95GSRTT

I have been thinking about this for a couple days now, after I finally watched the video that was posted about the test that. From what I could tell when the test was run with the Ramhorn, there was a dumptube on the wastegate to direct exhaust gases away from the engine bay, compressor.

Then when it was switched to a log manifold, there was no dumptube put on the wastegate, and only a big piece of metal for the exhaust gases to flow up against so it didnt hit the radiator it looked like. Allowing for the exhaust gases to be sucked up by the compressor side, making it a lot more likely to produce less power. Maybe they covered this in the actual thread that was originally posted, but I was not able to follow the entire thread.

Maybe someone can shed some light on the test and the subject. I believe that the ramhorn would make more, but I have a hard time swallowing the 50+ difference between the 2 manifolds, when the log manifold looks to be at a distinct disadvantage due to no dumptube.

Profiles of Victory

Can we get a link to this video. From your words so far I would have to agree with you, I have experienced exactly what you said.

95GSRTT

Ya, I got it from another thread, where I originally saw it.

http://www.panekmechanik.com/V...t.wmv

95GSRTT

83 views and 1 reply? come on guys...

mchuang

Yea that is a pretty shitty log manifold..I bet the flange and the tubing was not portmatched obstructing exhaust flow all over, while the other manifold was topnotch, but oh well who gives...test or no test people will spend money on what they want.

97turbols

Here we go again! If you guys don't like the test or think it is inaccurate then why don't you get off your asses and conduct your own test instead of constantly bashing those who are doing things to advance our sport and community. I have not been a registered member here for very long but I have read and used the information on this forum from day one, and it seems to me that a lot of the people who do these kinds of comparisons (like Jeff Evans and Full Race) have stopped sharing their findings because all the Monday morning quarterbacks on this site do nothing but criticize and hate on them. That is truly a shame for the import enthusiast!

P.S.- this post is not directed at the thread starter, he seems to be genuinely interested in finding an answer and not just hating, but I know where this thread is headed and all the haters are sure to soon appear.

.dave

I'm pretty sure this exact topic was debated before and it just turned into a shitfest with people calling each other nutriders, haters and bandwagoners.

95GSRTT

I honestly see where you are both coming from and I was hoping to just keep this a completely BS free thread, which seems to be hard to come by nowadays. I really just want maybe some kind of explanation or maybe some insight on this. As I have been under the impression that running no dumptube hurts performance quite a bit. I personally gained over 20 whp just from adding a dumptube and this was at low boost of 8 lbs I believe.

And If I could I would do the testing myself, but I do not make the parts myself and do not own my own facility and really just want a short answer of the possibility of the test not really being completely accurate. And I do appreciate the people that are trying to move the sport forward and test different products, but when doing so, skimping on something as small as a dumptube that ppl will notice just doesnt make sense...

Mase

easy. if you're going to discuss it. fine, but dont sit there with a lame tone.

95GSRTT

I just want to make sure that wasnt directed to me, as I thought I was conducting myself just fine

97turbols

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 95GSRTT &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I honestly see where you are both coming from and I was hoping to just keep this a completely BS free thread, which seems to be hard to come by nowadays. I really just want maybe some kind of explanation or maybe some insight on this. As I have been under the impression that running no dumptube hurts performance quite a bit. I personally gained over 20 whp just from adding a dumptube and this was at low boost of 8 lbs I believe.

And If I could I would do the testing myself, but I do not make the parts myself and do not own my own facility and really just want a short answer of the possibility of the test not really being completely accurate. And I do appreciate the people that are trying to move the sport forward and test different products, but when doing so, skimping on something as small as a dumptube that ppl will notice just doesnt make sense...</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm pretty sure there was a thread about this awhile back with a little bit of good info, mostly just a **** fest, but I'll see if I can find it
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mase &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">easy. if you're going to discuss it. fine, but dont sit there with a lame tone. </TD></TR></TABLE> not sure what that is supposed to mean but thanks

97turbols

here it was in the original thread, the last 2 pages is where the dumptube is disscused : https://honda-tech.com/zero...age=9

95GSRTT

sweet, ill read that when i get home, leaving right now. thanks

Profiles of Victory

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 97turbols &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Here we go again!
</TD></TR></TABLE>

What I love is that nowhere in this thread has anyone made comments beyond mature disscusion yet. Are you sure a mature discussion of physics and our peers is what you're after? Thanks for the short tutorial on what you think proper criticism is. You can prove me wrong by not replying to this paragraph and attempting a second thread war. Feel free to respond to the one below please.

Any scientist/engineer knows his work will fall under scrutiny from peers when they release it....its all part of the business. Without it, negative or not....we would never evolve or find greater truths.

I have nothing against full race, I'm sure they make a fine product. If they wanted people to take that test seriously, they could have performed it seriously. End of discussion. I don't think full race got their feelings hurt, they know their product performs well otherwise.

Not attaching a dumptube for the sake of time is complete disregard to the experiments constants. Feeding the intake charge even small quantities of burnt gas is unacceptable. In the scientific world, this experiment would fall to high scrutiny and be disregarded entirely by the majorities. Full race probably makes a great product, but in regard to their video....they got back what they put out. I think your just a little burnt out on all the mean spirited people around here, and honestly...I don't blame you. But don't tell other people to simply thank companies for a test that is bugged and zip their lips, because the company is otherwise helpful.

