We've been working on sumtin... manifold

[Voltwings]

Originally Posted by Boost_creep After looking at the pictures of this manifold, I notice that each cylinder is a single runner, as opposed to the DISI with two runners per cylinder. That is going to be an issue for anyone still running the stock (unported) head. Unless this kit will come with a knife edge gasket, or something similar?

THere's a thread on this very forum that says it shouldnt be.

"Shouldnt be."

An In Depth Analysis of The MZR DISI Head

[Farhan@DM]

Originally Posted by Voltwings THere's a thread on this very forum that says it shouldnt be. "Shouldnt be." An In Depth Analysis of The MZR DISI Head

Give you one guess at what manifold the author of that thread is running...

Hint: It's not from a BMW, or Coca-Cola.

[WetzMS3]

Originally Posted by Farhan@DM Give you one guess at what manifold the author of that thread is running... Hint: It's not from a BMW, or Coca-Cola.

Dusty tittays manifold?

CatDickRacing?

[nindoja]

Originally Posted by WetzMS3 Dusty tittays manifold? CatDickRacing?

Nah, I have the pallet of CDR manifolds in my garage. @neganox; thinks they are sitting in customs, but my connections got them re-routed to my house.

[Mazdazilla6]

Originally Posted by Voltwings THere's a thread on this very forum that says it shouldnt be. "Shouldnt be." An In Depth Analysis of The MZR DISI Head

Ahem, well I drew that conclusion off two obervations.

1. I think Ferd engineers took it into account. If they saw any gains from a knife edge, it must not have been noticeable or worth the money it would cost to incorporate the design.

2. Based off the testing I did with the stock manifold, going from a gasket matched mani to a single runner, the gains were consistent as from when moving from stock to the gasket matched. Which leads me to believe a knife edge has minimal effect on flow. Though, it's always possible that I could be wrong.

Edit: As a side note, after looking at the EB head, you can see the port entries are the same size vs our large and small one. This also agrees with my theory that our head can see good gains from making both ports equally sized.

And one more little idea that just popped into my mind. What could be happening as to WHY there aren't much gains from a knife edge. 1 theory is that the air hits the divider and slows down, creating an "air divider" which causes the remaining air stream to flow eually into each port. Or 2 it could be that the air hits the divider which causes it to go into a swirling motion which helps pull more air into the port. I have ZERO evidence that either of these are happening but it's just ideas

[Boost_creep]

Originally Posted by Voltwings THere's a thread on this very forum that says it shouldnt be. "Shouldnt be." An In Depth Analysis of The MZR DISI Head

Damn you, lol. It's on my reading list!

[Farhan@DM]

Originally Posted by Code Monkey

Can I stay?

Damond Motorsports Mazdaspeed ST Manifold Adapter Kit

[faeker]

Hey farhan, I dunno if I was speaking to you or matt via fb messenger but I'm up for fitting up cold pipe solutions for my setup. I won't need PI but I do use meth. If there's anyway I can find out some more info not listed here let me know. I need a summer project.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[ToyCop]

If a TMIC solution is developed I'm in like Flynn.

[TiGraySpeed6]

I'm not typically a fanboi, but consider me standing in line tapping my foot impatiently.....

Much Want. First batch, don't need PI....
Do need better & more balanced air flow.

Curious tho- will ya'll be doing a kit of parts & bring your own ST mani or all inclusive? The ST mani's are, frankly, dirt cheap, readily available virgin new for under $50.

If I follow your blog post correctly you're offering a bring your own mani kit- which I think is perfect. I run a custom FMIC, and am totally able to tweak the pipe routing to fit the ST mani. I'm more wanting the mani-to head flange and other bits to make a classy install like the throttle body wiring adapter & oil dipstick mount. I already run your OCC, so that's gravy!

[MS3Shadow]

Totally wouldn't mind a all-in-one kit for an TMIC setup.

sent from my Nexus 6P

[faeker]

Having a manifold in hand, I think it'd be a pain to make it tmic compatible and thus make the price higher than needed. This manifold really is free of frills.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[MD1032]

Originally Posted by faeker Having a manifold in hand, I think it'd be a pain to make it tmic compatible and thus make the price higher than needed. This manifold really is free of frills. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Ya know they could just offer it as an option...

