I'm new to Hondatech so I'm not allowed to post any attachments, like dyno charts and pictures, so until I'm off 'trial user' status I guess we'll have to hold this down to discussion on theory and how different harmonics affect the torque curve of an engine.
I have a K-series manifold in production now that gives an engine of any displacement a HP peak right at 9,000 rpm (the 9.0 model), and this has been proven through extensive dyno testing. I also have an 8.5 model prototype that's been dyno tested on 5 different displacement engines, showing the same kind of results only at a lower rpm. I've built 9.5, 10.0 and 10.5 models as well, but haven't had time to finalize the runner lengths on those yet.
What's significant about using the 2nd order harmonic is the ability of the intake manifold to hold the torque curve flat in the upper rpm range, no matter what cams are in the engine, and since its making more torque at high rpm it also makes more HP.
More HP than ANY plenum manifold or ITB's we've tested them against.
Anybody interested?

 

Wow that's great man! I'm interested and I know a few others that are as well...
I'd be willing to try it against one of mine...I'm sure if it beats mine up you'll sell a bunch! I have at least three 2.4-2.7 liter drag K motors right now that I can put it on and provide dyno & track results. I totaly agree... the further you can carry the torque the HP is going to follow.

-Jack

 

Hey Jack,
Glad to see at least someone is interested. Over 100 views with just one reply seems kind of weird to me.
First I'd need to know what the redline is on the motors you'd be testing. Since the 8.5 manifold is a design on its own, tucked in tighter than an RBC, doesn't require the alternator to be moved, and only works out at that specific runner length; where the other higher rpm manifolds all share the same basic 9.0 design that does require the alternator to be moved down for plenum clearance, I can shorten the 9.0 runners to get the HP peak up to about 10,500. This naturally takes some experimentation on the dyno to confirm the exact length, I found that to be the case when I went from 8.5 to 9.0, the formula needed to be treaked slightly to give me exactly what I wanted. And it can be adjusted up and down for fine tuning by changing the length of the intake pipe, so there's some overlap between all of them using 500 rpm steps.
Probably best if we continue this conversation using e-mail.
jomccarthy@att.net

 

if you upload the pics to something like photobucket which is free you can share pics. i would be interested to see some graphs and pics of these manifolds.

 

The peak HP on the engines that Jack spoke about are 8900-9300. Power usually carries to 9800 on dyno.

I made you an offer on K20a.org and will stand by it. We have drag engines that currently use Kinslers. If your manifold can beat them, I have no problem making a large order of manifolds.

We would have no problem sharing any dyno or engine info with you if it makes the product better and us more HP.

 

I just did a search and two of the threads Daniel started when we were doing all of the prototype testing are on this forum already.
Niether one got much interest at that point on this forum.
https://honda-tech.com/forums/showth...nifold+testing
https://honda-tech.com/forums/showth...nifold+testing
GSR,
Where the current HP peak is with the Kinsler ITB's isn't what I'm concerned with. What's important is manipulating the torque curve to give each individual setup the highest average HP over the RPM range those particular gear ratios operate within. This can be done with ITB's as well if you spend the time to get the runners the right length, but what I see most people doing is just taking their Kinslers out of the box and bolting them on 'as is'.
That's NOT the right way to get the most HP out of them, but not guys don't have the fabrication skills to do the job completely and correctly.
We tested both my 2,188cc (90 x 86) mule motor and a 2,621cc (90 x 103) Drag Cartel motor against Kinsler ITB's, and my manifolds beat them in both cases by 14-16 HP, AND in both cases the plenum manifold made the peak HP at 500 less RPM so the comparison wasn't really fair to the plenum manifold.
The set of 2 1/2" Kinslers we tested on the 2,188cc motor had been optimized by me for Hondata's Bonneville cars where the HP peak was at 9,800 rpm. The set used on the 2,621cc motor were 2 5/8" straight out of the box.
All you have to do to see this for yourself is buy a manifold, and I'll set it up any way you want it to be, but I'm not sending out any freebies to anyone.

 

I don't remember ever asking for anything free. In fact just the opposite.
I would have no problem making an order if you can prove it will beat kinslers on a 2.7L.

Any factual data to back up the claims on the bigger motors or are you just going to continue with your verbose rhetoric in hopes that is enough to sell a few manifolds?

I do have a fabrication shop as well as a dyno and tested many of the things you speak of. I even posted dyno graphs on the last thread on k20a.org . You aren't the only one who tries whatever they can to make power.

 

As you already know we haven't tested a 2.7 L motor, only a 2,621cc and a 2,585cc in the Big Motor category, so what you're asking of me is impossible to provide.
Common sense dictates that if my plenum manifold beat Kinsler ITB's on both of the engines we did test them against (one of them being 2,621cc), that would also hold true on a 2,697cc engine since there's only a 19cc/cylinder difference between them.
There's nothing rhetorical about any of this its just what the dyno showed us to be the truth, and as I've told you before the fact that you aren't willing to believe it doesn't change the fact that it happened.
In the scentific community when someone performs an experiment that refutes what's already been proven its up to the doubters to conduct the same experiment and prove that the initial experiment was a fluke. Just saying "I don't believe it" doesn't prove anything, and is considered to be worthless rhetoric.

