Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
    Results 26 to 50 of 462

    Thread: ***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results***

    1. Member SHUMopper's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2nd, 2002
      Location
      Long Island
      Posts
      8,798
      Vehicles
      2008 Touareg V6, 2011 A3 TDI
      02-26-2007 10:53 PM #26
      RMR can use stock 1.8t TB correct?

    2. Member Wolk's Wagon's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 27th, 2000
      Location
      Houston TX.
      Posts
      6,609
      Vehicles
      2008 R32 Blue
      02-26-2007 11:01 PM #27
      Nice data guys,
      Congrats to Don R on a manifold well done. [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]
      2008 R32
      2002 911TT

    3. Member skydaman's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 16th, 2005
      Location
      NoVa
      Posts
      12,220
      02-26-2007 11:13 PM #28
      Quote, originally posted by igotaprestent4u »
      Looks like RMR would get my $$$

      I see where your going with that... not a bad choice and it comes with a fuel rail and TB adapter or you could build it youself here: http://stores.ebay.com/Ross-Machine-Racing.
      Would like to see a USRT tested for comparison.


      Modified by skydaman at 11:14 PM 2-26-2007

    4. Member
      Join Date
      Aug 10th, 2003
      Location
      Sammamish, Washington
      Posts
      2,753
      Vehicles
      2002 1.8t GTI - K04-022
      02-27-2007 01:47 AM #29
      good to know... I have an ABD intake manifold that I got for a trade... So looks like it actually does something at least... haha I might be able to dyno test it sooner or later...

    5. 02-27-2007 01:55 AM #30
      it's the best topic

    6. Member 04VDubGLI's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 20th, 2005
      Location
      Pittsburgh, PA ish
      Posts
      6,572
      Vehicles
      04.5 VW GLI 1.8T
      02-27-2007 02:03 AM #31
      What he said. I'm going to try and dyno test my ABD. However, I plan to clean it up a little first. I noted the casting slop. I'm thinking about getting it extruded and honed. If that were to happen it may even be close to the 007 SP.
      This test is awesome though... I wonder how the RMR SP would perform. Why did VW hate us and give us SP intake manis...

    7. 02-27-2007 02:32 AM #32
      Quote, originally posted by 04VDubGLI »
      What he said. I'm going to try and dyno test my ABD. However, I plan to clean it up a little first. I noted the casting slop. I'm thinking about getting it extruded and honed. If that were to happen it may even be close to the 007 SP.
      This test is awesome though... I wonder how the RMR SP would perform. Why did VW hate us and give us SP intake manis...

      because we also got small port heads

      Awesome data compliation and presentation [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]
      Cool to see that the AEB/custom plenum method was a pretty decent alternative to dropping alot of cash

    8. Former Advertiser John@20Squared's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 5th, 2005
      Location
      Worldwide
      Posts
      13,435
      Vehicles
      '08 Rabbit, '02 Jetta, '96 GTI, '89 Coupe
      02-27-2007 02:57 AM #33
      great collection of data!
      [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG] to those who helped make it possible.

    9. Banned Don R's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 3rd, 2002
      Posts
      6,144
      02-27-2007 07:34 AM #34
      Reason why ABD has made satisfactory results is do to its short, wide and stuby runner design. I'd like to point out that it's overall performance would not be as expected.
      Trq in the mid-range would suffer and fuel atomization would be less than opitmal as a result from low port velocity and turbulent flow.

    10. 02-27-2007 07:37 AM #35
      Quote, originally posted by 04VDubGLI »
      I wonder how the RMR SP would perform.

      x2...especially since mine is ordered

    11. 02-27-2007 08:40 AM #36
      Quote, originally posted by Don R »
      Reason why ABD has made satisfactory results is do to its short, wide and stuby runner design. I'd like to point out that it's overall performance would not be as expected.
      Trq in the mid-range would suffer and fuel atomization would be less than opitmal as a result from low port velocity and turbulent flow.

