Leading to water doesn't always quench thirst :-)

Fair play, I just had wee senior moment there

Thanks! So, it wasn't me just being over-sensitive then! Actually asked for the thread locked because it was purely to be a polling thread and I could see by then end of page 1 what was going to happen to it. The thread quickly got hijacked by people with obviously no interest in having anything made - and worse - people trying to advertising their own products! How did they think that was acceptable?



Hi, Fair play. My request was only for people who were genuinely interested in having a manifold made (in order to gauge the number of people), so your input was very welcome
As I mentioned before, although yourself and a few others expressed an interest, there currently aren't enough people to make it viable to go ahead. However, things do change, so I won't rule out anything in the future. Though that's no help to you in the meantime of course. My apologies for that!


1NRO: Why not put up a manifold building guide in the How-To section? That way there will be a permanent record of your information and people who are interested can read it when they want. It will also mean you won't have to spam up other people's threads













...A high horse is a cold and lonely place, so why not come down from yours when speaking to people?
After all, whilst usually faultless, none of the information you impart on this forum is either new, nor groundbreaking in any way. It is all readily available in books and around the net.

It's nice that you gather this available information up on to the forum for forum-users to read. However, it would be nice for a change if you could do so without the boastful arrogance or air of self-importance.

It is up to people whether they want to listen to, or agree with you. No amount of swearing, shouting, bullying, attempts at belittling, or general penis waving will change that. In fact it just makes you look like you have little else of importance going on in your life, other than being the "Big Man" on an internet forum.

you are not a profet or a martyre. I'm afraid you are just a guy with some knowledge on a particular subject. Plenty of others out there.

Anyway this all the time I will spend on replying to you. I'm sure you will be eager to have the last word so please feel free...

The best Integrale, I know in Germany, has >>500HP installed. There are some videos in youtube with this car.
Look this (it's an older one - meanwhile he drives MORE boost)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLxiNMXG6Yw
I know most of the details of this car (but I don't tell here - it is not my car)
The only thing I have to state here: Don't go too wide in diamter!! I already stated this in diverse other threads, but nobody does believe me.
The manifold of the Integrale, shown in this video, has built in much less than your wanted 40mm ID!
I realized 565WHP with a 5-cylinder manifold with 34mm ID!
Meanwhile I ordered the new GTX3582R - later in next year I can tell you the results in combination with this in your eyes "too small" manifold.
Juergen

The size of the primaries is dependant on a number of factors, including where you want peak power in the RPM range and bore/stroke.

The five cylinder engine has an extra primary pipe to help extract the exhaust gasses from a 2 litre engine compared to the 16VT. Consequently the 5 cylinder engine requires smaller diameter primaries to extract the same volume of exhaust gasses with the same efficiency (500bhp in a five cylinder engine will produce the same volume of exhaust gasses as a 500bhp four cylinder engine).

In the case of the 20 valve engine, 34mm primaries will cause an increasing loss in exhaust efficiency as revs rise beyond 6200rpm. That is not saying that the flow will be choked or anywhere near, so it's not like the primaries will cause the engine to hit a brick wall, not rev higher and not make any more power. Just that the flow will become sub-optimal.

[quote=rmouthaan]Would fit the collectors outlet./quote]

I agree with that...

Funnily enough, if you check the dimensions of the inlet to a T3 exhaust housing, the areas are almost identical. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Coincidence?, i hope not .

Oh dear this thread had become a mess has'nt it ?

Juergen, bhp figures you quote for that car are posible with THE STANDARD CAST MANIFOLD maybe with a decent manifold it would make 50 hp more ? The dyno numbers are'n t impressive, and don't reflect on the exhaust manifold as an improvement over standard. Whatever the ID of the primary, back to back tests are needed to see actual gains vs losses.



group5 lancia,

"The size of the primaries is dependant on a number of factors, including where you want peak power in the RPM range and bore/stroke."

I see the size of the primarys (if you are talking about length) based more on exhaust valve timing and full lift position, mean EGT and powerband I can't see how bore and stroke come into it.

I can't comment on the 20v much as my knoledge of it is limited, how are 34mm primarys sized in relation to the controlling section in the head ?

Mr group4lancia,

So you think the controling section through the collector should have an area the same as a 54 id tube? Well there's no suprise here but again I know your a little off the mark, close, but no cigar. I'd explain in detail how this is set by the pro manifold manufacturers but frankly the way the thread has gone I'm not going to bother, suffice to say there is a very real difference. I'll leave it to you to work out which way from 54 mm if proven to be best. This is a little like your bold claims at controlling section through an inlet port you inflicted on this forum some time ago, I stood against that for the benifit of readers then you'll remember, not to stand tall myself but to be sure the opinion of people who don't know any better wasn't tainted with misinformation. If that makes me a big head in some eyes so be it, I know my motives and I will tell you it isn't self gratification.

