We've been working on sumtin... manifold

[Mazdazilla6]

Originally Posted by MD1032 Killing me man. Mind elaborating on your response here? 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. 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.

To address the first part,

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.

The stock manifold has a HUGE impact on how much each air each cylinder receives. The engine (normally) is equal across all cylinders so that can be ruled out for variation. As for the exhaust, unlike the intake, flow is more important than balance. Balance is still something that should strongly be considered and is important, but an exhaust that cannot flow will cause a backup of exhaust gas and choke out the engine with reversion. BUT, that does not dictate flow through an engine, that is an indicator of a poorly performing/inadequate exhaust system.


To address the rest,

I do agree that actual results are always more valuable than theory, but that does not mean you ignore what theory dictates as often times theory has an underlying principle which can be found to be true in most cases. With that said, it has been observed (through vdyno, and I can't remember where) that pnp manis do give additional flow. I support those findings too since a stock head outflows the stock mani but is fairly well matched to a pnp mani.

A bench is not a tell-all, but it is still a very useful tool. Some of the best engines have been designed on them. The reality of it is that the only way to do better than a bench is to have an engine dyno in a cell with completely controllable conditions. And that's not something many people have access to. Not only that but it's a slower process than a bench since only one part is supposed to be changed at a time in order to be able to properly quantify gains.

Basic manifold design explains why people see the results from the JMF that they do. Short runners and large plenums are not friendly for street engines which aren't trying to shoot for crazy power goals.

[Mauro_Penguin]

Please stop derailing this nice DM adapter kit thread with your damn petty arguements.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, I mean blow up an MZR engine. We can all agree on that.

Back on topic please.

K

Thanks

Bye

[Mazdazilla6]

Originally Posted by Mauro_Penguin Please stop derailing this nice DM adapter kit thread with your damn petty arguements. There is more than one way to skin a cat, I mean blow up an MZR engine. We can all agree on that. Back on topic please. K Thanks Bye

Edit:

MazdaSpeed Forums Presents: YouTube

MazdaSpeed Forums Presents: YouTube

[Dano]

That girl is a walking, ahem, singing PSA against the effects of mood altering meds such as Prozac.

"Prozac - She has it." Lilly & Co®

[qkrthnu2]

The Toxoplasmosis is strong in that one.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[ericrapp0507@gmail.com]

Originally Posted by Dano That girl is a walking, ahem, singing PSA against the effects of mood altering meds such as Prozac. "Prozac - She has it." Lilly & Co®

I thought it was 'bout cats. and their inherent evil ways

[Tomas]

Originally Posted by Mazdazilla6 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.

Please explain this.
I believe you have it the other way around.

[Mazdazilla6]

Cyl 1 sits the furthest away from the collector, cyl 4 sits the closest. Reversion occurs towards higher RPMs as the exhaust system is unable to fully evacuate the exhaust stream from the cylinder. Cyl 4 can move exhaust to the turbo the soonest because the path is shortest, and as higher RPM is reached cyl 1 will suffer from reversion first because it's path is the furthest and therefore exhaust will get "backed up" in the cyl 1 runner the worst.

It's the same reason you see race cars with extremely short exhausts and not long tube headers. Because short exhausts perform best at high RPM and long exhausts get choked up and suffer from reversion.

My guess as to you prompting this is that you figure exhaust back pressure would force its way down the shortest path first. This is not true because the pressure *should* (would) be equal through out the entire manifold and that would still cause the cyl 1 (furthest away) to suffer from reversion before the rest of the cylinders due to backed up exhaust gases. This also coincides with exhaust pulse theories, which are pretty well proven.


That's the way I've been taught by my prof who's got 30+ years teaching engine design and knows hundreds of guys in the industry of engine design. And no he's not some old timer, he's well versed in modern tech.

[Tomas]

Dude you are arguing against something that has been well known over many years. Your prof is wrong.
Reversion is more likely in short tube headers compared to long tube headers.
You need to look at tube header length from the perspective of a pressure vessel. The bigger the vessel the more volume it will be able to hold at the same pressure as a smaller vessel, or alternatively, the pressure in the vessel will be lower when the same volume of air is pumped into a bigger vessel than a smaller vessel.
Most high RPM race engines, with some exceptions like Mercedes's PU106B power plant, have long tube headers. And if they don't, like in Mercedes's case, it is a compromise that is made due to space or other constrains. If you can post links to some of these high RPM short tube header engines you speak of I'd be interested in reading about them.
Just search and look at all the NA and Turbo Formula 1 engines over the years (with the afor mentioned exception).

[Gerbilo]

Sometimes I feel like this with the two of posting, but that doesn't mean I don't like the reading material.

