JUN GT Intake Manifold - It's finally here!

[prandelia]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

And how much about the custom tune , dyno time etc? It's not plug & play ...

My car is already tuned, so it took maybe 2 hours for tweaking of my current tune. It's just a simple flat hourly fee, pretty cheap actually.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by prandelia

For the last 2 years with my OE manifold and stock redline, the 350 is the best all around for NA motor. Now that I'm going to 8K, the 250 might be worth a try. That is something that could be tested relatively easily on the dyno. We'll see.

The 350 was designed for the daily driver enthusiasts to eliminate the torque dip. and create the most overall power under the entire curve (idle to redline) The 250 shifts the powerband up about 3-400rpm, and should make more power everywhere above 5500 rpm, and hold onto the power slightly longer. Even if short shifting at 7k you should never be under 5k rpm. So for racing scenarios the 250 is the best for NA. For casual daily driving the 350 is. I’d even say with 8k redline the 150 would be the best if you always shifted at 8k. You’d need to look at what has the most power in the powerband (rpm range between shifts) with stock redline its 250.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Even if short shifting at 7k you should never be under 5k rpm.

That is not how the real world works. Maybe, maybe, if all your gearing was perfectly setup for a specific track that had no long section of corner combinations that would prevent you from shifting it could work. Or maybe if you are playing a video game and you have flappy paddles.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by prandelia

My car is already tuned, so it took maybe 2 hours for tweaking of my current tune. It's just a simple flat hourly fee, pretty cheap actually.

Ok. I've just seen your dyno numbers. If you want to work on the intake, then you need a higher lift cam and stronger springs for the higher revs. It won't be safe to rev up to 8k with stock springs cause of valve float.

My 2¢

[AsphaltJ]

I don't understand the need to argue so much about this mod. The OP decided to go ahead and show the dynos with his money. That's what we were all asking for no? I'm interested to see what is the maximum output NA from the 2.0l engine.

I'll probably switch to the 2.4l in few years to have an NA engine with more power, but I think this thread is really interesting.

Thanks OP!

[Goingnowherefast]

Originally Posted by nikitopo

Ok. I've just seen your dyno numbers. If you want to work on the intake, then you need a higher lift cam and stronger springs for the higher revs. It won't be safe to rev up to 8k with stock springs cause of valve float.

My 2¢

Just one data point, I've been revving to 8K for two seasons and the engine is still going strong. Worth it to note, it's only on a couple tracks that I have to rev out to 8K.

[prandelia]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Sitting in a staging lane with a cold engine purposely idling to warm it up isn’t generating heat like stop and go with a warmed up engine that you don’t cool down between runs. unless you’re doing back to back hot lap it’s a bad. The specific example didn’t have details other then going down a track then checking temps. So be could have gone down with oil at 160 barely in staging lane or gone down at 220 sitting for an hour. 10-15seconds of 100% WOT will be more beneficial for AI as it sheds faster but what about 5sec on 5sec off 10 times in a row. There are other people who tested it with plastic vs aluminum intakes and aluminum was always hotter.

You even said aluminum is better at shedding heat IE giving off it’s heat to everything else... which was my main concern i stated in my previous post about AI heat soak. You’d need to look at IAT, oil, coolant temps (not just manifold temp) in a perfect test environment to see if over enough time the AI had any detriment, even if 1F hotter it’s a negative not being compensated by any positive.

I never even said it was a huge deal like heatsoak will rob you of 20hp or something.

You know how many people go to great lengths on an NA track car to lose 1 lbs?

Is the potential for heatsoak a huge deal no, but is it a good thing no. Most people prefer plastic to AI on intake components.
Is 1 lbs a huge deal, no, but it is heavier so it’s a negative even if small.

So let’s break it down.

$3,000+
Lose 5hp
Gain 1+ lbs of weight
Potentially having the Al heat up other components as it heats up faster and then sheds it’s heat to other components quicker.

The last two points are very minimal not drastic issues (that you seem fixated on arguing about instead of the first two major issues.), if it gained 5hp instead of losing 5hp it would more than offset the last two, but they are still negative concerns that add up, and considering no one has proven to make any gains it seems it is all negatives, and then you look at price... I just don’t see a silver lining on this product.

