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. ;)

Large vs Small Runner Dyno test!

Posted by MorrisonFab, Apr 30, 2020

Please Support STM Tuned
Please Support ExtremePSI
  1. MorrisonFab

    MorrisonFab Supporting Vendor

    158
    489
    Joined May 28, 2017
    Johnson Creek, Wisconsin
    Large Runner vs. Small runner
    IMG_4880.jpg

    We’ve always felt strongly about taking advantage of runner/primary sizing and matching it to the setup, which is nothing new for manifold/header building, but somewhat uncommon for most DSM and Evo turbo manifolds. Historically, “large” runner options have been by far the most common; and for good reason, as it feels somewhat awkward to step down in size from the cross sectional area (CSA) of the 4G63 exhaust port. This write up will seem very “small runner” focused, and it certainly is, as large runner manifolds are already well proven and will mainly serve as the benchmark.

    The first manifold we made used small runners in 2010 and Ron Shearer had been experimenting with them since 2008, with him and David Buschur doing their own testing in 2010. Larger runners/primaries can overall flow more and will tend to be more favorable at high power and high rpm setups, while a smaller runner/primary will have a higher velocity and pulse strength, tending to be more responsive at lower rpm and offer an increased power/torque curve up to a certain point or setup- which can be hard to pinpoint where that crossover point will be and when one will shine over the other. We’ve had lots of direct and indirect data from others, and indirect data from tests of our own that we’ve based our knowledge on, but never an opportunity for a dedicated test with runner size being the only variable- until now.

    IMG951723.jpg
    Brandon’s setup was considered “on the fence” for our rule of thumb as far runner size since it was a 62mm turbo and 2.1L engine, but he also wanted the most response possible with the most area under the curve (which a divided T4 combination is already great for), even if that meant a little loss in peak power. This made his setup an ideal candidate for a large vs small runner test while his build was being done at Whalen Speed R&D, allowing him to make his manifold decision based on the dyno test results and allowing us to gather some fantastic data.

    The main goals of this particular test were to:

    1. To get a direct comparison between the two runner sizes we use, with a dyno overlay to visually show if/when/where one shines over the other and by how much at different boost and power levels.
    2. Perhaps most importantly- to calibrate our own intuitions and thoughts behind our manifold suggestions and which runner size may be the best match with our clients setup/goals; based on power level, rpm range, turbo size/future upgrades, intended use, and their own personal preference on power delivery.
    A big thank you goes out to Brandon for offering his Evo 9 to test run the power curves of each of our manifolds and John and the team at Whalen’s Speed R&D for making the test happen- putting in the extra time to swap manifolds, recalibrate AFR’s, boost curves, and document all of the data collected.

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

    Dyno Test Background and Methodology:

    This test was between two of our Evo 8/9 Divided T4 standard placement/bottom mount manifolds, with the runner/primary size being the only variable- identical placement, routing, and design with near equal lengths. The two runner sizes were sch10 1-1/2NPS for large runner (1.68″ ID or just over 1.75″ comparable tube size) and sch10 1-1/4NPS for small runner (1.42″ ID or a little over 1.5″ comparable tube size). The turbo was a 62mm Borg Warner S362SX-E with a 76mm turbine and .91A/R divided T4 turbine housing. Testing was performed at Whalen Speed R&D in Paw Paw, MI between March 4th and April 27th, 2020, using a Dynojet chassis dynomometer with the Large Runner Divided T4 installed first for baseline runs. Some early 3rd gear pulls resulted in wheel spin so John redid the runs in 4th gear and for the remainder of the test for consistency. After multiple baseline runs at different boost levels with the larger runner manifold, the team swapped to the small runner but unfortunately not on the same day and encountered some inevitable delays due to the state wide lock downs. Final comparison pulls were done at 30psi, 32.5psi, and 38psi between the two manifolds/runner sizes.

