1.6 ETD vs BEGI vs custom
Ok so I have the tacotaco cast mani now and I've been thinking about upgrading to something that flows better and possibly going EWG while I'm at it. I've tried finding some info on the ETD piece but everything I find is the greddy replacement. Any of you guys have any experience with the ETD unit as far as quality and cracking etc? I was also looking at the BEGI S4 which it seems like I would have to stay internally gated and it's cheaper than the ETD and stainless. I've heard they can port the flange for a t3. I was also thinking of getting an ARTech ramhorn but I dunno if I want to spend that much on a manifold yet. I know the ramhorn will flow the best but it's just a chinacharger so I'm not looking to break 300hp or anything. What do you guys think? Thanks
|
I have a BEGI Cast manifold for sale that is currently flanged for T2 but you can send it to BEGI to have ported to T3.
|
IMO, in terms of flow:
fwiw, Neogenesis has a pretty nice modified ETD T360 setup for sale right now. |
Thanks wayne but I'm not wanting another cast mani. Figure while I'm doing might as well get a tubular one. I guess for the money I might get the ETD so I can have EWG. Anyone know if BEGI can put an EWG flange on the S4? I saw Neos but I don't need the whole setup like he's selling. I can make a DP I just need a good manifold without going over $550 if I can
|
Originally Posted by johnmatt
(Post 506811)
Thanks wayne but I'm not wanting another cast mani. Figure while I'm doing might as well get a tubular one. I guess for the money I might get the ETD so I can have EWG. Anyone know if BEGI can put an EWG flange on the S4? I saw Neos but I don't need the whole setup like he's selling. I can make a DP I just need a good manifold without going over $550 if I can
|
I have access to a shop where I can make my exhaust but I won't have enough time to make an entire mani. This is kindof a favor cause we've known the people forever so he doesn't mind us using the bender for a while.
|
Originally Posted by johnmatt
(Post 506816)
I have access to a shop where I can make my exhaust but I won't have enough time to make an entire mani. This is kindof a favor cause we've known the people forever so he doesn't mind us using the bender for a while.
|
I would consider parting my manifold and Tial MVS with accompanying outlet vband for exhaust for around $600 shipped.
|
Haha that's crazy. I just literally finished sending you a PM. I still need to sell my setup and then I should be good to get yours. I'm waiting to hear back from someone
|
Got it, responded to that too with same info.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 506805)
IMO, in terms of flow:
fwiw, Neogenesis has a pretty nice modified ETD T360 setup for sale right now. |
Hey Tim ya wanna build me a bottom mount t3 external wastegate mild steel mani for cheap?
|
Absolutely.
|
You did see the cheap part of that sentence right:ugh:
|
Yep.
It's entirely possible your definition of "cheap" differs from mine however :beer: |
Ok so what's your definition of cheap?
|
Available Products
I could do a log mani for around $300 IIRC, but ARTech does his nicer for like $200 and can do you a downpipe if you've got a 1.6l. What's your definition of cheap? |
This is from your low mount no a/c ps ***Basic w/o V-bands; T2 flanged: $380 3" bellmouth, open ended.*** what do you mean bell mouth and open ended?
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 506805)
IMO, in terms of flow:
fwiw, Neogenesis has a pretty nice modified ETD T360 setup for sale right now. |
Bellmouth = http://spun-autosports.com/sales/ima...d_Downpipe.jpg
Open end = there is no flange on the end of the downpipe, so you can run a custom catback or have someone mate the DP to your current cat/catback |
Oh ok so that doesn't apply to me anyways since I'm only looking for a mani. Thanks, I've been a v8 guy for years and this is my first turbo car. Still learning
|
Thanks Sav.
|
So how much more is it for a t3 external wastegate added to that?
|
Originally Posted by jtothawhat
(Post 506945)
I really don't agree, I think a Ramhorn will outflow the "AbsurbFlow" design and certainly the ETD, I had an ETD and can tell you the inside of the runners/collector was not smooth what so ever; gaps, roughness, etc there are many 700+ hp cars running ramhorn style manifolds they just make power higher in the powerband. Maybe for 250-300 whp AbsurbFlow would be the better bet due to shorter runners and quicker spool.
|
I smell a scientific experiment. I may just have to make both of them and get 2 dyno plots with everything else constant.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 506978)
It is my position that the longer the runners, the more the restriction. But I could be wrong.
|
^
While what you say is may be true, I base my opinion off results; several high horsepower cars (over 700 hp) run ramhorn designed manifolds. Most are based off equal length runner design. For what more members are using there cars for on the forum ABSURDFlow could be the better manifold when it comes to spool and hp/tq lower in the RPM range, but when it comes to peak power ramhorn for the win. I can say for a FACT ETD manifold should not be even compared to ramhorn when it comes to flow, the inside of the runners/collector look like shit. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 506978)
It is my position that the longer the runners, the more the restriction. But I could be wrong.
