EliteDubs.Com
February 05, 2012, 04:13:40 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Search GoogleTagged Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: OFFICIAL INTAKE MANIFOLD FLOWBENCH TEST RESULTS  (Read 33399 times)
Dizzy
1.8t Marshal
Global Moderator
Padawan
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 751



« on: February 26, 2007, 08:31:58 PM »

First off I'd like to give a HUGE thanks to Mike @www.tyrolsport.com, Phill @www.bshftw.com, and Scott @www.usrallyteam.com. These three businesses gave sizable contributions to conduct this test with nothing to gain or lose by "sponsoring" this test. That alone speaks volumes about their support and interest in the advancement of the 1.8t community. Also, everyone that gave a contribution, no matter how small or large, we thank you as well. Lastly, the manifold contributors are owed the biggest thanks. Without your help and the use of your hardware, this test wouldn't have happened.

Now on to the data. The only real way to rank the manifolds with regards to flow would be total flow through all four runners. This is the easiest way without getting into standard deviation and outliers in individual runner flow. This does NOT correlate into which will make the most power on a given setup. Intake manifold flow is dynamic and undergoes turbulence, heat change, as well as sudden transitions, like during a WOT lift to shift. All testing is done at 28 in of water to ensure accuracy in comparisons, but flow in vacuum is entirely different than positive intake manifold pressure. All of this must be noted when trying to compare the different manifolds. The most interesting thing to me is the variance in individual runner flow.There weren't any huge surprises in regards to results of total flow, but there were some interesting notes from individual runner flow. Stock style manifolds starve the first runner. Notice the similarities in runner flow between the stock OEM big port manifold and VariantStg3's affectionately labeled "Homebrew" manifold, which uses OEM big port runners and flange. It seems as if most all the manufacturers could spend some time focusing on equal distribution. ABD and RMR seem to have the best distribution, the biggest plenums.  Obviously the larger the amount of flow, the harder it is to have a manifold that evenly distributes this. For example, the Dahlback manifold, which uses the Lehman style of dual plenums for even distribution, isn't that even.A variance of 3-4 cfm isn't huge, but it is a variance. That said, a variance of 8-10 cfm isn't going to affect much in the real world anyways since this is under vacuum, and adding boost will more than likely even these out somewhat.

Another thing to pay attention to is the throttle size.  All of the small port manifolds used stock throttle bodies, except the 007 small port which uses a 12v VR6 throttle. The big ports are even more varied with APR's RS4 and 007 using the R32 throttle, RMR accepting a variety of throttles, Homebrew's manifold accepting a 3" DBC throttle, and Hypertune not even having a throttle plate. We added a comparison graph between the 007 small and big port manifolds and  nother between the OEM small and big port manifolds as well. 









Comments from the flowbench operator that did the testing:

RMR big port  Retail price $699.95
The operators spoke highly of this manifold. They thought it had plenty of plenum to get the job done, with very nice runner design and injector placement.  He also noted the distribution- a variance of only 7 cfm from highest to lowest runners. (which is only 3 or 4%)  They also commented on how short the runners were, and how that would shift the torque curve up in the revs signifigantly.



Homebrew  Cost is up to end user lol
Said that it looked like it could be a good alternative to spending big money for an aftermarket manifold with a little revision. They seemed to think that the angle of the throttle plate and the 'flat' entry was killing the first runner. "Once air is moving so fast, its just not gonna turn like that, you know?" They also liked the radiused runner entrys in the floor of the plenum and that the OE injector bosses had been ground down a bit to increase the cross sectional area.



Dahlback   Retail price is $999.00
They really didnt have anything good to say about it other than the fittings were nice and that it looked well made. They said that the Lehman style, while it may help distribution over stock, kills flow. And that this plenum design didnt do anything that a well thought out plenum and throttle angle couldnt do; basically saying that it was a trade-off that didnt have to be made.



ABD  Retail price is $499.00
They said it was a big piece of crap. They remarked on how sloppy the lower flange was with regard to port alignment. (which i confirmed by comparing to an APR and my 007). They also complained about the casting slag. They didnt like that it used OE injector bosses. They basically said that while it performed moderately well, that it just wasnt a nice part.



