Not sure if it's the same as a 1g but I had a Dorman manifold and it cracked before to long. I run a FP cast manifold now. Was only $175 and well worth the extra money

no experience with dorman. I just bought three genuine mitsu ones off ebay.
MD308197
1st one was only 115 plus shipping. it came in and was actually evo 3. then I ordered a second one at 137 plus shipping and it was 6cm hole 2g. which is what I really wanted. I just ordered the last one he had. havent seen it yet. I like to use original mitsu manifolds to bolt-on non mitsu turbos . the larger whole on the FP manifold doesnt work as well for this. the smaller the whole the better so match porting can be done precisely. I also dont like the FP manifold slows spool by 100-150rpm. amazon has MHI for 212. would pay that rather than use FP. but thats my personal preference. I like FAST responding turbos.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

there are some good pictures of dorman one on ebay. 100 shipped and looks like it comes with the correct gasket. looks like a pretty cheap casting. I wouldnt hesitate to try one , but with ceramic coating. I believe coating greatly increases crack resistance. manifold runs cooler . heats up and cools down slower as well. its the rapid change in temp that makes manifolds crack. like being red hot and splashed with water.

@94awdcoupe
Umm, what's going on here?

running EFR B1 frame turbos on my summit project. expecting 14b spool and 20g power.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

That vband to the stock manifold actually seals?

That's what I'm wondering.

I expect perfect seal with my design. and its rotate-able to perfect position to clear water pipe. I bolted a t3 flange to bottom of FP manifold years ago. very sketchy design by comparison. but that worked perfectly as well.

As long as both surfaces are flat, I see absolutely no reason why it wouldn't have a perfect seal!! Thats kind of a neat idea to be honest.. I've done something similar, I fit a weird flanged he351ve onto a T3 mainifold, worked great and had no leaks with a 50lb+ turbo hanging..

yes and this EFR weighs 10.5lbs

94awdcoupe said:

I also dont like the FP manifold slows spool by 100-150rpm.

Click to expand...

I'd argue a 150 RPM decrease in spool would be well worth the top end gains you'll get from a FP manifold, but that's just me. How exactly are you measuring these minute differences in spool? Is this an assumption, or are you speaking from experience?

maximum9898 said:

As long as both surfaces are flat, I see absolutely no reason why it wouldn't have a perfect seal!

Click to expand...

And that's the issue; if you think those two surfaces are going to stay perfectly flat under the heat of exhaust gas, you're crazy. I don't see any possible way that configuration will seal, especially without a gasket, or some type of flange spanning the entire circumference of the turbo inlet.

I really like the idea, but I'm not sure how it will play out under operating conditions. In for results, so keep us posted, 94awdcoupe.

150 RPM is on a 6h/20g from my experience. and only adds 10hp above 7000rpm. I prefer the more usable earlier powerband. I build fun street cars not 1/4 mile cars.

I have no fear of sealing problems. The two parts will be ceramic coated before use. the ceramic is quite thick and acts like a gasket. but even without the ceramic I wouldnt be worried. this a very solid connection for the weight supported. these are 12mm bolts with stupid thick bosses. the span between the bolts is too short to flex from heat to cause a leak. and the original fire ring will also be used. the fire ring groove is still in place. the fire ring will be machined down to give .003 compression fit between the parts.

there are only four 8mm bolts with tiny bosses holding the EFR in the exhaust housing. I guess you would think that would leak as well?

there is a picture in post #3 of a 3071 bolted to bottom of mitsu manifold. here is a picture after it was used for 1.5 years. no leaks , no gaskets. I tack welded bolts to side of garret housing. the two parts stayed together quite nicely. I am ten more confident in this new bolt on method.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

and if that doesnt convince you here is my custom 25g turbo with just 3 8mm bolt holding flange to manifold. that didnt leak after 3 years use.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

and here is a picture of my current TS evo x manifold. welded together with 250$ china made welder. many people criticized me and said the wlds would crack and leak. 4 years and counting. no leaks. no failed welds.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

94awdcoupe said:

150 RPM is on a 6h/20g from my experience. and only adds 10hp above 7000rpm. I prefer the more usable earlier powerband. I build fun street cars not 1/4 mile cars.

