Using your logic, if log manifolds are all the same, then all tubular headers will be the same, too. Amazing. So then why buy the FR @ $1K vs some crap SS Autochrome since they're both tubular headers?

There will always be variables introduced, but DB's testing is about as good as it's gonna get. You either believe him or you don't.

FYI, you can hog out the head to flow better numbers, but that doesn't necessarily equal more HP

You don't find this statement a bit hypocritical, since you later infer that because DB offers the porting/coating service, his results are probably biased?

You, sir, are EVERY company's dream customer.

Please tell me what I exactly said? I never mentioned that the stocker was best, nor did I say that FR was crap. Here's what I said:

"What exactly does this have to do with OUR manifold?? How about actually searching to see if the ported stocker has been compared to the FR? (hint....it's been done....which is why you see so many people recommending to port the stocker.)"

What is there to disagree with?

The recommendations for the ported stocker is not because it outperforms the FR, it's because the difference in HP is not money well spent.

I could be a total ***** and ask that since you have the manifold, why is your HP so low? You dyno'd at TT, which usually turns out cars putting out around 350 whp on their dyno that has less mods than you, runs less boost than you, AND you have that magical manifold installed. But, then again, I'm not that kind of guy.

 

How does this seem low to you? Essentially, I have a stock exhaust (including catalytic converter). I installed the WORKS Axle-Back Muffler and WORKS Downpipe to help increase flow while keeping down the noise as much as possible. If I had a full turbo-back I could understand your logic. Here is a link to some information about my exhaust...
http://www.worksevo.com/store/produc...roducts_id=188

To be honest, WORKS might as well call it a muffler, rather than an "exhaust".

Also, peak numbers were closer to 330hp and 334 ft-lbs but I had him print the numbers which were showing most consistently. (Not that it is much of a difference!)

-Carl

 

Hmm, touche. What I should have said was, the physics of log manifolds are essentially the same, as explained by BOOSTEZ in the first page of this thread.

As I said, I don't take this test as end-all be-all. I would simply need to see some flow tests performed in order for this issue to be solved indefinitely.

I suppose you are right in that the source of most information when it comes to R&D in this industry comes from the company SELLING the product.

What makes you think that? My purchase is based on experiences I have had with Full-Race in the past, as well as hours of research. I have seen (and I am sure you have to) such awesome results from all of their products, and I expected the same industry-leading performance from this piece. I am about to receive my marketing degree in May, and I can tell you that I would consider myself a highly-educated consumer. I can also tell you that you may be right in a sense that I am WILLING to pay a high price for what I perceive to be the best product for my application, whatever that may be.

I disagree with your inference that both pieces perform at the same level. That is all.

-Carl

 

Back on topic. We need some more testing done. Back-2-back dyno testing on the same car with a stock porter vs FR tubular manifold. Everyone agrees that there will be gains, but do the gains warrant the $1000 price tag.

Well, this is why we have vendors, there has to be someone who can do some testing on the Green. Anyone going to step up?

Jason

 

I think 5 people stated what the results were to a test already done. My facts were a bit off. The full race gained 7.7hp not the 6hp I quoted. BUT, very large but, when the a/f was corrected the overlays were nearly identical. Pretty much a complete waste of money. Unless you just like to increase the heat in your engine compartment.

here is the thread. jump to post 11 for Full race VS ported stocker
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...stock+manifold

 

I would just put the $1000 towards a bigger turbo kit!!

The green was made as a bolt on turbo, to keep the price down..

 

This test is not with a fp-grn/20g-lt.

the turbine wheel & turbine housings have the potential to flow so much more over a any oem16g variant.

i will go into the garage after the family is asleep & measure the differences in area between the scroll divider & the exducer of the turbine housings. they are different between oem & modified for a grn or 20g-lt. it's not just a plunging of a radius cutter to accomodate the larger turbine wheel, there is more room to drive the turbine wheel too

 

Headers FTW!!

