Inline Pro Cast SS vs. Typical Ramhorn Tub Manifold
08-06-2015, 09:11 AM
#1
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inline Pro Cast SS vs. Typical Ramhorn Tub Manifold
What are the pros/cons of each?
I have heard some brands of ramhorn styles have cracking issues. Any cracking issues with the cast SS?
Thanks
I have heard some brands of ramhorn styles have cracking issues. Any cracking issues with the cast SS?
Thanks
08-06-2015, 11:19 AM
#2
Honda-Tech Member
Re: Inline Pro Cast SS vs. Typical Ramhorn Tub Manifold
I don't have any first hand experience but in all my years lurking around I have read nothing but good from the Inline Pro cast SS manifold. It can support a lot of power with great durability.
08-06-2015, 01:25 PM
#3
Who is Mr Robot?
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ATL - Where the Pimps and Players dwell
Posts: 21,474
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
Re: Inline Pro Cast SS vs. Typical Ramhorn Tub Manifold
I'm not really seeing the point of this thread but I'll bite...
The only time the honda world sees tubular manifolds that crack are the Chinese units that use low quality materials and **** poor welding practices. The large majority of quality commercial fabricated tubular manifolds use sch. 10 pipe material at minimum which has thick walls and are properly welded. Failure of these manifolds is rare and normally only occurs after a very long period of use.
The few that might crack sooner are designs that place the turbocharger a long distance away from the motor, like a forward facing manifold, and setups that run very heavy turbochargers. Even then these failures are seen mostly on competitive drag cars as they see lots of vibrations and very abusive operating conditions. Try holding your turbocharger in your hand with your arms out in front of you... Now imagine that your arms are the turbo manifold. The large majority of these failures are eliminated by building a triangulated brace that supports the weight of turbocharger which takes a great deal of stress off of the manifold itself.
On setups where weight is a concern the manifold will be constructed out of thin wall 16g tube. Obviously the thin material cannot support the weight of a turbocharger in addition to lots of vibrations and heat cycles so running a triangulated brace to support the weight of a turbocharger is mandatory.
I have both sch. 10 pipe and 16g tube turbo manifolds and the weight savings alone makes the 16g manifold superior in my eyes.
Now with a high flow cast manifold design like the inline pro (for the record they have 2 designs: one AC compatible and one that isn't AC compatible) durability is obviously it's best feature. They can support fairly high power goals but depending on which design you have there can be clearance issues with larger turbochargers. The thick material and short runners means that there is very little drop in EGTs between the exhaust port and turbine inlet unlike a long runner tubular manifold that has a larger surface area. Wastegate priority is decent although boost control becomes as pre-turbine back pressure increases.
But again I'm not seeing the point of this thread...
You cannot compare the two styles of manifold construction equally because the finished products are no where near the same. Ultimately things like power levels, turbocharger sizing, purpose of the car, desired powerband, budget, and other various important factors all dictate what sort of manifold design should be run.
You just don't pick which one looks the coolest or costs the least and go from there. Each construction method has it's pros and cons but again the intended setup and it's purpose should dictate the choice and indicate which negatives you'll have to adapt to.
Get an idea of what you are trying to do first and then choose a manifold design, not the other way around.
The only time the honda world sees tubular manifolds that crack are the Chinese units that use low quality materials and **** poor welding practices. The large majority of quality commercial fabricated tubular manifolds use sch. 10 pipe material at minimum which has thick walls and are properly welded. Failure of these manifolds is rare and normally only occurs after a very long period of use.
The few that might crack sooner are designs that place the turbocharger a long distance away from the motor, like a forward facing manifold, and setups that run very heavy turbochargers. Even then these failures are seen mostly on competitive drag cars as they see lots of vibrations and very abusive operating conditions. Try holding your turbocharger in your hand with your arms out in front of you... Now imagine that your arms are the turbo manifold. The large majority of these failures are eliminated by building a triangulated brace that supports the weight of turbocharger which takes a great deal of stress off of the manifold itself.
On setups where weight is a concern the manifold will be constructed out of thin wall 16g tube. Obviously the thin material cannot support the weight of a turbocharger in addition to lots of vibrations and heat cycles so running a triangulated brace to support the weight of a turbocharger is mandatory.
I have both sch. 10 pipe and 16g tube turbo manifolds and the weight savings alone makes the 16g manifold superior in my eyes.
Now with a high flow cast manifold design like the inline pro (for the record they have 2 designs: one AC compatible and one that isn't AC compatible) durability is obviously it's best feature. They can support fairly high power goals but depending on which design you have there can be clearance issues with larger turbochargers. The thick material and short runners means that there is very little drop in EGTs between the exhaust port and turbine inlet unlike a long runner tubular manifold that has a larger surface area. Wastegate priority is decent although boost control becomes as pre-turbine back pressure increases.
But again I'm not seeing the point of this thread...
You cannot compare the two styles of manifold construction equally because the finished products are no where near the same. Ultimately things like power levels, turbocharger sizing, purpose of the car, desired powerband, budget, and other various important factors all dictate what sort of manifold design should be run.
You just don't pick which one looks the coolest or costs the least and go from there. Each construction method has it's pros and cons but again the intended setup and it's purpose should dictate the choice and indicate which negatives you'll have to adapt to.
Get an idea of what you are trying to do first and then choose a manifold design, not the other way around.
08-10-2015, 01:04 PM
#5
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: toledo, OH, USA
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Inline Pro Cast SS vs. Typical Ramhorn Tub Manifold
I have never had a ram horn but I first started with a sfp (south Florida performance) manifold that cracked within a year of boosting...i tried to repair iy by welding at it cracked again and the flange was thin making it warp so i was unable to get a good seal onto the head and it pulled out a coiple exhaust studs/threads which pissed me off.I didn't wanna go through the switching manifolds again, so I went with the inline pro ss as I heard it was damn near indestructible. Though I stopped daily driving the car quite some time ago, the inline pro has been on the car for around 20k miles and no issues with durability. Car made 518whp with the inline pro and smallest sc61 on close to a 100 degree day (25psi or so), spool is decent (starts boosting in the 4500rpm range and fully spooled inthe 52-5500 range depending on what gear im in. I run a hks waste gate with elbow and don't have any boost creep issues...thought I'd share.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Agtronic
Welding / Fabrication
69
08-22-2009 12:10 PM
eg2turbo
Forced Induction
9
10-31-2003 07:49 PM
dmecarboy
Forced Induction
10
10-16-2003 06:34 AM