Modified H22 Inatke MAnifold.......Removed Diaphram assembley
Thread Starter
Junior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
From: Jacksonville Beach, Florida, USA
Sorry about the small pic, I don't know how to fix it
I was wondering if anyone has done this? I pretty much just took off the diaphram assembley and bolted the upper half of the manifold to the lower portion?
If you've done this waht type of gains did you notice? Better with it on or off?
Any Advice or tips would be appreciated
Thanks
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nickwilmot »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Sorry about the small pic, I don't know how to fix it
I was wondering if anyone has done this? I pretty much just took off the diaphram assembley and bolted the upper half of the manifold to the lower portion?
If you've done this waht type of gains did you notice? Better with it on or off?
Any Advice or tips would be appreciated
Thanks
</TD></TR></TABLE>
It would have the same effect as running your butterflies open all the time...maybe with somewhat less turbulence. Basically you would lose low end torque and have no effect on the top end. This is compared to a manifold with properly working runners.
Sorry about the small pic, I don't know how to fix it
I was wondering if anyone has done this? I pretty much just took off the diaphram assembley and bolted the upper half of the manifold to the lower portion?
If you've done this waht type of gains did you notice? Better with it on or off?
Any Advice or tips would be appreciated
Thanks
</TD></TR></TABLE>It would have the same effect as running your butterflies open all the time...maybe with somewhat less turbulence. Basically you would lose low end torque and have no effect on the top end. This is compared to a manifold with properly working runners.
Agreed, although this has already been beaten to death here several times........ i think the only gains would be in a FI motor, minor at that
difference here is that he shortend the leanth of the runners, not just leaving them open. leaving them open produces no gains at top, cause they are open at top. the gains the people leavethem open for are shooting for the 3-5k range.
i think you will gain a slight bit in the very upper rpm, so high you would need an upgraded valvetrain to see most likely, and dont know what would happen to midrange shorting them like that.
i think you will gain a slight bit in the very upper rpm, so high you would need an upgraded valvetrain to see most likely, and dont know what would happen to midrange shorting them like that.
I did the same thing to my intake only I took the butterfly valves off the rod, and took the rod out. Then I filled the hole with JB weld, and ground them perfectly smooth as if they were never there
Trending Topics
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SilverEk3dr »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I did the same thing to my intake only I took the butterfly valves off the rod, and took the rod out. Then I filled the hole with JB weld, and ground them perfectly smooth as if they were never there
</TD></TR></TABLE>
might as well make a d15 mani fit on there, or get a 1" intake. closeing them off like that would restrick the hell out it. its like tring to suck a golf ball though a garden hose.
</TD></TR></TABLE>might as well make a d15 mani fit on there, or get a 1" intake. closeing them off like that would restrick the hell out it. its like tring to suck a golf ball though a garden hose.
yeah that's a terrible idea...you fixed that didn't you? It's one thing to take out the plate...it's another to plug the holes (BAD IDEA)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think he meant that he took the secondaries out and plugged the holes that the rods go in, not the actual port</TD></TR></TABLE>
Yep. Sorry. Once again to clarify. I plugged the holes that the rod for the butterflies was in with JB weld. Not the low-end intake runners (yeah. bad idea)
BTW. I've been sick, and work is dying around here. So money is scarce. Plus the guy that tuned my car before is super busy with other work. So I havent been back, and I havent had any time off work to go either.
I did run it at the track with the current tune though. On 17"s (@2700 w/me in the car) I ran 14.20@97. That run I bogged, then double clutched & spun. I still managed a 2.2 60", but there is a whole lot of room for improvement thats for sure.
Yep. Sorry. Once again to clarify. I plugged the holes that the rod for the butterflies was in with JB weld. Not the low-end intake runners (yeah. bad idea)
BTW. I've been sick, and work is dying around here. So money is scarce. Plus the guy that tuned my car before is super busy with other work. So I havent been back, and I havent had any time off work to go either.
I did run it at the track with the current tune though. On 17"s (@2700 w/me in the car) I ran 14.20@97. That run I bogged, then double clutched & spun. I still managed a 2.2 60", but there is a whole lot of room for improvement thats for sure.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by machine4321 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">dam nice time ...what car you in ...seems very light </TD></TR></TABLE>
Given his name O'd say it's an EK
Given his name O'd say it's an EK
I did the same mod as SilverEk3dr, removing the plates and rod and plugging the hole, and got some power out of it. It flows more air than stock, but only if you're head and cams can flow that much air. If they can't then the mod is not good.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by satan_srv »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Given his name O'd say it's an EK</TD></TR></TABLE>
lol im a dumbass....umm it must have been late...ya thats it
Given his name O'd say it's an EK</TD></TR></TABLE>
lol im a dumbass....umm it must have been late...ya thats it
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
integranator
Forced Induction
29
Jul 16, 2004 06:08 AM



