opinions on anything > 16g....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4G63_GSR
Member +++
|
posted 04/14/03 04:48 PM   
quote:
Originally posted by howard:
Manifold schmanifold, just get a ported 2G or Evo III manifold and be done with it. A 16G + those shiny headers will cost as much as a 2G/Evo manifold and a turbo with much more potential than a 16G.
The 2G manifold is good for 10's, hell, maybe 9's if Curt Brown is still using one.
And no shiny manifold/huge turbo combination insures that a GVR4 will be badass. I think Jason Crum proved that point, if anyone here remembers him (cough cough, DSSA!).
hmmmm.... 20G huh... yeah i think i'll just pass up a 16G... any more inputs guys???
Posts: 852 | From: wis | Member Since: 01/22/03 | IP: (216.170.168.131) | 
|
|
Ash
Unregistered
|
posted 04/14/03 09:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by gvr4in:
...I have lot's of friends that went big 16g with full supporting mods and weren't too satisfied, they want something bigger..
That describes me in one
| | | IP: (165.228.131.12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSSA
Old-Head
|
posted 04/15/03 07:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by howard:
And no shiny manifold/huge turbo combination insures that a GVR4 will be badass. I think Jason Crum proved that point, if anyone here remembers him (cough cough, DSSA!).
heh...Tin can...5lbs. bag...10lbs. of shit.
We made that car run 11.9s the 1st trip to the track with half the BS on it that he used.
As far as a street turbo, I'll be using a T-61 on the next GVR4. A 20G is a great street turbo. When set up correctly, it's like having an on/off switch for boost.
Posts: 554 | From: PA | Member Since: 04/16/02 | IP: (152.163.188.33) |
|
|
howard
Unregistered
|
posted 04/15/03 09:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by a_santos:
It's not about the blang. If I had that header I would wrap it to keep the heat out of the engine bay. The bottom line is that it does not take a rocket scientist to see that the header on the pic flows way more air than a 2g or Evo manifold. Why not get it if it makes more power? You guys amaze me with your comments some times.
Speak from experience or empirical data, not from the way things look or seem.
You don't need a rocket scientist, you need hard numbers from the track and dyno to prove that something:
A) produces more power
B) produces it where you want it
C) is cost-justified
As for the 16G/20G argument, the 20G really is a great street turbo. Especially above 18-20psi, it really beats the 16G.
| | | IP: (129.120.56.94) |
|
|
chucklesas
Hogna Carolinensis
|
posted 04/15/03 09:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by howard:
You don't need a rocket scientist, you need hard numbers from the track and dyno to prove that something:
Sorry, I thought this was funny, I just realized today in my basic fluids class that I can use these equations I'm learning to get the flow of turbines and fluids through a pipe. I am majoring in Rocket Science AKA Aerospace Engineering.
Posts: 1892 | From: Layton (SLC), UT | Member Since: 02/14/03 | IP: (129.137.154.244) |
|
|
|
|
DSSA
Old-Head
|
posted 04/15/03 11:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Hibrn8:
i agree that teh 16g and 20g are really streetable turbos. i run a t3t4 as well as my buddy which everyone claims arent streetable whatsoever.
Nate and I laugh about this from time-to-time. Back when I got my 1st GVR4 (8 years ago now?) I was planning on going 20G for the 1st turbo upgrade for the car. Everyone at that time was like "Oh! You can't use that, that's a race turbo, not a street turbo. It lags too much and isn't very driveable". I ported the crap out of everything and the turbo spooled up faster than the 14B did when it was stock.
Now we look back on that and say to each other "You remember when a 20 used to be a "big" turbo?"
I don't think I'd use anything short of a Red/AGP L3/T4 on a street car anymore.
The T4 w/ the .58 a/r hot side was great on the street, however, with the .63 it was a little more laggy than I liked.
