full race vs. rev hard......before and after
10-07-2005, 08:57 AM
#1
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
full race vs. rev hard......before and after
customer is kind of a street race guy so i dont want to post any specifics about the car.....but we tuned the car before on 12psi and open 2.5 inch downpipe....and retuning it now (taking a break for the car to cool down right now)
only differences are full race manifold instead of rev hard cast manifold
i custom made new 2.5 inch aluminum charge piping. previously 2 1/4 mild steel
i custom made a full 3 inch stainless downpipe and a exhaust...along with new dump tube.
just made my first pass at 12psi with the air fuel needing some work....but we are up 75whp from before.
im impressed and i think the customers going to be rather happy
sorry for not providing any more info.
only differences are full race manifold instead of rev hard cast manifold
i custom made new 2.5 inch aluminum charge piping. previously 2 1/4 mild steel
i custom made a full 3 inch stainless downpipe and a exhaust...along with new dump tube.
just made my first pass at 12psi with the air fuel needing some work....but we are up 75whp from before.
im impressed and i think the customers going to be rather happy
sorry for not providing any more info.
10-07-2005, 09:17 AM
#3
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Stratham, NH, usa all the way
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: full race vs. rev hard......before and after (Turbo-charged)
how much more power do you think the full race manifold gave it instead of the rev hard one!
10-07-2005, 09:23 AM
#4
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Re: full race vs. rev hard......before and after (joelsgirlisfatandugly)
same boost level i just gained another 10whp taking out some more fuel. it probably has a little more than that in it but im happy with the air/fuel and timing right now. its a daily driver, no need to push the limits.
no i havent done any neptune stuff.....contact either jason hunt or jeff evans for neptune tuning
no i havent done any neptune stuff.....contact either jason hunt or jeff evans for neptune tuning
10-07-2005, 09:28 AM
#5
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Re: full race vs. rev hard......before and after (Turbo-charged)
also...i dont have any psi vs. rpm from the 2 manifolds to compare....but the power graph is showing the rev hard is up by maybe 5-10hp below 4000 rpm.....4500 about equal. 4500 to vtec is a huge gain and once vtec hits its night and day difference
10-07-2005, 09:34 AM
#6
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 1,369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: full race vs. rev hard......before and after (Turbo-charged)
So 75whp just by swapping out manifolds or 10whp? I'm a little confused here. Good info though. Paul
Trending Topics
10-07-2005, 09:59 AM
#9
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Re: (Sick00SiCoupe)
i'll admit....its leaving my scratching my head a little bit. the full race stuff is very very nice....and the exhaust is about as free flowing as possible being 3 inch...and the piping is as short and direct as can be...but thats still a lot of damn horsepower!
10-07-2005, 10:22 AM
#12
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Re: (sleepencivic)
hondata.
i'd like to now do a before/after of a log manifold (the 90's and T's) vs. a rev hard manifold...the revhard seems to outflow a typical log manifold....but maybe not.
i'd like to now do a before/after of a log manifold (the 90's and T's) vs. a rev hard manifold...the revhard seems to outflow a typical log manifold....but maybe not.
10-07-2005, 11:05 AM
#14
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD, USA
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: full race vs. rev hard......before and after (Turbo-charged)
Eh, I'm a bit confused.
Was the 85 hp just open DP?
If that's the case, then the gains also came from the new charge piping. How much can be contributed to what part is up for grabs, but at that point I'd be impressed with the new manifold.
However...
If you're running (old charge + old mani + old exhaust + old tune) and comparing it to (new charge + new mani + new exhaust + new tune) that's a few too many variables to get excited about any one part IMO.
Was the 85 hp just open DP?
If that's the case, then the gains also came from the new charge piping. How much can be contributed to what part is up for grabs, but at that point I'd be impressed with the new manifold.
However...
If you're running (old charge + old mani + old exhaust + old tune) and comparing it to (new charge + new mani + new exhaust + new tune) that's a few too many variables to get excited about any one part IMO.
10-07-2005, 11:18 AM
#16
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Sick00SiCoupe)
lets see here;
you go from small charge piping; that we have NO IDEA what it loks like, how many bends or what its shaped like to larger aluminum pipe that i'm asuming has less drastic bends... a <u>GLORIFIED LOG MANIFOLD</u> to a ram-horn manifold... a downpipe that again we have no idea what it was before or after...
