ok so i decided to build a new intake manifold targeted torward the turbo cars......... thanks goes to MB for this or i would not have built this thing. he said he needed it soon so i sat down and started thinking........ how can i make this better then my current manifold (which i now call my "N/A intake manifold")......... and basically the outcome was shorter runners, a slightly different plenum design and larger plenum volume. ill have pics up within the next few days so u guys can check it out.


mike

Great! Can't wait to see it!

Originally posted by DarkOne
Great! Can't wait to see it!

x2, can't wait to see pics, and really can't wait to see performance hopefully bullett will do a nice before and after for us :D

Are you doing any math on it or just trial-and-error from previous designs? Just curious, we're finishing up on a composite intake for a formula SAE car with a CBR600 F4i engine, did some flow work on WAVE and CFD to minimize pressure drops and unwanted swirl. I've been wanting to build a turbo-friendly one, but haven't had time go get on the computer.

Nice.

If I'm over at Ron and Steph's this weekend, I'll see about sneaking over to take a peek!

(Also, put in a good word for you today with the owner of the nicest Galant VR4 in the country on a custom oil pan and exhaust manifold. Will keep working it.)

Originally posted by justins71
Are you doing any math on it or just trial-and-error from previous designs? Just curious, we're finishing up on a composite intake for a formula SAE car with a CBR600 F4i engine, did some flow work on WAVE and CFD to minimize pressure drops and unwanted swirl. I've been wanting to build a turbo-friendly one, but haven't had time go get on the computer.

no formulas at all......... by no means am i an engineer....... im a detroit diesel engine tech and i do race fabrication on the side. over the years of reading and cut and try i have came about my designs and they have worked great thus far. hell marks all motor car picked up 24 whp with my intake and another guys header. i have no doubts about this intake making power we'll just have to wait until marks gets in on and running to verify its potential.

and yeah if u come over u can check it out brian (thanks for the good words too)


mike

cool cool! hope it works - keep us posted!

(Sorry Mike, had to move you. I mean it is a TURBO application, lol)

Yeah, pics so far look great (sorry guys. Top secret until Mike puts them out - Nah, I've just seen a couple of his development pics. Finished product soon to show). This is based on Mike's previous experiences with cars like the Neon etc. that have been proven to work. So, I'm pretty sure (especially after the positve results I got on the NA) that she'll work out, lol.

Thanks Mike

Awesome! Hopefully it works out well so some of us other turbo guys could buy one from you. Keep us updated cause I'm very interested!

Nice. Cant wait to see some pics to see if the design compares to what I started a few weeks ago before I started making a manifold for a member here.

Originally posted by eclipse982nrRST
Nice. Cant wait to see some pics to see if the design compares to what I started a few weeks ago before I started making a manifold for a member here.

hopefully they dont resemble each other.


mike

My .02, dont take it as an insult. Make it fit better. I used one of yours on another members car when i flopped his motor and I wanted to beat him with a bat for buying it. Fitment was no fun.

Make your own runners and bring the TB up and make the TB opening parallel with the motor. The TB on his manifold sits on an 5* angle to the rear of the car.

He wasnt aware the hater hoses had to be extended. The Cruise control cables had to be changed to Non cruise. Vacuum lines could have been on top makign them easier to plumb and maintain. Put the Intake temp and Map closer to the passenger side so the wiring doesnt need to be lengthened.

Your design, your choice

Originally posted by Star Turbo Talon
My .02, dont take it as an insult. Make it fit better. I used one of yours on another members car when i flopped his motor and I wanted to beat him with a bat for buying it. Fitment was no fun. Make your own runners and bring the TB up and make the TB opening parallel with the motor. The TB on his manifold sits on an 5* angle to the rear of the car. He wasnt aware the hater hoses had to be extended. The Cruise control cables had to be changed to Non cruise. Vacuum lines could have been on top makign them easier to plumb and maintain. Put the Intake temp and Map closer to the passenger side so the wiring doesnt need to be lengthened. Your design, your choice

u talking about mine?


