JUN GT Intake Manifold - It's finally here!

[NoHaveMSG]

How the heck is your torque curve so flat?!?!?!?!

What fuel?

A+ for effort, far more information then anyone else has ever posted about an intake manifold

[Jdmjunkie]

I don't care to much about numbers, that torque curve looks like a blast!

Also with reving a 8k are you on stock cams?

[RT-BRZ]

Very interesting and great work.

We know the current price of the product is high right now but is there a price point target in the future that would make this part a little less controversial?

[Goingnowherefast]

Great job following up with good dyno data.

Definitely reinforces my theory that after you've done the usual suspects for power (E85, Tune, Headers) that the best increase after that is really only upping your FD to a numerically higher FD.

[PulsarBeeerz]

Very interesting results! The area under the curve is noticeable. If I could make one suggestion for the future as you are clearly going all out. Ditch the TRD accordion coupler for a smooth silicone tube. I ran the STD TRD coupler and silicone coupler back2back X2 when I had the TRD intake. The tube always showed more MAF usage past 6500rpm. Not a tremendous amount but enough to warrant leaving it in. I used a 70mmID/76mmOD coupler 6" and trimmed as necessary.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

Very interesting results! The area under the curve is noticeable. If I could make one suggestion for the future as you are clearly going all out. Ditch the TRD accordion coupler for a smooth silicone tube. I ran the STD TRD coupler and silicone coupler back2back X2 when I had the TRD intake. The tube always showed more MAF usage past 6500rpm. Not a tremendous amount but enough to warrant leaving it in. I used a 70mmID/76mmOD coupler 6" and trimmed as necessary.

the 5hp/5ft lbs loss across entire powerband is impressive?

Pretty sure the 8k rev lower number line is the after.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by RT-BRZ

Very interesting and great work.

We know the current price of the product is high right now but is there a price point target in the future that would make this part a little less controversial?

Maybe between free to negative $100 would make it less controversial.

This has been discussed, tested, and manufacturers have tried to do the R&D and come up with all kinds of solutions. A lot of money to be made for an NA manifold that actually produces gains. The best that has been come up with is lengthening OEM runners (billet blocks) to shift the powerband.

Also going aluminum will cause more heat soak vs plastic manifold when actually getting on it beyond just 1 or 2 dyno pulls.

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

the 5hp/5ft lbs loss across entire powerband is impressive?

Pretty sure the 8k rev lower number line is the after.

What are you talking about? I said interesting.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

What are you talking about? I said interesting.

Technically you are correct.

"Very interesting results! The area under the curve is noticeable."

I guess could technically mean noticeably bad.
But reading it, at least to me it came across as you implying the area under the curve looks impressive.

Apologize if you meant the former not the later.

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Also going aluminum will cause more heat soak vs plastic manifold when actually getting on it beyond just 1 or 2 dyno pulls.

According to the guys at 949 Racing, this may not be true. Waiting to see what their testing looks like. It seems they intend to be pretty thorough.

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...&postcount=335

[PulsarBeeerz]

Originally Posted by 86TOYO2k17

Maybe between free to negative $100 would make it less controversial.

This has been discussed, tested, and manufacturers have tried to do the R&D and come up with all kinds of solutions. A lot of money to be made for an NA manifold that actually produces gains. The best that has been come up with is lengthening OEM runners (billet blocks) to shift the powerband.

Also going aluminum will cause more heat soak vs plastic manifold when actually getting on it beyond just 1 or 2 dyno pulls.

No, Aluminum conducts thermal energy better than plastic. That means it heats up faster and looses heat faster than plastic. The plastic IM will get just as hot... One of the members here took their car to the drag strip. With hot staging lanes and hot idles with both manifolds MY13 and MY17. He measured IM surfaces temps afterward on each setup. Both where 143-145° after passes..

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

According to the guys are 949 Racing, this may not be true. Waiting to see what their testing looks like. It seems they intend to be pretty thorough.

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...&postcount=335

They are now in a long list of potential manufacturers claiming to be working on something that so far has never ended up coming through to amount to anything.

But maybe they'll be the one to crack the code.

He does make a valid point about the aluminum cooling faster at WOT. However you'd need data to show how much hotter it gets off throttle vs how much faster it cools on throttle, vs how much of that heat being shed into the air raises the IATs.

The main concern I would have with manifold temps is just basic thermodynamic in the engine bay, temps rolling off to other components and systems in the engine bay heating up excessively and everything snow balling.

Also how much more does an aluminum manifold weigh vs OEM plastic one? Any gains would need to offset all of these down falls. and so far no one has been able to produce any gains as of yet let alone enough to over come the down falls not to mention justify the cost.

Billet blocks is/was an interesting solution by increasing runner length to shift powerband, but beyond that the manifold already has more than enough flow capacity and a pretty good straightforward efficient design, not a lot left on the table to optimize.

[86TOYO2k17]

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

No, Aluminum conducts thermal energy better than plastic. That means it heats up faster and looses heat faster than plastic. The plastic IM will get just as hot... One of the members here took their car to the drag strip. With hot staging lanes and hot idles with both manifolds MY13 and MY17. He measured IM surfaces temps afterward on each setup. Both where 143-145° after passes..

See post above,

But what about all other temps in the system and what about after say a track session with a lot of on and off throttle, not just a scenario perfectly designed to allow the aluminum one to perform as optimal as possible from a heat soak scenario IE only WOT the entire time in a straight line.

[prandelia]

Originally Posted by NoHaveMSG

How the heck is your torque curve so flat?!?!?!?!

What fuel?

A+ for effort, far more information then anyone else has ever posted about an intake manifold

E85

Originally Posted by Jdmjunkie

I don't care to much about numbers, that torque curve looks like a blast!

Also with reving a 8k are you on stock cams?

Yes. 2015+ valvetrain is a bit more robust than early cars. I don't plan to rev to 8K all the time, I just need those few extra RPM's for a few places on tracks now that I am geared shorter with 4.556. The goal is always to reap the acceleration benefits without having to upshift to the next gear.

Originally Posted by Goingnowherefast

Great job following up with good dyno data.

Definitely reinforces my theory that after you've done the usual suspects for power (E85, Tune, Headers) that the best increase after that is really only upping your FD to a numerically higher FD.

I've done everything. E85, tune, ACE 350, full 3" exhaust, TODA throttle body, Cusco high capacity coils....everything proven to make more power.

Originally Posted by PulsarBeeerz

Very interesting results! The area under the curve is noticeable. If I could make one suggestion for the future as you are clearly going all out. Ditch the TRD accordion coupler for a smooth silicone tube. I ran the STD TRD coupler and silicone coupler back2back X2 when I had the TRD intake. The tube always showed more MAF usage past 6500rpm. Not a tremendous amount but enough to warrant leaving it in. I used a 70mmID/76mmOD coupler 6" and trimmed as necessary.

Yeah, I was going to do that, but didn't have time. Now that the manifold sits lower, the "path" from the air intake to throttle body is now sloped downward, which certainly affects air flow. A smooth interior would smooth that back out and likely help considerably up top. I will make the change. I have another dyno test scheduled for March 31st, simply to test the results of putting 5W40 back in the motor for an apples to apples engine oil comparison. I bet that alone picks up 3-5hp.

There is a reason race cars (NASCAR for example) qualify on 0W20 or 0W30 and race on 20W50 or something similar. It makes alot more power.

The less HP you have, the MORE your dyno results are affected by engine oil viscosity and temperature.