[faeker]

Not really. There's no mounting points for the 2 holes on a tmic. You'd have to jb weld something and that wouldn't be something I'd want to use.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[TiGraySpeed6]

Seems like with a bit of creativity and some aluminum flat stock of the 3'x3/4"x1/8" variety you could fab up a couple of brackets pretty easily.

Less than $5 from your local lowes - Shop The Hillman Group 3-ft x 3/4-in Aluminum Metal Flat Bar at Lowes.com

or possibly free from the local metal shop scrap pile...

[PapaSmurf]

its going to be impossible to sell this JM manifold.... lol

[Thepedigree13]

So since some people call the Focus ST "FoST", and we are adopting their manifold, can we call this set up the "FoSTer Child Mani"?

Or maybe just FoSTer Mani?

[Spectrix]

^ This. Look out for 'FoSTer Mani' listed in sigs.

[Yatta]

Originally Posted by TiGraySpeed6 Seems like with a bit of creativity and some aluminum flat stock of the 3'x3/4"x1/8" variety you could fab up a couple of brackets pretty easily. Less than $5 from your local lowes - Shop The Hillman Group 3-ft x 3/4-in Aluminum Metal Flat Bar at Lowes.com or possibly free from the local metal shop scrap pile...

If a aluminum spacer is being used, there might be enough metal there to attach such a bracket... Ford had issues with the earlier plastic manifolds cracking so attaching to it would likely not be good; if you are using the FoST manifold the sim poser port might give another brace point.

[Dano]

Originally Posted by faeker Not really. There's no mounting points for the 2 holes on a tmic. You'd have to jb weld something and that wouldn't be something I'd want to use. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

not having access to any of this considered, you could more than likely use one or two IM to head bolt locations to add an AL bracket mount point. bring that forward then down to the dipstick tube mount point and create a bracket for the TMIC. not sure what sized bolt they will be using there but I gotta believe there might be something to tie into.

Or a bracket from the IM back to the VC. Get creative people

I have made many a bracket out of the AL stock at HD or Lowes.



again, have not seen this in person to know about clearances.

[Spectrix]

Mazda are clearly following Damond's lead for the new 2.5 Turbo Skyactive Engine:

also, they added cup holders.

[ericrapp0507@gmail.com]

Originally Posted by TiGraySpeed6 tee-hee.... He used the "F" word.... ain't never finished

FACT

[faeker]

needs more info and product in hand.

[Mauro_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Farhan@DM Can I stay? Damond Motorsports Mazdaspeed ST Manifold Adapter Kit

Ssooooo..... I read in one of these manifold threads that an under engine IC kit is the best option for the hotside, does this mean there is a possibility of DM coming out with one?

Hint hint wink wink

It would be a nice one stop shop kind of kit for those of us fags that are fed up with intercooler piping made of tin foil.

[AwAfrican]

Originally Posted by Mauro_Penguin Ssooooo..... I read in one of these manifold threads that an under engine IC kit is the best option for the hotside, does this mean there is a possibility of DM coming out with one? Hint hint wink wink It would be a nice one stop shop kind of kit for those of us fags that are fed up with intercooler piping made of tin foil.

DM said yes to piping, they are just trying to figure out which intercooler/ kits to make for because they obviously aren't gonna make it to work with all hot sides. This info I believe was in the link posted about their results

[faeker]

I'll make my hotside work as is. I have some info on how I'm gonna do my cold pipe. all I need now is the kit from damonds crew. HURRY UP FARHAN!!!!! FAEKER IS IMPATIENT!!!!

[MD1032]

Originally Posted by faeker I'll make my hotside work as is. I have some info on how I'm gonna do my cold pipe. all I need now is the kit from damonds crew. HURRY UP FARHAN!!!!! FAEKER IS IMPATIENT!!!!

Why so impatient? Even if this manifold offers some kind of significant measurable horsepower gain for those of us on BNR S3's with stock exhaust manifolds (which I doubt it will), it's not even going to be useful because everyone knows the stock ringlands are sketchy above 400 whp, sometimes even less.

[TiGraySpeed6]

dunno bout anybody else, I'm just interested in the balanced air flow between cylinders.

