jdh0526

Crazy... didnt you guys just get banned from another car forum for setting up multiple accounts and whoring out your product?...


http://www.focusfanatics.com/forum/s...d.php?t=174082


jc_focus, Ja-Red, topspeed ??

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

what product?

jc_rotor

well first of all, Jared is my brother, Bryan is the guy that works at topspeed, and jc_focus is me. Focusfanatics is a joke. Ask the guys at focaljet, the other focus forum. Basically we got banned at focusfanatics because we argued that a equal length manifold would make more power than a log manifold at the same psi, and we proved the "focus turbo expert" wrong.

He also lied and claimed he had a 700hp focus and we proved that he was lying about it, and he was a focusfanatics affiliate. So it was per his request that we were removed.

I dont know about whoring any product, they were slandering the company and trash talking the focus kit, which they had never even laid eyes on. The only point I ever tried to prove was that manifold design plays an important part in power made by any turbocharged car.

And as you can see I havent been whoring any product and ive actually been giving you guys a step by step of the progress so you can see for yourselves. And after its said and done if Top Speed (not my decision) decides to market it then they are responsible for becoming a sponser and marketing the product but as of right now its just something Im designing for my miata.

The only way im affliated with the company is that I know the guys that own it. I dont work there, and neither does my brother. They might be using my design, they might not. Im getting their expertise in building and welding, and theyre getting my design background, and rights to my design if they so choose.

paul

iTrader: (21)

Manifold design makes no difference in how much power a turbo can make.

jc_rotor

So youre telling me that a log manifold and a tubular equal length manifold will make the same power at the same psi with the same turbo?

If thats what your saying its not true at all.

paul

iTrader: (21)

Yes. That's why I had a custom manifold made, the first of it's kind, and now it's been copied at least 2x.

MeOughtta

Dude -- he's just messing with you.

y8s

iTrader: (8)

When is someone going to wise up and just bolt four small turbos straight to the head?

patsmx5

iTrader: (16)

You said M/S is inferior. You said the welds would look like ****. You said the welds would crack. You said that it would expand/contract more than SS. You said crushing the pipes would make it less reliable. And then you say there's nothing wrong with doing it this way and it's not going to make that much difference? What?

List all the people you have consulted and their credentials. To me it seems like you have little experience designing manifolds and lack a full understanding of the physics involved.

So you have built 4. No, you've built 3 and this one will be the 4th. Wow. I've built more manifolds than that. But that doesn't mean I know what the hell I'm doing.

You are GOING AGAINST COMMON WISDOM AND CONVENTION with no supporting physics. What makes you think you are right and the majority is wrong? You think the transition at the flange doesn't matter? PROVE IT! You are an engineer. Show everyone the math. Account for everything and show us the losses.

My basis for why crushing the pipes will make a difference: The gases will change directions rapidly when they expand in such a short distance causing turbulence and friction which will increase back pressure and reduce overall flow. Simple observation. Prove me wrong.

JasonC SBB

jc_rotor,

The question is how much pressure loss will come from the abrupt transition in your flange, vs. what is gained using bigger diameter primaries (in place of smaller ovalized ones).

You can probably find empirical formulae to calculate it. OR you can use a flowbench to measure the pressure loss. That would give you a definite answer. If you are going through all the effort of designing the "ultimate" manifold, then this test is but a small step, yes? However make sure that the flowbench setup is valid - i.e. you have a long runner simulating the port, a "primary" pipe of the correct length and radius, terminated in a large bellmouth into open air, and you blow from the "port" side.

Everyone here thinks that the loss due to the abrupt transition is greater than the loss in using skinnier primaries (without the abrupt transition).

There is another advantage to the smaller primaries. Keeping the velocity high (actually AFAIK *kinetic energy*), will help spoolup.

JasonC SBB

jc, even if you've built manifolds that worked great with your abrupt flange transition, it doesn't mean it wouldn't have worked better with a transition-free flange and ovalized, smaller primaries. Think about it.

jc_rotor

Mild steel is an inferior metal for turbo manifolds yes. Showed you the math. The MANIFOLD would look like ****. The welds are MORE likly to crack. It expands and contracts at a much more RAPID rate. Crushing the pipes puts stress on the smaller outside diameter and makes it weaker and more likely to fail/crack under thermal stress.

There is nothing wrong with doing it that way if youre trying to make a cheap manifold and you dont care about reliability. None of these things are going to affect power, at least not significantly. Its about reliability. The power aspect comes from the routing of the runners, collector design, and so forth.

I have made more than 3 manifolds TOTAL, im saying i have 3 different designs, or 3 different makes/models of car that I have designed them for.

please stop quoting me if you are going to take what I say out of context. If you want to use my words or say I said something, please quote it directly next time.

And pat, what makes you so qualified to advise me?

No matter what I say is ever going to make a difference so you can keep talking all you want but Im going to quit wasting my time answering your questions and get to work. You can see the final results and then post your criticism, be it positive or negative.

patsmx5

iTrader: (16)

I'm a dumbass. I don't know ****. I'm am definitely NOT qualified to be designing manifolds for turbocharged cars. I don't have enough education, experience, or expertise otherwise to design a reliable high performance turbo manifold that will be put into production. But from what I gather thus far, I'm not the only ill qualified individual.

