The Top DSM Community on the Web

For 1990-1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse, Eagle Talon, Plymouth Laser, and Galant VR-4 Owners. Log in to remove most ads.

Please Support ExtremePSI
Please Support STM Tuned

Cyclone Intake Manifold..where Can I Get A Gasket Or Make One ???!?!

This site may earn a commission from merchant
affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Thanks for the reply, but it makes me sad that, as I expected, the ports would not match for a stock 2g head.
Porting the head is near impossibility for me right now so stock 2g mani it is!
Still all very interesting stuff.
 
No it wouldn't, the aftermarket intakes serve a different purpose. They give high end horsepower while sacrificing low end torque. As demonstrated the cyclone intake gives more low end torque while maintaining stock upper end horsepower. Two totally different goals = two different intake varieties :)
 
No it wouldn't, the aftermarket intakes serve a different purpose. They give high end horsepower while sacrificing low end torque. As demonstrated the cyclone intake gives more low end torque while maintaining stock upper end horsepower. Two totally different goals = two different intake varieties :)

amen brother:cool: LOL
 
No it wouldn't, the aftermarket intakes serve a different purpose. They give high end horsepower while sacrificing low end torque. As demonstrated the cyclone intake gives more low end torque while maintaining stock upper end horsepower. Two totally different goals = two different intake varieties :)

Well, we didn't see THAT much difference in the torque curve here. The work put into it doesn't justify the result. I'm sorry but my life is numbers, there would have been plenty of different ways to go about this if a linear torque was desired with a more productful outcome. However, taken into the account that he just wanted to be different or prove everyone wrong, thats a different story.
 
Well, we didn't see THAT much difference in the torque curve here. The work put into it doesn't justify the result. I'm sorry but my life is numbers, there would have been plenty of different ways to go about this if a linear torque was desired with a more productful outcome. However, taken into the account that he just wanted to be different or prove everyone wrong, thats a different story.

How can you say that? 30ft. lbs is a supstantial improvement. TQ is what gets you off the line. I don't see any aftermarket intakes producing more TQ just all HP at TQ loss. Gains were made over stock without losses elsewere. If thats not a justified result I don't know what is.
 
Well, we didn't see THAT much difference in the torque curve here. The work put into it doesn't justify the result. I'm sorry but my life is numbers, there would have been plenty of different ways to go about this if a linear torque was desired with a more productful outcome. However, taken into the account that he just wanted to be different or prove everyone wrong, thats a different story.

Great, glad to hear there is a better way to make low end torque on a 4G63 with less work and money!! :thumb: :D :rocks:

So what is it? We're all dieing to know.
 
>mounting it was not bad at all! it just bolt right on with no problem.
>i put the coils in the same place it is on the jdm engine
>i used a set of aftermarket wires that i bought from nopi motorsports
>no it does not make sense to use on stock 2g head the ports does not match
>don't feel bad about asking these question i asked many of them myself when i was interested in use the cyclone manifold;) here is a pic of the difference in the 1g and 2g head ports!

I was just re-reading this thread, as the cyclone is still of much interest to me, when it dawned on me...
Since the ports on the 2g head are smaller, the velocity of air going through the head is faster, and the ports of the 2g intake manifold are smaller too...

Does that mean 2g's are already reaping the low end benefits of a cyclone manifold?
 
How can you say that? 30ft. lbs is a supstantial improvement. TQ is what gets you off the line. I don't see any aftermarket intakes producing more TQ just all HP at TQ loss. Gains were made over stock without losses elsewere. If thats not a justified result I don't know what is.

Great, glad to hear there is a better way to make low end torque on a 4G63 with less work and money!! :thumb: :D :rocks:

So what is it? We're all dieing to know.

I'll take this to PM, I don't want to still the thread posters thunder with my theories.

**edit** Actually I should post on the forum as this is good information related to the topic.

The stock 1g intake manifold flows 203 CFM, while the cyclone flows 201 CFM. Here is the kicker an extrude honded 1g intake manifold flows 210 CFM. Now at low levels of boost this doesn't seem like much of a difference, but as boost goes up and flow becomes a key factor the Cyclone will become a more of a restriction. I would even say it is evident, by his dyno chart, as there are AWD models making more HP and 19 psi on the 14b (smaller then what he has). Here was have a flow chart of DSM Intake manifolds tested a while ago.
You must be logged in to view this image or video.


As you can see the stock manifold, started off moving air slowest, but in midrange it took the advantage. However near the top it ran out of breath and pretty much sufficated it self. The same case would hold true with the Cyclone.


It has already been said in the thread. If the Cyclone Manifold was such an advancement over other manifolds, then more DSMs would have them. Also he didn't, just throw on the manifold and be down with it, he said early that he had to buy other things like a DSMLink and it took him a year from when the thread started to get results. You can increase torque MANY ways. Turn up the boost and compensate with fuel. Turbo Back exhaust, ported turbo bits, ported head, oversized valves. Stroker kit. I could go on for days.

Like I said, this guy did something no one else was willing to do. At my other car forum, we have a phrase "Rolling against the flow." It means you are different and because of that you are reconginzed. This is the case here
 
Sean, you make some good points but your flow charts can't really be directly compared to a dyno chart. There are considerable differences involved once the car is running, maximum airflow just isn't an accurate predictor of torque and hp. We all know the 2nd gen head and runners are supposed to flow less yet make more hp because of the direction of the flow. Like stated above, that is what the cyclone intake does.

Between 3500 and 6500 rpms he has over 250 ft lbs of torque. To me that is a nice curve. As you can see, he has more torque and hp across the board with the ported cyclone than with the 1g manifold. Even below 3000 rpms he has a 50 ft/lb difference. Those of us using this manifold are after that mid range torque not max whp.

