New n54 Intake manifold to enter the market.

[Aaron]

So why are the runners round as opposed to oval? Why are they small? Why are they long? Why is the plenum a forward facing design?

All of this was done to look good, not to perform the best, because all of that will hurt performance potential.

 

[fmorelli]

I thought runner lengths, hemholtz, venturis, et al were not such a factor in a forced induction motor? Especially hemholtz. My vague recollection of reading, back in the day, was that once boost was in play most of this went out to door, restriction being the significant issue. I'm sure tests have been done to bear these things out ... if anyone has anything interesting to share ...

Filippo

 

[Torgus]

So why are the runners round as opposed to oval? Why are they small? Why are they long? Why is the plenum a forward facing design?

Aaron I think a forward facing tapered rear intake manifold with velocity stacks spaced off the floor is generally considered to be the best intake plenum manifold design FI or NA, in general. I don't know why so many manifolds put the trumpets on the floor or do a reverse trumpet like docrace.

Regarding the runners that is what I was thinking, that you want everything port matched in size to the head & gasket. I'm guessing that you would also want it designed with matching port designs aka oval vs. round to help the airflow best into the head and then combustion chamber. If the head is oval make the plenum stacks oval as well. Again just a thought on the shape of the trumpets in the plenum. Probably not a huge difference but the less shape transitions the better.

Air at the floor and walls of the intake manifold flow slooow which is why they are usually spaced off like in these images:

Tapered vs. non:

Now granted this flow simulation does not take into consideration that not all the valves are open at the same time. But I think it does show it should evenly distributor the air better than a non tapered log style.

I'm not sure all FI applications should have a short runner length but I could be wrong. Be interesting to hear the science behind the length those chose, if any.




@martymil
Do you know what the volume of the plenum is?

As far as the backfire burst plate any reason you don't go spring style vs 1 time use? All you would need is a 40 psi spring right? Assuming you are not boosting close to 40psi.

Follow up question why would you put it on the bottom of the manifold if it is a 1 time use safety feature? Just for looks? Having it top mounted would allow for a quick replacement at the track or in your garage. I know it doesn't look as nice up top but it is a lot more functional. If you wanted something that looked 'good' on the top of the manifold the below burst panels I think would look better:

Nitrous Burst Panels
There are two types, the spring style pictured here, which require no service after runs since they automatically reset, and the original membrane style. The membrane style burst panels can be quickly replaced. If a backfire occurs, new panels can quickly be installed to get the car ready for the next round. Typically the spring style are incorporated into an intake manifold design, while the membrane type are available as part of a Nitrous Pro-Flow carburetor spacer, or nitrous plate.

 

[The Convert]

Generally speaking, FI cars want short, high-flowing intake runners as the entire theory of N/A intake manifold design is irrelevant.

The plenum now needs to be modeled for consistent flow to all cylinders under pressure.

They obviously didn't design this manifold with any thought to the runners or plenum.

Given the oil filter housing is in the way of a forward facing manifold in front of the cylinder 1 runner, it looks like the runners are as short they can be without relocating the oil filter housing assembly. Think about the system more man. You can design the best manifold in the world, but if it won’t fit in the space, then who gives a fuck.

 

[EOSpeed]

I usually don't stick my nose in other peoples products, but I must agree with the comments on changing the shape of the runners especially right before they enter into the cylinder head. I'm not saying it doesn't work, but you are creating a lot of velocity changes right before the air enters the cylinder. On our manifold we use the rectangular port shape all the way to the cylinder, varying it by a proprietary amount. This allows the air to hit higher velocity on its entry to the cylinder head, without much turbulence. Oh and btw we do have the shortest runners available on an aftermarket intake manifold currently

Other than that it looks good!

 

[Aaron]

The problem with forward facing manifolds is they traditionally have less air distribution to the front cylinders, as your images show. Add to that the awkward shape needed on the #1, and you see a further drop in flow and distribution to that cylinder.

If this manifold includes trumpets, which I doubt, they should be off the floor like you said.

When the turbos are not spooled yet, runners are designed similarly to N/A, as the concepts are the same of course. So longer runners, and tuned lengths, can and will improve spool time and transient response. However those runners then become a heavy restriction under boost, at which point the best design is no intake runner at all, just a trumpet into a dual plenum. I just figure since we're spending $2,000 on an intake manifold that will barely gain 20hp on a 700whp car, the on-boost performance is more critical than off, thus that entire intake design is poor at best.

I'm working on designing my own intake manifold right now, though don't expect it'll be done anytime soon. It'll have independent throttle bodies, trumpets, and a dual chanber design. I've got an intake flange, my next step is picking up a set of S54 throttle bodies. Unfortunately people think they are made of gold even though they're pretty much useless outside of an S54.

 

[martymil]

We can do any burst panel or spring loaded one, just send it to us and we will mount it where ever you like

I'm mounting mine underneath to get that clean look.

The fabricator is going to get back to me sometime today with the plenum volume.

