1. Join the Community!

    DSMtuners is a massive archive of DSM information - but more importantly, it's a COMMUNITY! Join in and participate with other DSMers, and invite all of your DSM friends to make this place their home. Chat with others, create a build thread, post questions and answers. Get involved! Logging in will also remove many of the advertisements, along with this notice. ;)

DSM Stock Replacement Manifold Back-to-Back Dyno Testing

Posted by MorrisonFab, Jan 13, 2020

Please Support Southbay Fuel Injectors
Please Support Feal Suspension
  1. MorrisonFab

    MorrisonFab Supporting Vendor

    143
    449
    Joined May 28, 2017
    Johnson Creek, Wisconsin
    Just a few months before this test, we would have unquestionably suggested a cast option to anyone looking for a bolt-on, stock DSM flange manifold. It has long been the consensus that “cast is king” in the DSM bolt-on turbo world. However, people kept asking and new bolt-on turbo options were being developed, so we revisited it with a really slick design and we wanted to give it a shot with and see what it could do.

    So here we are, and here is the test!

    nnRC2RjqVc7XzoHDAfbbvLlATQg1xzAytV2f_KgsLvG1qhqnoGjTVzGm0Rzh94tqTz0n6zir3FGchGaA_ha-pXZY-b-Jktz9.jpg
    en-j6XfTaG73o9ePdhHts7TWOsxNb5x2UTsPpL8eRCT3xk8k13fhdpd8Nv4s4qBh-Wbe4o-JuOUw3wRV7gxJaT9It71LtwZq.png

    First off, a huge, HUGE thank you to Nathan Crisman of Performance Partout. Many things came up along the way in order to get the car in testing condition, and he tackled it all with urgency- just to get the testing and data out there for everyone ASAP.

    If you haven’t heard about Performance Partout, let’s take a minute to talk about how incredible they are for our community and what they offer. They are based out of New Jersey, and sell new and used stock and performance parts for our platform. Their website is extremely easy to use with a fantastic search function, and by purchasing from them you are supporting people who support our community. We always check their website and send a PM on facebook about what we are looking for before we shop anywhere else; it just takes the hassle out of finding parts - new/used/aftermarket - for these cars. Both Nathan and John are an absolute delight to work with and we highly recommend checking them out and acquiring all the goodies for your car.

    Additionally, Nathan - the owner and founder of Performance Partout - is incredibly data driven, unbiased, and always shares his vast knowledge. He is swayed only by products that perform and work for his setup. One of our favorite parts about Nathan is that he never holds anything back - he shares everything for the good of the community. Whether it’s good or bad, he’s going to give only the facts. We’ve learned a lot from him in the past (we are kinda addicted to watching all of his videos where he shares literally anything and everything he’s learned) and it’s been an honor to work with him on this test.

    Check ‘em out on facebook: https://www.facebook.com/performancepartout/
    or on their website: www.performancepartout.com


    Dyno Test Background and Methodology:

    This test of the Morrison Fabrications (MF) DSM bolt-on manifold vs the venerable Forced Performance (FP) cast race manifold was performed at M.R. Performance in Mineola, NY on January 10, 2020, using a Mustang chassis dynamometer (dyno) with the FP manifold installed for baseline runs. Two initial pulls were performed at wastegate pressure to ensure proper dyno settings, calibration, and vehicle base tuning and are not included in this test presentation. Six pulls were performed with closed loop boost control targets of 36psi, 40psi, and 44psi - two pulls at each respective target with minor adjustments made to the boost control base duty cycle on the second of each target level to hit and maintain the target boost level for an accurate comparison. The Morrison Fabrications manifold was then installed while still strapped to the dyno, with seven more pulls performed: 2 @ 36psi, 1 @ 38psi, 2 @ 40psi, and 2 @ 44psi boost targets. Again with the same procedure for adjusting the boost control base duty cycle map to most accurately hit the target boost level.