im not taking it as an isult, im taking it as u complaining about a custom part that requires some altering to run it. mark didnt say anything about that stuff when he did the write up on installing it (of course he knows what needs to be done to run the faster times). and at the same time its a custom part and i tell people that things need to be altered in order to run it before i even sell them a manifold. i put the map in the center of the manifold to get the most accurate reading, lengthening the wires isnt to hard at all so i dont look at that as a big issue. if vacuum lines need to be extended then gets some double ended barbs and make them as long as u need them or do whole new lines if u like. i mock them up with a throttle body that has the cruise throttle cam so it fits on there right i dont know what the issue was there and i put all the vacuum and map holes under the plenum for a clean look. i have had no issues from anybody yet and the results they yielded were very good.


mike

Yes. Yours

i do have good news for the turbo intake that may make u happy........... the throttle plate does sit parallel with the engine. but the plenum sits further down then the n/a intake. the vacuum provision remain the same though.


mike

Routing the IC pipe sucks that way.

Originally posted by Star Turbo Talon
Routing the IC pipe sucks that way.

Agreed. I dont like how low the n/a sits.

Originally posted by Star Turbo Talon
He wasnt aware the hater hoses had to be extended. The Cruise control cables had to be changed to Non cruise. Vacuum lines could have been on top makign them easier to plumb and maintain. Put the Intake temp and Map closer to the passenger side so the wiring doesnt need to be lengthened. Your design, your choice

Hmm, curious. I had no problems with the heater hoses (lol, at the typo. I might consider these "hater hoses" also. I retained them for some time). Also, didn't have to extend any wires (I maintained both MSnS sensors and stock sensors for awhile) Though I did not retain a map sensor (yeah, I could see putting that on the end like I did with the OBX. Valid point and food for thought) though of course, extending wires is a pretty routine thing for modification. Heh heh, reminds me of the MSnS injector harnesses. Even though they came for the MSnS, they had to be extended.

As for the lower placement of the intake, I didn't have any problem with the NA, but, yeah, I did have to work it a little for the IC piping (At one time I put the NA intake on the turbo). With me everything was basically custom (meaning no bolt on kit) so it was just a part of the install to me.

MB

well said mark, my intakes are not a true "bolt on" and go application some things will need to be modded in order to run it. im sure i could make one like the venom with the bent runners but it would be a completely custom mani and the price jumps up drastically when somebody wants to go that route. ive done 3 or 4 completely custom manifolds and they go for 550.00-650.00 dollars. my n/a yields great results so why change it u know?

mike

i am curious as to hear some details, since picures are in developement.

what size plenum do/ did you go with, length of runners?

i noticed on some of your NA intakes you mill off the vortex chamber before he injector pintle, any particular reason for this?

what size TB flange opening are you using?

how many vac. port bungs do you leave? not including the 1 for the IAT and booster and map.

Originally posted by Black Cotton
i am curious as to hear some details, since picures are in developement. what size plenum do/ did you go with, length of runners? i noticed on some of your NA intakes you mill off the vortex chamber before he injector pintle, any particular reason for this? what size TB flange opening are you using? how many vac. port bungs do you leave? not including the 1 for the IAT and booster and map.

some of that info is not availible at this time............. well mark knows but me and him are the only ones.

i removed the injector humps for maore airflow i thought that was pretty obvious. t-body flange is at 65mm so it can take stock to mpx 60mm t-body with no issues. it will have whatever the customers needs but usually they comn with 1 provision for the stock map sensor and 3 pipe tapped holes for the brake booster, pcv, and iat. and heres the pics................


















mike

Originally posted by bullettdsm
Heh heh, reminds me of the MSnS injector harnesses. Even though they came for the MSnS, they had to be extended. As for the lower placement of the intake, I didn't have any problem with the NA, but, yeah, I did have to work it a little for the IC piping (At one time I put the NA intake on the turbo). With me everything was basically custom (meaning no bolt on kit) so it was just a part of the install to me. MB

Well 10' is a standard harenss and allows you to put the ECU as far as the console. If you want to locate it further, like the trunk....its up to you to ask then you wouldnt have to extend anything.

Like i said, its your design....I refuse to install another one.

