Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Sunday October 26, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > Proven Power Bragging

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-31-2009, 09:06 AM   #26
Phatron
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 36033
Join Date: Apr 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Tuning Lab
Vehicle:
CEO PhatBottiTuning
2006 STi GTX3582 + Meth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponaugle View Post
Both setups were at equivalent aggressiveness, at least based on the variables available.

I would consider this tune to be 'Aggressive', per the mention of this above. While I could get more power with a bit more boost, I wouldn't consider that a better test. If I truly matched those variables I would expect the results to be the same.
If you could make more power with more boost, then you cant call it an aggressive tune

13 whp at redline is nothing to sneeze at.

Also, if you really look at the data you'll notice that the boost is actually lower with the Cosi manifold and it was also richer and still making more power.

the manifold also "unoptimized" your setup. Before you were peaking at 6200rpm which allowed you to stay in the meat of the powerband by shifting at redline.....where as now you are leaving power on the table unless you're gonna rev to 8000rpm.

I'd really like to see how far that slope carries out. almost looks like the hp peak would be 7000-7200 rpm now.

Seems like this is a mod where you're gonna need a huge turbo that causes the intake manifold to become the restriction, but once you get rid of that restriction you're gonna need a valvetrain to take advantage of your newfound powerband.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Phatron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 12:14 PM   #27
sponaugle
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4498
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
WRX H6-3.0 Turbo
www.surgelinetuning.com

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phatron View Post
If you could make more power with more boost, then you cant call it an aggressive tune

13 whp at redline is nothing to sneeze at.

Also, if you really look at the data you'll notice that the boost is actually lower with the Cosi manifold and it was also richer and still making more power.

the manifold also "unoptimized" your setup. Before you were peaking at 6200rpm which allowed you to stay in the meat of the powerband by shifting at redline.....where as now you are leaving power on the table unless you're gonna rev to 8000rpm.

I'd really like to see how far that slope carries out. almost looks like the hp peak would be 7000-7200 rpm now.

Seems like this is a mod where you're gonna need a huge turbo that causes the intake manifold to become the restriction, but once you get rid of that restriction you're gonna need a valvetrain to take advantage of your newfound powerband.
LOL.. Agreed.. but of course one mans agressive is another mans engine rebuild. I did do a few more runs with a bit more boost on the cosworth manifold. I'll posts a few of those up as well. They made more power, but were not stable run to run (knock that is). This is pump 92 octane, and I have discovered that on the dyno with the right conditions I can make better power then will run on the street day in/day out. In the 5500-7000 range, my 08 gains about 10whp with a degree or so, but on the street that degree is too much. I suppose I consider a 'tune' agresssive before I consider a 'run' agressive.

Indeed what Ed said, and you as well is very true.. this is an unoptimized setup for this manifold. Part of this test was to see how well it worked at 'lower' power levels.. if you call 390-400whp low.

Sure enough at a bit more boost the upper end came alive more. I am sure that with an agressive race fuel tune more upper end power, especially near 7k, can be had.

For me it was instructive to first see a bit of the lower limits of where this part might come into play. Our next step (this week) is to get a solid tune on Tim's STI (35R, 8k RPM), then swap in a Cosworth manifold. I suspect we can make some good gains.

Jeff
sponaugle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 01:24 PM   #28
alex_s817
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 158754
Join Date: Sep 2007
Default

good test. while it seems like it will definitely be good for higher hp cars, thanks to your testing, i wouldnt spend the money for a stock internal 2 liter.
alex_s817 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 03:03 PM   #29
Phatron
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 36033
Join Date: Apr 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Tuning Lab
Vehicle:
CEO PhatBottiTuning
2006 STi GTX3582 + Meth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponaugle View Post
LOL.. Agreed.. but of course one mans agressive is another mans engine rebuild. I did do a few more runs with a bit more boost on the cosworth manifold. I'll posts a few of those up as well. They made more power, but were not stable run to run (knock that is). This is pump 92 octane,
ahhh. For some reason i thought you were running an HFS-5 meth kit.

for anyone that sees this comparo the "untuned-bolt-on-ability-to-power-ratio" is not good....and also cost/power.

this is gonna be a mod like cams/valvetrain that only people with big setups get.

even though i was thinking about it just cause its pretty and i'd like to clean up my engine bay.
Phatron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 03:30 PM   #30
UFOpilot
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 189525
Join Date: Sep 2008
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland Oregon
Vehicle:
2007 WRX Wagon
Invisible Plain

Default

I bet it would go very nicely with that GT42

At least now I can see that I don't have a performance based need for the manifold I WANT. All things in good time I guess.

Thanks Jeff. If you guys are going to run Tims STi with the Cosworth sometime in the very near future I wouldn't mind coming out for that.