[MD1032]

Originally Posted by TiGraySpeed6 dunno bout anybody else, I'm just interested in the balanced air flow between cylinders.

In that case you should probably look into upgrading the exhaust manifold as well, and possibly doing some work to the cylinder head...considering those two in combination probably have way more of an influence on the overall flow balance.

If we can't even observe differences in horsepower from porting the stock intake manifold, what makes you think we'll see anything from switching to a slightly different manifold design?

[pwdunmore]

Originally Posted by MD1032 In that case you should probably look into upgrading the exhaust manifold as well, and possibly doing some work to the cylinder head...considering those two in combination probably have way more of an influence on the overall flow balance. If we can't even observe differences in horsepower from porting the stock intake manifold, what makes you think we'll see anything from switching to a slightly different manifold design?

Agreed, there would be a huge benefit to a balanced flow on both sides.

Balancing the intake without touching the exhaust seems like it would only benefit so much because overall flow would still be influenced by the unbalanced OEM exhaust manifold.

[TiGraySpeed6]

So, what makes you think I haven't? I'm already easily able to exceed the block limits- I'm looking for other improvements, not power.

I presume you've seen the airflow comparisons between the FoST and the Mazda IM? From 30%+ difference between cyinders to ~2% difference is way more than enough reason. And this is a majorly different design that the stock Mazda IM. About the only things in common are one throttle body feeding four cylinders....

[faeker]

to answer my reasoning; I just want something to work on and this fits that bill. secondly, our exhaust manifold is known to be one of the least restrictive parts sub 450 hp. while porting the head will offer a more reliable change in flow in conjunction with a manifold swap, I'm not able to afford that side of it yet. I'll take the increase in flow efficiency this manifold brings us even if it's just a quality of life change and has no effect on my power. cylinder 4 will no longer be the red headed stepchild of the block.

[nindoja]

Originally Posted by MD1032 In that case you should probably look into upgrading the exhaust manifold as well, and possibly doing some work to the cylinder head...considering those two in combination probably have way more of an influence on the overall flow balance. If we can't even observe differences in horsepower from porting the stock intake manifold, what makes you think we'll see anything from switching to a slightly different manifold design?

Who says they didn't do testing with an EM hooked up?

Also, where's the evidence that a ported IM makes no more HP? I remember a thread from @dale_gribble;, but he already had an aftermarket EM on the car, so I'm not sure his tests are conclusive for those with stock EMs. I'd have to go pull up my logs, but I seem to remember ~20g/s difference when I installed my PnP IM on my k04.

[MD1032]

Originally Posted by TiGraySpeed6 So, what makes you think I haven't? I'm already easily able to exceed the block limits- I'm looking for other improvements, not power. I presume you've seen the airflow comparisons between the FoST and the Mazda IM? From 30%+ difference between cyinders to ~2% difference is way more than enough reason.

Yes. Those numbers are bench tests. An intake manifold attached to a cylinder head sitting on a bench doesn't necessarily correlate to the real world where the manifold is attached to a running engine, especially one with a restrictive unequal length exhaust manifold. Everyone assumes the flow imbalance on our engines is caused by the intake manifold but forgets that Clint's EGT data was taken on a bone stock intake manifold.

If the stock intake manifold does not cause any flow restriction at our stock-ish power levels (already established), it doesn't matter how fancy you get with the flow balance on it. You can't just put bigger and bigger funnels above a pipe and expect the pipe to flow more.

Originally Posted by nindoja Who says they didn't do testing with an EM hooked up?

Their measurements are taken at different valve lifts.

Originally Posted by nindoja Also, where's the evidence that a ported IM makes no more HP?

Let me google that for you...

Dales k04 ported and polished (PNP) Intake Manifold results

If he had an aftermarket manifold at the time, that actually improves his chances of seeing a difference in power. He didn't anyway.

Hit me with some data. You'd be like the 2nd person in the entire world that actually took before/after logs of their PnP IM and posted actual hard data proving horsepower gains. Because guess what, 99.9% of people upgrade/port manifolds because they want it to be a pretty color or giggle at racecar sounds when they turn their car on.