Originally posted by Star Turbo Talon

Originally posted by bullettdsm Heh heh, reminds me of the MSnS injector harnesses. Even though they came for the MSnS, they had to be extended. As for the lower placement of the intake, I didn't have any problem with the NA, but, yeah, I did have to work it a little for the IC piping (At one time I put the NA intake on the turbo). With me everything was basically custom (meaning no bolt on kit) so it was just a part of the install to me. MB

Well 10' is a standard harenss and allows you to put the ECU as far as the console. If you want to locate it further, like the trunk....its up to you to ask then you wouldnt have to extend anything. Like i said, its your design....I refuse to install another one.

its a custom part its not designed to be something thats easy to put on, its designed to give u more power and it does just that, people who want to buy something better then the obx and better and cheaper than the venom then this is for u!


mike

Originally posted by Star Turbo Talon
Well 10' is a standard harenss and allows you to put the ECU as far as the console. If you want to locate it further, like the trunk....its up to you to ask then you wouldnt have to extend anything.

With 10' I could probably install it in my bumper, lol. Nah, it was just the injector harnesses that were too short to make it to the last injector when plugged in. No big deal. Easy extension.

MB

the cuts u did on the stock manifold, to mate to the plenum looks similar to what i origionally tried on my first shot. however i had clearance issues with the alternator bracket and my upper plenum.

what is the volume size of that plenum, roughly in Liters.

also i questioned the removal of the injector vorex' because the were origionally designed to allow the injector pintles enough time to get a wide enough spray pattern before air divergences collapsed the atomization. so no knocking just curiosity as to power lost or gained.

for my manifold i was abled to carbide flex hone all the runners to 68mm and leave the injector vortex' in the manifold, only becuase i wasnt 100% of their actual real world efficiency. however if you have some experience insight on why they dont have to be there, then the port job you do, seems fantastic!

Let me see if I can field these;

Originally posted by Black Cotton
the cuts u did on the stock manifold, to mate to the plenum looks similar to what i origionally tried on my first shot. however i had clearance issues with the alternator bracket and my upper plenum.

Yup, we had conversations about that bracket. An area of concern, but judging from the NA intake, I think we'll be fine. If not then time to "clearance" heh heh.

Originally posted by Black Cottonwhat is the volume size of that plenum, roughly in Liters.

Good questions. This is an area where we are slightly apart (Mike and I). We've got 3.7 liters, which is a litle big for me. In comparison terms, the OBX is 4.0 liters (like the Venom) But different runner config and flow characteristics. Also, my thought processes are with my NA head :9 . But boost flow/theory/characteristics are a bit different. So that's a "we'll see how she works in real life" position.

Originally posted by Black Cotton also i questioned the removal of the injector vorex' because the were origionally designed to allow the injector pintles enough time to get a wide enough spray pattern before air divergences collapsed the atomization. so no knocking just curiosity as to power lost or gained. for my manifold i was abled to carbide flex hone all the runners to 68mm and leave the injector vortex' in the manifold, only becuase i wasnt 100% of their actual real world efficiency. however if you have some experience insight on why they dont have to be there, then the port job you do, seems fantastic!

I'm a firm proponent in removal of the humps. This is done on a regular basis on the Neon application (of course that, in itself, doesn't mean all that much). I see the narrowing of the channel (especially in a boosted application) as being more of a hinderance to the movement of the air than a problem for atomization. As I understand it with our heads, a lot of the "swirl" need to generate the small airborne particles of gas, is designed within the head intake port/chamber. I understand your concern for atomization, but I think they are overplayed (not your concerns but the necessity of retention). But I can see the thought process behind it (and I'll throw in for good measure that a guy by the name of Eddie Fierro does this with his heads. So I'm figuring "good company", lol)

And Mike, I didn't say it before but she looks beautiful. Looking forward to trying it on for size :thumbsup

Also, If I spoke out of turn on any of this Mike, please correct me.