APR  Retail price is $899, $1299 with the throttle body
They really liked the build quality this one, and remarked on the quality of the casting. They did however say that the throttle angle needed to be changed in order to get it on par with regard to distribution and that the injector bosses again should not be protruding into the port entry, because it was what killed the flow.



Hypertune  Retail price is $1399
When i pulled this out of the box, Dan smiled real big and said "Bling, bling."  Again, they thought the machine work on this was phenomonal. and that the injector mounting was great.  But they absolutely hated the plenum.  They said it was far too thin for a big boost, big power or sprayed car. Dave said one good pop back through the intake would blow it to pieces, and then remarked on a flaw in the weld on the inside of the plenum.



007 Small Port  Retail price is $699.00
This was the first of the aftermarket manifolds that they saw. Their initial reaction was to the throttle angle and plenum design in regard to how it should distribute air much better than the stock small port he held in his other hand. But he said that the most signifigant improvement to flow would certainly come from the injector bosses being nixed out of the runner unlike stock design.



007 Large Port Retail price is $750.00
This was the overall winner in their eyes.  Like the small port, they liked the runner shape and injector placement. However they did say that they thought the distribution could be a little better if the entry angle and the backside of the throttle plate was revisited to compensate for such a massive throttle.  They concluded by saying that if they were to build a VW, they would use this intake based on the performance vs. dollar value it has. (said they would use the 800 price diff between it and the hypertune to buy spray lol)




OE Small Port Comes free with your car.
Hated the throttle angle. Again, they commented on air not wanting to make that kind of turn, and said they (VW) set themselves up for failure from the get-go by pointing the throttle at the roof of the intake over cyl 2. And again, they hated on the injector bosses.



OE Big Port   Retail price is $319.00
they basically said all of the same things they did about the OE small port.





Before anyone comments on their comments... Please bear in mind that they had absolutely nothing to gain or lose by doing this testing or providing the opinions they did.  It should also be noteworthy that these guys build absolutely ridiculous engines for some fairly high profile race teams, and have years of building and racing experience.  So please think about the commentary and its value before any remarks are made about it. :thumbup:

Unfortunately, due to some manifolds needing to be returned as soon as possible and a lack of planning (DOH), we don't have pictures of all the manifolds.   Most of you know what most of them look like and we do have pictures of some of them.   silvercar has some that I'm having trouble getting access to and they'll be posted later along with his measurements of the different manifolds (runner, port, plenum, throttle, etc).  We just wanted to get the data out as you've all waited long enough. 

007 Big Port, APR, and Hypertune (top to bottom)


Hypertune plenum


APR plenum


007 Big Port plenum


RMR plenum


007 Big Port port


APR, 007 Big Port, and Hypertune ports (top to bottom)


Homebrew manifold


Dahlback manifold


ABD manifold


ABD ports


ABD plenum


Check back later this evening for more pics and measurements.  Thanks again to everyone who made this possible.  And lets try to get as many back to back dynos with different intakes to see how all this adds up.  :thumbsup:
« Last Edit: February 27, 2007, 12:10:57 AM by DonŽ » Logged

MrSkills68
Rookie
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 180



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2007, 08:48:53 PM »

 icon_thumbup1
Logged

1.8T Gt3071r
Unitronic Tuned
PWT
efterZ
n00b and a half
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2007, 09:05:04 PM »

Nice rapport guys!! I really like to see the big effort you guys have put into this!!
I'm happy to have donated a little bit of money to this project!
 icon_headbang
Logged

Regards from Denmark
Jonas, Seat Leon 1.8T 4x4
Now running AGU engine with GT3076 and MS EFI
previous setup GT28RS, 12.67 1/4mile, with slipping OEM clutch
efterZ
n00b and a half
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2007, 09:23:21 PM »

One interesting thing to watch. The individual runner flow does not sum up to the overall flow, example: the 007 bigport listed as 790 in overall, but summing up the individual runners = 1016. Are we seeing TB restrictions?
Logged