      So what we need now is for people who have purchased these manifolds to run a few before and after dynos for comparison.
      As far as the length goes Don if your willing? I read slappy saying that if all you wanted was great flow you would just bolt a plenum to the head? this would equal great flow with no velocity. Now, for my application I believe I could use some sorter runners to help horsepower from 5K-8K and also change the torque band upward.
      What would be an ideal length for the runners based on the powerband goals? My home brewing logic says bust out the saz-all and cut 2 inchs out of the middle welder back up and let'r eat, but i thought I'd ask before I turn a decent success into a complete failure.

    12. Banned
      Join Date
      Feb 26th, 2005
      Posts
      2,439
      02-27-2007 08:59 AM #37
      Quote, originally posted by Don R »
      Reason why ABD has made satisfactory results is do to its short, wide and stuby runner design. I'd like to point out that it's overall performance would not be as expected.
      Trq in the mid-range would suffer and fuel atomization would be less than opitmal as a result from low port velocity and turbulent flow.

      I have looked at most of the runners and I think most of the manifolds in this test(except maybe ABD one) have too long of a runner to take advantage of a bigger turbo.I can tell you this about the manifold I am building,that its about an inch and a half shorter than most of the manifolds in the test.

    13. Member 04VDubGLI's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 20th, 2005
      Location
      Pittsburgh, PA ish
      Posts
      6,572
      Vehicles
      04.5 VW GLI 1.8T
      02-27-2007 09:01 AM #38
      Don R - I'm confused as to whether the ABD would not perform as expected in a good or bad fashion? I mean, there are obviously some increases in air flow and seem to be pretty consistent at that...
      I now am wondering if maybe it would be worth it to get it extruded and honed. I imagine that would not only clean up all of the slop, but probably even make the runners a little more efficient?

    14. Banned Don R's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 3rd, 2002
      Posts
      6,144
      02-27-2007 09:06 AM #39
      Quote, originally posted by VariantStg3 »
      So what we need now is for people who have purchased these manifolds to run a few before and after dynos for comparison.
      As far as the length goes Don if your willing? I read slappy saying that if all you wanted was great flow you would just bolt a plenum to the head? this would equal great flow with no velocity. Now, for my application I believe I could use some sorter runners to help horsepower from 5K-8K and also change the torque band upward.
      What would be an ideal length for the runners based on the powerband goals? My home brewing logic says bust out the saz-all and cut 2 inchs out of the middle welder back up and let'r eat, but i thought I'd ask before I turn a decent success into a complete failure.

      If I had the time I'd have the pleasure in doing so...but I'm swamped with work.
      With regards to your manifold...it would have been great if the OEM injector bungs protruded a lot less into the runner. IMHO, I'd suggest you leave your runners as is (Not unless you plan on revving past 8500 rpm.) - runner velocity plays an important role in increasing flow from better air flow lamination. This involves more flow vectors per cross-sectional area. Furthermore, if you were to increase the distance from runner 1 to TB entry this would help improve flow by eliminating the turbulence happening there.


      Modified by Don R at 9:16 AM 2-27-2007

    15. Banned Don R's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 3rd, 2002
      Posts
      6,144
      02-27-2007 09:15 AM #40
      Quote, originally posted by 04VDubGLI »
      Don R - I'm confused as to whether the ABD would not perform as expected in a good or bad fashion? I mean, there are obviously some increases in air flow and seem to be pretty consistent at that...
      I now am wondering if maybe it would be worth it to get it extruded and honed. I imagine that would not only clean up all of the slop, but probably even make the runners a little more efficient?

      I mentioned this before in the other thread. These flow results are not be considered definitive since an intake under goes dynamic flow, pressure, temps and transient flow. The extrude hone may improve it but would not be worth it.

    16. Member 04VDubGLI's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 20th, 2005
      Location
      Pittsburgh, PA ish
      Posts
      6,572
      Vehicles
      04.5 VW GLI 1.8T
      02-27-2007 09:32 AM #41
      Thanks. I'm definitely going to try to get a dyno up w/it. Of course I still have a small turbo... but that's ok. It'll give some idea anyhow I suspect.

