GVR40
Passion Fingers
what about the na cylcones, how are they in comparison with the eci multi aspec type
ECI vs Cyclone inlet manifolds?
- Thread starter SIVART
- Start date
Help Support 4GTuner:
GVR40
Passion Fingers
what about the na cylcones, how are they in comparison with the eci multi aspec type
The word "Cyclone" on the manifolds indicates an 8 runner design where smaller diameter runners are used to increase the velocity of airflow into the head. Just think of a Dyson 'cyclone' vacuum cleaner - same principle 
For outright flow look for the 4 runner NA manifold.
For outright flow look for the 4 runner NA manifold.The word "Cyclone" on the manifolds indicates an 8 runner design where smaller diameter runners are used to increase the velocity of airflow into the head. Just think of a Dyson 'cyclone' vacuum cleaner - same principle For outright flow look for the 4 runner NA manifold.
For outright flow look for the 4 runner NA manifold.The word "Cyclone" on the manifolds indicates an 8 runner design where smaller diameter runners are used to increase the velocity of airflow into the head. Just think of a Dyson 'cyclone' vacuum cleaner - same principle For outright flow look for the 4 runner NA manifold.
For outright flow look for the 4 runner NA manifold.GVR40
Passion Fingers
cheers bud
FYI, i had a stock AUS spec manifold power ported...
The flow rates of the stocker were already huge!
in comparison,
VL turbo's flow approx 280 cfm per runner
the vr4's unported flowed 415 cfm average
after the porting / extrude honing they each flowed approx 460 each..
for an N/A, 1cfm = 1hp supposably (potential)
as for the cyclone, it would probably be close to the aus spec ecu multi stock vs stock.. but it would not be possible to powerport / extrude hone a cyclone due to the butterfly setup..
unless you get bigger butterflies in order to seal that second runner after porting.. this would be very expensive...
it depends what you want..
top end or mid range, although the aus specs did have the best mid range in that manifold shootout!...
my goal was to maintain the mid range and increase the top end....
The flow rates of the stocker were already huge!
in comparison,
VL turbo's flow approx 280 cfm per runner
the vr4's unported flowed 415 cfm average
after the porting / extrude honing they each flowed approx 460 each..
for an N/A, 1cfm = 1hp supposably (potential)
as for the cyclone, it would probably be close to the aus spec ecu multi stock vs stock.. but it would not be possible to powerport / extrude hone a cyclone due to the butterfly setup..
unless you get bigger butterflies in order to seal that second runner after porting.. this would be very expensive...
it depends what you want..
top end or mid range, although the aus specs did have the best mid range in that manifold shootout!...
my goal was to maintain the mid range and increase the top end....
FYI, i had a stock AUS spec manifold power ported...
The flow rates of the stocker were already huge!
in comparison,
VL turbo's flow approx 280 cfm per runner
the vr4's unported flowed 415 cfm average
after the porting / extrude honing they each flowed approx 460 each..
for an N/A, 1cfm = 1hp supposably (potential)
as for the cyclone, it would probably be close to the aus spec ecu multi stock vs stock.. but it would not be possible to powerport / extrude hone a cyclone due to the butterfly setup..
unless you get bigger butterflies in order to seal that second runner after porting.. this would be very expensive...
it depends what you want..
top end or mid range, although the aus specs did have the best mid range in that manifold shootout!...
my goal was to maintain the mid range and increase the top end....
The flow rates of the stocker were already huge!
in comparison,
VL turbo's flow approx 280 cfm per runner
the vr4's unported flowed 415 cfm average
after the porting / extrude honing they each flowed approx 460 each..
for an N/A, 1cfm = 1hp supposably (potential)
as for the cyclone, it would probably be close to the aus spec ecu multi stock vs stock.. but it would not be possible to powerport / extrude hone a cyclone due to the butterfly setup..
unless you get bigger butterflies in order to seal that second runner after porting.. this would be very expensive...
it depends what you want..
top end or mid range, although the aus specs did have the best mid range in that manifold shootout!...
my goal was to maintain the mid range and increase the top end....
