CP-E Intake manifold

[jack_hammer]

Originally Posted by Alpha lol

full race has one, right?

yea... i stand by my statement. the fact of the matter is that cpe won't ever crack at welds.

[www.cp-e.com]

Originally Posted by msantana101 Last time I checked they were working on the ST mani. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We've only been thinking about the ST mani, nothing further than that.
We are still working on this one for you guys. making changes, making a rapid prototype to make sure the changes work then to getting the actual cast piece takes a long time.

[SpeedRebirth]

Can't go wrong with the cpe e-mani, it truely is an awesome product (believe me, im NOT biased!)

What is "shit" with the JMF mani @Tokay444;? Haven't seen or heard anything bad about it other than some fitment issues on ms6 i think. Is v2 less shit than v1 in your opinion?

[LumberJack]

Originally Posted by SpeedRebirth Can't go wrong with the cpe e-mani, it truely is an awesome product (believe me, im NOT biased!) What is "shit" with the JMF mani @Tokay444;? Haven't seen or heard anything bad about it other than some fitment issues on ms6 i think. Is v2 less shit than v1 in your opinion?

I've personally seen and handled the V1 and V2 JMF manifolds. The only difference is the V1 is divided runner with no PI, and the V2 is an open runner with PI bungs.

I had them sitting side by side and the quality was top notch on both. The 6 uses slightly different hardware for the bolt near the passenger side.

[SarcasticOne]

Originally Posted by www.cp-e.com We've only been thinking about the ST mani, nothing further than that. We are still working on this one for you guys. making changes, making a rapid prototype to make sure the changes work then to getting the actual cast piece takes a long time.

So, still "2 weeks?"
I've seen both the stock turbo and precision variants of your exhaust manifold, and do agree they're awesome... But if the process takes so long, care to share how long the exhaust manifold took to develop? Just to give us all an indicator... Also what (if any) are the extra challenges with the intake one?
@www.cp-e.com;

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by SpeedRebirth Can't go wrong with the cpe e-mani, it truely is an awesome product (believe me, im NOT biased!) What is "shit" with the JMF mani @Tokay444;? Haven't seen or heard anything bad about it other than some fitment issues on ms6 i think. Is v2 less shit than v1 in your opinion?

The guy who designed it was a hobby machinis and as far as I know doesn't have a degree in fluid flow dynamics, as evident by the sharp angle difference between the manifold runners and runners in the head. The people that SHOULD know how to design a proper manifold, JMF, simply mass produced a design that needs some tweaks.

[Yatta]

Originally Posted by jack_hammer Yea, but it's the best manifold out there

Likely they will have stock issues until we all have one, which is to say demand is high?

[SpeedRebirth]

Originally Posted by Tokay444 The guy who designed it was a hobby machinis and as far as I know doesn't have a degree in fluid flow dynamics, as evident by the sharp angle difference between the manifold runners and runners in the head. The people that SHOULD know how to design a proper manifold, JMF, simply mass produced a design that needs some tweaks.

Well i think 700+whp is good enough to say that it's a good product even if it could use some optimizations to make it as close to perfect as it can be.

Hell, how many optimizations wouldn't the DISI engine need to make it perfect? And mazda sure had a bigger budget than any aftermarket company does

[Tokay444]

I'm hoping there will be better manifolds eventually.

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by SpeedRebirth Well i think 700+whp is good enough to say that it's a good product even if it could use some optimizations to make it as close to perfect as it can be. Hell, how many optimizations wouldn't the DISI engine need to make it perfect? And mazda sure had a bigger budget than any aftermarket company does

HP, but those JM AUX cars make shit for torque which makes it far less attractive for a streetcar IMHO.

Originally Posted by Tokay444 I'm hoping there will be better manifolds eventually.

+100

[Tokay444]

I didn't mean to hurt Scott's feelings.

[Easter Bunny]

While there is always room for improvement with any product, it's worth pointing out that two years later and Scott's design is still the best available. If it hadn't been for him everyone would still be using ported stock manifolds.

[Tokay444]

"Best", and, "only" are interchangeable at this point.

[SilverDemon]

Originally Posted by Tokay444 The guy who designed it was a hobby machinis and as far as I know doesn't have a degree in fluid flow dynamics, as evident by the sharp angle difference between the manifold runners and runners in the head. The people that SHOULD know how to design a proper manifold, JMF, simply mass produced a design that needs some tweaks.

