AMS F1 vs Magnus V5
He seems to be someone most vendors/shops trust without everything devolving into a pissing match...or at least limiting the politics/angry phone calls/threats that happen behind the scenes, which most people don't know about.
let's not change the shop doing the testing, Sean already did one test, if he is willing to do more on the same car than that is just great. I cannot wait for another shop to do this test, and wait for another year before results will be posted. The ball is already rolling lets finish this testing.
I must admit intake manifold testing has to be the MOST DRAMATIC topic in the Evo Community.. I have never seen 1 part on a car get so much interest in my life.. I have some news for some of you as well.. What an intake manifold does on the dyno does not always react the same on the Track.. This especially applies to cars that shift gears.. Certain things such as transient response come into play.. Another HUGE FACTOR that comes into play is combination..
Cams, Turbo Size, RPM, Headwork, ETC all play a role on which manifold is best for your car.. Because the AMS or Driven Or Buschur for example make HP on 1 combination or run quick on 1 combination does not mean that it will work to the same effect on your combination.. There is NO BEST MANIFOLD IMO..
The real testing is tuning each manifold to the max and running it at the track to see which is quicker and which is faster.. I have had some of each.. 1 that cost me 1/8th mile but picked up MPH..
Here is a little bit of a fun Fact.. I ran 9.1 with just a Buschur Ported on My RS for 150.00. Does it mean that another manifold such as the Driven Innovations wouldnt have run quicker or faster, NO it doesnt.. It just shows it worked for my car to that level..
Cams, Turbo Size, RPM, Headwork, ETC all play a role on which manifold is best for your car.. Because the AMS or Driven Or Buschur for example make HP on 1 combination or run quick on 1 combination does not mean that it will work to the same effect on your combination.. There is NO BEST MANIFOLD IMO..
The real testing is tuning each manifold to the max and running it at the track to see which is quicker and which is faster.. I have had some of each.. 1 that cost me 1/8th mile but picked up MPH..
Here is a little bit of a fun Fact.. I ran 9.1 with just a Buschur Ported on My RS for 150.00. Does it mean that another manifold such as the Driven Innovations wouldnt have run quicker or faster, NO it doesnt.. It just shows it worked for my car to that level..
I must admit intake manifold testing has to be the MOST DRAMATIC topic in the Evo Community.. I have never seen 1 part on a car get so much interest in my life.. I have some news for some of you as well.. What an intake manifold does on the dyno does not always react the same on the Track.. This especially applies to cars that shift gears.. Certain things such as transient response come into play.. Another HUGE FACTOR that comes into play is combination..
Cams, Turbo Size, RPM, Headwork, ETC all play a role on which manifold is best for your car.. Because the AMS or Driven Or Buschur for example make HP on 1 combination or run quick on 1 combination does not mean that it will work to the same effect on your combination.. There is NO BEST MANIFOLD IMO..
The real testing is tuning each manifold to the max and running it at the track to see which is quicker and which is faster.. I have had some of each.. 1 that cost me 1/8th mile but picked up MPH..
Cams, Turbo Size, RPM, Headwork, ETC all play a role on which manifold is best for your car.. Because the AMS or Driven Or Buschur for example make HP on 1 combination or run quick on 1 combination does not mean that it will work to the same effect on your combination.. There is NO BEST MANIFOLD IMO..
The real testing is tuning each manifold to the max and running it at the track to see which is quicker and which is faster.. I have had some of each.. 1 that cost me 1/8th mile but picked up MPH..
Originally Posted by scorke
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.
Scorke
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.
Scorke
Scorke
[QUOTE=AutoMotoSports;7825786]Can you tell me who performed this test on the stock manifold and how was this test conducted? Where the runners tested one at a time? All four runners at once? In what manner was the CFM measured..on an engine dyno or on a flow bench?
The only reason I wanted the flow to be equal was to attempt to create as much of an even load on each piston/rod. Who knows whether or not this is very crucial, but it was one of my goals.
The info was copied from post 13 from this thread called:
"MAP intake manifolds and Mil.Spec throttle body reviews"
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/se...y-reviews.html
"Here is the flowbench data for the stock and MAP v3 manifolds. The stock manifold is from a VIII RS. The v3 was that same stock manifold after modification/porting/machining.
