Extrude Hone Evo I-III Intake Manifold

[flyineagletsi]

So here is what I am looking at. I am about to buy an evo intake manifold because I have been wanting one for a while. I understand that it typically drops off by 6400ish where as the stock 2g is about 6000ish. My question is, If I extrude hone the evo 3 IM, will I gain any top end or will I only kill the velocity of the 2g port?

This is all going on a 2g head with a 3 angle valve job, evo3 16g, and an evo3 manifold. I am currently sporting a ported 2g O2 but that is about to change as well as a full 3" dp. Basically I am trying to get the 16g to keep pulling through to about 7k. I also have plans for either kelford 272's or a 264/272 setup, but those wont find a place in my car until atleast summer.

I just want to raise the VE of this manifold just a bit without sacrificing velocity.
Thanks in advance.
Jordan

 

[pboglio]

You couldn't possibly hurt the 2g port velocity. The simple reason is that the walls of the EVO intake manifold are thin, at most your going to open them up .080" total max, if that. The EVO manifold at the flange however is quite undersized compared to the 2g head intake port and because of the flange thickness allows a good amount of match porting to be done. This is where I port matched the intake manifold and "cleaned up" the intake runners about 3" deep. Not sure extrude honing is worthwhile, but I never tried it. With a good carbide burr extension, its possible to get 80% of the runners polished anyways.

If you look at all the big boys pushing the EVO 16g, their power peaks aren't even at 6400 rpms. What they do are modifications that extend the compressor (i.e. speed density/maf removal), things that remove pressure drops (huge intercoolers, etc), or hold boost longer (external wastegate with stiff springs). I'd be happy even with 6400 rpms, and just try and "hold" as much h.p. up to 7000 rpms as I could with the above mentioned mods. If you can hold within 30-40 h.p. of your peak, I'd consider myself lucky.

 

[flyineagletsi]

Oh ok, I was unaware that the material thickness was soo thin. Yeah at 500 bucks for an extrude hone it wouldn't be worth it for only .080". I will probably just smooth out the casting inside. Do you think that there is enough material around the TB flange to bore it out for a 63mm N/A TB?

As far as the power up top, I plan on getting a stiffer w/g spring since I haven't ran less than 20 psi since the install. Possibly shim it out. As far as speed density goes, I wont have that luxury for quite some time. I would need to get the Map sensors and everything associated with it since I am still running the 2g MAF. Hopefully by fall I will be close to maxing the 16g out. I have a lot to do to get there though.

 

[jrohner]

I'm convinced the Evo 3 intake is hurting my power, not helping it. I can't even break 400hp now, and I'm at more boost than before. It's coming off in favor of the ugly 2g manifold soon, and going up for sale if my power comes back.

 

[pboglio]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/bolt-tech/281031-new-16g-dyno-numbers-c16.html

On pump gas, Curt Brown's stock motor EVO3 16g is peaking at just 6300rpms, by 7000 rpms its clearly dropped off, on race gas the peak is maybe 6000 rpms. Looking a few posts down his mods list included upgraded cams, MAFT, JMF intake manifold, FP race exhaust manifold to name a few. I'd say 6400 rpms is about the tops.

Yeah, I run a 63.5mm bored out 1g throttlebody. No problems with room to port. I'm thinking of switching up to a 65mm bored out EVO throttlebody, but I doubt its worth the effort.

Jrohner,

There's gotta be something else going on there. When I installed my EVO3 intake manifold my clutch immediately starting slipping at high rpms, thats how much torque increased. First thing I would have said is the boost, but you said your actually running more boost. Do you have any datalogs before and after?

 

[flyineagletsi]

Here's an example of what I'm talking about: http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/bolt-tech/281031-new-16g-dyno-numbers-c16.html


Yeah, I run a 63.5mm bored out 1g throttlebody. No problems with room to port. I'm thinking of switching up to a 65mm bored out EVO throttlebody, but I doubt its worth the effort.

Well that is good news. I knew that I have seen them ported out to 60 but I wanted to go just a hair bigger. Anything will help my non-existant topend. I am just looking for a clean stockish look with a decent power and torque curve. Thanks for the help.

 

[DSMunknown]

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/bol...ion-iii-intake-manifold-20.html#post152152641

 

[flyineagletsi]

Ok, so I have found an RVR intake manifold. It just got shipped out to me today and should be here on Tuesday.

I currently have the stock 2g TB and I am going to have the RVR bored out to probably a 63mm. I understand that the 2g is 54mm. I don't have the money for the TB that I want but I would also like to put the mani on. I am thinking about having the machine work done and installing it with the 2g tb for now so that in a month or so when I get my new one it will be quick and easy install.

Would this be a problem? I know that the ports will be 9mm off but doing it this way, I will only have to put the RVR on once, rather then twice. This would save time and work later. I am thinking that the difference would cause turbulence in the intake but I honestly don't think it would hurt performance too much. After all if it does kill my flow then I can always slap the 2g back on until I get a new TB.

Thoughts? Ideas?

 

[pboglio]

Ok, so I have found an RVR intake manifold. It just got shipped out to me today and should be here on Tuesday.

I currently have the stock 2g TB and I am going to have the RVR bored out to probably a 63mm. I understand that the 2g is 54mm. I don't have the money for the TB that I want but I would also like to put the mani on. I am thinking about having the machine work done and installing it with the 2g tb for now so that in a month or so when I get my new one it will be quick and easy install.

Would this be a problem? I know that the ports will be 9mm off but doing it this way, I will only have to put the RVR on once, rather then twice. This would save time and work later. I am thinking that the difference would cause turbulence in the intake but I honestly don't think it would hurt performance too much. After all if it does kill my flow then I can always slap the 2g back on until I get a new TB.

Thoughts? Ideas?

Yes, you should be fine with the 63mm opening on the stock 2g throttlebody.
While your in there, you might as well port match the intake manifold runners to the cylinder head, leaving the intake manifold runners a touch smaller to account for shifting during installation. The RVR intake manifold is much much easier to remove than a 2g, I can do it one handed with the extra space the shorter runners provides underneath.

 

[flyineagletsi]

Right on. As far as the port work goes I am going to do a poor mans extrude hone and smooth out all of the casting all the way through the runners as well as the plenum prior to the machine work. Found some cheap goodies that will help a lot!

I wasn't really planning on gasket matching the intake to the head. Isn't there only like 1 mm - .5 mm size difference between the two? Unless I drilled a hole for an alignment pin there is no way to know for sure if they are lined up correctly or not. I don't like the idea of accidentally misaligning the two.

 

[dsmusmc]

The places that do extrude hone manifolds say you should port match and open up the runners before you do the extruding. This is because extrude hone doesnt really open them up just smooths everything out and gets where your hand cant reach as well as leaves no human air. Keep this thread up dated iv wondered myself if it was worth doing.

 

[pboglio]

The studs lineup the intake manifold very tightly, I doubt there is .030" alignment shift at that. This why you leave the intake runners underported by about .060". The intake runners are very small compared head ports, I'd say about .25" smaller total in the vertical and horizontal directions.

 

[flyineagletsi]

Hmm. A full 1/4 inch? Well in that case I guess I will match the ports. I was under the impression that they were closer in size then that. Thanks for the info. I guess I will see when it gets here. (Pretty stoked!)

 

[pboglio]

That would be .250 total, or 0.125 per side.