***1.8T Intake Manifold Test Results***

[badger5]

Quote, originally posted by axlekiller »

Yes, #1 is closest to the throttle. Lower numbers on 007's in runner #4 are from the taper of the plenum. Once again, under pressure, runner #4 won't suffer from this.

thanks for clearing that up

[badger5]

Quote, originally posted by petesell »

can anyone speculate at what power levels the stocker runs out of breath in order for these manis to have a reasonable cost/benefit ratio? has there even been a back to back dyno with just a manifold swap on a BT setup? good thread

i did a back to back on mine. before was a dual plenum largeport std tbody, then 007mani with R32 tbody
gains 30bhp & 22lbft from same boost

[Boostin20v]

Quote, originally posted by badger5 »

i did a back to back on mine. before was a dual plenum largeport std tbody, then 007mani with R32 tbody gains 30bhp & 22lbft from same boost

Unfortunately the dyno you've mentioned and its results have no data on how they were compared to a OE manifold.

[IFIWASINMYVW]

What happened to USRT, or did I miss somthing?

[monster007]

It was against a modded intake.

[turbotuner20V]

Yea, but I think i get what Stu is getting at... theoretically based on the flow data... a stock largeport OEM intake manifold my have flowed beter than the 'dahlback style' aftermarket one.

So gains may have been greater, or they have have been less if compared to an OEM stock largeport.

[badger5]

Quote, originally posted by Boostin20v »

Unfortunately the dyno you've mentioned and its results have no data on how they were compared to a OE manifold.

thats right. it gave gains over a dual plenum largeport on stock throttle body, which in turn should have been better than stock itself.

gains are gains tho my friend.

[Boostin20v]

Quote, originally posted by badger5 »

thats right. it gave gains over a dual plenum largeport on stock throttle body, which in turn should have been better than stock itself. gains are gains tho my friend.

Which has nothing to do with the question asked, about a comparison of an OE manifold to an upgraded manifold:

Quote, originally posted by petesell »

can anyone speculate at what power levels the stocker runs out of breath in order for these manis to have a reasonable cost/benefit ratio? has there even been a back to back dyno with just a manifold swap on a BT setup? good thread

[badger5]

Quote, originally posted by turbotuner20V »

Yea, but I think i get what Stu is getting at... theoretically based on the flow data... a stock largeport OEM intake manifold my have flowed beter than the 'dahlback style' aftermarket one. So gains may have been greater, or they have have been less if compared to an OEM stock largeport.

yea except DB aint largeport and never will be and my dual plenum was largeport (lower section was stock laregport runner so injector shrouding would'nt be ideal) and upper section was radius air horns and dual plenum.

On a previous 435whp motor it gave an additional 32bhp/22lbft which is the back to back test I held out to do.

Props to monstor for making it.
does what it says on the tin for me.

[badger5]

Quote, originally posted by Boostin20v »

Which has nothing to do with the question asked, about a comparison of an OE manifold to an upgraded manifold:

lol @ you lot

GAINS.... real ones on an actual engine!

[turbotuner20V]

Quote, originally posted by badger5 »

yea except DB aint largeport and never will be and my dual plenum was largeport (lower section was stock laregport runner so injector shrouding would'nt be ideal) and upper section was radius air horns and dual plenum. On a previous 435whp motor it gave an additional 32bhp/22lbft which is the back to back test I held out to do. Props to monstor for making it. does what it says on the tin for me.

whoa.. those were the gains on the duel plenum custom manifold before swapping on the 007 and gaining MORE power?

[badger5]

Quote, originally posted by turbotuner20V »

Yea, but I think i get what Stu is getting at... theoretically based on the flow data... a stock largeport OEM intake manifold my have flowed beter than the 'dahlback style' aftermarket one. So gains may have been greater, or they have have been less if compared to an OEM stock largeport.

yep agreed...
will never know as the dual plenum i ran has never been flowbenched and has since been sold on.

happy with the 007 results myself... on my real engine and actual figures recorded before to after.

[badger5]

Quote, originally posted by turbotuner20V »

whoa.. those were the gains on the duel plenum custom manifold before swapping on the 007 and gaining MORE power?

if i think i understand what you said.. (its late here) the +32bhp/22lb were from my previousl dual plenum mani going to the new 007 mani big port on r32 tbody.

the motor was never tested on stock mani as there is'nt a largeport manifold for my motor (TT style mani on my seat ibiza)

[turbotuner20V]

Quote, originally posted by badger5 »

if i think i understand what you said.. (its late here) the +32bhp/22lb were from my previousl dual plenum mani going to the new 007 mani big port on r32 tbody. the motor was never tested on stock mani as there is'nt a manifold for my motor (TT style mani on my seat ibiza)

oh, ok... i thought you had a 32bhp gain going from a stock oem manifold to the custom dual plenum... then gained even more power going from the custom dual plenum to the 007.

