You all need to get a flow bench, put these manifolds on a head, and test. Just randomly building designs that Corky "thinks" are good without any empirical data is just ridiculous. It must be nice to have all that time to waste building parts.
Don't get me wrong, I love that you all are trying to get out a part that I know is needed greatly for our little cars in a performance application. However, building one off manifolds by hand without knowing anything about how they will perform is a huge waste of time. You need to take that young man that you have there, have him learn how to use solid works or any other nice CAD suite, and perform some computer flow analysis on your designs before you waste time fabricating manifolds.
Sure you might find a design that performs better than the stock manifold by randomly welding together parts. I don't think that will be very hard. The fact is that you will not know how much better it is, or if you could have made something even better than that for the same price.
+1. Yall's new mani might help flow overall, but I'd bet it could be improved and I doubt you'll get equal distribution without testing, changing, retesting, etc. But just like every other part on earth, it's built to improve something without measuring the problem parts performance or the new products performance. (think headers, manifolds, fuel rails, ignition systems, pistons, coatings, rods, valves, I could go on and on...)
Perhaps they are considering dynoing it once they have a few built prototypes?
What you suggest is valuable, but not near as valuable as a dyno sheet.
You're missing the point. That manifold might flow air really really well to 3 cylinders and cause an overall increase in HP on a dyno, but the resulting mismatch in flow causes AFR's to be off and can damage the engine. And of course is NOT ideal for HP. Point is unless it's flowbenched, you're just "guessing" to a point what's better. Granted they'll likely make something better than the stock part. But as neo pointed out, if you're gonna do something this big already, why not bite the bullet and flowbench your product to verify it's as good as can be.
It's my fault for the confusion, I was responding to a previous posters' point on page 4, not any post on 5.
With that said, the point of even air flow between the cylinders is not lost on me, but I don't think it will be an issue. I understand that some would like some data, and that is cool. In fact, that is the only way you will know if you get an even flow between cylinders... However, on the point of it making more power, I don't think that will be an issue, how -much- power on the other hand...
I know what you're saying, NeoGen, and I agree. What you suggest is better R&D before any metal is bent, and what I was referring to was objective testing after the fact. I don't have much knowledge about this at all, but I would think that with Begi being such a relatively small operation, buying such software and putting it to good use would drive up the price substantially.
Well, since they employ a person that is currently going to college they should have someone that is learning, or knows how to use the software. The fact is, the reason most or all places are going to CAD is because of the lower cost to a project. The fact that you can make, test, analyze an infinite number of design changes before ever even going to the material pile means that little to no time is wasted fabricating. Also you don't waste money in scraping bad designs.
So there is an upfront cost, but if you use it for everything from then on you save big.
I love that BEGI gives FM competition, but any business that wants to stay competitive in price and performance must invest in itself.