    No changes were made to the fuel maps, ignition timing maps, or any other mechanical or electrical systems on the test vehicle during the testing procedure to ensure consistent and unbiased test results. The haltech ecu recorded all pertinent data internally for every dyno pull, and is available for peer review including but not limited to: Boost Pressure, Exhaust Backpressure, Wastegate Position, Engine Pressure Ratio, Torque Converter Slip Percentage, Intake Air Temperature, Boost Control Duty Cycle Output, Boost Control Short Term Trim Percentage, as well as most commonly data-logged engine tuning parameters.

    We recognize that the most important factor in testing power output change of a given mechanical part is to equalize and hold consistent, the variables associated with engine tuning. To this end, we have based the test methods and evaluation of results on the basis that a valid and fair comparison is most likely achieved with the most consistent boost level, and the dyno pulls selected for direct comparison in this report were chosen with this constraint held first in priority. An unfortunate constraint of this test is that the exhaust manifold is an integral part of the turbocharger and boost control system, and changing this mechanical part will certainly alter the output boost pressure level, requiring fine tuning of the boost control base duty cycle tables from run to run. Compound this change with a turbocharger system that is being used at near maximum flow capacity, and this test was ripe with fluxuations in delivered boost level, even with our best attempts to equalize, given the time constraints and and attention to minimizing wear/tear on the test equipment & vehicle. While it could be said that increasing the amount of pulls done at each boost target level with more fine tuning of the boost control settings might have yielded a more absolutely comparable boost level, there is always a risk involved with putting many repeated high power/stress runs on the test vehicle that a mechanical failure can arise mid-test causing an untimely end to the test program. Therefore, two pulls at each level with one change in base duty cycle was deemed the best risk vs reward in the test operator's judgement and was completed in about six hours total.

    Design factors involved in the manifolds used:
    The FP Race manifold has larger runner diameters vs the MF manifold, but the MF has smoother bends, near equal runner length, and a much better angle of entry at the collector.


    Data Analysis:

    Pulls overlaid at 36, 40, and 44psi boost targets. It is important to note the boost psi labelled in each run are only targets, as there wasn’t enough time/runs to perfectly dial in the same boost throughout the run on each manifold (and the MF typically lowering boost with no other changes). The Morrison Fabrications manifold is in red, and the FP Race cast manifold in blue. Shown are horsepower (thick solid), torque (thin solid), and actual boost (dotted). Below each run is a graph that compares the horsepower differences along side the differences in boost pressure at each rpm.

    VpPZPay8dxBDuhhC0O4LXTLBVlZan_jIL6gC2perWPg2xH7c8biuJIx9x78D7dZBD6hz8ZKm0X8Mx4N1nOnbNp1UUy_qUlnu.png

    Bn9PERhLW8Xx1N7YDdx-nPKYLIOYmEOyRQ3jKzwautVxI1Hh3vMmP8MUdZU9zDTvsgKj1VimcKD8fX_7VILH2QiuWPntNQzm.jpg

    Lj8Y_yCtRWHfvr09THVebiv4HwbR_l3uPc9DiDrzv6uiPq_hXmOol4QzNjYHI38vdrDHGxXWTyP4Ml38HmUneCwSXYbkfbOs.png
    Solid red: Horsepower advantage (above 0) for the MF vs FP
    Dotted purple: Boost variance between the two manifolds during the pull (above 0 is a boost advantage for the MF, below 0 is a boost advantage for the FP)

    Up first, 36psi. The FP manifold varied between 38-37psi and the MF settled right around 36.5psi, with the FP manifold having a higher boost average the entire run except for part of the spool up range. Despite the FP manifold being at an advantage in boost vs the MF, the MF made more power everywhere except for the last 800rpm, from 8200-9000rpm. The MF power gains are partly from the quicker spool, but even at 5800rpm there is a nearly 60whp power gain! The power gain varied between 10-25whp up to 8000rpm, even with boost being lower by around 1psi. From 8200-9000rpm the FP had a 0.5psi and 10whp advantage over the MF.