Originally Posted by wayne_curr
(Post 506984)
I agree and also the longer it takes the exhaust pulse to hit the turbine.
The longer the pipe, the more it will bbuuuzzzzzz. Harmonics are a bitch with these engines. |
Originally Posted by SKMetalworks
(Post 506980)
I smell a scientific experiment. I may just have to make both of them and get 2 dyno plots with everything else constant.
|
Originally Posted by jtothawhat
(Post 507016)
^
While what you say is may be true, I base my opinion off results; several high horsepower cars (over 700 hp) run ramhorn designed manifolds. Most are based off equal length runner design. For what more members are using there cars for on the forum ABSURDFlow could be the better manifold when it comes to spool and hp/tq lower in the RPM range, but when it comes to peak power ramhorn for the win. I can say for a FACT ETD manifold should not be even compared to ramhorn when it comes to flow, the inside of the runners/collector look like shit. These points all have merit and I'm not an expert, I just read articles like these: Turbo Manifold Design Start talking about turbo exhaust manifold design and people have all sorts of theories. Most say that equal-length, long runners should be used – irrespective of the length of runner that then results. But others say runners should be grouped on the basis of firing order. Sounds easy – until you ask some questions. Like, grouped exactly how on the basis of firing order? Or, how important is it that the runners are of equal length? For example, is it more important that runner length be equal – or the runners are organised to provide the best flow? After all, the longer the runner, inside a typical engine bay the more bends it’s likely to have in it and the greater resistance it will pose to flow. Let’s take a look at what the experts actually have to say. http://us1.webpublications.com.au/st.../2605_19lo.jpg The original bible of turbocharging is Turbochargers, by Hugh MacInnes (published by HP Books). Despite being first published in 1978 – and so containing almost nothing that relates to EFI engines – the core content of the book has stood up surprisingly well in the years since. MacInnes suggests that turbo exhaust manifolds should use small diameter runners with about the same internal area as the ports and that in turbo engines, the use of “smooth flowing exhaust headers with beautiful swerving bends.... is more aesthetic than power-increasing”. Except for V8 engines, he makes no comments at all about grouping the flow from cylinders in any particular manner. http://us1.webpublications.com.au/st.../2605_21lo.jpg Another old book is Turbocharging and Supercharging, by Alan Allard (first published by Patrick Stephens in 1982). Allard says: “The main criteria when designing and fabricating an exhaust manifold are: firstly, to build in sufficient strength to take the weight of the turbocharger system and to remain rigid without distortion or fracture even when working up to 1000 degrees C; and secondly, to have sufficient wall thickness (3.0mm minimum is recommended) to withstand the corrosion effects of running up to high temperature over a long period.” Allard suggests the use of a log-type manifold pipe of not more than 2.5 times, and not less that double, the area of one exhaust port. The log is joined to the individual exhaust ports with stubs with the same inside diameter as the exhaust ports, each as short as possible and of equal length. The stubs can enter the log at right-angles or be angled towards the turbo. http://us1.webpublications.com.au/st.../2605_24lo.jpg However, while not mentioned in the text, a diagram shows a 1-3-4-2 firing order four cylinder engine using a manifold where cylinders 1 and 2, and 3 and 4, are paired and fed to a split-pulse turbine. In addition, again while it is not discussed in the text, many turbo racing engines are shown where equal-length long runners join at a common collector just prior to the turbo. http://us1.webpublications.com.au/st.../2605_25lo.jpg Automotive Supercharging and Turbocharging Systems was first published in 1992 by Motorbooks International. The author is John Humphries. Of my references, this book provides the most detailed treatment of turbo exhaust manifolds. However, rather than making things clearer, if anything it further muddies the waters! The book suggests that there are two fundamentally different approaches to turbo exhaust manifold design. The first is to use a manifold with sufficiently large internal volume that the exhaust output pulses of each cylinder are damped and a more or less constant pressure is available to the turbine. The internal volume of the manifold sufficient to obtain this pulse dampening can be 1.4 – 6 times the swept volume of the engine. That rules out pretty well all long runner exhaust manifolds, although a log-type one of the sort suggest by Allard may fit into the bottom end of this scale, and the current