Looks nice, but I still dont care for how low its going to sit. I think it looks odd that you can see the entire firewall.

well, im neither here or there on it. of course every design is going to have its pros and cons and its fans and enemies.

a lot of people feel that my plenum is too long and my runners are too long.

you guys have shortened the runners, which in theory has been known to be better for boost, however isnt exactly true in ALL real life applications, consider buggatti and its intake design. the larger plenum is something i am a huge fan of, although looking back mine might be a tad too large at just +/- 5Liters

what i would like to see, maybe is, which is hard when utalizing the stock lower intake, is a "velocity stack" style runner, along with an OFFSET TB opening location in reference to the positioning of the intake runners, so that as the intake runners draw air, they are not stuck in a vortex with the incomming air through the Throttle body opening.

i would prefer to have the TB opening on the back end, with a slight taper at the back end its 180* shelf, to generate a vortex that wrinkles itself back towards the throttle body, thus generating an automatic swirl as the cylinders draw in the volume needed per stroke.




as you can see in the first pic i/we had offset the TB opening so that the runner provissions were not in the direct path of the intake runners making clear intake entry for less "negative" turbulance

in the 2nd picture we used the "cup" style design to generate a float style curved vortex, to help enduce a swirl off the back side of the plenum to "in theory" help promote swirl through the runners.

now i agree the intake work you guys are doing to the runners is amazing i wish i had the tooling to set up a jig myself and do such port work. A+++ for that, thats the one area i feel my intake lacks, even though i was able to carbide hone and mill mine by hand fairly evenly and accuratly across the board, the final product of that piece is top notch.

I'm noticing on all these manifold there is a TB plate just slapped on a plenum - does anyone taper these two together? You're going to get massive vortex action inhibiting flow in these areas. Granted it was a restricted engine, but we had a 20mm restrictor tapering over about 5" to ~40mm that increased airflow by 15% just by adjusting the taper from 5* to 7*, but then lost 20% from 7* to 9* because the airflow started separating from the wall and became turbulent. Just some more food for thought. The injector 'nubs' are there to create a little turbulence for better fuel mixing, mainly at low RPM's. If it's a top-end all out motor, then grinding them out for airflow is better, but for a street engine you'll gain MPG and low end power if you keep them there. New engines employ a device that uses a small cam to rotate into the intake runner at low RPM's to do this, and open up at high RPM's to increase flow.

i agree with the "welding" of the TB plate to the plenum housing, possibly causing an issue, however, a tapered flange would require a lot of material, and drastically enlarge the face of the plenum.

in the case of mine, weather good or bad, because i have just welded a flanged onto the plenum, if had OFFSET the openeing so that the 65mm opening did not interfere with any of the intake ports. there for "hopefully" not generating any bad turbulance.


also, the tid on removing the injector votex bungs, good info, i talked to several dyno and engine build shops about this issue and all highly adviced me to leave them, however never gave me details such as "better for low rpm" ect. do you have any kinda of article proving or disproving either theory.

I don't have any personal dyno data, just going off general engine theory. I've read article upon article about them, but they were magazines and not online that I can link to. Do a general search for variable tumble intakes, similar to mazda's design. I'll try to get some links to put up referring exactly to what I'm thinkin of.

I really like the design of your int. manifold Black Cotton.

Originally posted by Black Cotton
well, im neither here or there on it. of course every design is going to have its pros and cons and its fans and enemies. a lot of people feel that my plenum is too long and my runners are too long. you guys have shortened the runners, which in theory has been known to be better for boost, however isnt exactly true in ALL real life applications, consider buggatti and its intake design. the larger plenum is something i am a huge fan of, although looking back mine might be a tad too large at just +/- 5Liters what i would like to see, maybe is, which is hard when utalizing the stock lower intake, is a "velocity stack" style runner, along with an OFFSET TB opening location in reference to the positioning of the intake runners, so that as the intake runners draw air, they are not stuck in a vortex with the incomming air through the Throttle body opening. i would prefer to have the TB opening on the back end, with a slight taper at the back end its 180* shelf, to generate a vortex that wrinkles itself back towards the throttle body, thus generating an automatic swirl as the cylinders draw in the volume needed per stroke. as you can see in the first pic i/we had offset the TB opening so that the runner provissions were not in the direct path of the intake runners making clear intake entry for less "negative" turbulance in the 2nd picture we used the "cup" style design to generate a float style curved vortex, to help enduce a swirl off the back side of the plenum to "in theory" help promote swirl through the runners. now i agree the intake work you guys are doing to the runners is amazing i wish i had the tooling to set up a jig myself and do such port work. A+++ for that, thats the one area i feel my intake lacks, even though i was able to carbide hone and mill mine by hand fairly evenly and accuratly across the board, the final product of that piece is top notch.