    6 vs 13 40psi.jpg

    Z5o8ARIkbc5yLmAuqRmk-HJE5tCSCbzsPjl_VOVUbCGgZB8aPRT_oL9Rxz-1st4lUUKysjhocCRjTLefTiDMIEzKeNa23f4_.jpg

    ZtJl2YA9MciIeGMFm8FhJDm9fyT281rb_khlZCR-ulqQBiOOxDlPLu5Jbgb4x8Pw8h-JguRgUn3ENIQDGzRDKbrVI6DvgP3e.png
    Solid red: Horsepower advantage (above 0) for the MF vs FP
    Dotted purple: Boost variance between the two manifolds during the pull (above 0 is a boost advantage for the MF, below 0 is a boost advantage for the FP)

    The 40psi pulls ended up much closer in boost between the two, with the MF being higher by ~1.7psi initially (quicker spool) and then the FP being higher from ~7500rpm to the end of the pull. There is a very similar trend as before of more power (even at less boost) all the way up to 8750rpm where both the MF and FP power curves merged, with the FP at a 1.5psi and 4hp advantage at 9000rpm.

    6kEBMtHDN_ZIg0T4IRInpz-LYUTC3ea2UEj0KmchZg-09mP-rXxyAH3JizvprXZgqK_HUVw8YteSOhtxv_SyURp6YBao0f8s.png

    CqH0cjzlacV1gpoPKCQs5TtzXsRdBrZ8ThR8Rg-1-oFLXw8E4dM5650dfzJTjBCkOY_qN80YcLf9ussWv4dsSR-NFF1M-pJ8.jpg

    J9xqqCQPWV2mQD4m62C7K_Ppa3SKWfefA3dQbMMyZ6FtMbJs2mMDnyidWlc1nvviCyYpUfO964GUuf2VDd6JFo8i8KQ1qdeN.png
    Solid red: Horsepower advantage (above 0) for the MF vs FP
    Dotted purple: Boost variance between the two manifolds during the pull (above 0 is a boost advantage for the MF, below 0 is a boost advantage for the FP)

    Finally, the 44psi pull. In this run, boost was already expected to drop from the 44psi target at high rpm due to the turbo being at its flow limits at the 800hp range. The MF manifold had a harder time holding boost than the FP (the MF actually held boost better in its previous 40psi run) and was down by 2-3psi by the end of the pull.
    From the beginning at 5000-7000rpm, however, the MF manifold had a 20-60whp power advantage, despite a mostly lower boost level. After 7000rpm, the power advantage diminished along with boost until both the MF and FP made the same power at 7600rpm. At this point, the MF had 2psi less boost, and continued to drop power and boost, while the FP manifold kept making power to 8750 with 3psi more boost.


    Recap and Conclusions:

    From Nathan:
    “We believe this data shows that the tubular header had a greater than expected impact on increasing 5000-7500 rpm power (vs 7500-9000rpm expected) and promoting earlier spool-up, with the FP-Zero being the largest of turbo configuration and the highest rpm threshold for spool. As noted in the datalog graphs that are set against time, the MF manifold on all three tests has greatly decreased the time from initial WOT at 4000rpm to hitting boost target around 6500rpm, so much so that the graphs appear to be offset! This illustrates the large gains of 60whp prior to 6000rpm that get the engine/turbo combination spooled up and into the powerband so much earlier. This effect was drastic and easily noted just from hearing the pulls in the dyno room. Simply put, on the street, this manifold will bring in the boost/torque faster and earlier, and will make the vehicle accelerate out of corners and off stoplights drastically better, and greatly increase the fun factor.”

    Which setups this manifold would benefit the most:
    “While this test is the most extreme parts setup that is biased toward high rpm power, this MF manifold will actually be ideally matched with a “medium range” turbocharger and an engine parts combo (cam/intake) that does not need to operate in the 8500-9000rpm range to achieve peak hp. An example of this would be an FP Green/Red turbo that would be operating only in the rpm range where the MF manifold showed significant gains, without needing to rev to 9000rpm. Effectively, this manifold matches up best with the more typical 500-600hp output and rpm range of the mid-sized bolt-on turbo options commonly available.”