Regards from Denmark
Jonas, Seat Leon 1.8T 4x4
Now running AGU engine with GT3076 and MS EFI
previous setup GT28RS, 12.67 1/4mile, with slipping OEM clutch
kilmer420
MAD RUSSIAN
Global Moderator
Rookie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 445



« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2007, 09:31:15 PM »

Adam-thanks for your hard work...looks like the contributions have helped the community Smile

I was going to make the same comment that Jonas did, but he beat me to it.  Also, was there a reason you guys used a VR6 TB on the small port?  I presume that's what it was made to fit?

P.S.  I have some pictures and measurements of an ABD intake mani I can post if you are intersted...it was one of their first produced, so it wasn't perfect...
Logged

Resident Software Thief!
efterZ
n00b and a half
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2007, 09:37:32 PM »

I was going to make the same comment that Jonas did, but he beat me to it. 

Also, the hypertune individual runners sums up to 1022 (which is 6 more than 007BP), but it is 785 in overall flow (which is 5 less than 007BP...
Maybe we are seeing the limit of the test equipment?
Logged

Regards from Denmark
Jonas, Seat Leon 1.8T 4x4
Now running AGU engine with GT3076 and MS EFI
previous setup GT28RS, 12.67 1/4mile, with slipping OEM clutch
SAVwKO
n00b and a half
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 12



« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2007, 09:37:55 PM »

 beer  Great job guys!  Can't wait to listen to the discussions on this. icon_thumbup1
Logged

Concrete hurt my car...
DonŽ
1.8T Illuminatus
Global Moderator
Master
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017



« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2007, 09:42:16 PM »

One interesting thing to watch. The individual runner flow does not sum up to the overall flow, example: the 007 bigport listed as 790 in overall, but summing up the individual runners = 1016. Are we seeing TB restrictions?

Also, the hypertune individual runners sums up to 1022 (which is 6 more than 007BP), but it is 785 in overall flow (which is 5 less than 007BP...
Maybe we are seeing the limit of the test equipment?

I suspect it is indeed from the TB size. I'm sure Dizzy or Tank can clear some questions up.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2007, 09:48:55 PM by DonŽ » Logged

bobqzzi
Dyno Master Flex
Global Moderator
Rookie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328


« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2007, 09:48:28 PM »

Thanks for all the hard work.
Logged
kilmer420
MAD RUSSIAN
Global Moderator
Rookie
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 445



« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2007, 09:50:57 PM »

Igor made an interesting point-there are never four runners flowing at the same time because the 4 cyl. motor only consumes air by two and then another two cylinders.  Jonas said that four runners flow a sum of 1000cfm, but in reality it only flows two and two.

Also, were the TB's used during these tests or was this just for runner flow?
Logged

Resident Software Thief!
efterZ
n00b and a half
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2007, 09:57:37 PM »

Igor made an interesting point-there are never four runners flowing at the same time because the 4 cyl. motor only consumes air by two and then another two cylinders.  Jonas said that four runners flow a sum of 1000cfm, but in reality it only flows two and two.

Yes, thats a fact, but in this test i assume all 4 runners were tested at once for the "Total flow though all runners" test, and the questions remains  icon_driving
Logged

Regards from Denmark
Jonas, Seat Leon 1.8T 4x4
Now running AGU engine with GT3076 and MS EFI
previous setup GT28RS, 12.67 1/4mile, with slipping OEM clutch
silvercar
n00b and a half
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 43



« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2007, 10:03:56 PM »

Ok fellas here are some pics for you to smoke over...


detailing the RMR runner length:


detailing OE Big port runner length:


detailing Dahlback runner length:


detailing APR runner length:


RMR runner:


DBR plenum:





showing the difference between the plenum height of the DBR and the 007:


007 manifold installed:


