Intake Manifold Test
Jan 29, 2009, 04:39 PM
#62
I've argued with DSSA and ineedof enough to last me my life time. So I'm done with both of you.
Danl, I will attempt to open your eyes. The runner length, plenum volume, shape and runner taper are all modified on the Wilson Intake. So now that you know that you should be happy. You are completely incorrect about Extrude Honing the stock intake getting you 90% of the performance of the Wilson. I was sponored by Extrude Hone for years and it does work well but it's not even in the same boat as the Wilson intake. I can only assume you've never seen one as you know none of this. I have Extrude Honed the stock intake and dyno tested it too, BTW.
Please provide the testing that shows the Wilson intake getting it's butt kicked up top. I haven't seen that one yet. The closest testing would be the testing I did on the intakes. The Hypertune and HKS intakes made a few more HP up top but were also tested in February while the Wilson was tested later in the year towards summer. I do not use any correction factors on my dyno, weather plays a role in what the car makes for power.
Your comment about my car not making the power...................just ignorance and hate that's all that is coming from you. My car with driver weighs 2985 pounds. While it is not a 3300 pound EVO it certainly isn't a lightweight either. There are EVO's coming in at 2400 pounds. My STREET RS ran a 9.04 at 159.64 mph at 2985 pounds, if that's not making any power then I guess I should go ahead and get that job at Walmart pushing in those carts.
Danl, I will attempt to open your eyes. The runner length, plenum volume, shape and runner taper are all modified on the Wilson Intake. So now that you know that you should be happy. You are completely incorrect about Extrude Honing the stock intake getting you 90% of the performance of the Wilson. I was sponored by Extrude Hone for years and it does work well but it's not even in the same boat as the Wilson intake. I can only assume you've never seen one as you know none of this. I have Extrude Honed the stock intake and dyno tested it too, BTW.
Please provide the testing that shows the Wilson intake getting it's butt kicked up top. I haven't seen that one yet. The closest testing would be the testing I did on the intakes. The Hypertune and HKS intakes made a few more HP up top but were also tested in February while the Wilson was tested later in the year towards summer. I do not use any correction factors on my dyno, weather plays a role in what the car makes for power.
Your comment about my car not making the power...................just ignorance and hate that's all that is coming from you. My car with driver weighs 2985 pounds. While it is not a 3300 pound EVO it certainly isn't a lightweight either. There are EVO's coming in at 2400 pounds. My STREET RS ran a 9.04 at 159.64 mph at 2985 pounds, if that's not making any power then I guess I should go ahead and get that job at Walmart pushing in those carts.
The following users liked this post:
Flyhigh (Mar 24, 2019)
Jan 29, 2009, 04:47 PM
#63
Account Disabled
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hatfield, PA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David,
I'm not looking for an arguement. That would involve me disputing a fact.
I'm just asking for answers to things you've said that contradict your own words.
I may have missed something and am just asking for you to correct me if I'm wrong.
Jan 29, 2009, 04:50 PM
#64
Account Disabled
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David, a question that has come up in the past. I realize that Trent drives your car for most of your record runs. However many are wondering if he drives the car on the street as well or if you are able to handle the driving duties of such an amazing machine.
Jan 29, 2009, 04:52 PM
#65
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Puyallup, wa
Posts: 5,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All i stated is that this thread had nothing to do with the Wilson manifold and that there has not been a proper dyno test done for it, by someone with out something to gain. I stand by those statements. You can feel free to be done with me, as this has nothing to do with you.
Jan 29, 2009, 05:04 PM
#68
I don't know how this got turned into a Wilson debate either and I am too lazy to go figure it out. According to some of you a proper test hasn't been done. This is because some of you feel that any testing I do is biased and only for me to gain something. In that case there isn't one person on these forums capable of doing a proper test. Every vendor on here sells parts and will have something to gain. Every guy on here has his favorite vendor or some "hero", so he is out of the mix too. This thread is full of guys with hero's. You want a proper fair test of any part then someone will need to hire a laboratory that has nothing to do with DSM's/EVO's and have them do it.
My "gains" in this, running, testing the Wilson is less than $150 per intake manifold. That's $150 on a $1550 part. Let me assure each and everyone of you haters that I could make a considerably larger amount of money selling ANY of the other intake manifolds that are available. Some of them as much as $600 and they had good performance too. You can now throw the reason that I sell/use Wilson intakes out if it has anything to do with a profit margin. That sure as hell isn't it.
I've sent an e-mail to Albert in Aruba to see if he'll waste his time to get on EVOm to make a post and sign up. He can clarify which engines he uses, how long they last and how fast he's gone.
My "gains" in this, running, testing the Wilson is less than $150 per intake manifold. That's $150 on a $1550 part. Let me assure each and everyone of you haters that I could make a considerably larger amount of money selling ANY of the other intake manifolds that are available. Some of them as much as $600 and they had good performance too. You can now throw the reason that I sell/use Wilson intakes out if it has anything to do with a profit margin. That sure as hell isn't it.
