Rumor is we are making an intake manifold

Everytime I seen your forum name I think of this ...



No idea why.

 

lol, kinda trippy looking

 

So.....where's the intake?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

THIS! I've been saying this for years!

 

My guess is at least 2-4 more fortnight's before we hear

 

Probably we should stick with the Neptunian calendar

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

Because a plenum that is too large can hurt turbo spool as well as hurt off boost performance. Short runners are desirable for high rpm power, for example the JMF length runners would be useful for an engine revving to 10k and up (which applies to no one) so it's not really optimized for our engine.

The absolute BIGGEST mistake that people make when it comes to intake system modifications and their flow is that they have the mentality of "if some is good, more is better, and too much is just enough". An intake manifold's flow should be matched well with the cylinder head, the reason for this is because usually if something flows more, it just means that it's larger. Bigger isn't better because larger ports have lower air charge velocity, lower velocity means less cylinder filling and less cylinder filling means less power under the curve.

Shorter runners are good for high rpm power because it makes good use of intake valve pulse tuning and longer runners are good for lower rpm for the same reason. Plenum size isn't nearly as important as runner length or diameter but still plays a minor role and that role is magnified when applied to a boosted engine. Lastly, plenum size *usually* does not affect cylinder flow balance so for them to alter it wouldn't yield much results.

 

So for my knowledge, what we be optimal for good mid-high end power, I'm thinking lapping application not drag or dyno # chasing

 

Well you want to target a certain RPM that the manifold will perform best at. I used some calculators I've got and used 4000 RPM because it's a good transition RPM for power IMO. Runner length from plenum to valve averaged from my calculators is ~20". For 5000 RPM it's around 16-17". I based off what I've seen from CS' photos I think they're somewhere in that ballpark give or take but I'll let them comment on that.

As for the cross sectional area of the runners, my calcs are saying it'd have to be at least 1.84"^2 in order to not be a flow restriction at 8000 RPM. I think that'd be a decent starting point and going up or down from there to gain flow or velocity (up for flow, down for velocity) would be the next logical step. I'm curious if CS can give us any specs on this mani.

 

Awesome thanks for the info, let's see if CS steps up their cock tease game

 

Especially with other vendors making some fast strides in this area with OTS stuff that's known to flow extremely well/very balanced across all runners and cost very little.

 

Agreed, this is gonna be an exciting year for intake manifolds it seams, and possibly fueling solutions

 

About time. We've been needing plug-n-play fueling solutions for a while, and by that I mean replacement injectors. Hopefully that's in store for us. We've had WMI and various piggyback PI systems for a while. They work alright, but there's nothing like pulling old injectors, replacing with new, high-flow ones, a few adjustments in Access Tuner and boom, done.

 

And this is the reason why Mazda intake manifold have variable length runners. ( Sad they flow like shit)

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

So, is this dead now

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P

 

Lol, that is great.

 

Is there any news on this?

 

We are working on production QA hiccups. The things that can go wrong have all popped up with this project.

-Derrick

 

This would give me an excellent reason to actually clean my valves like I've said i was going to for 6 months.