I love the work in this manifold. Really fits nice and the design is second to none IMO.

Originally posted by Star Turbo Talon

Originally posted by Black Cotton well, im neither here or there on it. of course every design is going to have its pros and cons and its fans and enemies. a lot of people feel that my plenum is too long and my runners are too long. you guys have shortened the runners, which in theory has been known to be better for boost, however isnt exactly true in ALL real life applications, consider buggatti and its intake design. the larger plenum is something i am a huge fan of, although looking back mine might be a tad too large at just +/- 5Liters what i would like to see, maybe is, which is hard when utalizing the stock lower intake, is a "velocity stack" style runner, along with an OFFSET TB opening location in reference to the positioning of the intake runners, so that as the intake runners draw air, they are not stuck in a vortex with the incomming air through the Throttle body opening. i would prefer to have the TB opening on the back end, with a slight taper at the back end its 180* shelf, to generate a vortex that wrinkles itself back towards the throttle body, thus generating an automatic swirl as the cylinders draw in the volume needed per stroke. as you can see in the first pic i/we had offset the TB opening so that the runner provissions were not in the direct path of the intake runners making clear intake entry for less "negative" turbulance in the 2nd picture we used the "cup" style design to generate a float style curved vortex, to help enduce a swirl off the back side of the plenum to "in theory" help promote swirl through the runners. now i agree the intake work you guys are doing to the runners is amazing i wish i had the tooling to set up a jig myself and do such port work. A+++ for that, thats the one area i feel my intake lacks, even though i was able to carbide hone and mill mine by hand fairly evenly and accuratly across the board, the final product of that piece is top notch.

I love the work in this manifold. Really fits nice and the design is second to none IMO.

Agreed. Damn good manifold. Best I have ever seen for the 2gnt.

Looks great, and it covers the firewall :)

well i dont have any flow data simulation equipmanet or any other software to help prove or disprove any of the above. ive been doing this for approx 4 years now and havent built anything thats lost power on an engine yet. i wasnt as worried about plenum taper on this manifold as i am on my n/a manifolds because well this motor is going to be boosted. i wanted to make a nice big surge tank for the air to wait in until the valves opened, u know what i mean. i dont think stacking in the intake would be an issue in this being that there really isnt any dead floor area behind the #1 runner because its up against the plenum end cap back there. on an n/a manifold i understand what ur talking about with the rounded end cap and the vortex, i was actually thinking about doing marks simlar to that way but being that he needed it soon and i didnt have the materials for making it the way i wanted to i went ahead and went with a backup idea which is what u see above. i think its going yield some good numbers onces he gets it all together. oh and i calculated wrong when i measured the volum. the turbo plenum is 3.5 (not 3.7) liters and the n/a is 2.6 liters. there for the good words guys even though there wer some bad ones also.


mike

What data do you have to support this manifold makes any power? Perhaps that is what the community is asking for. The only car dynoed that i know of was Mark Bullets but if I recall he made several changes during that time so it is very hard to place any numberical value on the manifold itself.

I wish people would dyno custom parts like that rather than bolt on a few things at a time.

Originally posted by Star Turbo Talon
What data do you have to support this manifold makes any power? Perhaps that is what the community is asking for. The only car dynoed that i know of was Mark Bullets but if I recall he made several changes during that time so it is very hard to place any numberical value on the manifold itself. I wish people would dyno custom parts like that rather than bolt on a few things at a time.

do u have a problem with me? do u dislike the fact that i dont have thousands of dollars worth of software and equipment and hundreds of hours in flow testing and analysis or a degree in engineering or something along those lines but i can still make an intake manifold that will create decent gains? mark picked up what 24 whp naturally aspirated (along with the header and it wasnt all header that got him that that im sure of. corey haines the ceo of modern dynoed one on his 2.4 dohc and picked up 23 whp, oh woops he uped from a 52mm t-body to a 60mm at the same time....... but again i doubt the t-body gave even half of that. and lets not forget steve locket who picked up 71whp on his 9 second neon (oh and hes running one of my heads too) but again when he redynoed he went from a 52mm to a 65mm but maybe he got about 60hp of that from the t-body u never know.


mark is there any way u could put a stock manifold on with a 60mm t-body and dyno then redyno with the manifold made u to see the difference it makes in power so TST will quit bitching.


mike

I am not bitching in any way what so ever just asking if there were number to go with it. It was an honest question. Mark also ran a megasquirt at the same time.

