paul's plot is a lot more promising though I doubt the lowend bump was from the manifold alone

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.

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.

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.


https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1456157133

they even eventually did the runner in cast alumn.:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1456157133

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 think a $400 flattop is a pretty darn good compromise all things considered. Just sayin
OEM fitment
OEM reliability
topend/lowend balance
$400-450 total

Where are you finding them for that price?

There were at least a dozen in our very own classified section that sold within the past few months

None recently :( Ive been stalking the classifieds like a hawk lol

You just got to be quick. I picked mine up for about $435 shipped last fall.

I got mine for $375 shipped iirc.

There is one for sale on the front page of the classifieds right now.

@Downmented

https://www.miataturbo.net/miata-par...anifold-87613/

And psyber is on it :eek3dance :giggle:

I passed the previous sale off to 90 Turbo.

Either Downmented comes to the decision to use a square, and I just help grab it for him in the mean time, or I start modifying this one and then later sell the one that's on my car currently.

Ugh

AND a 70mm Mustang aftermarket throttlebody

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. :cool:)

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

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 could argue the exact same thing and say that you expect all people to spend big money based on you saying you've "done the testing".

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.

Wait, you mean to tell me if claims are not able to be substantiated it's just hearsay?

Why do we still tinker with little four cylinders in our 11-25 year old cars when we could just drop in a shiny, reliable, powerful v8?

Might it be that one of you young jokers would care to do a proper test on the manifold?

NC if it works. Worth $0.65/pound at the scrap yard if not.

corky

If you are serious I may be willing to do some testing for you sometime in the spring once I get my built motor car up and running. So far at my house I have a VICS manifold, VCTS manifold, Flat top, and your old cast manifold. If you had some spare aluminum manifolds that you have made I would be willing to get on a dyno and try them out. I can even deal not working with idle valves and what not.

I can also test against a VTCS and Flat-Top on an NB2

Myself and psyber_0ptix were actually talking about doing this with my car a few days ago. I have easy access to dyno time and would happily do some testing. We plan to test a flattop, modified honda manifold, and potentially your manifold given that the stars align properly. It would be all back to back testing with no changes other than the manifold and necessary IC piping adjustments. All same day, same dyno, same everything. Only downside is that it will still be a few months before im personally able to bring this to fruition.

Test vehicle will be a built 1.8, BP4W head, 10.5:1 pistons, full e85, EFR6258

Looking at both designs flat top and regular 01-05 intake manifold i prefer 01-05 if you have the tools to modify it. The runners in 01 intake manifold seem to be longer and the 01-05 "hidden" lower in plenum is way bigger than squaretop. I agree it takes some work to remove the butterflies and cut both upper and lower plenums but overall 01-05 is better intake manifold than square top in my point of view.

You have, literally, the worst posts of all time.

Every single thing the community has CLEARLY proven and tested, you prefer the opposite, inferior part and concept that performs much worse.

the 01-05 is terrible for making power. this is not up for debate, as it has been proven countless times with dyno plots and real world testing. it chokes like crazy past 6500 and loses about 25-30hp over the flattop and VICS. The midrange/lowend is comparable. Gutting the VTCS does nothing, which was again proven and tested by many here with results posted and easily found.

The VTCS is the inferior of the 4 oem manifolds. Inferior in every way. Gutting it does not gain power, most times it actually gives up what little it had in the first place: lowend/midrange, with no real gains up top.

Stop posting stupid nonsense before you mislead some stupid n00b like yourself.

rofl at prefering the worst IM known to mankind.

Just because I don't post 100 times a day like you does not mean I am a noob, poser. Your expensive flat top has bigger runners which means compared to 01-05, flat top is only good at WOT. If you want to debate about this, I am willing to ship my gutted 01-05 to Begi so they can compare against your garbage flat top.
I will pay the shipping too.

I used a $40 shipped ebay crown vic 65mm throttle body (I've since seen them for $15-20). Same square pattern, smaller blade, came with a progressive cam that uses the miata cable end, and came with a variable tps with pig tail.

You're right, you post very rarely, and every single time it's stupid drivel that is opposite from the truth.

Yes, let's measure performance at part throttle...Because that's how performance is measured.....HERP DERP

Nice try Hyper ;)

:fawk:poser

I will love to see a dyno of both intake manifolds from a third party like Begi. A 01-05 gutted vs. the garbage flat top. Let's compare against the Begi intake manifold too. I will pay the shipping.

cool. good to know.

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1456430393

blue is garbage flat top
red is gutted VTCS manifold.


go fuck yourself.

:dealwithit:

you too.

What type of gutting was done for the 01-05?,is it just the upper plenum or both, the lower too?

wait, so you actually gutted gutted it like the 99-00 VICS guys were doing and saw horrible losses and threw in the trash?

the above was just butterflies removed.

No. by gutting I meant, removed the butterflies. Removed the portion of the upper manifold and the "hidden plenum, chamber where EGR recirculate exhaust gases back to the engine. The runners were left alone, I meassured them too they range from 12" to 14" inches long.

And I have Hyper's plenum spacer too so I can add the spacer to the 01-05 intake manifold if I want too....

so show us the massive gains then...........


let's see em

surely you wouldn't post a bunch of nonsense crap that contradicts the universe without backing up the claims.....................no one would do that.................certainly you'd back up your complete bullcrap claims with actual testing/data


right?

I already stated I will gladly pay for shipping for a third party like BEGi to dyno test both intake manifolds. Seriously, How many times do I have to repeat the samething?

I am not longer using the modified 01-05 intake manifold but it will be cool to see what it can do against the flat top.

