Budget Intake Manifold/TB Options

[Boosted98gsx]

What about using a flow bench? Would that give any useful data? Could be done with the heads separately then with the intake manifolds bolted on. A lot less variables but I don't know if flow bench data would be as helpful as dyno runs.

A flow bench is static and doesn't take pulse flow dynamics into account, which is vital on the intake side of a running engine, particularly under boost. When you have air being crammed into cyl #4 when the valves open, and then all of a sudden they close, you get a nice surge of pressure rushing back into the plenum, this can and will disrupt airflow to the rest of the cylinders as the air tries to reach the "rear" of the plenum, that's why it's so difficult to simulate an actual engine (and expensive), because you would need sensors in every runner, and above the entrances to each runner to measure how all this effects everything else.

 

[sd_ff22]

If it were me, i would just have saved my money and bought a SMIM. The minimal gains you get out of a EVO III manifold isnt worth it when compared to the JMF or Magnus SMIM. Since you already got a RVR, get a 1G TB and port that sumbitch.

About the 1G head, if you are even thinking about doing that, just buy a longblock from a 90-91 and rebuild the whole thing. That would be a better choice, becuase then you get the stronger block and better flowing head. I think a few posts down a guy talks about a 2G is better for low end torque and 1G is a drag head; i think you are really going to see separation between one better than the other is when you start adding cams and porting and what not. There probably isnt that much gain going from one to another stock to stock.

James

Where did you find this information?

 

[deflator]

Where did you find this information?

Good question. The only hard numbers I found was pboglio's logs, and they showed 30 extra hp via dsmlink with the evo3 swap on a similar setup to mine. I wouldn't call that insignificant for half the price and half the install headache.

 

[pboglio]

Yeah, 30 h.p. starting around 6500, about 40 h.p. around 7000 rpms, and beyond that the h.p. gains get ridiculous as the 2g stock intake manifold is dying at that point and the EVOIII intake manifold is still reaching its tuning peak.

If the 2g head is a restriction I'm not seeing evidence of it at my flow level. If I gain more high rpm power with the higher lift/longer duration cams I plan on installing then it will reinforce my belief that it is the valve events and intake manifold where the restrictions are, not necessarily the diameter of the intake/exhaust ports.

 

[Boostjunki84]

I wont go into specifics, but being that theres a cheaper, AND proven better SMIM out there, I dont think a dyno graph from a magnus is at all helping the case of encouraging someone to run a SMIM.

I wasn't encouraging anyone to get a SMIM. I was simply using the dyno sheets to show how the powerbands looked/changed with the use of a different manifold. Both of the dyno sheets were comparing a stock manifold vs. the cast Magnus IM.

At any rate, he already has the EVOIII IM and he shouldn't have a problem reaching his goal with it.

 

[Brianawd]

For $440 to gain near nothing, thats not a budget intake manifold.

You do gain with a EH intake manifold. My car picked up almost 3mph by just swapping on a EH intake manifold. But then again I am a gvr4(1g) so my intake is already bettter.

To the OP go with the EVO3 intake manifold. It will fit your setup much better.

 

[z24frank]

So my 1g stock intake manifold is better than a EVO manifold?

 

[the_mork]

On a 1g head yes.

I believe there is enough evidence to say that the evo3 manifold is a better design though. When it comes down to it you are really comparing apples to oranges. With some testing you might be able to see if a 1g manifold/head combination is better or worse than an evo3/2g head combination but I suspect here you would still have arguments because the powerbands will have different shapes and upgrading will be application specific.

I have heard that a 4g Hyundai manifold is an upgrade for the 1g head though as well as offering a larger throttle body. They are also insanely cheap.

 

[dsm-onster]

Which hyundai is this?

 

[pboglio]

I don't see my car picking up 30 h.p. with just Extrude honing the intake manifold. FFWD connection or whatever showed their flow bench test and showed 241.6 cfm at .400" valve lift on an Extrude Honed 1g intake manifold vs. 233.2 cfm at .400" valve lift on a stock 1g intake manifold. This is all at 28" H20 pressure on the flow bench. This is about 3.5% difference in airflow. On a 300 h.p. car this would be 310 h.p. Run the test bench up another 2-3" H20 and you 'd make up the flow difference, just like a turbo would in real life. I'm sorry I don't believe it was due to the extrude honing alone.

 

[snowborder714]

I am also interested in which Hyundai manifold you are talking about mork.

 

[the_mork]

I know very little about the Hyundai manifold and I actually have no idea if it is a better piece. I would be interested in learning more about it and had hoped that some more educated members would chime in on the thread about it.

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/tuning-engine-management/313561-hyundai-throttle-body.html

 

[dsm-onster]

Looks like the same as a stock 1g intake manifold from the link to the photo from dsmgraveyard in that thread.

EDIT: nevermind. I see the second photo. Plenum looks bigger. Wonder what the length of the runners are. The 1g 4g63 is about 14" long. The runners of the hyundai manifold DO appear quite shorter.

You can 2000 on the plenum. Do they mean 4g, like 4th generation? or what?. . . hmm.