You clearly don't understand just how much the 4 factors I listed affect dyno numbers. I do, I've seen it, on my car. I've paid to test it. I've had my car on the dyno countless times testing all kinds of things. Have you?

This manifold was never going to magically make 10-15hp on a car that already makes 200whp....so if I have a bunch of new conditions that will only show hp loss on a dyno, then I certainly didn't expect this to show a 10hp gain. I was honestly hoping to break even, which I know would be a net gain, and I forgot that I had 10W50 in the car instead of 5W40. That's a big deal. 10W50 is 27% MORE viscous at 212F...so when your oil temp is below 212, it affects it even more, because its a 10W. Asking your motor and oil pump to use ~30% more viscous oil without losing 2-3% power is living in Lalla land. TMG in Europe switched from 10W60 in factory race cars to 5W50 simply to make more power, that's it. I know because I talk directly with them.

I'm going to switch back to 5W40, with only that change, and dyno it again, just to prove I can pick up 3-5whp just on oil viscosity alone. If I can make 200 whp, and still hold on to power better up top, then this obviously works. The powerband already shows it does hold up better, and given how the entire curve is down about the same, lends itself to driveline/friction losses. That's why it wanted more fuel.

Not to mention, the R&P has changed, and that seems to affect HP readings on inertia dynos.
So if I can make the same peak HP, with better curve up top, then I know the car will be significantly faster as it now has 4.556 putting that hp to the ground better than a 4.3. It's very simple.

The manifold wrapped in gold foil to further discourage heat soak, which certainly works. Not to mention, I have vented hood, so my under hood temps are not a concern for my application. Heat soak discussion is honestly pretty useless.

[prandelia]

Originally Posted by Goingnowherefast

Just one data point, I've been revving to 8K for two seasons and the engine is still going strong. Worth it to note, it's only on a couple tracks that I have to rev out to 8K.

THIS. Exactly. I will say, you do have the V3 version of the valvetrain which is arguably the best, but the 2015 version seems very robust as well, and I'm not concerned about it. My plan is to eventually just swap to an entire 2017+ motor anyway. They are very reliable, and instead of spending a ton of money to crack them open for heavier springs and other shit, I just bought this manifold to test.

That is the whole point. It's not to rev to 8K EVERY shift, it's only for when I need to stretch a gear. I have already painstakingly calculated that by going from a 4.3 to 4.556 if I simply move redline to 8K, I can hold the same gear to some of these critical corners/brake zones.

That means you reap the full benefit of accelerating harder in the same gear via the 4.556, but you don't lose any acceleration by having to shift sooner.

That's how actual race teams decide on which gearing is most ideal.... Of course we have to all make compromises, but my calculations based on MPH and gears show that the 4.556 w/ 8K will work best for all my usual tracks.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Goingnowherefast

Just one data point, I've been revving to 8K for two seasons and the engine is still going strong.

Originally Posted by prandelia

THIS. Exactly. I will say, you do have the V3 version of the valvetrain which is arguably the best, but the 2015 version seems very robust as well, and I'm not concerned about it. My plan is to eventually just swap to an entire 2017+ motor anyway.

(sad 2013 engine noises)

[RayRay88]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Sitting in a staging lane with a cold engine purposely idling to warm it up isn’t generating heat like stop and go with a warmed up engine that you don’t cool down between runs. unless you’re doing back to back hot lap it’s a bad. The specific example didn’t have details other then going down a track then checking temps. So be could have gone down with oil at 160 barely in staging lane or gone down at 220 sitting for an hour. 10-15seconds of 100% WOT will be more beneficial for AI as it sheds faster but what about 5sec on 5sec off 10 times in a row. There are other people who tested it with plastic vs aluminum intakes and aluminum was always hotter.

You even said aluminum is better at shedding heat IE giving off it’s heat to everything else... which was my main concern i stated in my previous post about AI heat soak. You’d need to look at IAT, oil, coolant temps (not just manifold temp) in a perfect test environment to see if over enough time the AI had any detriment, even if 1F hotter it’s a negative not being compensated by any positive.

I never even said it was a huge deal like heatsoak will rob you of 20hp or something.

You know how many people go to great lengths on an NA track car to lose 1 lbs?

Is the potential for heatsoak a huge deal no, but is it a good thing no. Most people prefer plastic to AI on intake components.
Is 1 lbs a huge deal, no, but it is heavier so it’s a negative even if small.