I dont have a problem with you. Grow up. If you cant take criticizm then go jump off a bridge. I only commented i dont like the way it fit but its not my design so to each his own. How many times do you weant me to say it?

I dont expect you to spend tons of money for flow rates or other testing. I dont expect you to do dyno runs on a car you dont even have. I only SAID I WISH OTHER PEOPLE.....you know, the people who buy them to dyno one on its self to solidify what the manifold is good for and what other buyers expect to see on thier own car if they have similer mods. Its useful information to the entire community.

I would do it for you but i dont wish to run that design. If a simple question is bitching to you.......get over yourself.

I never asked you to prove anyhting just list some figures you knew about. Apparently people have to bitch at you to get answers. Your a real asset to the world.

Woah I sense some heat..

Anyways post numbers when you can so simplier minded people like me can see the difference.

Originally posted by Star Turbo Talon
I am not bitching in any way what so ever just asking if there were number to go with it. It was an honest question. Mark also ran a megasquirt at the same time. I dont have a problem with you. Grow up. If you cant take criticizm then go jump off a bridge. I only commented i dont like the way it fit but its not my design so to each his own. How many times do you weant me to say it? I dont expect you to spend tons of money for flow rates or other testing. I dont expect you to do dyno runs on a car you dont even have. I only SAID I WISH OTHER PEOPLE.....you know, the people who buy them to dyno one on its self to solidify what the manifold is good for and what other buyers expect to see on thier own car if they have similer mods. Its useful information to the entire community. I would do it for you but i dont wish to run that design. If a simple question is bitching to you.......get over yourself. I never asked you to prove anyhting just list some figures you knew about. Apparently people have to bitch at you to get answers. Your a real asset to the world.

so let me ask u a question........ lets say we have 2 manifolds here. one is easy to put on the other requires some mods like lengthening wires, relocating the batt, or running a differnt intake then ur current cold air that u have, etc. but the one thats easy to put on doesnt have the potential to make as much power as the other one does. which one would u get? and im not talking about mine just 2 aftermarket intake manifolds in general.

also i dont need bitching at to answer questions, u (as is anyone) ask a question and usually i answer them. im a very laid back guy ask MB or driggs, u kept bring up the fact that u didnt like the design and that it was a PITA to put on thats cool everyone has their opinions. then u asked what proof do i have that it will even make power. well this isnt my first intake, ive been making then for neons for years now and ive seen the proof in them, being that they are the same engine they should respond the same. i can take crticizm but thats not what it seemed like to me sir.


mike

Eh, thats a 2 sides question for me since I am more like you where I would just build the one I want and shoot for the best of both worlds. Lets look at it if I couldnt do that.

I would have to see exactly what would have to be modified and how much of a gain one was over the other. If it were simple modifications, then i would buy the higher HP. If the HP were close say within 20hp....i would be inclined to buy the better fitting one and make up the difference elsewhere. You can see what I mean by a catch 22. If the Manifold made a good deal more power and the seller disclosed all the details of what needs to be altered to prepare me for when its installed.....I would be buying the more powerful manifold hands down. Now if i were required to put the battery in the truck, like my setup would require with your N/A design then i would take the better fitting. Takign weight away from the wheels that needs traction is worse than any HP loss to me.

The difference with me is that i know more than the average member so whatever questions I dont ask the seller...arent really his concern but if I were a 19 year old kid who only had minimal tools, seller is morally obligated to explain exactly what needs to be modfied. Otherwise he has a customer who cant use the part and is forced to ask for a refund or sell it.