FYI, i had a stock AUS spec manifold power ported...
The flow rates of the stocker were already huge!
in comparison,
VL turbo's flow approx 280 cfm per runner
the vr4's unported flowed 415 cfm average
after the porting / extrude honing they each flowed approx 460 each..
for an N/A, 1cfm = 1hp supposably (potential)
as for the cyclone, it would probably be close to the aus spec ecu multi stock vs stock.. but it would not be possible to powerport / extrude hone a cyclone due to the butterfly setup..
unless you get bigger butterflies in order to seal that second runner after porting.. this would be very expensive...
it depends what you want..
top end or mid range, although the aus specs did have the best mid range in that manifold shootout!...
my goal was to maintain the mid range and increase the top end....
The flow rates of the stocker were already huge!
in comparison,
VL turbo's flow approx 280 cfm per runner
the vr4's unported flowed 415 cfm average
after the porting / extrude honing they each flowed approx 460 each..
for an N/A, 1cfm = 1hp supposably (potential)
as for the cyclone, it would probably be close to the aus spec ecu multi stock vs stock.. but it would not be possible to powerport / extrude hone a cyclone due to the butterfly setup..
unless you get bigger butterflies in order to seal that second runner after porting.. this would be very expensive...
it depends what you want..
top end or mid range, although the aus specs did have the best mid range in that manifold shootout!...
my goal was to maintain the mid range and increase the top end....
Port matching is all you would need to do to eliminate any steps in the airflow from the manifold to the head... afterall the air is forcefed into the head anyway so big porting isnt necessary. Have a look at V8 size intake ports, then look at the VR4 ports
Port matching is all you would need to do to eliminate any steps in the airflow from the manifold to the head... afterall the air is forcefed into the head anyway so big porting isnt necessary. Have a look at V8 size intake ports, then look at the VR4 ports
Port matching is all you would need to do to eliminate any steps in the airflow from the manifold to the head... afterall the air is forcefed into the head anyway so big porting isnt necessary. Have a look at V8 size intake ports, then look at the VR4 ports
far out, lol I'm a little confused. I have a jspec (CYCLONE) 4g63 n/a in my HG GSR.
I have the original busted head, with the ECI MULTI manifold on the bench.
Which one is better in standard form? Which one should I have cleaned up and fitted to my engine?
(or is it a question of do I want, response/mid range or top end power?)
I have the original busted head, with the ECI MULTI manifold on the bench.
Which one is better in standard form? Which one should I have cleaned up and fitted to my engine?
(or is it a question of do I want, response/mid range or top end power?)
rob323
Don't drive it, RALLY it!
In NA form I would think that air speed is more important than port size.
But this will also depend on what cams you are running.
Bigger isn't always better.
But this will also depend on what cams you are running.
Bigger isn't always better.
JayRome
Blurring the line between 1st to 3rd Gen engines..
GSRace just keep the Cyclone (jspec) intake on the engine it helps N/A down low torque with working butterflies, for the turbo cars i would use the N/A ECI multi intake for the bigger runners less hassels and unlikely to leak Vac/Boost ......
WRCVR4
Well-Known Member
Make sure you have the JSpec ECU, as it controls the butterfly's :wink:
rob323 said:
That is right, there is a happy medium to be found. A smaller diameter pipe will flow faster than a larger one - blow threw a macca's straw, then blow through a post pac tube.. random I kno, but heck, it's friday!
(This is the reason I'm getting a smaller exhaust. I lost torque years ago getting the 2.5" system on my car, despite what advice - I just wanted the same diameter as the exxtractor collector - Now gettin a 2.25" system, and trying to shut it up - it's way too loud.)
WRCVR4 said:
There's only 1 butterfly on mine - 63mm or 60mm?