Logged

2=7
bwell01
Virgin
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2007, 10:28:45 PM »

damn, dahlbach really didnt do well in this "overall" flow testing.  and im sooooo suprised abd did.  i hoped they would show some good rates and it looks like they did pretty good on this particular test.  we will have a dyno of the abd intake mani for the world to see shortly.  the owner is waiting on injector seats.  the cars last dyno was 356 whp and 286 wtq.  we are going to use those numbers as a baseline and after the abd is installed the numbers will surely be posted up. 

this is a great thing you guys did.  thx to all that made this happen.  looking forward to more of these types of comparisons.  guys post up the prices of all the manis along with the numbers.  i for one am looking at purchasing something vry soon.
Logged
Dizzy
1.8t Marshal
Global Moderator
Padawan
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 751



« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2007, 10:50:08 PM »

The flow through all four runners is going to be less than the sum of all flow.  This is where you would see the throttle size/bore (feed) limiting flow out (through one runner vs all four).   It's a simple case of one inlet feeding one runner versus all four.   Thanks to silvercar for more pics. 

Also, on the question of the larger throttle on the 007 small port, that is what it was made for.  No throttle bodies were attached to the manifolds during testing.   But if it's common to see difference of 80-90cfm on the large port manifolds with the same size throttle inlet, why is it safe to assume that the larger throttle on the 007 small port led to it's 70 cfm difference over the ABD and the difference of 120cfm between ABD and Dahlback using the same size throttle further begs the question?   Thoughts? 

Prices added as well. 
« Last Edit: February 26, 2007, 11:00:34 PM by Dizzy » Logged

efterZ
n00b and a half
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2007, 11:04:40 PM »

Dizzy, care to explain why theese tests are made at 28" HG, and not 28" H2O as we see most other places?
28" HG = 5.19 kpa absolute. With a fully closed TB that would almost be enough to implode the plenums, yes?  ahhh
Logged

Regards from Denmark
Jonas, Seat Leon 1.8T 4x4
Now running AGU engine with GT3076 and MS EFI
previous setup GT28RS, 12.67 1/4mile, with slipping OEM clutch
Dizzy
1.8t Marshal
Global Moderator
Padawan
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 751



« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2007, 11:19:53 PM »

My mistake, I'm used to boost gauges.  lol  Yes, it's 28" of water. 
Logged

SAGTI
Virgin
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2007, 11:51:31 PM »

Well done and thanks for all the hard work. beer

Looking forward to the ongoing discussion about this. At the moment I am stuck with the OEM small port (I think, never had it off). At least I now know that my cyl 1 is suffering a little. I will have to start looking into ways to mod it to increase flow to no. 1, at least until I can afford another mani! icon_help2
« Last Edit: February 27, 2007, 12:03:48 AM by SAGTI » Logged
VariantStg3
n00b and a half
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2007, 01:07:22 AM »

Just a quick thanks to you two for doing the test and getting the stuff back to us. My "Homebrew" is already bolted back onto the engine and ready to start tuning the new ECU. I am interested in suggestions about what angle I should try to attain when we change the design a little?

Overall though i am pretty darn satisfied.

Thanks again for letting me be part of the test. Should help Homebrewers everywhere!!! beer
Logged
DonŽ
1.8T Illuminatus
Global Moderator
Master
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017



« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2007, 01:35:08 AM »

Add another 2" - 2.5" to bring out the TB further. This will help with better distribution to cyl 1  yes
Logged

v84lnch
Rookie
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 156



« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2007, 01:56:41 AM »

nice write up.  beer
Logged

i like dizzy deleting my posts.
silvercar
n00b and a half
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 43



« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2007, 01:57:26 AM »

Add another 2" - 2.5" to bring out the TB further. This will help with better distribution to cyl 1  yes

yep. this is the same thing that CPC suggested, however, they also suggested changing the throttle plate in conjunction.  The plate on it is flat.  they said they would like to see a nice taper or radius into the plenum.

Don's gonna get the boot on the kotex. moony

edit:  I think what i have learned from this is that plenums are not one size fits all. it looks to me like the plenum design is necesitated by the runner style.. for example:  By basically widening a stock plenum, ABD got a stock throttle configuration and stock runners to do pretty good.  This tells me that the problem with the stock manifold is that the plenum isnt right for the runners.  not necisarily that they are both bad designs. Now if ABD could just do something about their TERRIBLE secondary machining on the casting, it would be a contender in my eyes...