Travis
UFOpilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 03:41 PM   #31
alfriedesq
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 6788
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Stamford, CT 06902
Vehicle:
2005 STI
10.9 @ 130

Default

Its hard to reach any conclusions regarding the testing of VE enhacing parts without knowing that the set up you are working with is optimzed and has no existing weak links or bottle necks. End users must remember always that there are only 5 ways to make power

1 - Displacement

2 - RPM

3 - Volumetric Efficency - (filling the clyinder more completely with a charge)

4 - Density (cooling and increasing pressure)

5 - Chemcial - e.g. nos, etc.

Clearly all these kind of modifications like intake manifolds, TGV deletes, exhuast , etc etc etc are only effective in enhacing VE by allowing the intake charge a easier flow into the engine and by allowing the exhuast gases less back pressure to evacuate the cylinder. In most cases we are working well below 100% VE on a Subaru engine which yields an effective displacement well below the 2.0 or 2.5 L we have to work with.

Any VE enhancement will only achive its full effect if the rest of the intake and exhuast system is fully optimized. If the rest of your system is not breathing perefctly, then you won't realize the full VE gain of an intake manifold.

In simple laymans terms its like having a series of bottle necks or restrictions and eliminating one of the kinks in your flow. It still has the other kinks left holding you back.

Last week, I installed a Cosworth Intake on a 06 STI with a Dominator 2.5. After a short period of testing and trying to make additional power, the turbo over spun and blew out a seal. Although we did not realize ANY gains from the Cosworth intake on that turbo, it was clear that the turbo was the limiting factor and could not flow much beyond 400 whp no matter what intake manifold was on the car.

All I can say with 100% certainty is that the Cosworth Intake flows significantly more air than the stock one and it will pick up power on any car which is exceeding the air flow capacity of the stock intake manifold. I made over 80 whp.

Clearly, a intake maniold is not going to do much on say a Stage II car as the air flow is not impeeded by the stock manifold. As you work towards a more optimal VE configuration with better head design, cams, exhuast, fmic, etc etc the intake manfold upgrade will start to yield more and more of a gain or increase. Only on a car with everything else optimzed will you see maximum gains on the change of an intake manifold.

Al

Last edited by alfriedesq; 05-31-2009 at 03:54 PM.
alfriedesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 03:48 PM   #32
IMPORTEDCARS
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 56945
Join Date: Mar 2004
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: CT
Vehicle:
08 STI Base Model
Black

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alfriedesq View Post
Its hard to reach any conclusions regarding the testing of parts without knowing that the set up you are working with is optimzed and has no existing weak links or bottle necks.

Last week, I installed a Cosworth Intake on a 06 STI with a Dominator 2.5. After a short period of testing and trying to make additional power, the turbo over spun and blew out a seal. Although we did not realize ANY gains from the Cosworth intake on that turbo, it was clear that the turbo was the limiting factor and could not flow much beyond 400 whp no matter what intake manifold was on the car.

All I can say with 100% certainty is that the Cosworth Intake flows significantly more air than the stock one and it will pick up power on any car which is exceeding the air flow capacity of the stock intake manifold. I made over 80 whp.

Al

Al I have a Forster N/A in for a 60k service and noticed immediately that the factory intake manifold looks like it MAY have been copied by Cosworth to some extent.

-George Kakaletris
IMPORTEDCARS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 04:26 PM   #33
unclemat
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 114530
Join Date: May 2006
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: MA
Vehicle:
2005 LGT 6MT wagon

Default

So it seems that most folks who port their stock manifolds are actually hurting their performance (most run < 400 whp setups anyway).
unclemat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 06:49 PM   #34
5lipstream
*** Banned ***
 
Member#: 124663
Join Date: Aug 2006
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Nashville
Vehicle:
2003 AW WRX
2008 GG Evo X MR

Default

nevermind... it was already mentioned
5lipstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 08:31 PM   #35
alfriedesq
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 6788
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Stamford, CT 06902
Vehicle:
2005 STI
10.9 @ 130

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unclemat View Post
So it seems that most folks who port their stock manifolds are actually hurting their performance (most run < 400 whp setups anyway).
I think that anything you do to aide flow in or out of the motor is going to have some effect on VE. Meaning that it will aide the complete filling of the cylinder with a fresh charge on the intake stroke and aide the effacuation of spent exhuast gases on the exhuast stroke. Doing minor porting on the intake manifold or TGV housing is going to have a nominal effect on a car for example which has a restrictive exhuast and for example the stock turbo inlet hose.

An engineer can work with the laws of physics and caculate the effect of various bends, changes in pipe diameter and other restrictions on the flow rate and how much heat is added in the process.

From a lay person's (like myself) perspective, the whole concept can be simplified by thinking of a turbo charged motor as an air pump. Everything you can do to aide the free flow of air into and out of the pump will allow it to process more air. The more air you can flow the more fuel you can burn and the more energy that can be yielded from the combustion process.