    Some changes had to be made with John adjusting the wastegate duty cycle (WGDC%) and boost ramp rate between manifolds (more covered on that later) to control boost as well as changes in fueling to get AFR back in line from the different VE and airflow requirements between each manifold/runner size. Other variables, such as target AFR, ignition timing, MIVEC settings, etc were kept the same. Dyno room temperatures varied between 66 and 77 degrees F, and IAT at the start of each pull varied between 66 and 82 degrees F. All pulls were started steady-state at 2500rpm.

    Design factors involved in the manifolds used:
    ~1.68″ runner ID for the Evo Large Runner Divided T4
    ~1.42″ runner ID for the Evo Small Runner Divided T4


    Some things worth noting:

    1. We have our own method and process to gently form the transition from oval exhaust port to runner, particularly when the cross sectional area (CSA) of the runner is less than the CSA of the factory 4g63 exhaust port (in the case of the small runner manifold). We feel this is very important in attaining the results seen during this test, giving the small runner manifold a fair shot, and a large piece of what sets us apart. (More info: http://morrisonfabrications.com/tech/oval-port-flange-vs-transition-flange/)
    2. This test was comparing two of our own manifolds, not a test against a manifold that has any inherent compromises to begin with; such as tight radius bends, poor transitions, or a less than ideal collector. This comparison is just primary size- with both arguably being stout performers to begin with. It's fairly established that our small runner manifolds are efficient in the 750whp range, but what the power curve looks like next to a large runner as they both approach that power level is less known and what this test is about.
    3. Setups with smaller turbos/less power will tend to prefer the small runner manifold more than this test, and setups with larger turbos/more power will tend to benefit from the large runner manifold more than this test. This test is meant to be a middle ground to find that crossover point in the power level/rpm level where one runner size starts to shine over the otherThis test and results are specific to the setup being tested, but similar relative results are to be expected for all of our large or small runner manifolds (Evo, DSM, etc).
    4. This test and results are specific to the setup being tested, but similar relative results are to be expected for all of our large or small runner manifolds (Evo, DSM, etc).
      There will always be variables, however, such as turbo size/efficiency (both compressor and turbine), turbine housing A/R, open vs divided, operating rpm range, boost level, engine displacement, camshafts/valve events, etc.
    Data Analysis:

    The MF large runner vs MF small runner overlays:


    30psi HP TQ Overlay.png
    30psi- red is large runner, blue is small runner. Solid is HP, dashed is TQ.
    Large runner was a steady 30psi while small runner hit 29psi then rose to 30.5psi by the end .
    Small runner picked up ~66wtq at 4500rpm during spool up and made ~40whp more at 7000rpm (with an unfair 0.5psi advantage at this point).
    Peak numbers:
    592whp/478tq Large runner @30PSI boost, ~27psi peak drive pressure
    617whp/494tq Small runner @30.5psi boost, ~29psi peak drive pressure

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    32.5psi HP TQ Overlay.png
    32.5psi- red is large runner, blue is small runner. Solid is HP, dashed is TQ.
    Both held a solid 32.5psi. Small Runner picked up ~40wtq at 4500rpm during spool up and ~25whp after 7000rpm. There is a point at ~5250 rpm where both curves dip (both go rich as the second fuel pump kicks in) and the large runner makes ~5whp/5wtq more.
    Peak numbers:
    620whp/524wtq Large runner @32.5psi, ~32.5psi peak drive pressure
    642whp/528wtq Small runner @32.5psi, ~33psi peak drive pressure

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------


    38psi HP TQ Overlay.png
    ~38psi- red is large runner, blue is small runner. Solid is HP, dashed is TQ.
    Both hit 39psi, the large runner fell to 38psi and small runner fell to 37.5psi by the end.
    Small runner picked up ~120wtq at 4500rpm and maintains about 40wtq more until 6000rpm. The small runner still has a 5whp advantage at 7500rpm despite being down 0.5psi vs the large runner.
    Something important to note is that this is the first (and only) small runner manifold pull where the boost ramp rate was the same between the large and small runner pulls. The later lower boost small runner pulls were done with a less aggressive boost ramp rate and WGDC% to soften how the small runner manifold comes into boost (due to the pulls being done in 4th gear on the dyno which can put extra wear and tear the drivetrain).
    Peak numbers:
    696whp/573wtq Large runner @38psi boost, ~43psi peak drive pressure
    715whp/616wtq Small Runner @38psi boost, ~47psi peak drive pressure