Please enlighten us on how you know what I am, or what Jim and myself talked about. I do not recall you being in the many of the in person meetings we had about the manifold. I still can't believe that after two fucking years people like you can't or won't do anything still bitch and whine and try to tear down another person. So, shut the fuck up and make one yourself, contact corkshit, have them mass produce it and sell it to a very limited market .....

[Gr8Speed]

Originally Posted by SilverDemon Please enlighten us on how you know what I am, or what Jim and myself talked about. I do not recall you being in the many of the in person meetings we had about the manifold. I still can't believe that after two fucking years people like you can't or won't do anything still bitch and whine and try to tear down another person. So, shut the fuck up and make one yourself, contact corkshit, have them mass produce it and sell it to a very limited market .....

Brock is just making his rounds to trash every vendor he can this morning. I wouldn't take it too personally or respond, or he will go find your build thread and shed a few tears in it.

[Tokay444]

I wouldn't take it personally either Scott.
It wasn't meant to be personal.
But like I said, I hope there will be a better option soon.

I'll get Kmac to make me a custom one if I need to.

[Gr8Speed]

If Scott is a "hobby machinist" what does that say about you being a professional machinist and not being able to come up with a better design Brock?

[Tokay444]

That is if this cpe one isn't up to snuff.

Originally Posted by Gr8Speed If Scott is a "hobby machinist" what does that say about you being a professional machinist and not being able to come up with a better design Brock?

It says that I have a lot of work to do for the aerospace division and no free machines to do hobby machining on.

[Haltech]

Brock, take a chill pill... This platform has required us to basicslly do everything ourselves. The amount of money to design and build manifolds just to test is fucking expensive. Then comes production roll out, which again, is a large undertaking solely on investment.

It's easy to sit back and trash... It's also easy to just remove one disruptive person from the mix. It's clear, nothing is going to make you happy... So either move on or just stfu. You haven't offered s solution to the problem, so you can't say one word.

Seriously, what the fuck happened to you? Maybe I'll send you one of my kilts since you wish to act like a little girl.

[psychophyr]

Yes!

Fuckin' Tapn'

[LumberJack]

Originally Posted by Alpha HP, but those JM AUX cars make shit for torque which makes it far less attractive for a streetcar IMHO.

Shit for for tq? JMF manifolds make plenty of torque. The cars that make " shit torque " have single runner heads. Single runner heads are going to lower tq and push it higher into the rpm band. In no way am I discrediting the single runner head. They are great heads, just need more rpm to shine than what we are revving too now.

I make 600+ tq at 5k rpm with a JMF, reason being, I don't have a single runner head.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ms3blackmica]

Originally Posted by LumberJack Shit for for tq? JMF manifolds make plenty of torque. The cars that make " shit torque " have single runner heads. Single runner heads are going to lower tq and push it higher into the rpm band. In no way am I discrediting the single runner head. They are great heads, just need more rpm to shine than what we are revving too now. I make 600+ tq at 5k rpm with a JMF, reason being, I don't have a single runner head. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is false.

Single runner heads do not reduce port velocity drastically enough on their own to result in the loss of potential torque.

It is when you run a different (larger) cam profile other than stock that the engine's port velocity vs. engine speed curve shifts very far right [Please see (dare I say his name) NJSPEED3 Dyno Graph]. Combine that with a very big turbo and you can run into the need to rev really high to shine real fast.

Attached are two dyno graphs of @psychophyr; and @trini247; cars who both run a single runner head and make just as much torque without even being pushed to their absolute limit.

I have more graphs somewhere.

I have tuned more single runner head cars than I count and can make as much torque as my testicular fortitude will allow me on the dyno.

A single runner head is not the cause for this.

[Alpha]

Originally Posted by LumberJack Shit for for tq? JMF manifolds make plenty of torque. The cars that make " shit torque " have single runner heads. Single runner heads are going to lower tq and push it higher into the rpm band. In no way am I discrediting the single runner head. They are great heads, just need more rpm to shine than what we are revving too now. I make 600+ tq at 5k rpm with a JMF, reason being, I don't have a single runner head. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed, and that's my point on the single runner design. Think of how much turbulence you're netting by forcing an open runner into a divided ported head. Had the V2 stayed divided like the V1, things may have been much better.