A cyclone manifold can be made to work for $40. It just takes an RPM switch from Summit Racing. Optionally you can do it for an extra $20 with an EPROM chip (the route I took) when you get bigger injectors and upgrade your MAS. I changed my mind so I'll be switching to the $40 switch so I can tune my intake runners. Keltalon did it the hard way, we don't all have to.

Many of the options for increasing torque you mention are things we all do anyway. This is just an additional tool. Look at my mods list, I've done most of that. Besides which the cost of the parts you list are far greater. A turbo back exhaust is easily $500+. A stroker kit is $500 just for the pistons and takes at least a week of down time. So does head work. The manifold is a one day job done right, it is dirt cheap to add (can be done for $100 including buying the manifold) and is proven to give more mid-range torque. $100 for 30 ft/lbs and a broader torque range sounds pretty cheap to me.
 
Oh, I agree entirely. The objective determines the means in which you proceed. For those that are looking for less horsepower and more torque, I this may be the way to go. For someone like me. Extrude honed will suffice.

I never said that these routes would be cheaper, in fact I stated that they would be more expensive, but these have the added benefit of being tested and tried many, many times. Now assuming he has done everything to optimize torque. I still don't think a cyclone manifold would be the best route. An extrude honed manifold would still have its mid-range thrust but flow as well as the other high-end manifolds.

I have to say this, though. I didn't relize that a cyclone set-up was so cost effective. The only person I've known that tried to install a cyclone gave up on it and bought a Venom Manifold, before I could provide any research.
 
Look at that dyno chart a little closer ;) He gained top end too because he ported the manifold. The cyclone is the top line all across the chart. The stock manifold goes across the bottom and drops off at higher rpms where the ported cyclone does not.

You are right about the other mods being time tested and proven. I'd love to have a stroker motor, head work AND a cyclone intake so I can get all the low end torque I can out of my 4 banger. :thumb: I'm just a broke college student right now so I'll have to wait on all that. :cry:

EDIT: Oh, and a ball bearing 50 trim wouldn't hurt either ;)
 
There is little difference in the top end, expect after 6500 RPMS, when I suspect he lifted off (with the Cyclone). 3.8 Hp is barely a gain, and could vary easily with ambient temp, heat soak, etc. Also you are comparing a ported unit to a unmodified unit. What impresses me the most is that fact that he hit peak torque over 1000 RPMS sooner, it almost seems like the Cyclone almost reduces turbo lag as well.

Once you get out of college, I'm sure you'll be making the big bucks! :D
 
Yes, the cyclone does reduce turbo lag, that is part of the benefit package and part of why the torque band increase is so big.

Look at the hp at the end of the graph. He is making 75 more whp at 7k rpms with the ported cyclone. Peak hp doesn't change much but the whole power band stays higher.
 
See from the graph the 1g actually had more Hp at 7000 RPM but I am 99% sure because he lifted off early with the Cyclone. On the top end the HP and TQ numbers are comparable.
 

Attachments

  • HP.JPG
    HP.JPG
    31.6 KB · Views: 490
  • TQ.JPG
    TQ.JPG
    30.9 KB · Views: 494
Nice results! Thanks for posting the dyno graph. I agree that it can be confusing to interpret, but it's easier when you realize that the lines don't cross, the Cyclone touching the 1g line at 3400 but staying above it.

When you ported the manifold, what were you shooting for? Did you just gasket match and polish the whole thing? I've got one where somebody started to port it and I need to clean it up and finish the port job properly before I run it.
 
Gah... that was a dumb mistake. You're right :p
LOLIf that manifold made 75 whp over the 1g, it would be superior to ANY aftermarket intake manifold ever made. The F.A.S.T. LSX Manifold (For the LS1/LS2/LS6/etc.) is only a 35-55 whp (depending on the version of the LS ) bump over stock.

It's alright though, I enjoy a good debate. Even better with someone that actually has done the swap. But I came up with a superior way of bumping TQ and the low end (I can't beleive I didn't think of this early). Dual-Charging. And this one has been done even less on DSMs. I only know of one EVO and one 1g DSM that has sucessfully compeleted the modification. But the torque curver eclipses (excuse the pun) some V8s.
 
Yes, I've been watching, or participating in, the dual charger threads on here. Ray Peters has a pretty sweet setup going but talk about complicated!
 
See from the graph the 1g actually had more Hp at 7000 RPM but I am 99% sure because he lifted off early with the Cyclone. On the top end the HP and TQ numbers are comparable.

not necessary i did not rev the car as high with the cyclone as i did with the stock 1g. i should have but i didn't. i will be installing a front mount intercooler in a few weeks then i will go back and take the rev all the way to 7500.:thumb:
 
I thought this post was pretty clear. :confused:

not necessary i did not rev the car as high with the cyclone as i did with the stock 1g. i should have but i didn't. i will be installing a front mount intercooler in a few weeks then i will go back and take the rev all the way to 7500.:thumb:

Not necessarily (the 1g manifold doesn't necessarily have more power at 7000). I didn't rev the car as high with the Cyclone as I did with the 1G manifold (so we can't make a direct comparison at the 7000 marker). I should have, but I didn't. I will be installing a front mount intercooler in a few weeks, then I will go back and rev it all the way to 7500.
 
Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic Innovation Products Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications MyMitsubishiStore.com RixRacing RockAuto RTM Racing STM Tuned

Latest posts

Build Thread Updates

Vendor Updates

Latest Classifieds

Back
Top