No duh you're going to gain a significant amount; the manifold swap is worth that much power; NOT BECAUSE ITS A FULL-RIPOFF but because it's a SIGNIFICANTLY better flowing design than that restrict-hard cast piece...
This site really needs to get off full-rice's boner
/edit: MORAL OF THE POST: the gains would be similar with ANY ram-horn manifold compared to what this guy had before
you go from small charge piping; that we have NO IDEA what it loks like, how many bends or what its shaped like to larger aluminum pipe that i'm asuming has less drastic bends... a <u>GLORIFIED LOG MANIFOLD</u> to a ram-horn manifold... a downpipe that again we have no idea what it was before or after...
No duh you're going to gain a significant amount; the manifold swap is worth that much power; NOT BECAUSE ITS A FULL-RIPOFF but because it's a SIGNIFICANTLY better flowing design than that restrict-hard cast piece...
This site really needs to get off full-rice's boner
/edit: MORAL OF THE POST: the gains would be similar with ANY ram-horn manifold compared to what this guy had before
10-07-2005, 11:27 AM
#17
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD, USA
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (ComputerJLT)
haha, yeah, then like I said before, there's a few too many unknowns in there.
Not going to say it quite a FORCEFULLY as Sick00SiCoupe, but I think we're thinking along the same lines.
Not going to say it quite a FORCEFULLY as Sick00SiCoupe, but I think we're thinking along the same lines.
10-07-2005, 11:38 AM
#18
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: RIP Duke of Turbo, CA
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (csulliva)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by csulliva »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">haha, yeah, then like I said before, there's a few too many unknowns in there.</TD></TR></TABLE>
dito.
dito.
10-07-2005, 11:46 AM
#19
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Re: (KeyserSoze)
haha you guys take this stuff way too serious. i was just posting some gains that were seen on the dyno. if i would have posted "ramhorn" manifold then 754 people would have posted "what brand ramhorn" so i got that out of the way.
the gains on the intercooler piping would have been minimal. i'd say a 2.5 inch open downpipe vs. a 3 inch downpipe/exhaust/muffler would flow semi similar.
this is one of the first times i have been able to do a before/after on a pretty damn similar set up on a log vs. tube manifold. i get people asking me day in and day out if the tubular is worth the $ vs. the log. and hopefully this will help answer that question for some people.
the gains on the intercooler piping would have been minimal. i'd say a 2.5 inch open downpipe vs. a 3 inch downpipe/exhaust/muffler would flow semi similar.
this is one of the first times i have been able to do a before/after on a pretty damn similar set up on a log vs. tube manifold. i get people asking me day in and day out if the tubular is worth the $ vs. the log. and hopefully this will help answer that question for some people.
10-07-2005, 11:49 AM
#20
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 1,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Turbo-charged)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Turbo-charged »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">haha you guys take this stuff way too serious. i was just posting some gains that were seen on the dyno. if i would have posted "ramhorn" manifold then 754 people would have posted "what brand ramhorn" so i got that out of the way.
the gains on the intercooler piping would have been minimal. i'd say a 2.5 inch open downpipe vs. a 3 inch downpipe/exhaust/muffler would flow semi similar.
this is one of the first times i have been able to do a before/after on a pretty damn similar set up on a log vs. tube manifold. i get people asking me day in and day out if the tubular is worth the $ vs. the log. and hopefully this will help answer that question for some people. </TD></TR></TABLE>
there u go!
And for the most part a ram horn is a ram horn!
the gains on the intercooler piping would have been minimal. i'd say a 2.5 inch open downpipe vs. a 3 inch downpipe/exhaust/muffler would flow semi similar.
this is one of the first times i have been able to do a before/after on a pretty damn similar set up on a log vs. tube manifold. i get people asking me day in and day out if the tubular is worth the $ vs. the log. and hopefully this will help answer that question for some people.
</TD></TR></TABLE>there u go!
And for the most part a ram horn is a ram horn!