[Brett@APR]

Quote, originally posted by silvercar »

I believe brett@apr designed the APR unit. any of you fellas care to chime in on areas you feel are victory or defeat?

I did indeed design the APR manifold. First let me say that the efforts of all those involved should be applauded and I also applaud everyone that designed and/or produced a manifold for the test.

My design, the APR unit, was engineered for the absolute best performance running on an engine. I compromised as little as possible in an effort to realize this objective. I did place the throttle body in a location that was most logical for the applications that this unit would see and I did utilize the factory injector seats (for several reasons.)

The APR manifold was not designed to win a flowbench test such as the one performed (although our unit performed admirably.) As any engine designer worth his weight in salt would tell you, what is optimal on a flowbench and what is optimal on an actual engine are very different. There are several 'dynamic' design considerations on our manifold that would never be measured on a flowbench test. For starters, our plenum is large, does NOT taper, and extends beyond the last runner (I would have extended it even further if I had room.) This is critical. As an intake valve opens, the air velocity surrounding the runner gets high very quickly. This has a tendency to create low pressure in the runner. The runner needs access to higher pressure air as readily as possible. The best way to do this is to utilize a large plenum and make sure that the plenum has volume surrounding all sides of each runner inlet. THIS BECOMES EVEN MORE CRITICAL ON TURBO APPLICATIONS AS INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESSURE INCREASES. In simplified terms this is why the best manifolds are designed this way. Look at the plenums on this engine (Audi R8) ->http://gallery.audiworld.com/a...l.jpg A tapered plenum in a boosted application will have progressively worse flow as you move further down the taper (the runner on the end will be very lean.) This WILL NOT be evident on a flowbench test (in fact a flowbench test will likely show flow as nice and even.)

This is completely counterintuitive to what someone would think would be optimal by watching a flowbench all day and that's because engines do not operate like a flowbench. Based on the designs that I see here, I would expect the APR manifold to outperform every manifold here in actual engine performance (in fact, I believe it has already proven this as I have not seen any performance figures close to the gains that people have been making on our manifold.) I would expect the HOMEBREW manifold and RMR to be close seconds.

[turbotuner20V]

Quote, originally posted by Brett@APR »

I did indeed design the APR manifold. First let me say that the efforts of all those involved should be applauded and I also applaud everyone that designed and/or produced a manifold for the test. My design, the APR unit, was engineered for the absolute best performance running on an engine. I compromised as little as possible in an effort to realize this objective. I did place the throttle body in a location that was most logical for the applications that this unit would see and I did utilize the factory injector seats (for several reasons.) The APR manifold was not designed to win a flowbench test such as the one performed (although our unit performed admirably.) As any engine designer worth his weight in salt would tell you, what is optimal on a flowbench and what is optimal on an actual engine are very different. There are several 'dynamic' design considerations on our manifold that would never be measured on a flowbench test. For starters, our plenum is large, does NOT taper, and extends beyond the last runner (I would have extended it even further if I had room.) This is critical. As an intake valve opens, the air velocity surrounding the runner gets high very quickly. This has a tendency to create low pressure in the runner. The runner needs access to higher pressure air as readily as possible. The best way to do this is to utilize a large plenum and make sure that the plenum has volume surrounding all sides of each runner inlet. THIS BECOMES EVEN MORE CRITICAL ON TURBO APPLICATIONS AS INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESSURE INCREASES. In simplified terms this is why the best manifolds are designed this way. Look at the plenums on this engine (Audi R8) ->http://gallery.audiworld.com/a...l.jpg A tapered plenum in a boosted application will have progressively worse flow as you move further down the taper (the runner on the end will be very lean.) This WILL NOT be evident on a flowbench test (in fact a flowbench test will likely show flow as nice and even.) This is completely counterintuitive to what someone would think would be optimal by watching a flowbench all day and that's because engines do not operate like a flowbench. Based on the designs that I see here, I would expect the APR manifold to outperform every manifold here in actual engine performance (in fact, I believe it has already proven this as I have not seen any performance figures close to the gains that people have been making on our manifold.) I would expect the HOMEBREW manifold and RMR to be close seconds.

If the manifold is installed on a car, would it be possible to determine if there is a lean condition based on the timing pull for that cylinder?

[Brett@APR]

Quote, originally posted by turbotuner20V »

If the manifold is installed on a car, would it be possible to determine if there is a lean condition based on the timing pull for that cylinder?

