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

[slappynuts]

Quote, originally posted by mirror »

the experts are out in full swing.

[silvercar]

Quote, originally posted by mirror »

the experts are out in full swing.

Its not about being an 'expert.' its about calling stu out on arguing simply for the sake of arguing that badgers claim of gains were not valid. I mean come on. You are the king of argument... and i know you saw right through that.

[axlekiller]

Quote, originally posted by slappynuts »

I'm sure since you're the REAL expert, you'll take the time to put your own manifold on a flowbench with the stock manifold as well as dyno them back to back to back up your claims. Or maybe not.

[mirror]

Quote, originally posted by silvercar »

Its not about being an 'expert.' its about calling stu out on arguing simply for the sake of arguing that badgers claim of gains were not valid. I mean come on. You are the king of argument... and i know you saw right through that.

o. i guess i didn't, since i don't argue assumptions.

Quote, originally posted by axlekiller »

I'm sure since you're the REAL expert, you'll take the time to put your own manifold on a flowbench with the stock manifold as well as dyno them back to back to back up your claims. Or maybe not.

i'm sure chuck could school you on all kinds of ways to make power. not chase a 1/4hp at a time.

[silvercar]

Quote, originally posted by mirror »

o. i guess i didn't, since i don't argue assumptions.

Get real. You cant honestly sit there and say that his 007 install didnt make a lot of power for him. Hell, even if you throw out the dyno, he increased injector duty cycle by like 15-20% or something at the same boost pressure. Does that not usually imply an increase in power? And if anyone were going to see plenum problems causing lean conditions, would it not be badger5?? It is after all a circuit car that lives in the upper revs.

[VariantStg3]

Quote, originally posted by slappynuts »

Man i love this stuff. I do want to see slappy's mani tested simply because the pics i saw in the other post the thing looks as homebrewed as my mani. I mean where are the CAD drawings and the virtual Flow tests and the engineering behind the design? Post that stuff up so we know you not just looking at other designs and welding up a bunch of part like I did?

...and with all this design information now public your "Prototype" mani should shine....

[Issam Abed]

If you ladies dont behave I am going to have the thread cleaned up before it gets messy.
This thread isnt about who has the biggest dick or is the baddest engineering skills.Its about understanding why the results are they way they are.I for one want to know how about the Dahlback manifold.

[Brett@APR]

Quote, originally posted by silvercar »

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.

Sure. For one, they give more flexibility with injectors (large body injectors will work, for instance.) Second, some injectors will perform more reliably with the plastic insulating insert. Thirdly, I understand how geometry effects flow and ultimate power and can incorporate design features not readily accepted by the layperson but still make more power in my design. This is because I can separate the vital criteria from the not-so-vital criteria or minimally vital criteria.

Quote »

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.

Packaging, placement of inlet runner to plenum intersection, third part from the last answer and probably other reasons that I don't recall now.

Quote »

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.

I would certainly challenge that statement. I have no doubt that they could determine by looking at a design what would work better on a flowbench more quickly than I can but their statements lead me to believe that they aren't nearly as good at determining what works on an actual engine. I don't know how many times I or other people need to say this but what works on a flowbench IS NOT what will necessarily work on an engine. Furthermore, spending hours on a flowbench gets you absolutely no closer to determining what will actually work on an engine. Only individually testing the different designs on an engine will. Even then, you will likely be confused because design parameters which are NOT tested in a flowbench test will skew the results.

What is much more important is understanding what is going on in a dynamic state with the engine. Many complex and highly accurate engine analysis programs do not take things like plenum taper, and injector boss protrusion into consideration at all and yet the simulation results are extremely accurate. Yet parameters like plenum volume, runner length, runner cross-section, throttle body cross-section, etc. are taken into consideration. These programs are able to calculate the results without solid geometry of the manifolds or even cylinder heads (although there are many valvetrain specific parameters involved and the more entered the more accurate the results.) I would almost guarantee that the R8 intake manifolds in the picture that I posted were never tested on a flow bench. Why? Because that particular component did not need to be flow tested. The engineers understood the vital parameters required in the design, they knew the best basic manifold design, and did not need to waste time on such a test. Furthermore, the results would not be valuable (and potentially would be misleading) if run in the same manner as the test performed in this thread as they do not represent how an actual engine operates. (This is not to say that flowbenches are not very valuable tools in other situations!) I do not doubt, however, that much consideration was given by the Audi engineers on the runner length, plenum volume and other vital manifold parameters and I am sure many wave simulations were performed to optimize the design and likely a number of iterations were tested on an engine dynamometer.

