Begi Intake Manifold
02-22-2016, 08:05 AM
#482
My interest in this manifold spawns from the fact that in my current build, im switching to a bp4w head and will need a new intake manifold. If this one is capable of performing to a reasonable standard compared to the other options on the market then i am sold. However if there is any particular reasons that this manifold should be avoided i am all ears. Ultimately its this or the flat top, and i can easily justify the additional $$ for the Begi unit over the flat top.
Reply
0
0
02-22-2016, 10:48 AM
#483
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,177
Total Cats: 1,681
I think the big problem with intake manifolds is that you would probably need to build 4 or 5 to get a design that works decently all over the rev range. The cost of building them all and doing proper dyno testing would be expensive. Then comes the market for aftermarket intake manifolds is rather small. So it would take a long time to recoup the costs of doing all the building and testing and such.
Reply
0
0
02-22-2016, 11:05 AM
#484
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
IIRC begi did a lot of that testing and ended up where they ended up.
I remember some crazy 14" long runner IM that had long runners and curled up back along the backside like the OE IMs.
they even eventually did the runner in cast alumn.:
BEGi - Articles - News - msm_intakemanifold
any shorter than OE runner length and you're sacrificing low-end for top. I think a 9" is a pretty good compromise if youre staying with a 7200 redline.
I remember some crazy 14" long runner IM that had long runners and curled up back along the backside like the OE IMs.
they even eventually did the runner in cast alumn.:
BEGi - Articles - News - msm_intakemanifold
any shorter than OE runner length and you're sacrificing low-end for top. I think a 9" is a pretty good compromise if youre staying with a 7200 redline.
Reply
0
0
02-23-2016, 11:31 AM
#496
Former Vendor
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Bell Tuning & Performance
Posts: 1,337
Total Cats: -99
Yeah, It's pretty hard to be relevant in today's technology and marketplace when all the "results" are from 7 years ago using technology most here don't even use anymore because it's outdated and retired.
17psi for 230wtq would get laughed at today.
if they bring the old one back I hope someone does proper, modern, testing.
Kinda hard to spend $700 on a part that may or may not make another 15hp
17psi for 230wtq would get laughed at today.
if they bring the old one back I hope someone does proper, modern, testing.
Kinda hard to spend $700 on a part that may or may not make another 15hp
) We have tested the following manifold designs and have declined to produce them for various reasons:
1. Square plenum
2. Flat top plenum
3. Larger runners to the plenum
4. Bent runner to plenum with larger radius turn (cast aluminum & alum tubing runners)
5. Bent runner to plenum with small radius turn
6. Bent runner to plenum with small radius turn and flat top plenum
7. Flat top plenum with 70mm throttle body
8. Bent runner to plenum with small radius turn and 70mm throttle body
9. Rectangular plenum
10. Flat top plenum with longer TB to Plenum dimension
11. Non port matched runners at the cylinder head
We have spent considerable time and expense doing our homework and research. We have done the "modern testing". Our method of testing is dyno tuning, long term reliability, and measuring intake temperatures. If there are more "modern" techniques or more important issues to address, we are open to feedback. We felt those were most important though.
To my knowledge, only three of the above manifolds are still on cars today. The bend runner manifold with a very small radial bend (stock or 70mm TB) showed some promise as it gained 10-14 hp in the mid range. The larger radius runners also showed some gains, especially on a naturally aspirated application, but in order to get that larger radius we had to use an aluminum u bend. That aluminum u-bend cannot withstand engine vibration or rigid engine mounts and will crack at several welds. The short radius bent runner was the most promising, but when it costs so much to produce and we have to sell it for over $1000 - at some point there is a reality check . Who is going to spend $1000 to gain 10 hp in the mid-range? We just priced this part out of the market and made it un-producible. So.... back to square one and the old design that does work, makes power, and is made is such a way we can produce and sell it at a reasonable price. There are several dyno sheets for this part out there. Just because I do not have them, does not mean they don't exist. Besides, someone else's dyno sheet will carry more weight than one of ours. As I pointed out before, just because we can make it does not mean we should. And if we are not making it, there is probably a reason why.
Stephanie
Reply
1
1
02-23-2016, 11:34 AM
#497
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
well yeah, that's the only thing that fits on the BEGI Cast IM. Same TB was used on the Brad's Dyno I posted as well.
I personally dont like that TB and makes the car too twitchy. sucks in a LOT of air with just a little TPS% and the linkage isn't designed for a cable.
I personally dont like that TB and makes the car too twitchy. sucks in a LOT of air with just a little TPS% and the linkage isn't designed for a cable.
