Just stumbled across this thread again on evolution m.

There is dyno chart proof here that T4 divided housings restricted top end with no increase in midrange power to make an advantage.

I read on here often that a properly divided manifold makes spool increase several hundred rpm at least on the larger turbos, 4088, 4094, 42r etc. Does any one have back to back dyno sheets?

I believe I know the thread you are refering to, and it was done by AMS to bad mouth Full-Race. They didn't even switch the manifolds out when doing the testing....obviously nothing good is going to come of that.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by narfdanarf &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I believe I know the thread you are refering to, and it was done by AMS to bad mouth Full-Race. They didn't even switch the manifolds out when doing the testing....obviously nothing good is going to come of that.</TD></TR></TABLE>
the thread was not done to bad mouth full-race
the test was performed over 2 years ago

we're going to be doing some back to back controlled testing on this very very soon.

one thing to look at is power above and below 5k

i have a t04b 60trim with 1.01 a.r hot side on my b20 and its divided and it pulls hard *** hell when it comes in at 4500rpms so i dont think it kills top end but would like to know to if it does.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TiAL &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
the thread was not done to bad mouth full-race
the test was performed over 2 years ago</TD></TR></TABLE>

Right but that test is obviously jacked up and they just recently posted it in order to bad mouth anyone who makes divided manifolds.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by narfdanarf &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Right but that test is obviously jacked up and they just recently posted it in order to bad mouth anyone who makes divided manifolds.</TD></TR></TABLE>
obviously jacked up?
explain that one

I have personally gone from a FR non divided manifold with a GT40 and .96 a/r undivided housing to a FR divided manifold and 1.06 a/r divided housing on my car and saw a significant increase in spool and power.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony1 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I have personally gone from a FR non divided manifold with a GT40 and .96 a/r undivided housing to a FR divided manifold and 1.06 a/r divided housing on my car and saw a significant increase in spool and power. </TD></TR></TABLE>

If tony1 said it, it must be true! If it was done by AMS, I'd obviously take it with a grain of salt. Companies that stand to benifit from a particular result are known for skewing a test to control the outcome. Its like how the cigarette companies had their own studies showing their products NOT being the cause of lung cancer in smokers...

stumbled across, eh?

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by narfdanarf &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Right but that test is obviously jacked up and they just recently posted it in order to bad mouth anyone who makes divided manifolds.</TD></TR></TABLE>

you sure? http://www.amsperformance.com/...d=515

i have a million page document on divided setups, when i find it' i'll post it...enough technical data to make your head explode

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by HiProfile &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

If tony1 said it, it must be true! If it was done by AMS, I'd obviously take it with a grain of salt. Companies that stand to benifit from a particular result are known for skewing a test to control the outcome. Its like how the cigarette companies had their own studies showing their products NOT being the cause of lung cancer in smokers...</TD></TR></TABLE>

where is the benefit, when AMS sells divided manis?

its probly all in the production process...

either that or ams didnt offer a divided, then had to do one to competite against the compitetion (Fullrace) when they came out with theirs

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TiAL &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i have a million page document on divided setups, when i find it' i'll post it...enough technical data to make your head explode </TD></TR></TABLE>

could you :beerL ...back when i had my holset i spoke w/ numerous respectable people about running a equal pressure vs divided setup...and nearly all agreed that a properly designed divided setup will make more power w/ a faster spool vs the equal pressure...but I didnt have any concrete evidence to support it except one SAE paper we had kickin around at school

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ebydrc &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">its probly all in the production process...

either that or ams didnt offer a divided, then had to do one to competite against the compitetion (Fullrace) when they came out with theirs</TD></TR></TABLE>

so, 2 years after the fact you think AMS still holds a grudge, even though they offer a divided mani now? 2 years ago, sure there would have been a benefit IF AMS didn't offer a divided mani. bringing the evidence up today gains them nothing.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PeakBoost &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">we're going to be doing some back to back controlled testing on this very very soon.

one thing to look at is power above and below 5k </TD></TR></TABLE>