Exhaust manifold runner diameter
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 1,446
Total Cats: 6
Exhaust manifold runner diameter
So I'm about to have a new turbo exhaust manifold made and I was presented with the options of either 1.25" or the standard 1.5" diameter runners. I tried to do some reading on this but am only coming across NA applications for runner diameter. I've seen some headway in a manifold thread, but it sort of ended.
Does anyone have any input on this?
Does anyone have any input on this?
#2
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 2,910
Total Cats: 51
When I was talking to a manifold builder he suggested I go 1.25
This was because there is no real top end gains with similar manifolds until you exceed 500hp on a 4 cylinder.
I know it's a very general statement but that's all the input I have to offer.
Matt
This was because there is no real top end gains with similar manifolds until you exceed 500hp on a 4 cylinder.
I know it's a very general statement but that's all the input I have to offer.
Matt
#5
I know my long equal length runner 1.25" schedule 40 weld ell manifold works well and spools a GT3071R quite well and makes plenty of power.
Bob
#6
Senior Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Tinley Park, IL
Posts: 1,482
Total Cats: 0
I tend to agree with the above points. I used a 1.625 runner on a previous manifold build. After switching to a 1.375 runner, the turbo spools 200-300 rpm sooner.
The spool seems more consistent as well. It used to spool slowly from 1-5 psi then skyrocket. The runner change seemed to alleviate this problem. It now spools up at a uniform speed from 0-20 psi.
The spool seems more consistent as well. It used to spool slowly from 1-5 psi then skyrocket. The runner change seemed to alleviate this problem. It now spools up at a uniform speed from 0-20 psi.
#7
I tend to agree with the above points. I used a 1.625 runner on a previous manifold build. After switching to a 1.375 runner, the turbo spools 200-300 rpm sooner.
The spool seems more consistent as well. It used to spool slowly from 1-5 psi then skyrocket. The runner change seemed to alleviate this problem. It now spools up at a uniform speed from 0-20 psi.
The spool seems more consistent as well. It used to spool slowly from 1-5 psi then skyrocket. The runner change seemed to alleviate this problem. It now spools up at a uniform speed from 0-20 psi.
My manifold has eqal length runners 16-1/2" long from the head to the turbo flange made of 1-1/4" shedule 40 pipe. nice linear spool to a 3071R turbo and it is making over 3000ft-lbs of torque by 4000 rpm at 18psi with the 2.0L. The spool is still good with a stock enternal 1.8L.
Bob
#8
I should point out that 1-1/4 shedule 40 pipe actually has a 1.375" ID which can cause some confusion. I think it is a real good match for the outlet of the head.
My manifold has eqal length runners 16-1/2" long from the head to the turbo flange made of 1-1/4" shedule 40 pipe. nice linear spool to a 3071R turbo and it is making over 3000ft-lbs of torque by 4000 rpm at 18psi with the 2.0L. The spool is still good with a stock enternal 1.8L.
Bob
My manifold has eqal length runners 16-1/2" long from the head to the turbo flange made of 1-1/4" shedule 40 pipe. nice linear spool to a 3071R turbo and it is making over 3000ft-lbs of torque by 4000 rpm at 18psi with the 2.0L. The spool is still good with a stock enternal 1.8L.
Bob
The few manifolds i've made using a weirtech head flange and 1.5" schedule 40 pipe the tubes were slightly smaller than the ID of the exhaust primaries on the flange. I actually had to port them a little bit with a dremel. More so on the 1.6 than 1.8. However, schedule 10 pipe does leave room for the exhaust to expand once it leaves the head.
#11
Incredible!
The few manifolds i've made using a weirtech head flange and 1.5" schedule 40 pipe the tubes were slightly smaller than the ID of the exhaust primaries on the flange. I actually had to port them a little bit with a dremel. More so on the 1.6 than 1.8. However, schedule 10 pipe does leave room for the exhaust to expand once it leaves the head.
The few manifolds i've made using a weirtech head flange and 1.5" schedule 40 pipe the tubes were slightly smaller than the ID of the exhaust primaries on the flange. I actually had to port them a little bit with a dremel. More so on the 1.6 than 1.8. However, schedule 10 pipe does leave room for the exhaust to expand once it leaves the head.
http://www.jgsturbo.com/index2.html
It comes with the ports machined to adapt a gasket match on the head side and almost perfectly fit the 1.375 Id round pipe on the other. Some minor smoothing done.
Bob
#13
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chesterfield, NJ
Posts: 6,898
Total Cats: 399
So far all of mine have been 1.5" sch. 40 pipe (well I did do one sch 10). It matched the profile of the port better when ovalized with a bearing press. But I can see 1.25" pipe being better to a certain extent.
#15
I used a JGS flange.
http://www.jgsturbo.com/index2.html
It comes with the ports machined to adapt a gasket match on the head side and almost perfectly fit the 1.375 Id round pipe on the other. Some minor smoothing done.
Bob
http://www.jgsturbo.com/index2.html
It comes with the ports machined to adapt a gasket match on the head side and almost perfectly fit the 1.375 Id round pipe on the other. Some minor smoothing done.
Bob
#18
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 2,910
Total Cats: 51
have not done it, but purely based on flow you would be capped at around 250whp just because of the flow restriction based on the cross sectional area and experience on pipe size vs power.
you wont gain much in terms of response. maybe 200rpm.
you wont gain much in terms of response. maybe 200rpm.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
stoves
Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain
5
04-21-2016 03:00 PM