Intake Manifold test - JMF / PMW + more
- Thread starter bazeng
- Start date
Help Support 4GTuner:
Details of test:
JMF Drag Manifold Large Port:
This manifold flowed the highest out of the bunch. The plenum volume was the greatest of them all. We had a few issues with this intake manifold on the flow bench as it had qutie a large amount of turbulence within the plenum chamber. You could hear the helicopter like sound when the flow bench was on full blast. The effects of this on an engine would probably cause tuning difficulties. Andrew was cluey enough to solve the problem. He quickly used some pipes to change the entry angle which quickly resulted with the loss of turbulance which in turn increased the amount of flow. I'm not quite sure if JMF is aware of the issue but its a real concern with the performance side of things. Apart from that, quality of welds are excellent, flow was very good and thickness of the sheet alloy is good.
Performance Metal Works (Small Port):
This manifold flowed very well. It had very even distribution and flow a large amount of air. The quality is high, the welds are fantastic. The only downside was that the flange to the head was warped. Also the sheet alloy was on the thin side, but part from that, nothing negative could be said about this manifold.
Magnus Manifold (Large Port):
-to be added--
VR4 Cyclone JSPEC Large Port:
We tested this manifold with the ports closed and open. With the butterflies OPEN, it flowed significantly lower than the ASPEC manifolds. With the option to increase the airspeed by closing the butterflies, the benifit would be bottom end torque so it would be greatly suited to a street car with acceleration in mind.
So for those with aftermarket ECU's, It'll be worth the time and money to get this feature working either with a wastegate actuator of some sort or the use of the stock vac chamber and solenoid.
Ideally you would want the butterflies closed at 0psi or vac, and once boost starts to build, open the ports up. This will also help spool up the turbo sooner.
VR4 ECI Multi ASPEC Large Port:
This manifold is huge for a standard cast item. In comparison, a VL manifold flows about 180cfm per runner. I myself have made over 300kw's at the wheels with this manifold.
VR4 ECI Multi ASPEC Large Port (extrude honed, XF TB):
Flowing almost in the 400cfm range (approx 15% increase over stock), this manifold could be the solution for those that like to drive on the street and also take on the track. Although extrude honing is quite an expensive practice, it keeps the cops at bay and allows you to maintain the stock look. The cost to do this is about $800.00. Used by many rally cars, extrude honing can be done also to exhaust and turbos.
Hyundai ECI 2000 MULTI:
This was tested just because it was sitting in the garage and could possibly be used on an EVO with some port work to match the evo head port shape. Benifits would include larger plenum than EVO1-2-3 plenums and also larger overal port size which could improve top end / mid range.
I'm not sure how much benifit there is to the small evo ports over the large vr4 ports, but I have had an experience with 2 vehicles, both very similar spec, both using similar turbos and cams. The only differences were exhaust manifold, intake manifold (large vs small) and cooler setups. In this case, the VR4 large ports spooled up about 800rpm earlier and made more power throughout the entire rev range.
JMF Drag Manifold Large Port:
This manifold flowed the highest out of the bunch. The plenum volume was the greatest of them all. We had a few issues with this intake manifold on the flow bench as it had qutie a large amount of turbulence within the plenum chamber. You could hear the helicopter like sound when the flow bench was on full blast. The effects of this on an engine would probably cause tuning difficulties. Andrew was cluey enough to solve the problem. He quickly used some pipes to change the entry angle which quickly resulted with the loss of turbulance which in turn increased the amount of flow. I'm not quite sure if JMF is aware of the issue but its a real concern with the performance side of things. Apart from that, quality of welds are excellent, flow was very good and thickness of the sheet alloy is good.
Performance Metal Works (Small Port):
This manifold flowed very well. It had very even distribution and flow a large amount of air. The quality is high, the welds are fantastic. The only downside was that the flange to the head was warped. Also the sheet alloy was on the thin side, but part from that, nothing negative could be said about this manifold.