    Runner size and previous knowledge:
    “This test showed, what we believe to be, the limitations in comfortable flow rate of a given exhaust runner ID and runner length. The results seemed to conclude that the power change on the MF manifold was more related to engine rpm than to flow rate or boost level, as we saw significant gains of up to 60whp just before 6000rpm on all three test boost levels, but saw power output gain reduce as engine rpm increased. This leads us to believe that the design details of the tubular header greatly improve the spool and torque production, but were running up against some total flow limitation in the 8000rpm range vs the larger runners of the FP manifold. We are viewing this test as confirmation of what we have suspected all along; that the runner ID and length are the design considerations of an exhaust manifold that should be tailored around the intended use with respect to ultimate power output and rpm usage. Simply put, the smaller runner ID and OEM turbocharger placement/flanges will work excellently in the 4000-8000rpm range and power outputs in the 400-750 crankshaft hp range. Pushing to 800hp and 9000+rpm would possibly benefit from a larger runner ID of the FP manifold.”

    ----
    Note: A similar “large runner” MF option isn’t possible, as smooth bends and nice entry/exit angles just don’t fit between the flanges for factory placement. And honestly, a large runner option would lose many of the benefits this manifold offers for 99% of bolt-on setups anyway, while the runner size used was proven to still happy to keep up in the 8-9000rpm and 40psi range, well out of the typical bolt-on turbo rpm range. We will be addressing this for Nathan’s specific setup.


    Final Thoughts:

    The test results were somewhat unexpected- we initially tackled this experiment expecting to end up with something for all out, far-end of the scale bolt-on turbo setups- the 1%. What happened, however, is we ended up with something that has very substantial gains in the exact rpm range where most bolt-on setups live- which was a pleasant surprise.

    There wasn’t a point in the rpm range where the MF manifold didn’t outperform the FP at the same (or less) boost below 8000rpm, which is the end of the usable rpm range for most bolt-on turbos/setups. A comparable FP green/red/black will have peak power between 6000 and 7500rpm, so there will only be gains across the board- in power, torque, and spool. We also showed in previous tests, that boost threshold/spool was within ~50rpm of a ported 2g manifold- so power gains will be even more significant with extremely comparable response. Truly a win-win. All in all, we were very excited to see that the manifold kept up on a setup like Nathan’s, but even more excited that it showed extraordinary gains for the 99%!

    There isn’t one part of this piece we aren’t proud of and we hope you enjoy it as much as we do!

    ----

    Product Page: http://morrisonfabrications.com/product/dsm-stock-replacement/
    MF Technical Article: http://morrisonfabrications.com/tech/dsm-stock-replacement-manifold-back-to-back-dyno-testing
    More info behind the design: https://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/new-product-testing-dsm-stock-replacement.526288/


    Details on Nathan’s Talon:
    • Forced Performance DSM-Zero Bolt-On turbo. 62mm Xona Rotor 7864 w/ 10cm turbine
    • 1G cyl head w/ 1mm OS SS valves & Kiggly Race-Only springs, Kiggly HLA
    • GSC S2 274* cams - Adjustable cam gears at 0/0
    • 2.0L 6bolt - Manley Turbo-Tuff rods & Wiseco HD pistons. OEM crank/block
    • ARP L19 headstuds, ARP main studs, Evo3 MLS headgasket
    • Haltech Elite 1500 ECU / Haltech complete wire Harness
    • Haltech WB1 wideband, 4X EGT kit, 4x Haltech coils, Kiggly 12T crank trigger, 2gbCAS
    • FIC 2150cc Injectors, dual bosch 044 pumps, JMF fuel cell, pump E85
    • Magnus V3 intake manifold, S90 throttle body, 18x12x6” FMIC core, 3”/2.5” IC pipes
    • TiAl 50mm Q BOV, TiAl MV-R 44mm external wastegate w/ position sensor
    • NOS dry system w/ solid state relay - controlled by Haltech ecu (stall aid)
    • Morrison Fabrications SS tube o2 housing & wg dumptube set
    • Performance Partout rebuilt 1G AWD automatic transmission: Haltech shifted
    • Kiggly 6disk end clutch, Trans-Lab shift kit, Welded center diff. Otherwise stock
    • IPT restalled 1G OEM converter, Kiggly flex plate, 2G VSS
    • JB Designs 300m Xcase, xcase brace, DSS 3.5” alum driveshaft, DSS Axles
    • Ksport coilovers, Rota 15x7” Slipstream, Hoosier 26x9.5x15” QTP dot drag tires
    • 2860lb total weight w/ driver - NHRA certified safety equipment to 8.50 ET
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2020

