eDm cRxXx

But is not 90mm throttle body way to big for a typical 2000cc 250whp setup?

Might have to make an insert adapter with a "velocity stack" on the back side to fit a "normal" 74mm throttle body

Would LOVE to test this manifold against our 48mm Jenvey ITBs on our 87.2*85 B18CR. Bet it could gain some top end.

eK24monster

Its real hard to capture the curvature of the runner as it transitions to the velocity stack but you should be able to get an idea if you look at the left wall of each stack and how it is rather straight in comparison to the left side. The left side is slopped or tear-drop shaped.

gutted-dx

iTrader: (1)

Thanks for the response. Do you have any pics showing the gap between the manifold and the firewall(EG with minimal spacers)?

eK24monster

4.5L


3.5L


We dont have a picture of the 5.5L mounted in a chassis but the distance from the mounting flange to the furthest point on the manifold in 3.5L config is 10.25" and 11.50" in 5.5L config. As you can see from the two images above... you have plenty of room.

5.5L

thegatekeeper14

Does it only work with a certain TB?

Kelzendless

i would like to try one on a nitrous ..b

Garrett

only Mustang standard flange pattern

a lot of company sell mustang throttle, the skunk2 accept the OEM Honda TPS and MAP

Chugger

I am seriosly thinking about selling my twm's and going this route.
Not sure which liter to get for my n/a setup I would assume 3.5l.
I do plan on going with a pretty decent shot of nitrous.
I am just curious if the 90mm tb would be too much for my motor its a 92 stroke 86 bore im thinking tb's setup is just enough motor to utilize it but he is using the 4.5l setup so the 3.5 might suite my needs. I am sure it helps that the runners are longer than the victor x and taper aswell than the standard victor x.
I can always gowith a wilson or accufab tb thats smaller than a 90.

Anyone have any input?

Spawne32

iTrader: (3)

My input would be to wait and see some more publicly posted results, unless you plan to test it yourself.

SR20S13

I want to try one on my Lil old 1.8 build, with my performer X it just stops making power after 8k and for what I would pay to get my manifold modified it's about the same price.

noodels

Fantastic looking with long intake runners with smooth transitions
and shows the<Computational Fluid Dynamics> design.
quote: 6.5” Tilted & Tapered Hi-Velocity Runners:
wonder if angle is correct for b18c1 head ?

oldmanTypeR

any updates, I think this might be too big for my current or near future but looks cool
Current 11:1 CR, Type R, sk2 stage 1 cam, alpha header, 70mm exhaust, mugen chip.
future: 11.5:1 2.0 liter skunk2 stage 2 cams, apha header, 70mm exhaust, tune and full port and polish maybe even the new casting B18C head CNC. sock type R intake all the way to resonation chamber

spAdam

iTrader: (1)

Well, considering that it has a dual bolt pattern so that it fits on both heads, it has to be wrong for at least one of them.

Didn't even think of that until I read your post.

raverx3m

iTrader: (1)

i dont think skunk 2 ever did a correct runner angle.

all their manifolds are same casting redrilled to either b16 or gsr

i called customer service and they told me they all same

GagnarTheUnruly

iTrader: (3)

Well that's lame.

angryhillbilly

from what i understand the original skunk2 mani was one casting for both heads. but the pro series mani was 2 different castings. one of them optimized for the p72 and one for the pr3

spAdam

iTrader: (1)

P72 and PR3 you mean?

angryhillbilly

Yes of course

raverx3m

iTrader: (1)

not what they told me on the phone and on facebook.

if people would just spend 10 seconds and take a picture of their intake manifold we would already know. i made the thread abotu it and only one i confirmed was AEBS it is different. but so far it looks like skunk2 and blowx are same casting
even if you look at pictures on skunk2 page the angle looks same

oldmanTypeR

http://cms.skunk2.com/id/884/Ultra-S...nifold-Street/

Welll looks like skunk2 has something for my milder build!

raverx3m

iTrader: (1)

they call it unique mounting flange lol

aka. we didnt want to cast another manifold that fits properly so we made it in the middle and called it unique.

oldmanTypeR

as long as there are enough studs to cente the manifold I can't see any difference. So why cast a second manifold? Are you just hating on it?

oldmanTypeR

I don't understand are you looking for the same entry angle when looking at the engine side ways? If so why does it matter, if the angle is within reason? Sorry I did not even notice the B18C port entry on the horizontal plane is not like the B16.. Or am I missing something here?

eK24monster

WHAT are you guys talking about? I dont understand what everyone is getting hung up on with this whole flange thing!

Few if any of the manifolds on the market have the "correct" runner to port floor geometry! The worst of the bunch are the hand fabbed sheet manifolds and you dont hear all this crap about them...

Making an issue where an issue doesnt need to be made only leads to wasted time but for some reason I get the feeling I'm going to have to prove it to you guys.

Before I do this... I'd like those of you who started this mess to list the manifolds that have "correct" runner to flange geometry.

raverx3m

iTrader: (1)

Aebs for one
Havent found any info on others
Skunk2 does not on any of their manifolds

Just cuz everyone is doin it doesnt make it right.
Aebs did it for their 200 dollar manifold why cant other companies do it for their 250-400 dollar manifolds...