[droflow]

I'm still just wondering if this part is gonna happen? I'm extremely interested. i don't wanna PnP my manifold lol

[faeker]

the adapter plate? it was released last month

[AwAfrican]

Originally Posted by droflow I'm still just wondering if this part is gonna happen? I'm extremely interesting. i don't wanna PnP my manifold lol

This is released where have you been. Lol. Results are excellent. Not sure where the part stands for the gen1 tho

[droflow]

Originally Posted by AwAfrican This is released where have you been. Lol. Results are excellent. Not sure where the part starts for the gen1 tho

well damn. i should pay attention more often hahaha, i really don't go online much. feel pretty stupid right now
main reason i asked though is because i literally just bought 3 parts from Damond and didnt see this part on their website, so i was confused

*edit* upon further review i have come to conclusion that i must be blind as there are many threads on this now lol......

[AwAfrican]

Originally Posted by droflow *edit* upon further review i have come to conclusion that i must be blind as there are many threads on this now lol......

I'd say that's an adequate assessment, looks like it's an excellent addition to our platform. TMIC fitment is still being ironed out

[mituc]

Originally Posted by AwAfrican I'd say that's an adequate assessment, looks like it's an excellent addition to our platform. TMIC fitment is still being ironed out

Without the PI rail in the first post picture there's no reason why the manifold will not clear a TMIC.

I'm pretty sure the head design on the ST and RS is different but not that much considering that the 2.0 ecoboost and 2.3 ecoboost engines share basically the same block with the 2.3DISI-T (even wikipedia confirms that the 2.0 and 2.3 ecoboost belong to the mazda L engines family).

However, the head design and specs (which are slightly different on the ST and RS) will not make the 2.x ecoboost IM a direct fit.

After checking a focus RS a few days ago I was wondering if maybe we can retrofit a 2.3ecoboost head back to our 2.3DISI engines. Of course we will need some bits in our tunes (or go PNP/standalone) to control the VVT on the exhaust side. But now seeing the ecoboost manifold adapted to our engines kind of makes me hold back about that head retrofitting, which still may not be a bad idea if it doesn't require extensive adaptations to make it fit.

So yeah DM... please make this IM. Thanks in advance!

[AwAfrican]

They're already started making it! good grief. And fitment is being tested for tmic right now, looking promising from what I've seen

[nindoja]

Originally Posted by mituc Without the PI rail in the first post picture there's no reason why the manifold will not clear a TMIC.

The issue isn't clearance, it's figuring out how to mount it properly since the plastic IM does't have mounting points like the OEM Mazda IM does.

[g00s3y]

Originally Posted by nindoja The issue isn't clearance, it's figuring out how to mount it properly since the plastic IM does't have mounting points like the OEM Mazda IM does.

Zipties.

Because racecar.

[droflow]

Originally Posted by g00s3y Zipties. Because racecar.

if it can't be fixed with zipties then it isn't worth it. just send it back. LOL jk i can't wait to see a TMIC application. I'm keeping my 3" Tmic for ultra sleeper.

[TiGraySpeed6]

Just a set of brackets- some aluminum stock from the manifold mounts bent to create a set of brackets and you're mr. studley with that bad ass tmic

[Dano]

Lol. Someone said this very thing a few pages back. Maybe I should put a group interest thread together and I can make these brackets for everybody.

Except there would be no money in it haha

Tappin

[TiGraySpeed6]

probably more entertaining to think about the pipe routing from that tmic down under & back up into the manifold with it's entrance pointing straight down. Most U bend sections are pretty wide, not too mention what sharp bends do for the air flow...

Remember all this stuff? This is the thread that convinced me to use nothing sharper than 75* bends in the piping for my FMIC, no 90's at all.

Originally Posted by ESB Jiu JItsu Also just found this.... http://www.pressure-drop.com/Online-...tor/index.html I cannot stress how much research I have sorted through showing the resistance in the system in the form of bends is were the largest amount of pressure drop and flow restriction is. Here is a little blurb.... "So let’s cut to the chase - what are some of the useful figures? Let’s take a 3-inch tube: that’s pretty common these days on both high performance exhausts and intakes. A tight 90-degree bend (where ‘tight’ means a radius about equal to the diameter, ie in this case 3 inches) poses the same restriction as 7.5 feet (2.3 metres) of straight pipe! A long radius 90-degree bend (a bend radius of 4.5 inches, or 11.4cm) has a flow restriction equal to about 5 feet (about 1.5 metres) of straight pipe. A 45-degree bend? Well, one with a radius of bend the same as its 3-inch diameter has an equivalent flow restriction of 4 feet, or about 1.2 metres. A 180-degree bend with a 1:1 radius/diameter? It’s got the same flow restriction as 12 feet of straight pipe - that’s an incredible 3.7 metres! Get the picture? Those bends - even when they are relatively open - drop flow to a major degree. If the mass of air contained within the pipework isn’t critical (eg as it is for intercooler plumbing, where throttle response loss needs to be minimised) it makes a helluva lot of sense to go much longer rather than put in tight bends." So longer piping with less bends is infact better then shorter piping with drastic bends. I think this is another good reason to go the short rouse on one side and long on the other. To help keep a good balance. also may help some of you guys claiming to not have as quick of spool as stock when going to FMIC. Count your bends up and see

[mituc]

Originally Posted by TiGraySpeed6 probably more entertaining to think about the pipe routing from that tmic down under & back up into the manifold with it's entrance pointing straight down. Most U bend sections are pretty wide, not too mention what sharp bends do for the air flow...