Nik

KJ,

I'll deal with you later when I have a little more time to dissect your outburst. For now though, Jimboy was a little premature with his congratulations to you, wasn't he?

Nik

anyone else think that 1nro, tricky and group5lancia are all the same guy..... Having a twisted 3 way psyscofrenic row with himself?.... Lol

Not quite, i know that 1NRO and Tricky post on the integrale forum, so can confirm 2 different people, also have met 1NRO

yeah i had spotted them on other forums and thought the same then.... You HAD to spoil it for me!

p.s. I hope 1nro finds this amusing otherwise i may get 'Dealt with later'!

As found in the rules, please might a moderator reinforce this to KJ. It might even be an idea to delete the previous few posts, they spoil a half decent thread IMO.

"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this Forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory. Users will also refrain from posting anything that is, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law"

KJ,

So usually I leave your posts alone, at least since the fiasco that was the BOV thread but again I find you trying your best to blacken my personality and intentions.
This thread started in a section that is free to post on as people see fit (within the rules), if it had been in the group buy section as a "polling for interest" I could understand your stance. This looks to be the approved place you should of posted, as demonstrated by Kayjay if you look. However, you actively were accepting criticism/help from the people who replied to you without me saying anything to you, only when Mr group4lancia boldly spouted numbers as gospel did I reply, to him. Is this beyond reason when I consider there to be inaccuracies?
It was then you who took it upon yourself to cast judgement on my post, insinuating I have no manners. This is down to how I write (pretty much the same in person) and not a personal attack on someone's personality. Your patronising reply of "Dear" was not called for unless you wish to wind me up, I would suggest this is what you try to do which is beyond the rules is it not? I explained to you politely that I was only looking to correct opinion and not pick a fight and then I left you alone.
Your lovely set of quotes are hardly an accurate representation of what I wrote, another attempt by you at discrediting me. The only parts you quote me on with any sense of defamation I'll stand by all day long, it's a story that's been played out openly if you happen to know anything about it, if you don't I'd back right off if I was you.
The kind of sales technique you have taken is wrong imo, no foundation whatsoever to your statements. The very first sentence is loaded with poorly founded opinion, flashing like a beacon to anyone that has some understanding that you know very little on this subject but have only the interest of getting paid to do everyone a favour. This style I have come across before and usually I'm on it but for you I leave it alone though now you've pissed me off. I would expect someone bringing anything to the market to have an in depth knowledge and fine detail explanation of their proposed product, really you should have the item in hand. To try to manipulate people to hand you the development budget is underhand, dodgy even. Some people get off their backsides and do stuff themselves with their own money and research, for some of them that is very hard but still they do it. Others spin a yarn and try to manipulate peoples naivety, you sir, are doing that with your first post. I have come across this before, it stunk then and it stinks now.
Learn your subject would be my advice to you, take great care posting it and get on with the practical side instead of casting personal opinions about me. If you post again about something I know about you will get my thoughts without compromise.

:)yeah, very funny. There's been a troll over on delphi recently, for the life of me I can't imagine how they find the time.

Crikey! What gearbox and clutch are you using?

Ok, so we've come this far. I think most of us (other than the op) might agree on one thing, that the typical design of the most copied exhast manifold is actually pretty poor, I'm talking 16v here.

Just talking purley about pipework layout what about something along these lines, at least the pipes come fairly straight off the flange rather than angle. You could have the turbo below and the bends above or vise versa.

Can anyone else comment on this ? any good or bad points here, I know I can see a couple more.

Since this has become a design thread

Well I don't think you can look purely at layout as it imforms so many of the other outcomes, but it doesn't looked tuned lenght with cylinders 2 and 3 being a fair bit longer, and the runners look to short overall. most of my readings advocate 18" to 24".

It is impossible to tell from that angle but I can't see how you could get an external wastegate off it, off the front it will be in the raditor, this is why the Tigart one is complex with the external running "through" it. Many people going to big turbo's would have the need for an external gate (myself included) . It is obviuosly not setup for twin scroll (with 1/2 to the same side)

Tigart claims to be +-10mm on each runner, and Twin scroll



While I am sure it could work (and the bends don't look cheated) being practical it creates a whole lot of other issues, that you are going to create so you may as well go the whole way.

It moves the turbo along way towards the raditor - maybe 50-100mm, the OE fans certainly wouldn't fit, I would say it would be push fans given the position, custom oil lines, intake, exhaust and such goes without saying.