What this comes down to is being able to separate the bulls**t from what constitutes good solid design. As one of the original founders of APR and the engineering lead for the company I have been trying to do this since day one. Any product that we design that goes under the hood is designed for performance- not by the latest fad or by going by the latest market trend. We apply solid engineering and nothing else. The basics of what makes an optimal intake manifold has been understood for a very, very long time. These fads such as heavily tapered plenums, velocity stacks, dual plenums, etc. are nothing more than that - a fad. People buy into them because they look cool and in some cases (certainly not all) they may give better numbers on a flowbench or because they have some other unique feature that appeals to the consumer but whose existence is based on flawed logic.

By applying solid engineering and logic we determine precisely what are the vital parameters and what are the not-so-vital parameters. We prioritize these parameters and then come up with the best design that works within all of our constraints. With the 1.8T intake manifold project we designed it the way it is because it was the best manifold design. Any compromises needed for fitment, etc. were minimized and are negligible. Again, the results speak for themselves. I don't know of any other manifold that has shown the gains that many people are seeing on our manifold. This is not to say that other manifolds don't work and have big gains, I expect many of the designs do but I would expect our design to outperform any of the designs that I have seen in most all real-world scenarios.


Modified by Brett@APR at 7:55 PM 2-27-2007

[slappynuts]

Quote, originally posted by VariantStg3 »

Man i love this stuff. I do want to see slappy's Mani tested simply because the pics i saw in the other post the thing looks as homebrewed as my Mani. I mean where are the CAD drawings and the virtual Flow tests and the engineering behind the design? Post that stuff up so we know you not just looking at other designs and welding up a bunch of part like I did? ...and with all this design information now public your "Prototype" Mani should shine....

Virtual flow and cad drawings made very little more power than stock(embarrassingly enough).

[slappynuts]

[Issam Abed]

Quote, originally posted by slappynuts »

Virtual flow and cad drawings made very little more power than stock(embarrassingly enough).

If you look closely to the graph power has been increased up to 25 whp and 25wtrq which levels off at the end. The intake satisfied it's design intent mid-range power.

[mirror]

Quote, originally posted by silvercar »

Get real. You cant honestly sit there and say that his 007 install didnt make a lot of power for him. Hell, even if you throw out the dyno, he increased injector duty cycle by like 15-20% or something at the same boost pressure. Does that not usually imply an increase in power? And if anyone were going to see plenum problems causing lean conditions, would it not be badger5?? It is after all a circuit car that lives in the upper revs.

dude, i'm not saying it didn't make power.
i'm just not buying into the assumption on how much power it made over an oem. thats why i didn't see into your arguement. because you're assuming it is making "xx"whp over oem, which you truly don't know. that tank is an assumption which i have no interest in arguing about (i wasn't even the one arguing anyhow )

[VariantStg3]

Quote, originally posted by Wizard-of-OD »

If you look closely to the graph power has been increased up to 25 whp and 25wtrq which levels off at the end. The intake satisfied it's design intent mid-range power.

Yes that plot looks like your on the right track. I mean that's the point of all of these designs. It is to make more power. What we need to compile with these results is stated gains each say they made. I gave my manifold big props and said it made 30-36 Bhp early and now with these results I am thinking the Homebrew definitely contributed to higher horsepower numbers although I can't prove it, yet.

I beleive more than a few APR guys have stated gains in the 30s as well. If there are 007 and other owners that have dynoed before and after it would help everyone to see those plots as well.

