I have not run the manifold yet. I came here to get input on the design and function. There are a lot of very talented people on this site. They make my hammer look like a rock by comparison. My original post was # 533, it explains what I am planning. Keeping it simple and relatively easy to make was a priority. I have pretty much all of the parts minus the inter-coolers. It would be complete and running by now if I didn't discover that a good portion of my houses lower floor wall structure was missing. I am back to working on it again. I need to find a good source of inter-cooler cores. I have the approximate sizes, I just need to purchase them. I am not comfortable building to something I don't have 100% confidence on the exact size.
If you feel like it, post up your combination. There are not a lot of big inch turbos running around.

 

Update:
Proof of concept manifold is 'done', still need to fit it to the engine and dyno test. Pics below.
Manifold Plenum volume ended up at 9.5L
Also attached is the 'Control' manifold tested and proven on this platform. Manifold Plenum volume is 6.2L.

Runner length between the 2 manifolds is within 1/4".
Runner volume increased by roughly 15%, and quite a bit more uniform / straighter shot into the head.
#ad
#ad
#ad
#ad
#ad
#ad
#ad
#ad

 

TTurbo565
Glad you posted up your plan. I remember seeing your design awhile ago but couldn't find it again. I was considering stealing your idea as I think it would work good in a boat. I still might steal if yours works, . Somewhere I saw a similar style as I have been searching for ideas in a boat.
Sounds like you are already considering Bell intercoolers and that is who I would recommend. When I talked to them the size recommended was 12x12 by 6" thick. So basically 144 sq in for 1500hp. Based on yours if it is 4x18 on each side you are there if it can be 6" thick. Again that was me trying to get to 80 deg intake temp with 70 deg water at like 40 gpm.
How far off the valve covers is your design and have you got any other pictures or design you can share?
I would also think with your design drive-by-wire throttle bodies would work.
I can take this discussion over to your personal thread if you prefer.
I will probably start a new thread to post build info.

 

EliminateThis,
good idea, we can take this to your thread in the Newbie and Basic area.

 

I have had a previous working relationship with Mr Corky Bell and find that he is an honorable man.
Whatever you purchase from him will be a well engineered part and should help your project make its goals.

This is not an advertisement, A comment based on personal experience.
Tom Vaught

 

We have single Billet Atomizer injectors now that are 850PPH @ 90psi base pressure, EACH. They will idle cleanly on a SB engine too. 3000hp on 8 injectors is not a problem.

 

#ad
#ad
#ad
#ad
#ad
#ad
#ad
#ad
Initial testing has been completed. Screen shots below:
"Control" intake manifold is the Ford Boss unit, fully ported. At just under 26psi it laid down 1396RWHP SAE.
"Atlas" Intake manifold laid down 1392RWHP SAE at just under 25psi.
Black dyno graph = Control (Boss)
Blue dyno graph = NEW design (Atlas)

BOTH manifolds ran the same tune/engine/turbo/fuel less the following changes:
Increased manifold volume for ECU calculation of distance from Maf sensor to Intake Valve.
Removed ALL fueling corrections for individual cylinders.
Control and Atlas tests were a few days apart due to having to modify the New manifold for throttle body fitment. (oops)

Screen shots below of the boost curve for the Boss intake manifold with Boost controller at 65% and the Atlas manifold at the same 65%.
Further screen shots show Maf Frequency DROPPED with the Atlast manifold, which is consistent with the boost drop.
I logged exhaust back pressure and noted an 3-4psi increase with the Atlas manifold as well.

Observations with the New intake design:
Plugs looked GOOD!
No drop in low end or how boost comes on, although some runs showed gains in the lower RPM.
Extended RPM band, the dyno graphs attached are in MPH due to not being able to get an RPM reading, but I took it to 8500RPM with the new manifold due to it holding power longer.
Based on the increased back pressure and lower airflow/boost the new manifold pushed the efficiency of the turbo off to right of the compressor map, making it LESS efficient. This turbo is also OUT of breath as it is a Single Borg Warner 85/96 rated for 140 lb/min of airflow.

 

There is some very fine work there.
The increased volume manifold mirrored the results we saw on our 1600 HP 400 Pontiac engine tested in the 1998 time period. (larger volume and manifold design improvements increased the hp.)

We had smaller runners as far as length and also ran on alcohol for our testing (on the dyno and track).
Your system is a more refined design as far as Throttle body available, # of valves per cylinder, and we ran Twin Turbos.

Great Job. Tom Vaught

 

Thank you!
I know this 'Proof Of Concept' was a win/win, but the interwebs.....are going to have a field day. SO many post these ridiculous 150HP gains from a manifold swap. Failing to mention the change of combo, added boost, and the losses incurred at lower RPM's.
I'm talking about manifolds with 5" runners and small plenums......on the same Coyote engine.
I'm not going to sugar coat anything, the data is the data, it's as accurate as I could do and I'm 100% honest with the results.

This is a WIN in my book. Especially once I reviewed the data more deeply.
Less airflow measured, less boost, less efficient turbo and yet basically the same PEAK HP, no real change down low, and gains up top.