Possibly. The degree to which the condition will occur is relative to the amount of taper and overall area. I don't mean to imply that a tapered plenum is going to be dangerously lean, it's just not the optimal plenum design for an actual turbo engine. The main plenum should be big and open on all sides (a mini atmosphere if you will)- especially on a turbo car.

[monster007]

I would love to reply to this, but I am not supposed to.

[SloJTI]

Quote, originally posted by monster007 »

I would love to reply to this, but I am not supposed to.

Why not? I would like to hear this response as well

[turbotuner20V]

cool, well I'll just keep an eye on my a/f, timing pull and knock voltages. They've all seemed ok so far.

Any reason why people w/ high power 6cyl 2jzte supra motors would use this design then. I'd imagine the 5th and 6th cyl would be even worse off?

[Brett@APR]

Quote, originally posted by monster007 »

I would love to reply to this, but I am not supposed to.

Why not? I would like to hear it!

[fast_a2_20v]

He's not an advertiser so his posts will be deleted.

[mirror]

Quote, originally posted by fast_a2_20v »

He's not an advertiser so his posts will be deleted.

it's a technical discussion, not an advertisement. let them go at it...professionally of course.

[SloJTI]

Quote, originally posted by mirror »

it's a technical discussion, not an advertisement. let them go at it...professionally of course.

x2

[Brett@APR]

Quote, originally posted by turbotuner20V »

Any reason why people w/ high power 6cyl 2jzte supra motors would use this design then. I'd imagine the 5th and 6th cyl would be even worse off?

Absolutely there is a reason. For one it works well on a flowbench and many people make the mistake of designing off what works on a flowbench. Good engine designers know where a flowbench can be used properly and where the results must be taken with a grain of salt. I am sure that there are some tapered plenum manifolds used at some very high levels of racing. This does not mean it is a good design. I gave an example of a non-tapered manifold used on the Audi R8. This is also just an example and does not mean it is necessarily the best design. And I am certainly not saying that a tapered plenum manifold should be thrown out with the trash. What I am saying is that a tapered plenum is not the optimal design for a turbocharged engine. This does not prevent it from being used all over the place in the automotive performance aftermarket. Since I was posed with the job of designing the best performing manifold for the 1.8T engine that we could I utilized the best design principles that I knew of, not what necessarily was the most popular. (Let's face it, my design looks kind of boring but the results speak for themselves.) Several of our stage 3+ customers have reported over 45 hp at the wheels and a 280-300 RPM reduction in boost onset RPM with the addition of the manifold/throttle-body assembly alone (and widened ports.)

Also let me reiterate that I have the utmost respect for the people involved in making and testing all of the manifolds here. ESPECIALLY the guys that don't own companies and designed or produced it themselves. I am not trying to get in a pissing match, I just wanted to point out some technical aspects of the manifolds and of course these are just my opinions.

[Brett@APR]

Quote, originally posted by SloJTI »

x2

x3. I'm cool with that. (Although I really need to be working and may not respond again until tomorrow.)

[VariantStg3]

Quote, originally posted by enginerd »

I think he is talking about lengthening his plenum, not his runners. Giving more entrance length to his plenum should help with distribution.

That is correct sir. Lengthing the plenum on the throttle side to allow for better flow through runner #1 and leaving the runner lengths alone.

[Issam Abed]

Quote, originally posted by turbotuner20V »

I'd imagine the 5th and 6th cyl would be even worse off?

How so?With pressure,cylinder #5 & 6 would actually benefit the same as cyl #1--->4.
Jimmy I think you should type up your post.

Quote, originally posted by Brett@APR »

For one it works well on a flowbench and many people make the mistake of designing off what works on a flowbench.

Strangly enough (or not so strange) the 007 manifold performed better than both the Jabbasport & Dhalback manifold on badger5's car.

[turbotuner20V]

Quote, originally posted by Wizard-of-OD »

How so?With pressure,cylinder #5 & 6 would actually benefit the same as cyl #1--->4. Jimmy I think you should type up your post. Strangly enough (or not so strange) the 007 manifold performed better than both the Jabbasport & Dhalback manifold on badger5's car.

i know, i support the idea that the 5th and 6th will be just fine. I was posting that as a question to Brett.

[VariantStg3]

Quote, originally posted by turbotuner20V »

cool, well I'll just keep an eye on my a/f, timing pull and knock voltages. They've all seemed ok so far. Any reason why people w/ high power 6cyl 2jzte supra motors would use this design then. I'd imagine the 5th and 6th cyl would be even worse off?

I am not an engineer but this picture does not show all that much taper. It does have an angled entry for the throttle body. I think we have concluded that the angle of attack of the throttle body is more benefical to the early cylinders 1/2 in a pure flow bench test.