From my rebuild after the engine fire (excuse the manifold which retains OE position) - this is moving the turbo forward from the OE pistion on a T04e sized cover - you can see the front OE turbo T3 mounts are used to mount the rear T3 inlet flange bolts so only moved forward 30-40mm



The tigart design would seem to be superior in a number of ways.

full race is well respected for 4 cylinder performance in near OE position, nothing for coupe but are good on mitsi evo

good place to look

http://www.full-race.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=840_846_847

Dyno graph on their "pro-stock"

If someone could tell me why long runners ?
18-24" ?

here is comparison to Saint, for the mitsi manifold :

picture :

http://www.amwdynoservice.com/page25.php?view=productPage&product=151&category=2#

results :

http://amwdynoservice.com/data/storage/attachments/0d3c8f556b1b5b12029fb41ec0b405ef.jpg

faster spooling...

and power / torque :

http://amwdynoservice.com/data/storage/attachments/cd9aedce74ea6d484a156ceba950409e.jpg

This is also same style as my one, and same style as japanese tuning company Tomei.

pipes, that are going on the same place with that twin scroll design are about same lenght. much easier to make a new manifold, and with good results ..

The heart shaped manifold looks bling and it's nice to see something that isn't the same as the the rest but turn 1 and 4 90* and you'll see how sharp the flow is being asked to turn out of the port, hard to avoid I know but not impossible. The runner length isn't long enough for a "good" manifold either let alone equal length. The turbo as mounted to that manifold looks to be placing the inlet and outlets square to the block so either the inlet or the exhaust is tight to the block, not much good. So maybe turn the flange 90* but then the runners don't follow the 1/4 & 2/3 layout which wouldn't suit a twin scroll if your that way inclined. As Paul mentions, the wastegate would struggle to fit in the space, they're big buggers. Sorry to be so negative again

The longer runners is rpm related, they can hang onto rpm longer instead of dropping off quickly.

didn't notice the twisted flange so could be twin scroll, but as 1NRO points out this could lead to issues with the intake of exhaust - if you are running a turbo of resonable size you would be looking 3" exhaust and 3" intake at least - some are 4" (larger Gt series and such), and it going to be close

"Well I don't think you can look purely at layout as it imforms so many of the other outcomes, but it doesn't looked tuned lenght with cylinders 2 and 3 being a fair bit longer, and the runners look to short overall. "

Thats more or less what I thought Saint, the other thing about the wastegate conection is there should be a swept bend off the collector up to the wastegate flange, not directly welded to the collector. A sweep would alow a proper parting of the gas from the coll. and not a sharp exit.

The expansion slots in the flange to the head I think are a nice feature, you really can't see from the picture but they should have a dowl over each stud, the same way the oe cast item does.

Your right the full race items do seem to command high respect from evo owners, the extra room they have in thier engine bays makes for a nice fitting. Not many attempts at some getting length in there tho.
This picture Nik posted a while back is a superb effort imo.



I'm not sure if the tig art photo is misleading as to how far it pushes the turbo outwards, looks like a photoshop ? I have some others of that that I will post in a moment.

"Sorry to be so negative again "

Thats ok, the idea was to maybe look at a few basic designs and coment on thier merits or faluires.

Here are some better photos of the tig-art sp, when you see the one as viewed from underneath you might think it's not as perfect as the website picture's makes it look.





Where the turbine has been placed between 3 and 4, look at the angle off the head. Look familiar ? Same problem seems to crop up over and over, I don't know how bad in real terms this trait could be, but it can't be good !
This is (as I said already) what I think to be the best I've seen for our engine on an 'off the shelf' scale. Even imperfections here ?

They have put some thought into it generaly, equal length, as you mentioned already. Having twin scroll is a nice addition if you can't add the extra length to the pipes and a nice thick flange to the head joint.

Don't think number 1 on the tigart is as bad as on the OE manifold like mine (however mine does have 40mm ID runners so they may not not all be this sharp)



And this is what the valve "sees"



Compared to say nthis further down



I like that Evo setup - I had a look at my car but moving the battery would be a must, no aircon etc

I have used an piece of bend for that first cilinder, so the wall is curved already(oem location manifold). Not perfect of course, but trying to reduce as much as possible.

Nice to read all this btw.

Just something some made by customers wishes.


http://s985.photobucket.com/albums/ae336/mouthaanr/?action=view&current=S7306404.jpg

You love playing with metal don't you remco

The layout's quite nice, I hadn't considered twisting the collector like that.

Tig Art do nice work.

I'm not following why the manifold tricky posted would be no good for road and track? whats your reasoning?

That's good work too Remco, few hours in that lot.