RE-EDIT: I'm bored. Here is a scaled comparison of that manifold vs. a 1g intake manifold. The 1g plenum is a little longer, but the diameter is much less! Looking at these plenums like they are pipes (volume = pipe L X pi X r^2), the hyundai plenum is definately larger. A little difference in radius goes alot farther than a little difference in length. The runners of the hyundai manifold turn up into the bottem of the plenum. The runners of the 1g manifold curl up to the back of the plenum; which would take a longer runner to do.

 

[snowborder714]

There's one currently on eBay that I'll have to keep an eye on. I'm not sure what the going rate for one at a junk yard is though. I wouldn't have any way to test it other than swapping it out and logging pulls.

 

[DSMunknown]

SMIM are great if you have the money, like to realign your upper I.C. pipe, ditch the stock battery, like the possibility of cracking, etc. Otherwise the EVOIII intake manifold is a great 2nd alternative with much higher OEM reliability.

That's what I've been saying for the longest time.

And I'm still dancing!

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

 

[dsm-onster]

There's one currently on eBay that I'll have to keep an eye on. I'm not sure what the going rate for one at a junk yard is though. I wouldn't have any way to test it other than swapping it out and logging pulls.

I think that would be good. Using a reliable maf like the 2g unit or a calibrated maft, a log comparing volume flow difference (like hertz increase/decrease) between the swap would be good; and you would be free from discrepancies like different baro pressure or ambient temps. Afterall, an intake manifold upgrade is about increasing the volume of airflow into the motor. I really would like to try this too! I loath swapping intake manifolds.

 

[snowborder714]

Matt, I'll have to think about that. I currently have a GM MAF installed. But either I could steal my bro's 2g MAS setup or wait until I go speed density with V3. Not sure if one would be more accurate than the other. But I may pick up the one on eBay if it stays cheap.

 

[dsm-onster]

A maf would be more accurate than SD for actually measuring the volume flow. Since SD calculates that number, you may have so dicrepancy between your tune and guestimated VE curve and real world airflow. I would think a calibrated gm maf would be fine though. Run it in drawthru if you don't already, it will suddenly be alot more accurate and in less need of calibration in drawthru.

Honestly even if the maf is not accurate, it would still be a good tool to use to see the DIFFERENCE in flow. . .

 

[the_mork]

As long as the calibration isn't changed it shouldn't really matter how well calibrated the maf is since on one car the numbers are only valuable in how they compare to each other and not what their actual values come out to.

Speed density would seem like a very bad way to measure the airflow gains since it is based on a tune that will necessarily need to change for the different manifold since it will change engine VE.

I am also starting to believe that I (and dsmgraveyard) have it wrong and that this is likely off of a G4CS motor but I could be wrong. I tried to look it up on google images but couldn't find anything useful.

 

[DSMunknown]

I'm a bit lost. What manifold will Brian be testing? I am currently having a local shop flow bench test the Evo III intake manifold as well as the 2G manifold. I'll obviously post up the results in my long thread. Just a little FYI.

 

[snowborder714]

A maf would be more accurate than SD for actually measuring the volume flow. Since SD calculates that number, you may have so dicrepancy between your tune and guestimated VE curve and real world airflow. I would think a calibrated gm maf would be fine though. Run it in drawthru if you don't already, it will suddenly be alot more accurate and in less need of calibration in drawthru.

Honestly even if the maf is not accurate, it would still be a good tool to use to see the DIFFERENCE in flow. . .

Well, maybe I'll try it in blow thru mode and see what happens since I already have a good tune on it. If not, I'll have to decide between draw thru and/or stealing a 2g MAS setup.

I am also starting to believe that I (and dsmgraveyard) have it wrong and that this is likely off of a G4CS motor but I could be wrong. I tried to look it up on google images but couldn't find anything useful.

I don't believe it's off the G4CS motor, at least the one from a '98-'91 Sonata. I'm not sure if they were found in any other cars. The one on eBay is from a '95 Sonata. And here is a picture of a '91 Sonata intake.

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

I'm a bit lost. What manifold will Brian be testing? I am currently having a local shop flow bench test the Evo III intake manifold as well as the 2G manifold. I'll obviously post up the results in my long thread. Just a little FYI.

We're looking into a 4g Hyundai Sonata intake manifold and how it compares to a 1g manifold (since mork said it's a possible upgrade). On DSMGraveyard's site it says it will work for a 1g or 2g though. I don't believe any of us are sure which head it would mate up with the best. May I ask what it costs to get the manifold bench tested? And what type of shop would have the equipment to do so? I don't know if JNZ or JMFab would or if I'd have to find an engine shop.

 

[the_mork]

An auction on ebay says that it came off of a 4g63 in a 95 Sonata.

 

[snowborder714]

That'd be the one I found.

 

[turbosax2]

The ebay seller of the Sonata manifold posted up more pictures. Doesn't look like a 1g or 2g flange to me. Anybody think this is still worth getting?

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.

 

[dsm-onster]

The bolt pattern looks the same to me. But the ports look like 2g ports not 1g ports. So this is still not a good option for a 1g head. I nterestingly this gives the 2g guys an option to have a larger plenum with shorter runners and bolting on the larger 1g throttlebody without portmatching.