cyclone IM and cams

[mysticj]

Will the 272(intake) reduce the effects of the cyclone IM?

 

[AWD_FIEND]

You mean will it be outside the powerband of the cylone intake? No.

 

[byebyev8]

Definently a good idea. I'm about to have the same setup on a e85 e316g. I think it'll have the same if not more lowend torque than a stock cam setup but with alot more topend.

 

[gt35rx]

The benefit of the cyclone is the low end. I dont think you will lose much. Top end you will enjoy.

 

[AWD_FIEND]

Despite the fact the cyclone offers dual runners, you will still give up low end torque, but its only about 5% until boost threshold.

 

[mysticj]

Despite the fact the cyclone offers dual runners, you will still give up low end torque, but its only about 5% until boost threshold.

Interesting...The 272 does intead to reduce torque in the lower powerband but with a cyclone and 2.4L, the torque should not be affected. BTW, FP3 and oem Evo 8 beehive springs? Good or use of aftermarket springs?

 

[AWD_FIEND]

Interesting...The 272 does intead to reduce torque in the lower powerband but with a cyclone and 2.4L, the torque should not be affected. BTW, FP3 and oem Evo 8 beehive springs? Good or use of aftermarket springs?

I'm having a hard time understand what you're trying to communicate. The 2.4 will definetely offer loads more low end torque than the 2.0, but compairing the stock manifold on a 2.4 versus the Cyclone manifold 2.4 you will still lose low end torque. It will be negligible but true never the less.

 

[mysticj]

I'm having a hard time understand what you're trying to communicate. The 2.4 will definetely offer loads more low end torque than the 2.0, but compairing the stock manifold on a 2.4 versus the Cyclone manifold 2.4 you will still lose low end torque. It will be negligible but true never the less.

If any negligible amount of torque loss on a 2.4 with the Cyclone IM & 272* intake cam.