I dont usually post much on here but since I also happen to support Albert's design I'll share this bit of information. I hope I'm not breaking any rules but I copied this from another forum, the post was made by Yusuf Begic regarding Mike Reichen's evo 2...
"Mike Reichen had his EVO 2 at the dyno on Monday night testing DV/DT Fab's new FLP Race intake manifold 4G63 Mitsubishi FLP Race Intake manifold | DVDTFAB. The results were stout with 1093 awhp and 660 ft lbs of torque at only 40 psi! Previous dyno pulls with the Forester intake manifold neted a maximum of 1060, but at 4 psi more boost. At 40 psi the forester was just under 1,000 awhp. Also at only 24 psi base boost the forester put out 757 awhp and the DV/DT put out 769.98 awhp. All pulls were made on VP Import. I'll let Mike fill in all of the other details, but here's the dyno sheet which speaks for itself." You'll have to look for the dyno sheet as I'm not going to post it on here. Its on Shearer's blog.
I would say a 33whp gain on less boost is pretty darn impressive. Plus 40psi is no where near pushing the limit on that turbocharger. Just thought I would share some evidence or "proof" on the superior design of this manifold.
I dont usually post much on here but since I also happen to support Albert's design I'll share this bit of information. I hope I'm not breaking any rules but I copied this from another forum, the post was made by Yusuf Begic regarding Mike Reichen's evo 2...
"Mike Reichen had his EVO 2 at the dyno on Monday night testing DV/DT Fab's new FLP Race intake manifold 4G63 Mitsubishi FLP Race Intake manifold | DVDTFAB. The results were stout with 1093 awhp and 660 ft lbs of torque at only 40 psi! Previous dyno pulls with the Forester intake manifold neted a maximum of 1060, but at 4 psi more boost. At 40 psi the forester was just under 1,000 awhp. Also at only 24 psi base boost the forester put out 757 awhp and the DV/DT put out 769.98 awhp. All pulls were made on VP Import. I'll let Mike fill in all of the other details, but here's the dyno sheet which speaks for itself." You'll have to look for the dyno sheet as I'm not going to post it on here. Its on Shearer's blog.
I would say a 33whp gain on less boost is pretty darn impressive. Plus 40psi is no where near pushing the limit on that turbocharger. Just thought I would share some evidence or "proof" on the superior design of this manifold.
That is very impreesive but comparing a 1000whp evo to what most of us will be dealing with (which I'm sure you know the evo is different than 1/2g's) is pretty much apples and oranges. It does show the superior design which if anyone denys you just don't understand the goal or uses of this manifold so oh well. My problem is one the forrester is not what I would consider a big dog manifold. It's too big bulky and outdated and two I would like to see back to back pulls with only cool down time inbetween for a accurate test. I have seen cars make 15 more hp on a different day with NOTHING changed.
evo 2 as in the same powerplant in your car slippi, its pretty much apples and apples. Here's a link to a picture http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...DSC00330-1.jpg Sure it is beyond what most any of us will ever achieve but numbers dont lie. 93whp gain @ 40 psi. Time will tell though, if this thing ever does get tested on a flowbench.
Like I said I dont post much but you are persistent my man.
evo 2 as in the same powerplant in your car slippi, its pretty much apples and apples. Here's a link to a picture http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e1...DSC00330-1.jpg Sure it is beyond what most any of us will ever achieve but numbers dont lie. 93whp gain @ 40 psi. Time will tell though, if this thing ever does get tested on a flowbench.
Like I said I dont post much but you are persistent my man.
My bad I didn't see the 2 but again a 1000whp car can gain 20whp just by going to the dyno on a different day.
Forrester vs. This manifold? The JMF drag manifold pulled similar percentage increases over the JMF race manifold. It costs less too. I agree that it would be better to see something like a jmf race manifold vs. the DVDT manifold. Or the JMF drag manifold or beyond redline manifold vs. this DVDT manifold. That would be a real comparison, since it costs so much more than even the later 2 manifolds. . .
____________________________
Matt
dd '90 GST, Holset H1C
So, you can get a CNC'd tapered runner entrance baseplate for the plenum with a 2.5" CNC'd radius on ebay??!!
Point me to where!!!
The answer to your question is, no, not to my knowledge. Albert was supposed to be getting one on a dyno some time soon. I don't know if it happened.
Cnc'd intake flange from one of the vendors. 2" Aluminum tubing squared at the end to match flange plate. 4" Aluminum tube 1.3' long. One 4" aluminum dome cap. One aluminum tb flange. There is no reason for it to be $1200 other than bragging rights for people who have too much money.
Cnc'd intake flange from one of the vendors. 2" Aluminum tubing squared at the end to match flange plate. 4" Aluminum tube 1.3' long. One 4" aluminum dome cap. One aluminum tb flange. There is no reason for it to be $1200 other than bragging rights for people who have too much money.
Tapered runners boss. Using circular tubing and clamping it down in the last inch of the runner creates huge flow restrictions from the turbulence you impart on the airflow.