« Last Edit: February 27, 2007, 02:04:23 AM by silvercar » Logged

2=7
DonŽ
1.8T Illuminatus
Global Moderator
Master
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017



« Reply #21 on: February 27, 2007, 02:10:10 AM »

Add another 2" - 2.5" to bring out the TB further. This will help with better distribution to cyl 1  yes

yep. this is the same thing that CPC suggested, however, they also suggested changing the throttle plate in conjunction.  The plate on it is flat.  they said they would like to see a nice taper or radius into the plenum.

Don's gonna get the boot on the kotex. moony

 icon_pimp
Logged

VariantStg3
n00b and a half
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46


« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2007, 02:15:33 AM »

I am not sure what is to be tapered. Are you saying my 2-2.5" extension should go from the 75mm circular hole and the taper to the d-channel shape so there is not such an abrupt transistion?
Logged
silvercar
n00b and a half
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 43



« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2007, 02:36:32 AM »

I am not sure what is to be tapered. Are you saying my 2-2.5" extension should go from the 75mm circular hole and the taper to the d-channel shape so there is not such an abrupt transistion?

basically, yes.

But in your case... (if it were me)  I would buy a piece of tapered al. tubing about 2" long as don suggested and weld to the existing plenum at a gentle angle.  Similar to how the older USRT manifolds were set up (but with a taper).

just some food for thought.
Logged

2=7
DonŽ
1.8T Illuminatus
Global Moderator
Master
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017



« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2007, 02:40:42 AM »

I am not sure what is to be tapered. Are you saying my 2-2.5" extension should go from the 75mm circular hole and the taper to the d-channel shape so there is not such an abrupt transistion?

Simpler option to what silvercar mentioned would be to Lob off the current TB flange and add a section of 2" to 2.5" whatever you can accomodate and re-weld the TB flange back on. Make sure to smoothen the inside of the plenum.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2007, 02:51:48 AM by DonŽ » Logged

Dizzy
1.8t Marshal
Global Moderator
Padawan
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 751



« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2007, 03:21:51 AM »

Another thing to note, all manifolds were tested as is, no port matching of any kind was done.  Let this be a true testament to machine work of the manufacturers. 
Logged

SHUMopper
n00b and a half
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69



« Reply #26 on: February 27, 2007, 04:36:34 AM »

awesome testing diz.
really some thourough work here.

The RMR manifold has always caught my interest, and with its price point and results shown i see it definetly in my future.
Question though, with a smaller sized turbo such as mine (T3 Super 60). what gains persay should i expect to see with such an addition? Just torque high up in the RPM range? More sustained power?

Thanks
Steve
Logged

-Steve-
T3 Super 60
UNITRONIC TUNED
DonŽ
1.8T Illuminatus
Global Moderator
Master
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017



« Reply #27 on: February 27, 2007, 05:34:03 AM »

18whp-25whp @ 20-22 psi thru the midrange leveling off upward of 6500rpm on the SP 007.

Here's an example:
Logged

monster007
n00b and a half
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40



« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2007, 05:47:17 AM »

Great job guys. icon_thumbup1 As for the info on the flow it's pretty much what we were looking for. I know #4 runner was going to be a little off in flow because when it was being designed it is for forced induction and under boost things change. To see what I am talking about you can try a simple test. Take a fuel rail, block off one end and run it under a tap, you will see #4 port getting the most flow and the more pressure you add very little changes.

With more pressure (and me being soaked).

I hope the helps with some of your questions and there are a few more things in the design, in that we went for a strong mid range, 99% of the cars here are street cars and drivability and transient response is important in how well the car performs on the street, which also works well on the track.
Logged
Dizzy
1.8t Marshal
Global Moderator
Padawan
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 751



« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2007, 07:30:06 AM »

So when do we see a race version for the masses Jimmy?   icon_thumbup
Logged

Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  

 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!