fashion in the US for mounting the turbo at the back of the car (in a car with a front engine!) would also conform to this approach. The second approach is a pulse system, where the exhaust pulses provide additional short-term energy to the turbine. In a pulse-type manifold, Humphries suggests that the pipe runners should have a “cross-sectional area....not significantly greater than the geometric valve area at full lift [and] these connections should be kept short and free of sharp bends”. He says the reflection of pulses within the system will be determined by pipe length, exhaust temperature and the status (ie open, closed or partially open) of the exhaust valves. In addition, at pipe junctions the exhaust pulses will split, with smaller magnitude exhaust pulses travelling down each pipe. “The overall pressure wave system that occurs in such a manifold will be very complex, with pulses propagating from each cylinder, pulse division at each junction, total or partial reflection at an exhaust valve...and reflection from the turbine.” In order to take advantage of this pulse flow, “narrow pipes from several cylinders can be connected through a single branched manifold to one turbine....a four stroke engine which can have its cylinders grouped into threes is particularly attractive.” This is because “the opening periods of the exhaust valves follow successively every 240 degrees with very little overlap between them.... thus a sequence of pressure pulses arrives at the turbine...” http://us1.webpublications.com.au/st.../2605_20lo.jpg Humphries suggests that the use of twin turbos on a six cylinder engine allows for efficient pulse operation, and where cylinder multiples are not in threes, a single turbo entry can be linked to multiple cylinders through “pulse converters”. Pulse converters are suitably shaped junctions which prevent reverse pulse flow. Humphries shows a four cylinder exhaust manifold with cylinders 1 and 2, and cylinders 3 and 4, paired and then coming together through a pulse converter junction. http://us1.webpublications.com.au/st.../2605_22lo.jpg One of the more recent books on turbocharging is Corky Bell’s Maximum Boost (published by Robert Bentley, 1997). Bell suggest that it is important the manifold retains heat, prevents reverse flow (eg by the use of so-called reversion cones in the first section of each runner), and is designed to minimise thermal loads on each section of the manifold. The latter can be achieved by the use of runners from each cylinder travelling separately to the turbo inlet – that way, each runner is subjected only to the heating loads of one cylinder. It is implied but not stated that controlling these heating loads is more important than flowing the individual pulses in a sequence to the turbine – in the diagram the pipes are of unequal lengths. Bell also says that the experience with turbo F1 cars suggests that “the best manifolding is multiple-tube, individual runner style”. As with the other authors, he recommends the use of relatively small diameter runners with large wall thicknesses. With regard to pulse tuning, he says “a design that allows exhaust gas pulses to arrive at the turbine at regularly spaced intervals is ideal but difficult to achieve”. So what does one make of all of that? Firstly, it’s clear that these authors agree that the use of heavy wall tube (“steam pipe”) bends are preferable to thin gauge materials. Secondly, the individual cylinder runners should be sized smaller rather than larger, being near to port size. It also appears that if it is possible within the confines of the engine bay, equal-length runners that join at the turbo are to be recommended. In six cylinder engines, the grouping of two pairs of three cylinders to feed either two turbos or a single split-pulse turbine housing is to be favoured. However, unequal length runners are extremely widely used (few if any factory turbo cars have equal length runners in their cast manifolds) and some aftermarket tubular manifolds use branchings of unequal length runners. (Most of the latter are dubbed ‘pulse converter’ manifolds but whether the internal junctions conform to pulse converter geometries is not known.) Not one of the best known references is particularly critical of exhaust manifold designs which on a naturally aspirated engine would be seen as fatally flawed. And what you suggest about the shorty might be correct as well, I could probably put it under the ramhorm styles, but definitely above the cast manifolds. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 507126)
These points all have merit and I'm not an expert, I just read articles like these:
|
not me, im dumb. that was on the autoblog.
|
Well this turned into an informative thread. Thanks for all the contributions guys
|
That article doesn't agree with the order of half on that list. This is the current bible for manifold builders, but good luck finding it for anything close to retail.