Al
alfriedesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 08:59 PM   #36
Homemade WRX
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 33782
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: 3MI Racing LLC
Vehicle:
96 bastard child
search FIRST, then PM!!!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Turner View Post
Making power with turbo cars is about removing airflow limitations. On this car, the manifold was not the limitation. The limitation is somewhere else. Great test Jeff! I bet some cars will come to life with this manifold.

Clark
I'll second that...now onto the manifold: aside from that the shorter runners on this manifold and the results from the curve show that its aimed for higher rpm and bigger cams.

Jeff, I thank you again for sharing these results with the community!

Just curious, what are the ID's and approximate runner lengths on this bad boy...I wanna plug it in to my helmholtz sheet and see what rpm ranges this can really come to life at.

-Micah
3MI Racing LLC
Homemade WRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 09:07 PM   #37
my_sti_1
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 86713
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Yay AREA, SF
Vehicle:
04 STi GT35r .82
C16 Java Black Pearl

Default

so what will cause more of a bottleneck first, the stock cams or the intake manifold. i'll be running a gt35r kit on stock heads and cams with a built bottom end. i wanted to know if i will benefit from getting the cosi manifold while using the stock cams with maybe reworked heads. would it be worth it?
my_sti_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 10:15 PM   #38
unclemat
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 114530
Join Date: May 2006
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: MA
Vehicle:
2005 LGT 6MT wagon

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alfriedesq View Post

From a lay person's (like myself) perspective, the whole concept can be simplified by thinking of a turbo charged motor as an air pump. Everything you can do to aide the free flow of air into and out of the pump will allow it to process more air. The more air you can flow the more fuel you can burn and the more energy that can be yielded from the combustion process.

Al
Apparently more is sometimes less as this test shows. I don't know what the manifold changes (air velocity due to increased volume?) but clearly it's not helping but hurting here. Similarly I believe porting heads is not a good idea at lower power levels as it may hurt spool.
unclemat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 10:34 AM   #39
kellygnsd
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 32669
Join Date: Feb 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Rancho C
Vehicle:
2007 2.34LR, EFR7670
LINK G4 hybrid STi

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by unclemat View Post
So it seems that most folks who port their stock manifolds are actually hurting their performance (most run < 400 whp setups anyway).
Porting a stock manifold has a insignificant effect on runner or plenum volume and no effect on runner length so no I don't see how that could adversely affect performance.

The Cosworth mani changes all of the variables
kellygnsd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 04:17 PM   #40
blackacres
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 134821
Join Date: Dec 2006
Chapter/Region: E. Canada
Location: Cold North!
Vehicle:
2006 STI
OBP

Default

Great write up, more or less what I have been looking for, your numbers basically confirmed what I suspected.

FYI, I am in the process of installing a new sleeved, ported, cam'd motor with an UR GT40R twin scroll kit and felt the stock intake may now be the 'bottle neck'.

The current build budget was 'blown out the window' long ago, so now I plan to install the new motor/turbo, using the stock intake manifold for break in and initial first tune(s).

When I save up a few extra $$, after seeing your results, I now plan to purchase the Cosy intake and retune.

I will have good information of what the new setup will produce, and when the Cosy intake is installed, my tuner, or I will, post up our results as well.

Thanks for the info. again.
blackacres is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2009, 11:21 PM   #41
byroll01
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 611
Join Date: Dec 1999
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Saratoga Springs NY
Vehicle:
'05 E55 AMG
GetADomTune.com

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homemade WRX View Post
I'll second that...now onto the manifold: aside from that the shorter runners on this manifold and the results from the curve show that its aimed for higher rpm and bigger cams.

Jeff, I thank you again for sharing these results with the community!

Just curious, what are the ID's and approximate runner lengths on this bad boy...I wanna plug it in to my helmholtz sheet and see what rpm ranges this can really come to life at.

-Micah
3MI Racing LLC
Ask Dom, he's got one in his hands for my motor...
byroll01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 02:55 AM   #42
socalLGT
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 89752
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: On the dyno at Yimi Sport
Vehicle:
08 STI
SWP

Default

Nice test Jeff. I've got an 08 STI at the shop that I'll be finishing this week with Cossie heads/cams, Cossie manifold and a .82 GT3076R. I hope to see some larger gains with this combo than you saw. IIRC, your car is running the Cobb SD patch. Wouldn't you expect to see the AFR's lean out a bit if VE was improved by the manifold? Afterall, higher VE would translate to increased airflow for a given boost level. That would lead to an SD fueling car running leaner.
socalLGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 10:11 AM   #43
Homemade WRX
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 33782
Join Date: Mar 2003
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Location: 3MI Racing LLC
Vehicle:
96 bastard child
search FIRST, then PM!!!

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by byroll01 View Post
Ask Dom, he's got one in his hands for my motor...
Thanks Byron, I'll give him a ring a bit later.

