Ported 1G intake mani = FRH, Venom, Magnus

[Hal]

The Forrester and BJ's is a much much much better design.

Really?

Have you actually done any testing to prove this (guess who has)?

Do you have the test conditions, results, and data logs available for review (guess who does)?

If not, keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.

Hal

 

[PSI2HI]

I do not understand how you can come to a conclusion and produce values you say are correct when more than one variable was changed.

I can post the dyno graphs as well to show you were each setup powerband fell off. That right there says a lot. If your running a large turbo and your powerband is done by 7k, your gonna be in the hurt bag. Where as my setup w/ the Magnus was still climbing the whole powerband.

 

[WikedSicc]

Well don't be making claims saying that the only thing changed was the intake manifold when it wasn't.

 

[PSI2HI]

Reread the post it blatently states one car had 264's w/ a FRH the other car had 272's w/ a Magnus. Both cars where run on stock bottom ends, stock unported head, same boost level (27 psi) and the same turbo (SCM61).

 

[Hal]

Well don't be making claims saying that the only thing changed was the intake manifold when it wasn't.

Why are you even posting in this thread, you have nothing positive to contribute except for your UNINFORMED opinions.

Opinions, which you have formed, without actually having done any testing... unlike (guess who).

 

[91 white tsi]

Could you post the Dyno sheets i would like to see them. I dont have a big turbo yet cuz i wanted to get the supporting mods first to max out my current setup first. I like the Venom intake from the begining just for no reason at all. I am currious to see the graphs. also why did you change the cams with the intakes. I mean i cant see that making all the 115 hp difference but im sure it help the air flow a lil bit

 

[PSI2HI]

The cams weren't changed from car to car these were 2 diff cars. Both were our shop cars. The setups were so very simialar. Only major differences where the intake and cams. Both ran on stock motors w/ SCM61. I'll pull the graphs off the wall this week and post them up.

 

[WikedSicc]

So now not only are there even more variables than just the intake manifold, but now it is on TWO DIFFERENT cars. It is common knowledge that no car runs the same nor will create the same horse power with the same modifications. Even at that, you say "The setups were so very simialar" entailing NOT THE EXACT SAME. I have no idea why you feel you can claim these are accurate numbers while performing such a poor experiment.

 

[PSI2HI]

Both motors ran strong, had good compression, good leakdown. Both vehicles ran the same turbo SCM61 on the same boost level, tuned on the same day @ our shop by us. Only 2 differences where 264's to 272's, and FRH to Magnus. So your telling me that the FRH intake powerband falling off badly on the top end has nothing to do w/ why it was so much lower on power? And why the Magnus climbed all the way to redline and made 115 more whp We all know on larger turbo setups they make the big power on the top end, where the FRH intake just didn't shine. If it would have held a powerband the output # probably would have been very similar. Fact of the matter is after 6800rpm the FRH intakes powerband had fallen off which is where the Magnus shined!

I have a buddy who had the same issue w/ his FRH, it just wouldn't make power on the top end. This is my hands on experience unlike everyone else who likes to base opinions off what i've heard. My information is fact on testing w/ 2 different vehicles and a 3rd vehicle of a buddies.

 

[Hal]

I have no idea why you feel you can claim these are accurate numbers while performing such a poor experiment.

I have no idea why you can't make a positive contribution.

I have an idea!

Why don't YOU collect the most popular SMIM's, rent a dyno for the day, and do back to back comparisons (guess who already did)?

Until you do some testing of your own, you have no business bitching about some else's testing.

Especially when you have ZERO credibilty.

Hal

 

[WikedSicc]

I know for a fact that 272's will give you a much more power at high rpm's rather than 264's. Yes, those are good numbers for the magnus, and that is a big difference, but you can simply not say that they are accurate with such a experiment performed.

 

[Hal]

I know for a fact that 272's will give you a much more power at high rpm's rather than 264's. Yes, those are good numbers for the magnus, and that is a big difference, but you can simply not say that they are accurate with such a experiment performed.

Did you look at the results found at http://nabr.jayntguru.com/shootout/

Guess what, the FRH was tested, and I decided to omit the results.

Can you guess why?