I've sent an e-mail to Albert in Aruba to see if he'll waste his time to get on EVOm to make a post and sign up. He can clarify which engines he uses, how long they last and how fast he's gone.
Jan 29, 2009, 05:07 PM
#70
If I had an intake on loan to test on the same exact car that we tested the Magnus on back to back with corrected dynojet numbers would that be sufficient? Or in lieu of that, a car that is equipped with the Wilson V2 (such as Mikes possible) switch to the Magnus and see what it does?
I am not here to argue, but I am a car geek with a tech fetish and have gone to great lengths just for the sake of knowing. Look at my EvoScan data and .xml's for the stock ECU and you can see some of the things I have tested and looked at and compared just for the sake of comparison. All 3 forms of native load, the 3 forms of native timing, the factors that interpolate in between what its using. No one needs to know that air temp and barometer affect what 2 byte load the car uses or what timing value the car is using, but the desire to know has led myself and others to experiment...we just want to see.
Aaron "JohnBradley"
I am not here to argue, but I am a car geek with a tech fetish and have gone to great lengths just for the sake of knowing. Look at my EvoScan data and .xml's for the stock ECU and you can see some of the things I have tested and looked at and compared just for the sake of comparison. All 3 forms of native load, the 3 forms of native timing, the factors that interpolate in between what its using. No one needs to know that air temp and barometer affect what 2 byte load the car uses or what timing value the car is using, but the desire to know has led myself and others to experiment...we just want to see.
Aaron "JohnBradley"
Jan 29, 2009, 05:14 PM
#71
JohnBradley, I am not here to argue either, that is why I am ignoring most of the leading, ignorant comments. To answer your question, no, you can not test the intakes either. Look at ineedof's post. YOU have something to gain from it. Your signature has the "Magnus Cast Intake" right in it. If I can't be trusted how can you or anyone else selling parts here?
Nobody on EVOm can test intake manifolds, nobody who owns one of the cars, sells the parts or even undestands what the engine is can test them. We need an government agency to test the parts, form a committee, contact Obama and let's get it done the right way! hahahaha
Nobody on EVOm can test intake manifolds, nobody who owns one of the cars, sells the parts or even undestands what the engine is can test them. We need an government agency to test the parts, form a committee, contact Obama and let's get it done the right way! hahahaha
Jan 29, 2009, 05:23 PM
#72
Account Disabled
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the major problems is that you've been caught in lies in the past. Thus many people are smart enough to realize that you need to take anything DB says with a grain of salt. Its been clear even since the 90's that you have no shame. Your lying has gotten better though, I will give you that. If you actually put the time you spend on the computer towards making parts such as a custom cast intake manifold you could come up with something cost competitive with no power losses anywhere over stock and nothing but gains up top. Your not a dumb guy, I don't take you for that. I just have a problem with the pushing of a part that is really overpriced with minimalistic results. Some people have spent a lot of time with fluid modeling programs, 3D mechanical engineering software, and rapid prototype machines to come up with some truly great parts for 50% less money than modifying a stock intake. We are talking ground up parts and of course no need for a core.
Jan 29, 2009, 05:36 PM
#73
dan, you are getting on my nerves. I have never been caught in a lie as I don't lie. Now you, DSSA and ineedof go back over to NABR and talk about how you guys all hate Buschur there.
Have you ever heard of Keith Wilson? How do you think they came up with the intake for the EVO? Wait, have you ever heard of Mitsubishi? How do you think they came up with the intake? A bunch of monkeys and a piece of toilet paper and crayon? You don't think they have fluid modeling programs and engineers there?
NO intake produced by ANYONE has better low end than the stock intake manifold. That I am sure required no effort on Mitsubishi's part. Wilson was able to take that and improve the top end substantially by doing exactly what these great ill fitting aftermarket intakes you are spouting off about attempted to do. Wilson increased the plenum size, shortened the runner length and did it all with a part that still fits, can be used in California, uses all the stock components on it, requires no cutting and changing of your i/c pipes and best off doesn't split wide open from "using alcholol".
Going back and looking at the raw data, such as what Tom posted, it is easy for me to get caught up in thinking of running another intake. It's easy to see from the raw data that the Hypertune and HKS intakes made more power. I then have to remember I did more testing behind the scenes that I did originally. If I went back and did it all the same day again I am fairly certain the Wilson would make more low end/mid range and power up top as good as any of the intakes. Then I also remind myself that every other intake manifold tested had some sort of fitment problem that I couldn't stand and did not want on my car.
There's basically three guys in this thread knocking me and the Wilson. None of these three have a fast EVO, have built a fast EVO or have performed any testing of their own.
I'm finished argueing or discussing anything with dan, dssam, evorace or ineedof. I may as well discuss it with my neighbors dog, he hasn't testing anything either.
