Ku Engineering intake manifold?
Sep 22, 2007, 04:23 PM
#31
About runner length, my observation is the manifold this part aims to copy (JUN) appears to have significantly longer runners. Likewise, the AMS and Magnus manifolds both have longer runners. The runners of the JUN, AMS, and Magnus manifolds, while significantly longer, are NOT long by resonance calculations. The runners of the Ku manifold however, appear to be very short.
My point in illustrating this is purely logical. The AMS, JUN, and Magnus manifolds are proven to improve high speed torque by a significant margin, without adversely affecting spool characteristics - and there is substantial value in that.
The Ku manifold remains unproven at this point, and will remain so until proper A/B testing is available. We don't even know who the heck "Ku" is, or how much or little thinking went into this part. My concern is that it may very well affect spool characteristics as a result of the very short runners. No one knows the answer one way or another at this point.
Sep 23, 2007, 06:57 AM
#33
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 772
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In other words... ^ HA! you got dicked!
Some decent logs before and after would really make a world of difference to my opinion of the thing. Nothing like a good comparison on a newerish part.
Some decent logs before and after would really make a world of difference to my opinion of the thing. Nothing like a good comparison on a newerish part.
Sep 23, 2007, 07:20 AM
#34
Newbie
Sep 24, 2007, 06:24 AM
#37
Possibly, but the same thing ("works great") is often said of things like Splitfire plugs, Nology wires, and Turbinators.
I would be delighted to find something that works as well as the proven manifolds, but I'd like to see something solid in the way of testing and opinions as to proper port matching and fitment before forming an opinion.
I would be delighted to find something that works as well as the proven manifolds, but I'd like to see something solid in the way of testing and opinions as to proper port matching and fitment before forming an opinion.
Sep 24, 2007, 06:26 AM
#38
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the runners on the OEM manifold longer than the sheetmetal intake manifolds?
It seems like they are because of the sheetmetal manifolds having a straight runner out of the plenum, and the OEM exiting the bottom, and curving down, then towards the head. (Plus they are not "straight shots" to the head intake ports. They all, when viewed from straight above the manifold, curve to the left as well, adding length also.
Hey TedB, wouldn't short runner lengths decrease spool-up time because of the shorter distance the air physically has to travel?
:Imightbeanidiotandovercomplicatingthis:
Sep 24, 2007, 06:34 AM
#39
No, the runner dimensions resonate at a certain frequencies, like a guitar string, speaker tube, or musical instrument. The shorter they are, the higher the resonance peak. If the resonance peak is either too low or too high, performance will suffer. This is a very basic description. Rest assured that it gets far more involved.
Sep 24, 2007, 06:47 AM
#40
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 772
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consider the Cyclone IM, with a combination of both.
Long tuned port runners for building low end torque, and spooling a turbo. Switching over to short runners once the car is spooled and increasing the ability to feed air quickly, and promoting better breathing at higher rpm. Or atleast better than the longer runners.
That might be more basic than Ted's post, but still the animal we're dealing with.
The balance comes in exactly where he said. Having the right port sizes or resonance to match the widest rpm range. To avoid a car with no powerband except on top, or on the bottom, etc.
Long tuned port runners for building low end torque, and spooling a turbo. Switching over to short runners once the car is spooled and increasing the ability to feed air quickly, and promoting better breathing at higher rpm. Or atleast better than the longer runners.
That might be more basic than Ted's post, but still the animal we're dealing with.
The balance comes in exactly where he said. Having the right port sizes or resonance to match the widest rpm range. To avoid a car with no powerband except on top, or on the bottom, etc.
Jan 1, 2008, 01:27 PM
#42
Evolving Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got mine a few weeks ago, havn't had any chance to test it yet but hopefully the car will be ready late february.
I bought it with a 70mm Throttle Body and that piece looks amazing, the manifold however is a bit of dissapointment, quality is poor and the runners are way to short! Theoretically the runner lenghts are optimized for a peak torque @ 9500rpm, then you'd probably have to rev your car to 12.000rpms to get any real benefits from this manifold.
Mine's going to be modified, I'm going to increase the runner length as much as possible.
Conclusion is: It might be worth it for the "bling" but if you're looking for serious power you could probably save yourself a lot of headache by buying a prooven intake manifold such as the AMS, JUN or Magnus.
I'll post som pictures tomorrow.
I bought it with a 70mm Throttle Body and that piece looks amazing, the manifold however is a bit of dissapointment, quality is poor and the runners are way to short! Theoretically the runner lenghts are optimized for a peak torque @ 9500rpm, then you'd probably have to rev your car to 12.000rpms to get any real benefits from this manifold.
Mine's going to be modified, I'm going to increase the runner length as much as possible.
Conclusion is: It might be worth it for the "bling" but if you're looking for serious power you could probably save yourself a lot of headache by buying a prooven intake manifold such as the AMS, JUN or Magnus.
I'll post som pictures tomorrow.
Jan 1, 2008, 06:15 PM
#43
The manifold looks to be an attempt at a JUN copy. The issue I see right off the bat (aside from possible fit and finish imperfections) is with the very short runners. I don't have enough photos to be certain, but it appears the runners are very short - shorter than anything else I've seen, and that isn't something I regard as a good thing.
There just isn't enough information to draw sound conclusions.
There just isn't enough information to draw sound conclusions.
Mar 12, 2008, 06:43 PM
#44
Guess ill post up that i bought one too a while ago. like two years ago but havent driven my car since seeing i dont have a license and the car isnt insured or registered.
Anyway I had to drill a hole in it for the map sensor because it had no place for it. Also if you go with it you should know its flanged for a 5.0 FI Mustang. I went with a 75mm BBK which Im having re-done by FFTEC because the bushing leak and they also put a ISC adapter plate on it.
As for the EGR I took it off and disabled it using the perephery patch. All the solenoids i just mounted on a plate and ran my vacuum lines using a vacuum block for better distribution and less chance of leaks.
Question for the others with it. How did you guys mount your map sensor ? Or are you using AEM or something else ?
Ill post more as i go.
Anyway I had to drill a hole in it for the map sensor because it had no place for it. Also if you go with it you should know its flanged for a 5.0 FI Mustang. I went with a 75mm BBK which Im having re-done by FFTEC because the bushing leak and they also put a ISC adapter plate on it.
As for the EGR I took it off and disabled it using the perephery patch. All the solenoids i just mounted on a plate and ran my vacuum lines using a vacuum block for better distribution and less chance of leaks.
Question for the others with it. How did you guys mount your map sensor ? Or are you using AEM or something else ?
Ill post more as i go.