Having a tapered runner allows you to increase velocity as it reaches the head.
the problem with most vendors out there, is that they don't implement fluid dynamics in their designs. Adding vertically protruding velocity stacks into the plenum is a huge flow killer, as well as drastically changing the cross sectional geometry at the last second in the runner. Using square tapering plenums and not allotting extra volume over and around each runner to compensate for pulse flow dynamics and its disruption on the airflow crossing over each runner.... Corner welds on a plenum that will see huge pressure fluctuations over and over and over and expecting them to last and not shear...
The reason why it's $1200, it because it has what every other manifold MFGer has overlooked in terms of engineering. The other MFGer's cared more about mass production, not engineering a top quality product at the expense of making something quickly.
Having a tapered runner allows you to increase velocity as it reaches the head.
the problem with most vendors out there, is that they don't implement fluid dynamics in their designs. Adding vertically protruding velocity stacks into the plenum is a huge flow killer, as well as drastically changing the cross sectional geometry at the last second in the runner. Using square tapering plenums and not allotting extra volume over and around each runner to compensate for pulse flow dynamics and its disruption on the airflow crossing over each runner.... Corner welds on a plenum that will see huge pressure fluctuations over and over and over and expecting them to last and not shear...
A velocity stack should be raised from the floor of the manifold, otherwise it's not functioning. You can see in the DV/DT that it only has 180 degrees to draw from between two cylinders and between the walls about 150 degrees. Not saying this is good or bad, it's just not a functioning bell mouth shape. Typically you see gains when going from a radiused floor to a true bell mouth. Maybe that is counteracted by the "huge" flow losses from transitioning from a round to oval shape.
I've seen no flow bench or CFD data to back up it's performance. You can only put up theories about how it will operate in a pulsed flow situation. The dyno is not comparing it to any of it's modern competitors. It may have all these benefits, but it's bench racing until it makes power. Even a CFD would be cool, but getting good CFD data can be hard.
Hoop and end cap stress in a pressure vessel are very very low in comparison to the thickness of the material. For example a pop can will handle 25-30psi. The reason the welds were breaking, from what I could tell, is that they are just plain bad welds. I've seen one of the ones that are notorious for breaking in person and they barely bothered cleaning off the smoke from the tungsten inclusion with a wobbly weld line. I've not heard of any but that particular maker splitting, but I'm open to seeing links of all of them breaking and where and how.
Tapered runners boss. Using circular tubing and clamping it down in the last inch of the runner creates huge flow restrictions from the turbulence you impart on the airflow.
Having a tapered runner allows you to increase velocity as it reaches the head.
the problem with most vendors out there, is that they don't implement fluid dynamics in their designs. Adding vertically protruding velocity stacks into the plenum is a huge flow killer, as well as drastically changing the cross sectional geometry at the last second in the runner. Using square tapering plenums and not allotting extra volume over and around each runner to compensate for pulse flow dynamics and its disruption on the airflow crossing over each runner.... Corner welds on a plenum that will see huge pressure fluctuations over and over and over and expecting them to last and not shear...
The reason why it's $1200, it because it has what every other manifold MFGer has overlooked in terms of engineering. The other MFGer's cared more about mass production, not engineering a top quality product at the expense of making something quickly.
Come on now your just being a cheerleader for DV/DT that's crazy talk. Hell magnus and ams both use they're manifolds on their own track cars. They care about what performs the best when it comes to their cars and they use the same thing they sell to the public. This manifold is good which is what I think we all can agree on but it's NOT worth 1200 bucs period and the numbers even on a 1000whp evo prove it. Like Matt said similar gains have been seen by switching to other manifolds already out much cheaper.
the problem with most vendors out there, is that they don't implement fluid dynamics in their designs. Adding vertically protruding velocity stacks into the plenum is a huge flow killer, as well as drastically changing the cross sectional geometry at the last second in the runner. Using square tapering plenums and not allotting extra volume over and around each runner to compensate for pulse flow dynamics and its disruption on the airflow crossing over each runner.... Corner welds on a plenum that will see huge pressure fluctuations over and over and over and expecting them to last and not shear...
Andy, I think we get what you're saying. And we get that DV/DT is into the science of it; look at their name, the derivative of velocity = acceleration. But what are the techniques for testing? Is it just flow bench testing? Air does different things at different pressures. Things you already know, I'm sure. What is the proof that this manifold is better than the jmf drag manifold (E.G.)? I see the same techniques employed in that piece. If it were in the same price range, then the relevence of all these questions us consumers have would be moot.
____________________________
Matt
dd '90 GST, Holset H1C
Pie cut some 3" and taper it to 2", big deal there, an extra 20 minutes of work.
There has been no back to back testing, no numbers, no flow charts, nothing, nadda, zip. Maybe if it showed a 50hp increase over the next manifold it would be worth 1200 but it isn't worth more than $50 in aluminum scrap without data.
And there wont be any testing, It will blow up before he can turn up the boost just like mine did.
Funny how mine has lasted 9 months of daily driving at 20psi and nothing has happened, isn't it? Doesn't say much about your care of the manifold. I blame the user, not the mfger.