Magnus Manifold (Large Port):
-to be added--
VR4 Cyclone JSPEC Large Port:
We tested this manifold with the ports closed and open. With the butterflies OPEN, it flowed significantly lower than the ASPEC manifolds. With the option to increase the airspeed by closing the butterflies, the benifit would be bottom end torque so it would be greatly suited to a street car with acceleration in mind.
So for those with aftermarket ECU's, It'll be worth the time and money to get this feature working either with a wastegate actuator of some sort or the use of the stock vac chamber and solenoid.
Ideally you would want the butterflies closed at 0psi or vac, and once boost starts to build, open the ports up. This will also help spool up the turbo sooner.
VR4 ECI Multi ASPEC Large Port:
This manifold is huge for a standard cast item. In comparison, a VL manifold flows about 180cfm per runner. I myself have made over 300kw's at the wheels with this manifold.
VR4 ECI Multi ASPEC Large Port (extrude honed, XF TB):
Flowing almost in the 400cfm range (approx 15% increase over stock), this manifold could be the solution for those that like to drive on the street and also take on the track. Although extrude honing is quite an expensive practice, it keeps the cops at bay and allows you to maintain the stock look. The cost to do this is about $800.00. Used by many rally cars, extrude honing can be done also to exhaust and turbos.
Hyundai ECI 2000 MULTI:
This was tested just because it was sitting in the garage and could possibly be used on an EVO with some port work to match the evo head port shape. Benifits would include larger plenum than EVO1-2-3 plenums and also larger overal port size which could improve top end / mid range.
I'm not sure how much benifit there is to the small evo ports over the large vr4 ports, but I have had an experience with 2 vehicles, both very similar spec, both using similar turbos and cams. The only differences were exhaust manifold, intake manifold (large vs small) and cooler setups. In this case, the VR4 large ports spooled up about 800rpm earlier and made more power throughout the entire rev range.
CLuTZ
Diamonds are forever....
If anyone is interested: the Performance Metalworks intake is for sale. It suits EVO heads and can be yours for $1250, minus throttlebody.
Im impressed with the PMW intake and the even amount of flow to all its runners 
. Also, does the JMF drag version have larger runners and ports than the stock head ports can support which contributes to its higher cfm - ie would the intake ports of the cylinder head require to be ported out to suit it or is it a bolt on jobbie?
. Also, does the JMF drag version have larger runners and ports than the stock head ports can support which contributes to its higher cfm - ie would the intake ports of the cylinder head require to be ported out to suit it or is it a bolt on jobbie?
jimmyg
Well-Known Member
EVO-00X said:
Shocked with some of variation across the runners. How much would 19CFM's effect the fuel air ratio you think?
The stock JMFD manifold is 4.1% and the stock starion is 21.4%!
Im impressed with the PMW intake and the even amount of flow to all its runners
The JMF manifold is a bolt on jobbie (port wise).
Shocked with some of variation across the runners. How much would 19CFM's effect the fuel air ratio you think?
The stock JMFD manifold is 4.1% and the stock starion is 21.4%!
The variation of runners will cause certain cylinders to run leaner / richer that others... 1 CFM is approx 1 HP in n/a applications.
Generally when tuning a motor with uneven flow to cylinders, you will get uneven burning in cylinders which may cause plugs to foul in those cylinders getting less air and more fuel..
To overcome this, you could try to trim the injector with aftermarket cylinders etc.
CLuTZ
Diamonds are forever....
bazeng said:
+1
Baz- I will put the big port PMW intake up for testing when I get it (will be back from NZ late sep).
We should also do an EVO 1-3 and RVR intake aswell if anyone has spares lying around.....
3zercrowd
Donating Member
MDK87 said:Bazeng, thanks for sharing this info.
Yeah thanks Baz, but has anyone dropped off some gsr manifolds yet?
Hi Baz. He's using a flowbench at the head side of the flange for each runner isnt he? So basically if you just had 4 equal length runners with no plenum attached they would all flow the same with just open space on the other end of the runner; and if the plenum chamber was an equal size all the way across all 4 ports they should all have virtually equal flow as well.
I dont doubt that tapered plenums such as the Magnus would suck less from number 1 cylinder because of the less volume on the other end of the runner on number 1. However I am pretty sure you've still got to factor in forced/compressed air velocity and angle entering in from the throttle body end and being sucked into the runners and into head during operation.