Then I'll share what I find out.
Homemade WRX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 11:01 AM   #44
karmasi16
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 145243
Join Date: Apr 2007
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Burbank
Vehicle:
2006 wrx wagon
Urban Gray Metallic

Default

i hate to ask... did you do the manifold test on a stock car with a proper tune to see what just the manifold would yield?
karmasi16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 11:19 AM   #45
sponaugle
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4498
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
WRX H6-3.0 Turbo
www.surgelinetuning.com

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalLGT View Post
Nice test Jeff. I've got an 08 STI at the shop that I'll be finishing this week with Cossie heads/cams, Cossie manifold and a .82 GT3076R. I hope to see some larger gains with this combo than you saw. IIRC, your car is running the Cobb SD patch. Wouldn't you expect to see the AFR's lean out a bit if VE was improved by the manifold? Afterall, higher VE would translate to increased airflow for a given boost level. That would lead to an SD fueling car running leaner.
I switched to my MAF tune for this.. SD would add another variable. You are correct that in SD I suspect the car would be a bit leaner, which would probably make more power. That is one of the critical reasons you have to have good logging and compare the data with care. Had the car been in SD mode, it might have gained power everywhere, but only because of the change in AFR. (obviously if the AFR changed it would do so only as a result of VE.. so there would be more to the story).

Quote:
Originally Posted by karmasi16 View Post
i hate to ask... did you do the manifold test on a stock car with a proper tune to see what just the manifold would yield?
No, but I would welcome you to give that test a try. I would be surprised to see any real gains, but then again I could be wrong!

Jeff
sponaugle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 11:30 AM   #46
wgknestrick
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 32576
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Allentown, PA
Vehicle:
04 STI
Roller Barrel ITBS

Default

Did you guys leak test each install before testing to ensure no boost leaks?
wgknestrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 12:21 PM   #47
karmasi16
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 145243
Join Date: Apr 2007
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Burbank
Vehicle:
2006 wrx wagon
Urban Gray Metallic

Default

No, but I would welcome you to give that test a try. I would be surprised to see any real gains, but then again I could be wrong!

Jeff[/quote]

very cool..

stock manifold with tune Vs cosoworth manifold with tune.

want to see the numbers...
karmasi16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2009, 12:22 PM   #48
sponaugle
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4498
Join Date: Feb 2001
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Location: Portland, Oregon
Vehicle:
WRX H6-3.0 Turbo
www.surgelinetuning.com

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wgknestrick View Post
Did you guys leak test each install before testing to ensure no boost leaks?
I leak tested my stock manifold a few weeks back while doing a compression test, and of course there were no leaks. With the new cosworth manifold there were no apparent leaks, AFRs were spot on, etc. If anything the cosworth manifold has less places to have a leak.

Jeff
sponaugle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 03:04 AM   #49
socalLGT
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 89752
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: On the dyno at Yimi Sport
Vehicle:
08 STI
SWP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sponaugle View Post
I switched to my MAF tune for this.. SD would add another variable. You are correct that in SD I suspect the car would be a bit leaner, which would probably make more power. That is one of the critical reasons you have to have good logging and compare the data with care. Had the car been in SD mode, it might have gained power everywhere, but only because of the change in AFR. (obviously if the AFR changed it would do so only as a result of VE.. so there would be more to the story).
Jeff
I would actually be quite curious to see how the AFR's changed with your SD map as that would represent a clear change in VE. We'd also be able to see where in the rpm range the manifold was either helping the most.
socalLGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 08:10 AM   #50
wgknestrick
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 32576
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Allentown, PA
Vehicle:
04 STI
Roller Barrel ITBS

Default

Please, Please Spoonagle
You need to put together a GT35R intake manifold comparison using the STI, Cosworth, LGT, 2.5i, TGV-less Spec C, and Magnus manifolds. You guys are the only ones capable of doing an unbiased and informative comparo. I suspect that there could be stock IM that are capable of gains that near the more $$ aftermarket options (LGT or 2.5i) for most HP levels below 550whp.
wgknestrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Built motor, 35R, stock manifold vs. Cosworth Manifold AdamBOMB_STi Proven Power Bragging 30 01-26-2014 08:12 PM
F/S Cosworth Cylinder Heads NEW DEAL Free Cosworth Manifold Fastyellow Engine/Power/Exhaust 20 04-18-2010 11:37 AM
Finally Finished: TSR-70 Kit, Cosworth Manifold, Build Motor + MORE Mac323 Member's Car Gallery 35 03-12-2010 09:23 PM
Reversed Cosworth manifold and converted to DBC? dubya-R-ex Built Motor Discussion 7 12-14-2009 05:06 PM
2.5i or Cosworth manifold??? OB2 Built Motor Discussion 22 02-04-2009 11:18 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.