Theory of Engine Manifold Design: Wave Action Methods for IC Engines by Desmond E. Winterbone, Richard J. Pearson, Sir John Horlock # Hardcover: 512 pages # Publisher: John Wiley & Sons (July 18, 2005) # Language: English # ISBN-10: 1860582095 # ISBN-13: 978-1860582097 My understanding is that axial collectors like those used on the Absurdflow manifold (often used on sportbikes) are used for clearance purposes since they have a very small profile, while radial collectors, like those on a ramhorn, are the best for performance. A smooth bend is not as much of a restriction as exhaust waves colliding against each other at a steep angle, so the smaller the merge angle, the better it will flow. Look at some drag racing setups, turbo or na. The manifolds are a snake orgy. Why would they use a restrictive design? http://www.ruckracing.com/1992Integr...c%20Coated.jpg SKmetalworks, I'd be willing to donate a manifold/dp for testing if you ever get around to doing it. |
^^ I think that's a Bisi Moto header, he made over 350 whp on a SOHC Honda motor N/A.
|
^^^ nope...AN-R...or better yet...a bisi knock off.
|
My track car needs to be finished in a month for the novice school so I am going to be busy for a little while. I'm gonna take a week.off work to bust ass
|
Originally Posted by ARTech
(Post 507163)
My understanding is that axial collectors like those used on the Absurdflow manifold (often used on sportbikes) are used for clearance purposes since they have a very small profile, while radial collectors, like those on a ramhorn, are the best for performance. A smooth bend is not as much of a restriction as exhaust waves colliding against each other at a steep angle, so the smaller the merge angle, the better it will flow.
This makes a good deal of sense. I do agree, the better the collector, definitely the better manifold. |
most of the studies looking over ramhorns vs the traditional logs is that the log spools up a weee bit faster, but after that... total loss compared to the ramhorn. lower rpms...lower flow... not really that much turbulence occurring in the log - - - but when higher flow happens, an equal length with a proper merge collector would totally organize the flow much more.
|
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by wherestheboost
(Post 507293)
most of the studies looking over ramhorns vs the traditional logs is that the log spools up a weee bit faster, but after that... total loss compared to the ramhorn. lower rpms...lower flow... not really that much turbulence occurring in the log - - - but when higher flow happens, an equal length with a proper merge collector would totally organize the flow much more.
http://xtremefabrications.com/store/...g_Manifold.jpg I'm more intrigued by how this might flow and spool versus a ramhorn style. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...maniblend2.jpg Attachment 201289 And I should be finding out fairly soon as i'm going to be hopefully building 3 or 4 of them as soon as some people get their shit together and buy parts. I'm not even charging for labor, just building them at cost for fun. Actually bob bundy built a manifold with the same concept for a 323 GTX so he should really chime in here. I dont want to post a picture of it without his permission. |
it'll flow slightly slower than the log (we're talking about +/- 100 rpms probably)...but the extra "directional exhaust guidance" will help it flow much better after that. That's a really short merge... a smoother and merge where the exhaust from the primaries have the least amount of "i'm going to run into you before I leave" will net the best flow/power.
Here's a log vs. ramhorn FINALLY -- TURBO MANIFOLD TEST (What happens when a log manifold is changed to a Full Race Manifold? - Honda-Tech There's really not much to it. Allow the gases to flow and merge with minimal interference. This nets highest flow... flow = power, no? |
Originally Posted by wherestheboost
(Post 507335)
it'll flow slightly slower than the log (we're talking about +/- 100 rpms probably)...but the extra "directional exhaust guidance" will help it flow much better after that. That's a really short merge... a smoother and merge where the exhaust from the primaries have the least amount of "i'm going to run into you before I leave" will net the best flow/power.
Here's a log vs. ramhorn FINALLY -- TURBO MANIFOLD TEST (What happens when a log manifold is changed to a Full Race Manifold? - Honda-Tech There's really not much to it. Allow the gases to flow and merge with minimal interference. This nets highest flow... flow = power, no? |
Originally Posted by johnmatt
(Post 506950)
So how much more is it for a t3 external wastegate added to that?
|
Originally Posted by ARTech
(Post 507163)
Look at some drag racing setups, turbo or na. The manifolds are a snake orgy. Why would they use a restrictive design?
|
Originally Posted by wayne_curr
(Post 507330)
When talking about a standard log manifold you're damn skippy that its not going to flow as well. Just look at it.
