Ebay Cyclone Intake - JDM. Upgrade to Evo?

[deviantek]

Spotted an interesting auction on ebay. Anyone know if this is worth purchasing as an upgrade to an evo 1 gsr stock intake?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/e...ndexURL=0&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting

 

[Dean]

i think that'd actually be downgrading rather than upgrading

 

[tentacles]

You should probably do some reading on the basics (i.e. what is an intake manifold, how it works, etc) before throwing any more ebay ricer parts at your car, man.

 

[EVO-00X]

That inlet manifold has got the 8 runner design to suit the VR4 intake side of the head and it definitely wont suit an EVO as EVO's have smaller intake ports. The stock EVO intake has been good for 10 second strip cars so there's no real point in changing them (just match port them out a little, polish out the casting marks and bling it up).

VR4's had the 8 runners with butterflies in them. I suppose thats where the name 'Cyclone' came from - ie by making 8 smaller ports where air velocity would flow very fast as opposed to 4 larger ports. It was beneficial down low and for responsiveness, but only up to a certain point. The NA non turbo VR4 intake manifold without butterflies is a better alternative when going for more power with a VR4. The EVO intake manifolds are good as they are and are best left on the EVO engines unless you want to start running 10 second or less quarters :twisted:

 

[deviantek]

You should probably do some reading on the basics (i.e. what is an intake manifold, how it works, etc) before throwing any more ebay ricer parts at your car, man.

Right, and that's why I haven't yet thrown any money away on "ebay ricer parts'.... thus my questions

 

[tentacles]

Yeah, sorry, I shouldn't have worded it that way.

The item you are looking at is a stock E39A Galant VR4 intake. It's not an upgrade for anything and it won't even work (without some modification) on anything other than a GVR4.

"Cyclone" is basically Mitsu's version of Toyota TVIS intakes on the 3S-GTE or the 8 runner intakes on the Nissan CA18DET. There's a vacuum operated set of valves inside that open and close the flow to the intake runners depending on throttle position, basically altering intake geometry on the fly. It helps with low end torque on 4-cylinder engines, that's all.

It's basically useless for anything other than a GVR4 (for starters, you need to plumb a vacuum line to the valves for it to work properly, *I think*, again it's not a very popular thing), and Mitusbishi sold around 1,500 GVR4s in North America in total. DSM guys who swap engines usually toss these out so you could probably get one for free or very little if you wanted - I think you might want to go through the vfaq site that everyone has been linking you to, since the car is really just a DSM in a different shell.

 

[MDK87]

That inlet manifold has got the 8 runner design to suit the VR4 intake side of the head and it definitely wont suit an EVO as EVO's have smaller intake ports. The stock EVO intake has been good for 10 second strip cars so there's no real point in changing them (just match port them out a little, polish out the casting marks and bling it up).

VR4's had the 8 runners with butterflies in them. I suppose thats where the name 'Cyclone' came from - ie by making 8 smaller ports where air velocity would flow very fast as opposed to 4 larger ports. It was beneficial down low and for responsiveness, but only up to a certain point. The NA non turbo VR4 intake manifold without butterflies is a better alternative when going for more power with a VR4. The EVO intake manifolds are good as they are and are best left on the EVO engines unless you want to start running 10 second or less quarters :twisted:

What sort of manifold is the stock EVO one? Is it the "ECI Multi" one?
I was going to use the cyclone manifold on my build motor.......but after seeing this, maybe the N/A one would be better.
All I've heard is (quote) "The Cyclone manifold is great for producing low down torque, but the ECI Multi has better top end flow, allowing higher power figures".
So is that all there is to it?
I don't really understand why though. Is it because the diameter of the runners in the "ECI Multi" are bigger in comparison to the "Cyclone"?
The cyclone manifold butterflies are operated simply by a single manifold pressure controlled actuator hey?
Then if there is no solenoid valve, why do people say that you need to change the ECU for this manifold to function properly?
So EVO-00X, what sort of manifold would one use to achieve sub 10sec quarters?

Sorry for all the questions, but once I get a definitive answer I won't ask again, and also, it will be there for other people who need the same info.

 

[tentacles]

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/articles-intake-exhaust/109763-cyclone-intake-manifold-setup.html

 

[EVO-00X]

Stock evo intakes dont have any wording on them.

You have to bare with me the next couple of minutes as I didnt get much sleep :lol: In simple and exaggerated terms, picture yourself blowing through a 2" pipe with all your might and measuring the air velocity through the other end - i.e. very minimum. But blow through a 10mm straw with all your might and the speed of the air is very quick. Picture your lungs being the turbo compressor blowing into the throttle body and you can understand how the smaller runners increase responsiveness. Once you start flowing more air than what the runners can handle they are a hinderance more than anything else as the smaller diameter runners will have its flow limit.