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------


    MF Large Runner manifold overlaid at each boost level:

    Large Runner All Runs HP.png
    These are the 3 runs at varying boost levels for the large runner manifold only.
    Red 30psi, blue 32.5psi, and green 39 to 38psi.
    All of these pulls had the same boost ramp rate, with the red (30psi) pull spooling slightly later- likely due to the wastegate opening a little sooner with less initial fixed WGDC%.
    Each successive increase in boost tracks nicely, and the shape of the power curve starts to level off sooner on the higher boost pull, likely dictated by the 62mm turbo getting closer to its limit.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    MF Small runner manifold overlaid at each boost level:

    Small Runner HP runs.png
    These are the pulls for small runner manifold only.
    Red 29 to 30.5psi, blue 32.5psi, green 39 to 37.5psi
    The green higher boost pull had the more aggressive boost ramp rate (the same as all of the large runner boost ramp rates) and the lower boost pulls had the softer boost ramp rate and illustrates how differently some of the small runner pulls came into boost. There may have been some other additional factors to possibly increase spool up in this particular 38psi run, such as the exhaust manifold possibly being at a higher initial temperature which could help spool, but either way this was the result when the boost ramp rate was the only known variable that changed.
    The pulls all track nicely as boost increases, with the high boost pull leveling off sooner- likely starting to be dictated by the 62mm turbo getting closer to its limit.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recap and Conclusions:
    From John: (To be added)

    During this test, the small runner manifold increased spool by 160-220rpm over the large runner manifold. This was also accompanied by a large increase in VE/fueling requirements, particularly during spool up, that resulted in more power/torque at the same boost level nearly everywhere with the smaller runner manifold. Torque was augmented from 40ft/lbs to as high as 125ft/lbs during spool up and as much as 42ft/lbs in peak torque numbers. Horsepower was augmented as much as 50whp at some points in the curve and ranged between 19-25 higher peak horsepower numbers.
    Overall drive pressure/backpressure tended to be higher (less ideal) on the small runner manifold vs the large runner manifold. At 30psi, both were less than 1:1 boost vs drive pressure ratio which is fantastic (27psi and 29psi respectively), and at 32.5psi the large runner was at 1:1 and the small runner was just over 1:1. At 38psi, the large runner started to show a more favorable gap in drive pressure vs the small runner at only 43psi vs 47psi (both still fantastic for a 62mm 2.1L setup making 700whp).

    Final Thoughts:

    In this test, the small runner manifold spooled sooner, made more torque, and even made more peak power in every case. The 38psi runs in the 700whp range was when the test became the most telling, as we had expected the large runner manifold to overtake the small runner manifold in peak power numbers by at least a little, which did not happen. We were prepared for this test to make the small runner to look "bad" with this being an "on the fence" setup between large and small runners, but knew it would at least give us a better gauge for more informed suggestions to our clients and offer some insightful data that isn't often shared.
    We suspect that the power curves on this setup would have merged at around 8000rpm (they will merge either way as the turbo gets closer to its compressor limit, which looks to have happened, and plays a larger role in dictating the shape of the power curve at high rpm) and the large runner may have shown an advantage past that for holding power a little longer, but the small runner is more than capable of getting the most power from this 62mm 2.1L setup and ended up being almost hands down the best match. The only downside we saw was a few psi higher average drive pressure which did not affect the power in this case. Lower power/smaller turbo setups will tend to have more pronounced gains with the small runner manifold, and higher power/larger turbo setups will tend to have more pronounced gains with the large runner manifold.
    Our scale of factors for when large runner should be considered over small runner has certainly been nailed down more, with it looking like the advantage with larger runners won't be seen until the 8k+ range and well into the 700whp power level, with some losses in the power curve likely everywhere else. Higher rpm based setups, larger turbos/higher power levels could easily change that, however. We already knew that our small runner manifolds would efficiently make 750whp, but we were a little surprised when they still made higher peak numbers vs large runner even at 700whp on this 62mm divided T4 setup.
    That's NOT to say large runner doesn't rightfully have its place in higher power/higher rpm combinations and generate a great powerband, but it does back up the smaller runner size chosen for our stock replacements and the turbo options available to them.