    Street Build 1K  20

    1992 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    awd · manual · 1G DSM

    Street Build 2K  18

    1993 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    868 whp · 546 lb/ft · 1G DSM
    Loading...
  2. EVLGSX

    EVLGSX Proven Member

    471
    194
    Joined Dec 7, 2017
    Wallingford, Connecticut
    This will close a gap that has existed for a long time. Very cool.
     

    Street Build 2K  15

    1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
    awd · manual · 2G DSM
    Loading...
    d1prospect and MorrisonFab like this.
  3. 1990TSIAWDTALON

    1990TSIAWDTALON Moderator

    4,769
    2,156
    Joined Nov 14, 2013
    Independence, Kansas
    Very nice product and data. I can vouch for both Morrison Fab and Performance Partout. Both are outstanding contributors to the DSM community and many thanks go out to both!
    Kudos!!! :thumb:
     

    Street Build 4K  28

    1992 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    awd · automatic · 1G DSM

    684  14

    1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
    awd · manual · 1G DSM

    512  18

    1967 Chevrolet Camaro RS
    rwd · automatic · Misc Vehicles

    Street Build 726  7

    1998 Eagle Talon TSi
    fwd · manual · 2G DSM

    Street Build 5K  11  25

    1990 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    13.620 @ 108.460 · 1G DSM
    Loading...
    MorrisonFab likes this.
  4. AndrewG

    AndrewG Proven Member

    64
    29
    Joined Jul 30, 2017
    Castle Rock, Colorado
    Very nice results. Looks like this would be a nice street/race option.
     

    Street Build 3K  6

    1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
    10.942 @ 133.65 · 2G DSM
    Loading...
    MorrisonFab likes this.
  5. Vegas smith

    Vegas smith Proven Member

    2,869
    1,420
    Joined Dec 2, 2002
    Houston, Texas
    Sigh. Now I have to buy a $1000 manifold to feed my compulsive car tinkering? Just when I thought I had all the parts I want.... :)
     

    Street Build 3K  10

    1993 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    awd · manual · 1G DSM
    Loading...
    d1prospect, jinscho and MorrisonFab like this.
  6. Boomdeeze

    Boomdeeze Proven Member

    1,634
    271
    Joined Jul 5, 2009
    Independence, Minnesota
    This is right in my target boost area (40-44) and I currently run the FP manifold.. This is a very interesting in comparison and has me on the edge on whether or not it is worth the upgrade since I will be redlining at 8750-9000 in the auto. The mid range power is nice for the longer automatic gears but the choking at 7250 is a concern.
     

    Street Build 4K  1

    1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
    10.793 @ 128.98 · 2G DSM
    Loading...
  7. RWD4G63

    RWD4G63 Proven Member

    283
    39
    Joined Dec 7, 2011
    Paw Paw, Michigan
    Are there any videos from the test? I really want to hear how this thing sounds!

    Great work as always! I knew this thing was going to make great power.
     

    Road Race Build 118  3

    1997 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    awd · manual · 2G DSM
    Loading...
  8. b00stedtalon2

    b00stedtalon2 Proven Member

    641
    511
    Joined Dec 19, 2005
    Detroit, Michigan
    Based on the data provided, I am willing to bet that you would still improve on your ET.
     