So let’s break it down.

$3,000+
Lose 5hp
Gain 1+ lbs of weight
Potentially having the Al heat up other components as it heats up faster and then sheds it’s heat to other components quicker.

The last two points are very minimal not drastic issues (that you seem fixated on arguing about instead of the first two major issues.), if it gained 5hp instead of losing 5hp it would more than offset the last two, but they are still negative concerns that add up, and considering no one has proven to make any gains it seems it is all negatives, and then you look at price... I just don’t see a silver lining on this product.

If Aluminum and Metal Intake components were so inferior, they wouldn't be widely used in automotive and motorsports. You know who and or why they use plastic intakes? Low cost and entry level components. You can injection/blow mold a few thousand intakes for the fraction of a cost of a cast or welded manifold.

[nikitopo]

Originally Posted by AsphaltJ

I don't understand the need to argue so much about this mod. The OP decided to go ahead and show the dynos with his money. That's what we were all asking for no? I'm interested to see what is the maximum output NA from the 2.0l engine.

I'll probably switch to the 2.4l in few years to have an NA engine with more power, but I think this thread is really interesting.

Thanks OP!

I'm not saying it is not worth it, but if someone goes into that route then he has to do it all the way. Sure someone could rev up to 8k with stock (weak) valve springs as much as he likes or needed for some race track, but then he'll just have a ticking bomb.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by prandelia

You clearly don't understand just how much the 4 factors I listed affect dyno numbers. I do, I've seen it, on my car. I've paid to test it. I've had my car on the dyno countless times testing all kinds of things. Have you?

This manifold was never going to magically make 10-15hp on a car that already makes 200whp....so if I have a bunch of new conditions that will only show hp loss on a dyno, then I certainly didn't expect this to show a 10hp gain. I was honestly hoping to break even, which I know would be a net gain, and I forgot that I had 10W50 in the car instead of 5W40. That's a big deal. 10W50 is 27% MORE viscous at 212F...so when your oil temp is below 212, it affects it even more, because its a 10W. Asking your motor and oil pump to use ~30% more viscous oil without losing 2-3% power is living in Lalla land. TMG in Europe switched from 10W60 in factory race cars to 5W50 simply to make more power, that's it. I know because I talk directly with them.

I'm going to switch back to 5W40, with only that change, and dyno it again, just to prove I can pick up 3-5whp just on oil viscosity alone. If I can make 200 whp, and still hold on to power better up top, then this obviously works. The powerband already shows it does hold up better, and given how the entire curve is down about the same, lends itself to driveline/friction losses. That's why it wanted more fuel.

Not to mention, the R&P has changed, and that seems to affect HP readings on inertia dynos.
So if I can make the same peak HP, with better curve up top, then I know the car will be significantly faster as it now has 4.556 putting that hp to the ground better than a 4.3. It's very simple.

The manifold wrapped in gold foil to further discourage heat soak, which certainly works. Not to mention, I have vented hood, so my under hood temps are not a concern for my application. Heat soak discussion is honestly pretty useless.

Until a direct swap 1-1 comparison it’s all conjecture.

I read your points and they would contribute, although I’ve seen consistent 5hp gains on dynos dropping ambient 20F which you said your after was 20f colder. So that would be in favor of the jun helping it.

Even if those other factors contributed a 10hp loss which would be incredibly extreme, you gain back 5f from ambient, so you’re variables have a 5hp net reduction, you’re after dyno lost 5hp, so based on this the manifold contributed zero change. So best case $3,000 to really gain nothing.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

That is not how the real world works. Maybe, maybe, if all your gearing was perfectly setup for a specific track that had no long section of corner combinations that would prevent you from shifting it could work. Or maybe if you are playing a video game and you have flappy paddles.

Over the course of a run, what percentage of time are you at WOT above 5k vs below 5k rpm?

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Over the course of a run, what percentage of time are you at WOT above 5k vs below 5k rpm?

Couldn't tell you what percentage, I don't have RPM logs. What does it matter though? There are situations where you may have to leave the car in a higher gear because you can not shift in the sector without loosing time, but a lower gear would put you into the limiter. Not that uncommon to drop down to about 4k rpm on any of the tracks I have been to.