I still have the old small port manifold so if I can get'r dun I am going to rebuild the setup with the best tune I can do then switch out to the small port and see if it hurst the power.


Modified by VariantStg3 at 9:45 PM 2-27-2007

[turbotuner20V]

that dyno comparison was a small port manifold w/ a stock small port head... not a large port manifold w/ a 'port matched' head.

[slappynuts]

Quote, originally posted by Wizard-of-OD »

If you look closely to the graph power has been increased up to 25 whp and 25wtrq which levels off at the end. The intake satisfied it's design intent mid-range power.

On different days under different conditions(better than on the stock day).

[VariantStg3]

Quote, originally posted by turbotuner20V »

that dyno comparison was a small port manifold w/ a stock small port head... not a large port manifold w/ a 'port matched' head.

What are you saying? Does that mean you can make 25/25 in the midrange even with small port BP manis and then even more with a large port matched unit?

[turbotuner20V]

Quote, originally posted by slappynuts »

On different days under different conditions(better than on the stock day).

haha, seriously? it was a few degrees different...

it's 25whp and 25wtq more than yours is making.... well actually 309whp more... since there's been no dynos of yours.

[turbotuner20V]

Quote, originally posted by VariantStg3 »

What are you saying? Does that mean you can make 25/25 in the midrange even with small port BP manis and then even more with a large port matched unit?

huh? small port BP (big port?) mani?

i'm saying that that dyno was w/ a stock small port OEM manifold, then with a small port 007 manifold. And since they were both small ports, the head wasn't port matched to use the large port style manifold.

apr uses a large port manifold and port matches the head to the AEB gasket size that the runners of the manifold use.

[slappynuts]

Quote, originally posted by turbotuner20V »

haha, seriously? it was a few degrees different... it's 25whp and 25wtq more than yours is making.... well actually 309whp more... since there's been no dynos of yours.

12 deg is alot of low end power going away.Anybody else notice the choke on the top end?There is alot left on the table and I'm not really that impressed.

[slappynuts]

Quote, originally posted by turbotuner20V »

haha, seriously? it was a few degrees different... it's 25whp and 25wtq more than yours is making.... well actually 309whp more... since there's been no dynos of yours.

Dont get all salty with me because I'm not telling you what you want to hear.

[turbotuner20V]

Quote, originally posted by slappynuts »

Dont get all salty with me because I'm not telling you what you want to hear.

lol, i'm not salty about anything, it just seems like all the options aren't being looked at in equal light.

where is the dyno of the APR small port manifold on a stock small port head for comparison?

there isn't one....

Now there is a dyno of the APR large port manifold on a ported small port head. Where is that comparison dyno?

Granted the two will be apples to oranges, but at least that will provide something else for people to argue over and use to put down the manifold they are opposed to.

[VariantStg3]

Quote, originally posted by turbotuner20V »

huh? small port BP (big port?) mani? i'm saying that that dyno was w/ a stock small port OEM manifold, then with a small port 007 manifold. And since they were both small ports, the head wasn't port matched to use the large port style manifold. apr uses a large port manifold and port matches the head to the AEB gasket size that the runners of the manifold use.

BP=Big Plenum sorry.

Right, well I think it is definitve at this point that the BIG AEB style head is a large part of the gains in power.

But looks like the big plenum on a small port set of runners still adds power compared to the stock unit. and its a bolt on...

So can we all agree that if you want the biggest gaines you will need a AEB style porting job or better, then you can add the big runner manifold of your choice and see significant gains.

[slappynuts]

Quote, originally posted by turbotuner20V »

lol, i'm not salty about anything, it just seems like all the options aren't being looked at in equal light. where is the dyno of the APR small port manifold on a stock small port head for comparison? there isn't one.... Now there is a dyno of the APR large port manifold on a ported small port head. Where is that comparison dyno? Granted the two will be apples to oranges, but at least that will provide something else for people to argue over and use to put down the manifold they are opposed to.