    1K  1

    1994 Mitsubishi Evo
    automatic · Lancer Evolution

    Street Build 3K  1

    1993 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    9.585 @ 143.96 · 1G DSM
    Loading...
  9. GST with PSI

    GST with PSI DSM Wiseman

    1,813
    1,318
    Joined Jul 27, 2005
    San Diego, California
    Truly a great test, with actual data to support the findings. I can really appreciate all the hard work that was put in by everyone who contributed.

    I think the biggest determining factor for most people (especially DSM people) is going to be the price point. For the manifolds alone, you're looking at $275 for the FP vs $1100 for the MF. $825 goes a long way for most people building these cars, but then again, a chance to make 60whp earlier in the rev range on some applications might be enough for people to spend the extra coin.

    Looking forward to these hitting the aftermarket and seeing what they do on people's cars.
     

    Street Build 24K  17  143

    1991 Mitsubishi Galant VR-4
    12.030 @ 119.39 · Galant VR-4

    625  23

    1982 Yamaha Virago
    rwd · manual · Misc Vehicles

    Street Build 5K  74

    1992 Mitsubishi Galant VR-4
    awd · manual · Galant VR-4
    Loading...
    chinola69, d1prospect and MorrisonFab like this.
  10. NWHTanK

    NWHTanK Proven Member

    492
    28
    Joined Apr 23, 2011
    Odessa, Missouri
    Well throw in the down pipe and weather or not to recirculate and the price goes up even further. I'm in just gota wait on the tax refund. ;)
     

    2K  3

    1998 Mitsubishi Eclipse GST
    fwd · manual · 2G DSM
    Loading...
  11. MorrisonFab

    MorrisonFab Supporting Vendor

    143
    449
    Joined May 28, 2017
    Johnson Creek, Wisconsin
    Thank you all! It made for a long week/weekend (especially for Nate!) but very happy to get some great data to share :)

    At 7250rpm, and even on the 44psi pull, it made 20whp more with less boost than the FP and the FP didn't catch back up until 7600rpm when the MF was down by a whole 2psi. Most of the high rpm power discrepancies with the MF manifold were due to a large boost deficit.

    There are some, yes! Nathan will be compiling some videos from the test and go further into more of the data when possible.
     

    Street Build 1K  20

    1992 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    awd · manual · 1G DSM

    Street Build 2K  18

    1993 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    868 whp · 546 lb/ft · 1G DSM
    Loading...
    Boomdeeze, NWHTanK and RWD4G63 like this.
  12. two-step'n

    two-step'n Probationary Member

    7
    1
    Joined Apr 22, 2010
    Baltimore, Maryland
    Nice...Interesting stuff. What RPM was full throttle engaged each dyno run? I am assuming they were equal and the load was identical? Any plans for a manual test?

    Great to see you guys still paving the way in this community. This is my first time back on tuners in quite a while, and this write-up was quite welcoming. The good ol days...
     
    MorrisonFab likes this.
  13. MorrisonFab

    MorrisonFab Supporting Vendor

    143
    449
    Joined May 28, 2017
    Johnson Creek, Wisconsin
    All pulls were all started at 4000rpm.
    No plans for a dedicated manual trans test but happy to report anyone else's individual findings. Nathan logged converter slip in each run to verify they were the same, but still curious to check out what the differences are further down in the rpm range.

    Thank you and welcome back :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2020

    Street Build 1K  20

    1992 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    awd · manual · 1G DSM

    Street Build 2K  18

    1993 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    868 whp · 546 lb/ft · 1G DSM
    Loading...
  14. Boomdeeze

    Boomdeeze Proven Member

    1,634
    271
    Joined Jul 5, 2009
    Independence, Minnesota
    Was there a reason for the boost deficit? Is it the manifold that doesn’t allow the higher boost throughout the pull like the FP?

