Racer X Intake manifold design, development, and results

[Baron_T]

Many N.A. Porches (including the one I used to own) have intake manifolds with a pair of large reservoirs near the manifold intakes, and some sort of resonance balancer between the two reservoirs that is separate from the intake throttle body.

I suspect the reservoir-to-intake runners might act like short intakes. But this is just a suspicion; I never looked inside mine to see how it worked.

I can say that modifying the intake splitter (just downstream from the throttle body) by inserting a smoothed wedge to make more of a "Y" shape rather than the stock "T", helped torque.

Not sure how much of this could be made and sold without licencing their patents, but worth looking into I think.

[SuperTom]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

An alternative to the JUN IM is what I'm seeking. But rationality an extrude honed MY17 IM was my future choice.

I like the method you all are using however searching for gains in the torque dip was something even oem could never fix. Going catless with a UEL or 4-2-1 header solves this.

The potential buyer who is looking for a IM already has a catless header and tuning software of some sort. Without running a catless header your setup isnt close to representative of potential costumers who all do.

Your results will get even more interesting testing as a typical tuned system.

That's what im thinking. Most interested in this would already have headers/tune. This is the next step.

Tune is key. Most of the headers out there gain little on there own. But with a tune they show what they can do

[Lantanafrs2]

Header and e85 is all she wrote in terms of performance, naturally aspirated of course.

[Hawk77FT]

I was searching online the other day and came across this manifold that is pretty neat and looks like they have spent a lot of time on it.

https://www.amsperformance.com/cart/...rade-kit.html/
they even have velocity stacks inside.

Something to ponder on

[PulsarBeeerz]

I suppose I cant speak for everyone in what I want from a IM but this is the JUN with Crawford BPBs. A bit longer on the runners to bring down the power to usable oem valve train levels would be amazing.http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2799267

[Jeff@Racer X Fab]

Originally Posted by FRSBRZGT86FAN

Without a doubt this will stir interest. Especially with you guys being super transparent in the development process and saying the OEM manifold doesn't leave alot on the table. Some people don't want to spend the cash on the 2017+ red manifold and would like something like this with all the parts needed for install included and such. Also I can imagine CNC fabrication time is risky and may be expensive, so you might need to compare this all in cost to the cost of someone doing the OEM style red manifold install before mass market sale.

Also if someone like shiv from OFT can assist with OTS tunes for it and if the edits made can be done by everyone easily, it will without a doubt get buyers, I can imagine a uel, intake manifold and an OFT tune on a 2013-2016 car would be amazing. Everyone is looking for bolt on plug and play solutions these days anyway.

This was our hope, but the cost of the manifold while compared to the OEM red manifold would be considerably higher. Although I have still not found a direct comparison of the OEM plastic manifold compared to the OEM red manifold. I have noticed a lot of claims but no direct comparison if you have one I'd love to see it.

Originally Posted by churchx

Jeff: also what do you think of choosing different materials for prototypes? Plastic plenums, plastic/silicon hoses and such .. shouldn't it make much cheaper/quicker prototype turnaround (if not on-site adjustment)/requiring less work to test multiple configurations vs welded metallic one? Flexible hoses also should enable simpler testing of constructions less tied to cylinder location/manifold plenum size & shape, allowing eg. even longer runners, if one were to test longer then distance from cylinders and rigid plenum width. If some such temporary prototype of cut hoses config may show up promising, just then think of putting it into "iron", with putting extra length via extra bends, connection to back of plenum, not sides, for example.
Also .. do you still have stock resonators with your intake manifold or they are deleted? Shouldn't volume of them also be added to stock plenum volume, as it's "after" most restrictive bit, airfilter? That "reserve" probably will affect more throttle response, not flow

It's probably difficult to notice but we did use o-ring seals on the first few manifolds that allowed us to change plenums without making a completely new manifold. We did consider the silicone couplers, but decided against it as it would need to support the weight of the plenum. We do have the stock resonators on the air box as we were trying to keep the only changes to the manifold.

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

An alternative to the JUN IM is what I'm seeking. But rationality an extrude honed MY17 IM was my future choice.

I like the method you all are using however searching for gains in the torque dip was something even oem could never fix. Going catless with a UEL or 4-2-1 header solves this.

The potential buyer who is looking for a IM already has a catless header and tuning software of some sort. Without running a catless header your setup isnt close to representative of potential costumers who all do.

Your results will get even more interesting testing as a typical tuned system.

I appreciate the input, and you make a valid point. Anyone who would be considering an intake manifold probably already does have at least a tune and some type of exhaust manifold. The Jun manifold is about 3 times more than we planned to sell this for.