Instead of dwelling on what we already know lets work with the rest of the actual equation.Lets talk about runner length.I know nobody wants to hear whats really going on,but there is alot more power to be gained here and most of the manifolds in this test fail miserably at half of what makes power.

[turbotuner20V]

Quote, originally posted by slappynuts »

12 deg is alot of low end power going away.Anybody else notice the choke on the top end?There is alot left on the table and I'm not really that impressed.

as far as a choke on the top end... doesn't the stock small port head only flow like 170 or something? the manifold flows higher than that, so how would that cause a 'choke'?

[turbotuner20V]

Quote, originally posted by slappynuts »

Instead of dwelling on what we already know lets work with the rest of the actual equation.Lets talk about runner length.I know nobody wants to hear whats really going on,but there is alot more power to be gained here and most of the manifolds in this test fail miserably at half of what makes power.

that may be... but the only thing we can say about that aspect of the design is that "this would make more power probably on a dyno, but not on a flow chart"

and you know vortex of all places will go round and round if its just bouncing theories around.

[mirror]

Quote, originally posted by turbotuner20V »

that may be... but the only thing we can say about that aspect of the design is that "this would make more power probably on a dyno, but not on a flow chart" and you know vortex of all places will go round and round if its just bouncing theories around.

vortex is home of making theories fact. even if you prove them wrong, they became fact first, so it's to late. and now with this data, everyone will seem like they slept at a holiday inn.

big props to the testers. you both deserve credit. i just see this as being a theory test...and everyone will create some theory facts out of it, and bicker will continue.


Modified by mirror at 7:25 PM 2-27-2007

[slappynuts]

Quote, originally posted by turbotuner20V »

as far as a choke on the top end... doesn't the stock small port head only flow like 170 or something? the manifold flows higher than that, so how would that cause a 'choke'?

Here let me be the one to break the news to you.More flow does not necessarily = more power.

[axlekiller]

Quote, originally posted by slappynuts »

Instead of dwelling on what we already know lets work with the rest of the actual equation.Lets talk about runner length.I know nobody wants to hear whats really going on,but there is alot more power to be gained here and most of the manifolds in this test fail miserably at half of what makes power.

You've already been asked several times in this and the other thread. What formula are you using to calculate runner length. There are several common formulas that relate to runner cross section and runner length easily available in a Google search. Since you're much more informed on the subject, please continue the discussion with your thoughts on optimal length.

[turbotuner20V]

Quote, originally posted by slappynuts »

Here let me be the one to break the news to you.More flow does not necessarily = more power.

ok... so be the hero that takes one for the team.

design what you feel is the optimal plenum and runner begining and then test lengths of runners or how much protrudes into the plenum or whatever it is you want to do and provide us with an un-biased 'ideal' manifold.

with a before and after of course comparing it to a small port oem intake manifold on a stock head on the same day with the same conditions

[silvercar]

Quote, originally posted by Brett@APR »