[faeker]

we do know it causes issues with cylinder 4 though. this will more than likely eliminate that

quick add on since I had to walk for a min. this part will not be a k04 dream maker. The testing done was on cars utilizing either bigger turbos or PI. I believe that that's the main target and not the sorta bt/k04 guys.

[TiGraySpeed6]

Well it's a good thing I'm not trying to flow /more/ air, rather just more evenly balance out what's already there between the cylinders. I think there's more than enough engine failure data available, things like failed ring lands & such, that taking steps to balance air flow is a wise idea.

Question, is it really your argument that the stock mani, on a running engine, provides an equal quantity of air to all four cylinders during WOT operation? Cause, honestly, that's what I'm seeing you type, and I'm not sure I follow that logic.

[MD1032]

Originally Posted by TiGraySpeed6 Question, is it really your argument that the stock mani, on a running engine, provides an equal quantity of air to all four cylinders during WOT operation? Cause, honestly, that's what I'm seeing you type, and I'm not sure I follow that logic.

No, I'm saying that the stock intake manifold has no impact at all on what quantity of air goes into which cylinder, because the rest of the system (engine and exhaust manifold) is what determines that. That's how you end up with results like those shown in Clint's thread that I referenced above.

[nindoja]

Originally Posted by MD1032 No, I'm saying that the stock intake manifold has no impact at all on what quantity of air goes into which cylinder, because the rest of the system (engine and exhaust manifold) is what determines that. That's how you end up with results like those shown in Clint's thread that I referenced above.

I would say that the head and exhaust manifold are part of the equation, but I'm not sure I agree that they are solely responsible for determining flow balance. @Mazdazilla6; thoughts on this?

[Mazdazilla6]

Originally Posted by MD1032 No, I'm saying that the stock intake manifold has no impact at all on what quantity of air goes into which cylinder, because the rest of the system (engine and exhaust manifold) is what determines that. That's how you end up with results like those shown in Clint's thread that I referenced above.

Wrong.

Originally Posted by nindoja I would say that the head and exhaust manifold are part of the equation, but I'm not sure I agree that they are solely responsible for determining flow balance. @Mazdazilla6; thoughts on this?

Gas in = gas out. I've taken multiple classes on engine design theory, engine airflow, dyno classes, camshaft design, etc. One of the top rules is that intake tuning ALWAYS takes priority over exhaust tuning.

A quick glance at Clint's EGT thread shows that cyl 1 was running the hottest. Makes sense given the design of the exhaust mani, but temperature doesn't tell you flow numbers. Cyl 1 has the furthest to travel to make it to the collector. It is the most likely to succumb to reversion versus the rest of the cylinders which have a shorter path to make it to the collector.

[MD1032]

Originally Posted by Mazdazilla6 Wrong.

Killing me man. Mind elaborating on your response here?

Originally Posted by Mazdazilla6 Gas in = gas out. I've taken multiple classes on engine design theory, engine airflow, dyno classes, camshaft design, etc. One of the top rules is that intake tuning ALWAYS takes priority over exhaust tuning.

Yes, but...in vivo > in vitro testing...always. There is no data showing that PnP IM's offer increased flow balance and increased overall flow on the car in its typical configuration (stock cyl head + EM), or that the FoST manifold does either, although your flow testing data indicates that it could. I just don't trust bench tests at all because lots of people strap JMF's on their car thinking the flow balance and increased flow potential is going to improve their power production and then ultimately make their cars less useful (response + torque) in the low RPM's where racers and street drivers alike have to live a lot of the time.

Originally Posted by Mazdazilla6 A quick glance at Clint's EGT thread shows that cyl 1 was running the hottest. Makes sense given the design of the exhaust mani, but temperature doesn't tell you flow numbers. Cyl 1 has the furthest to travel to make it to the collector. It is the most likely to succumb to reversion versus the rest of the cylinders which have a shorter path to make it to the collector.

I was hoping this would be ignored, however you are correct. This is a two-edged sword, of course, because if this is happening to this degree, it is also impacting total flow through the cylinder. Clint's experiment also disregards potential fueling imbalance which I think makes even more of a difference and I hope to address with future experiments of my own.

Dyno data with logs would go a long way to improving the situation here. I'm looking forward to seeing more data from Damond showing whether my guess is correct or not.