Its worth whatever their amount of R&D time went into it, thats including non-recurring engineering costs (i.e. computer modeling, drafting, simulation, etc), labor to build the many prototypes it takes, material costs for each piece, labor for building each production unit, machine time, any outside vendor costs, on vehicle testing, you name it.
The average DSMer is a cheap ass and I can see why vendors are shifting towards the EVO camp. If more people bought the DVDT manifold, the price would come down as the law of economics would kick in.
Its worth whatever their amount of R&D time went into it, thats including non-recurring engineering costs (i.e. computer modeling, drafting, simulation, etc), labor to build the many prototypes it takes, material costs for each piece, labor for building each production unit, machine time, any outside vendor costs, on vehicle testing, you name it.
The average DSMer is a cheap ass and I can see why vendors are shifting towards the EVO camp. If more people bought the DVDT manifold, the price would come down as the law of economics would kick in.
True and True! Thing is with this is, they have not given any comparisons or numbers out for the people to have a reason to buy them. Im sorry but in this economy, show me a DSMer that can buy this knowing nothing about it and I'll show you a guy who probably should be driving something better . In all seriousness though, with all the time/effort/designing, etc put into this maybe they should have put time and effort into benchflowing and dynoing/comparing to give people a reason to spend insane amounts of money on it...
____________________________
-Jeff G
1997 Eclipse Spyder GS-T
^^^You are assuming all company's work the same way, sadly that doesn't happen. I hardly doubt the manifold doesn't work, come on. They are probably in a catch 22, not wanting to drop the price to recoup their investment, but not being able to sell the product because of the high price. Probably a bunch of engineers running the company and not marketing guys.
Maybe they should post some comparison info. I've found that can be a double edged sword for a company. No doubt whatsoever the price needs to drop to compete, if they don't care to compete then it is where they want it to be I guess.
I have no doubt it works, and the quality has atleast gotten you through a year without a problems which is a plus for sure. Still numbers/results are the rise and downfall of products so I'd love to see where this ranges in that respect. I agree 100% with everything you stated
____________________________
-Jeff G
1997 Eclipse Spyder GS-T
^^^You are assuming all company's work the same way, sadly that doesn't happen. I hardly doubt the manifold doesn't work, come on. They are probably in a catch 22, not wanting to drop the price to recoup their investment, but not being able to sell the product because of the high price. Probably a bunch of engineers running the company and not marketing guys.
Maybe they should post some comparison info. I've found that can be a double edged sword for a company. No doubt whatsoever the price needs to drop to compete, if they don't care to compete then it is where they want it to be I guess.
Pboglio. I 100% agree here that they arn't interested in investing the money for dyno time to an independent shop. One thing though, dyno time costs say $175 an hour at a good shop. The other manifolds they could have compared instead of the one that was could have costed the same, say $450. For a one time investment of $650, you could have an excellent marketing tool for as long as you sell the manifold. Like you said. Doesn't sound like they're thinking business here. Divide that by the guyes who've responded in this thread as sales, IF WE KNEW it would work better than a jmf drag manifold, beyond redline manifold, or Magnus cast manifold.
Yet, that could be a good thing. Business doesn't always jive with perfecting a product. . . We just don't know if it's a good thing.
Even an engineer can play monopoly . This is common sense stuff.
They arn't marketing this to the evo4+ crowd. All these manifolds are facing the wrong way. So what's with the Boardwalk price when Pennsylvania avenue get's more dice rolls?
____________________________
Matt
dd '90 GST, Holset H1C
I will be putting the solidworks file of this manifold on a CFD (fluent) program this week.
To my knowledge, however, no other shop has invested into a CFD program for their SMIM's for DSM's (I know magnus has for their cast manifold). I will probably need to mock up a JMFAB / Magnus solidworks model for a comparison (unless someone wants to do it for me).
Anyways, if someone wants to build me a solidworks cgs model for the JMFAB or Magnus, or whatever, I can probably convince my university's automotive engineering Dr to let me run it for comparison.
Anyways, if someone wants to build me a solidworks cgs model for the JMFAB or Magnus, or whatever, I can probably convince my university's automotive engineering Dr to let me run it for comparison.
Why doesn't DV/DT fab do it? I feel like I never hear or see him pushing stuff.....just you. Does he pay you to advertise his stuff? Are you a sponsored DV/DT fab driver? I mean you push his stuff HARD. He needs to be giving you this stuff at cost just about because other than like Brent for JMF NO ONE supports a company as hard as you do. By the way for the people that don't know Brent works for JMF
. Here's a link to a picture 
Tapered runners boss. Using circular tubing and clamping it down in the last inch of the runner creates huge flow restrictions from the turbulence you impart on the airflow. 
. In all seriousness though, with all the time/effort/designing, etc put into this maybe they should have put time and effort into benchflowing and dynoing/comparing to give people a reason to spend insane amounts of money on it...
I'm almost sure they used CosmosM via Solidworks which ain't a bad CFD software, I like it.
