FP Race Mani, Actual Test Data?

[daren_p]

Alright, so FP is running another GB on their race manifold & I may pick one of these up. I wanted to keep the engine bay as stock looking as possible but JM Fab now offers a heat shield so that will keep it closer to stock looking. Now my question is, does anyone actually have any before/after test data of this mani vs a "stock style" mani? Dyno pulls, logs etc? I see lots of posts with people saying, yes this mani is great, or choose this mani but haven't came across any info to back this up. I'm sure you can make big power with this mani but you can also do the same thing on the stocker (or the evoIII mani I just installed last year). I want to make sure there will be some sort of noticeable difference between this an my current evoIII mani.

 

[Strm Trpr]

I remember reading blcknspo0ln swapped out a DNP or =.
Maybe search some of his threads to get a little more info.

 

[daren_p]

I remember reading blcknspo0ln swapped out a DNP or =.
Maybe search some of his threads to get a little more info.

Ya, already saw that thread, about the only one I found with some info. I was hoping for a stock style mani comparison but that did help as in general a tubular is usually the best for flow & spool, so that should say good things about the FP.

 

[Gamble97]

I had the SBR cast manifold that I replaced with the FP one. The ports on the SBR were bigger, but I think overall power came from the FP one. The color change looks awesome. You can not put a heatshield on it, because there is no holes like the stock one.
I think I got faster spool up with mine and it deff changed the way she sounds. SOOOOOO much different. Has more of a rumble to it now.

 

[Strm Trpr]

Ya, already saw that thread, about the only one I found with some info. I was hoping for a stock style mani comparison but that did help as in general a tubular is usually the best for flow & spool, so that should say good things about the FP.

That was exactly my point.
If it flows as well as a tubular manifold which out performs a stk manifold, then I think the answer you seek has presented itself...

I have one that will be sent out to Performance Coatings for their Satin Gray Ice coating that can handle 2000*F.
My ETS IC Pipes are already coated and waiting for installation.
Eventually I'll do the turbine housing and the O2 Housings too on...

 

[daren_p]

You can not put a heatshield on it, because there is no holes like the stock one.

This is no longer the case, you need to check out this link:

JM Fabrications

Gamble97, do you have any before & after DSMLink logs?

 

[Artago]

This is no longer the case, you need to check out this link:

JM Fabrications

Gamble97, do you have any before & after DSMLink logs?

Sweet thanks. I've been looking for a heat shield for the FP as well. Anyone use this heat shield? If so, any feedback? Thanks, Tom

 

[Gamble97]

This is no longer the case, you need to check out this link:

JM Fabrications

Gamble97, do you have any before & after DSMLink logs?

Ahhh cool. I want one. But how does that bracket thing work? Also, there are 2 holes to mount it to the turbo, my turbo only has one so how would that work?

Here is a pic and btw, my FP manifold DOES have the coating.

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

Sorry, I don't have any logs.

 

[daren_p]

Ahhh cool. I want one. But how does that bracket thing work? Also, there are 2 holes to mount it to the turbo, my turbo only has one so how would that work?

Here is a pic and btw, my FP manifold DOES have the coating.



Sorry, I don't have any logs.

By judgeing from the JM Fab pic I would say those CNC brackets mount in the collector area, right above (or on) the collector flange. Then the two long bolts attach the heat shield to the brackts, nothing gets mounted to the turbo.

Now with that being said, if people want to discuss the new heat shield, please do so in another thread. This thread is for hard before/after data, as this seems to be lacking & there are already many posts on how it looks & how it sounds (which isn't the interest here)

 

[pboglio]

Alright, so FP is running another GB on their race manifold & I may pick one of these up. I wanted to keep the engine bay as stock looking as possible but JM Fab now offers a heat shield so that will keep it closer to stock looking. Now my question is, does anyone actually have any before/after test data of this mani vs a "stock style" mani? Dyno pulls, logs etc? I see lots of posts with people saying, yes this mani is great, or choose this mani but haven't came across any info to back this up. I'm sure you can make big power with this mani but you can also do the same thing on the stocker (or the evoIII mani I just installed last year). I want to make sure there will be some sort of noticeable difference between this an my current evoIII mani.