Try searching the NABR archives for the discussion on the matter.

Hal

 

[greycar]

WickeddSICC you are, man I really don't want to make fun of your intelligence, but you have so much to learn about airflow. How can you even wonder why the Magnus is designed the way it is. If you look in one of my previous post on this same thread, you will see how I explained why the venturis in the Magnus Intake improve airflow over others. Its all about even flow throughout the tube.

 

[WikedSicc]

I beleive that part of the magnus intake manifold that I was talking about was how the runners extend into the plenum. This is what I was saying was poor design. Yes, velocity stacks, but airflow generally does not enjoy smacking into a wall. Then I became strayed away from the topic w/ PSI2HI making claims of such an outragous hp difference from the sorriest excuse for an experiment I have ever seen. The comparison from NABR is a much much better experiment. By the way, if you are going to insult my intelegence, make sure you do it w/ correct grammar.

 

[PSI2HI]

It is very easy to see why there is such a drastic difference between the 2 intakes and the 2 tests. To put it plain and simple the FRH intakes powerband had already fallen off b@ arounf 6800 rpms, where the Magnus intakes powerband continued on up to 8000rpm. Pretty easy fact that if the vehicle makes power for another 1200+ rpm that that can equal out to an easy 100+ hp difference especially on larger turbo setups which make their power on the top end. We tried a FRH on one of our cars and i wasn't nomt impressed. I have a buddy who ran one on his car on the dyno it was showing the same results as far as the powerband. Got another guy who has one on a vehicle now w/ a T4 but has yet to be tested so we'll see how that goes as far as powerband. Every Magnus i have tested has made power up top. This is also why its easy to believe their claims of 50+whp gains upon bolt on w/ larger turbo's.

Wicked, honestly IMO i dont think you have any hands on experience w/ either intake and you are just basing your facts on word of mouth rather than hard evidence. If a dyno graph doesn't prove anything than idk what does.

 

[greycar]

Man you need more education on airflow and yeah I could use more school on grammer but I really don't give a crap if I spell every word perfect, so back to the design on Marcos intake those velocity stacks the as you say that block airflow actually increase airflow into the engine. How might they do that one might ask himself?????????? SImple like I said before with a venturi airflow is even throughout the tube w/o a venturi air in the middle of the tube flows extremely faster than the air at the edge of a tube, so say you have a 5 inch long 2 inch od tube with no venturi, the air on the edge of the tube is moving very slow so you are actually flowing say 1 3/4 of and inch now with the venturi added the air on the outside of the tube flows at the same speed as the middle so you flow at a full 2 tube,

 

[greycar]

Also remember that the main plenum is a airsource for the runners and flow going into the plenum isn't the main factor. The main factor is getting the air into the engine. That is why in my opinion Marcos design is better than the others.

 

[Hal]

By the way, if you are going to insult my intelegence, make sure you do it w/ correct grammar.

I always find it funny when people complain about other peoples grammar, and then use bad grammar and spelling while doing so.

It's kind of a "last resort"... like when a little kid sticks his/her tongue out and then walks away.

Hal

 

[na90dsm]

Did you look at the results found at http://nabr.jayntguru.com/shootout/

Guess what, the FRH was tested, and I decided to omit the results.

Can you guess why?

Try searching the NABR archives for the discussion on the matter.

Hal

for some reason i cant read any of the links to the dyno graphs and such. im tryin and its not working

 

[greycar]

I am done with this tarded thread, Fact is I went 10.5@137 on a Magnus Intake, I have stated the reasons why the Magnus is better,due some research and learn about airflow before getting in over your head. Maybe the ones that are asking the tarded questions should just take the slow steps about learning how to go fast, You can't go 10s overnight even as easy as every DSMr thinks it is, Its NOT THAT EASY, maybe in fantasy racing league on playstaion, but this is real science, not fiction. This thread should get close due to it sounding like a broken record

 

[greycar]

Oh yeah one last comment English may look good on the forum but science is what will make you go fast. Speed 101 bitches.