    17. Banned Don R's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 3rd, 2002
      Posts
      6,144
      02-27-2007 09:33 AM #42
      Quote, originally posted by 04VDubGLI »
      Thanks. I'm definitely going to try to get a dyno up w/it. Of course I still have a small turbo... but that's ok. It'll give some idea anyhow I suspect.

      Don't expect much

    18. Member 04VDubGLI's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 20th, 2005
      Location
      Pittsburgh, PA ish
      Posts
      6,572
      Vehicles
      04.5 VW GLI 1.8T
      02-27-2007 10:06 AM #43
      What gains would you expect to see? What would you say is the best SP intake mani then? The SP 007? Or are SP intake manifolds in general not going to show much of an increase due to an apparent max increase of about 200cfm? Sorry, hopefully someone else is a little confused or I'll feel dumb. I guess my real question is what would you expect the cfms to translate to in terms of hp/tq - I know it's a little more complicated than that, but just speaking generally.

    19. Banned axlekiller's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 16th, 2006
      Posts
      1,380
      02-27-2007 10:12 AM #44
      200cfm is ~133hp. The question becomes when you can move 200 cfm more. There will be gains but after you install a competent intake manifold, the head/stock cams become the next flow restriction. And yes, the SP 007 will show the best gains of the small port intake manifolds testing, but if you're not already on a big turbo setup, then you have other areas to address.

    20. Banned Don R's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 3rd, 2002
      Posts
      6,144
      02-27-2007 10:12 AM #45
      Quote, originally posted by 04VDubGLI »
      What gains would you expect to see? What would you say is the best SP intake mani then? The SP 007? Or are SP intake manifolds in general not going to show much of an increase due to an apparent max increase of about 200cfm? Sorry, hopefully someone else is a little confused or I'll feel dumb. I guess my real question is what would you expect the cfms to translate to in terms of hp/tq - I know it's a little more complicated than that, but just speaking generally.

      None of these intakes will yield any significant gains on the stock turbo you may get an increase in trq but that's about it.
      I beleive the ABD/Del Rio intake mani was designed to use with the delrio kit that uses the 28RS turbo.

    21. Member VRT's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 7th, 2001
      Location
      Canada
      Posts
      4,274
      Vehicles
      90 corrado 20/20 haldex, 2003 jetta
      02-27-2007 10:14 AM #46
      I will be doing a before and after dyno test on my RMR as soon as I get it back

    22. Banned axlekiller's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 16th, 2006
      Posts
      1,380
      02-27-2007 10:16 AM #47
      Quote, originally posted by VRT »
      I will be doing a before and after dyno test on my RMR as soon as I get it back

      Good stuff Rob, thanks again for letting us test it. The most interesting results will be from comparing before and after dynos to the flowbench results. [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]

    23. Banned Don R's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 3rd, 2002
      Posts
      6,144
      02-27-2007 10:17 AM #48
      Quote, originally posted by VRT »
      I will be doing a before and after dyno test on my RMR as soon as I get it back

      Right-on Rob [IMG]http://**********************/smile/emthup.gif[/IMG]

    24. Banned axlekiller's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 16th, 2006
      Posts
      1,380
      02-27-2007 10:19 AM #49
      Quote, originally posted by slappynuts »
      I have looked at most of the runners and I think most of the manifolds in this test(except maybe ABD one) have too long of a runner to take advantage of a bigger turbo.

      Are you including the length of your runner and V stack protruding above/off the plenum floor? That's only going to cause turbulent pockets of air, and you don't have the necessary full radius 1-1.5" on the stacks to make a 270* sweep into the runner entry. Would you like to send your intake for flow testing once completed to compare to these others?

    25. 02-27-2007 11:53 AM #50
      Quote, originally posted by Wizard-of-OD »
      You deducted this from the results?

      pretty much,
      lets see, the RMR is one of the best flowing manifolds, with the best distribution among cylinders.
      The pricing is spot on, and you have the option of different throttle body options plus the location of the throttle body,
      tell me why it isn't a good buy?

    Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •