Torn between Intake Manifolds

[91-gsx]

It fits a 1g head. You may be thinking of the evo3 IM. I've seen "94awdcoupe" use epoxy to fill the runners to match up with a 2g head though

I did not know that the cyclone intake manifold fit 1g head intake ports, so I am sorry that I said that a stock cyclone intake manifold would not hold a candle to a stock 1g intake manifold. It should do that and better, if ported correctly.

From someone who has ran both intakes in the past month, this statement is so untrue and you have nothing but what you "believe" to rely on. If my 1g IM creamed the Cyclone up top, it would already be back on the car.

I guess what I was trying to get as is, through the statements that people have made about the stock cyclone intake manifold and the stock 1g intake manifold. I have come to the same conclusion as all of you, and that is that the stock cyclone intake manifold should be close to a 1g intake manifold in the top end, but greatly out performs it in the bottom end. But as this data shows at the bottom of this post via the G-TECH, the 1g extrude honed intake manifold shows an 11hp difference from a stock cyclone intake manifold at 7000rpm... This is where things go sour for me with this data... I have already posted a dyno graph showing a close to 70hp and 50ft/lb of torque gain at 7000rpm going to an extrude honed intake manifold.. This should be a greater difference when it comes to a 1g extrude honed intake manifold compared to a stock cyclone intake manifold.. This data does not do a properly opened up 1g intake manifold justice in my opinion, and through collected statements on this thread and others, and through the only actual dyno graph to illustrate what I am talking about.. I am not here to prove anybody wrong, I just think other options that have been proven to work should not be brushed aside with bunk data.. Some of the fastest cars on this forum and others run a 1g extrude honed intake manifold with record setting numbers and times... For example, this 16g powered car that has the highest torque and horsepower that I have seen with a mostly stock internal engine; http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/151887256-post1.html
I am not saying he made all that power from the extrude honed 1g intake manifold, but it obviously was not holding him back with that much power and torque being created.. But we would all consider a stock intake manifold or a cyclone intake manifold, a top end dampener on the same setup..

I found some old notes the other day on cyclone. these numbers are from my 57trim turbo. the 1st column is 1g extrude honed, second is cyclone. The numbers are from g-tech which read low. On dynojet it made 411HP/410TQ at 22-23psi
RPM =1G =cyclone
4000=202=247
4500=290=292
5000=314=325
5500=341=343
6000=366=367
6500=353=351
7000=319=308

keep in mind this is against a extrude honed 1g Vs. stock unported cyclone. also the biggest gains are seen from 2500-3500rpm. I just wasnt recording numbers at those rpms. cyclone is a hell of a piece if you ask me.

 

[dsm-onster]

Well, the data is the data. If the Gtech is off with the extrude honed 1g intake manifold installed, it is also off with the cyclone intake manifold installed. So another way to look at this is that a cyclone provides more topend power, since power isn't down as much as a 1g intake manifold vs. an extrude honed manifold.

I don't know if that is true. But the cyclone intake manifold DOES have radiused entry to the runners and there may be 1 or 2 other differences that could cause better topend flow. That's why I wish there were some direct comparisons of a 1g (untouched) vs. cyclone.

 

[dsmjay]

The only thing that gets me is that the cyclone has been around for so long. And all I have ever heard was that they were pointless without the jdm ecu. But even at that...nobody has ever seemed to use them and make a good bit of power with them. With so many DSMers trying/doing whatever is cheapest to make good power...why hasnt there been more with thiis intake manifold....there has to be a reason.

 

[dsm-onster]

There ARE people whove made serious power with them 600whp. Stock 2g exhaust manifold with an adapter for a gt35r. 2g head.

This it the perfect example of several morons not getting it right and blaming the product not the user. Then the herd reads and repeats. If it flows 1-2cfm less than a 1g intake manifold then why wouldn't it perform about the same up top? Yes there's more to an intake manifold than cfm, and the cyclone has better runner mouths, and larger plenum for a better angle of entry, and it's easy to open it up to port like an extrude hone job.

 

[toofast82]

There ARE people whove made serious power with them 600whp. Stock 2g exhaust manifold with an adapter for a gt35r. 2g head.

This it the perfect example of several morons not getting it right and blaming the product not the user. Then the herd reads and repeats. If it flows 1-2cfm less than a 1g intake manifold then why wouldn't it perform about the same up top? Yes there's more to an intake manifold than cfm, and the cyclone has better runner mouths, and larger plenum for a better angle of entry, and it's easy to open it up to port like an extrude hone job.

Nice link and look at that usable/streetable powerband without it being extude honed, too! There is definitely a nice smooth entry into the runners unlike the 1g IM. The topend performing worse is a myth. Like you said, 1-2cfm is not going to make any noticable difference. Everyone keeps saying its better down low, which is obviously true, but its midrange also seems to outperform the 1g as well.
Of the not-so many people that have these properly functioning on their car, I've not seen one of them complain and put their 1g IM back on.

 

[91-gsx]

Well, the data is the data. If the Gtech is off with the extrude honed 1g intake manifold installed, it is also off with the cyclone intake manifold installed. So another way to look at this is that a cyclone provides more topend power, since power isn't down as much as a 1g intake manifold vs. an extrude honed manifold.

I don't know if that is true. But the cyclone intake manifold DOES have radiused entry to the runners and there may be 1 or 2 other differences that could cause better topend flow. That's why I wish there were some direct comparisons of a 1g (untouched) vs. cyclone.

I do not agree. This data is not adding up, so to me it is not reliable enough to make half the assumptions people are making on here. What your pretty much saying is that if the data is wrong, but you still use it, then the cyclone should flow even more then a stock 1g intake manifold... What your also saying is that proof of a 70hp increase at 7000rpm going to a extrude hone intake through a real dyno can now be somehow related to this data that you G-TECHED.... So sense an extrude hone showed PROOF of a 70hp and 50ft/lb of torque gain over the stock manifold. And it did not show that type of improvement over a cyclone intake manifold in a set of numbers off a website from a cheap and proven not to be dependable device in the way it is being used... SO let me cut it down even further... You gain 70hp from the stock intake manifold to a extrude hone intake manifold, this has been PROVEN. but you only gain 11hp going from a cyclone to an extrude honed intake manifold, NOT PROVEN...
This is a great manifold like I have said over and over.... But people are extrapolating way too much from a set of numbers, and even when people say they won't, they throw those numbers in to prove their point...

EDIT: So if we use the "data" via the G-TECH. The extrude hone intake manifold only offers an 11hp gain over the cyclone intake manifold and a 70hp gain over the stock intake manifold. So this must mean a cyclone makes almost 60hp over the stock intake manifold in the top end.... NO FREAKING WAY GUYS!

 

[toofast82]

So sense an extrude hone showed PROOF of a 70hp and 50ft/lb of torque gain over the stock manifold. You gain 70hp from the stock intake manifold to a extrude hone intake manifold, this has been PROVEN. but you only gain 11hp going from a cyclone to an extrude honed intake manifold, NOT PROVEN...

An extrude honed 1g is NOT proven to add 70hp on EVERY setup. Most companies that perform this process report ~20-25hp.
Also that HUGE dip in power in your graph right before 7k on the stock one is very suspicious and not natural. Looks like something went wrong there. That is where you're seeing the 70hp gain. Nobody is arguing that the Extrude process is worth something when done on whichever intake. The thead I posted a few up with the hand ported cyclone seems pretty realistic with a slight gain in upper power due to the porting. Without it, they would pretty much be about the same in the high rpm.

 

[dsm-onster]

Amen. If extrude honing made that much power every time, then it's likely it would be employed on every setup, instead of a real SMIM upgrade. No way smoothing the manifold runners and enlarging the plenum so slightly makes 70whp regularly.

More likely it makes about 11-20whp more. The cyclone intake flows 1-2cfm less than the stock 1g manifold (a flowbench varies this much for random untouched 1g intake manifolds). So the extrude hone process helped 94awdcoup about 11hp vs. if he ran that same 1g manifold without extrude honing. That's what extrude honing realistically does on a common setup. Here's a more realistic test done. It provides about 3.6% more cfm through the head. WOW! 94awdcoup's cyclone topend results: 319whp / 308whp = 1.036 . The cyclone intake manifold flows as much as a 1g intake manifold uptop.

The biggest promotor of extrude honing, RRE, doesnt' even have that option mentioned on there website anymore. They now have the Magnus SMIM as an upgrade only.

. . . Back to the subject. I wonder if the reason the cyclone manifold flows as low as a 1g intake manifold up top because of the runner merging at the entrance to the head. Having 2 runners merge into one and having a longer runner with out-of-wack harmonics at redline HAS to degrade pulsed flow. This probably cances out the better plenum design and radiused entry to the runners. Or it would be better to say that mitsu chose to upgrade the runner mouths and plenum for the cyclone so that it flows as well up top as a 1g intake manifold and, of course still prvide that MUCH better low end flow.

A cyclone modified to ONLY flow well up top could be an easy job. It could flow as well as a 1g intake down low and flow quite a bit better up top. Sealing the long runners from the head ports and blending the merge to make it look like the long runner was never there to the head could provide alot of total topend flow. I'd be interested in doing other things to the short runner entry to encourage higher flow. Also getting through the runners with a grinder is rather easy. So you can get the 3.6% increase that extrude hone provides with a diegrinder. That added to encouraging better flow to the short runner mouths, and I can see a cyclone manifold out performing a 1g manifold down low and up top for very little invested.

 

[94awdcoupe]

My thoughts are extrude honing is worth 20hp tops. No way it could make 50 or 70 hp. Dave B tested extrude hone evo 8 manifold and it made no more power than stock one so he doesnt sell the extrude hone process for evo manifolds.

G-tech is good data. It works like any other dyno. perfect for back to back measurements. Anyone who quotes MPH track times are off doesnt know how things work. Tracks average last 200 ft to give you trap speed. G-tech does not. so obviously there is going to be some differences in their measuring trap speed. But that in no way faults its ability to measure g- force and rpm and calculate hp from those figures.

the cyclone from what I have seen is an improvement over 1g manifold. there is no top end flow loss. local here had a 14b powered 2g that was hitting 150mph on a stock 6bolt block. next weekend he ran again but with 1 sole change the cyclone intake. the car then topped out at 165mph.

The most noticeable increase in torque from cyclone comes from performance on highway. no dyno data would ever show this because people dont dyno their car in 5th loaded at highway speed. the torque increase between 4000-5000rpm is nuts.

i dont know whay there is a debate. even if there is a small loss in top end the gains everywhere else are just plain worth it.

 

[Black_Bullet]

My thoughts are extrude honing is worth 20hp tops. No way it could make 50 or 70 hp. Dave B tested extrude hone evo 8 manifold and it made no more power than stock one so he doesnt sell the extrude hone process for evo manifolds.

G-tech is good data. It works like any other dyno. perfect for back to back measurements. Anyone who quotes MPH track times are off doesnt know how things work. Tracks average last 200 ft to give you trap speed. G-tech does not. so obviously there is going to be some differences in their measuring trap speed. But that in no way faults its ability to measure g- force and rpm and calculate hp from those figures.

the cyclone from what I have seen is an improvement over 1g manifold. there is no top end flow loss. local here had a 14b powered 2g that was hitting 150mph on a stock 6bolt block. next weekend he ran again but with 1 sole change the cyclone intake. the car then topped out at 165mph.

The most noticeable increase in torque from cyclone comes from performance on highway. no dyno data would ever show this because people dont dyno their car in 5th loaded at highway speed. the torque increase between 4000-5000rpm is nuts.

i dont know whay there is a debate. even if there is a small loss in top end the gains everywhere else are just plain worth it.

I completely agree. There really shouldn't be a debate with how cheap these manifolds can be found and with what they offer. Im interested to try it out, 94awdcoup made a lot of power with it, more than what most cyclone owners will ever make, so it being looked at as a restriction is a farce.

Edit: I know your running the cyclone on shredder, but are you running it the blue evo too? Do you think the results with the cyclone were amplified since for the yellow car you made it work with the 2g head? Thanks.

 

[dsm-onster]

It should never be looked at a restriction. Why? because it gains low end torque? So it MUST lose topend power? That's antiquated with the old tech that inspires the thought. A 2g manifold sacrifices topend for low end. The whole point of dual runners is not to lose topend for the sake of early torque.

It's not like anyone has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the cyclone flows so much less than the stock 1g manifold at full song and normal redline.

And I agree that Gtech is rather accurate. I saw the video where ET gustimates are very, very close to actual results, time and time again. Any program that accurately calculates load and either bases engine speed on rpm input or bases it on an accelerometer is pretty much dead on with any dyno. A stationary dyno does the same thing, guesses horsepower based on a known load and extrapolates using an rpm signal. You DO NOT need to spend hundreds ona dyno to get an accurate measurement. You'll have likely lower load than what the actual car exhibits, so spool will be off on the rollers; and intake temps are usually not going to be realistic. But mainly it's the precision. Such an instrument is as consistant as a real dyno. So the DIFFERENCE is what we're all after and such a tuning tool can really show what's really going on.