As for the EVO intake, once you make serious power there will be a point where the stock intake will not be able to flow as much as you want it to either (rule of thumb once you start making over 350kw atw for example) because that sort of power is usually associated with bigger flowing turbos trying to force air through a 65mm throttle body opening. Guys would upgrade to aftermarket sheetmetal intakes and 70mm+ throttle bodies after that, however going too big will reduce your throttle control dramatically when going up just 5mm size in butterfly diameter may be all you need. (throttle open 5% on 65mm butterfly flows x amount of cfm, where as 90mm butterfly open at 5% might equal to 3 times the cfm of the stocky, hence like you put your foot 3/4 of the way down on a stock setup for example). It might be easier to understand if you exchange air volume with liquid volume, small door lets small amounts of water in at a time etc.

There's obviously a science to it that a lot of us dont understand but understand enough basic principals to realise that too small is no good/ too big is no good, and somewhere in the middle is a compromise between both

 

[MDK87]

Thanks for that EVO-00X!

Ok, I just had a look on a mates GVR4, and there is a control solenoid for the butterfly actuator, along with a vacuum resevoir.
The reason why I brought this up is that I found an electronic kit whereby you can adjust the trip point treshold for the solenoid. Sort of similar to a boost controller I guess, except PWM wouldn't be used, and the solenoid valve would either be on or off, depending on engine RPM.

Anyhow, I do understand what you're saying, basically the runners are smaller on a cyclone compared to ECI Multi, and that when extremely high boost pressures (high flow) are used, the cyclone acts slightly like a restrictor.

So now that I understand that, I'm thinking, the best combo (using standard parts) for an engine where responsiveness is required, you would use the EVO head (smaller ports) with cyclone intake manifold, and small to medium turbine/compressor. Is that right? Would you want a relatively high compression ratio aswell?

And for an engine where outright HP is required, you would use a GVR4 head (big) ports coupled to an ECI Multi + big throttle body, and large turbine/compressor + low compression?

Whether or not these parts will physically integrate isn't a concerning matter at this stage, but theoretically, are they correct assumptions?

Thanks.

 

[EVO-00X]

So now that I understand that, I'm thinking, the best combo (using standard parts) for an engine where responsiveness is required, you would use the EVO head (smaller ports) with cyclone intake manifold, and small to medium turbine/compressor. Is that right? Would you want a relatively high compression ratio aswell?

Yes, theoretically if maximum flow was not required. Physically though, the Cyclone intake doesnt match an EVO head.

And for an engine where outright HP is required, you would use a GVR4 head (big) ports coupled to an ECI Multi + big throttle body, and large turbine/compressor + low compression?

Yes

Whether or not these parts will physically integrate isn't a concerning matter at this stage, but theoretically, are they correct assumptions?

Yes, its all relative to size and cfm airflow. I've included some flowbench tests carried out in the US years and years ago between the 1G and 2G heads. Unported the 2G (EVO) heads flowed less than the 1G (VR4) heads. But when they ported a 2G head it would gain more flow than the 1G up top. The EVO head is better designed though as its intake port chambers are shaped to direct airflow toward the direction of the valves causing less restriction than the 1G. However, if people port out their evo heads incorrectly and muck around with the chamber shape too much they can actually make it worse.

 

[MDK87]

Thanks EVO-00X.
You know everything man.

 

[VR-4Squid]

What someone really needs to do is flow test the heads with their respective manifolds attached, the bigport heads are designed to work with the dual runner manifolds (contrary to popular belief the "eci multi" manifolds found on vr4 evo's also have the butterfly system - only n/a "eci multi" ones don't) swapping to a cyclone less manifold from an n/a galant gives no power gain at the top end and looses a ton of midrange.


:wink:

 

[EVO-00X]

Yeah the VR4 evo intakes have butterflies and are still the same 3-piece 8 runner design as the normal Cyclone intakes, but with a different casting on the outside of the chamber.

The NA intakes, like aftermarket sheetmetal ones, do lose low to midrange for sure, but they do actually flow better up top. I've seen flowbench tests of them too... now I just gotta find them as well :lol:

 

[VR-4Squid]

Yeah the VR4 evo intakes have butterflies and are still the same 3-piece 8 runner design as the normal Cyclone intakes, but with a different casting on the outside of the chamber.

The NA intakes, like aftermarket sheetmetal ones, do lose low to midrange for sure, but they do actually flow better up top. I've seen flowbench tests of them too... now I just gotta find them as well :lol:

Indeed they do, but the ports in the vr4 head narrow very soon after entering the head, so the benefit of the higher flowing manifold is lost.

The shape of the entire port (from plenum to valve) is important, not just the manifold part

 

[Liberoz]

basically dont try and invent the wheel use what came with the engine as stock

 

[JETGSR]

basically dont try and invent the wheel use what came with the engine as stock.

so why dont we all keep using the small 16G the std intercooler and the standard dump!

It's OK i'm just being a prick .....

I would agree with things like the plenum unless you are really going to get some serious HP the money would be better spent elsewhere.

On a MR2 I built, we ditched the TVIS and upgraded the Throttle body buy 8mm and it gave very good results, But in the MR2 the plenum is a bit shitty, hence we built a completely new one and gained very large results.The TVIS on the 3s-gte is a seperate piece to the manafold and easily removed.

This car currently produces 435 kws at the wheels. We there are quite extensive mods supporting that figure