Reply
0
0
02-23-2016, 11:49 AM
#498
I have a feeling you are just arguing this just to make us wrong and just to argue. But, since you bring up a relevant point, I will respond to the design and testing issue. Are those results from years ago relevant? Even today? Absolutely! Why? Because nothing better has come down the pipeline. Does that mean we have not done "proper, modern testing" on other manifolds? Absolutely not. We have built several other manifolds and designs since this one was designed and put into production. Not a single one can hold a candle to the previous IM design. That does not make the older manifold "outdated" or should be "retired". It simply means it has withstood the test of time and nothing better has come along yet. So yes, it is still relevant. (By your definition of "relevant in today's technology" we should retire all classic cars - camaro's, mustang's, etc - They are all old school and better things exist now. Much like the 1.6L Miata's. Just because it is older does not mean they still cannot have a purpose or still be a good thing. My second love in life was a '69 Mustang and if you even suggest that we should do away with them because they are old, outdated, not relevant, or technologically a dinosaur - bad things will happen. Them's fighting words here. )
We have tested the following manifold designs and have declined to produce them for various reasons:
1. Square plenum
2. Flat top plenum
3. Larger runners to the plenum
4. Bent runner to plenum with larger radius turn (cast aluminum & alum tubing runners)
5. Bent runner to plenum with small radius turn
6. Bent runner to plenum with small radius turn and flat top plenum
7. Flat top plenum with 70mm throttle body
8. Bent runner to plenum with small radius turn and 70mm throttle body
9. Rectangular plenum
10. Flat top plenum with longer TB to Plenum dimension
11. Non port matched runners at the cylinder head
We have spent considerable time and expense doing our homework and research. We have done the "modern testing". Our method of testing is dyno tuning, long term reliability, and measuring intake temperatures. If there are more "modern" techniques or more important issues to address, we are open to feedback. We felt those were most important though.
To my knowledge, only three of the above manifolds are still on cars today. The bend runner manifold with a very small radial bend (stock or 70mm TB) showed some promise as it gained 10-14 hp in the mid range. The larger radius runners also showed some gains, especially on a naturally aspirated application, but in order to get that larger radius we had to use an aluminum u bend. That aluminum u-bend cannot withstand engine vibration or rigid engine mounts and will crack at several welds. The short radius bent runner was the most promising, but when it costs so much to produce and we have to sell it for over $1000 - at some point there is a reality check . Who is going to spend $1000 to gain 10 hp in the mid-range? We just priced this part out of the market and made it un-producible. So.... back to square one and the old design that does work, makes power, and is made is such a way we can produce and sell it at a reasonable price. There are several dyno sheets for this part out there. Just because I do not have them, does not mean they don't exist. Besides, someone else's dyno sheet will carry more weight than one of ours. As I pointed out before, just because we can make it does not mean we should. And if we are not making it, there is probably a reason why.
Stephanie
) We have tested the following manifold designs and have declined to produce them for various reasons:
1. Square plenum
2. Flat top plenum
3. Larger runners to the plenum
4. Bent runner to plenum with larger radius turn (cast aluminum & alum tubing runners)
5. Bent runner to plenum with small radius turn
6. Bent runner to plenum with small radius turn and flat top plenum
7. Flat top plenum with 70mm throttle body
8. Bent runner to plenum with small radius turn and 70mm throttle body
9. Rectangular plenum
10. Flat top plenum with longer TB to Plenum dimension
11. Non port matched runners at the cylinder head
We have spent considerable time and expense doing our homework and research. We have done the "modern testing". Our method of testing is dyno tuning, long term reliability, and measuring intake temperatures. If there are more "modern" techniques or more important issues to address, we are open to feedback. We felt those were most important though.
To my knowledge, only three of the above manifolds are still on cars today. The bend runner manifold with a very small radial bend (stock or 70mm TB) showed some promise as it gained 10-14 hp in the mid range. The larger radius runners also showed some gains, especially on a naturally aspirated application, but in order to get that larger radius we had to use an aluminum u bend. That aluminum u-bend cannot withstand engine vibration or rigid engine mounts and will crack at several welds. The short radius bent runner was the most promising, but when it costs so much to produce and we have to sell it for over $1000 - at some point there is a reality check . Who is going to spend $1000 to gain 10 hp in the mid-range? We just priced this part out of the market and made it un-producible. So.... back to square one and the old design that does work, makes power, and is made is such a way we can produce and sell it at a reasonable price. There are several dyno sheets for this part out there. Just because I do not have them, does not mean they don't exist. Besides, someone else's dyno sheet will carry more weight than one of ours. As I pointed out before, just because we can make it does not mean we should. And if we are not making it, there is probably a reason why.
Stephanie
Where is this testing? You mention some very detailed, very thorough and highly documented testing.
WHERE IS IT?!
Show me the plots. Not some old plot Scott found on his server from 08 from a random guy dynoing his car that he doesn't even really remember the details to, but your testing.
Show me your manifold directly compared with back to back testing against the OEM squaretop, all other things untouched. Your manifold costs twice, and from what I've seen thus far gains exactly the same amount of power. Where is this testing? WHere is the proof? Why is it any time anyone challenges you for data you think they're attacking? I'm not attacking you or arguing at all, I just want to see proof rather than TRUST ME, I'M A PRO, YOU SHOULD GIVE ME YOUR MONEY
I'll be right here, waiting for the testing/data/relevant info. And if you provide it, I will thank you for it. And if it's as good as you say, I will even help you out by recommending your manifold to people.
Old outdated things serve a purpose, people like em, that's great. But put up an old muscle car against a modern day muscle car and test them both, and you will agree with the rest of the universe that the old one won't even touch the new one. That's how the world works. That's how technology works. We don't use rising rate pressure regulators anymore because we have powerful ecu's that make amazing power and seamless delivery. Modern cars don't come with carburators for a reason. There's a big difference between buying something for sentimental value or liking how it looks/sounds and buying something to increase power. We're talking about the latter here, so your old car analogy just doesn't really fly here.
Last edited by 18psi; 02-23-2016 at 12:00 PM.
Reply
0
0