Stock:
runner #1: 267.8 CFM, -9.22% imbalance
runner #2: 272.0 CFM, -7.80% imbalance
runner #3: 286.0 CFM, -3.05% imbalance
runner #4: 295.0 CFM, -0.00% imbalance
v3:
runner #1: 278.8 CFM, 4.11% flow increase, -7.04% imbalance, 31.05% balance increase
runner #2: 278.8 CFM, 2.50% flow increase, -7.04% imbalance, 10.82% balance increase
runner #3: 290.8 CFM, 1.68% flow increase, -3.03% imbalance, 00.54% balance increase
runner #4: 299.9 CFM, 1.66% flow increase, -0.00% imbalance, 00.00% balance increase"
The only reason I wanted the flow to be equal was to attempt to create as much of an even load on each piston/rod. Who knows whether or not this is very crucial, but it was one of my goals.
The info was copied from post 13 from this thread called:
"MAP intake manifolds and Mil.Spec throttle body reviews"
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/se...y-reviews.html
"Here is the flowbench data for the stock and MAP v3 manifolds. The stock manifold is from a VIII RS. The v3 was that same stock manifold after modification/porting/machining.
Stock:
runner #1: 267.8 CFM, -9.22% imbalance
runner #2: 272.0 CFM, -7.80% imbalance
runner #3: 286.0 CFM, -3.05% imbalance
runner #4: 295.0 CFM, -0.00% imbalance
v3:
runner #1: 278.8 CFM, 4.11% flow increase, -7.04% imbalance, 31.05% balance increase
runner #2: 278.8 CFM, 2.50% flow increase, -7.04% imbalance, 10.82% balance increase
runner #3: 290.8 CFM, 1.68% flow increase, -3.03% imbalance, 00.54% balance increase
runner #4: 299.9 CFM, 1.66% flow increase, -0.00% imbalance, 00.00% balance increase"
Uh oh I had a feeling we would somehow make our way into this thread lol. Eric, please feel free to bounce any questions off me about our stock intake manifold testing, it was performed on a Superflow bench...
Former Sponsor
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
From: Mount Prospect, IL
[QUOTE=miragevo;7826900]
What you are measuring though is completely different than what's going on with a running engine. You have to understand that blowing, or sucking, air through a manifold alone on a flowbench has almost no relevance to what's really going on in an intake manifold in running conditions.
Didn't someone run a CFM test on exhaust manifold before? A stock one to a ported one and a tubular one? I bet on a flowbench the big runner header would flow more CFM, but in real life? We all know that tubular headers don't do much if anything at all on a dyno when compared on stock style turbo's.
Was there a dyno test done before and after 'balancing' a stock intake manifold to show any changes? If doing a true scientific test you first have to replicate airflow through an intake manifold through a running engine, then you have to find a way to quantify airflow through each runner. You also have to correlate test data to dyno data to see if and what is the relevance to each other.
This discussion can really go on forever and then we can speculate on wave propagation and the way the pulses bounce in the plenum. Point is, this manifold works, we've tested it, Sean has tested it, and we've seen what it does on customers cars before and after. There are other good manifolds out there too, just see what works well and pick one you like!
-Happy Holiday and Merry Christmas!
-Martin
Can you tell me who performed this test on the stock manifold and how was this test conducted? Where the runners tested one at a time? All four runners at once? In what manner was the CFM measured..on an engine dyno or on a flow bench?
The only reason I wanted the flow to be equal was to attempt to create as much of an even load on each piston/rod. Who knows whether or not this is very crucial, but it was one of my goals.
The info was copied from post 13 from this thread called:
"MAP intake manifolds and Mil.Spec throttle body reviews"
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/se...y-reviews.html
"Here is the flowbench data for the stock and MAP v3 manifolds. The stock manifold is from a VIII RS. The v3 was that same stock manifold after modification/porting/machining.
Stock:
runner #1: 267.8 CFM, -9.22% imbalance
runner #2: 272.0 CFM, -7.80% imbalance
runner #3: 286.0 CFM, -3.05% imbalance
runner #4: 295.0 CFM, -0.00% imbalance
v3:
runner #1: 278.8 CFM, 4.11% flow increase, -7.04% imbalance, 31.05% balance increase
runner #2: 278.8 CFM, 2.50% flow increase, -7.04% imbalance, 10.82% balance increase
runner #3: 290.8 CFM, 1.68% flow increase, -3.03% imbalance, 00.54% balance increase
runner #4: 299.9 CFM, 1.66% flow increase, -0.00% imbalance, 00.00% balance increase"
The only reason I wanted the flow to be equal was to attempt to create as much of an even load on each piston/rod. Who knows whether or not this is very crucial, but it was one of my goals.