    I’m not knocking the manifold at all as it looks amazing! I’m just asking as I’m trying to understand it completely before I would pull the trigger in one! Haha

    And one last question, do you have to run the wastegate off the manifold? I run the DSM82 which has the FP30 housing which runs the WG off the exhaust housing.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2020

    Street Build 4K  1

    1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
    10.793 @ 128.98 · 2G DSM
    Loading...
  15. MorrisonFab

    MorrisonFab Supporting Vendor

    143
    449
    Joined May 28, 2017
    Johnson Creek, Wisconsin
    The MF lowered boost (like we've seen with all other of our stock replacements) with no other changes, but we are still aren't sure why the last couple psi on the last pulls couldn't be held (and in turn made less peak power). The earlier 40psi MF pulls made more power/boost than the later 44psi pulls so the car will be checked over for leaks/loose bolts sometime this week to verify.

    There is no room for a wastegate off the manifold with the special collector design but it is 100% bolt-on placement so any current o2 housing and wastegate setup will still work :)
     

    Street Build 1K  20

    1992 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    awd · manual · 1G DSM

    Street Build 2K  18

    1993 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    868 whp · 546 lb/ft · 1G DSM
    Loading...
  16. 95GSXracer

    95GSXracer DSM Wiseman

    1,368
    107
    Joined Jul 25, 2002
    LaRue, Ohio
    Any theories on the reason for that big midrange bump? I suspect the collector allowed the camshafts to work better. It would be interesting to see results with cam gears optimized for each case, but that would take an eternity.
     

    Drag Race Build 2K  5

    1992 Eagle Talon TSi
    7.961 @ 171.10 · 1G DSM
    Loading...
  17. MorrisonFab

    MorrisonFab Supporting Vendor

    143
    449
    Joined May 28, 2017
    Johnson Creek, Wisconsin
    The primary runner size was surely a factor, but we believe most of the benefit was from the collector itself. Mainly making sure the exit of the manifold was going to make for the most efficient entry into the turbine housing. The FP manifold has a much better angle of entry than the factory 1g/2g/Evo3 manifold (which mainly sends the opposite cylinders partially up the opposing runner), but doesn't have that factory flow guide vane/wall to get the flow pointed in the right direction. That flow guide vane came back- which is kind of cool, and kept things orderly and well directed during the transition from 4 runners, into 2 pointed straight down, and into the turbine housing.

    Honestly pretty astounded at the gap between them in the midrange. It's one thing to make boost sooner and gain midrange, but another to make that much more power at the same boost. The boost ramp curves were similar and it just made more power there which is a fantastic sign for less spicy setups!
     

    Street Build 1K  20

    1992 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    awd · manual · 1G DSM

    Street Build 2K  18

    1993 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    868 whp · 546 lb/ft · 1G DSM
    Loading...
  18. 95GSXracer

    95GSXracer DSM Wiseman

    1,368
    107
    Joined Jul 25, 2002
    LaRue, Ohio
    Any indication of the change in VE in that midrange matching the gain in power per boost? I think it's safe to say it made better use of the camshaft but that analysis should reinforce that theory. Other potential gains are in pumping losses but with no significant drop in back pressure I'm not sure that could be considered a significant factor. Not that it matters a whole lot, it's just a mental exercise for me to work on in the off season here.
     

    Drag Race Build 2K  5

    1992 Eagle Talon TSi
    7.961 @ 171.10 · 1G DSM
    Loading...
  19. MorrisonFab

    MorrisonFab Supporting Vendor

    143
    449
    Joined May 28, 2017
    Johnson Creek, Wisconsin
    I'm sure Nathan could speak to that :)
    The drive pressure data is still being reviewed but if we aren't mistaken it was consistently lower where it showed more power until later pulls when boost holding issues cropped up.

    That is certainly how the Evo tests went, with it initially leaning out a significant amount and the VE change was fairly proportional to the % of power.
     