I am a sophmore in mechanical engineering (whoopty doo) and if I turned in this experiment to my physics/chemistry teacher with the end conclusion that the gains were due to manifold material and form I would receive a failing mark.


Modified by Profiles of Victory at 11:10 PM 2/13/2006

Profiles of Victory

And I hate to post this because it really doesn't need to be said, but reiterates a point for some people....

I would consider buying a full race manifold. The construction looks great and the equal length ramhorn is inherent to larger gains over most designs.

95GSRTT

I like what that thread had to offer, but alot of it just seemed like ppl trying to bash or prove something w/o actual facts. Jeff evans himself seemed to have admited to a .5-1 lb increase of boost with the Fullrace manifold, which we all know can be good from between 10-25 hp depending on the efficiency of the motor.

Also with the dumptube not being there that may add to another 10-25 HP really just depending on the set up.

As I was stating before Im sure the EL manifold makes more power, but the 50 hp they claim? I dont know as the test has never been done properly from what I have seen. Probably more like 10-20 hp seems more logical and reasonable to me. Either way, I think for the most part I got the answer to my question. So thanks!

Profiles of Victory

there ya go.

Touge Tuning

I pointed this out over a month ago and I think it got blown out of proportion. I think the test done was good and gave some good information but people are quick to think someone is "hating" on them when all they are looking for is some answers. I am sure the log setup would have gained some decent power but I also doubt it would have the same numbers or power curve as the ramhorn.

Turbo-charged

ive done this test myself between a revhard manifold and a full race manifold and saw a 70-80 whp gain.

Under_Pressure

Ok I know that the wastegate was open to atmosphere but if u see the video its pointing in the opposite direction and there is 2 big *** fans pointing in the engine bay. the one on the drivers side should not let the exhaust gas come close to the inlet of the turbo. But if u want to do a real test all components should be the same except what you are testing. I still believe the equal length mani would out perform the log. Also i bet u that car was tuned for the equal length mani and not the log something to look into! Another test i would like to see done is the very long turbo manies that put the turbo all the way to the side of the car.

b16hybridsol

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Under_Pressure &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> Another test i would like to see done is the very long turbo manies that put the turbo all the way to the side of the car.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Like frenchy's car. htf does that manifold work so well, its like 5ft long

Full-Race Geoff

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 95GSRTT &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> I believe that the ramhorn would make more, but I have a hard time swallowing the 50+ difference between the 2 manifolds</TD></TR></TABLE>

have you not read any of the other threads? Where countless other people have seen the same results... or the ones about the SR20DET test showing identical results... or maybe the 1.8T VW test showing identical results...

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Profiles of Victory &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I am a sophmore in mechanical engineering</TD></TR></TABLE>

ok, so youre a sophomore complaining about a test that two senior undergrad engineering students did 2 years ago. heres our new one (master's thesis). Just becuase we graduated didnt mean we stopped educating ourselves.

ABSTRACT
This research addresses the dilemma of designing a constant pressure exhaust.manifold for a performance, high-revving four-cylinder, four-stroke, turbocharged, spark-ignition engine. A study on the design tools and their analysis of the effects of the overall pressure drop across two tubular “equal pressure” exhaust manifolds with different total pressure losses is performed. The interactions between exhaust manifold pressures versus turbocharger/engine performance characteristics are observed.

Previous research, relating to exhaust manifold wave mechanics and design techniques is assessed. A one-dimensional friction flow analysis is presented to estimate exhaust gas friction losses in each manifold. One-dimensional analyses are used to mathematically quantify the pressure losses of the two constant pressure tubular exhaust manifold designs.

During the second part of this research, the exhaust manifolds are experimentally evaluated for their pressure and performance characteristics on a turbocharged Honda B-Series 1.98 liter VTEC engine. The manifolds are instrumented identically and the engines ran on a chassis dynamometer to investigate the relationship between their pressure losses and turbocharger/engine performance. The comparison between the numerical and experimental pressure and performance data is analyzed.







so yes, we have gotten much better at testing, and the results have not done anything but reinforce our initial conclusions

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by daveG &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm pretty sure this exact topic was debated before and it just turned into a shitfest with people calling each other nutriders, haters and bandwagoners. </TD></TR></TABLE>

nutrider!!! hater!!! bandwagoner!!! you forgot "bling" !!!!

Under_Pressure

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

Talk about open downpipe or in this case open up-pipe! Thats on fine potato launcher you have there geoff

Full-Race Geoff

you should have seen me driving the car down the street to the dyno with it attached. people just stared in traffic, kinda funny. we pushed the dyno outside to ensure consistent results and no contamination... .



Modified by Full-Race Geoff at 2:51 PM 2/14/2006

0KStuned

I can't believe how many people hate on Full-Race... I don't get it.

Back to reality though:

Jeff-
What are the results of THIS test? What pressure existed in each tube and at what boost pressure w/ what turbo (including specs) vs. RPM? What were the comparable results for the log manifold? Did it get tested the same as the "Ramhorn" pictured above? That is what I want to know.

Is it the lack of backpressure creating more power because of less reversion back into the combustion chamber? What is it specifically that is making so much more power on the "ramhorn" rather than the log?