10-07-2005, 01:23 PM
#21
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: RIP Duke of Turbo, CA
Posts: 1,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Turbo-charged)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Turbo-charged »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">haha you guys take this stuff way too serious. i was just posting some gains that were seen on the dyno. if i would have posted "ramhorn" manifold then 754 people would have posted "what brand ramhorn" so i got that out of the way.
the gains on the intercooler piping would have been minimal. i'd say a 2.5 inch open downpipe vs. a 3 inch downpipe/exhaust/muffler would flow semi similar.
this is one of the first times i have been able to do a before/after on a pretty damn similar set up on a log vs. tube manifold. i get people asking me day in and day out if the tubular is worth the $ vs. the log. and hopefully this will help answer that question for some people. </TD></TR></TABLE>
You cannot say "I think that this manifold flows better than that manifold" or "I think the 2.5" dp will flow about the same as the full 3"." Now I am not saying that the 3" will flow better or worse, but to make that assertion you had better use some better rational than "I think that they would flow the same." The only way to compare one variable (hp, which is actually the measure of how well they flow and the thermal efficiency of each, and prolly some other stuff I don't understand)between the two manifolds is to hold ALL other variables constant. You might get a way with one completely independant variable and one variable with minimal influence. However, you have like 3-4 variables all being changed at the same time. Remember chemistry, psychology, sociology?? You can only have independant variable (this is the variable that you change) in order to make any type of assertion as to whether or not one of these manifolds has an advantage over the other. You didn't even provide the dyno graphs so we can see where the power comes in and how much total power one has vs. the other. The dyno graphs would have in no way given up the anonymity of the car/owner. Just not a good comparison, don't take it the wrong way. And I am in no way trying to down you for doing something to help poeple out with thier decisions. It's just that if you want to make a comparison, especially here on h-t, all your ducks better be in a row if you know what I mean. People here are kinda ****, like me.
ps - I'm sure I misspelled some crap, but I didn't feel like using spellcheck.
the gains on the intercooler piping would have been minimal. i'd say a 2.5 inch open downpipe vs. a 3 inch downpipe/exhaust/muffler would flow semi similar.
this is one of the first times i have been able to do a before/after on a pretty damn similar set up on a log vs. tube manifold. i get people asking me day in and day out if the tubular is worth the $ vs. the log. and hopefully this will help answer that question for some people.
</TD></TR></TABLE>You cannot say "I think that this manifold flows better than that manifold" or "I think the 2.5" dp will flow about the same as the full 3"." Now I am not saying that the 3" will flow better or worse, but to make that assertion you had better use some better rational than "I think that they would flow the same." The only way to compare one variable (hp, which is actually the measure of how well they flow and the thermal efficiency of each, and prolly some other stuff I don't understand)between the two manifolds is to hold ALL other variables constant. You might get a way with one completely independant variable and one variable with minimal influence. However, you have like 3-4 variables all being changed at the same time. Remember chemistry, psychology, sociology?? You can only have independant variable (this is the variable that you change) in order to make any type of assertion as to whether or not one of these manifolds has an advantage over the other. You didn't even provide the dyno graphs so we can see where the power comes in and how much total power one has vs. the other. The dyno graphs would have in no way given up the anonymity of the car/owner. Just not a good comparison, don't take it the wrong way. And I am in no way trying to down you for doing something to help poeple out with thier decisions. It's just that if you want to make a comparison, especially here on h-t, all your ducks better be in a row if you know what I mean. People here are kinda ****, like me.
ps - I'm sure I misspelled some crap, but I didn't feel like using spellcheck.
10-07-2005, 01:46 PM
#22
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Turbo-charged)
85whp were made somewhere, so perhaps this will give someone with a similar "future mod list" a frame of reference for what kind of numbers to expect (or not expect) when they are researching and buying their parts. Thanks for the post.
10-07-2005, 02:11 PM
#24
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Re: (stealthmode62)
ok....if you go from a "log" manifold to a "ramhorn manifold" a 2.5 inch open downpipe to a 3 inch muffled exhaust, and from 2.25 to 2.5 inch charge piping....your car will make more horsepower than it did before!
10-07-2005, 03:27 PM
#25
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Turbo-charged)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Turbo-charged »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">haha you guys take this stuff way too serious. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Exactly. I'm sure the customer will be happy and that's about all that matters. Nice gain for a just a few minor changes. His, Dollar to WHP gain ratio is probbaly not to bad but it would have been better if he went w/ the Neukin manifold though
Phil
Exactly. I'm sure the customer will be happy and that's about all that matters. Nice gain for a just a few minor changes. His, Dollar to WHP gain ratio is probbaly not to bad but it would have been better if he went w/ the Neukin manifold though
Phil