I think that your both wrong and its actually Extreme Tuners manifold!



J/K had to do it.

Nice looking in for results...

 

If they did an exchange program on the trumpets so you could buy a set of them for testing then return the ones you find don't work with your setup, that would be pretty sweet. For the price you are paying, that’s the kind of testing you would have to do to justify the expense on an EVO when even just a ported stock manifold has been proven to work exceptionally well on MOST setups.

Trying to guesstimate the required runner length for your setup is pretty difficult as the tapered runner and trumpets throw the numbers off from the theoretically ideal lengths. Also you might find a shorter runner might be the better answer simply because of how the runners interact with the plenum.

Just my opinion, but I'd rather have an elliptical radius in the floor of the plenum and then add length in the runner, outside of the plenum instead of pushing the runner further into the plenum. Sure you give up 0.1% on the inlet losses, but you have much less of a chance of getting odd flow in the plenum because of the raised runner inlets. The tapered inlet cone is there to help this issue though, so...who knows without testing...

 

That would be the best way to maximize this design on your setup. For the price as well, that's the only way I could ever justify it over a ported stocker.

 

Would you check if my understanding is correct?

1) The plenum: the entire volume defined by the interior walls of the approximately box shaped part of the intake manifold (excludes intake runners and the cone section).

2) The gap is located where the channel is located (in the area defined by a plane parallel to the mating surfaces of the cone section with the approximately box shaped part of the intake manifold).

3) Air that a turbo pumps out is also known as flow (volume/time).




Would you also answer these questions?

4) What is the pressure drop due to?

5) What is the downside to an increasing plenum size (why does it hurt response)?

6) What is the downside to the cone part making up part of the plenum volume?

7) Would you elaborate on how an intake manifold affects how much air a turbo pumps out?

 

found this blog on the jenvey manifold. pretty awesome gains if tey are legit..
http://tdi-plc.com/blog/tag/evo-8

 

Just saw this, if you are still wanting me to answer then here goes.

In the way i am referring to it, yes. If you are talking actual intake tuning though, "plenum volume" also incorporates the other 3 runners (including head port volume) and the cone for wave resonance tuning purposes. The cone likely acts like a secondary plenum more so than a direct add on to plenum volume as you technically have some separation in the chambers. Intercooler piping and the intercooler also come in as secondary resonance chambers though and they typically get ignored as on a turbo motor, it has a much lower impact on system performance. You could likely ignore the cone volume for resonance tuning because of the chamber separation, but I'm not positive there.

For the sake of throttle response though, the cone is part of the plenum as it's on the motor side of the throttle plate.

YES? I believe I called it a gap and you are calling it a channel? I believe you are looking at semantics here and we are on the same page on the fundamental purpose of this design?

There is mass flow and volume flow...this will come back up below.



You are changing the direction of airflow. This induces frictional losses. You also will have pressure recovery as you slow the air down as it exits the channel (as you refer to it). I can’t be sure here, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you measured a lower static pressure in the intercooler pipe then the intake plenum because of this pressure recovery. But then you'll speed it back up going down the runner and at the valve, it will ultimately be a lower pressure...

Ultimately, you are manipulating and turning the air more and that will induce more frictional losses in the system.


Inertia.
You have a larger volume of air you have to fill before the plenum reaches nominal pressure levels.

It also reduces the strength of the lower frequency Helmholtz tuning waves. A larger plenum will typically soften the lower frequency wave pulses and in trade off, improve high RPM cylinder filling efficiency.

Increased plenum volume (see #5 above)...

That depends. Where are we at on the compressor flow map?

In the middle of it with ample mass airflow capacity? Well, an intake manifold that improves engine VE will see a direct power gain because the turbo can keep up with the increase volume flow rate requirement. This of course means more air volume (and mass) has to come from the turbo provided boost pressure remains the same.

Far right side, maxed out on shaft speed and pressure ratio?
In this case, that turbo is going to have a very tough time increase mass airflow (and there for engine power). Any increase in air volume demand from the engine increases the power demand from the turbine wheel which will increase exhaust backpressure. You reach a point of diminishing returns where any VE increase in the head/intake will simple be offset by higher EBP which will reduce the differential pressure at the intake valves and reduce the energy potential to draw air into the cylinder due to reversion. The other way this can play out is the wastegate is already completely closed and no more energy can even be extracted from the exhaust flow. In this case, the boost pressure falls off to the point where the turbo can maintain the required mass airflow rate but because it is at a lower pressure, you will see a volume airflow increase going into the motor.

I have a particular perspective on turbo motors. I think a turbo should be JUST large enough to reach your power goal on the fuel you are using. This will maximize the powerband of the engine. I also like flat HP curves with torque curves that drop with RPM for street cars. Imo, the quicker you can max out the turbo (while still being able to reach your peak power goal), the faster the car will be in every day conditions. Thus, the turbo controls power output, not the motor. The motor is there to simply spool the turbo and convert turbo mass airflow into HP. In this case, there is no benefit to improving high RPM cylinder filling because the turbo can’t keep up anyway. From my perspective, you are better off doing everything you can to improve low RPM VE and overall engine efficiency. Doing so means more time at peak HP.

Now for a dedicated race car, it’s a different story. In drag racing, you use the class limit turbo and do everything you possibly can to max the turbo out within the limited RPM range where the car runs through on a drag pass. Road racing requires a completely different approach then my preference as running a turbo maxed out constantly greatly increases the heat load on everything. In that situation, improving engine VE and using a large turbo pays off. It is still a balance between boost response and HP though. Also, you don’t always need 100% throttle to unsettle the chassis. This is where good throttle response can come into play, even with poor boost response and why such a manifold can have a negative impact on the car because of the increased plenum volume.

 

Has anyone used this new manifold?? I have the original manifold and swapped it for inconsistantcy during stock ecu tuning.

 

I reckon you will get nice gains, more top end of course...

 

pics of it installed on a car or it didn't happen!