 

[91-gsx]

An extrude honed 1g is NOT proven to add 70hp on EVERY setup. Most companies that perform this process report ~20-25hp.
Also that HUGE dip in power in your graph right before 7k on the stock one is very suspicious and not natural. Looks like something went wrong there. That is where you're seeing the 70hp gain. Nobody is arguing that the Extrude process is worth something when done on whichever intake. The thead I posted a few up with the hand ported cyclone seems pretty realistic with a slight gain in upper power due to the porting. Without it, they would pretty much be about the same in the high rpm.

I am definitely not saying they make that on every setup guys... I just simply was relating the G-TECH data to the dyno sheet I posted because these cars seem to be making around the same power.... So that definitely makes that power gain more relevant to the only setup and data I was questioning.. 94awdcoupe did state the car actually made 411hp/410tq on a dyno, and then went on to post the G-TECH data. The data also shows a peak of 366hp with extrude hone intake manifold, and 367hp with the cyclone... Its relevant data even though the cyclone made more peak power supposedly? And please look at the rest of the dyno sheet I posted, the dip you are talking about makes up 20 of the 70hp I spoke of... The 1g extrude hone intake manifold is actually making ~20hp/20tq more then stock at 6000rpm and then it goes up from there by ~50hp/40tq at 7000rpm over stock, and what I like the most is that it carries an extra ~40hp/40tq past 7000rpm. The peak between the stock 1g intake manifold and the 1g extrude hone intake manifold increased by 24hp/5tq, which is about what most of you claim to be true of its performance... I thought were talking about more then just peak power here... Especially sense this is a cyclone intake manifold thread

I am not trying to argue that the extrude hone intake should be adored by all SMIM's... I was simply trying to tell everybody, as soon as I saw that data, that something seems wrong. I in no way, shape, or form was trying to put down the cyclone intake manifold. I too looked into the cyclone intake manifold for a while before finding and purchasing a used 1g extrude honed intake manifold. You guys are right about die grinding a cyclone to give it the extrude hone touch, but you cannot do this to a normal 1g intake manifold because the runners are too long for any grinding tool to reach the middle... I would have done it that way if I could ...

It should never be looked at a restriction. Why? because it gains low end torque? So it MUST lose topend power? That's antiquated with the old tech that inspires the thought. A 2g manifold sacrifices topend for low end. The whole point of dual runners is not to lose topend for the sake of early torque.

It's not like anyone has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the cyclone flows so much less than the stock 1g manifold at full song and normal redline.

And I agree that Gtech is rather accurate. I saw the video where ET gustimates are very, very close to actual results, time and time again. Any program that accurately calculates load and either bases engine speed on rpm input or bases it on an accelerometer is pretty much dead on with any dyno. A stationary dyno does the same thing, guesses horsepower based on a known load and extrapolates using an rpm signal. You DO NOT need to spend hundreds ona dyno to get an accurate measurement. You'll have likely lower load than what the actual car exhibits, so spool will be off on the rollers; and intake temps are usually not going to be realistic. But mainly it's the precision. Such an instrument is as consistant as a real dyno. So the DIFFERENCE is what we're all after and such a tuning tool can really show what's really going on.

I do not believe that the cyclone flows much less then a stock 1g intake manifold on the top end.

I agree that the G-TECH is accurate for all the reasons you mentioned above, except the educated guess it takes at horsepower and torque. He stated the car made 411hp/410tq on a dyno.... I do not think a 44hp difference between the data(Peak of 367hp) and the actual dyno is accurate..

I always look forward to hearing from you guys on this forum and have a lot of respect for all of you. Please never take my constant questioning of things as bashing, it will never be.. After all, not matter what intake manifold you have on the car, its a DSM, and DSM's are just plain sick. Later.

 

[94awdcoupe]

I agree that the G-TECH is accurate for all the reasons you mentioned above, except the educated guess it takes at horsepower and torque. He stated the car made 411hp/410tq on a dyno.... I do not think a 44hp difference between the data(Peak of 367hp) and the actual dyno is accurate..


stock evo8 dyno runs vary around the country from 200whp to 270whp. no two types of dyno read the same. the important part is they read accurate from one run to the next which they are all good at. including a g-tech. a g-tech would give about 225hp for stock evo 8. your logic that the g-tech is inaccurate because it read 44hp different than a dynojet is completely illogical and incorrect.

 

[dsm-onster]

Yea. The Gtech usually supports mustangdyno or dyno dynamic numbers, not dynojet numbers. The dyno like gtech is jsut a tuning tool. Glad we all agree on that. I did get confused by your extrude honing gains arguement No issues. Just having a discussion where I'm on the other side. Mutual respect.