Click to expand...

If you're saying you ran the same 20G turbo on both the MHI and FP manifold, and only saw a 150 RPM difference in spool with a 10 HP gain up top on the FP manifold, you've just made my case. I'd take a 10 HP gain anywhere in the power band at the sacrifice of making it 150 RPM later, but again, that's just me. Nobody driving a street car is going to notice an extra 150 RPM in spool time. I'm still curious as to how you're taking note of these tiny differences in spool.

Personally, I wouldn't be comfortable running any of the setups you posted above, whether they leak 4 years later or not. But, I'm a more conventional type of guy, and I stick with what I know works. On the other side of the spectrum, you're clearly no stranger to making things work that shouldn't, so I'm curious to see if this turns out like you want it to. Like I said, keep us updated.

if you think those two surfaces are going to stay perfectly flat under the heat of exhaust gas, you're crazy. I don't see any possible way that configuration will seal

basically I read this and thought to myself. "this guy is an idiot" you make that statement with no actual experience to quantify the statement? I do have experience making "out of the box" turbo setups work. and when I show you it does and will indeed will work you still dont give credit where credit is due. all those turbo setups worked nothing short of awesome. really I dont know how you got to be a wiseman. it certainly wasnt from complimenting other peoples work or respecting other people desire for certain powerband. when I tell you I prefer 150rpm earlier spool over 10hp up top you tell me I prove your point? wow. just wow. okay I get it . 150 earlier rpm spool is HUGE to me. but everyone has to do it your way or they are doing it wrong.

I'm not sure what you're so upset about? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know metal surfaces contract and expand as they change temperature, that's all I was pointing out. If you've ever been in a 6th grade science class, you'd be able to come to that conclusion. There's no experience needed here, just common sense. I was merely pointing out an observation. I'm not sure why you take issue with that, but it's a fact. You ever heat a bolt with a torch to get it to loosen up? Same principal. I actually feel like an "idiot" explaining this to a grown man, but I digress.

Secondly, I asked how you were measuring your claimed 150 RPM difference in spool time between exhaust manifolds. I asked because I'm genuinely curious, since noticing such a small difference in spool would need to come from something other than your ass dyno, or merely observing the tachometer. Did you want to answer that, or no?

One of my jobs here as a staff member is to sort out fact from fiction. I'm not saying your setup won't work, I'm simply saying you may have some issues to work out.

You prefer optimal spool up, I'd prefer another 10 HP up top. Shouldn't whoever reads this have both pieces of information to make an educated decision for themselves?

GST with PSI said:

I'd argue a 150 RPM decrease in spool would be well worth the top end gains you'll get from a FP manifold, but that's just me. How exactly are you measuring these minute differences in spool? Is this an assumption, or are you speaking from experience?




And that's the issue; if you think those two surfaces are going to stay perfectly flat under the heat of exhaust gas, you're crazy. I don't see any possible way that configuration will seal, especially without a gasket, or some type of flange spanning the entire circumference of the turbo inlet.

I really like the idea, but I'm not sure how it will play out under operating conditions. In for results, so keep us posted, 94awdcoupe.

Click to expand...

Well I ran that Vgt turbo for 3 years with no gasket and no leaks.... And that was also with a cheap cheap eBay t3 manifold!! I'll grab a picture when I get home I'm at work on my phone..

Edit: I found s couple pictures on my photobucket

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

maximum9898 said:

Well I ran that Vgt turbo for 3 years with no gasket and no leaks.... And that was also with a cheap cheap eBay t3 manifold!! I'll grab a picture when I get home I'm at work on my phone..

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it can't work. 94awdcoupe has already shown us multiple setups that probably shouldn't seal, but according to him, do seal perfectly for extended periods of time.

That doesn't mean I would run one, nor would I recommend it to someone else. As I said above, I really like the idea, and would like to see how this turns out.