 

jake told you he would buy 50 manifolds if your manifold beat his kinslers did he not?



are you a business man?

 

Yeah, right! I'll start believing that load of crap when I see the $60,000 wire transfer. Money talks & Bullshit walks.

 

Let me pull out the ironing board

 

Dec. 30th, and now I can finally upload some pictures.
Two different configurations of the 9.0 manifold using the center-feed plenum. The shorter of the two 90 degree fuel rails is the one that'll go into production. Either or both sets of injector bosses can be machined depending on your requirements, and O-ringed plugs are available if you need them to seal an unused set.
Any questions?

 

very interesting design.

 

The only question I have is " Where are the dyno charts that back up your claim against the Kinsler Itb's?" I would like to take a look and a link or pic would be great. I hope this thread doesn't turn into "my dick is better than yours" contest because that's what it seems like.

 

I hope these sell so that the 8.5 goes into production for us mere mortals with normal powerbands...(crosses fingers).

 

come on, let's see some comparisons. I'm willing to try one

 

Joe,

Do you have any info on the CFM this manifold flows???

Stefan

 

I was at Shawn's dyno shop today delivering a special 93mm Rotrex pulley I machined, so I had Daniel go dig into the files to find the charts from when we tested my 8.5 manifold against Kinsler ITB's. The 8.5 manifold is sized for stock intake ports, and in both cases the Kinsler manifolds had been port matched to the head on the engine. 2 3/8" ID on the 2,188cc engine and 2 1/2" ID Kinsler on the 2,621cc engine. My port runners are 2.4" ID.
Obviously the HP difference would be even greater if we were comparing my 9.0 or higher RPM manifolds, but this should give you a good idea what you can expect to see.

 

Onefstek,
How much the manifold flows is dependent on how much the head flows, with the head being the restriction in the system. It might be interesting data to have, but since its static flow I don't consider it to be relavent to what's going on when an engine is running. The manifolds can be finish machined to any port size imaginable for this engine, but the port runners are a LOT bigger than that, so I suppose I could get one to flow 550 CFM per port if I really wanted to. Got any 40mm intake valves lying around? I can spread the seats a little so they'll fit.
Comparative flow numbers are extremely useful when you're doing port work on a head, and I flow tested a lot of different port runner shapes, sizes, and velocity stack configurations on different heads before I finally settled on the one I use in my manifolds, but its the dynamics of the harmonic tuning that really makes the big difference between one manifold and another and that can't be simulated on the flow bench. That's when the dyno becomes the measuring tool of choice, and either proves out the design or sends you back to the shop to build something different.
It was fortunate that what I built the first time worked even better than I'd expected it would, but that doesn't mean I'm finished with it yet. I'll keep building new prototypes and dyno testing them against the current manifolds because you're only as good as your last miracle and there's always room for improvement.

 

JoeMac, any timeline for production of the 8.5?

 

If you've got a nice clear crystal ball I'd like to borrow it.
At this point I can't give you anything approaching a solid time-line on getting the 8.5 manifold into production. Its simply a matter of money. The pattern maker won't start on the tooling until he's got half the money up front, and it takes about 8 weeks to build everything, so I figure I need to have pretty much all of the money in hand when I give the pattern maker the go ahead. Saving $26,000 to make this happen isn't easy for me, but its all I think about every day of the week.
In the meantime I'm going to be doing some building and dyno testing on a novel approach to building a plenum where I can position the throttle body anywhere and it won't negatively effect the cylinder to cylinder airflow. I'm doing this for you guys who must have the T/B at the end of the plenum, and it'll be a neat trick if I can pull it off. It'd be a lot easier to just have the prototype end-feed plenum put into production, but since I already know it to be a HP killer like all end-feed plenums are I'm going to work on a solution rather that take the easy road.
From the time I hand the pattern maker the money it'll take 6 months until I can ship manifolds, that's all I can be sure of.

 

Would it be possible to attach an 'S' shaped piece of tube that would allow positioning of the TB on the end yet feed into the manifold plenum at the center of the 9.0?

 

Got you to thinkin', huh?
Yeah you could do that, but then you'd need to run a REALLY short intake pipe or you'd lower the peak HP rpm point. The intake pipe effectively becomes part of the plenum when the throttle's wide open and the overall length has an effect on the Torque an HP curves. Something you can't do is have the entrance into the plenum in the 'roof' of it, directly inline with the velocity stacks into the port runners.

 

OK, so I posted the 8.5 -vs- Kinsler ITB comparison graphs, where are the comments from the peanut gallery?

 

This peanut likes what he sees. Can't wait too see what you have in the works & what the future holds. 35whp at 8500 on the 2.2. Gains that big don't come easy.