Some 2.5-2.75" ID silicone hoses properly bent will just do with minimal to no deformation under boost. The TMIC guys usually don't run more than like 30 PSI with meth so silicone piping should be fine for those who want/need to stay TMIC.

[TiGraySpeed6]

Oh it's totally not the end of the world or anything.

just ib4 throttle response / lag posts start turning up from the TMIC kids.

[droflow]

Originally Posted by TiGraySpeed6 Oh it's totally not the end of the world or anything. just ib4 throttle response / lag posts start turning up from the TMIC kids.

lol true, might as well go to FMIC at that point if the lag is that bad...... i want a TMIC for the stock sleeper look as well as to reduce lag, but if it wouldn't make a difference i would just go with a FMIC

[5doorsoffury]

The aluminum brackets should be recreated with steal once you get the proper shape. New job 2 trips out of state for training 2 weeks long each back to back..... i just want to finish my project up.

There is no u bends just 90s. Down past the shifter across the belly pan then 90 up to the mani.

[Nitr0EngiE]

Originally Posted by mituc Without the PI rail in the first post picture there's no reason why the manifold will not clear a TMIC. I'm pretty sure the head design on the ST and RS is different but not that much considering that the 2.0 ecoboost and 2.3 ecoboost engines share basically the same block with the 2.3DISI-T (even wikipedia confirms that the 2.0 and 2.3 ecoboost belong to the mazda L engines family). However, the head design and specs (which are slightly different on the ST and RS) will not make the 2.x ecoboost IM a direct fit. After checking a focus RS a few days ago I was wondering if maybe we can retrofit a 2.3ecoboost head back to our 2.3DISI engines. Of course we will need some bits in our tunes (or go PNP/standalone) to control the VVT on the exhaust side. But now seeing the ecoboost manifold adapted to our engines kind of makes me hold back about that head retrofitting, which still may not be a bad idea if it doesn't require extensive adaptations to make it fit. So yeah DM... please make this IM. Thanks in advance!

if there is an exhaust VVT couldn't you just put an MS3 exhaust gear on it if its the same size and block off the actuator, or disable it somehow

[droflow]

Originally Posted by Nitr0EngiE if there is an exhaust VVT couldn't you just put an MS3 exhaust gear on it if its the same size and block off the actuator, or disable it somehow

what do you mean by block off the actuator???

[Nitr0EngiE]

well it will have an extra oil supply for the extra actuator that will be required to control oil to the VVT. You would want to make sure that supply is capped off or that the valve will not allow oil pressure loss which i guess in its closed or default position it may not allow pressure out

more simply put i guess if the ocv is not connected it wont be a problem and stay plugged.

[Mazdazilla6]

The HPFP is driven off the exhaust cam, you'll need a custom feed line to the rail. And not to mention you'll have to use the retarded headerfold design. The only advantage to using that head is injector adaptability.

[Mazdazilla6]

Originally Posted by Tomas Dude you are arguing against something that has been well known over many years. Your prof is wrong. Reversion is more likely in short tube headers compared to long tube headers. You need to look at tube header length from the perspective of a pressure vessel. The bigger the vessel the more volume it will be able to hold at the same pressure as a smaller vessel, or alternatively, the pressure in the vessel will be lower when the same volume of air is pumped into a bigger vessel than a smaller vessel. Most high RPM race engines, with some exceptions like Mercedes's PU106B power plant, have long tube headers. And if they don't, like in Mercedes's case, it is a compromise that is made due to space or other constrains. If you can post links to some of these high RPM short tube header engines you speak of I'd be interested in reading about them. Just search and look at all the NA and Turbo Formula 1 engines over the years (with the afor mentioned exception).

Don't know why I never saw this. I don't want to drag this out as this isn't the thread for it but, as for the engines you've listed, those are short header engines (that BMW is a bit iffy tho). Look at how close the collector is to the head. Those collectors are essentially the same thing as runners converging into a turbo. The best reason I can think of as to why they aren't even shorter is that they are trying to keep length consistent for pulse tuning.

You should not view an exhaust system as a pressure vessel because the biggest difference between them is that an exhaust has flow and a pressure vessel does not. It's for this same reason that engines being tested on dynos have more than one backpressure sensor, because backpressure is different in different areas (like the banks). Backpressure is also heavily reliant on engine displacement. X diameter tube will experience reversion sooner at Y RPM on a 500CI engine than it would on a 300CI engine at Y RPM.

If you'd like to discuss this more shoot me a PM. I'd rather not clutter up this thread and I love discussing engines and engine theory.