i recently bought the new manifold and wanted to test it to the old manifold...like so many other peopleso here is a dyno sheet of them both.


the red line is the old skunk and the blue line is the new skunk.
once the old manifold was ran the new one was installed about 2 hours lapsed between install.

notice the torque reading is not accurate. it dissapeared and then reappeared, so ignore the torque.

now for my setup:
del sol head
skunk 2-valves, springs, retainers, pro 1 cams, intake manifold, cam gears, exhaust
70mm throttle body
310cc injectors
aem fuel rail
B&M fuel pressure reg.
dc 4-1 header(JDM)
b20 rods
p30 pistons(.25)
ls block
Z10 eng. block girddle
Z10 eng. crank case breather kit
hondata
arp rod bolts
type R pumps
NO port/polish

special thanks to fransisco of rp racing and the guys at abacus racing

 

good stuff

 

where either of these setups tuned?

 

It looks like the old manifold made a little bite more power down low but nothing substanial. So apparantly they didn't redesign the new manifold that much if you didn't lose or gain power anywhere. I guess it was just marketing gimmick but thats the import world for you.
*Maybe it would produce different results on another setup, but it wouldn't make sense because nothing nothing was gained or lose*

 

lol, we have nearly the same numbers, with just a few different parts. I initially untuned put down 186 whp and 133 wtrq with the following set-up

b16 head with skunk2 stage 1 cams, itr valvetrain
skunk2 IM, AEM ls CAI, Vibrant j-spec 4-2-1 header
2.5 inch piping with N1 muffler
b18b block with standard size JDM spoon balanced itr pistons

and with tuning and an itr TB i put down 196 whp and 143 wtrq, pretty damn close numbers unless your pro manifold trq number is wrong.

Your car should be good for 210 whp. I've recently installed a bored out (64 mm) LS Throttle body, skunk2 Pro 1 cams, rocket gen 2 springs and retainers, and an ITR aem CAI, going for tuning this weeked, should break 200 whp without a problem.....

 

not exactly...it was tuned so it would idle properly, because i am getting an smsp header and was waiting till then to get it tuned

 

i personaly think both manifold are the same thing
i still rather have the aems im
more power and cheeper

 

well we got the car back on the dyno tonight to get him his new header. (ANR). we should be able to tune the car next weekend. we're hoping for just over 200. i think its possible.

 

so the new mani makes more torque?

 

Thanks for postin

 

WOW! No real difference.

 

Looks like the old style was better down low and the Pro1 is a little better up top. Not worth changing if you already have the OG piece.

 

Nice I have the old manifold and was going to get the new one but now I will keep the old one.


Modified by westfire25 at 7:24 AM 2/9/2006

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by b19coupe &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Looks like the old style was better down low and the Pro1 is a little better up top. Not worth changing if you already have the OG piece. </TD></TR></TABLE>

i have stock... and i would rather have top on my gsr

 

top end. sorry

My GSR still has the stock Intake Manifold.. I would rather have an aftermarket Intake mannifold.. to give me more up top is what I meant.

 

Was the test done on the same day and dyno? if not it really holds no bearing for a true comparison.. Thanks for sharing though, it definatly shows that the new one isnt dramaticly better..

 

they were done same day same dyno. tested one then swaped the other

 

Good comparison, im glad i got the old one for cheap, i also like the look of the old Manifold, looks like a stock itr

 

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

i have stock... and i would rather have top on my gsr </TD></TR></TABLE>

I think what he meant to say was that if you currently own the old manifold, it is not worth it to upgrade.

 

Holy Crap look at the torque gain, that's huge.

I think some of you need to look a little better. 13 more pounds of torque is f'in awsome!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by volcom40street &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Holy Crap look at the torque gain, that's huge.

I think some of you need to look a little better. 13 more pounds of torque is f'in awsome!

</TD></TR></TABLE>

read it again homie.....

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by volcom40street &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Holy Crap look at the torque gain, that's huge.

I think some of you need to look a little better. 13 more pounds of torque is f'in awsome!

</TD></TR></TABLE>

that tq reading is incorrect it gliches, look closer at the graph

 

Just to beat a dead horse:

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by volcom40street &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">[B]I think some of you need to look a little better. 13 more pounds of torque is f'in awsome!</TD></TR></TABLE>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hbracer93 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">notice the torque reading is not accurate. it dissapeared and then reappeared, so ignore the torque.</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by b19coupe &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Just to beat a dead horse:

</TD></TR></TABLE>

Thanks homies for looking out I thought the graph was wrong, I guess it does make sense, me