a while back I posted about turbo manifolds that use this configuration, and got some good info/ideas for it, so here's the progression on it. I'm short some elbows for the last collector, and since its the weekend and everything's closed, and I'm bored, I thought I'd post some pics on how its coming along. the pics are pretty shitty, I took them with my cam phone, but when its all done I'll take some good qual. shots






I used 1 1/2" sch 10 for the primary runners and collectors, and after that switched to 2 1/4" 14 ga. tube, they had a larger bend radius which is what I wanted, and if I went with anything sch 10 larger then 1 1/2" in dia. then it would've gotten to be too heavy. The turbo will be supported on the block anyway, so this manifold won't hold any of the turbo's weight. Can't wait to get this thing finished


Modified by Canuk_SiR at 9:42 PM 2/8/2005

 

that bastard is confusing to look at........different though. keep up the good work

 

Heres how I did my 4-2-1.

 

uhhh...

shouldnt the 2 inside and the 2 outside be linked for it to work right?

 

hey, want to weld mine? pm me

 

yes you pair the cylinders as so 1-4 3-2

 

Would it really matter on a turbo without a divided exhaust flange.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by untitled &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Would it really matter on a turbo without a divided exhaust flange.</TD></TR></TABLE>

that's the way I see it

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by untitled &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Would it really matter on a turbo without a divided exhaust flange.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I don't think a tang housing has much to do with it. By not pairing the runners properly your exhaust pulses are going to be interfering with one another, causing turbulance and reducing the effectiveness of having that style of manifold.

I'd be curious to see what your dyno graph comes out looking like.

 

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

I don't think a tang housing has much to do with it. By not pairing the runners properly your exhaust pulses are going to be interfering with one another, causing turbulance and reducing the effectiveness of having that style of manifold.

I'd be curious to see what your dyno graph comes out looking like. </TD></TR></TABLE>

How would this be any different than a log manifold?

 

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

How would this be any different than a log manifold?</TD></TR></TABLE>

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

....... causing turbulance and reducing the effectiveness of having that style of manifold.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

I would think a log manifold would have alot more turbulance than mine would and I have seen people get some big HP with a log manifold.

 

I think you would be fine... Its nots like your trying to make 700whp or something.

The only affected by not combing 1 & 4 and 2 & 3 would be just less of a scavenging effect. Thats the way i see it.

I think, wait, i KNOW you will dyno way better than any log mani so keep up the good work!!

 

looks good so far. Can someone tell me how or if a 4-2-1 is better then a 4-1 turbo manifold? Are there any advantages to either one? I always thought that a 4-2-1 would work better but i don't see to many made or even sold. I know they make a 4-2-1 turbo manifold for my sti, and it is suposed to be much better than a 4-1.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 80884 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">looks good so far. Can someone tell me how or if a 4-2-1 is better then a 4-1 turbo manifold? Are there any advantages to either one? I always thought that a 4-2-1 would work better but i don't see to many made or even sold. I know they make a 4-2-1 turbo manifold for my sti, and it is suposed to be much better than a 4-1. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Well yea, probably because you car is a boxer 4...

 

Yea, the sti is, but the civic isn't. I was just wondering if a 4-2-1 has the same advantages on a inline 4. I will be building a manifold for my car and haven't decided on 4-2-1 or 4-1.

 

I was thinking now, just because it was brought up, if I wanted to change it to a 4-1 2-3 pairing, it wouldn't be too hard. If I find that it would be pretty easy, I might just fab up another manifold, so I have one with the current layout, and one with a 4-1 2-3 layout, and dyno them both, see what happens. Keep in mind though my car is far from finished, so don't hold your breath for dyno plots

 

I'd bet you wouldn't see even 3hp difference by changing it. Your piping is much larger than your port size. This means that velocity will be relatively slow....and I think this will minimize the effect of any scavenging that you'd get with smaller runners and higher velocity.

Although others may disagree, I would ask for proof of this before I believed otherwise.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Engloid &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'd bet you wouldn't see even 3hp difference by changing it. Your piping is much larger than your port size. This means that velocity will be relatively slow....and I think this will minimize the effect of any scavenging that you'd get with smaller runners and higher velocity.

Although others may disagree, I would ask for proof of this before I believed otherwise.</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

Looks Good

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Engloid &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'd bet you wouldn't see even 3hp difference by changing it. Your piping is much larger than your port size. This means that velocity will be relatively slow....and I think this will minimize the effect of any scavenging that you'd get with smaller runners and higher velocity.

Although others may disagree, I would ask for proof of this before I believed otherwise.</TD></TR></TABLE>

haha ya thats definatly true &lt; 400whp

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Engloid &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'd bet you wouldn't see even 3hp difference by changing it. Your piping is much larger than your port size. This means that velocity will be relatively slow....and I think this will minimize the effect of any scavenging that you'd get with smaller runners and higher velocity.

Although others may disagree, I would ask for proof of this before I believed otherwise.</TD></TR></TABLE>

True, I didn't put much value in it to begin with, but there is a valid point made regardless, even if it is only in theory. But I did put some thought in having the pairing "correct" and came out with a better design altogether. The runners have better overall lengths compared to one another. with the old setup I had 2 and 4 with short runners, and 1 and 3 longer. Now runner lengths are more equal, but not true equal length. It just worked out better to change the layout, so I'll stick with what I've got now.

you'll have to excuse how messy it looks, this bastard's been tacked and re-tacked probably 6 times by now, messing with different ideas and fitments.

 

Nice bed cover. Ah the 70's

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bruthaboost &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Nice bed cover. Ah the 70's </TD></TR></TABLE>

bah whatever! that thing's from europe, and its not my bed

 

That looks REALLY good bro, keep it up... Im not sure if you are already but you should definetly look into selling those after you dyno test it. I can tell you take the time to fit everything properly. When you take time doing that the end product will be much better. No gaps to fill, Looks like it was meant to fit together like that.


Good Job!!