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!

______________________________
If a sentence found online has 35% misspellings or greater and includes at least two racially charged expletives, chances are it is a YouTube comment.

'95 Eclipse TurboGS (garage deco)
'95 TSi AWD (restoring a survivor)
'97 Talon ESi-T (poor impulse control)
'99 Eclipse RS-T (daily beater)
'13 Evo X (mostly stock)
'17 Sienna (Middle Aged Dad Mobile)



Factory Service Manuals: http://nawdu.de/files/

I contributed to the Wiki!
EVO IX - just a really expensive boost gauge and a K&N air filter
96 Eclipse RS -awaiting registration and inspection
95 Eclipse GS - parts car
Mods/Profile - http://www.2gnt.com/index.php?d=cs82685

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.

/>

'95 GS w/ t3/t4b
FMIC, diy piping & RFL BOV
MS2-Extra Fuel&Spark
50 lb/hr Holley injectors w/ 1:1 RRFPR
JE 8.8:1 dish w/ Hastings Rings
Eagle Rods w/ ARP bolts
ARP Head studs
Mild port/polish head
3" custom DP/cat section, 3" PIT catback
dual MBC - 12 psi / 20psi

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.)

cool cool! hope it works - keep us posted!

/>

'95 GS w/ t3/t4b
FMIC, diy piping & RFL BOV
MS2-Extra Fuel&Spark
50 lb/hr Holley injectors w/ 1:1 RRFPR
JE 8.8:1 dish w/ Hastings Rings
Eagle Rods w/ ARP bolts
ARP Head studs
Mild port/polish head
3" custom DP/cat section, 3" PIT catback
dual MBC - 12 psi / 20psi

(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

Captain Caveman

96 RS Turbo 11.414 @ 119.62 MSNS, Crower 2 NA cams, BW366, 10.5 comp, UDP, 60mm TB, W/A intercooler, 3.55 tranny 567.9whp 430tq
97 RS NA 13.188 @ 103.87 MSnS powered 12.5 comp, Crower 3's and 219.4whp with 175tq
98 RS DD 12.5 comp on stock ECU, LTH, Crower 2's, Koni, GC, Hypercoil, DG hats
99 OZ 5sp Stocker 15.856 @ 85.97
99 GS stocker auto 17.7@77mph!

wiki home page:http://www.2gnt.com/index.php?d=bullettdsm

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!

- 98 Eclipse rs turbo

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.

-MIKE-

Stroked 2.2L

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

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.

-MIKE-

Stroked 2.2L

Captain Caveman

96 RS Turbo 11.414 @ 119.62 MSNS, Crower 2 NA cams, BW366, 10.5 comp, UDP, 60mm TB, W/A intercooler, 3.55 tranny 567.9whp 430tq
97 RS NA 13.188 @ 103.87 MSnS powered 12.5 comp, Crower 3's and 219.4whp with 175tq
98 RS DD 12.5 comp on stock ECU, LTH, Crower 2's, Koni, GC, Hypercoil, DG hats
99 OZ 5sp Stocker 15.856 @ 85.97
99 GS stocker auto 17.7@77mph!

wiki home page:http://www.2gnt.com/index.php?d=bullettdsm

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.

Captain Caveman

96 RS Turbo 11.414 @ 119.62 MSNS, Crower 2 NA cams, BW366, 10.5 comp, UDP, 60mm TB, W/A intercooler, 3.55 tranny 567.9whp 430tq
97 RS NA 13.188 @ 103.87 MSnS powered 12.5 comp, Crower 3's and 219.4whp with 175tq
98 RS DD 12.5 comp on stock ECU, LTH, Crower 2's, Koni, GC, Hypercoil, DG hats
99 OZ 5sp Stocker 15.856 @ 85.97
99 GS stocker auto 17.7@77mph!

wiki home page:http://www.2gnt.com/index.php?d=bullettdsm

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;

Captain Caveman

96 RS Turbo 11.414 @ 119.62 MSNS, Crower 2 NA cams, BW366, 10.5 comp, UDP, 60mm TB, W/A intercooler, 3.55 tranny 567.9whp 430tq
97 RS NA 13.188 @ 103.87 MSnS powered 12.5 comp, Crower 3's and 219.4whp with 175tq
98 RS DD 12.5 comp on stock ECU, LTH, Crower 2's, Koni, GC, Hypercoil, DG hats
99 OZ 5sp Stocker 15.856 @ 85.97
99 GS stocker auto 17.7@77mph!

wiki home page:http://www.2gnt.com/index.php?d=bullettdsm

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.

-MIKE-

Stroked 2.2L

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.

/>

'95 GS w/ t3/t4b
FMIC, diy piping & RFL BOV
MS2-Extra Fuel&Spark
50 lb/hr Holley injectors w/ 1:1 RRFPR
JE 8.8:1 dish w/ Hastings Rings
Eagle Rods w/ ARP bolts
ARP Head studs
Mild port/polish head
3" custom DP/cat section, 3" PIT catback
dual MBC - 12 psi / 20psi

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.

/>

'95 GS w/ t3/t4b
FMIC, diy piping & RFL BOV
MS2-Extra Fuel&Spark
50 lb/hr Holley injectors w/ 1:1 RRFPR
JE 8.8:1 dish w/ Hastings Rings
Eagle Rods w/ ARP bolts
ARP Head studs
Mild port/polish head
3" custom DP/cat section, 3" PIT catback
dual MBC - 12 psi / 20psi

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

- 98 Eclipse rs turbo

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.

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.

Car Status: P0140 o2 circuit number bank 1 sensor 2 Cel. Ill fix it tomorow lol.

Estimated mileage on engine: 15,xxx

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

I contributed to the Wiki!
EVO IX - just a really expensive boost gauge and a K&N air filter
96 Eclipse RS -awaiting registration and inspection
95 Eclipse GS - parts car
Mods/Profile - http://www.2gnt.com/index.php?d=cs82685

Captain Caveman

96 RS Turbo 11.414 @ 119.62 MSNS, Crower 2 NA cams, BW366, 10.5 comp, UDP, 60mm TB, W/A intercooler, 3.55 tranny 567.9whp 430tq
97 RS NA 13.188 @ 103.87 MSnS powered 12.5 comp, Crower 3's and 219.4whp with 175tq
98 RS DD 12.5 comp on stock ECU, LTH, Crower 2's, Koni, GC, Hypercoil, DG hats
99 OZ 5sp Stocker 15.856 @ 85.97
99 GS stocker auto 17.7@77mph!

wiki home page:http://www.2gnt.com/index.php?d=bullettdsm

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

Captain Caveman

96 RS Turbo 11.414 @ 119.62 MSNS, Crower 2 NA cams, BW366, 10.5 comp, UDP, 60mm TB, W/A intercooler, 3.55 tranny 567.9whp 430tq
97 RS NA 13.188 @ 103.87 MSnS powered 12.5 comp, Crower 3's and 219.4whp with 175tq
98 RS DD 12.5 comp on stock ECU, LTH, Crower 2's, Koni, GC, Hypercoil, DG hats
99 OZ 5sp Stocker 15.856 @ 85.97
99 GS stocker auto 17.7@77mph!

wiki home page:http://www.2gnt.com/index.php?d=bullettdsm