Perhaps the only way to tell for sure is to test each manifold on one engine one after the other with dyno results
I dont doubt that tapered plenums such as the Magnus would suck less from number 1 cylinder because of the less volume on the other end of the runner on number 1. However I am pretty sure you've still got to factor in forced/compressed air velocity and angle entering in from the throttle body end and being sucked into the runners and into head during operation.
Perhaps the only way to tell for sure is to test each manifold on one engine one after the other with dyno results
The theory is (with his experience and testing), that the turbocharger/supercharger simply compresses the air which makes it more dense, but the theory of the engine being a large air pump doesn't change. The engine still draws the air in like a big air pump (which is what a motor theoretically is)
A good test would be to dyno an engine and monitor EGT's on each cylinder to see if the theory / results on the bench is true.
A good test would be to dyno an engine and monitor EGT's on each cylinder to see if the theory / results on the bench is true.
Dont pay attention to my quick 'at home' throttle hole enlargment from 65mm to just over 70mm as it does the job lol.
Cheers for the test Baz!
Im still trying to get my head around the differences between XF 70mm tb and a billet 70mm tb on the Magnus as there's a few ups and downs there between them in the runners from the use of a different TB alone. i.e. 1 & 3 flow most with the XF, 2 and 4 flow most with the 70mm billet and elbow.
But the biggest question is the number 3 cylinder. Look at the 2 rows in that spreadsheet for the Magnus manifold only for a sec:
Runner 1: XF TB 511cfm / Custom TB 487cfm = 24cfm difference
Runner 2: XF TB 491cfm / Custom TB 510cfm = 19cfm difference
Runner 3: XF TB 500cfm / Custom TB 452cfm = 48cfm difference
Runner 4: XF TB 420cfm / Custom TB 442cfm = 22cfm difference
Runner 1,2 and 4 are within 5cfm difference from eachother when swapping over throttle bodies only, whereas runner 3 is way out? Wonder why that is?
The 452cfm figure appears out of place as the differences have been approx 5cfm between both throttle bodies in all other runners. Are you sure the Magnus number 3 cylinder with custom 70mm TB shouldnt read 482cfm (making it a 18cfm difference)? was the 452cfm a typo on the numeric keypad? lol... Doesnt make sense that there is a huge cfm drop in #3 just by changing TB does it?
Cheers for the test Baz!
Im still trying to get my head around the differences between XF 70mm tb and a billet 70mm tb on the Magnus as there's a few ups and downs there between them in the runners from the use of a different TB alone. i.e. 1 & 3 flow most with the XF, 2 and 4 flow most with the 70mm billet and elbow.
But the biggest question is the number 3 cylinder. Look at the 2 rows in that spreadsheet for the Magnus manifold only for a sec:
Runner 1: XF TB 511cfm / Custom TB 487cfm = 24cfm difference
Runner 2: XF TB 491cfm / Custom TB 510cfm = 19cfm difference
Runner 3: XF TB 500cfm / Custom TB 452cfm = 48cfm difference
Runner 4: XF TB 420cfm / Custom TB 442cfm = 22cfm difference
Runner 1,2 and 4 are within 5cfm difference from eachother when swapping over throttle bodies only, whereas runner 3 is way out? Wonder why that is?
The 452cfm figure appears out of place as the differences have been approx 5cfm between both throttle bodies in all other runners. Are you sure the Magnus number 3 cylinder with custom 70mm TB shouldnt read 482cfm (making it a 18cfm difference)? was the 452cfm a typo on the numeric keypad? lol... Doesnt make sense that there is a huge cfm drop in #3 just by changing TB does it?
3zercrowd
Donating Member
I must say for the stock TB test on the cyclone, I am quite impressed by the closeness of the results!
(less than 3CFM difference and great for tuning/equality)
Great work Baz
Shame about the lack of gsr gear there though.....
(less than 3CFM difference and great for tuning/equality)
Great work Baz
Shame about the lack of gsr gear there though.....