Custom parts in my opinion need to explained when the sale is made. Its like me selling my Turbo manifold telling some kid it botls right up no hassels when i know very well you must run the waterline design i have and move the fans ect ect.

On the topic of the neon head.....has anyone tested it to show it flows like the Eclipse head? Being 180* out i wonder how many differences there are in casting flaws that make it really comparable. We have already proven the cam profile is different since the cams are not interchangeable. I wish when people would buy these parts they would at least take the Time to dyno it alone and give you the feedback so that the info can be shared. They dont even have to do it for you, do it for everyone else.

The turbo manifold you made is very similer to the ones available for the 4g63 (which i like) only our head design sucks so bad the manifold sits too low. I think a 45* bend in there mid runner would solve that. Relocating the battery sucks because we have FWD cars......what good does it do to put the battery in the rear of the car.

Woah.

Great discussion.

AMM has been known to do awesome work on Neons. In fact if I can ever find a spare Magnum intake, I want AMM to port it.

But in terms of intake manifold for the 2gnt, I think that JMF one is pure sex.

Just my opinion :shrug

Originally posted by Star Turbo Talon
Relocating the battery sucks because we have FWD cars......what good does it do to put the battery in the rear of the car.

Is there a compromise in the middle? Perhaps a smaller battery up front providing for the room needed and not taking as much weight off the front and not shifting any weight to the back. Or is it an issue of where the battery tray sits would be in the way of where a pipe would go to get to the manifold without needing an extra bend? Eh what do I know, I haven't looked at my 2gnt that closely in months.

Originally posted by cs82685
Is there a compromise in the middle? Perhaps a smaller battery up front providing for the room needed and not taking as much weight off the front and not shifting any weight to the back. Or is it an issue of where the battery tray sits would be in the way of where a pipe would go to get to the manifold without needing an extra bend? Eh what do I know, I haven't looked at my 2gnt that closely in months.

You know enough. Couple of pics;





and my location for my batteries now (though they are both smaller batteries now and I redesigned the holding strap). There are a few theories out there that say this location is even better than over the axle for FWD cars. It supposedly helps keep the nose from coming up. Don't know if I agree, just another theory (I almost did a write up on this relocation. Its actually very simple and I don't believe I extended/changed any wires - just moved some).



Too bad this thread went in the direction it did. Justin, I would have enjoyed a bit of conversation about your prototype intake. Interesting that it goes a little against my thought processes for our cars. How/why did you come up with 5 liters for a volume? I take note that with of all the general aftermarket intakes out there (Honda, 4g63, Neon etc.) they don't seem to use that design (that's not necessarilly a knock. I'm all for trying something different). That's just a curiousity to me.

But don't sweat it Justin, we'll catch up at sometime.

And Mike, some will like your product and some won't. All you can do is put it out there and let the public decide. IMO their loss if they don't see the advantages. BUT that's just my opinion and as we all know, opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one.

not exactly sure if you are refering to me as justin, however i think its safe to assume that you are refering to my intake when you ask how i/we were able to come up with a 5 liter plenum design.

the intake was actually inspired by the JM Fabrications 1g 4g63 Drag intake, that yeilded exceptional power over the stock 1g intake. granted head flow designs and motors are apples to oranges, to me the theory of more volume the better in a turbo application remains true across the board.

so that is where this manifolds design came from. again as stated earlier, mikes port jobs on his lower intakes is bar none, and really wish i had that done with my plenum!

im also of the opinion that a bigger plenum is better in a turbo app. and the design isnt as important as on an N/A app. u want a big plenum so as soon as the valves open u got 3-5 liters worth of boost waiting on deck to go into the cylinders. i really wanted to go with a design somewhat similar to the one above but we were worried about space and mark didnt want to go to big on the plenum (and i didnt have the materails to make it either). i actually thought it was going to be bigger than it was, but no big deal on my end and im sure mark was a little happier also.


mike

Originally posted by Black Cotton
not exactly sure if you are refering to me as justin, however i think its safe to assume that you are refering to my intake when you ask how i/we were able to come up with a 5 liter plenum design

Lol, I'm a dick. I meant Black Cotton.