 

[WikedSicc]

I am not saying it is wrong for anyone to use any type of intake manifold. You can go tens on all of these manifolds. The nabr experiment was well done and has good information within it. I however was bringing up the topic of the construction of the Magnus. I do not beleive that having the runners extend into the plenum is a well engineered idea. Yes I see that the numbers are higher on the Magnus, but maybe with flush runners it would be better. There is no information on this or tests performed. This is my observation as an engineer.

As for PSI2HI, you brought up your experiment with the magnus. Sure you produced more power, but the intake manifold is not the only variable in which this extra power is coming from. None the less, you are not even testing this on the same car. This is a very poorly performed experiment and the results should be voided.

To give an answer for the last comments, no, I am not a "noobie" at dsms. I have done my share of research on these cars. I am an engineer and understand how efi automobiles operate. I have taken the neccessary courses to back this up aswell, such as thermodynamics which has a huge impact on understanding how the engine managment system works. I have a project car which will I predict will be running 10.80s at full weight. I am familar with AEM EMS and will be using it as well as tuning my car by myself. I am also aware that tens do not come over night. This project has been in the making for 6 months now, and yes infact, it is a science project.

Lastly, do not look at these experiments and think thats it, the Magnus is better. Other manifolds are better in different areas. Also, just because the Magnus was rated at the most airflow, does this mean that there is no room for improvment. There is always room for improvment. "Think outside the box."

 

[liquordrunk]

it just seems like people get to knowledge bash each other when threads like this com along. but on the up side i have decided to go with Jim Mckeone for an intake mani. the Nabr test was great i read it several times tryin to firgure out which one would be a good choice for my 20g with fp2's and seeing how Jim's is around 450 and has a larger plenum than magnus. seems like it would deliver a nice spool up with a good power band for topend. Hince the reason i am not going with Magnus since i see no need to rev my car into 8 grand or higher since this is where the nabr graph shows the magns and Bj's SHINE. a good midrange and some good topend is all i ask for.. The reason of the start of this post was because i couldnt understand why everyone chose the magnus over a stock 1g mani (extrude honed or ported) since it kills all the mani's in midrange hince is the reason the 1g is made the way it is.. i have heard great info from everyone .. and the graph show base flow numbers and with a certain set up each one will shine in its own domain. onw even though some guys have had the venom crack on them which poses a liablity threat to the car but over all and the graph shows that its was STILL climbin WAY higher than magnus or Bj's throughout the whole test and the airflow was the same or not much differenec from the other 2. it would seem ot me that the venom would be the king of the land instead of the overall shout about magnus but they are proven and that is what counts
thanks for the help guys

 

[Hal]

I do not beleive that having the runners extend into the plenum is a well engineered idea.

No one cares what you BELIEVE... period.

Bring some PROOF to the table or shut up.

It has been pointed out to you that designs using "stacks" have been proven to be "better" (hint... study up in intake design engineeirng).

If you doubt this, go find some evidence to the contrary.

Hal

- NABR didn't do the testing, myself and some others did... get it right

 

[anomalyinva]

It is very easy to see why there is such a drastic difference between the 2 intakes and the 2 tests. To put it plain and simple the FRH intakes powerband had already fallen off b@ arounf 6800 rpms, where the Magnus intakes powerband continued on up to 8000rpm. Pretty easy fact that if the vehicle makes power for another 1200+ rpm that that can equal out to an easy 100+ hp difference especially on larger turbo setups which make their power on the top end. We tried a FRH on one of our cars and i wasn't nomt impressed. I have a buddy who ran one on his car on the dyno it was showing the same results as far as the powerband. Got another guy who has one on a vehicle now w/ a T4 but has yet to be tested so we'll see how that goes as far as powerband. Every Magnus i have tested has made power up top. This is also why its easy to believe their claims of 50+whp gains upon bolt on w/ larger turbo's.

Wicked, honestly IMO i dont think you have any hands on experience w/ either intake and you are just basing your facts on word of mouth rather than hard evidence. If a dyno graph doesn't prove anything than idk what does.

You can NOT compare the vehicles. Why? THE CAMS and IT WAS ON A DIFFERENT CAR! I will say that the Magnus would PROBABLY make more power on the same car, but we DO NOT KNOW THIS! It is a HYPOTHESIS. Why? The test was not done on the same car, under the same conditions.