Regardless, I think we're all excited to see a better product from CP-E. (Hopefully with their own AUX setup)

[LumberJack]

Originally Posted by ms3blackmica This is false. Single runner heads do not reduce port velocity drastically enough on their own to result in the loss of potential torque. It is when you run a different (larger) cam profile other than stock that the engine's port velocity vs. engine speed curve shifts very far right [Please see (dare I say his name) NJSPEED3 Dyno Graph]. Combine that with a very big turbo and you can run into the need to rev really high to shine real fast. Attached are two dyno graphs of @psychophyr; and @trini247; cars who both run a single runner head and make just as much torque without even being pushed to their absolute limit. I have more graphs somewhere. I have tuned more single runner head cars than I count and can make as much torque as my testicular fortitude will allow me on the dyno. A single runner head is not the cause for this.

I never stated it lowered total torque output or the potential. I referred to where the tq peak was being made which can be effected by the single runner head design. Alpha was referring to drive ability of low end tq.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ms3blackmica]

Originally Posted by LumberJack I never stated it lowered total torque output or the potential. I referred to where the tq peak was being made which can be effected by the single runner head design. Alpha was referring to drive ability of low end tq. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please see @psychophyr's dyno graph where he makes 590 ft lbs of torque at 4750 RPM.

What is not being mentioned or taken into account is the boost curve being applied to many of these engines.

I can force any engine to make peak torque at any RPM I want it to (with mechanical reason) by simply shaping the torque curve with boost control in order to do so.

On an MS3, I will typically design the torque curve to make peak torque at a higher RPM because of it's FWD disadvantages.

On an MS6, I can be less forgiving.

It's all relative to what you are doing and how you are tuning the engine.

However, "the car's that make shit for torque have single runner heads" is false in the respect that they do not make shit for torque.

The car's that make low torque and very late are the ones that have large camshafts with large turbos where the camshaft's profile has shifted the cylinder head's peak efficiency to higher engine speeds.

[LumberJack]

Originally Posted by ms3blackmica Please see @psychophyr's dyno graph where he makes 590 ft lbs of torque at 4750 RPM. What is not being mentioned or taken into account is the boost curve being applied to many of these engines. I can force any engine to make peak torque at any RPM I want it to by simply shaping the torque curve with boost control in order to do so. On an MS3, I will typically design the torque curve to make peak torque at a higher RPM because of it's FWD disadvantages. On an MS6, I can be less forgiving. It's all relative to what you are doing. However, "the car's that make shit for torque have single runner heads" is false in the respect that they do not make shit for torque. That is all.

I won't sit here and go back and forth with you nish. You've taken that last statement entirely out of context at the end, but so be it.

I'll let this thread get back on track of cpe trying to release a manifold to the public and keeping the forum updated.

That is all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alpha]

Just my experience, but I'd rather make a fat 500/500 with stupid torque down low than a rev needy and peaky 700 ANY day on the street.

That's just me and that's why I'm still on a ported stocker until something better comes out that doesn't sacrifice torque

[ms3blackmica]

Originally Posted by LumberJack I won't sit here and go back and forth with you nish. You've taken that last statement entirely out of context at the end, but so be it. That is all. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's cool.

I just want to make sure it is understood that this is not the reason.

Also, in the same respect, the JMF manifold does not cause these engines to make shit for torque.

As you have said, your car makes PLENTY of torque with a JMF manifold.

I don't know why anyone hates on such an awesome product that has allowed us to make HUGE power.

[LumberJack]

Originally Posted by ms3blackmica It's cool. I just want to make sure it is understood that this is not the reason. Also, in the same respect, the JMF manifold does not cause these engines to make shit for torque. As you have said, your car makes PLENTY of torque with a JMF manifold. I don't know why anyone hates on such an awesome product that has allowed us to make HUGE power.

There should be ZERO reason for hate on the JMF as it it our only option currently and was well designed by Scott and took a lot of time and dedication. I'd hate to see where this platform would be without it right now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ms3blackmica]

Originally Posted by LumberJack I'd hate to see where this platform would be without it right now.

It would still be stuck at 550 HP.

[Koke382]

But what about the john russel terrier manifolds guyths.


LOL

[Mazdazilla6]

Here's what going through my mind. Why is @www.cp-e.com; focusing on a mani for the ST? I know they're a large and growing market, but are they even close to us in terms of power? Do they even have a need for such a product right now? Have they even broke 500whp? The Mazdaspeed platform has patiently waited 2 years for such a product and all there's been to show for it is a couple of pictures.

Don't get me wrong, the JMF manifold is a great piece and I'm not saying that Cp-e's will be better, but competition breeds improvement and also has the potential to lower cost. Both of which are good for the consumer and in turn is good for the company.

There IS a market for a manifold from Cp-e, why they think otherwise has me baffled...