    It's all about a well matched combination. We are happy to offer different runner sizes in order to create a setup that is the best match for you.

    Details on Brandon’s Evo 9:

    F239E0EF-.jpg
    • Borg Warner S362SX-E with a 76mm turbine and .91A/R divided T4 turbine housing.
    • Morrison Fabrications Large Runner Divided T4, Morrison Fabrications Small Runner Divided T4 (same placement and routing, primary size being the only difference). He kept the small runner
    • Evo 9 cyl head w/ std Fererra valves, light port and polish, Kiggly high pressure street springs, Kiggly HLA.
    • Kelford 280 cams (280/276).
    • 2.1L destroker 4G64 block – 156mm Manley Turbo-Tuff rods, WSRD Diamond Spec Custom 10:1 pistons, OEM Evo 9 crank, WSRD oil modification.
    • Link G4 with flex fuel and fail safes, Kiggly 12 tooth trigger wheel, JD Customs ignition coil setup.
    • FIC 2150cc Injectors, Walbro 525/450 (Bullet Proof Billet double pumper), pump E85 (~e60 during this test).
    • Skunk 2 intake manifold, stock throttle body, ETS 3” intercooler, 4″ WSRD Speed Density Intake.
    • TiAl 50mm Q BOV, 2x TiAl MV-S 38mm external wastegates.

    Cheers,
    Matt and Samantha
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2020

    Street Build 2K  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...
    iHavok, RWD4G63, Killa_dsm and 10 others like this.
  2. 1990TSIAWDTALON

    1990TSIAWDTALON Moderator

    5,257
    2,567
    Joined Nov 14, 2013
    Independence, Kansas
    Nice article @MorrisonFab !!!!
    Keep up the fantastic work!
     

    Street Build 4K  29

    1992 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    14.74 @ 117.04 · 1G DSM

    1K  14

    1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
    awd · manual · 1G DSM

    715  18

    1967 Chevrolet Camaro RS
    rwd · automatic · Misc Vehicles

    Street Build 981  7

    1998 Eagle Talon TSi
    fwd · manual · 2G DSM

    Street Build 6K  13  25

    1990 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    13.620 @ 108.460 · 1G DSM
    Loading...
    MorrisonFab likes this.
  3. ec17pse

    ec17pse Freelancer

    3,868
    1,726
    Joined Nov 1, 2008
    London, UK, Europe
    so the small runner looks like its dipping at the 7500rpm range, so if your going to a higer rpm then the large runner would be more ideal? as from looking at the graph the large runner is trying to pick up again right at the 7500 range. am i seeing that right or have i looked at something completely wrong LOL.

    so using a smaller runner you could end up using a bigger turbine housing to offset the difference is spool vs peak output?
     

    Road Race Build 10K  10  56

    1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse GST
    175 whp · 180.1 lb/ft · 2G DSM
    Loading...
  4. MorrisonFab

    MorrisonFab Supporting Vendor

    158
    489
    Joined May 28, 2017
    Johnson Creek, Wisconsin
    Thanks Marty!!

    We really don't know directly as some of the lower boost runs weren't revved as high, but from the rest of the graphs it's hard to say large runner will have the advantage there when it is down 25whp just 200rpm prior on this setup. We could see them merging around 8000rpm on the lower boost pulls. A larger turbo/higher power level could easily change that, however.