This is our test mule and this time of year he is crazy busy.

Be patient guys, I want to test this manifold thoroughly and sort out any kind of fitment issues if any.

First run of manifolds wont be till january as long as there is no hold ups

 

[Hydra Performance]

The extra-long runners are the price you pay for a Forward facing design on the N54. It is simply not possible to get them down to a suitably short length, while leaving enough room for the plenum without fouling the oil filter housing. Therefore the ideal design for the N54 would have to use a center-fed plenum. I am working on such a design, and of course the devil is in the details, but it goes without saying that you want a gradual transition from oval to round with the right amount (not too little, and not too much) taper.

 

[Torgus]

Given the oil filter housing is in the way of a forward facing manifold in front of the cylinder 1 runner, it looks like the runners are as short they can be without relocating the oil filter housing assembly. Think about the system more man. You can design the best manifold in the world, but if it won’t fit in the space, then who gives a fuck.

Good point.

A billet OFH that just pushes the filter 1-2 inches further forward...I bet people would pay for that to have the best intake manifold design. I could be wrong but if you are spending 1.5-2k on a intake manifold and chargepipe I bet people would pay $500 more for a relocated OFH. The stock coolant and oil lines should have enough play imo. It would also be an excuse for people who have cars without an oil cooler, I know that is a small market, but still. Then again if you are going through the hassle of moving it I am sure something could be done to make the OFHG more reliable and the entire thing a better design including getting rid of the cartridge style oil filter if you wanted, AN fittings, redo the oil cooler valve, etc.

As was mentioned in another thread some people change to the aftermarket oil filter cap/covers because the stock style tool can't fit in there because of clearance with an aftermarket intake manifold like the fab factory. This would solve both 'problems' if you will.

Just a thought.

Maybe a new coolant hose if it kinks being pushed 2 inches forward:

Oil lines stock or modified should be fine, I don't see any clearance issues but I'm not looking at an n54 engine bay:

I would really like to see any intake manifold on the market make significant gains on a dynojet and a back to back test at say 600whp same day. That would net a lot of sales. A lot less people are at or above 700whp. But I wish the same result for cams and I don't think we will ever see that.



@martymil I hope I am not messing up your thread with all of these pictures of not your product. I understand wanting the backfire plate on the bottom for looks. Great to hear you are willing to put it on top or on bottom or willing to use other backfire safety products! I know it can't be easy trying to release a product and having all the internet experts start commenting on your yet to be released product, myself included. You might ask your manifold builder about spacing the trumpets off the ground and having them be the same shape as the head but slightly larger. Then taper as you get close to the head to increase velocity as EOSspeed and others do. Either way can't wait to see the results of this manifold. I'm hoping for good gains!

 

[fmorelli]

but if you are spending 1.5-2k on a intake manifold and chargepipe ...

I'll put the $2k toward an N53 head and go solve what I see as a significant problem.

Filippo

 

[martymil]

The plenum is 5.5 liters

 

[Torgus]

The plenum is 5.5 liters

Could we please get that in freedom units?

I'll put the $2k toward an N53 head and go solve what I see as a significant problem.

Filippo

That is a good solution for an upgraded head. Unfortunately I and basically everyone else would have to ditch their turbo kit and have a custom one made because the exhaust ports are different.

 

[martymil]

1.4529 us gallons

 

[martymil]

So the car is running stronger than ever on 93 fuel but something is wrong with my tune on e85 and its not running right, this is the first time I ran the car on e85 with the flex fuel setup.

If I cant get it fixed I will have to remove the flex fuel and get it back on the dyno with the stand alone e85 tune I was running before.

The car is running silky smooth on 93, butt dyno feels a definite improvement.

 

[E92-Ghandi]

Looking good, do you have before and after numbers!

 

[PaulKendall]

@martymil are all the chargepipes gunna use a silicone connector or are there plans to do a single piece from fmic to throttle?

 

[martymil]

No numbers yet while I sort the tune out.

The silicone is just there for now until we make a new charge pipe

 

[Jeffman]

I'll put the $2k toward an N53 head and go solve what I see as a significant problem.

Filippo

{Sorry for the thread jack}
Or if you still have heavy-ass stock wheels, put the $2,000 towards a set of lightweight wheels. Really noticeable gains in acceleration, braking and handling when you’re able to cut 8lbs per corner this way. Plus they look good.

 

[Aaron]

As much as you are right, man the 313s look too good to get rid of.

 

[martymil]

{Sorry for the thread jack}
Or if you still have heavy-ass stock wheels, put the $2,000 towards a set of lightweight wheels. Really noticeable gains in acceleration, braking and handling when you’re able to cut 8lbs per corner this way. Plus they look good.

Most of us already have light weight wheels

What wheels wont do is help make your engine rev easier, increase response and lots more rwk.

Just check out the testing we done on the ff manifold, ff posted the results.

You really have to go for a drive in a car with one to appriciate it and look at the logs before and after

No one is selling anything yet the manifold still needs to be tested