Have you ever heard of Keith Wilson? How do you think they came up with the intake for the EVO? Wait, have you ever heard of Mitsubishi? How do you think they came up with the intake? A bunch of monkeys and a piece of toilet paper and crayon? You don't think they have fluid modeling programs and engineers there?
NO intake produced by ANYONE has better low end than the stock intake manifold. That I am sure required no effort on Mitsubishi's part. Wilson was able to take that and improve the top end substantially by doing exactly what these great ill fitting aftermarket intakes you are spouting off about attempted to do. Wilson increased the plenum size, shortened the runner length and did it all with a part that still fits, can be used in California, uses all the stock components on it, requires no cutting and changing of your i/c pipes and best off doesn't split wide open from "using alcholol".
Going back and looking at the raw data, such as what Tom posted, it is easy for me to get caught up in thinking of running another intake. It's easy to see from the raw data that the Hypertune and HKS intakes made more power. I then have to remember I did more testing behind the scenes that I did originally. If I went back and did it all the same day again I am fairly certain the Wilson would make more low end/mid range and power up top as good as any of the intakes. Then I also remind myself that every other intake manifold tested had some sort of fitment problem that I couldn't stand and did not want on my car.
There's basically three guys in this thread knocking me and the Wilson. None of these three have a fast EVO, have built a fast EVO or have performed any testing of their own.
I'm finished argueing or discussing anything with dan, dssam, evorace or ineedof. I may as well discuss it with my neighbors dog, he hasn't testing anything either.
Last edited by David Buschur; Jan 30, 2009 at 07:00 PM.
Jan 29, 2009, 05:36 PM
#74
Newbie
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My only question in regard to this whole issue is that David has openly repeated and repeated that NO ONE tested the original design of the MAGNUS manifold. We now have a test, that has apparently been available since November, and yet you still made those contentions. Contentions that apparently justified your argument then and the argument you continued to hold about "THE ORIGINAL DESIGN."
This tests shows explicitly different results than what David found in his test. WAY DIFFERENT in fact. How can this be justified?
Old school dsm guys know and have known that a short runner large plenum intake manifold makes MORE power (horsepower and ESPECIALLY torque) than the stock intake manifold at higher rpm with the proper combination of cams and large turbo.
Your claim was that the EVO motor was somehow different and the intake manifold that MAGNUS originally produced did not follow what has became FACT among dsmers. 4G63=4G63. Even with modern advances in cylinder head flow, variable valve timing, etc, it makes it even more credible that a short runner large plenum intake manifold will make power on the top end.
I would like to know your explanation as to why HIS manifold specifically did not yield numbers? Can you admit now that there is something INHERENTLY wrong or flawed with your test or at the very least your test procedures involving the ORIGINAL Magnus Intake Manifold for the EVO?
This tests shows explicitly different results than what David found in his test. WAY DIFFERENT in fact. How can this be justified?
Old school dsm guys know and have known that a short runner large plenum intake manifold makes MORE power (horsepower and ESPECIALLY torque) than the stock intake manifold at higher rpm with the proper combination of cams and large turbo.
Your claim was that the EVO motor was somehow different and the intake manifold that MAGNUS originally produced did not follow what has became FACT among dsmers. 4G63=4G63. Even with modern advances in cylinder head flow, variable valve timing, etc, it makes it even more credible that a short runner large plenum intake manifold will make power on the top end.
I would like to know your explanation as to why HIS manifold specifically did not yield numbers? Can you admit now that there is something INHERENTLY wrong or flawed with your test or at the very least your test procedures involving the ORIGINAL Magnus Intake Manifold for the EVO?
Jan 29, 2009, 05:46 PM
#75
evorace, I stated earlier in this thread I had not seen Keith's testing. So I guess I was wrong about nobody else doing a test.
No there was nothing wrong with my testing. Would you haters read all the information I put out already, do yourselves a favor as your constant ramblings of the same things over and over make you look very dumb. I didn't perform the testing once on that intake, I performed it three times. Magnus knows this but you nutswingers let him get off without answering to it. Martin at AMS knows it too as he did the same testing with the same results. Being politically correct he won't come out and tell the entire story and truth but you haven't seen him come and out call me a liar and I've put it out there publically numerous times.
Thanks for playing. You guys are very good for business. With threads like this I'm happy to say Buschur Racing will have another great year. Thank you!
No there was nothing wrong with my testing. Would you haters read all the information I put out already, do yourselves a favor as your constant ramblings of the same things over and over make you look very dumb. I didn't perform the testing once on that intake, I performed it three times. Magnus knows this but you nutswingers let him get off without answering to it. Martin at AMS knows it too as he did the same testing with the same results. Being politically correct he won't come out and tell the entire story and truth but you haven't seen him come and out call me a liar and I've put it out there publically numerous times.
Thanks for playing. You guys are very good for business. With threads like this I'm happy to say Buschur Racing will have another great year. Thank you!