The info was copied from post 13 from this thread called:
"MAP intake manifolds and Mil.Spec throttle body reviews"
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/se...y-reviews.html
"Here is the flowbench data for the stock and MAP v3 manifolds. The stock manifold is from a VIII RS. The v3 was that same stock manifold after modification/porting/machining.
Stock:
runner #1: 267.8 CFM, -9.22% imbalance
runner #2: 272.0 CFM, -7.80% imbalance
runner #3: 286.0 CFM, -3.05% imbalance
runner #4: 295.0 CFM, -0.00% imbalance
v3:
runner #1: 278.8 CFM, 4.11% flow increase, -7.04% imbalance, 31.05% balance increase
runner #2: 278.8 CFM, 2.50% flow increase, -7.04% imbalance, 10.82% balance increase
runner #3: 290.8 CFM, 1.68% flow increase, -3.03% imbalance, 00.54% balance increase
runner #4: 299.9 CFM, 1.66% flow increase, -0.00% imbalance, 00.00% balance increase"
What you are measuring though is completely different than what's going on with a running engine. You have to understand that blowing, or sucking, air through a manifold alone on a flowbench has almost no relevance to what's really going on in an intake manifold in running conditions.
Didn't someone run a CFM test on exhaust manifold before? A stock one to a ported one and a tubular one? I bet on a flowbench the big runner header would flow more CFM, but in real life? We all know that tubular headers don't do much if anything at all on a dyno when compared on stock style turbo's.
Was there a dyno test done before and after 'balancing' a stock intake manifold to show any changes? If doing a true scientific test you first have to replicate airflow through an intake manifold through a running engine, then you have to find a way to quantify airflow through each runner. You also have to correlate test data to dyno data to see if and what is the relevance to each other.
This discussion can really go on forever and then we can speculate on wave propagation and the way the pulses bounce in the plenum. Point is, this manifold works, we've tested it, Sean has tested it, and we've seen what it does on customers cars before and after. There are other good manifolds out there too, just see what works well and pick one you like!
-Happy Holiday and Merry Christmas!
-Martin
Last edited by Martin@AMS; Dec 23, 2009 at 03:53 PM.
Former Sponsor
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
From: Minnesota
I was asked to elaborate a bit on the MAP testing process for our Rev3 intake manifolds.
Our thought process was simple, improve overall airflow of the manifold. We flow tested the manifold first, on the industry standard Superflow 600, to get our baseline #'s. After analyzing the data, we saw a huge imbalance that we felt we should attempt to correct. We knew ahead of time, that because of the shape of the manifold, we would have to cut a portion of the plenum out to fully port the manifold to our liking. While inside, we prioritized the weakest flowing runners to improve the imbalance, and did manage to pickup some overall flow out of it.
From there we tested the manifold on a few different cars, on the dyno, to further investigate the effects of the portwork. I agree with Martin, that for most people, flow #'s are irrelevant for just about anyone else that isn't using the information for research or as a tool to get to a desired result.
I agree with Martin in stating that there are so many factors in a working motor that just can't be simulated outside of an entire working system. Flow testing is nothing more than a tool for the developer. It is static state, and has no other factors such as valve events, reversion/wave pulses, and even thermal dynamics, that will all effect the outcome in a real world operating engine.
$.02
-Bob
Our thought process was simple, improve overall airflow of the manifold. We flow tested the manifold first, on the industry standard Superflow 600, to get our baseline #'s. After analyzing the data, we saw a huge imbalance that we felt we should attempt to correct. We knew ahead of time, that because of the shape of the manifold, we would have to cut a portion of the plenum out to fully port the manifold to our liking. While inside, we prioritized the weakest flowing runners to improve the imbalance, and did manage to pickup some overall flow out of it.
From there we tested the manifold on a few different cars, on the dyno, to further investigate the effects of the portwork. I agree with Martin, that for most people, flow #'s are irrelevant for just about anyone else that isn't using the information for research or as a tool to get to a desired result.
I agree with Martin in stating that there are so many factors in a working motor that just can't be simulated outside of an entire working system. Flow testing is nothing more than a tool for the developer. It is static state, and has no other factors such as valve events, reversion/wave pulses, and even thermal dynamics, that will all effect the outcome in a real world operating engine.
$.02
-Bob