    The shape of the power curves in the higher boost runs likely changes due to the turbo getting pushed closer to its compressor limit on this particular setup. We've seen spicier small runner setups happily make peak power at 8500 and 40psi so it's hard to tie it directly to rpm-this combination just gets it done sooner.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2020

    Street Build 2K  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...
    Vegas smith likes this.
  5. iugrad92turbo

    iugrad92turbo Supporting Member

    10,548
    439
    Joined May 22, 2007
    Kalamazoo, Michigan
    That's was a really nice thread to read, thanks.
     

    7K  5

    1992 Eagle Talon TSi
    awd · manual · 1G DSM
    Loading...
    MorrisonFab likes this.
  6. Black95TSIawd

    Black95TSIawd Proven Member

    1,715
    340
    Joined Jan 28, 2003
    Dirty, New Jersey
    Amazing job. Thank you for sharing with us.
     

    5K  8

    1998 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    184.4 whp · 251.0 lb/ft · 2G DSM
    Loading...
    MorrisonFab likes this.
  7. jakelandry

    jakelandry Proven Member

    831
    103
    Joined Oct 13, 2009
    Minden, Louisiana
    I love reading updates from you guys. Any particular reason they didn’t take the car out farther on the top end? I would think with the 2.1 they would be willing to rev it out more. What is yall’s opinion on a small runner, consolidated design? That may have been covered in a previous discussion in the consolidated manifold thread but I can’t recall.
     

    4K  0

    1995 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
    11.410 @ 125.490 · 2G DSM
    Loading...
  8. MorrisonFab

    MorrisonFab Supporting Vendor

    158
    489
    Joined May 28, 2017
    Johnson Creek, Wisconsin
    During the shut downs, noise was a concern making the second round of dyno pulls, so if we had to guess- longer, higher rpm pulls weren't helping. That would be a question for Whalen Speed to know for sure.

    We tend to think of the consolidated runner approach as more of a freedom in design (that can see benefits in and of itself) but it does still seem to offer some VE benefit in the midrange and less overall volume etc.
    If it were to be done in small runner, you would only want it paired with a divided T3 setup.
     

    Street Build 2K  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...
    rabenne likes this.
  9. RWD4G63

    RWD4G63 Proven Member

    376
    87
    Joined Dec 7, 2011
    Paw Paw, Michigan
    That's a good way to ruin your powerband. A larger turbine housing doesn't make more power unless the turbine is maxed, and even then it slows spool and give you a little top end. Not worth it.
     

    Road Race Build 297  3

    1997 Eagle Talon TSi AWD
    awd · manual · 2G DSM
    Loading...
  10. jed344

    jed344 Supporting VIP

    666
    70
    Joined Jan 10, 2008
    Waterville, Iowa
    I can add as well on my 2.0 with the small runner t3 open with a 62mm hx40 in .82 ar housing. I am seeing 20psi by 4700rpm and 30psi by 5,200rpm. So these small runner manifolds work extremely well.
     

    1K  26

    1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
    awd · manual · 2G DSM
    Loading...
    MorrisonFab likes this.
  11. Canadian_CD9A

    Canadian_CD9A Proven Member

    521
    210
    Joined Feb 10, 2012
    Winnipeg, MB, Canada
    I'm impressed by the little slugger manifolds you have been coming out with - everyone loves the big blingy manifolds, but you're proving that you can do a lot more with less (including stock fitment) that works for 95% of us.

    These just came out a couple months ago - full manifold blankets for Evo X stuff. What do you think the odds are that they'll fit a MF manifold (selfishly thinking of the small-runner IWG T4 that I'll be ordering)? https://www.turbomotiv.com/store/heat-protection/vehicle-specific-products/
     
  12. MorrisonFab

    MorrisonFab Supporting Vendor

    158
    489
    Joined May 28, 2017
    Johnson Creek, Wisconsin
    We were happily surprised!

    They should share similar dimensions but no good reference to truly say one way or another of course

     

    Street Build 2K  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...

Share This Page

Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community
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