    Street Build 1K  20

    1992 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    awd · manual · 1G DSM

    Street Build 2K  18

    1993 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    868 whp · 546 lb/ft · 1G DSM
    Loading...
  20. ist dwa

    ist dwa Proven Member

    264
    101
    Joined Nov 5, 2009
    Centerville, Ohio
    Cast is king because it's a lot harder to crack one. I'll second that for intake manifolds. Reliability and longevity always wins my vote. No sheet metal manifold can handle the street abuse I put on dsms. I even cracked a FP cast manifold for the record.
     
    ErikTande likes this.
  21. lasthope05

    lasthope05 Proven Member

    942
    216
    Joined Mar 31, 2006
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    FP manifolds are garbage in terms of reliability. They almost always crack and it doesn't take much.

    This manifold is basically a game changer with whats currently available. The top end would be similar once boostt pressure and tuning is accounted for(remember this tune was optimized for the FP manifold) and it also has better powerband all across the rpm range. This is going to be great for street and track alike.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020
  22. MorrisonFab

    MorrisonFab Supporting Vendor

    143
    449
    Joined May 28, 2017
    Johnson Creek, Wisconsin
    While we wouldn't hesitate to use 304L stainless, which has been the standard material for DSM turbo manifolds across the board and what we've used (and Shearer) with no issue, we now use 321 stainless. Something we had reserved only for road race environments for its much better high temp and fatigue properties, is now our standard for every turbo manifold we offer.
     

    Street Build 1K  20

    1992 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    awd · manual · 1G DSM

    Street Build 2K  18

    1993 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    868 whp · 546 lb/ft · 1G DSM
    Loading...
    dsmspickdad and GST with PSI like this.
  23. ist dwa

    ist dwa Proven Member

    264
    101
    Joined Nov 5, 2009
    Centerville, Ohio
    Tubular manifolds are not new nor are they game changers. Again cast manifolds are seen as KING because of their reliability VS sheet metal ones, no where have I ever read said that CAST FP manifolds are the best flowing highest HP manifold to run. Basically FP did the community a favor by making these because all the OEM ones cracked after lots of mileage. They made a reasonably priced options for those running stock backhousing turbos and while they made a replacement they made some improvements at the same time.

    These threads only lead to one thing... a fight. This is going to be the whole Magnus vs Buschur intake manifold thing allllll over again.

    Morrison, you do make great parts, but please don't post these kinds of things. Because at the end of the day there will be people in your camp yelling FP sucks and people in FP's camp yelling MF sucks etc. Just post pics of your products with prices and let the cars running your parts do the talking for you.

    Sport Compact Car 2007 PG 56 View attachment 588399 EVOs with tubular manifolds...and guess what, they broke a tubular manifold just driving see pic below. Please oh please don't even try to do whose smarter. I've been racing turbo cars for 23 years, I know what works and what doesn't.

    yellow evo.jpg
     
  24. MorrisonFab

    MorrisonFab Supporting Vendor

    143
    449
    Joined May 28, 2017
    Johnson Creek, Wisconsin
    No one is saying anything sucks- certainly not us, and we are not going to stop posting about tests and results :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2020

    Street Build 1K  20

    1992 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    awd · manual · 1G DSM

    Street Build 2K  18

    1993 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    868 whp · 546 lb/ft · 1G DSM
    Loading...
  25. RWD4G63

    RWD4G63 Proven Member

    283
    39
    Joined Dec 7, 2011
    Paw Paw, Michigan
    I know plenty of properly made tubular manifolds that have thousands of street and racing miles on them and haven't failed. Just because people used to build them without backpurging doesn't mean that they're all unreliable. Fabricators have come a long way in twelve years. Catch up.
     

    Road Race Build 118  3

    1997 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    awd · manual · 2G DSM
    Loading...
    dsmspickdad and AWD Tuner like this.

Share This Page

Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community
Archer Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Feal Suspension Fuel Injector Clinic Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications OHM Racing RixRacing RockAuto SouthBay Fuel Injectors STM Tuned Track Decals Track Sculptures VR Speed Factory WheelWell.com