I had a Holset HE351VE myself for a bit that I was planning to use for my first Galant VR-4 build. I gave up on the idea mainly when this thread died out and moved toward the switchblade version rather than the variable vane: http://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/vgt-blaylock-switchblade.457852/ and http://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/he351ve-controller-project.395939/page-9#post-153530142

Off topic, but how did you end up controlling the vanes?

if you think those two surfaces are going to stay perfectly flat under the heat of exhaust gas, you're crazy. I don't see any possible way that configuration will seal

what makes me mad is you cant seem to understand your own statement. you stated there is no possible way the connection will seal under use. and two I am crazy for thinking it will. that makes you both wrong and rude my not friend.

what I learned back in early 1990 on my 89 mirage turbo is as soon as you remove the fire ring in favor of porting the gasket is going to blow out. because all the factory 14b and 16g will be warped from heat. without a fire ring to protect the factory gasket edge it doesnt have a chance. then there was a flurry of flat stainless gaskets made by venders. those didnt last much longer because the flange is not flat. since then I have not run gaskets by taking the time to machine the surfaces flat . after that no gasket is needed and its far more reliable without a gasket. the few pictures I posted of working setups are just the ones I have pictures of. the t3 35r on FP cast in my yellow car has run gasket free for ten years now. and I have done a dozen of these for customers.

I wont even waste my time telling you how I got spool data on my turbo setups. I dont care to help you since you clearly know it all.

94awdcoupe said:

if you think those two surfaces are going to stay perfectly flat under the heat of exhaust gas, you're crazy. I don't see any possible way that configuration will seal

Click to expand...

...especially without a gasket, or some type of flange spanning the entire circumference of the turbo inlet.

And that's your problem, you only hear what you want to.

I'll reiterate my original point in a way that's easier for you to understand: Two flat metal surfaces simply bolted together and exposed to extreme heat have a highly likely chance of leaking.

Now, take that fact (it is indeed a fact) and couple it with your design which integrates 4 isolated mounting points around the circumference of the V band, and the likelihood of a leak further increases. This is why I suggested a gasket, or a flange that spans the entire circumference of the turbo inlet. I made this point before you made mention of machine work and the fire ring you intend to use, which IMO, should help seal things significantly better. Hence, me not bringing it up again, only to say that I look forward to seeing if it works.

Additionally, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by posting pictures of turbos bolted to manifolds that shouldn't be, other than to show everyone examples of what NOT to do when making custom turbo setups. None of those setups have anything in common with your 4 bolt design that's in question:

1) Your 4 bolt design will use a sudo-gasket (fire ring), and the others pictured above do not according to you.
2) Your 4 bolt design does not have a flange spanning the circumference of the turbo, but the others do.

The only thing I can take away from the culmination of your posts, is that you're good at making things work that shouldn't. For that, I'll give you the credit you seem to be so desperately seeking.

Once again, I look forward to seeing how this turns out, so keep us updated.

you only hear what you want. by your THEORY. this factory NO gasket flange should not seal either. just as long a span. maybe even thinner material, weaker bolts and bosses. same red hot heat. I even know what your answer will be the two parts expand into each other in this case. but they dont in my case.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

I don't use gaskets on of mine, they don't leak.

Good, @bastarddsm . You, of all people, should be able to speak to the typical design considerations taken into account when mating two metal surfaces together without a gasket. Take various V-band designs, for example.

Maybe you can convey the point I'm seemingly unable to: Which is that simply bolting two random flanges together isn't the best idea absent one or more of the following: a gasket, machine work, proper flange design, etc.

I haven't run a gasket on any of my turbo setups, I've never had a leak.....

And I controlled the VGT turbo with a waste-gate actuator off a 16g and used a boost controller. . I made a custom stopper and adapter to make the setup work. The setup worked the best when the veins opened up at 10-11psi. You can see the waste-gate in the lower part of the pictures I posted previously.

more pictures to make GST look stupid.
f1 turbo on right with "male" flange, normal EFR line has female on turbine housing, as shown on left.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

manifold machined with female receiver groove.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Whatever you say, dude. You stick to piecemealing random crap together with your China welder and one-off "V-band" designs, and I'll stick to telling people how those things could possibly end up badly. I think most people here are smart enough to read this thread and comprehend what I'm saying.

Good luck in your endeavor.