I was not trying to take anything out of context either. Seriously.

Rather, I was trying to get some answers to specific questions for which you have not provided. If you are knowledgeable enough to make the rather atypical assertions you have made, you can surely support them in a professional way using the knowledge for which you based them. You obviously have a stronger grasp of the underlying physics and thermodynamics as it relates to efficiency of the internal combustion engine. Since you do, prove it using the math you have learned. Should be easy.

JasonC SBB

patsmx5,

This kid is young and that's why he refuses to listen.
He won't even consider the possibility of being wrong on anything.
We're wasting our time.

patsmx5

iTrader: (16)

Nah, I think I'm just blowing through the straw wrong. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Banned

JC... all they are asking for is data, not simply theories on paper. I work for a Reliability Lab in the semiconductor business, performing all kinds of environmental stress tests. All the engineers from all the companies we consult for perform some kind of stress test for reliability data. To simply put up statements before validation is premature. The best way is to bench test the manifolds for flow rates under various controlled conditions and compare the numbers.

I've experienced on numerous occasions how engineers come up with theories, put them on paper, and find out that their widget never performed as envisioned after they find out about there test results.

If you're serious about your claims, step up and have the company stress test the manifold designs and release the findings to the community. Otherwise you are just making a cool one-off product for yourself.

JasonC SBB

Banned,

I know exactly what you're talking about. I am a design engineer by profession, and I've learned to always reserve final judgment on theory until the actual testing is done.

I've seen many seemingly accurate analyses proved dead wrong by testing.

elesjuan

iTrader: (11)

Okay. Instead of simply crushing the ends in a vice why not apply heat to them until they're easily malleable. At that point, then apply some pressure to bend the pipes into an oval form. When you're done welding up the manifold heat it to around 1000 degrees for around 2 hours and place it in a bucket of Lime for a few days allowing it to cool VERY VERY slowly. After that, place said manifold into an anti-stress vibration machine for a few days. If that inferior crack prone manifold cracked after that, I'll eat my hat.

^--- I've done that half a dozen times on Turbo Ford 2.3 manifolds, in both new builds and repairs. Have yet to see one crack after that, even a repaired cast iron unit w/out bracing. Search google about the E6 turbo ford manifolds, they crack all the time. None of mine ever did.

jc_rotor

Sure I am young. But I'm not refusing to listen. I have heard everything thats being said, I choose to disagree. I have clearly stated the reasons for my difference of opinion, and have provided more information to back up my claims, than anyone who is trying to argue against them.

The reason I stopped posting was because every time I post the answers to question after question, Im asked to elaborate further as to why. Yet, every time someone is arguing against me, they dont provide any information. I believe someone even made the statement, "Just trust us....". My personal experience is to never go on anyones word without some kind of evidence.

Now while I agree that I havent showed you all the calculations on Exhaust Gas Velocity, the behaviour of pressurized gasses, the flow ratings of an ovalized primary versus a circular one, etc, etc. It seems to me that anyone who wishes to challenge anything I have said can just as easily do the math and come up with a valid arguement, if there is one there.

I could spend hours digging up my research, or redoing calculations just to show you all my point, or, I can spend my time more wisely, and finish this manifold. As everyone has said over and over, you can argue the calculations all you want, but you cant argue with the test data.

So therefore, as I have said, I am moving forward with the project, hoping for completion in the next few months. When I am done I will post full details, dyno charts, etc, and then you can make your criticism, positive or negative of the final design.

Now I will gladly listen to anything you have to say if you can show me why I should. Im not saying your word isnt good enough, but when I have evidence supporting my view im not going to give that view up on just a few words.

I apologize if I have come off as a "know-it-all", but im simply providing you with my rational conclusion on my view. If you disagree, I welcome your opinion as to why, but that does not mean I will agree.

If I am proven wrong I will gladly suck up my pride and admit it for the common good of everyone on the forum. Validity of information is more important than anything. But it just seems Im being treated with so much skepticism, because I am new to the forum and also young.


Now, I doubt that I have acted like anyone is unintelligent for anything they have said, Ive just tried to show you my point of view, which is more than I can say for you all. I dont appreciate sarcastic remarks when I attempt to simplify an explanation, nor do I appreciate the general attitude of some of you towards me. Reguardless of our age, we are all adults here (I assume), and I would suggest that we try to act like we are. I will never try to make you feel less intelligent than you are, and I expect the same consideration from you all.

jc_rotor

Thank you for the suggestion. Seems like a viable way to prevent cracking if you so choose to ovalize the primaries, or go with mild steel. However, in my case, its still easier to not have to do all that, and I havent seen any evidence that would indicate ovalizing the primaries will help performance. I have already shown the superiority of SS as far as heat is concerned, and that is why I choose to use it over mild steel.

Note that my choice is just that, my choice. I would much rather sacrifice the extra costs to keep the underhood heat down, because I think its worth it. Not everyone may think that and thats just fine.