Back to the cyclone! I REALLY want to try to modify the cyclone manifold. I'm looking to pick one up now. I think it will fit nicely with my project. It's a twinscroll setup, 2Liter motor, and I feel a manifold that provides as broad a powerband as the cyclone (especially after attempting modify it to increase topend flow) would match well for a small motor with a broad powerband turbo.

 

[Black_Bullet]

Do it^

 

[94awdcoupe]

the cyclone should surely benefit from port matching. the factory slop between transitions of the three pieces is nothing short of horrible. I just have never taken the time to do it. works really well in stock form.

 

[91-gsx]

Yea. The Gtech usually supports mustangdyno or dyno dynamic numbers, not dynojet numbers. The dyno like gtech is jsut a tuning tool. Glad we all agree on that. I did get confused by your extrude honing gains arguement No issues. Just having a discussion where I'm on the other side. Mutual respect.

Back to the cyclone! I REALLY want to try to modify the cyclone manifold. I'm looking to pick one up now. I think it will fit nicely with my project. It's a twinscroll setup, 2Liter motor, and I feel a manifold that provides as broad a powerband as the cyclone (especially after attempting modify it to increase topend flow) would match well for a small motor with a broad powerband turbo.

Cool. I would go with the cyclone and hog it out. Twinscroll and a cyclone pretty much seems to mean instant spool. Good luck man.

 

[toofast82]

Well, got a little bored today. I decided to fab up a spare wastegate actuator to work. I have a few spare 14bs and a 13g wg. It looked like the 13g one popped out a little farther with the air compressor. With some cutting, grinding and little welding I got it set up. I was testing it on the car with the compressor at the 23psi that I run. It opens the butterflies about 95% at this level. I then jumped the compressor up a few more psi and it opened them up the rest. So on the car, I guess they are opening the 95%, but it doesn't seem to hinder the flow at all. Tomorrow, i'll see if I can mess with it some more

 

[kottyking]

Check this out

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y0SwwAubZcA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y0SwwAubZcA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[toofast82]

I think I seen that thread on like TampaDSM or something. It's using a wastegate actuator off of a TT Supra

 

[chrisb33]

thanks for this thread. i actually pmed matt asking if i should get a smim or retain using my cyclone intake manifold for my hx35 project.

i think im going to stick with my hx35 project. right now im using a bone stock 7 bolt motor using dsm link v2 and a garrett t3. spools fast but yes i do notice a power loss above 5k.

now my question is that is the jdm cyclone IM different from the USDM? reason why i am asking is because i read the thread about how to properly run a cyclone IM and it says that i need a "canister" and some device to open the second batch of flappers.

my problem is that when i bought my engine, it already came with the cyclone IM and i dont see any canisters that came with it. secondly, i know i can use the dsmlink nitrous feature to activate the 2nd batch of flappers but that's not an option for me coz im using it to activate my meth injection system.

here's a pic of my engine bay with the cyclone IM. i know you need a more close up look but is there anything lacking you see by just looking at the pics?

thanks.

 

[Black_Bullet]

Cyclones on car, and its clear were the cyclone excels, I was cruising home on the highway last night and it rides at 0 on the boost gauge at anything over 70mph, and any hair touch of the throttle it immediately starts boosting, its almost boosting TOO fast despite that these bigger cams have softened the lower rpm torque blow, spool up is nuts right now. Was a nice 50degs outside late last night and I went to pass a semi in 5th and literally 35 percent throttle car flung to full boost of 26psi without me even trying and the acceleration felt really smooth and strong. That little pass around the semi resulted me quickly going from 70mph to 100mph partial throttle without even trying.

I figured out how I'm going to keep the runners closed longer (since 16g spools so fast), which will make it produce a lot more torque, Im going to tap a mbc on the line going to the t25 actuator on the cyclone to increase pressure needed to open it. I want to try to keep runners closed till I reach full boost. I know many of you are probably disagreeing w/ this manifold but it beats the stock 1g manifold hands down and I only had to spend 60bucks on it. Top end is not measurably affected by the cyclone.

 

[TheMadCheshire]

Its terrific to hear such great results on this manifold. Not to hijack the thread, but just a real quick question, what did you do for the gasket at the head? I've been digging for answers and most just say use gasket paper and roll your own. However, the one I received has been ported and it appears that a 1g manifold gasket fits perfect besides the egr hole. I havn't bolted it up and pressure tested it so unsure if this will work.