Originally Posted by DarkPira7e

Any plans to test this with forced induction upon completion? I'd be interested to see the results, and the ease of access to the intake ports would make resolving vacuum leaks there much easier..
Looks extreme, it's shiny, let's do it.

Currently no, but that may change in the future.

Originally Posted by Baron_T

Many N.A. Porches (including the one I used to own) have intake manifolds with a pair of large reservoirs near the manifold intakes, and some sort of resonance balancer between the two reservoirs that is separate from the intake throttle body.

I suspect the reservoir-to-intake runners might act like short intakes. But this is just a suspicion; I never looked inside mine to see how it worked.

I can say that modifying the intake splitter (just downstream from the throttle body) by inserting a smoothed wedge to make more of a "Y" shape rather than the stock "T", helped torque.

Not sure how much of this could be made and sold without licencing their patents, but worth looking into I think.

I believe Eric from Verus (at the time Velox) tested a manifold design that was similar to what you are describing. They did not provide any dyno testing but stated that it made power in the bottom end but lost power up top.

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

I suppose I cant speak for everyone in what I want from a IM but this is the JUN with Crawford BPBs. A bit longer on the runners to bring down the power to usable oem valve train levels would be amazing.http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2799267

I took a look at the thread but looks like it made an additional 10 whp but lost torque in areas and netted the same torque near redline. I'm assuming this was also tuned?

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by Jeff@Racer X Fab

This was our hope, but the cost of the manifold while compared to the OEM red manifold would be considerably higher. Although I have still not found a direct comparison of the OEM plastic manifold compared to the OEM red manifold. I have noticed a lot of claims but no direct comparison if you have one I'd love to see it.

Red is the red MY17 and blue the black MY13-16 IM

Originally Posted by Jeff@Racer X Fab

I appreciate the input, and you make a valid point. Anyone who would be considering an intake manifold probably already does have at least a tune and some type of exhaust manifold. The Jun manifold is about 3 times more than we planned to sell this for.


I took a look at the thread but looks like it made an additional 10 whp but lost torque in areas and netted the same torque near redline. I'm assuming

this was also tuned?

Yes sir tuned with Ecutek and 93oct. Shifting that whole power and torque band left 500rpm would make a world of difference. Easier said than done I know. With the amount of RnD you all put into your intake system for this chassis you seem up to the task.

[Clutch Dog]

One thing I want to ask on, and this is something as a result of messing with the older reverse intake manifold design on the series 2 boxer engines (ej251,253) is flow

I had a bolt on 2.5RS with an "extrude honed" intake manifold but I had told the shop (bonehead performance) to pay less attention to port matching it with the gaskets and more on flow numbers to try to balance flow at a given cfm.

typically all generations of the series 2 boxer had issues with cyl number 4 running lean due to intake design, and that was the limiting cylinder for making power both NA and boosted.

One tuner in washington swore up and down I had thrown cams in my 251 and didnt tell him since the flow numbers and his "off the shelf" tunes didnt work as a base for my engine. I eventually told him it was the intake spacer and flow match porting I had done with an equal length exhaust header with a 18 inch merge point. ( TWE is the brand that did most of the bolt on stuff for NA subaru engines)

So this is what I wanted to query on. Could you test the flow numbers per runner and modify your intake design based on that? Also changing running lengths and angle too?

an old hot rodding trick was to involve a dual plane runner so left bank and right bank cylingers where drawing from different "volumn pools" while running ( I forget the split but air going into one cylinder wouldnt have to be sucked into the next cylinders intake cycle.

[Dr. BRZ]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

Red is the red MY17 and blue the black MY13-16 IM





Yes sir tuned with Ecutek and 93oct. Shifting that whole power and torque band left 500rpm would make a world of difference. Easier said than done I know. With the amount of RnD you all put into your intake system for this chassis you seem up to the task.

Ahhh im pretty sure you meant we need to see it tuned on e85! Forget 91 and 93. Lol

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by Dr. BRZ

Ahhh im pretty sure you meant we need to see it tuned on e85! Forget 91 and 93. Lol

Wouldn't that have been nice! Easily 220whp+. But man, all that $$$$ just to equal a bolt on S2K. I understand why he decided to go big with the turbo kit.

[Calum]

Originally Posted by Dr. BRZ

Ahhh im pretty sure you meant we need to see it tuned on e85! Forget 91 and 93. Lol

A large part of the world doesn't have E85 available to them.

[Turdinator]

Is there a reason no one has made a design similar to the Porsche manifolds? Surely they know a thing or two about making power from a boxer?

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by Turdinator

Is there a reason no one has made a design similar to the Porsche manifolds? Surely they know a thing or two about making power from a boxer?

They have but its $3600.. Even looks similar to Porsche ones.

[Lantanafrs2]

Crawford is a pretty smart guy