Posts: 554 | From: PA | Member Since: 04/16/02 | IP: (205.188.209.7) |
|
|
a_santos
Brasileiro Turbinado
|
posted 04/16/03 02:47 PM
Nate, There is a big difference between a head and a header. Alot of heads that look like they flow alot don't flow worth shit. Take a look at this article http://www.alaniztechnologies.com/augustarticle.html. I wonder why Formula 1 cars, when they used turbos, didn't use cast manifolds? The smoother the bends and the smoother the path the air has to travel through, the easier it will do so, yielding more horsepower. The ONLY reason mitsubishi uses cast manifolds is that they are cheap and easy to make, thats it. They don't flow more and they don't make more power than practically any tubular header, with some exeptions. I don't care if someone ran 9s with a cast manifold, it does not mean it is the most eficient method of extracting the hot gases from the engine. Why do we prefer mandrel bent pipes over press bent? Because they flow more due to their design. C'mon guys, if you can't see why a tubular header flows more than a cast manifold, I have nothing to say. It's clear cut, smoother path, less restiction. Header desing depends alot on combustion chamber design and cam profile, but I doubt anyone here will go out and have custom header made to match their engine, meanwhile we just use common sense.
Posts: 2057 | From: San Diego, CA, USA | Member Since: 10/22/02 | IP: (198.111.38.121) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
andy
Unregistered
|
posted 04/16/03 08:55 PM
Wow, that header *LOOKS* like it flows alot! WTF??? Arguing that the header has "smooth bends" is just as dumb as arguing the cast manifold has a "straighter shot" at the turbo. How about you actually try the product, or look at people that have. You have some of the oldest resources of DSM/GVR4 info telling you that you are wasting your time, and yet you STILL try and reinvent the wheel. You know how many f*#knuts I have seem in my time that have tried to reinvent the wheel? Hell, the GVR4 guys take the cake, seems the Galants attract some REAL cukoos. ![[Smile]](images/graemlins/smile.gif) Aforementioned Crum. Scott Evans too. ![[Wink]](images/graemlins/wink.gif) So in retrospect, go and buy the tubular manifold so you can go get your smooth bending and high flowing on, while we go and kick ass with our low tech un-cool $150 cast manifolds. If some people could just K.I.S.S.
| | | IP: (64.4.102.188) |
|
|
|
|
Gabor
Decal Specialist!
692/1000
|
posted 04/17/03 12:09 AM
Look at this manifold. Nice. http://www.dsmstuff.com/pictures/misc/blingblingmani.jpgIn reality it looks like shit and the runners are half the size of the stock runners. Took a while, but I got my money back. I didn't buy it for the bling factor. I had to had something with the t4 flange. Lesson learned. Gabor 692/1000
Posts: 4422 | From: St. Louis | Member Since: 03/29/02 | IP: (65.65.203.220) |
|
|
|
|
DSSA
Old-Head
|
posted 04/17/03 05:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by a_santos:
I wonder why Formula 1 cars, when they used turbos, didn't use cast manifolds? The smoother the bends and the smoother the path the air has to travel through, the easier it will do so, yielding more horsepower. The ONLY reason mitsubishi uses cast manifolds is that they are cheap and easy to make, thats it. They don't flow more and they don't make more power than practically any tubular header, with some exeptions. I don't care if someone ran 9s with a cast manifold, it does not mean it is the most eficient method of extracting the hot gases from the engine. Why do we prefer mandrel bent pipes over press bent? Because they flow more due to their design. C'mon guys, if you can't see why a tubular header flows more than a cast manifold, I have nothing to say. It's clear cut, smoother path, less restiction. Header desing depends alot on combustion chamber design and cam profile, but I doubt anyone here will go out and have custom header made to match their engine, meanwhile we just use common sense.
Why did Mitsubishi use manifolds instead of tubular headers? The same reason every manufacturer uses them...because when producing 1000s of them at a time, it's quicker and cheaper to produce them with a cast, and they tend to crack less than tubular headers. Why do formula one teams use tubular? Because it's cheaper to build a one-off tubular by far than paying $10-$15K on a cast for something they may only use once, then change the design.
The other aspect is weight.
Saying that a tubular manifold will almost always flow more than a cast manifold is a bunch of crap as well. Cast manifolds can be *EVERY* bit as free-flowing, and have even SMOOTHER transitions than tubular manifolds. It has nothing to do with them being cast or tubular, but of their design. I'd gladly offer a bet that the HKS manifold flows quite a bit better than most of the tubular 4G63 tubular headers out there.
Smooth transition paths? Doesn't get much smoother than that.
Equal length? Ditto.
Design makes the difference with flow, not composition.
Posts: 554 | From: PA | Member Since: 04/16/02 | IP: (64.12.96.102) |
|
|
It is the best manifold out there, and at $499 it is a good deal.