If 'log' manifolds (ported) gave the same gains as headers, in practice, then why make headers on cars at all? Flow is flow - no matter if it's a V8, I6, I4 or a jet engine.

Someone show me a stock turbo'd evo with a stock ported manifold that can climb OVER 230awtq in 1000 rpms (including a MIVEC'd IX) everything else being stock. I am on stock cams and have a bone stock 10.5 hotside turbo. Where is the rapid spool up coming from?

 

Do you want people to believe that your dyno graph if from a header change?? You have lots to learn if you think that is true. Your setup is not spooling faster than any stock manifold setup at that power level.

 

No. I want someone to prove to me that a header does NOT spool up as fast as a 'log' manifold. I'm not concentrating on power levels as that's arbitrary. To clarify the graph, that was Meth vs. without Meth tune.

Is it spooling 'slower'? If a ported/stock manifold is better at spool up, then prove it. And if you can, then I need to go graduate school, take an upper level physics class and have someone explain to me why a log manifold (in the general case, not just the evos' case) has better inertial flow on a turbine wheel than a tubular header and produces the same volumetric efficiency under any load. While we're at it, every manufacturer that makes headers should take their products off the market because it's a fraud and fails scientifically.

-M

 

Don't think he is saying spool-up is faster with a cast manifold, just doesn't think a tubular header helps with spool. If you look at a evo cast ported manifold, the design is very good.

Yes, I believe FR manifold helps with power, but not enough to warrant the $$$$$.

j

 

i think my 91 octane dyno chart spools quicker htan what you have posted.

look @ the link within my sig for the cam compare. the cams were set-up for all around power for me.

Regardless of who does the compare, evom memebers/vendors will always dispute the results.

it easy to make the oem mani better; but not the best thing out there, & it's also easy to make a crappy tubular header too. Full race looks to be nicely made @ the collector area. i would like to see several pics / different angles of their work for the oem mitsu turbo set-up.

i beleive the oem turbine housig is the bottle neck & until you free-up the ability for that tiny turbine housing to flow, your not going to see the full benefits of a tubular header.......

now the fp-grn/20g-lt has increased turbine housing flow potential, so if the crap i wrote above holds true, 1 should make more power by switching to a tubular header over the oem mani.

There are some downsides to the oem mani where the splitter feeds into the oposing cylinder & doesnt drive the turbo as well as the other 2 runners do = room for improvement, something that a well made header can offer.

once its all said & done, you wont see all the potential gains if you have a crappy tune....now thats another thread/debate

 

Right, but does that make sense? Even the hotside on the turbo has a divided passage for better spool (i.e. twin-scroll).

Have you seen other cast manifolds like the Mazdas, Toyotas, etc? I think their designs are very similiar yet tubular manifolds have been known for better spool for years. This is quite odd that no other parts manufacturer is stating that tubular headers are worthless - and I'm speaking of cars in general (both NA and FI).

Perhaps people are paying for the longevity?

-M

 

You can't compare a cam'd TME turbo'd EVO with my dynochart. My car has NONE of those mods. Show one that has stock cams, stock turbo and stock 02 housing.

But even in your dyno chart, your torque range from 3000-4000 rpms only goes up 160wtq. Mine goes well above that given the same rpm range.. but the numbers are meaningless because, among other things, you're using SAE and I'm using STD correction (which is quite different).

-M

 

dude, your graph is on meth? so why is your graph worthy but my data isnt

i am making 225 ft/lbs @ 3k while your making 110 & @ 4k, i am making 363 & your making 350....& your on meth, while i am on california's 91 octane. i guess i could detune my car so it makes less power than you @ 3k, then i can say i make a "X" amount of power accross 1000 revs, but whats the point.

quite honestly, a transient rev trace showing boost & rpm acceleration form lets say 3k, 4k & 5k all to redline while in 3rd gear for example, may better illustrate the advantages of 1 manifold over another & not just a wot dyno pull.