I did back to back tests (DSMLINK datalogs). Was not good compared to a 2g ported exhaust manifold. Don't know why but it didn't work out for me. The car had less midrange torque with the FP manifold on. Datalogs confirmed I lost a good amount of midrange torque. I switched back to the ported 2g and everything felt awesome again. Thought maybe I was imagining things, swapped the FP manifold back on, and bingo, no more midrange. I wanted it to make more power, but it felt yucky and gutless in the midrange.

FP responded that maybe my T28 was maxxed out. Fair enough, could have been true. I later went on to pull another 100 h.p. out of that setup since last I tested, so the turbo wasn't maxxed either. It may be something to do with the heat coming off the manifold itself. I'd like to try it with a "real" ceramic coating and retest it.

Everybody else with bigger turbos raves about the FP race manifold, so your FP3052 might work good with it.

 

[CanadianTSi]

I did back to back tests (DSMLINK datalogs). Was not good compared to a 2g ported exhaust manifold. Don't know why but it didn't work out for me. The car had less midrange torque with the FP manifold on. Datalogs confirmed I lost a good amount of midrange torque. I switched back to the ported 2g and everything felt awesome again. Thought maybe I was imagining things, swapped the FP manifold back on, and bingo, no more midrange. I wanted it to make more power, but it felt yucky and gutless in the midrange.

FP responded that maybe my T28 was maxxed out. Fair enough, could have been true. I later went on to pull another 100 h.p. out of that setup since last I tested, so the turbo wasn't maxxed either. It may be something to do with the heat coming off the manifold itself. I'd like to try it with a "real" ceramic coating and retest it.

Everybody else with bigger turbos raves about the FP race manifold, so your FP3052 might work good with it.

Yours is the only back to back testing I have ever seen on this Manifold.

I don't understand why FP or someone else can't do a quick back to back Dyno

 

[Artago]

Yours is the only back to back testing I have ever seen on this Manifold.

I don't understand why FP or someone else can't do a quick back to back Dyno

I'm surprised FP hasn't done it yet. Or maybe they have but the results were not in their favor so they never posted them.

If FP is reading this: We'd like to see a comparison (dyno chart) of your FP cast manifold vs a stock 2G manifold. And if you want... also a ported 2G, Evo III, and some tubular as well.

Thanks

 

[kingjust]

I did back to back tests (DSMLINK datalogs). Was not good compared to a 2g ported exhaust manifold. Don't know why but it didn't work out for me. The car had less midrange torque with the FP manifold on. Datalogs confirmed I lost a good amount of midrange torque. I switched back to the ported 2g and everything felt awesome again. Thought maybe I was imagining things, swapped the FP manifold back on, and bingo, no more midrange. I wanted it to make more power, but it felt yucky and gutless in the midrange.

FP responded that maybe my T28 was maxxed out. Fair enough, could have been true. I later went on to pull another 100 h.p. out of that setup since last I tested, so the turbo wasn't maxxed either. It may be something to do with the heat coming off the manifold itself. I'd like to try it with a "real" ceramic coating and retest it.

Everybody else with bigger turbos raves about the FP race manifold, so your FP3052 might work good with it.

I would say it's a loss of velocity going through the FP based on your t28. yeah, your t28 may blow, but if you have larger runners you will lose the velocity of the exhaust gases hitting the turbine housing (making it sluggish) while the smaller runners of the 2g will keep them (velocity) up hitting the turbine harder making your compressor push harder... if you can understand what i'm trying to say. I think the FP mani was made for turbo's 50 trim and bigger. Probably will work wonders on a stroker... wonder why I have one for my stroker build , and now I have to spend money on exhaust wrap and that kick ass heat shield... gotta keep that exhaust heat in check!

Just my 2 cents!