I would certainly challenge that statement. I have no doubt that they could determine by looking at a design what would work better on a flowbench more quickly than I can but their statements lead me to believe that they aren't nearly as good at determining what works on an actual engine. I don't know how many times I or other people need to say this but what works on a flowbench IS NOT what will necessarily work on an engine. Furthermore, spending hours on a flowbench gets you absolutely no closer to determining what will actually work on an engine. Only individually testing the different designs on an engine will. Even then, you will likely be confused because design parameters which are NOT tested in a flowbench test will skew the results. What is much more important is understanding what is going on in a dynamic state with the engine. Many complex and highly accurate engine analysis programs do not take things like plenum taper, and injector boss protrusion into consideration at all and yet the simulation results are extremely accurate. Yet parameters like plenum volume, runner length, runner cross-section, throttle body cross-section, etc. are taken into consideration. These programs are able to calculate the results without solid geometry of the manifolds or even cylinder heads (although there are many valvetrain specific parameters involved and the more entered the more accurate the results.) I would almost guarantee that the R8 intake manifolds in the picture that I posted were never tested on a flow bench. Why? Because that particular component did not need to be flow tested. The engineers understood the vital parameters required in the design, they knew the best basic manifold design, and did not need to waste time on such a test. Furthermore, the results would not be valuable (and potentially would be misleading) if run in the same manner as the test performed in this thread as they do not represent how an actual engine operates. (This is not to say that flowbenches are not very valuable tools in other situations!) I do not doubt, however, that much consideration was given by the Audi engineers on the runner length, plenum volume and other vital manifold parameters and I am sure many wave simulations were performed to optimize the design and likely a number of iterations were tested on an engine dynamometer. What this comes down to is being able to separate the bulls**t from what constitutes good solid design. As one of the original founders of APR and the engineering lead for the company I have been trying to do this since day one. Any product that we design that goes under the hood is designed for performance- not by the latest fad or by going by the latest market trend. We apply solid engineering and nothing else. The basics of what makes an optimal intake manifold has been understood for a very, very long time. These fads such as heavily tapered plenums, velocity stacks, dual plenums, etc. are nothing more than that - a fad. People buy into them because they look cool and in some cases (certainly not all) they may give better numbers on a flowbench or because they have some other unique feature that appeals to the consumer but whose existence is based on flawed logic. By applying solid engineering and logic we determine precisely what are the vital parameters and what are the not-so-vital parameters. We prioritize these parameters and then come up with the best design that works within all of our constraints. With the 1.8T intake manifold project we designed it the way it is because it was the best manifold design. Any compromises needed for fitment, etc. were minimized and are negligible. Again, the results speak for themselves. I don't know of any other manifold that has shown the gains that many people are seeing on our manifold. This is not to say that other manifolds don't work and have big gains, I expect many of the designs do but I would expect our design to outperform any of the designs that I have seen in most all real-world scenarios. Modified by Brett@APR at 7:55 PM 2-27-2007

apr have many 1250 hp 5l engines running around? without an intercooler? -- point being that it is both arrogant and ignorant to disregard their opinions.

You keep saying that APRs mani will outperform a 007 in a real world scenario...

Well. In the world i live in... APR claims 36 BHP on a worked big port head and r32 throttle. and monster showed 20+ WHP on a small port stock head and stock throttle.

The proof is in the pudding. Im not contending that the APR isnt a good manifold at all. I just really cant see where youre getting off saying its the best.

PS. thanks for explaining the retention of the stock injector bosses.

[axlekiller]

Quote, originally posted by slappynuts »

Here let me be the one to break the news to you.More flow does not necessarily = more power.

Correct, the other half is velocity. Where do the tradeoffs lie?

[slappynuts]

Quote, originally posted by axlekiller »

You've already been asked several times in this and the other thread. What formula are you using to calculate runner length. There are several common formulas that relate to runner cross section and runner length easily available in a Google search. Since you're much more informed on the subject, please continue the discussion with your thoughts on optimal length.

And every time I have answered it the exact same way.The only thing missing here is the requested dimensions from the manifolds that I was not given.

[VariantStg3]

Quote, originally posted by slappynuts »

And every time I have answered it the exact same way.The only thing missing here is the requested dimensions from the manifolds that I was not given.

That information is for the designers to know. The testers should not be responsible for giving away dimensions. They can't do your R&D for you.

If you don't wanna publish your stuff either its OK.


Modified by VariantStg3 at 10:34 PM 2-27-2007

[axlekiller]

Quote, originally posted by slappynuts »

And every time I have answered it the exact same way.The only thing missing here is the requested dimensions from the manifolds that I was not given.

Vague statement? Remember, we're not as smart as you. Spell it out for us.

[slappynuts]

Quote, originally posted by VariantStg3 »

That information is for the designers to know. The testers should not be responsible for giving away dimensions. They can't do your R&D for you. If you don't wanna publish your stuff either its OK. Modified by VariantStg3 at 10:34 PM 2-27-2007

So they didnt want to release that info because they knew I would tell everyone it was a failure?They want to start a test,but not let us test anything?

Whatever.Back to the porn


Modified by slappynuts at 9:41 PM 2-27-2007