It's really too bad I took this turbo so far to it's limit before the Manifold test.
A turbo more ideal for this setup (difficult to find due to low pressure + high airflow) would have likely shown what the manifold could do.

Data shows efficiency of the turbo dropped by the amount of Fuel I had to add at the same Airflow vs the previous Manifold (due to increased turbine back pressure) of 10lbs of air in the higher portion of the Maf curve (Photo comparing Boss VS Atlas Fueling change attached).
Of course I have to concede that even though the maf tube, size, and sensor position did NOT change, airflow thru the tube at the Maf *could* be different in where the HIGH velocity air passes vs Maf Sensor location. So, this data could be inaccurate.
If it is accurate, we're talking about a turbo that lost 5-7% efficiency from the manifold pushing FAR right on the compressor map.

I'm inclined to say the variable of high/low velocity airflow thru the Maf tubing has changed due to the re-positioning of the TB and therefore the above data cannot be accurate.
However, the back pressure did indeed increase, which is why boost air airflow dropped as the Wastegate opened earlier due to the added 3-4psi in the exhaust. And this DOES indicate a change in turbo efficiency. This is the same phenomenon we see when adding intake cams with 20+ degrees more duration and leaving the exhaust cams alone. More exhaust back pressure, and normally substantially more power (if the turbo has room to compensate).

All in all, I'm quite pleased, even though my colleagues I've leaked the info to think it was a waste of time, $$$, and effort.
IMO the data/information alone is quite valuable, let alone the potential given a compressor designed to take advantage.

#ad

 

Holy crap! That's a huge win!!! Congrats!

 

Horsepower is based on the Pounds Per Minute of mass flow thru the engine induction system.
So previously the boost pressure was higher for some applications but farther to the left (Choke line side)
of the Compressor Map.
If I am reading your post correctly, you now have a pressure vs mass flow curve that shows a lower boost pressureand more mass flow.
Enough mass flow change that now you are near the Choke Line (right side of map) and possibly having turbo performance issues due to Choke.
Basically means the Turbo is now not the proper match for the rest of the engine.
Might need to see if a alternate Compressor/Turbine configuration is available where the current mass flow is farther away from the Choke line.

Tom V.

 

great results. And it looks cool IMO

 

Boost dropped and Maf Frequency dropped (the voltage the Maf sensor outputs based on airflow). Fueling had to be increased due to either turbo efficiency dropping or airflow thru the tube at the sensor moving around, or both.
Frequency is measured and cannot be changed via tune, lb/min airflow we do change in the tune to correct fueling.

Yes, we pushed farther right on the compressor map making it LESS efficient based on the added turbine back pressure vs Boost/maf frequency.

Yet the manifold swap produced good results, even with less airflow and boost.
I'd expected this and calculated we could see as much as 5% power gain without increasing airflow from evening out the power distribution cylinder to cylinder.

When we see a cylinder drop on the dyno we don't lose 12.5% power (1 of 8 cylinders dropping), we see double that amount.

 

Maybe run a larger turbo and run both manifolds again to prove it out. Or run it on a centrifugal car if you have one available, without changing the pulley config.

 

I'm not concerned with proving more than we already have. All goals for this manifold design have been met. Showing a huge power gain would have been 'nice', but that was not one of the goals.

However, I have been eyeballing the Garrett G57-1950.......
Cannot find a compressor map on the 88MM version though.
And I have a few limitations in the current setup.

The car went 4.99 @146MPH the first day out with 1269RW SAE and had more in it. My overall goal was to have a 150mph 1/8th car, and it looks like she'll be there with relative ease. Gearing is 3.31 and the dyno runs were 200-210MPH.
Car is also only an 8.50 chassis cert, she's beyond the legal limits and should be upgraded, which will add weight and the car is already heavy compared to the competition. Going to a 25.2 or 3 or 5 is likely going to happen, but when it does I'm going All In and cutting out as much weight as possible.
The intercooler is A2W with 2 1000HP cores in series. GREAT for cooling but we are well over the rated airflow and the pressure differential across the cores will only get worse with more airflow. I have 2 choices... Use the CSR 6x6x12 cores in place of the 5x5x12 and keep the intercooler where it is up in front of the radiator, or wait till I do the chassis and move the turbo up front, turn the manifold around and run the cooler in the passenger seat area, possibly going with 3 or 4 cores, or perhaps another option.
Engine also has it's limits. It's a thicker version of a production block but still uses .060" cast in sleeves and 11MM head bolts. Block is using standard MLS gaskets, no O rings. Wet deck, Mahle M142p (4032 based alloy) with .003" piston to wall clearance, 1MM ring pack, etc.
Most would say this engine combination is not even capable of what I've already done with it. LOL
I'm actually confident it'll handle more, but it'd be wise to make some changes for head gasket retainment before pushing another 400-500+HP.

Long and short of it is I accomplished the goals for this project and the car is where I wanted it to be....even before the manifold swap.

 

Incredible engineering and fabrication work

 

AGREE!!!!
Tom Vaught

 

Thanks guys!

 

Video is up.

 

I know all the math nerds are going to shun me, but I like his iterative approach to this. Build test, try again, choose what make you happy.