[Brett@APR]

Quote, originally posted by Wizard-of-OD »

How so?With pressure,cylinder #5 & 6 would actually benefit the same as cyl #1--->4.

Nope, I disagree entirely. Again, an engine is very different from a flow bench.

Quote »

Strangly enough (or not so strange) the 007 manifold performed better than both the Jabbasport & Dhalback manifold on badger5's car.

I am not surprised in the slightest it out performed the Dahlback (I don't know anything about the Jabbasport.) I have the utmost respect for Don and his work and the design is good but a non-tapered plenum would perform even better on an engine even though it would likely not do as well on a flowbench test.

The Dahlback manifold, on the other hand, is an obsolete and ineffective design in my opinion. The logic behind the dual plenum and the longitudinal slit is not sound. I know this was run on some very successful race cars in the 80's but it simply doesn't work as well as other designs and the design has been retired in most circles for 20+ years. There is a reason you don't see many manifolds like this. It may look cool but it simply doesn't perform.

[slappynuts]

Quote, originally posted by Brett@APR »

Nope, I disagree entirely. Again, an engine is very different from a flow bench. I am not surprised in the slightest it out performed the Dahlback (I don't know anything about the Jabbasport.) I have the utmost respect for Don and his work and the design is good but a non-tapered plenum would perform even better on an engine even though it would likely not do as well on a flowbench test. The Dahlback manifold, on the other hand, is an obsolete and ineffective design in my opinion. The logic behind the dual plenum and the longitudinal slit is not sound. I know this was run on some very successful race cars in the 80's but it simply doesn't work as well as other designs and the design has been retired in most circles for 20+ years. There is a reason you don't see many manifolds like this. It may look cool but it simply doesn't perform.

No arguing with the leg humpers

[silvercar]

Quote, originally posted by Brett@APR »

I did indeed design the APR manifold. First let me say that the efforts of all those involved should be applauded and I also applaud everyone that designed and/or produced a manifold for the test. My design, the APR unit, was engineered for the absolute best performance running on an engine. I compromised as little as possible in an effort to realize this objective. I did place the throttle body in a location that was most logical for the applications that this unit would see and I did utilize the factory injector seats (for several reasons.) The APR manifold was not designed to win a flowbench test such as the one performed (although our unit performed admirably.) As any engine designer worth his weight in salt would tell you, what is optimal on a flowbench and what is optimal on an actual engine are very different. There are several 'dynamic' design considerations on our manifold that would never be measured on a flowbench test. For starters, our plenum is large, does NOT taper, and extends beyond the last runner (I would have extended it even further if I had room.) This is critical. As an intake valve opens, the air velocity surrounding the runner gets high very quickly. This has a tendency to create low pressure in the runner. The runner needs access to higher pressure air as readily as possible. The best way to do this is to utilize a large plenum and make sure that the plenum has volume surrounding all sides of each runner inlet. THIS BECOMES EVEN MORE CRITICAL ON TURBO APPLICATIONS AS INTAKE MANIFOLD PRESSURE INCREASES. In simplified terms this is why the best manifolds are designed this way. Look at the plenums on this engine (Audi R8) ->http://gallery.audiworld.com/a...l.jpg A tapered plenum in a boosted application will have progressively worse flow as you move further down the taper (the runner on the end will be very lean.) This WILL NOT be evident on a flowbench test (in fact a flowbench test will likely show flow as nice and even.) This is completely counterintuitive to what someone would think would be optimal by watching a flowbench all day and that's because engines do not operate like a flowbench. Based on the designs that I see here, I would expect the APR manifold to outperform every manifold here in actual engine performance (in fact, I believe it has already proven this as I have not seen any performance figures close to the gains that people have been making on our manifold.) I would expect the HOMEBREW manifold and RMR to be close seconds.

would you care to detail the reasons that you used "stock" injector bosses? I have laid hand to every manifold in this test, and several have perfect injector placement in billet, properly sealing bungs that arent killing off the port area.

my second question to the apr runner is: Why is the curve so drastic? It seems to me by the shape that it would hurt port velocity and create turbulence rather than promote it.

As to your remarks about engine builders liking straight plenums(maybe in a later post than the one i have quoted here): the guys who did the testing liked the shape of my 007 plenum... and all due respect... but i have no doubt that they have a more intimate knowledge of power gained by flow than anyone at APR.

[silvercar]

Quote, originally posted by badger5 »

i did a back to back on mine. before was a dual plenum largeport std tbody, then 007mani with R32 tbody gains 30bhp & 22lbft from same boost

must have been a posting issue so ill say it again. ..........

If we were so bold to ASSUME that you didnt LOSE power on your previous dual plenem manifold, could we not further assume that your 007 is at least 30 hp better than an OE large port?

[mirror]

the experts are out in full swing.