[UnknownSuperhero]

Originally Posted by Mazdazilla6 Here's what going through my mind. Why is @www.cp-e.com; focusing on a mani for the ST? I know they're a large and growing market, but are they even close to us in terms of power? Do they even have a need for such a product right now? Have they even broke 500whp? The Mazdaspeed platform has patiently waited 2 years for such a product and all there's been to show for it is a couple of pictures. Don't get me wrong, the JMF manifold is a great piece and I'm not saying that Cp-e's will be better, but competition breeds improvement and also has the potential to lower cost. Both of which are good for the consumer and in turn is good for the company. There IS a market for a manifold from Cp-e, why they think otherwise has me baffled...

Um . . .

Originally Posted by www.cp-e.com We've only been thinking about the ST mani, nothing further than that. We are still working on this one for you guys. making changes, making a rapid prototype to make sure the changes work then to getting the actual cast piece takes a long time.

[Mazdazilla6]

Originally Posted by UnknownSuperhero Um . . .

Originally Posted by www.cp-e.com We've only been thinking about the ST mani, nothing further than that.

I think the bold does most of the talking.

What my previous post is saying is that we've been put on the backburner while they design a part for a platform which may not even need it right now. Whereas we've been waiting for said part for the better part of two years.

[chaser27]

Originally Posted by Mazdazilla6 I think the bold does most of the talking. What my previous post is saying is that we've been put on the backburner while they design a part for a platform which may not even need it right now. Whereas we've been waiting for said part for the better part of two years.

I'd hate to say it, but judging by the number of Jews I see on Facebook and the fact that you can pick up a used speed for pretty cheap, this is going to be a trend with manufacturers for us. The majority of "us" are starting to take the Ebay, knock off route, Home Depot special, etc. The Focus ST is a new platform, you can't buy them cheap as shit yet which means the average owner has more money to spend on parts. Manufacturers are racing to get the market there before it dries up like we have. It sucks... but it's life...

[Vader]

Originally Posted by Mazdazilla6 I think the bold does most of the talking. What my previous post is saying is that we've been put on the backburner while they design a part for a platform which may not even need it right now. Whereas we've been waiting for said part for the better part of two years.

I read their comment as, they are thinking about making a mani, and that's it (nothing more than that) that they have gone no further than thinking about it.

Either way, the ST mani is capable of flowing 700hp, and is a well thought out/designed piece by ford. In fact, the aftermarket manifolds, have been proven to be worse than stock. So why would a company focus on an IM, when other parts (which cp-e already make) are proven to actually make power on the ST (upgraded FMIC being the main part).

Given the way the msf folk behave, if I'm CP-e, I'm shelving this product, in favor of a platform with huge potential, a customer base that shows respect, one that isn't all over their shit 24/7 for giggles, cause it' "the cool thing to do", and tell this tiny market to fuck off.

But they didn't, and we should be happy about that. I don't know what happened to this forum, but it might as well be called mazdaspeeforumsfacebookbullshitdramacentral.

[rfinkle2]

Originally Posted by www.cp-e.com We've only been thinking about the ST mani, nothing further than that. We are still working on this one for you guys. making changes, making a rapid prototype to make sure the changes work then to getting the actual cast piece takes a long time.

Cmon guys, pretty clear what this means.

Means that they are definitely "thinking" as in they work on BMW, MAZDA, FORD etc. and that there could be a market for an ST mani. Nothing further meaning they have not actually done anything more than think about it.

I'm still looking forward to it. Obviously some other guys are as well.

The EM took a while too, but is the most widely used, afaik.

[Yatta]

.... and the reason I keep coming back to this thread (pavlovian as it may seem) is... The inclusion/provision for TMIC in the pictures; say what you will about TMIC, for a DD it is better, less intake length, less boost connections (read trouble potential boost leaks), less engine bay real estate and if you add WMi the need for a large FMIC becomes more of an advertisement and less of a requirement. I followed the JMF build thread and am happy it was made as it was good for the platform I was a little surprised that provisions for port EFI added but the stud mounts for the TMIC were omitted because no one wants that. It appears that the CPe approach will allow either and/or both approaches to be made; maybe my impression is wrong but CPe appears to be making the most desired exhaust manifold, it would be great if they covered both ends. It will be awesome when Edge can offer a CPe in and out deal.....

[Tokay444]

Originally Posted by Gr8Speed If Scott is a "hobby machinist" what does that say about you being a professional machinist and not being able to come up with a better design Brock?

This is the closest I get to automotive parts these days.

But now that my flow bench with velocity probe is fully operational, I think it's time I design a better manifold.

[kbz0129]

Do itttttttt!