Whoa there baller, youll pay $30 to prove your moronic theory wrong but caim it's superior before its even done?

Well thats just so compelling

Wheres the quality control bot? He must cleanse us of this retardation

:fawk:Retardation my ass, poser.:fawk:

What makes more sense? Pay top dollar for an intake manifold that only makes power at WOT or use basic tools and get the same power from the OEM 01-05?

The runners in flat top intake are wider than 01-05 therefore these type of manifolds do not make enough midrange power, not for the money you pay for. The dyno graph posted by the "fuckyourselfdude" above is clear proof you fool.

Like I stated, if there is an interest for a type of test or some sort please contact me.

First of all how the fuck do you get off calling Vlad a poser? He may be an asshole, but he's built more miatas than almost anyone in this forum.
Second of all, who cares about power at anything other than WOT? How many races have been won at idle?
Every 1.8 manifold is superior to the VTCS. That's been proven time after time.
What is your actual argument?

Begi can't even test their own manifold and had asked us to test it for them, yet you feel as if your attempt to validate your idiocy by sayin you will send it to begi for testing is going to prove anything? Clearly your reading comprehension is severely lacking.

Don't get too hasty Dimented, we have tested more manifolds than ever existed. Long, fat, skinny, wide, thin, up, forward, short, high, big, cast, squatty, horned, fabricated, and even stock.

I have yet to find the magic that works gobs better at every rpm. Sort of suggests Mazda didn't do a bad job on the stock piece.

Every manifold tested, save one, lost a few hp's at 4 to 5k, only to gain nicely at 5.5 +.
The biggest gain ever was right at 9%, the lowest was....... nevermind......rather dissappointing at best. Could only be explained by the intake valves failing to open or air flowing the wrong direction. It was really: Terrible Sorry, couldn't restrain myself.

Turbo hp costs lots per each. How much should an intake hp cost?

Always sketching on kleenex, or crapper paper trying to find the key to something better. A next design is in the works, but has only risen to the napkin stage.

Any suggestions made by the collective here will be both welcome and considered.

Corky

First off, acknowledging that there is contention between you and some folks on the forum over products that cannot be built by most people here, these small jabs really don't help the public image of the company.

Either way, all pettiness aside, I'd be interested in seeing comparisons just for the sake of a priori documentation so we can all move forward and stop getting stuck on these issues. Some are desperate to find an option to unlock mystical amounts of horsepower for extremely cheap, but I've always thought the best cars are the ones that run, not mere ideas drafted on paper and spreadsheets.

I'm curious about the old cast intake manifold and would be interested in seeing if a new foundry could be found to deliver the product at a reasonable price, and what small things like AFM/Extrude honing and portmatching etc etc would do when compared to the stock manifolds available.

It is quite true, that there is a lot to go into the design, and that there may be better places to focus on to get more net power for the same dollar. For most people here, the intake manifold is probably the last keystone to the car's performance potential. Until then, I'll continue to worry about maintenance and drivetrain.

please bring back the cast

$1500 and I will sell my cast begi manifold. Includes a mustang TB and remote IAC valve built by turbotim. I can have it shipped on Monday.

I might need a depowered rack before the manifold. But I'll keep this in mind if it's still around after tax return.

It was more of a sarcastic post. I don't really want to sell the manifold, even though several people have asked. If someone did offer me hand fulls of money at some value I would say yes.

[Utag]curly[/utag] also has gutted manifold dyno results.

Which showed losses from gutting.

Eggactly

my car has a thoroughly gutted 03 manifold. i mean, my car is like, a theoretical concept and all, a concept akin to debating if there is life on venus or what if dukakis won the 1988 election. anyways, once upon a time i made 400 minus 2 hp with it. somewhere in this forums power section theres the dyno graph. it held power to 8000rpm. there are pics of the mani in my build/rebuild/rebuild thread. i measured the plenum capacity at 1.5L and with the runner volume it came to 2L. I did this by using fucking water in a fucking sink and a fucking measuring cup.

Anyways, after I upgraded to the world's best turbo and ran 18 more pounds of boost I dynoed again at 360 dramatic horsepower. So there's two data points.

What would i have made with a squaretop? Sqop. It rolls nicely off the tongue. Say it out loud. "Skwa". "Opp". Squap. Now add in "Air". And a "Teh". SkwaAirTehOpp. God that is a lovely word. I don't know how much HP. Maybe 400 + two hp. Maybe 400 minus 4 hp. But the defninte result would be that I would have the luxury of uttering "SkwaAirTehOpp" with my real mouth not my finger wiggles more frequently. Shame.

idiocy my a. There is a need for better intake manifold and that's why this thread exists. I offered my gutted intake manifold for testing so that one is developed.

That is

Except thats already been tested.

Correct.
Stop being retarded or I'll have to purge the forum of your retardation.

This has been done. It has been tested. There is no discussion to be had. Find the info and accept it and stop killing people's brain cells with your retardation.

We are trying to have a discussion here. About actual power gains.

PS: flattop is king of oem manifolds, this has also been proven.

Nobody with common sense will follow the steps of a poser like you when all you do is critique and critique but... when have you actually designed or build anything?

Leave this thresd.for the big boys buddy. I actually have some pictures and ideas to share to help with the development of better intake manifold for the BP.

Pictures will follow shortly, later.

If you don't post actual content your next post will be your last.

I mean, dyno sheets don't lie when compared 1 to 1. :dunno:

Imo, a curved oem style mani similar or built off of the squaretop would yield higher net gains. Focus towards the square +1 and you'll find your answer.

Showing my ignorance, but what exactly do you refer to as the flat top?

corky

OEM on all 01-05 1.8 MX5 in every country except US and Canada.