KJ

 

[daren_p]

Thanks to the guys that have posted some info, this has helped abit & have found some other small amounts of info in the mean time, but still not really any "hard data". There has got to be a tonn of these out there by now, I can't believe there's basically no one with any real before/after data (other then pboglio & his data doesn't look good for this mani).

I'm with Tyler, I can't believe for something as quick & easy to swap as an exhaust mani, that no ones done any back to back dyno testing &/or logs.

 

[97gstjosh]

Thanks to the guys that have posted some info, this has helped abit & have found some other small amounts of info in the mean time, but still not really any "hard data". There has got to be a tonn of these out there by now, I can't believe there's basically no one with any real before/after data (other then pboglio & his data doesn't look good for this mani).

I'm with Tyler, I can't believe for something as quick & easy to swap as an exhaust mani, that no ones done any back to back dyno testing &/or logs.

I totally agree I would love some hard evidence though. Wheres it at
Thats the only thing thats holding me back and you think on their 3rd group buy they would have had time to dyno test the mani and its competers
I dont go by ppl butt dynoing their Fp manifold because I need the facts not "it feels faster, or it seems to spool faster"

 

[wishihadatalon]

I will gladly do it this summer, but the car it is going on won't be done until early spring maybe.

 

[LaserAWD]

I was running an Evo 3 exhaust manifold and switched to the FP Race manifold on my evo 3 16g setup using a VPC. I had no way to datalog airflow but I could datalog my wideband (FJO). Something about this manifold definitely changed the tune above 6k rpms as my AFR dropped (went lean) by ~.4 and I had to retune everything from 5K up (added more fuel). On the low end with the evo 16g I saw no real increase or decrease in spool up after the manifold.

I know it's not much but I hope that helps. I've now moved on to an AEM EMS and have sold my Evo 3 exhaust manifold so I can't get any logs back to back.

 

[turbo addict]

I had to retune (add fuel to my setup up top as well). One thing that I will say is that it hasn't cracked yet, I have cracked 2 or 3 2g manifolds now, and the sound!! Holy crap, the sound of my car now is SOOOO much meaner. In my opinion it is worth the money for this thing from just the rumble/burble alone even if I didn't pick up any power! But I know that I did gain some problem is I am out of turbo and cam. that will change this spring. ;-)

 

[daren_p]

Thanks for the input guys, not as much hard data as I would have liked but I went ahead & will be picking one of these up. Hopefully I will get some better data, then what is currently out there. This won't be till spring, so if anyone has anything else to add, feel free....

 

[TSG59_Steve]

A friend and I will be doing a back to back dyno run in the spring. It will be a ported 2g vs. the fp mani on an E3 16g. In the summer when we get his car running we'll do the same comparison but with a PTE 60 trim.

 

[97gstjosh]

Thanks for the input guys, not as much hard data as I would have liked but I went ahead & will be picking one of these up. Hopefully I will get some better data, then what is currently out there. This won't be till spring, so if anyone has anything else to add, feel free....

Guess we are both going out on a limb on this one
Ill let everyone now how its does on an EvoIII 16g... not until spring though

 

[fwdeclipse]

I just put in my email for this mani also. I will do a log with my evo gt mani and then throw this on there and do another log and see if there are any gains.

 

[DSMcamaro]

here is some data written by a fellow dsmtuner.

WI-DSM.com :: View topic - FP Race mani

 

[Street_Killer]

Wow, nice data. 200 rpm decrease in spool on a s16g is huge. Im glad I just ordered one of these along with the new fp18g.

 

[pboglio]

Thats great news. I'm glad somebody with a smaller turbo recorded some positive results. Damn, now that means I need to retest my setup. Though, if you look at the old manifold you can note 2 very important things. First, he was running an UNPORTED manifold. Second, that manifold was warped and leaking on the outer cylinders, hence the possible spoolup difference. I'd recommend resurfacing the old manifold and porting it out to 6cm or 7cm and redatalog it back on the car to eliminate any variables.