I'm more intrigued by how this might flow and spool versus a ramhorn style. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...maniblend2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...maniblend1.jpg And I should be finding out fairly soon as i'm going to be hopefully building 3 or 4 of them as soon as some people get their shit together and buy parts. I'm not even charging for labor, just building them at cost for fun. Actually bob bundy built a manifold with the same concept for a 323 GTX so he should really chime in here. I dont want to post a picture of it without his permission. When using a garrett 56trim T2 flanged GT2871, that above manifold places the shaft at the same spot as my standard manifold. Every now and then I consider making it, as well as a ramhorn manifold (which is easier to build), that places the turbo in the same spot (so downpipes are as equal as possible) and running a comparison. But then I realize it really doesn't matter as everyone will have their preferred option. You can get a ramhorn from many places so i don't build them, and I don't think it'd last long enough for my lifetime guarantee from cracks. If someone comes out with my manifold for less than what I charge and demand drops, then I won't them either :) I also agree that actual construction plays a huge roll in how well the manifold performs, in terms of how smooth everything blends together. |
Originally Posted by TurboTim
(Post 507359)
I should start putting watermarks across my pics I guess.
When using a garrett 56trim T2 flanged GT2871, that above manifold places the shaft at the same spot as my standard manifold. Every now and then I consider making it, as well as a ramhorn manifold (which is easier to build), that places the turbo in the same spot (so downpipes are as equal as possible) and running a comparison. But then I realize it really doesn't matter as everyone will have their preferred option. You can get a ramhorn from many places so i don't build them, and I don't think it'd last long enough for my lifetime guarantee from cracks. If someone comes out with my manifold for less than what I charge and demand drops, then I won't them either :) I also agree that actual construction plays a huge roll in how well the manifold performs, in terms of how smooth everything blends together. |
Id be interested in something like that with a dp for my 1.6. __________________ Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote |
Originally Posted by wayne_curr
(Post 507365)
Sorry Tim, didn't mean to offend or take credit for anything, was just using it as an example. And as far as it not mattering whether or not you build it, I think you've got enough clout that if you build something and give it your blessing, it will become a lot of people's preferred option just like your current design...
|
Originally Posted by levnubhin
(Post 507368)
Tim, did you make this mani?
Id be interested in something like that with a dp for my 1.6. But I have a 1.8 so no downpipe can be made or guarantee of fitment. I'd have to build it on a bench and hope it doesn't hit anything. |
We need to get you a 1.6 car so that you can start making manifolds/dp's for them too. There's one in tom's river for sale for 1300. Sell enough things off it to off set the cost and you're golden. If i see one for less I'll try to jump on it.
|
I could make it but my exhaust is far from stock so all I could do is an open ended downpipe for you. Also I cant weld stainless so it'd be in mild steel. But it'd be cheap!
Enter ARtech? You'll also need a modified mixing manifold. |
Originally Posted by wayne_curr
(Post 507341)
Bam proof is in the pudding. No need for any comparos on our parts I dont think.
The problem is it's comparing a basic log to a well built equal-length ramhorn, not to a shorty equal-length tubular with a mini-collector. |
Originally Posted by wayne_curr
(Post 507392)
I could make it but my exhaust is far from stock so all I could do is an open ended downpipe for you. Also I cant weld stainless so it'd be in mild steel. But it'd be cheap!
Enter ARtech? You'll also need a modified mixing manifold. |
Originally Posted by johnmatt
(Post 507428)
Are you talking about making one like posted above?
|
Originally Posted by ArtieParty
(Post 507391)
We need to get you a 1.6 car so that you can start making manifolds/dp's for them too. There's one in tom's river for sale for 1300. Sell enough things off it to off set the cost and you're golden. If i see one for less I'll try to jump on it.
|
Right next to the firepit.
|
That's where I'm parking Meg's boat.
|
paul or bruce dont have a few they could lend out?
|
Originally Posted by wayne_curr
(Post 507392)
I could make it but my exhaust is far from stock so all I could do is an open ended downpipe for you. Also I cant weld stainless so it'd be in mild steel. But it'd be cheap!
Enter ARtech? You'll also need a modified mixing manifold. Mild steel would be fine, could get it coated before installing. Just flipping it around might work. Either way, that's a simple fix. __________________ Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 507797)
paul or bruce dont have a few they could lend out?
I have no idea what Bruce has anymore. lol |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:54 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands