I may have thought of something nobody else did *yet* and I never insisted on it I left it to YOUR OWN JUDGEMENT. So clearly you have no faith in it and I am not offended, why because I don't have an ego attached to my theories. I wouldn't call myself a scientist if I did. My attachment is to the information and knowledge that will make us all faster.

 

Not that it matters with everything else going on in this thread, but I wanted to get the correct info out there. It's hard to see from this angle, but it is one of the older "special race" dual plenum designs that Magnus used to have available. Look for the hemisphere in the background hidden by the throttle body flange. The main design is a main capped tube with a tapered inlet tube along the side. I'm looking for a clearer picture of a similar one on their own 2g race car, just to show the basic design of it, but this is all I can find with a quick search. (note the throttle body flange offset lower than the actual rounded plenum end)

http://www.eagletalon.net/pics//DSM%...s/_MG_7212.jpg

 

"Whats my line" has been cancelled for many years now.


What was the topic of this thread again?